Santa Monica City Council
July 8, 2025

DOWNTOWN SANTA MONICA INC.

Statement of Financial Position
June 30, 2024

4.K.c
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: 2024 Downtown Santa Monica Audit Report (7060 : Approval of the DTSM Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget and Work Plan) Without Donor
Restrictions
With Donor
Restrictions
Total
2024
Total
2023

REVENUE AND SUPPORT
Assessment fees
Property-based assessments $ - $ 5,770,006 $ 5,770,006 $ 5,587,758 Bayside district assessment - 1,154,012 1,154,012 1,182,129 Central business district - 135,365 135,365 137,324
Total assessment fees - 7,059,383 7,059,383 6,907,211
Revenue from services
Ice Rink 296,106 - 296,106 1,085,078
City parks 1,494,480 - 1,494,480 1,324,194
Events 192,844 - 192,844 190,300
Filming 28,343 - 28,343 59,461
Total revenue from services 2,011,773 - 2,011,773 2,659,033 Grants and other revenue
Grants, net of pass-throughs - - - 13,550
Vendors 45,723 - 45,723 32,040
Sponsorships 220,000 - 220,000 12,874
Miscellaneous 196,427 - 196,427 7,643
Total grants and other revenue 462,150 - 462,150 66,107 Net release from restrictions 7,059,383 (7,059,383) - - TOTAL REVENUE AND SUPPORT 9,533,306 - 9,533,306 9,632,351

EXPENSES
Program services
Property-based assessment districts 5,770,006 - 5,770,006 5,587,782 Bayside district 1,334,418 - 1,334,418 1,037,092
Central business district 97,926 - 97,926 114,495
Ice Rink operations 407,338 - 407,338 1,023,449
Parks and others 1,770,798 - 1,770,798 1,154,035
Total program services 9,380,486 - 9,380,486 8,916,853
Management and general 202,059 - 202,059 194,922
TOTAL EXPENSES 9,582,545 - 9,582,545 9,111,775
CHANGE IN NET ASSETS (49,239) - (49,239) 520,576
NET ASSETS, Beginning of year 3,745,856 - 3,745,856 3,225,280 NET ASSETS, End of year $ - 3,696,617 $ $ 3,696,617 $ 3,745,856

THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS STATEMENT

DOWNTOWN SANTA MONICA INC.

Statement of Activities
For the year ended June 30, 2024

4.K.c
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: 2024 Downtown Santa Monica Audit Report (7060 : Approval of the DTSM Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget and Work Plan) Property-based
Assessment
Districts
Bayside
District
Central Business
District
Ice Rink
Operations
Parks and
Others
Total
Services
Management and
General 2024 2023
Personnel costs
Salaries and wages $ 517,659 $ 246,547 $ 29,469 $ 79,162 $ 174,505 $ 1,047,342 $ 141,618 $ 1,188,960 $ 958,586 Employer taxes 37,229 17,731 2,119 5,693 12,550 75,322 10,185 85,507 76,243 Employer paid benefits 77,955 37,128 4,438 11,921 26,280 157,722 21,326 179,048 111,471 Total personnel costs 632,843 301,406 36,026 96,776 213,335 1,280,386 173,129 1,453,515 1,146,300 Operational costs
Ambassadors 1,991,110 - - - 1,363,406 3,354,516 - 3,354,516 2,072,297BID maintenance 1,002,198 - - - - 1,002,198 - 1,002,198 2,451,909 Business development 70,109 3,580 5,160 2,762 7,899 89,510 - 89,510 13,227 Education/training 13,330 4,039 1,010 404 606 19,389 808 20,197 4,331 Equipment rental 5,033 1,525 381 153 229 7,321 305 7,626 6,433 Homeless outreach 55,085 - - - 55,085 110,170 - 110,170 133,445 Security 1,382,734 - - - - 1,382,734 - 1,382,734 1,222,771 Insurance 33,803 10,243 2,561 1,024 1,536 49,167 2,049 51,216 47,185 Marketing and promotional 272,345 946,648 22,140 208,697 95,690 1,545,520 157 1,545,677 1,833,188 Membership and dues 5,004 1,517 379 152 228 7,280 303 7,583 7,527 Occupancy 119,898 36,333 9,083 3,633 5,450 174,397 7,267 181,664 169,837 Supplies 13,591 - - - - 13,591 1,076 14,667 10,821Policy and advocacy 65,529 - 10,081 5,041 20,163 100,814 1,973 102,787 101,114Professional fees 68,058 17,207 8,126 4,159 5,019 102,569 213 102,782 160,718 Repair and maintenance - - - - - - 950 950 15,712
Special projects - - - - - - - - 65,418Telephone 10,947 3,317 829 332 498 15,923 664 16,587 10,279 Travel and auto 4,336 1,314 328 131 197 6,306 263 6,569 10,978 Total operational costs 5,113,110 1,025,723 60,078 226,488 1,556,006 7,981,405 16,028 7,997,433 8,337,190 Other costs (gain)
Depreciation 83,345 83,345 11,657 95,002 71,922
Miscellaneous 24,053 7,289 1,822 729 1,457 35,350 1,245 36,595 6,092 Gain on sale of assets - - - (40,000)
Total indirect operational costs 24,053 7,289 1,822 84,074 1,457 118,695 12,902 131,597 38,014 TOTAL COSTS $ 5,770,006 $ 1,334,418 $ 97,926 $ 407,338 $ 1,770,798 $ 9,380,486 $ 202,059 $ 9,582,545 $ 9,521,504 Program services Total Expenses

THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS STATEMENT

DOWNTOWN SANTA MONICA INC. Statment of Functional ExpensesFor the year ended June 30, 2024

4.K.c
Packet Pg. 308
Attachment: 2024 Downtown Santa Monica Audit Report (7060 : Approval of the DTSM Fiscal Year 2025-26 2024 2023

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Cash received from assessments $ 8,806,215 $ 5,102,426
Cash received from service agreements 2,011,773 2,659,033 Cash received from others 462,150 66,107
Cash paid for employees (1,421,717) (1,145,316)
Cash paid to vendors (7,917,152) (7,493,004)
Cash used for operating activities 1,941,269 (810,754)

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Proceeds from sale of assets - 40,000
Purchase of property and equipment - (177,953)
Cash used for investing activities - (137,953)
Net change in cash 1,941,269 (948,707)
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, Beginning of year 3,812,414 2,863,707 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, End of year $ 2,863,707 4,804,976 $ Reconciliation of change in net assets to cash provided by (used in) operating activities:

Change in net assets $ 520,576 (49,239) $
Adjustments to reconcile change in net assets:

Depreciation 95,002 71,922
Gain on disposal of assets - (40,000)
Operating right of use asset in exchange for liability (26,538) (67,553) Changes in working capital:

Decrease (increase) in accounts receivable 1,734,461 (1,947,963) Decrease (increase) in prepaids and deposits 10,084 243,751 Decrease (increase) in accounts payable 133,330 264,351 Decrease (increase) in accrued vacation 31,798 984
Decrease in unearned income 12,371 143,718
Net cash used for operating activities $ 1,941,269 $ (810,214)

SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH-FLOW INFORMATION
Unrestricted cash $ 4,235,335 $ 2,312,159
Restricted cash 569,641 551,548
Total cash and cash equivalents $ 4,804,976 $ 2,863,707 Cash paid for operating lease obligation $ 183,758 $ 225,328

THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS STATEMENT

DOWNTOWN SANTA MONICA INC.

Statement of Cash Flows
For the year ended June 30, 2024

4.K.c
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: 2024 Downtown Santa Monica Audit Report (7060 : Approval of the DTSM Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget and Work Plan) DOWNTOWN SANTA MONICA INC.

Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2024
Note 1: Organization and background
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “the Organization”) was originally formed and incorporated as a notfor-profit organization in 1984 named “Third Street Development Corporation”. The Organization’s primary purpose is to promote the economic vitality and community life of the Third Street Promenade and Downtown Santa Monica. The Organization is responsible for programs, projects and services that benefit area merchants, property owners, customers, visitors, and residents.

This includes a Property-Based Assessment District program focusing on increased maintenance, an ambassador program, marketing, and special projects.

Note 2: Summary of significant accounting policies
A summary of the significant accounting policies applied in the preparation of the accompanying financial statements are as follows:

Use of Estimates
The preparation of the financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues, and expenses as of the date and for the period presented. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Cash and Cash Equivalents
The Organization defines cash and cash equivalents to be cash on hand and short-term, highly liquid investments with maturities of three months or less.

Property and Equipment
Property and equipment are stated at cost or fair value, if donated to the Organization, less accumulated depreciation.

Depreciation is provided using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets as follows:

Leasehold improvements 5 to 10 years
Furniture and fixtures 5 to 7 years
Equipment 5 years
Revenue Recognition
The Organization adheres strictly to the principles outlined in the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 606, "Revenue from Contracts with Customers", to recognize revenue from various sources.

The following provides an overview of key revenue recognition policies:
 Revenue from Assessment Fees: Recognized upon incurring corresponding expenses, directed by the fees' intent.

Unspent Amounts are classified as a liability on the Statement of Financial Position if unspent at year-end, acknowledging their earmarked nature for future district-specific use.  Revenue from Service Contracts: Progressively recognized as services are rendered, ensuring alignment with control transfer to the customer and in line with respective contract stipulations. Payments received in advance result in recognizing a contract liability (deferred revenue), which transitions into recognized revenue upon satisfying the performance obligations.
 Revenue from Grants: Government Grants are recognized once conditions are substantially met. If restrictions apply, recognition in restricted net assets occurs, moving to unrestricted net assets upon fulfilling time or purpose constraints.

Private Grants are recognized upon pledge receipt, presuming all eligibility requirements, barring contingencies, are met. If restrictions are met in the recognition period, they account for increases in net assets without donor restrictions; otherwise, increases apply to net assets with donor restrictions.

Transaction Price as defined based on the expected entitlement in exchange for transferring promised services, excluding thirdparty amounts. For contracts with multiple performance obligations, The Organization allocates the transaction price to individual performance obligations, reflecting the expected consideration amount related to satisfying each obligation.

Contract assets are recognized for consideration conditioned on factors beyond time passage (e.g., future performance). In contrast, a contract liability or deferred revenue is recognized when the Organization receives or has an unconditional entitlement to consideration before fulfilling performance obligations by transferring promised services.

4.K.c
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: 2024 Downtown Santa Monica Audit Report (7060 : Approval of the DTSM Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget and Work Plan) DOWNTOWN SANTA MONICA INC.

Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2024
Note 2: Summary of significant accounting policies (continued) Fair Value Measurements
The Organization measures certain assets and liabilities at fair value on a recurring basis. Fair value is defined under U.S. GAAP, specifically ASC 820, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures”, as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. To estimate fair value, the Organization uses market participant assumptions, considering market data available at the measurement date. The valuation techniques employed to measure fair value maximize the use of relevant observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs.

The fair value hierarchy is based on three levels of inputs, of which the first two are considered observable and the last unobservable, that may be used to measure fair value:
 Level 1: Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. Market price data is generally obtained from exchange or dealer markets.
 Level 2: Inputs other than Level 1 prices, such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the asset or liability.  Level 3: Inputs that are generally unobservable and typically reflect management's estimates of assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. The unobservable inputs are developed based on the best information available under the circumstances, which might include Downtown Santa Monica Inc's own data.

Leases
The Organization leases certain buildings. The determination of whether an arrangement is a lease is made at the lease’s inception. Under ASC 842, a contract is (or contains) a lease if it conveys the right to control the use of an identified asset for a period of time in exchange for consideration. Control is defined under the standard as having both the right to obtain substantially all of the economic benefits from use of the asset and the right to direct the use of the asset. Management only reassesses its determination if the terms and conditions of the contract are changed.

Operating leases are included in operating lease right-of-use (“ROU”) assets, other current liabilities, and operating lease liabilities in our statements of financial position. Finance leases are included in property and equipment, other current liabilities, and other long-term liabilities in our statements of financial position. ROU assets represent our right to use an underlying asset for the lease term, and lease liabilities represent our obligation to make lease payments. Operating lease ROU assets and liabilities are recognized at the lease commencement date based on the present value of lease payments over the lease term.

The Organization uses the implicit rate when it is readily determinable. Since most of the Organization’s leases do not provide an implicit rate, to determine the present value of lease payments, management uses the Organization’s incremental borrowing rate based on the information available at lease commencement. Operating lease ROU assets also includes any lease payments made and excludes any lease incentives. Lease expense for lease payments is recognized on a straight-line basis over the lease term. The Organization’s lease terms may include options to extend or terminate the lease when it is reasonably certain that the Organization will exercise the option.

Net Assets
Net assets, revenues, gains, and losses are classified based on the existence or absence of donor or regulatory restrictions.

Accordingly, net assets and changes therein are classified and reported as follows:
 Without Donor Restrictions: Net assets available for use in general operations and not subject to donor or regulatory restrictions.
 With Donor Restrictions: Net assets subject to donor or regulatory imposed restrictions. Some restrictions are temporary in nature, such as those that will be met by the passage of time or other events specified by the donor or regulatory agency. Other imposed restrictions are perpetual in nature, where certain stipulations are in place that resources are to be maintained in perpetuity. Restrictions are released when stipulated time has elapsed, the stipulated purpose for which resource was restricted has been fulfilled, or both.

4.K.c
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: 2024 Downtown Santa Monica Audit Report (7060 : Approval of the DTSM Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget and Work Plan) DOWNTOWN SANTA MONICA INC.

Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2024
Note 2: Summary of significant accounting policies (continued) It is the Organization’s policy to record restricted support as unrestricted support where the restrictions have been satisfied within the reporting period.

Functional Allocation of Expenses
Costs of providing the Organization’s programs and other activities have been presented in the Statement of Functional Expenses. Certain categories of expenses are attributable to more than one program or supporting function and are allocated on a reasonable basis that is consistently applied.

Income Taxes and Unrelated Business Income
The Organization is exempt from federal and state income tax under the provisions of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; therefore, no provision for income taxes has been made in these financial statements. The Organization has also been classified as an entity that is not a private foundation within the meaning of Section 509(a) and qualifies for deductible contributions as provided in Section 170(b)(1)(A)(iv).

Income from certain activities not directly related to the Organization’s tax-exempt purpose is subject to taxation as Unrelated Business Taxable Income (UBTI) under the Internal Revenue Code Section 511(a)(2)(A). The Organization conducts activities that generate income which may not be directly related to its exempt purposes. Income derived from such unrelated business activities, less applicable deductions, is subject to UBTI if it meets three criteria:
 It is income from trade or business,
 it is regularly carried on, and
 It is not substantially related to furthering the exempt purpose of the Organization.

The Organization follows the guidelines outlined under ASC 740, “Income Taxes” in its financial statements. In adherence to ASC 740, the Organization recognizes deferred tax assets and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences of transactions that have been recognized in its financial statements or tax returns. The Organization estimates its annual effective tax rate and applies this rate to the quarterly pre-tax income derived from unrelated business activities. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on the difference between the financial statement and tax basis of assets and liabilities, utilizing enacted tax rates in effect for the year in which these items are expected to reverse. Valuation allowances are established when necessary to reduce deferred tax assets to the amount expected to be realized.

Date of Management’s Review
The financial statements of Downtown Santa Monica Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2024, were authorized for issue by the Company’s Board of Directors on August 30, 2024. Subsequent events have been evaluated up to this date.

Note 3: Concentrations of credit risk
The Organization maintains its operating cash and money market accounts within various highly reputable financial institutions.

These accounts are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) up to $250,000, per account; in which, at times during the year, the Organization may exceed. Any account balances above the FDIC coverage, is considered uninsured.

The Organization’s uninsured balances totaled approximately $2,761,536 at June 30, 2024.

Note 4: Liquidity and availability of resources
The Organization regularly monitors liquidity required to meet its operating needs and other contractual commitments, while also striving to maximize the investment of its available funds. The Organization has various sources of liquidity at its disposal, including cash and cash equivalents, and accounts receivable. For purposes of analyzing resources available to meet general expenditures over a 12-month period, the Organization considers all expenditures related to it ongoing activities and the pattern of income from grants, contracts, and fundraising. The Audit and Finance Committee meets quarterly to review all financial aspects of the Organization and to review results, assess risk, and make recommendations from changes to the Board of Directors as needed.

In addition to financial assets available to meet general expenditures over the next 12 months, the Organization operates with a balanced budget and anticipates collecting sufficient revenue to cover general expenditures. As of June 30, 2024, the following financial assets were readily available within one year of the statement of financial position to meet general expenses:

4.K.c
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: 2024 Downtown Santa Monica Audit Report (7060 : Approval of the DTSM Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget and Work Plan) DOWNTOWN SANTA MONICA INC.

Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2024
Note 4: Liquidity and availability of resources (continued) Cash and cash equivalents $ 4,235,335
Accounts receivable net realized value 506,800
Less: Held for reserved purposes (618,186)
Financial assets available $ 4,123,949
Note 5: Revenues
Bayside District
The Organization has a service agreement with the City of Santa Monica whereby the Organization provides services to promote economic vitality of the downtown Santa Monica business district. In exchange for services rendered, the Organization receives funding from the City of Santa Monica’s business license department concurrently with the business license fees based upon an operating budget approved by the City.

The current agreement covers a ten-year period expiring in May 2029, and contains a provision for a ten-year extension. The Organization received $1,154,012 as an exchange transaction from the City under the current agreement for the year ended June 30, 2024.

Central Business District
In April 1998, the Board of Directors approved merging the administration of the Central Business District (CBD) into the Organization. The CBD is an assessment district that generates funds for the use of marketing local businesses in the downtown area. During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Organization received assessment fees from the city for promotional activities totaling $135,365.

Santa Monica Ice Rink
During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Organization had a service concession arrangement with the City of Santa Monica to operate the City’s Ice Rink, which qualifies as a service concession arrangement under ASC Topic 853, “Service Concession Arrangements”. Accordingly, the Organization is not considered to be the owner of the City’s Ice Rink for accounting purposes.

Instead, the City of Santa Monica, as the grantor, has provided the Organization, as the operator, with a right and related obligation to earn revenue from third-party users of the City’s Ice Rink.

During the year then ended, the Organization recognized $516,106 in revenues and $407,338 in expenses related to the operation of the City’s Ice Rink, resulting in a net income of $108,768 from this service concession arrangement.

Park Services
The Organization occasionally enters into contractual agreements to provide enhanced services within its geographic operating boundaries or immediately outside its routine operating boundaries. Since 2017, the Organization has provided Ambassador services in Tongva and Palisades Parks, under service contracts with the City of Santa Monica. In 2019, the contract was amended to include Ambassador services in Reed Park. The agreement for services in the three downtown-adjacent parks is renewed annually, subject to budget approval by Santa Monica City Council. For the year ended June 30, 2024, the Organization received $1,494,480 in park services from the City of Santa Monica.

4.K.c
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: 2024 Downtown Santa Monica Audit Report (7060 : Approval of the DTSM Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget and Work Plan) DOWNTOWN SANTA MONICA INC.

Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2024
Note 6: Property and equipment
Property and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation, consist of the following as of June 30, 2024:
2024
Ice rink $ 411,725
Leasehold improvements 213,297
Furniture and fixtures 91,923
Computer equipment 87,999
Subtotal 804,944
Less: Accumulated depreciation (505,655)
Total $ 299,289
Depreciation expenses for the year ended June 30, 2024, were $95,002.

Note 7: Retirement plans
The Organization has a 403(b) defined contribution pension plan, which covers all employees who work at least 20 hours per week. The Organization matches 50% of the employee contribution up to 5% of the employee’s annual salary or wages.

Contributions totaling $21,846 for the year ended June 30, 2024, were made by the Organization, in addition to the elective deferrals made by employees.

Note 8: Compensated Absences
The Organization provides various types of paid leave to employees, including vacation, sick leave, and other personal time off. In accordance with ASC 710, "Compensation - General," the Organization recognizes the cost of compensated absences when employees render the services that enable them to earn the time off.

Accounting Policy
The liability for compensated absences is recognized when it is probable that the benefit will be utilized, and the amount can be reasonably estimated. It is calculated based on the Organization’s policy, considering factors such as the vesting period, accumulation, and expiration of such leave.
 Vacation and Personal Time Off: The Organization accrues the liability for the vested portion of vacation and personal leave based on the employees' current salary level and includes it in the “Accrued Vacation” in the Statement of Financial Position.
 Sick Leave: Sick leave does not vest with employees and is expensed as taken, given that the Organization does not expect the total sick leave taken to significantly deviate from past patterns.

Expense and Liability Recognition
During the year ended June 30, 2024, the accrued liability for compensated absences, included under “Accrued Compensation and Benefits” on the Statement of Financial Position, amounts to $75,834 as of June 30, 2024.

Future Utilization
The utilization of compensated absences will result in cash outflows in future periods. The Organization actively manages leave policies and monitors the accrued liabilities to ensure effective management and accurate financial reporting.

4.K.c
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: 2024 Downtown Santa Monica Audit Report (7060 : Approval of the DTSM Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget and Work Plan) DOWNTOWN SANTA MONICA INC.

Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2024
Note 9: Property-Based Assessment District (PBAD) reserves The Santa Monica PBAD is designed to improve and benefit the downtown properties in the City of Santa Monica. The PBAD boundaries are narrowly drawn and only include properties that directly benefit from the services to be financed from the assessments. Every assessed property within the PBAD receives special benefit from the enhanced safety and maintenance activities, homeless outreach, special projects, and marketing activities. Only those properties within the PBAD receive the special benefit of these proposed activities. The duration of the proposed PBAD is twenty (20) years commencing January 1, 2009. Assessments will be subject to an annual increase of up to 5% per year as determined by the Board of Directors and will vary between 0% and 5% in any given year. Funding for the PBAD improvements and activities shall be derived from a propertybased assessment for each benefitted parcel in the PBAD.

The following are schedules of the activity for the year ended June 30, 2024:

Unspent balance, beginning of year $ 605,815
Cash assessments received 5,782,377
Less: Recognized revenue (5,770,006)
Unspent balance, end of year $ 618,186
Note 10: Leasing Arrangement
The Organization leases certain office space. The Organization assesses whether an arrangement qualifies as a lease (i.e., conveys the right to control the use of an identified asset for a period of time in exchange for consideration) at inception and only reassesses its determination if the terms and conditions of the arrangement are changed. Leases with an initial term of 12 months or less are not recorded on the statement of financial position. Lease expense is recognized for these leases on a straight-line basis over the lease term.

Most leases include one or more options to renew, with renewal terms that can extend the lease term from 1 to 20 years or more. The exercise of lease renewal options is at the Organization’s sole discretion. Certain leases also include options to purchase the leased property. The depreciable life of assets and leasehold improvements are limited by the expected lease term unless there is a transfer of title or purchase option reasonably certain of exercise.

Lease expense
Operating lease expense 157,221 $
Other Information
Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities Operating cash flows from operating leases 183,758
Weighted-average remaining lease term in years for operating leases 5.33 Weighted-average discount rate for operating leases 8.25% Maturity Analysis
June 30, 2025 164,028
June 30, 2026 167,308
June 30, 2027 170,656
June 30, 2028 174,068
June 30, 2029 58,404
Thereafter -
Total undiscounted cash flows 734,464
Less: present value discount (116,021)
Total lease liabilities $ 618,443

4.K.c
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: 2024 Downtown Santa Monica Audit Report (7060 : Approval of the DTSM Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget and Work Plan) DOWNTOWN SANTA MONICA INC.

Notes to Financial Statements
For the year ended June 30, 2024
Note 11: Contingencies
Failure to fulfill funding conditions could result in the return of the funds to the grantors. Although that is a possibility, the Board of the Organization deems the contingency to be remote.

Electrical upgrades made to the Ice Rink costing $411,725 were acquired with City of Santa Monica funds and are considered to be owned by the Organization while used in the servicing of the Ice Rink. These costs are classified as fixed assets on the Organizations Statement of Financial Position. If such a time of termination of the services agreement with City, these assets shall revert to the City.

In the normal course of operations, the Organization is subject to certain loss contingencies, such as litigation. In management’s opinion, the liability, if any, for such contingencies will not have a material effect on the Organization’s financial position.

4.K.c
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: 2024 Downtown Santa Monica Audit Report (7060 : Approval of the DTSM Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget and Work Plan)

DENNIS DUNCAN AND TORCHON LLP
WWW.DENNISLLP.COM
Los Angeles
6300 Canoga Ave Suite 920
Woodland Hills, California 91367
(818) 591-8878
Miami
990 Biscayne Blvd Suite 501
Miami, Florida 33132
(305) 433-7009

4.K.c
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: 2024 Downtown Santa Monica Audit Report (7060 : Approval of the DTSM Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget and Work Plan) Exhibit A
- FY25-26 Budget
DTSM, Inc. FY2025/2026 Budget
Revenues FY25/26
Bayside District Assessment $1,154,011.94
CBD Assessment $135,365.22
Zone 1/2/3 Assessment $4,782,451.88
Zone L Assessment $557,528.22
Zone O Assessment $440,397.11
City Parks Program $1,577,056.29
Vending and Activations $125,000.00
Event Fees & Filming $200,000.00
ICE@SM $320,000.00
Other Income $102,000.00
Total FY23/24 Revenue $9,393,810.66
Expenditures FY25/26
Operations and Public Space Management (72.27%) - Downtown Security Services $1,147,500.00 - Parking Structure Maintenance $628,341.36 - Zone 1, 2, & 3 Maintenance $1,080,137.47 - Lincoln Blvd. Maintenance $229,393.74 - Colorado Blvd. Maintenanace $296,326.81 - PS Restroom Monitoring $497,171.18 - Downtown Outreach Program $867,316.24 - City Parks Attendant Program $1,331,824.29 - Supplies and Materials $10,000.00 - Infrastructure $70,000.00 - Landscaping $28,000.00 - Decorative Lighting $50,000.00 - Winter Décor $200,000.00 - Lincoln Beautification $50,000.00 - Labor Distribution $487,639.83 Subtotal $6,973,650.92
Communications, Events & Development (20.71%) - Community Events & Activations $590,000.00 - Promenade Micro-Activations $100,000.00 - Sponsorships and Partnerships $25,000.00 - Creative Development $61,500.00

4.K.d
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: FY25-26 DTSM Adopted Budget (7060 : Approval of the DTSM Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget and Work Plan) - Public Relations $40,000.00 - Advertising $60,000.00 - Website Maintenance $10,000.00 - Downtown Signage $35,000.00 - Economic Development $60,000.00 - Vending Program Management $0.00 - Stakeholder Outreach $5,000.00 - Data Services $40,000.00 - Ice@Santa Monica $95,000.00 - Labor Distribution $876,445.14 Subtotal $1,997,945.14
Organizational Management (7.02%) - General Office Supplies and Maintenance $12,250.00 - Software/Subscriptions $18,000.00 - Occupancy $195,000.00 - Telephone $14,500.00 - Accounting $44,000.00 - Audit $20,000.00 - Legal $50,000.00 - Human Resources $12,500.00 - Equipment Rental $8,500.00 - Taxes & Licenses $600.00 - Memberships & Subscriptions $6,000.00 - Postage $100.00 - Travel & Auto $15,000.00 - Education and Staff Development $26,500.00 - Development $10,000.00 - Insurance $55,000.00 - Parking $200.00 - Bank Charges $5,000.00 - Meetings $7,000.00 - Labor Distribution $177,405.04 Subtotal $677,555.04
TOTAL FY25/26 Budget $9,649,151.10

4.K.d
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: FY25-26 DTSM Adopted Budget (7060 : Approval of the DTSM Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget and Work Plan) 1 David Yakobson
From: Alexander Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 9:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete
Subject: Letter of Support - Agenda Item 4.K
Attachments: LOS DTSM Workplan.pdf; LOS DTSM Workplan.pdf

EXTERNAL
Hi all,
Please see attached for a letter of support from local businesses regarding Agenda Item 4.K on the July 8 City Council Meeting.

Thank you,
Alex Brown
Item 4-K
July 8, 2025
Item 4-K
July 8, 2025

4.K.g
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7060 : Approval of the DTSM Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget and Work Plan) Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
RE: Letter of Support – DTSM FY 2025–26 Budget, Work Plan, and License Agreement (Item 4.K)
Dear Mayor Negrete and Members of the City Council,
On behalf of the listed businesses at the bottom of this letter, I am writing to express our strong support for the adoption of Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.’s (DTSM) FY 2025–26 Budget, Work Plan, and License Agreement renewal.

We are particularly encouraged by DTSM’s proposal to expand the range of permissible usecases for the Entertainment Zone on the Third Street Promenade - along with giving DTSM more free reign over the activations that are possible in the Entertainment Zone. This forwardthinking approach is essential to revitalizing our downtown core and aligns with the broader economic development goals of the city.

The ability for our local businesses who are not stationed on Third Street to still take advantage of the Entertainment Zone via satellite pop-ups is extremely important in showing the vibrancy of Santa Monica to the many tourists and visitors who will be visiting Third Street. We believe DTSM, inc. will create a unique, fair, and effective plan to bring the EZ to its best and highest use.

As the City continues to address post-pandemic recovery and the lasting impacts of the 2025 wildfires, creative and flexible use of public space is more important than ever. The Third Street Promenade is a cultural and commercial asset that must evolve to meet contemporary demands. Enabling greater diversity in programming—such as immersive experiences, art installations, DJ sets and concerts, pop-up activations, and unique commercial events—will attract foot traffic, support local businesses, and re-establish the Promenade as a dynamic, must-visit destination.

We commend DTSM for proposing a more adaptable framework for the Entertainment Zone that encourages collaboration between the City, private stakeholders, and community partners.

We also acknowledge and appreciate the City’s push to make the Entertainment Zone possible.

We urge the Council to adopt the proposed Work Plan and License Agreement and to support a reimagined vision for the Promenade that reflects the creativity and entrepreneurial spirit of Santa Monica.

Thank you for your continued leadership and commitment to Downtown Santa Monica and the City as a whole.

Respectfully,
Alexander Brown, on behalf of:

Item 4-K
July 8, 2025
Item 4-K
July 8, 2025

4.K.g
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7060 : Approval of the DTSM Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget and Work Plan) 1 David Yakobson
From: Dannie Charney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 11:09 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Douglas Sloan; Elaine Polachek; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Dan Hall
Cc: JohnAlleCompany
Subject: Item K OPPOSE ANOTHER DIME TO DTSM GROUP

EXTERNAL
Why you keep throwing money away to this
useless group is very sad. They do nothing
worthy of existing.

Yet- you throw millions at them while they punish merchants, have no ideas and have questionable alliances with many.

No wonder DT is such a mess.

The fish stinks from the head.

Danielle Charney
Item 4-K
July 8, 2025
Item 4-K
July 8, 2025

4.K.g
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (7060 : Approval of the DTSM Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget and Work Plan) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 8, 2025
Agenda Item: 4.L
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Dana Brown, Human Resources Director, Human Resources Department Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Tentative Agreements and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Memoranda of Understanding with the California Teamsters Local 986 (Teamsters), and the Santa Monica Police Officers Association (POA)
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15324 (Class 24 Regulations of Working Conditions) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Adopt the proposed Resolution (Attachment A) accepting the Tentative Agreements (TA) and authorizing the City Manager to execute Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with the California Teamsters Local 986 (Teamsters), and the Santa Monica Police Officers Association (POA);

3. Adopt the salary schedule (Attachment B); and

4. Authorize budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts & Budget Actions section of this report (requires 5 votes).

Summary
In February 2025, the City Council instructed the City’s labor negotiators to engage in labor negotiations with its recognized employee bargaining units in accordance with the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) as each unit’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was set to expire on June 30, 2025. Negotiations were conducted in good faith over the past several months between designated City representatives and representatives of each of the bargaining units. Negotiations between the City and Teamsters, and POA have resulted in tentative agreements (TA) regarding successor MOU agreements with each bargaining unit. Both groups finalized the ratification voting process approving the terms of their respective TA.

4.L
Packet Pg. 323
2 of 5
City staff recommend that the Council approve the ratified TAs to enter into successor MOUs between the City and these bargaining units.

Discussion
Under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) in California, local public agencies negotiate with exclusively recognized employee organizations on wages, hours, and working conditions. The City currently has approved TAs with five bargaining units and is finalizing negotiations with six other employee organizations (often referred to as bargaining groups or unions) whose contracts with the City expired on June 30, 2025.

These TAs reflect a collaborative effort to balance fair compensation for employees with the City’s fiscal responsibility and long-term sustainability.

The main substantive terms in each TA are outlined below:

California Teamsters Local 986 (Teamsters)
The Teamsters represent 410 members comprised of skilled trades and maintenance classifications.
• Term of Agreement: July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2030 • Cost of Living Adjustments: 2% effective July 1, 2025, and July 1, 2026; 3% effective July 1, 2027, July 1, 2028, and July 1, 2029
• Elimination of Compensation Study Language
• Expand hazard pay to cover all Teamsters employees and increase to 6% effective July 1, 2025, 7% effective July 1, 2028, and 8% effective July 1, 2029. • Increase Standby Pay to $15 per hour for Water and Wastewater fund employees, and $10 per hour for all other employees.
• Increase Tool Allowance to $800 per year, or $1,500 per year – different tiers depending on classification
• Additional Water Certification Bonuses of $75, $125 or $175 per month, depending on classification and certification received
• Re-opener: Discuss promotional ladder differentials in year three of the contract • Add Veteran’s Day as paid holiday.
• One-time bonus of $1,000 effective July 1, 2025

4.L
Packet Pg. 324
3 of 5
• Ability to cash out 25% of Sick Leave upon retirement.

Santa Monica Police Officers Association (POA)
The POA represents 231 exempt and non-exempt public safety employees in the Police Department, excluding the Police Chief.
• Term of Agreement: July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2029 • Cost of Living Adjustments: 4% effective July 1, 2025, 5% effective July 1, 2026; 5% effective July 1, 2027, and 4% July 1, 2028
• Suspension of the equity adjustment language (i.e., #2 clause) for term of agreement.
• Conversion of on-call pay to one hour of straight time during regular workdays and one-hour straight time for regularly scheduled days off. • Increase the City’s contribution to the Medical Trust to $192 on behalf of each eligible employee.
• Addition of Deferred Compensation City contribution on behalf of each employee a bi-weekly amount of $41.50.
• Increase Uniform Allowance to $2,000 per year (bi-weekly payments) • Conversion of 80 hours of personal leave provided to employees in the classification of Police Officer and Police Sergeant assigned as a Field Training Officer (FTO) to an incentive pay of 4% of base salary for acting in an FTO assignment.

Environmental Review
The changes to staff compensation and benefits are categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15324 (Class 24 Regulations of Working Conditions) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Class 24 consists of actions taken by regulatory agencies to regulate employee wages, hours of work, or working conditions where there will be no demonstrable physical changes outside the place of work.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The total cost of the negotiated changes contained in the tentative agreements

4.L
Packet Pg. 325
4 of 5
presented in this report is approximately $7.4 million for FY 2025-26, which includes $4.8 million in the General Fund. The budget impact of these changes was included in the FY 2025-26 through FY 2029-30 Five-Year Financial Forecast for the General Fund.

If the changes are approved, staff will appropriate the FY 2025-26 changes in NonDepartmental for the General Fund and all other funds as listed in the table below. The funds will be transferred to the relevant funds and department accounts along with the FY 2025-26 Midyear Budget.

Fund # Fund Name
FY 2025-26
Total
01 General Fund $ 4,766,958
11 Beach Recreation Fund $ 236,883
50 Water Fund $ 395,888
51 Wastewater Fund $ 210,122
53 Pier Fund $ 36,223
54 Resource Recovery & Recycling Fund $ 755,619
57 Airport Fund $ 42,783
59 Cemetery Fund $ 23,323
60 Big Blue Bus Fund $ 770,905
70 Vehicle Management Fund $ 197,662
Total all funds $ 7,436,366

4.L
Packet Pg. 326
5 of 5
Prepared By: Doris Mejia, Senior Human Resources Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Resolution_7.8.25_Final
B. COLA FY25-26 IBT - POA Salary Schedule 7.8.25

4.L
Packet Pg. 327
1 City Council Meeting: July 8, 2025 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ACCEPTING THE

TENTATIVE AGREEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER

TO EXECUTE MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CALIFORNIA TEAMSTERS LOCAL 986 (TEAMSTERS), AND SANTA MONICA POLICE OFFICER

ASSOCIATION (POA)
WHEREAS, authorized representatives of the City administration and the California Teamsters Local 986 (Teamsters), and the Santa Monica Police Officers Association (POA), have met and conferred in accordance with the Meyers-Millias Brown Act (“MMBA”), codified at Government Code Section 3500 et seq., and have reached agreement on wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 3505.1, on July 8, 2025, the tentative agreements reached between authorized representatives of the City administration and Teamsters and POA were presented to the City Council of the City of Santa Monica for consideration; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 3505.1 requires preparation of a written Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the employee organization if a tentative agreement is reached and adopted by the City Council; and

4.L.a
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Resolution_7.8.25_Final (7170 : Labor Negotiations POA, IBT) 2 WHEREAS, the purpose of each Memorandum of Understanding is to promote and provide harmonious relations, cooperation, and understanding between the City and Teamsters and POA, respectively;

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

SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Monica hereby accepts and approves the tentative agreement that has been reached between authorized representatives of the City administration and the California Teamsters Local 986 (Teamsters) and authorizes the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with Teamsters (FY2025-30), in accordance with this agreement.

SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Santa Monica hereby accepts and approves the tentative agreement that has been reached between authorized representatives of the City administration and the Santa Monica Police Officers Association (POA) and authorizes the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with POA (FY2025-30), in accordance with this agreement.

SECTION 3.The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________

DOUGLAS SLOAN
City Attorney

4.L.a
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Resolution_7.8.25_Final (7170 : Labor Negotiations POA, IBT) Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 465 1 31.36 5,436.00 65,232.00 2,508.92
465 2 32.91 5,704.00 68,448.00 2,632.62
465 3 34.85 6,040.00 72,480.00 2,787.69
465 4 36.78 6,375.00 76,500.00 2,942.31
465 5 38.72 6,711.00 80,532.00 3,097.38
355 1 29.34 5,085.00 61,020.00 2,346.92
355 2 30.78 5,336.00 64,032.00 2,462.77
355 3 32.60 5,650.00 67,800.00 2,607.69
355 4 34.41 5,964.00 71,568.00 2,752.62
355 5 36.22 6,278.00 75,336.00 2,897.54
355 1 29.34 5,085.00 61,020.00 2,346.92
355 2 30.78 5,336.00 64,032.00 2,462.77
355 3 32.60 5,650.00 67,800.00 2,607.69
355 4 34.41 5,964.00 71,568.00 2,752.62
355 5 36.22 6,278.00 75,336.00 2,897.54
355 1 29.34 5,085.00 61,020.00 2,346.92
355 2 30.78 5,336.00 64,032.00 2,462.77
355 3 32.60 5,650.00 67,800.00 2,607.69
355 4 34.41 5,964.00 71,568.00 2,752.62
355 5 36.22 6,278.00 75,336.00 2,897.54
135 1 24.76 4,291.00 51,492.00 1,980.46
135 2 25.97 4,502.00 54,024.00 2,077.85
135 3 27.50 4,767.00 57,204.00 2,200.15
135 4 29.03 5,032.00 60,384.00 2,322.46
135 5 30.56 5,297.00 63,564.00 2,444.77
575 1 32.90 5,702.00 68,424.00 2,631.69
575 2 34.52 5,984.00 71,808.00 2,761.85
575 3 36.55 6,336.00 76,032.00 2,924.31
575 4 38.58 6,688.00 80,256.00 3,086.77
575 5 40.62 7,040.00 84,480.00 3,249.23
790 1 36.50 6,326.00 75,912.00 2,919.69
790 2 38.30 6,639.00 79,668.00 3,064.15
790 3 40.55 7,029.00 84,348.00 3,244.15
790 4 42.81 7,420.00 89,040.00 3,424.62
790 5 45.06 7,810.00 93,720.00 3,604.62
595 1 33.12 5,740.00 68,880.00 2,649.23
595 2 34.75 6,024.00 72,288.00 2,780.31
595 3 36.80 6,378.00 76,536.00 2,943.69
595 4 38.84 6,733.00 80,796.00 3,107.54
595 5 40.89 7,087.00 85,044.00 3,270.92
500 1 31.70 5,495.00 65,940.00 2,536.15
500 2 33.27 5,766.00 69,192.00 2,661.23
500 3 35.23 6,106.00 73,272.00 2,818.15
500 4 37.18 6,445.00 77,340.00 2,974.62
500 5 39.14 6,784.00 81,408.00 3,131.08
City of Santa Monica CALIFORNIA TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 (IBT) Salary Schedule for July 8, 2025 City Council Meeting
Class Title
AIRPORT MAINTENANCE CREW LDR 3003 IBT
AIRPORT MAINTENANCE WORKER 3004 IBT
9195 IBT
CARPENTER 3006 IBT
CARPENTER CREW LEADER 3007 IBT
AQUATICS MAINTENANCE WORKER 3005 IBT
BIN TRUCK DRIVER 3086 IBT
CEMETERY CREW LEADER 3097 IBT
CONCRETE FINISHER 3008 IBT

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: COLA FY25-26 IBT - POA Salary Schedule 7.8.25 (7170 : Labor Negotiations POA, IBT) Class Title Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 060 1 22.65 3,926.00 47,112.00 1,812.00
060 2 23.77 4,120.00 49,440.00 1,901.54
060 3 25.17 4,362.00 52,344.00 2,013.23
060 4 26.57 4,605.00 55,260.00 2,125.38
060 5 27.96 4,847.00 58,164.00 2,237.08
060 1 22.65 3,926.00 47,112.00 1,812.00
060 2 23.77 4,120.00 49,440.00 1,901.54
060 3 25.17 4,362.00 52,344.00 2,013.23
060 4 26.57 4,605.00 55,260.00 2,125.38
060 5 27.96 4,847.00 58,164.00 2,237.08
137 1 25.00 4,333.00 51,996.00 1,999.85
137 2 26.23 4,547.00 54,564.00 2,098.62
137 3 27.77 4,814.00 57,768.00 2,221.85
137 4 29.32 5,082.00 60,984.00 2,345.54
137 5 30.86 5,349.00 64,188.00 2,468.77
295 1 28.21 4,889.00 58,668.00 2,256.46
295 2 29.60 5,131.00 61,572.00 2,368.15
295 3 31.34 5,432.00 65,184.00 2,507.08
295 4 33.08 5,734.00 68,808.00 2,646.46
295 5 34.82 6,036.00 72,432.00 2,785.85
920 1 42.36 7,342.00 88,104.00 3,388.62
920 2 44.45 7,704.00 92,448.00 3,555.69
920 3 47.07 8,158.00 97,896.00 3,765.23
920 4 49.68 8,611.00 103,332.00 3,974.31
920 5 52.29 9,064.00 108,768.00 4,183.38
770 1 39.40 6,829.00 81,948.00 3,151.85
770 2 41.34 7,166.00 85,992.00 3,307.38
770 3 43.78 7,588.00 91,056.00 3,502.15
770 4 46.21 8,009.00 96,108.00 3,696.46
770 5 48.64 8,431.00 101,172.00 3,891.23
755 1 35.87 6,218.00 74,616.00 2,869.85
755 2 37.64 6,525.00 78,300.00 3,011.54
755 3 39.85 6,908.00 82,896.00 3,188.31
755 4 42.07 7,292.00 87,504.00 3,365.54
755 5 44.28 7,676.00 92,112.00 3,542.77
235 1 27.02 4,683.00 56,196.00 2,161.38
235 2 28.36 4,915.00 58,980.00 2,268.46
235 3 30.02 5,204.00 62,448.00 2,401.85
235 4 31.69 5,493.00 65,916.00 2,535.23
235 5 33.36 5,782.00 69,384.00 2,668.62
235 1 27.02 4,683.00 56,196.00 2,161.38
235 2 28.36 4,915.00 58,980.00 2,268.46
235 3 30.02 5,204.00 62,448.00 2,401.85
235 4 31.69 5,493.00 65,916.00 2,535.23
235 5 33.36 5,782.00 69,384.00 2,668.62
435 1 30.81 5,340.00 64,080.00 2,464.62
435 2 32.33 5,604.00 67,248.00 2,586.46
435 3 34.23 5,934.00 71,208.00 2,738.77
435 4 36.13 6,263.00 75,156.00 2,890.62
435 5 38.04 6,593.00 79,116.00 3,042.92
435 1 30.81 5,340.00 64,080.00 2,464.62
435 2 32.33 5,604.00 67,248.00 2,586.46
435 3 34.23 5,934.00 71,208.00 2,738.77
435 4 36.13 6,263.00 75,156.00 2,890.62
435 5 38.04 6,593.00 79,116.00 3,042.92
CUSTODIAN I 3009 IBT
9101 IBT
CUSTODIAN II 3010 IBT
ELECTRICIAN 3013 IBT
ELECTRONIC COMM/FAREBOX TECH 3014 IBT
DISPATCHER 3011 IBT
ELECTRICAL CREW LEADER 3012 IBT
EQUIPMENT OPERATOR I 3015 IBT
9158 IBT
EQUIPMENT OPERATOR II 3016 IBT
9159 IBT

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: COLA FY25-26 IBT - POA Salary Schedule 7.8.25 (7170 : Labor Negotiations POA, IBT) Class Title Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 235 1 27.02 4,683.00 56,196.00 2,161.38
235 2 28.36 4,915.00 58,980.00 2,268.46
235 3 30.02 5,204.00 62,448.00 2,401.85
235 4 31.69 5,493.00 65,916.00 2,535.23
235 5 33.36 5,782.00 69,384.00 2,668.62
421 1 31.07 5,386.00 64,632.00 2,485.85
421 2 32.61 5,652.00 67,824.00 2,608.62
421 3 34.52 5,984.00 71,808.00 2,761.85
421 4 36.44 6,317.00 75,804.00 2,915.54
421 5 38.36 6,649.00 79,788.00 3,068.77
235 1 27.02 4,683.00 56,196.00 2,161.38
235 2 28.36 4,915.00 58,980.00 2,268.46
235 3 30.02 5,204.00 62,448.00 2,401.85
235 4 31.69 5,493.00 65,916.00 2,535.23
235 5 33.36 5,782.00 69,384.00 2,668.62
235 1 27.02 4,683.00 56,196.00 2,161.38
235 2 28.36 4,915.00 58,980.00 2,268.46
235 3 30.02 5,204.00 62,448.00 2,401.85
235 4 31.69 5,493.00 65,916.00 2,535.23
235 5 33.36 5,782.00 69,384.00 2,668.62
500 1 31.70 5,495.00 65,940.00 2,536.15
500 2 33.27 5,766.00 69,192.00 2,661.23
500 3 35.23 6,106.00 73,272.00 2,818.15
500 4 37.18 6,445.00 77,340.00 2,974.62
500 5 39.14 6,784.00 81,408.00 3,131.08
500 1 31.70 5,495.00 65,940.00 2,536.15
500 2 33.27 5,766.00 69,192.00 2,661.23
500 3 35.23 6,106.00 73,272.00 2,818.15
500 4 37.18 6,445.00 77,340.00 2,974.62
500 5 39.14 6,784.00 81,408.00 3,131.08
345 1 29.08 5,040.00 60,480.00 2,326.15
345 2 30.51 5,289.00 63,468.00 2,441.08
345 3 32.31 5,600.00 67,200.00 2,584.62
345 4 34.10 5,911.00 70,932.00 2,728.15
345 5 35.90 6,222.00 74,664.00 2,871.69
280 1 27.88 4,833.00 57,996.00 2,230.62
280 2 29.26 5,072.00 60,864.00 2,340.92
280 3 30.98 5,370.00 64,440.00 2,478.46
280 4 32.71 5,669.00 68,028.00 2,616.46
280 5 34.43 5,967.00 71,604.00 2,754.00
170 1 25.59 4,435.00 53,220.00 2,046.92
170 2 26.85 4,654.00 55,848.00 2,148.00
170 3 28.43 4,928.00 59,136.00 2,274.46
170 4 30.01 5,201.00 62,412.00 2,400.46
170 5 31.59 5,475.00 65,700.00 2,526.92
170 1 25.59 4,435.00 53,220.00 2,046.92
170 2 26.85 4,654.00 55,848.00 2,148.00
170 3 28.43 4,928.00 59,136.00 2,274.46
170 4 30.01 5,201.00 62,412.00 2,400.46
170 5 31.59 5,475.00 65,700.00 2,526.92
636 1 33.63 5,830.00 69,960.00 2,690.77
636 2 35.30 6,118.00 73,416.00 2,823.69
636 3 37.37 6,478.00 77,736.00 2,989.85
636 4 39.45 6,838.00 82,056.00 3,156.00
636 5 41.53 7,198.00 86,376.00 3,322.15
EVENT ATTENDANT II 3017 IBT
EVENT ATTENDANT III 3079 IBT
FLEET STOREKEEPER 3020 IBT
GRAFFITI REMOVAL TECHNICIAN 3021 IBT
FARMERS' MARKET ATTENDANT 3018 IBT
9130 IBT
FIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALIST 3019 IBT
9147 IBT
GROUNDSKEEPER 3022 IBT
9134 IBT
HVAC ASSISTANT 3023 IBT

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: COLA FY25-26 IBT - POA Salary Schedule 7.8.25 (7170 : Labor Negotiations POA, IBT) Class Title Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 949 1 41.46 7,187.00 86,244.00 3,317.08
949 2 43.51 7,542.00 90,504.00 3,480.92
949 3 46.07 7,986.00 95,832.00 3,685.85
949 4 48.63 8,429.00 101,148.00 3,890.31
949 5 51.19 8,873.00 106,476.00 4,095.23
876 1 38.58 6,688.00 80,256.00 3,086.77
876 2 40.49 7,018.00 84,216.00 3,239.08
876 3 42.87 7,431.00 89,172.00 3,429.69
876 4 45.25 7,844.00 94,128.00 3,620.31
876 5 47.64 8,257.00 99,084.00 3,810.92
375 1 29.57 5,126.00 61,512.00 2,365.85
375 2 31.03 5,379.00 64,548.00 2,482.62
375 3 32.86 5,695.00 68,340.00 2,628.46
375 4 34.68 6,012.00 72,144.00 2,774.77
375 5 36.51 6,328.00 75,936.00 2,920.62
202 1 26.36 4,569.00 54,828.00 2,108.77
202 2 27.66 4,795.00 57,540.00 2,213.08
202 3 29.29 5,077.00 60,924.00 2,343.23
202 4 30.92 5,359.00 64,308.00 2,473.38
202 5 32.54 5,641.00 67,692.00 2,603.54
596 1 33.12 5,740.00 68,880.00 2,649.23
596 2 34.75 6,023.00 72,276.00 2,779.85
596 3 36.79 6,377.00 76,524.00 2,943.23
596 4 38.84 6,732.00 80,784.00 3,107.08
596 5 40.88 7,086.00 85,032.00 3,270.46
955 1 43.46 7,533.00 90,396.00 3,476.77
955 2 45.61 7,905.00 94,860.00 3,648.46
955 3 48.29 8,370.00 100,440.00 3,863.08
955 4 50.97 8,835.00 106,020.00 4,077.69
955 5 53.65 9,300.00 111,600.00 4,292.31
950 1 41.63 7,215.00 86,580.00 3,330.00
950 2 43.68 7,572.00 90,864.00 3,494.77
950 3 46.25 8,017.00 96,204.00 3,700.15
950 4 48.83 8,463.00 101,556.00 3,906.00
950 5 51.39 8,908.00 106,896.00 4,111.38
136 1 22.20 3,848.00 46,176.00 1,776.00
136 2 23.30 4,038.00 48,456.00 1,863.69
136 3 24.67 4,276.00 51,312.00 1,973.54
136 4 26.04 4,513.00 54,156.00 2,082.92
136 5 27.41 4,751.00 57,012.00 2,192.77
136 1 22.20 3,848.00 46,176.00 1,776.00
136 2 23.30 4,038.00 48,456.00 1,863.69
136 3 24.67 4,276.00 51,312.00 1,973.54
136 4 26.04 4,513.00 54,156.00 2,082.92
136 5 27.41 4,751.00 57,012.00 2,192.77
595 1 33.12 5,740.00 68,880.00 2,649.23
595 2 34.75 6,024.00 72,288.00 2,780.31
595 3 36.80 6,378.00 76,536.00 2,943.69
595 4 38.84 6,733.00 80,796.00 3,107.54
595 5 40.89 7,087.00 85,044.00 3,270.92
135 1 24.76 4,291.00 51,492.00 1,980.46
135 2 25.97 4,502.00 54,024.00 2,077.85
135 3 27.50 4,767.00 57,204.00 2,200.15
135 4 29.03 5,032.00 60,384.00 2,322.46
135 5 30.56 5,297.00 63,564.00 2,444.77
HVAC CREW LEADER 3024 IBT
HVAC TECHNICIAN 3025 IBT
LEAD PARKING METER TECHNICIAN 3028 IBT
LEAD TRANSIT MECHANIC 3082 IBT
IRRIGATION TECHNICIAN 3027 IBT
LEAD MOTOR COACH CLEANER 3083 IBT
MAINTENANCE CREW LEADER 3031 IBT
MAINTENANCE WORKER 3032 IBT
LEAD WATER PROD/TREAT PLANT OP 3029 IBT
MAINTENANCE ASSISTANT 3030 IBT
9180 IBT

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: COLA FY25-26 IBT - POA Salary Schedule 7.8.25 (7170 : Labor Negotiations POA, IBT) Class Title Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 135 1 24.76 4,291.00 51,492.00 1,980.46
135 2 25.97 4,502.00 54,024.00 2,077.85
135 3 27.50 4,767.00 57,204.00 2,200.15
135 4 29.03 5,032.00 60,384.00 2,322.46
135 5 30.56 5,297.00 63,564.00 2,444.77
776 1 36.33 6,298.00 75,576.00 2,906.77
776 2 38.13 6,609.00 79,308.00 3,050.31
776 3 40.37 6,998.00 83,976.00 3,229.85
776 4 42.61 7,386.00 88,632.00 3,408.92
776 5 44.86 7,775.00 93,300.00 3,588.46
776 1 36.33 6,298.00 75,576.00 2,906.77
776 2 38.13 6,609.00 79,308.00 3,050.31
776 3 40.37 6,998.00 83,976.00 3,229.85
776 4 42.61 7,386.00 88,632.00 3,408.92
776 5 44.86 7,775.00 93,300.00 3,588.46
813 1 40.43 7,007.00 84,084.00 3,234.00
813 2 42.42 7,353.00 88,236.00 3,393.69
813 3 44.92 7,786.00 93,432.00 3,593.54
813 4 47.41 8,218.00 98,616.00 3,792.92
813 5 49.91 8,651.00 103,812.00 3,992.77
125 1 24.51 4,248.00 50,976.00 1,960.62
125 2 25.71 4,457.00 53,484.00 2,057.08
125 3 27.23 4,720.00 56,640.00 2,178.46
125 4 28.74 4,982.00 59,784.00 2,299.38
125 5 30.25 5,244.00 62,928.00 2,420.31
125 1 24.51 4,248.00 50,976.00 1,960.62
125 2 25.71 4,457.00 53,484.00 2,057.08
125 3 27.23 4,720.00 56,640.00 2,178.46
125 4 28.74 4,982.00 59,784.00 2,299.38
125 5 30.25 5,244.00 62,928.00 2,420.31
585 1 33.03 5,725.00 68,700.00 2,642.31
585 2 34.66 6,008.00 72,096.00 2,772.92
585 3 36.70 6,361.00 76,332.00 2,935.85
585 4 38.74 6,715.00 80,580.00 3,099.23
585 5 40.78 7,068.00 84,816.00 3,262.15
485 1 31.55 5,469.00 65,628.00 2,524.15
485 2 33.11 5,739.00 68,868.00 2,648.77
485 3 35.06 6,077.00 72,924.00 2,804.77
485 4 37.00 6,414.00 76,968.00 2,960.31
485 5 38.95 6,752.00 81,024.00 3,116.31
485 1 31.55 5,469.00 65,628.00 2,524.15
485 2 33.11 5,739.00 68,868.00 2,648.77
485 3 35.06 6,077.00 72,924.00 2,804.77
485 4 37.00 6,414.00 76,968.00 2,960.31
485 5 38.95 6,752.00 81,024.00 3,116.31
695 1 34.71 6,017.00 72,204.00 2,777.08
695 2 36.43 6,314.00 75,768.00 2,914.15
695 3 38.57 6,685.00 80,220.00 3,085.38
695 4 40.71 7,057.00 84,684.00 3,257.08
695 5 42.85 7,428.00 89,136.00 3,428.31
400 1 30.07 5,212.00 62,544.00 2,405.54
400 2 31.56 5,470.00 65,640.00 2,524.62
400 3 33.42 5,792.00 69,504.00 2,673.23
400 4 35.27 6,113.00 73,356.00 2,821.38
400 5 37.13 6,435.00 77,220.00 2,970.00
9070 IBT
MOTOR COACH CLEANER 3035 IBT
9107 IBT
MOTOR SWEEPER OPERATOR 3036 IBT
MECHANIC I 3033 IBT
9067 IBT
MECHANIC II 3034 IBT
PARKING METER TECHNICIAN 3039 IBT
PAINTER 3037 IBT
9108 IBT
PAINTER CREW LEADER 3038 IBT

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: COLA FY25-26 IBT - POA Salary Schedule 7.8.25 (7170 : Labor Negotiations POA, IBT) Class Title Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 475 1 31.48 5,457.00 65,484.00 2,518.62
475 2 33.03 5,726.00 68,712.00 2,642.77
475 3 34.98 6,063.00 72,756.00 2,798.31
475 4 36.92 6,400.00 76,800.00 2,953.85
475 5 38.87 6,737.00 80,844.00 3,109.38
595 1 33.12 5,740.00 68,880.00 2,649.23
595 2 34.75 6,024.00 72,288.00 2,780.31
595 3 36.80 6,378.00 76,536.00 2,943.69
595 4 38.84 6,733.00 80,796.00 3,107.54
595 5 40.89 7,087.00 85,044.00 3,270.92
790 1 36.50 6,326.00 75,912.00 2,919.69
790 2 38.30 6,639.00 79,668.00 3,064.15
790 3 40.55 7,029.00 84,348.00 3,244.15
790 4 42.81 7,420.00 89,040.00 3,424.62
790 5 45.06 7,810.00 93,720.00 3,604.62
250 1 27.17 4,709.00 56,508.00 2,173.38
250 2 28.51 4,942.00 59,304.00 2,280.92
250 3 30.19 5,233.00 62,796.00 2,415.23
250 4 31.86 5,523.00 66,276.00 2,549.08
250 5 33.54 5,814.00 69,768.00 2,683.38
625 1 33.48 5,804.00 69,648.00 2,678.77
625 2 35.14 6,091.00 73,092.00 2,811.23
625 3 37.21 6,449.00 77,388.00 2,976.46
625 4 39.28 6,808.00 81,696.00 3,142.15
625 5 41.34 7,166.00 85,992.00 3,307.38
815 1 41.41 7,177.00 86,124.00 3,312.46
815 2 43.45 7,531.00 90,372.00 3,475.85
815 3 46.00 7,974.00 95,688.00 3,680.31
815 4 48.56 8,417.00 101,004.00 3,884.77
815 5 51.12 8,860.00 106,320.00 4,089.23
775 1 36.32 6,296.00 75,552.00 2,905.85
775 2 38.12 6,607.00 79,284.00 3,049.38
775 3 40.36 6,996.00 83,952.00 3,228.92
775 4 42.60 7,384.00 88,608.00 3,408.00
775 5 44.84 7,773.00 93,276.00 3,587.54
305 1 28.37 4,917.00 59,004.00 2,269.38
305 2 29.77 5,160.00 61,920.00 2,381.54
305 3 31.52 5,463.00 65,556.00 2,521.38
305 4 33.27 5,767.00 69,204.00 2,661.69
305 5 35.02 6,070.00 72,840.00 2,801.54
305 1 28.37 4,917.00 59,004.00 2,269.38
305 2 29.77 5,160.00 61,920.00 2,381.54
305 3 31.52 5,463.00 65,556.00 2,521.38
305 4 33.27 5,767.00 69,204.00 2,661.69
305 5 35.02 6,070.00 72,840.00 2,801.54
877 1 38.35 6,648.00 79,776.00 3,068.31
877 2 40.25 6,976.00 83,712.00 3,219.69
877 3 42.61 7,386.00 88,632.00 3,408.92
877 4 44.98 7,797.00 93,564.00 3,598.62
877 5 47.35 8,207.00 98,484.00 3,787.85
200 1 26.33 4,564.00 54,768.00 2,106.46
200 2 27.63 4,789.00 57,468.00 2,210.31
200 3 29.26 5,071.00 60,852.00 2,340.46
200 4 30.88 5,352.00 64,224.00 2,470.15
200 5 32.50 5,634.00 67,608.00 2,600.31
PARKS EQUIPMENT TECHNICIAN 3040 IBT
PIER MAINTENANCE WORKER 3043 IBT
PLUMBER 3045 IBT
PARKS MAINTENANCE CREW LEADER 3041 IBT
PIER MAINTENANCE CREW LEADER 3042 IBT
RESOURCE REC & RECYC EQUIP OP 3048 IBT
9057 IBT
RESOURCE REC & RECYC SAFE TRA 3049 IBT
PLUMBER CREW LEADER 3046 IBT
RESOURCE REC & RECYC CRW LDR 3047 IBT
SEWER MAINTENANCE WORKER I 3050 IBT

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: COLA FY25-26 IBT - POA Salary Schedule 7.8.25 (7170 : Labor Negotiations POA, IBT) Class Title Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 315 1 28.48 4,937.00 59,244.00 2,278.62
315 2 29.89 5,181.00 62,172.00 2,391.23
315 3 31.65 5,486.00 65,832.00 2,532.00
315 4 33.40 5,790.00 69,480.00 2,672.31
315 5 35.16 6,095.00 73,140.00 2,813.08
955 1 43.46 7,533.00 90,396.00 3,476.77
955 2 45.61 7,905.00 94,860.00 3,648.46
955 3 48.29 8,370.00 100,440.00 3,863.08
955 4 50.97 8,835.00 106,020.00 4,077.69
955 5 53.65 9,300.00 111,600.00 4,292.31
336 1 36.47 6,322.00 75,864.00 2,917.85
336 2 38.27 6,634.00 79,608.00 3,061.85
336 3 40.53 7,025.00 84,300.00 3,242.31
336 4 42.78 7,415.00 88,980.00 3,422.31
336 5 45.03 7,805.00 93,660.00 3,602.31
953 1 46.86 8,123.00 97,476.00 3,749.08
953 2 49.18 8,524.00 102,288.00 3,934.15
953 3 52.07 9,025.00 108,300.00 4,165.38
953 4 54.96 9,527.00 114,324.00 4,397.08
953 5 57.85 10,028.00 120,336.00 4,628.31
245 1 27.06 4,690.00 56,280.00 2,164.62
245 2 28.40 4,922.00 59,064.00 2,271.69
245 3 30.06 5,211.00 62,532.00 2,405.08
245 4 31.74 5,501.00 66,012.00 2,538.92
245 5 33.40 5,790.00 69,480.00 2,672.31
345 1 29.08 5,040.00 60,480.00 2,326.15
345 2 30.51 5,289.00 63,468.00 2,441.08
345 3 32.31 5,600.00 67,200.00 2,584.62
345 4 34.10 5,911.00 70,932.00 2,728.15
345 5 35.90 6,222.00 74,664.00 2,871.69
790 1 36.50 6,326.00 75,912.00 2,919.69
790 2 38.30 6,639.00 79,668.00 3,064.15
790 3 40.55 7,029.00 84,348.00 3,244.15
790 4 42.81 7,420.00 89,040.00 3,424.62
790 5 45.06 7,810.00 93,720.00 3,604.62
250 1 27.17 4,709.00 56,508.00 2,173.38
250 2 28.51 4,942.00 59,304.00 2,280.92
250 3 30.19 5,233.00 62,796.00 2,415.23
250 4 31.86 5,523.00 66,276.00 2,549.08
250 5 33.54 5,814.00 69,768.00 2,683.38
250 1 27.17 4,709.00 56,508.00 2,173.38
250 2 28.51 4,942.00 59,304.00 2,280.92
250 3 30.19 5,233.00 62,796.00 2,415.23
250 4 31.86 5,523.00 66,276.00 2,549.08
250 5 33.54 5,814.00 69,768.00 2,683.38
435 1 30.81 5,340.00 64,080.00 2,464.62
435 2 32.33 5,604.00 67,248.00 2,586.46
435 3 34.23 5,934.00 71,208.00 2,738.77
435 4 36.13 6,263.00 75,156.00 2,890.62
435 5 38.04 6,593.00 79,116.00 3,042.92
3059 IBT 004 1 21.14 3,665.00 43,980.00 1,691.54
9129 IBT 004 1 21.14 3,665.00 43,980.00 1,691.54
SR MECHANIC 3052 IBT
SR TRANSIT MAINTENANCE WORKER 3053 IBT
SEWER MAINTENANCE WORKER II 3051 IBT
STOREKEEPER II 3055 IBT
STREET SERVICES CREW LEADER 3056 IBT
SR WATER PROD & TREAT PLANT OP 3087 IBT
STOREKEEPER 3054 IBT

TRADES INTERN
STREET SERVICES WORKER I 3057 IBT
9105 IBT
STREET SERVICES WORKER II 3058 IBT

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: COLA FY25-26 IBT - POA Salary Schedule 7.8.25 (7170 : Labor Negotiations POA, IBT) Class Title Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 380 1 29.60 5,131.00 61,572.00 2,368.15
380 2 31.07 5,385.00 64,620.00 2,485.38
380 3 32.90 5,702.00 68,424.00 2,631.69
380 4 34.72 6,018.00 72,216.00 2,777.54
380 5 36.55 6,335.00 76,020.00 2,923.85
380 1 29.60 5,131.00 61,572.00 2,368.15
380 2 31.07 5,385.00 64,620.00 2,485.38
380 3 32.90 5,702.00 68,424.00 2,631.69
380 4 34.72 6,018.00 72,216.00 2,777.54
380 5 36.55 6,335.00 76,020.00 2,923.85
790 1 36.50 6,326.00 75,912.00 2,919.69
790 2 38.30 6,639.00 79,668.00 3,064.15
790 3 40.55 7,029.00 84,348.00 3,244.15
790 4 42.81 7,420.00 89,040.00 3,424.62
790 5 45.06 7,810.00 93,720.00 3,604.62
420 1 31.05 5,382.00 64,584.00 2,484.00
420 2 32.58 5,647.00 67,764.00 2,606.31
420 3 34.50 5,980.00 71,760.00 2,760.00
420 4 36.42 6,312.00 75,744.00 2,913.23
420 5 38.33 6,644.00 79,728.00 3,066.46
420 1 31.05 5,382.00 64,584.00 2,484.00
420 2 32.58 5,647.00 67,764.00 2,606.31
420 3 34.50 5,980.00 71,760.00 2,760.00
420 4 36.42 6,312.00 75,744.00 2,913.23
420 5 38.33 6,644.00 79,728.00 3,066.46
776 1 36.33 6,298.00 75,576.00 2,906.77
776 2 38.13 6,609.00 79,308.00 3,050.31
776 3 40.37 6,998.00 83,976.00 3,229.85
776 4 42.61 7,386.00 88,632.00 3,408.92
776 5 44.86 7,775.00 93,300.00 3,588.46
776 1 36.33 6,298.00 75,576.00 2,906.77
776 2 38.13 6,609.00 79,308.00 3,050.31
776 3 40.37 6,998.00 83,976.00 3,229.85
776 4 42.61 7,386.00 88,632.00 3,408.92
776 5 44.86 7,775.00 93,300.00 3,588.46
813 1 40.43 7,007.00 84,084.00 3,234.00
813 2 42.42 7,353.00 88,236.00 3,393.69
813 3 44.92 7,786.00 93,432.00 3,593.54
813 4 47.41 8,218.00 98,616.00 3,792.92
813 5 49.91 8,651.00 103,812.00 3,992.77
635 1 33.61 5,826.00 69,912.00 2,688.92
635 2 35.27 6,114.00 73,368.00 2,821.85
635 3 37.35 6,474.00 77,688.00 2,988.00
635 4 39.42 6,833.00 81,996.00 3,153.69
635 5 41.50 7,193.00 86,316.00 3,319.85
954 1 47.26 8,192.00 98,304.00 3,780.92
954 2 49.59 8,596.00 103,152.00 3,967.38
954 3 52.51 9,102.00 109,224.00 4,200.92
954 4 55.43 9,607.00 115,284.00 4,434.00
954 5 58.34 10,113.00 121,356.00 4,667.54
155 1 25.27 4,380.00 52,560.00 2,021.54
155 2 26.52 4,596.00 55,152.00 2,121.23
155 3 28.07 4,866.00 58,392.00 2,245.85
155 4 29.64 5,137.00 61,644.00 2,370.92
155 5 31.19 5,407.00 64,884.00 2,495.54
TRAFFIC PAINTER 3060 IBT
9174 IBT
TRANSIT MECHANIC I 3063 IBT
9106 IBT
TRANSIT MECHANIC II 3064 IBT
TRAFFIC PAINTER CREW LEADER 3061 IBT
TRANSIT MAINTENANCE WORKER 3062 IBT
9065 IBT
WAREHOUSE WORKER 3068 IBT
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES LOCATOR 3066 IBT
UNDERGROUND UTILITY SAFETY CRD 3067 IBT

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: COLA FY25-26 IBT - POA Salary Schedule 7.8.25 (7170 : Labor Negotiations POA, IBT) Class Title Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 155 1 25.27 4,380.00 52,560.00 2,021.54
155 2 26.52 4,596.00 55,152.00 2,121.23
155 3 28.07 4,866.00 58,392.00 2,245.85
155 4 29.64 5,137.00 61,644.00 2,370.92
155 5 31.19 5,407.00 64,884.00 2,495.54
486 1 31.12 5,394.00 64,728.00 2,489.54
486 2 32.65 5,660.00 67,920.00 2,612.31
486 3 34.58 5,993.00 71,916.00 2,766.00
486 4 36.50 6,326.00 75,912.00 2,919.69
486 5 38.42 6,659.00 79,908.00 3,073.38
754 1 34.23 5,933.00 71,196.00 2,738.31
754 2 35.92 6,226.00 74,712.00 2,873.54
754 3 38.04 6,593.00 79,116.00 3,042.92
754 4 40.15 6,959.00 83,508.00 3,211.85
754 5 42.26 7,325.00 87,900.00 3,380.77
806 1 37.66 6,527.00 78,324.00 3,012.46
806 2 39.51 6,849.00 82,188.00 3,161.08
806 3 41.84 7,252.00 87,024.00 3,347.08
806 4 44.16 7,655.00 91,860.00 3,533.08
806 5 46.49 8,058.00 96,696.00 3,719.08
816 1 41.24 7,149.00 85,788.00 3,299.54
816 2 43.28 7,502.00 90,024.00 3,462.46
816 3 45.83 7,943.00 95,316.00 3,666.00
816 4 48.38 8,385.00 100,620.00 3,870.00
816 5 50.92 8,826.00 105,912.00 4,073.54
755 1 35.87 6,218.00 74,616.00 2,869.85
755 2 37.64 6,525.00 78,300.00 3,011.54
755 3 39.85 6,908.00 82,896.00 3,188.31
755 4 42.07 7,292.00 87,504.00 3,365.54
755 5 44.28 7,676.00 92,112.00 3,542.77
816 1 41.24 7,149.00 85,788.00 3,299.54
816 2 43.28 7,502.00 90,024.00 3,462.46
816 3 45.83 7,943.00 95,316.00 3,666.00
816 4 48.38 8,385.00 100,620.00 3,870.00
816 5 50.92 8,826.00 105,912.00 4,073.54
956 1 45.37 7,864.00 94,368.00 3,629.54
956 2 47.61 8,253.00 99,036.00 3,809.08
956 3 50.41 8,738.00 104,856.00 4,032.92
956 4 53.22 9,224.00 110,688.00 4,257.23
956 5 56.01 9,709.00 116,508.00 4,481.08
952 1 45.17 7,829.00 93,948.00 3,613.38
952 2 47.40 8,216.00 98,592.00 3,792.00
952 3 50.19 8,699.00 104,388.00 4,014.92
952 4 52.98 9,183.00 110,196.00 4,238.31
952 5 55.77 9,666.00 115,992.00 4,461.23
333 1 28.89 5,007.00 60,084.00 2,310.92
333 2 30.31 5,254.00 63,048.00 2,424.92
333 3 32.09 5,563.00 66,756.00 2,567.54
333 4 33.88 5,872.00 70,464.00 2,710.15
333 5 35.66 6,181.00 74,172.00 2,852.77
333 1 28.89 5,007.00 60,084.00 2,310.92
333 2 30.31 5,254.00 63,048.00 2,424.92
333 3 32.09 5,563.00 66,756.00 2,567.54
333 4 33.88 5,872.00 70,464.00 2,710.15
333 5 35.66 6,181.00 74,172.00 2,852.77
9155 IBT
WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS WRK I 3088 IBT
WASTEWATER CREW LEADER 3069 IBT
WASTEWATER TREAT PLANT OIT 3095 IBT
WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS WRK II 3089 IBT
WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS WRK III 3094 IBT
WATER CREW LEADER 3072 IBT
WATER MAINTENANCE WORKER I 3073 IBT
9197 IBT
WASTEWATER TREAT PLANT OP I 3070 IBT
WASTEWATER TREAT PLANT OP II 3096 IBT

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: COLA FY25-26 IBT - POA Salary Schedule 7.8.25 (7170 : Labor Negotiations POA, IBT) Class Title Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate 501 1 31.77 5,507.00 66,084.00 2,541.69
501 2 33.34 5,779.00 69,348.00 2,667.23
501 3 35.30 6,119.00 73,428.00 2,824.15
501 4 37.26 6,459.00 77,508.00 2,981.08
501 5 39.23 6,799.00 81,588.00 3,138.00
875 1 38.72 6,712.00 80,544.00 3,097.85
875 2 40.63 7,043.00 84,516.00 3,250.62
875 3 43.02 7,457.00 89,484.00 3,441.69
875 4 45.42 7,872.00 94,464.00 3,633.23
875 5 47.80 8,286.00 99,432.00 3,824.31
951 1 42.59 7,383.00 88,596.00 3,407.54
951 2 44.70 7,748.00 92,976.00 3,576.00
951 3 47.33 8,204.00 98,448.00 3,786.46
951 4 49.96 8,659.00 103,908.00 3,996.46
951 5 52.59 9,115.00 109,380.00 4,206.92
370 1 31.30 5,425.00 65,100.00 2,503.85
370 2 32.84 5,693.00 68,316.00 2,627.54
370 3 34.78 6,028.00 72,336.00 2,782.15
370 4 36.71 6,363.00 76,356.00 2,936.77
370 5 38.64 6,698.00 80,376.00 3,091.38
370 1 31.30 5,425.00 65,100.00 2,503.85
370 2 32.84 5,693.00 68,316.00 2,627.54
370 3 34.78 6,028.00 72,336.00 2,782.15
370 4 36.71 6,363.00 76,356.00 2,936.77
370 5 38.64 6,698.00 80,376.00 3,091.38
878 1 37.33 6,471.00 77,652.00 2,986.62
878 2 39.18 6,791.00 81,492.00 3,134.31
878 3 41.48 7,190.00 86,280.00 3,318.46
878 4 43.79 7,590.00 91,080.00 3,503.08
878 5 46.09 7,989.00 95,868.00 3,687.23
814 1 41.06 7,117.00 85,404.00 3,284.77
814 2 43.08 7,468.00 89,616.00 3,446.77
814 3 45.62 7,907.00 94,884.00 3,649.38
814 4 48.16 8,347.00 100,164.00 3,852.46
814 5 50.69 8,786.00 105,432.00 4,055.08
555 1 36.92 6,400.00 76,800.00 2,953.85
555 2 38.75 6,716.00 80,592.00 3,099.69
555 3 41.03 7,111.00 85,332.00 3,282.00
555 4 43.30 7,506.00 90,072.00 3,464.31
555 5 45.58 7,901.00 94,812.00 3,646.62
WATER PROD & TREAT PLANT OP II 3091 IBT
WATER RESOURCES TECHNICIAN 3076 IBT
9136 IBT
WATER MAINTENANCE WORKER II 3090 IBT
WATER PROD & TREAT PLANT OP I 3074 IBT
WELDER 3078 IBT
WATER UTILITY WORKER I 3092 IBT
WATER UTILITY WORKER II 3093 IBT

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: COLA FY25-26 IBT - POA Salary Schedule 7.8.25 (7170 : Labor Negotiations POA, IBT) Class Code BU Grade Step Hourly Rate Monthly Rate Annual Rate Bi weekly Rate
050 1 121.07 20,985.00 251,820.00 9,685.38
050 2 127.05 22,022.00 264,264.00 10,164.00
050 3 134.52 23,317.00 279,804.00 10,761.69
050 4 142.00 24,613.00 295,356.00 11,359.85
050 5 149.47 25,908.00 310,896.00 11,957.54
040 1 110.06 19,077.00 228,924.00 8,804.77
040 2 115.49 20,019.00 240,228.00 9,239.54
040 3 122.29 21,197.00 254,364.00 9,783.23
040 4 129.08 22,374.00 268,488.00 10,326.46
040 5 135.88 23,552.00 282,624.00 10,870.15
030 1 94.19 16,326.00 195,912.00 7,535.08
030 2 98.84 17,133.00 205,596.00 7,907.54
030 3 104.65 18,140.00 217,680.00 8,372.31
030 4 110.47 19,148.00 229,776.00 8,837.54
030 5 116.28 20,156.00 241,872.00 9,302.77
010 1 58.00 10,053.00 120,636.00 4,639.85
010 2 60.86 10,549.00 126,588.00 4,868.77
010 3 64.44 11,170.00 134,040.00 5,155.38
010 4 68.02 11,790.00 141,480.00 5,441.54
010 5 71.60 12,411.00 148,932.00 5,728.15
010 1 58.00 10,053.00 120,636.00 4,639.85
010 2 60.86 10,549.00 126,588.00 4,868.77
010 3 64.44 11,170.00 134,040.00 5,155.38
010 4 68.02 11,790.00 141,480.00 5,441.54
010 5 71.60 12,411.00 148,932.00 5,728.15
010 1 58.00 10,053.00 120,636.00 4,639.85
010 2 60.86 10,549.00 126,588.00 4,868.77
010 3 64.44 11,170.00 134,040.00 5,155.38
010 4 68.02 11,790.00 141,480.00 5,441.54
010 5 71.60 12,411.00 148,932.00 5,728.15
020 1 77.11 13,366.00 160,392.00 6,168.92
020 2 80.92 14,026.00 168,312.00 6,473.54
020 3 85.68 14,851.00 178,212.00 6,854.31
020 4 90.44 15,676.00 188,112.00 7,235.08
020 5 95.20 16,501.00 198,012.00 7,615.85
POLICE CAPTAIN 0601 POA
City of Santa Monica SANTA MONICA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (SMPOA) Salary Schedule for July 8, 2025 City Council Meeting
Class Title
DEPUTY POLICE CHIEF 0600 POA
POLICE LIEUTENANT 0602 POA
POLICE OFFICER 0605 POA
POLICE SERGEANT 0606 POA
POLICE OFFICER - PRE-SERVICE 0603 POA
POLICE OFFICER-LATERAL TRANSFR 0604 POA

4.L.b
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: COLA FY25-26 IBT - POA Salary Schedule 7.8.25 (7170 : Labor Negotiations POA, IBT) 1 May 27, 2025
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 27, 2025
A regular meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Negrete at 5:33 p.m., on Tuesday, May 27, 2025, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA.

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Lana Negrete
Mayor Pro Tem Caroline Torosis
Councilmember Jesse Zwick
Councilmember Dan Hall
Councilmember Ellis Raskin
Councilmember Barry Snell
Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya
Also Present: Interim City Manager Elaine Polachek
City Attorney Douglas Sloan
City Clerk Nikima S. Newsome
CONVENE/PLEDGE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:33 p.m., with all members present. Mayor Pro Tem Torosis led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

STATEMENT OF

ACCOUNTABILITY
(LAND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT)
The City of Santa Monica is located on the land of Tovangaar. With great respect, the City acknowledges the Gabrieleño/Tongva as the First People of this ancestral and unceded territory of Kuruvungna, a village that we know as Santa Monica. We honor their elders, past and present, and the Gabrieleño descendants who are part of the Gabrieleño /Tongva tribes.

We recognize that these peoples are still here, and as settlers and kuyam (guests), we recognize our responsibility and obligation to care for their land in partnership with them. The City of Santa Monica commits to work in partnership with the Gabrieleño/Tongva people to uplift their voices and visibility on their ancestral land.

The City of Santa Monica Statement of Accountability (Land Acknowledgement) was read into the record by Councilmember Zernitskaya.

LEVINE ACT Pursuant to the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308), any party to a

4.M
Packet Pg. 341 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 27, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 May 27, 2025
DISCLOSURE permit, license, contract, or other entitlement before the Council is required to disclose on the record any contribution, including aggregated contributions, of more than $500 made by the party or the party's agents within the preceding 12 months to any City official.

Participants and agents are requested to make this disclosure as well.

The disclosure must include the name of the party, participant, or agent, and any other person making the contribution; the name of the recipient, the amount of the contribution, and the date the contribution was made.

No Councilmembers recused from any items on the agenda pursuant to the Levine Act.

PUBLIC INPUT ON

GENERAL PUBLIC

INPUT AND SPECIAL
AGENDA ITEMS:

Members of the public Speaker: Daisy Meza, Aidan Perlitz, Emily Kariya, Jeff Jarrow, Greg Amato, Jacqueline Hinton, Justin Hinton, Margarita, Sylvia, Alex, Judith Serlin, Denise Barton, Jerry Rubin, Jayson Gladstone, John Alle, Walter Lamb, Zoe Muntaner, and Harvey Eder commented on various local issues.

No members of the public commented on Special Agenda items.

PROCLAMATIONS/

COMMENDATIONS/

SPECIAL AGENDA
ITEMS

2.A. Proclamation: Pride Month, was presented.

PUBLIC INPUT FOR

CONSENT CALENDAR

AND CLOSED SESSION
ONLY:

Members of the public Denise Barton and Zoe Muntaner commented on Closed Session items.

Member of the public Kay Ambriz commented on consent calendar items.

AGENDA

MANAGEMENT
Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Mayor Pro Torosis to suspend Council rule 12.J. The motion was approved by unanimous voice vote with all members present.

CONSENT CALENDAR: All items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.

At the request of Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Item 4.M. was removed from the Consent Calendar.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Mayor Negrete, to approve the Consent Calendar except for Item 4.M., reading resolutions by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:

4.M
Packet Pg. 342 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 27, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 3 May 27, 2025
AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Zwick, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

GRAFITTI REMOVAL

SERVICES

4.A. Award Bid #4494 and Authorize Agreement with Woods Maintenance Services, Inc. dba Graffiti Control Systems for Citywide Graffiti Removal Services, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemptions pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines;

2. Award Bid #4494 to Woods Maintenance Services, Inc. dba Graffiti Control Systems for graffiti removal services for the Public Works Department; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Woods Maintenance Services, Inc. dba Graffiti Control Systems, in an amount not to exceed $697,320 for five years, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

CLEANER AND

DEGREASER PRODUCTS

4.B. Award Bid #4493 and issue Purchase Order to DeltaGreen Products for Heavy Duty Cleaner and Degreaser, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemptions pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines;

2. Award Bid #4493 to DeltaGreen Products to furnish and deliver heavy duty cleaner and degreaser for the Public Works Department; and

3. Authorize the Procurement Manager to issue a purchase order with DeltaGreen Products for the purchase of heavy duty cleaner and degreaser in an amount not to exceed $123,000 for one year, with two additional two-year renewal options, for a total amount not to exceed $615,000 over a five-year period, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

CITYWIDE FURNITURE

PURCHASE AND

INSTALLATION

4.C. Award RFP SP2307-2025 and Agreement to Archi.txture, LLC dba BASK for the Purchase and Installation of Furniture Citywide, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

4.M
Packet Pg. 343 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 27, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 4 May 27, 2025

1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Award RFP #SP2307-2025 to Archi.txture, LLC dba BASK to provide Steelcase systems furniture procurement, installation, and consulting services citywide on an as-needed basis; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an as-needed services agreement with Archi.txture, LLC dba BASK for an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 over a five-year period.

ON-CALL SURVEYING

SERVICES

4.D. Award RFP SP2539 and Agreements to PSOMAS and KDM
Meridian for On-Call Surveying Services, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of exemption pursuant to Section 15262 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Award RFP #SP2539 to PSOMAS and KDM Meridian to provide on-call surveying services for the Public Works Department; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute agreements for on-call surveying services with PSOMAS and KDM Meridian, in an amount not to exceed $250,000 for each agreement, over a five-year period, with one (1) five-year renewal option under the same terms and conditions as the original period. Prior to the end of the initial term, staff will present the extended term to the City Council for ratification

AIRPORT MECHNICAL

EQUIPMENT

REPLACEMENT

PROJECT

4.E. Authorization of First Modification to Agreement #11583 with ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc. for the Airport Mechanical Equipment Replacement Project, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15302 (Replacement and Reconstruction) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to agreement #11583 (CCS) in the amount of $1,055,945 (including no additional contingency) with ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc. (ACCO), a California-based company, for additional equipment and construction work to complete the Airport Mechanical Equipment Replacement Project. This will result in an amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $3,049,035 (including 6% contingency) with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

4.M
Packet Pg. 344 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 27, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 5 May 27, 2025

WATER HEATER

INSTALLATION

SERVICES

4.F. Authorize First Modification to Agreement #5059 with Water Heater Warehouse for Heat Pump Water Heater Installation Services, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a first modification to agreement #5059 in the amount of $250,000 with Water Heater Warehouse for heat pump water heater installation services for the Public Works Department. This will result in a fiveyear amended agreement with a new total amount not to exceed $500,000, which includes funding for future heat pump water heater services.

RESIDENTAL RENTAL
PRICES

4.G. Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Prohibiting Sale and Use of Algorithmic Devices to Set Residential Rental Prices, was heard and approved with direction for staff to reach out and coordinate with the Rent Control Board.

Recommended Action:

Staff recommends that the City Council

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

2. Introduce for first reading the attached Ordinance amending the text of the Santa Monica Municipal Code by adding Chapter 4.58 Algorithmic Rental Price Fixing.

RESIDENT

REPRESENTATION

4.H. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Adding Section 2.32.300 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code Requiring Resident Representation for Council Appointees to Non-Profits, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

ANIMAL CODE 4.I. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the City's Animals Code, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

CITY’S ZONING

ORDINANCE

4.J. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to Eliminate Parcel Size Threshold

4.M
Packet Pg. 345 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 27, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 6 May 27, 2025
for Streamlined Review of Housing Projects, Increase the Maximum Square Footage for Accessory Dwelling Units, Revise Provisions Related to Ministerially Approved Lot Splits and Duplexes on Parcels Zoned Single-Unit Residential, Adjust the Criteria for Streamlined Review of Housing Projects on Large Sites Within Bergamot Zoning Districts, Provide Extensions for Projects Approved prior to January 6, 2025, Convert Parcel Coverage Development Standards to Floor Area Ratio for the City’s Residential Zoning Districts, and Align Density Standards for the City’s Multiple-Unit Residential Zoning Districts with the Intensities Envisioned in the Land Use and Circulation Element; for Consistency With Recent Updates to State law; and Making Other Minor Changes, Corrections and Clarifications, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION

DEADLINES

4.K. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 8.08 to Extend Expiration for Building Permit Applications Complete as of January 6, 2025, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance.

4.L. Approve Resolution Adopting the 2025 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15307 and Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Hold a public meeting and receive public comment for the 2025 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Report for the Public Works Department, Water Resources Division; and

3. Approve the attached resolution adopting the 2025 Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment Report.

MUSIC FESTIVAL 4.N. Authorization of Fourth Contract Modification with McCabe's Guitar Shop for Single Day Music Festival, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15323 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a fourth modification to agreement #4820 in the amount of $35,000 with

4.M
Packet Pg. 346 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 27, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 7 May 27, 2025
McCabe’s Guitar Shop for a single day music festival in September 2025. This will result in a four-year amended agreement with a new total Not-to-Exceed amount of $337,000, with no future funding expected for this Agreement.

MINUTES 4.O. Approval of Minutes of the City Council - Special Meeting - May 15, 2025 8:00 AM, were approved.

MINUTES 4.P. Approval of Minutes of the City Council - Special Meeting - May 20, 2025 5:00 PM, were approved.

COUNCIL RULES OF

PROCEDURE

4.M. Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Council Rules of Procedure, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt:

1. The attached resolution amending the Council Rules of Procedure to account for modification to rules for public input; and

2. A finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

Questions of staff included who prepares ordinances and resolutions and what is stated in the Charter as to who is responsible for drafting ordinances and resolutions.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to adding further clarification to the Council rules to affirmatively state that the City Attorney is responsible for drafting and bringing back to Council all ordinances and resolutions; collaboration between the City Manager’s Office and the City Attorney’s Office on matters of policy necessary to draft legislation; and correction to rule number three regarding quorum and action on quasi-judicial matters
Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Mayor Negrete, to adopt the staff recommendation, as amended was to add clarifying language to section 5(d) of the Council rules, specifically stating that unless Council directs otherwise, the City Attorney shall be responsible for preparing and bringing back ordinances and resolutions and to insert the words, “at least” in the last sentence of the first paragraph of Rule 3 so that it states, “However, in the case of a quasi-judicial hearing, if only 4 Councilmembers are participating, the applicant or appellant shall be entitled to request 3 and receive a continuance of the hearing, until such time as at least 5 Councilmembers are participating.” The motion was approved by the following vote:

4.M
Packet Pg. 347 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 27, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 8 May 27, 2025
AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Hall, Snell, Zernitskaya,
Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: Councilmember Raskin
ABSENT: None
Councilmember Raskin explained that his no vote was due to his concerns with the discontinuation of time donation for public comment and public participation in meetings.

CLOSED SESSIONS On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 6:47 p.m., to consider Closed Sessions and returned at 7:19 p.m., with all members present, to report the following:

5.A. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): Jane Doe 1, et al. v. City, et al; LASC # 24STCV06207 [report out only]
The City Attorney reported this matter settled in the amount of $1.42 million at the April 22, 2025 Council meeting by a vote of 7-0.

5.B. Conference with labor negotiator - Gov. Code § 54957.6: agency designated representatives: Interim City Manager Elaine Polachek, Human Resources Director Dana Brown, and Human Resources Manager Sarah Rebensdorf; bargaining units: Administrative Team Associates (ATA), AFSCME Local 4819- Management Team
Association (MTA), California Teamsters Local 911 (IBT), Municipal Employees Association (MEA), Public Attorney’s Legal Support Staff Union (PALSSU), Public Attorney’s Union (PAU), Santa Monica Fire Executive Management Association (FEMA), Santa Monica Firefighters Local 1109 (LOCAL 1109), Police Officers Association (POA), Supervisory Team Association (STA) and SMART TD - International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers - Transportation Division, Local 1785 (SMART TD)
The City Attorney advised this matter was not heard.

5.C. Public employee performance evaluation - Gov. Code § 54957(b):

City Attorney
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard not heard at this time.

5.D. Public employee appointment - Gov. Code § 54957(b): consider public employee appointment; title: City Manager; Gov. Code § 54957.6: conference with labor negotiator; City negotiator:

Mayor/Personnel Director; unrepresented employee: City Manager The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action

4.M
Packet Pg. 348 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 27, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 9 May 27, 2025
taken.

AGENDA

MANAGEMENT
Motion by Mayor Negrete, seconded by Mayor Pro Torosis, to hear Item

11.A. before Public Input on Remaining Agenda Items. The motion was approved by unanimous voice vote with all members present.

CITY MANAGER
REPORT
The City Manager Report was presented.

REPORT ON COUNCIL
TRAVEL
There was nothing to report on Council travel.

PUBLIC INPUT ON

REMAINING AGENDA
ITEMS:

Members of the public Jerry Rubin, Cris Gutierrez, Zoe Muntaner, Zina Josephs, and Gleam Davis commented on item 7.A.

STUDY SESSION:

FY 2025-27 BIENNIAL &
FY 2025-26 CIP BUDGETS

7.A. Proposed FY 2025-27 Biennial Budget and FY 2025-26 CIP Budget, was heard.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Receive the FY 2025-26 through FY 2029-30 Five-Year Financial Forecast Update;

2. Review and provide direction to staff on the FY 2025-27 Proposed Biennial Budget, including the FY 2025-26 Proposed ExceptionBased Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget (Attachment A);

3. Review and provide direction to staff on proposed changes to the City’s Fees and Fines (Attachment E);

4. Provide direction to staff on revising the Council Travel Funds policy;

5. Direct staff to proceed with setting the FY 2025-27 Budget Adoption public hearing on June 24, 2025.

Questions asked and answered of staff included questions regarding a 16 Item relating to a banner program and if there is any value in continuing the program; the vacancy fee program; to what degree is the Advanced Provider Unit (APU) equipped to service people with mental and behavioral heath concerns; is there a plan for how the APU will fit in with the other emergency and non-emergency responses to homelessness concerns; attrition in police department staffing; what is the City’s hybrid work policy concerning the amount of required days to work onsite; what is the vacancy savings rate; is there costs savings from the vacancy rate; which funds have been borrowed from the Housing Trust Fund and how much has each fund borrowed; position reclassifications in ISD and how they support technology; what would be the impacts of the elimination of the sports field fertilization; where is the additional increase in demand for custodial services at the airport

4.M
Packet Pg. 349 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 27, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 10 May 27, 2025
coming from; is additional revenue anticipated with the addition of the Senior Real Estate Property Manager position for the airport and if so, when will that funding be realized; is there anticipation that the additional costs associated with RRR for landfill services, hazardous waste management, and rent will be offset by new fees or increasing fees; are the new positions of Water Quality Supervisor and Water Chemist new positions or restorations; how would they fit in with the existing department infrastructure; does the city get funding or subsidies for the Pier and Beach Recreation Funds; the definition of beach encroachment; how many applications for beach encroachment fees expected annually; how successful could the city be in collecting investigation/inspection fees in Code Enforcement; how does the increase in traffic enforcement and dangerous driving citations compare to prior years; is the police department looking into leveraging technology to augment and support traffic safety; were any of the traffic stops “pretextual stops;” how does the budget support enhanced officer foot and bike patrols as part of the overall plan to eventually build out the downtown services unit; are the anticipated expenditures for apparatus replacements for the fire department for equipment that has already been order but not yet delivered and what kind of impact will the consolidation of providers of these types of apparatus be for having those needs met; is the construction of mobility enhancements on Stewart and north of Kansas connected to the bike lanes project or is it a separate project that just happened to align; what will the Safe Routes to School and Safe Routes for Seniors programs entail; explanation of the process for the creation or training of a drone operator; what is the required staffing to add additional capacity to the drone as a first responder program; what is the city’s current capacity to put drones in the air and how would adding an additional drone impact the additional sworn officers per shift; what is the status of the after action report from the Palisades fires; what is the status of Council direction for the Big Blue Bus to participate in the AB 1904 program for yield signs on Big Blue Bus; what is the status of Council’s direction for CDD staff to work with the Landmarks Commission to implement the additional recommendations from their report “A Place for Everyone in Santa Monica’s History;” what is the value in increasing the community garden fees; when was the last time these fees were increased; if Council doesn’t increase these fees, how would Public Works otherwise cut their budget; are there any low income programs that people can apply for to offset the increase in community gardens fees; are Measure GSH funds tax revenues being paid directly to the housing business fund; what are the risks in dipping further into reserve funds; if another massive financial crisis fell to the city, would the city consider needing to go out to bond; with respect to the Measure K enhancements, how is labor in the affected departments being impacted and what is the financial impact with respect to labor; has there been any discussion as to how revenue can be increased so that the beach fund can meet its demands; is there a timeline for implementing the rent registry; is housing staff working with rent control to establish the rent registry; is it anticipated that the city will be able to serve

4.M
Packet Pg. 350 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 27, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 11 May 27, 2025
all households in need of right to counsel and/or flexible cash assistance for tenants facing eviction within the current year; are there any funds in the housing trust fund specifically allocated for preserving rent controlled and deed restricted buildings and if so, what is the specific allocation; are efforts being coordinated with rent control to determine a formula to assess which of these buildings require maintenance and preserving; has the city investigated revenue generating resources to assist in sourcing the community gardens in lieu of raising fees; have departments looked into augmenting their work with AI tools; are there more cost effective options that can be utilized until the APU is implemented; what areas of the community will be impacted by the cut in the overtime budget of the police department; why has the OT budget line been consistently overdrawn; and is there any projection for how the city can benefit financially from events being held in the area such as FIFA and the 2028 Olympics.

Considerable discussion ensued on topics including, but not limited to concerns about depleting reserves by $60 million over five years; potential fiscal risks and economic uncertainty; the need to protect the city's financial health; adjustments to reduce sworn officer positions; replacing some sworn officers with public safety officers; reallocating funds to preserve overtime and fund specific programs; debate about the effectiveness of public safety officers vs. sworn officers; concerns about maintaining community safety; traffic enforcement and drone program expansion proposal to freeze vacant positions; criteria for hiring new staff during the hiring freeze period; potential impacts on departmental operations due to the hiring freeze; proposal to increase parking permit fees; exploring alternative revenue sources and the potential for automated bike lane enforcement.

Motion by Councilmember Zwick, seconded by Councilmember Hall, to give direction to staff including:

Enact the following adjustments to the overall budget:
● Freeze all currently vacant positions in the city
○ Exempt all vacant sworn-officer positions in PD and FD ○ Exempt new FTEs proposed as part of the city’s budget reduction and new revenue generating initiatives, new FTEs funded through Measure K, and net-zero staffing adjustments in the proposed biennial budget
○ Adopt a zero-based budgeting approach, in which vacancies deemed vital to health and safety or core to basic functioning may be approved by the City Manager and submitted for City Council approval in the final 2025-2026 budget and on an ongoing basis
○ Giving the City Manager the discretion to determine which positions are deemed necessary based on the operation needs of the department

4.M
Packet Pg. 351 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 27, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 12 May 27, 2025
● Amend the PD budget to create a line item that includes funding for the 9 currently vacant sworn positions and all sworn officer overtime ○ Additional sworn positions beyond the currently approved 232 may be filled using funds from this line item.
○ Council approval shall be required to add or transfer funds to this line item or purpose.
● Raise the annual price of Residential and Visitor Parking Permits – from $23 to $40 for 1st Residential, $28 to $50 for 2nd Residential, $46 to $92 for a 3rd Residential, and $72 to $144 for 4th+ Residential, and $35 to $70 for Visitor (Max 2). Grant exemptions to applicants who complete a Hardship Waiver.
○ Utilize 25% of new revenues generated from this increase to reimburse the Housing Trust Fund for the next 4 years.
○ Allocate $25k annually to the Early Childhood Taskforce.

Enact the following adjustments to Measure K:
● Remove proposed 5 additional sworn SMPD FTE positions. ● Allocate $500k annually for 4 additional Public Services Officer FTEs to augment safety and address quality-of-life issues in the city’s downtown business district and parks.
● Allocate $650k annually to Advanced Provider Unit program to improve services for persons experiencing homelessness and other vulnerable populations.
● Fund equipment and subscription costs for proactive security monitoring solutions for Library, Miles Playhouse and Camera Obscura, as well as additional equipment funds necessary to expand Drone as a First Responder Program (DFR).
○ Direct Chief of Police to designate 2 of 9 vacant FTE sworn positions in SMPD to operationalize expansion of DFR program.
● Fund the city-operated Ambulance Operator (AO) Program, proactive streetlight repair program, no right on red signage, Safe Neighborhood Streets Program, and Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) revenue replacement as recommended in the budget.
● Replace proposed Z Gate capital improvement project with funding for Automated Bike Lane Enforcement Program to increase public safety and raise additional revenues.
● Add parking meters on Neilson Way to increase public safety and raise additional revenues.
● Fund revenue-positive expansion of the License Plate Recognition (LPR) system with General Fund (GF) Non-Restricted Reserve Balance in lieu of Measure K.
● Allocate $1.5 million ($200k above proposed $1.3 million) to preserve overtime for Special Deployments in the Police Department.

4.M
Packet Pg. 352 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 27, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 13 May 27, 2025
● Allocate $708k to fill 1 vacant custodian position and keep funding for custodial services impacting restroom maintenance at the Beach, Pier and City Parks and $369k to continue to fund 3 Vacant Positions - Assistant Planner, Code Enforcement Officer, and Combination Building Inspector - as recommended in the budget.

The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Hall, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya, Mayor Pro Tem
NOES: Mayor Negrete
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilmember Raskin, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, to provide direction to staff on revising the Council Travel Funds policy, selecting Alternative 2, to redistribute funds with greater allowance for Mayor and set aside funds for required travel for Councilmember representatives Council Travel Funds. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Hall, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: Mayor Negrete
ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilmember Raskin, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to provide direction to staff to proceed with setting the FY 2025-27 Budget Adoption public hearing on June 24, 2025. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Zwick Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
STAFF

ADMINISTRATIVE
ITEMS:

11.A. Appointment of City Manager and Authorization to Execute Agreement, was heard.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that Council:

1. Adopt a finding that the actions are not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15601(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines;

2. Appoint Oliver C. Chi as City Manager commencing July 14, 2025;

4.M
Packet Pg. 353 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 27, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 14 May 27, 2025

3. Approve the employment agreement with Oliver C. Chi for his services as City Manager, beginning effective July 14, 2025; and

4. Authorize the Mayor to sign the employment agreement on behalf of the City.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, seconded by Councilmember Snell, to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zwick, Hall, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, Mayor Negrete
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:

STAFF VACANCIES
REPORT

12.A. Public Hearing on the Status of Staff Vacancies in the City of Santa Monica as Required by Government Code Section 3502.3, was heard.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding that this report is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act; and

2. Hold a public hearing and receive the informational report on City of Santa Monica staff vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts pursuant to Government Code Section 3502.3.

No members of the public spoke to the recommended action.

Questions asked and answered of staff included: is there an ask for Council from the police union; what is the percentage of sworn officers on desk duty versus in the field; is it correct that there has been an increase in the hiring for the police department as stated by the Police Chief and what is the net hiring versus retirement numbers for police officers.

Motion by Councilmember Zernitskaya, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, to receive and file the report. The motion was approved by unanimous voice vote with all Councilmembers present.

COUNCILMEMBER
DISCUSSION ITEMS:

In accordance with Council Rule 6(y), all Councilmember Discussion items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.

4.M
Packet Pg. 354 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 27, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 15 May 27, 2025

TRANSIT SECURITY

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

16.A. Recommendation to rescind the May 13, 2025, appointment of Frederick Foy Jr. to the Transit Security Advisory Committee, and consider new appointment to the vacancy on the Committee with a term ending June 30, 2029, was approved.

Motion by Councilmember Hall, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Torosis, to rescind the appointment and appoint Frederick Foy, Jr. to the non-designated member seat.

The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote, with all members present.

CLOSED SESSIONS On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 11:40 p.m., to consider Closed Sessions and adjourned at 12:32 a.m., with no reportable action.

5.C. Public employee performance evaluation - Gov. Code § 54957(b):

City Attorney
ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 12:32 a.m. in memory of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Nikima S. Newsome Lana Negrete
City Clerk Mayor

4.M
Packet Pg. 355 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of May 27, 2025 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 8, 2025
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 28
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Architecture Services Subject: Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

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

2. Hold a study session to review and comment on the potential feasibility of the three planning scenarios and review community feedback from the engagement activities; and

3. Provide direction to staff on how to proceed with respect to Phase 3b, the development of a Preferred Scenario, and the community engagement activities.

Executive Summary
The Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project is a comprehensive, multi-phase initiative to reimagine the future use of 192 acres of public land following the scheduled closure of the Santa Monica Airport at midnight on December 31, 2028, centered on a Great Park. This project seeks to create a long-term vision for the site that reflects the community's aspirations while addressing legal, economic, environmental, and social considerations balanced with potential funding realities, feasibility, and potential impacts of the project, which will be evaluated in a subsequent program-level EIR after the Preferred Scenario is identified by City Council for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review, anticipated at the end of 2025.

7.A
Packet Pg. 356
2 of 28
Phase 3a, "Defining the Future of Place," focused on developing three conceptual scenarios based on input from previous phases, the Guiding Principles, adopted city policy, City Council direction, and extensive community engagement. Each scenario explores different approaches to balancing open space, active and passive recreation, housing, potential economic feasibility, and cultural priorities. They are meant to spark conversation and invite the community to comment on the parts and pieces that they like out of each scenario and not vote for one scenario overall. Attachment A outlines the process, summarizes public feedback, discusses the potential financial trade-offs, and dives more deeply into the benefits and constraints of each of the three scenarios so that this Staff Report can focus on the key questions for City Council consideration as the project moves into Phase 3b and the creation of a Preferred Scenario for CEQA environmental review (i.e. the “Proposed Project”). Attachment H discusses in-depth various funding mechanisms that could be considered for this project and what tradeoffs could be evaluated. City Council would still have the ability to propose and consider alternatives for the inclusion in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analysis.

Project Context and Goals
The City’s decision to close the airport stems from the 2017 City Council Resolution 11026 (Attachment C) and a Settlement Agreement entered as a Consent Decree with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The site’s transformation offers a once-in-alifetime opportunity to repurpose nearly 5% of the City’s land area. The project goal is to create a framework plan that integrates community input, centers long-term sustainability, explores financial feasibility and trade-offs while also addressing Santa Monica’s broader values of environmental quality, economic vitality, and social equity.

Phase 3a Highlights
• City Council Direction (January 2025): Council approved the Guiding Principles and directed staff to create three scenarios, ensuring one scenario required no vote pursuant to Measure LC and at least one with some housing. • Community Engagement: Staff engaged the public through workshops, surveys, online tools (CoMap), and targeted outreach—including meetings with Indigenous communities, youth, and underrepresented demographics.

7.A
Packet Pg. 357
3 of 28
• Layers Survey Approach: Participants ranked preferences across six (6) site design layers: Connectivity and Mobility, Water and Topography, Ecology and Passive Uses, Active Park Uses, Housing, and Revenue Generation. These preferences informed the three conceptual scenarios.
• Three Scenarios Developed: All three of the scenarios convert at least the runway and taxiway areas into parkland, dedicate more than two-thirds of the available site to active and passive recreation, and aspire to achieve financial self-sufficiency at a high level. Each has different components that may want to be considered for a new, hybrid, Preferred Scenario of Phase 3b. More detail for each scenario is provided in the Discussion section and Attachment A of this report.
o Scenario 1 – Reuse, Restoration and Resilience: Emphasizes ecological restoration and adaptive reuse with no new development beyond Measure LC allowances.
o Scenario 2 – Weaving Park and Community: Blends active/passive park uses with housing and revenue-generating uses in a park-centered framework. o Scenario 3 – Growing Park, Growing Community: Envisions a complete neighborhood model with expanded housing and commercial development to support a regional park.
• Community Feedback on the Scenarios: The three scenarios were revealed at a community event on May 17th and CoMap was used to gather feedback from folks who could not attend in person through June 22nd. CoMap resulted in thousands of community-generated comments that revealed strong preferences for preserving open space, minimizing development, and thoughtfully balancing desired park amenities with financially sustainable solutions that may or may not include housing.

Key Issues for Council Consideration
The key question before City Council is whether the Preferred Scenario should include any uses that could or would require future voter approval, pursuant to Measure LC, or not, and if so, should housing be considered at all, recognizing that the City has not yet identified sufficient funding for capital infrastructure, development of income supporting

7.A
Packet Pg. 358
4 of 28
uses, and ongoing maintenance and operations to achieve fiscal sustainability. While a park only approach aligns with much of the community feedback and provides a clear path to implementation, the funding sources for capital, operations, maintenance, and programming are significantly more limited. Broader uses, such as new cultural and/or event facilities, Public Private Partnerships, or housing, may offer greater long-term financial viability while also delivering lasting community benefits. Additionally, any land that would require sale or lease of longer than 15 years would trigger the Surplus Land Act (SLA), which mandates that surplus public land be prioritized for affordable housing unless specific exemptions apply. City Council direction is needed on whether to explore a more expansive Preferred Scenario that accounts for the trade-offs noted above or to proceed with a scenario that focuses development within the requirements of Measure LC with a reduced scope to align with available funding. Regulatory frameworks will also need to be updated based on any preferred scenario in the future.

Alternatively, such scenarios can be included in the Draft EIR’s analysis of CEQA alternatives.

Next Steps: Phase 3b and Beyond
Phase 3b is intended to produce a new, hybrid Preferred Scenario that incorporates the most supported elements from each concept. This could include:
• Refined conceptual design
• Illustrative materials and 3D renderings
• Rough order-of-magnitude capital and operation & maintenance cost estimates • Potential feasibility and fiscal impact analysis
• Revenue generation strategies
• Phasing and implementation planning
This Preferred Scenario is intended to serve as the foundational framework for potential financial feasibility analysis, future CEQA review (i.e. the Proposed Project analyzed in the EIR), specific planning, and City Council actions.

The City is at an important point in the process of understanding how this project should serve Santa Monica and the wider region for several hundred years. There is a

7.A
Packet Pg. 359
5 of 28
significant amount of land that can be used in a variety of ways leading to questions such as, what should be studied as part of the preferred scenario to create a long-term vision for the future of Santa Monica and the airport conversion project? Which ideas, uses, strategies should be included when a Preferred Scenario is created? At a time when the city is in a fragile financial position, with limited sources of identified capital funding and operational revenue, combined with extreme economic uncertainty, what level of financial impact is expected and how should self-sufficiency be explored? The big question before all of us is “What do we envision for this land and for Santa Monica for generations to come?”
Accomplished and Anticipated Project Timeline
The anticipated timeline for the Airport Conversion Project is noted below:

Item Date
City Council Contract Authorization December 19, 2023
Sasaki and Staff Project Kick-off March 2024
Phase 1: Charting the Course (3 months)
First Community Event May 19, 2024
Phase completed June 30, 2024
Phase 2: Discovering Place and Setting the Stage (5 months) Second Phase begins September 19, 2024
Second Community Event – Draft Guiding Principles December 7, 2024 The team presented to City Council for comment. January 28, 2025 Phase 3a: Defining the Future of Place (4 months)
Third Community Event – Three Scenarios (3a) May 17, 2025 The team presents to City Council for comment. July 8, 2025 Phase 3b: Defining the Future of Place (4 months)
Fourth Community Engagements – Preferred Scenario
(3b)
Fall 2025
The team presents to City Council for comment. Fall 2025 Phase 4: The Path Ahead (3 months)
The team presents final scenario to City Council as
the basis of the “Proposed Project” CEQA analysis
based on scope, funding, and feasibility.

Winter 2025/2026
Phase 5: Preferred Scenario Plan Vision Book (2 months) Kick-off for CEQA analysis (not part of current contract) 2026

7.A
Packet Pg. 360
6 of 28
Background
The City of Santa Monica (the “City”) has already approved the closure of the Santa Monica Airport at midnight on December 31, 2028, as authorized by a Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and by City Council Resolution No. 11026 (Attachment C). This closure allows the City to consider post-closure land-use scenarios to repurpose the 192-acre site into a project that can benefit Santa Monicans for generations to come. For more specifics on the closure process please see the Information Items posted on April 29, 2024 and June 23, 2025.

With the closure of the Santa Monica Airport by the end of 2028, the community has a rare opportunity to reimagine nearly 200 acres of public land for future generations. The City aims to create a vision that reflects its commitment to a vibrant, inclusive, sustainable, fiscally responsible, and equitable community. For a detailed explanation of the project goals and history please see Attachment D.

The City contracted with Sasaki to envision the future of the Santa Monica Airport utilizing a five-phase process to determine a “Framework Plan” to evaluate the potential feasibility of a Preferred Scenario for the Airport upon closure. For details about the Sasaki scope of work please see Attachment F. The process is currently at the end of Phase 3a, where staff and Sasaki, based on the project goals, community feedback gathered in Phases 1 and 2, the Guiding Principles, adopted city plans, and City Council

7.A
Packet Pg. 361
7 of 28
direction, have created three scenarios for community and City Council feedback. For details on the community engagement from Phases 1 and 2 please see Attachment G.

Details on the community engagement from Phase 3a can be found in Attachment A.

The Project is guided by a set of principles that articulate the community's aspirations and expectations for transforming the airport into a vibrant public space. These five (5) guiding principles: Start with Nature, Inspire Wonder, Balance Economics, Amplify Versatility, and Celebrate Place were developed through extensive community engagement, including surveys, workshops, and public events, as well as alignment with adopted City policies and City Council direction. Each principle comprises a thesis, description, and key goals, serving as a framework to evaluate design proposals, park features, amenities, programs, technical requirements, financial strategies, and implementation approaches. Together, they ensure that the project reflects Santa Monica's values, promoting sustainability, inclusivity, and a strong sense of place. For more on the Guiding Principles please see Attachment G.

To date, staff have presented the project at 87 different public meetings (17 of which occurred in Phase 3a alone) and held three in-person community events that an estimated 800 community members attended. There have been more than 12,100 survey responses, over 6,500 views of the Virtual Education Sessions, and 50,000+ visitors to the project website. All materials for in-person events were presented in both Spanish and English and live interpretation was available at all three community events

7.A
Packet Pg. 362
8 of 28
for attendees that felt more comfortable communicating in Spanish. At each phase, the team assesses how effectively the engagement efforts reach a demographically representative sample of our community, identifies what has worked, and makes improvements as the phases progress.

Even with robust community engagement, staff acknowledge that the feedback is not demographically representative as it has skewed older and whiter than the average Santa Monica population. However, Phase 3a did increase the participation from the City’s most diverse zip code (90404), youth, and indigenous community showing a more representative mix of the city’s demographics. The team has also created a Layers Survey Dashboard for folks who want to understand how different demographics responded. For more information on this topic and key deliverables please visit the “Resources” tab of the project website
www.smacproject.com. It includes comprehensive
site investigation reports and educational materials,
visual content and case studies for the project,
community workshop and engagement reports, the
guiding principles, and the three scenarios created
and considered during Phase 3a.

Discussion
The transformation of the Santa Monica Airport into
a vibrant, community-centered, accessible project
represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to
reshape nearly 200 acres of public land into a
legacy for future generations over the next hundred
years. Rooted in the values of sustainability, equity,
and inclusivity, this visionary process aspires to
create a fiscally responsible project focused on a
great park that reflects the diverse voices and
dreams of the Santa Monica community. This

7.A
Packet Pg. 363
9 of 28
project endeavors to honor the City’s rich history, embrace its dynamic present, and inspire a resilient, culturally rich, and connected future for all who live, work, learn, and play in Santa Monica.

The work of Phase 3a is built upon a continued foundation of community engagement, the Guiding Principles, City Council direction from Phases 1 and 2, and potential financial feasibility to discern and create three scenarios that reflect a wide range of master plan ideas and their feasibility. At the January 28, 2025, meeting the City Council discussed a variety of concerns for the project team to consider as the scenarios were developed. These included, but are not limited to:
• Show a range of economically and potentially feasible alternatives (including legal feasibility), including a “no project” alternative as required in any future Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
• Deepening outreach to more segments of the Santa Monica population that is more consistent with the demographics of the city
• Engaging with Native people and Native tribes in meaningful ways • Consider at least one option that includes housing
• Ensure at least one option does not require a vote pursuant to Measure LC • Show ideas for phased implementation
• Only show scenarios that are financially self-sufficient • Explore a wide variety of funding options including a letter of interest campaign to identify potential partners in capital, maintenance, and operations • Work with the State’s Housing and Community Development (HCD) to understand the implications of the Surplus Lands Act (SLA) • Consider consequential life cycle and greenhouse gas reductions when considering environmentalism for the project
• Use ranked choice for community feedback on the three scenarios • Explore the value of mixing recreational space with commercial and housing for safety, security, surveillance as well as financial aspects • Consider operational strategies for the built-out project

7.A
Packet Pg. 364
10 of 28
Building on the community feedback gathered in Phases 1 and 2 and City Council direction from January 2025, the project team launched Phase 3a with the goal of developing three conceptual scenarios that integrated a broad range of priorities and feasibility considerations. This phase was also an opportunity to show the community how their earlier input directly shaped the evolution of the project’s design.

To make the master planning process more accessible
and inclusive, the team introduced six key site design
layers: Connectivity and Mobility, Water and Topography, Ecology and Passive Uses, Active Park Uses, Housing,
and Revenue Generation. These layers helped to break
down complex trade-offs into more understandable pieces and created a framework for public input. Each layer was presented with four conceptual approaches, ranging from least to most intensive, to help participants evaluate potential uses, weigh trade-offs, and indicate preference through a ranked choice format. This approach generated nuanced, targeted feedback and highlighted where consensus or divergence existed.

7.A
Packet Pg. 365
11 of 28
Importantly, the use of design layers also allowed the team to introduce the topic of housing, which had not been explored in detail in earlier phases. While housing ranked as the second least-liked use in Survey 2a, its inclusion in Phase 3a allowed the community responding to the survey to begin considering if any general locations, size, or conditions might be appropriate.

The survey effort, which reached nearly 5,000 participants, showed improved demographic representation, particularly among youth and residents from underrepresented Santa Monica zip codes. This Staff Report includes a high-level summary of the engagement, please see Attachment A for the detailed report of the community engagement of Phase 3a. Results reflected strong support for open space,

7.A
Packet Pg. 366
12 of 28
ecological restoration, and pedestrian-first design, with Option B emerging as the preferred approach in four of the six layers. Housing was the most contentious issue, with Option A, no housing, scoring the highest and many respondents firmly opposed to any new development requiring a ballot measure pursuant to Measure LC, this perspective is reflected in Scenario 1. The portions of the survey that asked high level questions about types of housing showed a split result with many of them resulting in 46%, 47%, 51% or 53% against any housing. Staff continued to explore what “some housing” might mean in Scenarios 2 and 3.

These community insights became the foundation for three integrated land use scenarios. These three scenarios are not meant for the community or City Council to choose between but rather to provide feedback on the parts and pieces to be considered in the Preferred Scenario analyzed in the Draft EIR. This will not foreclose analysis of alternative scenarios in the Draft EIR. These are meant to generate conversation and show a wide range of possibilities and combinations:

Scenario 1: Reuse, Restoration and Resilience

7.A
Packet Pg. 367
13 of 28
Scenario 1 proposes a nature-forward transformation of the Santa Monica Airport site, prioritizing ecological restoration, adaptive reuse, and phased implementation without introducing any new housing or commercial development and does not require a vote pursuant to Measure LC. It envisions a park network rooted in biodiversity, community wellness, and climate resilience, with features such as a central reservoir, PPP for sports fields, and community gardens.

This scenario reflects strong community support for preserving the site as open space, but presents significant financial challenges. Without high-revenue land uses, funding would rely on limited on-site income from non-aeronautical sources, which is approximately $6-7M currently, external grants, and potential voter-approved measures like general obligation bonds or parcel taxes. These funding strategies carry uncertainty and require strong public and political support.

While this approach offers a clear ecological and civic identity, it may limit opportunities to address broader city needs such as housing or long-term revenue stability and could require General Fund subsidies to cover operational costs. Governance strategies like an enterprise fund or State partnerships are proposed to support long-term stewardship.

Scenario 1 offers a vision centered on nature, sustainability, and does not require a vote pursuant to Measure LC, but will require deliberate planning, phased investment, and creative financing to succeed without overburdening the City’s financial resources.

Scenario 2: Weaving Park and Community

7.A
Packet Pg. 368
14 of 28
Scenario 2 proposes a layered, integrated design that weaves together parks, culture, ecology, and neighborhood connections. Anchored by The Bend, a multi-use path and sculptural waterway, the design links diverse amenities including meadows, courts, playgrounds, and performance spaces. Exploring what “some housing” might mean along with commercial development are introduced only at the site’s edges, reinforcing a park-first vision while creating opportunities for equity, affordable housing, and local economic activation.

This scenario introduces a new governance model through a “Parks District” and uses an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) to fund construction and maintenance. Revenue would come from lease agreements, large events, sponsorships, and special-use amenities and not from housing or intensive commercial development. While voter approval would be required to expand park-serving commercial uses, the park’s character is preserved.

Scenario 2 offers a fiscally pragmatic and culturally rich vision that balances ecological restoration with community vitality. It carries moderate political and financial risks tied to implementation tools (EIFD, ballot measures), but offers a flexible and forward-looking strategy to build a distinctive, connected, and inclusive new public landscape.

7.A
Packet Pg. 369
15 of 28
Scenario 3: Growing Park, Growing Community
Scenario 3 envisions a bold new urban district, a “complete neighborhood” wrapped around a signature civic park. Anchored by a large recreational lake that doubles as emergency infrastructure, the design integrates extensive public amenities, adventure play, cultural venues, and housing. This scenario proposes the most development and densest land use of all three options, with housing and commercial elements serving as the primary financial engine for both park construction and long-term operations.

The plan relies on leasing or selling development parcels and capturing future tax revenues, which would flow into the City’s General Fund. A portion of this revenue would support the park, while the rest would benefit broader community services.

Affordable housing would be incorporated to address the Surplus Land Act, but the plan depends on successful voter approval of a ballot measure outlining development parameters pursuant to Measure LC.

While this scenario offers the greatest financial return and civic program potential, it also carries the highest legal, political, and infrastructure-related complexity. It maximizes urban integration and regional park status but may challenge community expectations around open space preservation and the original Measure LC vision. Success would

7.A
Packet Pg. 370
16 of 28
require strong market conditions, broad public support, and long-term governance capacity to realize its full potential.

Together, the three scenarios illustrate the range of possibilities for transforming the Santa Monica Airport site into a vibrant, inclusive, and sustainable civic asset. Each scenario reflects a different balance of ecology, recreation, housing, cultural programming, and financial strategies highlighting the trade-offs of different choices.

These scenarios are not final plans, they are conceptual frameworks designed to test ideas, reflect community feedback, and guide further analysis. As the project moves forward, direction from City Council on the preferred elements and which funding options should be studied will be critical in shaping the Preferred Scenario that aligns with both community values and long-term city goals and acknowledges that the Draft EIR will study other alternatives.

These scenarios were shared with the public at the Phase 3a community event on May 17, 2025, and further evaluated using CoMap, an interactive tool that allowed participants to map their support or concerns spatially. Feedback from this process is being used to inform the development of a single Preferred Scenario in Phase 3b. It is recommended that Attachment A: Phase 3a Detail be reviewed in full. It contains the survey results, a detailed analysis of each design layer, and scenario narratives and potential funding strategies that are essential for understanding the trade-offs and community priorities that emerged in this phase.

Summary of Community Feedback
Across the Layers Survey, CoMap, and discussions at Boards and Commissions many community members consistently voiced a strong desire to prioritize open space, ecological restoration, and inclusive, accessible park uses. The Layers Survey provided quantitative insight into preferred design intensities, with most participants favoring lower-impact, nature-forward options across layers such as water, mobility, and active uses. CoMap captured thousands of place-specific comments, reflecting a deep concern about development, strong support for adaptive reuse, and thoughtful interest in how the park might fund itself without compromising its purpose. At Boards and

7.A
Packet Pg. 371
17 of 28
Commissions, members emphasized Measure LC importance, environmental sustainability, and the opportunity to create a truly regenerative, community-serving space. A few also raised questions about the exclusion of housing from the scenarios and expressing interest in thoughtfully exploring whether some amount of housing could contribute to community needs, economic disparities, or project feasibility. Together, these engagement efforts reveal broad alignment around a vision for a park that is welcoming, restorative, and financially sustainable, anchored in community values and long-term stewardship. See Attachment A for more detail on community feedback.

Issues for Consideration by City Council
These scenarios were presented to the community for feedback and now to City Council for consideration and direction on what should be included in a new, hybrid, preferred scenario; however, only a high-level analysis of financing options has been completed to identify potential financing structure. Once Council provides direction on a Preferred Scenario, staff will work with Sasaki and their sub-consultant, HR&A to analyze potential feasibility and fiscal impact analysis on the Preferred Scenario. It is anticipated that staff will come back in Fall of 2025 with more analysis on the Preferred Scenario. There are still several strategic issues staff are working through that will shape the Phase 3b Preferred Scenario related to Measure LC, the Surplus Lands Act (SLA), financial realities, and more, but there is one primary decision that is needed presently. Updates on some of these remaining issues follow with ideas for City Council to consider as they provide feedback to the project team on what should be explored when creating the Preferred Scenario in Phase 3b.

Measure LC Timing and Impact
Measure LC was passed in 2014 by 60% of voters in Santa Monica and is a Charter amendment to the Municipal Code (Section 640) stating “If all or part of the Airport land is permanently closed to aviation use, no new development of that land shall be allowed until the voters have approved limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land. However, this section shall not prohibit the City Council from approving the following on Airport land that has been permanently closed to aviation use: the

7.A
Packet Pg. 372
18 of 28
development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses”.

The City Attorney’s Office wrote a memo about Measure LC, explaining how to understand its intent and implications for the January 28th City Council meeting staff report (Attachment G). As part of the engagement process of this project, staff have heard varying opinions on what voters intended back in 2014. Staff has heard that some voted for the closure of the Airport (especially when Measure D was a competing ballot measure at the same time), that some voted for closure and a park only, and that some voted for closure and a process to determine what the land should become.

Measure LC remains central to how this process is unfolding and has brought up a lot of questions. It is clear that the only new development currently allowed is for parks, open space, and/or public recreation facilities as well as the maintenance and replacement of arts, cultural, and education uses. The community engagement in Phases 1 and 2 shows a strong preference for active and passive recreation, to be sure, as well as restaurants/cafes, markets, amphitheaters, senior and/or youth centers, etc. However, inclusion of these types of uses would likely require a public vote pursuant to Measure LC unless reusing one of the structures on-site. Consequently, Measure LC is acting as a limit on the location and size of any of these types of uses, thus potentially limiting the revenue generating opportunities necessary to support the park without a public vote.

The debate over housing, however, remains the largest LC question for this project. It ranked 39th out of the top 50, was the second least liked use in Survey 2a, and any inclusion would require a vote pursuant to Measure LC. Phase 3a explored where and how many locations of housing might be acceptable, as well as what this use could mean for citywide goals and the project. There are a number of examples showing that certain types of housing could provide funding for a park through ground leases or land sales, typically at market rate, and that demonstrate successful parks are vibrant populated places surrounded by communities. However, it is unclear how well those examples relate to the current financial market. It will reduce the amount of land available for open space and raises the question of the implications of doing so.

7.A
Packet Pg. 373
19 of 28
There are two diverting pathways to consider.
1) Direct staff to not include any uses that would require another ballot measure pursuant to Measure LC in the Preferred Scenario.
a) Benefits:
i) Does not require another vote pursuant to Measure LC. ii) Upholds the decision to close the Airport on December 31, 2028. iii) Creates a short-term goal for the project that could be phased as funding is available
b) Concerns:
i) Does not explore a long-term, multi-dimensional vision for the project as part of this process, a subsequent process would be required at a later date if the community ever desired to do anything else.
ii) Only adaptive reuse of existing structures can occur. Many of the structures are very basic and may not be able to support uses and/or activities that the community wants or that are needed to generate revenue. iii) Makes assumptions related to the revenue generated at the Airport which would impact other general fund needs.
iv) Providing a safe environment for a piece of land this size presents some challenges. An increase in security, custodial, programming, and activations will be necessary, and that funding source would need to come from the airport lease revenue until other sources could be identified. v) Potential financial infeasibility in raising sufficient capital for redevelopment of 192 acres of land and no committed revenue sources identified. vi) Diversion of non-aviation revenues to park maintenance rather than general fund operations and covering indirect impacts, including more of the City’s operational resources.
2) Direct staff to include uses that could or would require another ballot measure in the Preferred Scenario. As this is a planning and feasibility study, including these types of uses would allow time to evaluate their feasibility before deciding whether they should be part of the proposed project studied under CEQA or not. This approach

7.A
Packet Pg. 374
20 of 28
preserves flexibility while giving the City the opportunity to determine the best path forward based on further analysis.
a) Benefits:
i) Upholds the decision to close the Airport on December 31, 2028 ii) Sets a clear, long-term vision for the project weighing multiple community priorities and City goals for when the Airport closes.
iii) Has more varied funding opportunities.
iv) Allows for more flexibility for the location of activities or uses as the ‘new development’ requirement of Measure LC could be modified. v) Any future ballot measure would be based on this plan and could be the basis of the General Plan, or Specific Plan updates so the community is informed. b) Concerns:
i) This project would cost more and thus require more capital, operation, maintenance, and programming funding sources.
ii) If a General Obligation (GO) bond is required there would need to be significant community support (two thirds or 2/3) to approve a ballot measure that would increase property taxes to pay debt service. iii) There would need to be enough community support to approve a ballot measure to expand allowable uses under Measure LC. This vote could be before or after closure.
(1) A 2028 ballot measure aligns with the anticipated completion of CEQA analysis and would enable the measure to reaffirm a communitysupported and environmentally reviewed plan. However, this pathway is before actual airport closure.
(2) A ballot measure in 2030 or later would ensure the airport has closed and enable the City to align with broader planning processes, such as the General Plan update and new RHNA requirements. This later timing could also provide the community with greater clarity and assurance. However, it carries the risk that, if the measure fails, the long-term vision for the site could be stalled or need to be reconsidered.

7.A
Packet Pg. 375
21 of 28
The question of whether to include uses that may require a future ballot measure under Measure LC, with the most conflicts around housing, represents the most consequential decision point in shaping the Preferred Scenario. It reflects not only the legal framework established by voters in 2014 but also the diverse perspectives and evolving priorities of today’s community.

Surplus Land Act (SLA)
In addition to the Measure LC questions, there are housing questions around the SLA.

The Updated Surplus Land Act (SLA) Guidelines 2024, published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), provide detailed regulations aimed at facilitating affordable housing development on surplus public land.

As part of the planning process, the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project is closely monitoring how the SLA may impact the project, particularly in understanding what obligations the City may have under the law and what exceptions or exemptions may apply. The guidelines outline procedures for surplus land designation, good faith negotiations, affordable housing requirements, and agency responsibilities, while also clarifying key definitions and conditions under which land may be exempt. This will be critical in shaping how the City approaches land use planning for the nearly 200-acre site post-airport closure.

As currently understood, any disposition of the airport property after closure (sale of land or any lease longer than 15 years) is required to go through the SLA process. If direction is provided to pursue housing, there are several mixed-use exemptions and Section 103 (c)(7)(C) notes the minimum number of residential units required is equal to 10 times the number of acres of the surplus land e.g. 192 acres = 1,920 residential units.

If direction is provided to pursue a park, there are exemptions for “special districts” which could include local/regional park districts or water utility districts for consideration moving forward in the project. Formation of a special district would be subject to the procedures of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Cal. Government Code sections 56000 et seq.), would require approval of the

7.A
Packet Pg. 376
22 of 28
Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and would reduce the City’s general fund share of property tax revenue for properties within the special district. Staff has not done any analysis yet to evaluate the net benefits of forming a special district and formation of the district will entail significant costs due to the analysis required to justify approval of a special district.

The primary concerns with SLA are that most Public Private Partnerships (PPP) interested in investing in capital improvements will want a term longer than 15 years, which would then trigger the SLA review process unless an exemption has been approved. Staff will continue to work with HCD on how this project might be reviewed in the future, potential exemptions, and what implications may be for the Preferred Scenario. Staff has also requested that HCD’s legal counsel weigh in on whether residential zoning is required before the City can dispose of property to any third party for revenue generating purposes as there is currently ambiguity in how the SLA can be interpreted. As of this writing, HCD has stated that they are continuing to review this question and will get back to staff at an undetermined future date.

The Question to City Council is: Should the Preferred Scenario include any uses requiring a future ballot measure under Measure LC or not? If so, should any housing be included?
This is probably the most significant question before City Council around this project currently and it is the most divisive in the community. In this moment of deliberation, the Council has the opportunity to set a direction that acknowledges past commitments and charts a thoughtful course for the future as a foundational framework for the project and the city.

Three potential pathways for identifying the Preferred Scenario:
• Exclude any uses requiring a vote: Faster implementation, potentially lower legal risk, but fewer amenities and revenue opportunities to pay for construction, operations, maintenance, and programming.

7.A
Packet Pg. 377
23 of 28
• Include uses that would require a vote but not housing: This could provide flexibility and clarification of uses that may be acceptable to the community but are not explicitly covered in Section 640 of the Municipal Code. This also has the potential to increase on-site revenue sources and attract more activation to the area.
• Include uses that would require a vote including housing: The primary challenge is balancing the need for open space as the City densifies vs. need for affordability, on-site activation, and funding sources for a large park.

Financial Analysis Overview
City Council direction was clear that all three scenarios should be self-sufficient, which can be achieved using a combination of different funding and financing sources. Parks are expensive to build and to operate and maintain long-term. The City’s financial subconsultant, HR&A Advisors Inc. (HR&A), has conducted a preliminary analysis of capital and operating revenue sources. HR&A will continue to analyze these sources to estimate potential capital and operating revenue, estimate operating expenses, and estimate the economic and fiscal impacts related to each of the three scenarios to support an evaluation of the potential economic trade-offs in addition to the design and planning perspectives (see Attachment H for an overview of funding sources). This analysis includes a high-level evaluation of financing options and potential financing structures for the City to consider. To prepare these strategies, HR&A is evaluating potential capital and operating revenue that could be generated from the following categories of sources:
• Public Funding: General Obligation (GO) bonds
• Value Capture: Enhanced Infrastructure Finance Districts (EIFD), Climate Resilience Districts (CRD), Community Facility Districts (CFD), ground leases for part of the site, and land sale.
• Earned Revenue (operating revenue only): Existing airport lease revenue and income-generating programs such as special events and venue rentals, paid parking, food and beverage concessions, and sporting tournaments.

7.A
Packet Pg. 378
24 of 28
Any future vision for the site will require a combination of these sources. To support the City’s evaluation and decision-making moving into phase 3b, HR&A will analyze the following considerations and trade-offs.
• Net revenue potential – how much revenue can the source generate, and does it meet the funding need?
• Fiscal benefit – what fiscal benefit does the funding unlock to generate economic and fiscal benefit to the city, such as jobs, sales tax revenue, and more? • Feasibility – what are the implementation considerations and requirements that make this source feasible or not?
Understanding that each funding source has tradeoffs, staff will continue to investigate the options to understand funding risk tolerance, preferred operational models, and the potential for public-private partnerships to advise how the Preferred Scenario is modeled and implemented. Once the Preferred Scenario is determined, HR&A will then update the funding strategy analysis to provide more detailed capital and operating revenue funding strategies for that scenario, which will require a commitment from the Council and community to be realized.

Letters of Interest (LOI) Summary
The Letters of Interest solicitation was posted to the city’s online procurement portal (OpenGov) on March 24, 2025. At the May 5, 2025, submission deadline, there were 69 applications submitted for consideration.

Respondents ranged from individual community members to large national firms.

Community groups, representatives from City commissions, non-profit organizations, and for-profit organizations provided LOIs. The ideas included active and passive recreation, arts, aviation, culture, education, housing, wellness and more. These LOIs show robust interest from the private sector in partnering with the City to develop community-serving amenities and illustrate how a variety of uses can produce revenue to pay for capital, operations, maintenance, and programming costs. The summary of LOI responses is included as Attachment B.

7.A
Packet Pg. 379
25 of 28
With the preliminary nature of the LOIs, no analysis has been done to determine whether these private sources could provide all the sufficient capital necessary to finance the scale of infrastructure that will be necessary to facilitate any development.

While none of these would move forward at this time without future Council direction, the LOIs are helpful to understand the potential areas of interest and what revenue generating uses might look like at the Airport site as the Council considers what types of uses should be considered for the Preferred Scenario. Attachment B has more detail on each of the LOIs received.

Next Steps
Guided by City Council direction from Phase 3a and informed by extensive community feedback on the three initial concept scenarios, Sasaki and City staff will develop a Preferred Concept Scenario that integrates the most compelling and City Council directed elements from each of the three initial concept alternatives into a cohesive, hybrid vision. This scenario will reflect both City Council direction and community input, balancing creativity, potential financial feasibility, and the long-term impact to guide the future transformation of the Santa Monica Airport site.

In parallel, the Recreation and Arts Department’s 2025 Community Recreation and Arts Needs Assessment, presented to the Recreation and Parks Commission in June, will inform the development of the Parks and Recreation Vision Plan. The assessment identifies current and projected needs for park acreage, program, and amenities including needed fields, courts, etc. to meet national averages as well as documents opportunities for new and expanded recreation and arts programming. These will help shape the Preferred Scenario, ensuring it is grounded in both citywide service needs, community input, and City Council direction.

If housing is included for study during 3b, additional outreach related to height, type, unit mix, etc. will need to occur. This scenario will be illustrated through a comprehensive set of materials, including site diagrams, cross-sections, 3D model views, precedent imagery, and perspective renderings, to clearly convey design features and technical considerations. These will address key areas such as circulation, mobility, parking, land

7.A
Packet Pg. 380
26 of 28
use, programming, grading, hydrology, ecology, planting strategies, infrastructure, site systems, and sustainability initiatives, including carbon sequestration opportunities. The Preferred Scenario will also explore capital costs, capital financing, and revenue generation opportunities, and outline anticipated phasing as well as operations and maintenance costs, supporting the city’s commitment to long-term economic sustainability. The team will also review how Measure LC is affected and outline potential strategies as necessary.

Included with the development of the preferred scenario, Sasaki and team will also provide a Revised Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Opinion of Probable Capital Cost.

This refined cost assessment will build on the Phase 3a estimates and incorporate updated projections for hardscape, softscape, structures, utility infrastructure contingency allocations, and cost escalation. Together, these efforts will support an actionable, visionary, and fiscally responsible roadmap for the transformation of the Santa Monica Airport and solicit community feedback and City Council direction on the Preferred Scenario before finalizing. It is anticipated that the commented upon Preferred Scenario, assuming deemed to be potentially financially feasible and self-sustaining, will become the basis of the “Proposed Project” in the CEQA / EIR process. However, the Draft EIR will still include consideration of alternatives, including the No Project scenario, which would assume compliance with existing regulations, including Measure LC (i.e. assumes “continuation of the existing plan, policy or operation into the future.”) Environmental Review
This study session of the three scenarios does not meet the definition of a “project” subject to CEQA as it will not “cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment”. Additionally, per Section 15378(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a “project” does not include administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Additionally, per Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, the recommendations are exempt from CEQA, because City Council’s actions only involve planning studies for the airport and identification of potential land use scenarios for analysis under CEQA, and do not involve the approval of any scenarios, nor limit the

7.A
Packet Pg. 381
27 of 28
scope of potential alternatives/mitigation measures. In addition, the recommendations provided herein are categorically exempt under Section 15306 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project involves basic data collection, research, consultation, exploration of financing possibilities, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to environmental resources.

Past Council Actions
Below are the previous dates that the Airport Conversion Project has been before City Council.

Meeting Date Description
02/28/2017
(Attachment C)
Staff Report from the meeting where City Council adopted Resolution No. 11026 to close the Airport, effective midnight on December 31, 2028.
01/24/2023
(Attachment D)
Staff Report from the meeting where City Council directed staff to begin working on the Future of the Santa Monica Airport. 10/10/2023
(Attachment E)
Meeting Minutes showing City Council direction to reject the Lottery Selected Panel.
12/19/2023
(Attachment F)
Staff Report showing City Council awarding the SP2641 RFP to Sasaki to envision three scenarios without reducing the scope of the uses that the scenarios study.
1/28/2025
(Attachment G)
Staff Report from the City Council meeting where City Council directed staff to use the approved Guiding Principles as the basis of the three scenarios during Phase 3a with one option that would not require a vote pursuant to Measure LC and one option that shows some housing.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of recommended actions in this report. Staff will return to Council if any specific fiscal and

7.A
Packet Pg. 382
28 of 28
budget actions are required in the future. The project budget for this project remains $2,070,000 as per the Sasaki agreement in account C1008280.689000.

Prepared By: Amber Richane, Principal Design and Planning Manager Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail
B. AttachmentB-LOIs
C. AttachmentC_February 28, 2017 - Agenda 8C- Implement the Consent Decree and Resolution 11026 (Web Link)
D. AttachmentD_January 24, 2023 - Agenda 7B - Public Process to Determine the Future of the Santa Monica Airport (Web Link)
E. AttachmentE_October 10, 2023 - Agenda 7A - Discussion on the LotterySelected Panel Process for the Airport (Web Link) F. AttachmentF_December 19, 2023 - Agenda 11A - Award Request for Proposal and Enter into Agreement with Sasaki Associates, Inc. (Web Link) G. AttachmentG_January 28, 2025 - Agenda 7A - Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Guiding Principles (Web Link)
H. 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials
I. Written Comments
J. Letter of Interest
K. Powerpoint Presentation

7.A
Packet Pg. 383
ATTACHMENT A – PHASE 3A DETAIL
This document, Attachment A to the July 8, 2025 Staff Report to City Council, provides a comprehensive summary of the community engagement, survey results, and design exploration conducted during Phase 3A of the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project.

Building upon the foundational input gathered in Phases 1 and 2, Phase 3A focused on testing and refining specific land-use concepts, referred to as “Layers”, through a citywide survey and the creation of three scenarios.

Each Layer explores a key component of the future park, including connectivity and mobility, water and topography, ecology and passive uses, active park uses, housing, and revenue generation. The Layers approach allowed the project team to gather focused input on complex and sometimes competing priorities, while surfacing themes of community consensus and divergence. The survey received nearly 5,000 responses, including strong participation from youth and historically underrepresented demographic groups.

This Attachment outlines the community feedback for each Layer, presents a summary of the three integrated design scenarios informed by those results, and describes the tools and events used to gather public input including the May 17, 2025 community event, the CoMap digital engagement platform, and meetings with various Boards, Commissions, and Taskforces.

The detail provided in this document is essential for understanding the breadth of community perspectives, the rationale behind the proposed scenarios, and what issues needed to be considered as decision points and ultimately direction for the Preferred Scenario in Phase 3b this Fall.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Layers Survey Results and Usage
The Layers Survey marked a key step in planning for the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project. Feedback highlighted strong support for prioritizing open space, passive recreation, and ecological restoration while also raising concerns about traffic, environmental impacts, overdevelopment, and the inclusion of housing. Demographic analysis of survey responses showed broad participation across age groups and geographic areas, see below. There were 4,984 responses (1,866 complete and 3,118 partial) to the Phase 3a Layers Survey and saw increased participation from all the underrepresented demographic categories from the engagement in Phases 1 and 2. The Top 10 self-reported zip codes were from Santa Monica or adjacent West Los Angeles neighborhoods.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Continued collaboration with a Santa Monica High School Senior, who conducted outreach at several schools in Santa Monica including tabling at the high school, helped promote awareness of the project and its engagement process with an increase in the 24 and younger demographic.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios As mentioned above we saw increased participation from all underrepresented demographic groups from the previous two surveys.

Layer 1 – Connectivity and Mobility

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios The majority of respondents favored limiting vehicular traffic through the site and emphasized a desire for safe, accessible pedestrian and bike paths that meander naturally through the park with Option B scoring highest for overall ranking, followed by Option A, then C, and finally D. Of the four options:
• Option A proposed a fully car-free site prioritizing green space and safety, with some critique on the layout’s rigidity and lack of access points.
• Option B offered a more organic path layout with limited vehicular access and was appreciated as a balanced solution, drawing comparisons to Central Park.
• Option C featured a pedestrian loop and a transit hub, receiving mixed feedback, while some valued the connectivity, others objected to the amount of road infrastructure.
• Option D, which maximized road access, was strongly opposed for undermining the vision of a “Great Park,” with concerns about safety, pollution, and fragmentation of park space.

Overall, the feedback strongly indicated a community preference for prioritizing pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly design with minimal vehicle intrusion, and for preserving the integrity and accessibility of future open space.

Layer 2 – Water and Topography

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Community members expressed a strong desire for visible, traversable, and ecologically integrated water systems, as well as more distributed and varied topography across the site with Option C scoring highest for overall ranking, followed by Option B, then D, and finally A. Of the four options:
• Option A, which minimized visible water features and
prioritized simplicity and conservation, was seen as
practical but uninspiring.
• Option B received praise for balancing functionality and aesthetics, incorporating interactive elements like
splash pads while maintaining space for recreation.
• Option C was the most favored for its natural, meandering water features, ecological benefits, and engaging topography, though some raised concerns about water usage and accessibility.
• Option D, featuring a large central lake and elevated topography, was criticized for excessive water use, high maintenance, and redundancy given the site's proximity to the ocean.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Overall, the community favored designs that integrate water thoughtfully and naturally into the landscape, providing ecological, aesthetic, and recreational value without compromising practicality or sustainability.

Layer 3 – Ecology and Passive Uses
Participants expressed overall support for designs that emphasized immersive natural environments, biodiversity, and opportunities for low-impact public use. There was also recognition of the importance of balancing passive uses with active recreation and ensuring long-term sustainability and feasibility. For this layer Option B scored highest for overall ranking, followed by Option C, then D, and finally A. Of the four options:
• Option A was favored for preserving open space and
integration of nature but was criticized for inadequate sports facilities.
• Option B received praise for its organic, braided design and balance, though concerns were raised about
maintenance and safety.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios • Option C stood out for dedicating the highest percentage of the site to ecological/passive uses, offering diverse environments, yet was seen as too compartmentalized and impractical for local climate conditions. • Option D was lauded as the most ecologically driven, with integrated forest areas and strong alignment with guiding principles, but many felt it sacrificed too much recreational space and could be costly and difficult to maintain.

Overall, community feedback reflected strong support for making ecology and passive uses a defining aspect of the new park, while acknowledging the importance of balancing those goals with practical implementation, recreation needs, and equitable access for all Santa Monicans.

Layer 4 - Active Park Uses
Survey respondents expressed a desire for a park that supports diverse active recreation opportunities while maintaining a strong sense of natural identity and ecological balance.

Many respondents emphasized the need for high-quality, inclusive facilities while others stressed the importance of not letting active uses dominate the open space or fragment

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios the site’s character. The feedback reflected a broad consensus around the idea of “balance”: a park that is vibrant and functional but not overbuilt or overly programmed.

For this layer Option B scored highest for overall ranking, followed by Option A, then C, and finally D. Of the four options:
• Option A was noted for being cost-effective and
preserving space for other uses, but was widely
criticized for its grid-like, uninspired layout that lacked ecological integration.
• Option B was praised for achieving a perceived balance between nature and recreation and offering a favorable
circular layout, though some found it too structured and dominant in terms of active use.
• Option C appealed to those prioritizing field sports and clear zoning, but many found it too rigid and disconnected from natural elements. • Option D received strong support for addressing recreation facility shortages and concentrating uses efficiently, yet many felt it overwhelmed the space and detracted from the park’s potential to serve as a nature-focused community asset.

Community feedback on active park uses revealed a strong desire for inclusive, welldesigned recreation amenities that complement rather than dominate the broader park vision. Respondents consistently emphasized the need for equitable access, thoughtful design integration, and flexibility to meet both current and future recreational needs without compromising the site’s potential as a destination green space for all.

Layer 5 – Housing

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios This Layer proved to be the most contentious of the design layers explored in Survey 3A and varied when sorted by different demographic groups. While over half of respondents opposed any housing on several questions, noting that housing as a use would require a vote pursuant to Measure LC, several others suggested openness to include some housing to support broader city goals and/or generate revenue for park development. For several questions respondents were allowed to state that they did not want housing but also show that if there had to be housing what type of housing they might support.

Preferences leaned toward limiting housing within a limited conceptual footprint, with stronger support for options that consolidated it in specific areas rather than dispersing it throughout the site.

For this layer Option A scored highest for overall ranking, followed by Option B, then C, and finally D. This order was true for all three of the questions that ranked the plan options. Of the four options:

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios • Option A, which proposed no housing, was the most
supported in terms of preserving open space and not
requiring a vote pursuant to Measure LC. However, it
was criticized as financially unrealistic and lacking
acknowledgement of the ongoing housing crisis.
• Option B concentrated housing within the northeast
corner of the site with some of it being in Los Angeles, seen by some as a reasonable compromise that preserved most of the park while benefiting from transit access. Still, it raised concerns about shadows, traffic, and requiring another ballot measure pursuant to Measure LC. • Option C offered a distributed housing layout to foster community, potentially mixed-income options, and activating the park with residents. Nonetheless, it faced backlash from those adamantly opposed to any housing, and for perceived overdevelopment.
• Option D, which proposed the highest amount of housing, garnered support for its ambitious response to affordability needs and revenue generation but was the most strongly opposed overall due to fears that it could overwhelm park uses and betray the project’s original vision.

Ultimately, the community remains deeply
divided, grappling with tensions between
fulfilling housing needs and preserving a
large, open, nature-focused park and any
future housing would require voter approval
under Measure LC. Respondents showed
some support for affordable housing types,
including senior, workforce, and low-income
housing, provided they were part of a
balanced plan.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Layer 6 – Revenue Generation

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Overall, respondents favored a balanced model that maintains the park’s ecological and recreational integrity while strategically incorporating revenue-generating activities. The community showed a clear preference for adaptive reuse of existing buildings, locating revenue uses along site edges to preserve open space and park character, and minimizing commercial intensity. A majority preferred a lower-cost park model that could reduce the need for extensive revenue-generating development, even if it meant slower or phased implementation. For this layer Option B scored highest for overall ranking, followed by Option C, then A, and finally D. Of the four options:
• Option A received support for minimizing commercial
development and emphasizing nature, biodiversity,
and adaptive reuse. Many respondents liked the idea
of relying on modest park-related revenues (like sports field permits and cafes) while gradually developing the park using existing lease income. However, critics felt this approach lacked financial realism and might result in a park that is under-programmed or too slow to develop. The continued presence of the runway was also widely disliked.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios • Option B was viewed as striking a practical balance, placing revenue-generating uses at the site edges, integrating adaptive reuse, and keeping the park’s identity intact. Supporters favored small-scale amenities like cafes and rentals and appreciated the focus on preserving large areas for park and ecological uses.

Critics, however, questioned whether it could generate enough revenue to fund park needs and raised concerns about access equity.
• Option C emphasized broader distribution of revenue uses across the site, removal of the runway, and increased park space. Some valued its integrated approach and felt it could make the park financially viable without overpowering its recreational focus. But others worried that the plan over-allocated land to revenue uses, and that cutting roads and uses through the site could fragment the park and disrupt the visitor experience.
• Option D proposed the most robust revenue-generating model, aiming to fund full park implementation and provide surplus revenue for broader city needs. It appealed to those seeking faster development and long-term financial sustainability. However, it was also the most controversial as many saw it as too commercial, too dense, and too focused on non-park uses. The inclusion of housing as a revenue strategy drew strong opposition, with concerns about Measure LC, overdevelopment, and the potential privatization of public land.

Across all options, there was significant confusion about which uses could or would require a vote pursuant to Measure LC, particularly regarding commercial and residential components. Many respondents emphasized the importance of ensuring the park remain primarily public, natural, and equitable regardless of the revenue strategy. Lastly, whether or not any type of housing should be a part of the project remains a deeply divided issue.

For this survey, the team also created the Layers Survey Dashboard under the Resources tab of the website where community members can select different demographic characteristics and see how the results change for every layer and each question. The dashboard also includes 136 responses from the youth outreach activities in addition to the 4,984 for a total of 5,120 responses.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios We also heard that there was an issue with the Spanish version of the Layers Survey and Unite Here Local 11 conducted their own survey to provide feedback. The survey gathered 142 responses regarding the future of the Santa Monica Airport site. 94% of respondents voted for a mix of housing and park space, with 4% voting for a park-only approach. Among those who voted for housing, 70% voted for building 3,000 or more units of affordable housing, and an additional 11% for between 1,000 and 2,999 units.

The results reflect the impact of the housing crisis on respondents: over half reported having to share rooms to afford rent, and more than half spend over an hour commuting at least once a week. Many reported housing instability in the past decade, including sleeping on couches, living in garages or cars, and knowing others who have experienced homelessness. The survey demonstrates support for large-scale affordable housing at the airport site, driven by lived experiences of overcrowding, long commutes, and housing insecurity.

The Three Scenarios

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios The three scenarios were created based on community feedback in Phases 1 and 2, the Guiding Principles, results from the Layers Survey in Phase 3a, adopted city policies, and City Council direction and are visual tools for discussion to continue to garner more feedback from the community on successes and opportunities for improvement related to interpretation of prior feedback. With Option B scoring the highest for four of the six layers, Option C scoring the highest for Water and Topo, and Option A for Housing, the scenarios sought to utilize these outcomes as defining characteristics within the scenarios and per City Council direction to study some housing.

Taking into consideration the ranked responses for each layer, the three scenarios are meant to explore trade-offs and feasibility as the project moves from individual layer preferences toward integrated design concepts. These scenarios are tools for conversation and not meant to be final solutions to pick from. Whatever the outcome, an incremental implementation coming out of this feasibility study will go through additional city boards, commissions, taskforces, and City Council to determine appropriate regulatory frameworks. Each scenario blends various community priorities and emphasizes different aspects of the overall vision, such as restoration, connectivity, or growth. The CoMap tool, launched with the three scenarios and discussed below, allowed community members to pinpoint the specific areas that they support or challenge so the team could get detailed feedback and see what has consensus in the community and what does not. All three of the presented scenarios preserved the runway and taxiway acreage at a minimum for open space, and all three had at least 2/3 of available parkland dedicated to park activities and each can consider different funding and financing sources to achieve financial sustainability (these sources are summarized in Attachment H and will be further analyzed as part of Phase 3b).

All three scenarios are accompanied by feasibility and implementation considerations.

We also note that these types of projects take time and that the first five years might look the same for any scenario as we prep the site, remediate as needed, and create funding mechanisms to implement the full vision incrementally.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Scenario 1: Reuse, Restoration and Resilience prioritizes ecological restoration, biodiversity, and adaptive reuse of existing infrastructure, and activation of the runway as incremental implementation of permanent uses are phased. It focuses on creating a lowimpact, resource-efficient park with no new development of any uses other than parks, open space, and public recreation pursuant to Measure LC. This scenario has fewer capital and operating revenue sources available for its funding strategy since it does not include real estate development on-site (See Attachment H). This scenario adds approximately 132 acres of park bringing the City’s number of park acres per 1,000 residents to 3.0 acres.
- Big Idea Statement: This design explores a network of parks and public spaces carved out of the runway, providing spaces for nature restoration, wellness, and community, in balance with recreational and infrastructure programs. - Aspirational Narrative: The Santa Monica Airport is adaptively reused, creating new spaces for nature, infrastructure, and community, to improve access to nature, increase resilience in the face of climate change, and provide needed recreational amenities. A large water reservoir is constructed on the former runway, with surrounding running loops and observation decks, and the earth excavated is used to create sculptural hills flanking the runway at the east and west ends of the site,

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios providing an opportunity for viewing high points. The majority of the site is dedicated to park and public space uses, with restoration plans for reforestation, meadow and shrubland re-establishment, and green infrastructure. A community farm and garden contribute to local food access. Active recreation is introduced through a network of running and biking loops, keeping limited existing runway space for flexible programming, and a membership/leased sports and recreation facility. The design is focused on extracting and extending lines from the runway and historic land uses to guide future pathways, meadows, and programs, allowing the airport to evolve from a place dedicated to aviation infrastructure to one dedicated to nature and community use.

Financing/Implementation Considerations:

The following potential capital and operating sources and strategies could be applicable and considered as part of Scenario 1.

Potential Operating Revenue Sources and Strategies
• Public Funds
o General obligation bond that could allow an increase in ad valorem taxes to pay for park infrastructure (but requires a 2/3 voter approval) o Federal, State, and regional grants
• Value Capture
o Climate Resilience District (CRD)
o Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD)
o Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD)
o Sale of the portion of Airport land in Los Angeles (at highest and best use) • Philanthropy (this would require further analysis to estimate the potential) • Other Strategies
o Reducing costs by allocating areas to non-park uses (reservoir, municipal operations) that may entail expenditures to the city’s general fund or utility enterprise funds, necessitating additional bond revenue debt to finance large capital improvements, with concurrent rate payer impacts.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Potential Operating Revenue Sources and Strategies
• Value Capture
o Climate Resilience District (CRD)
o Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD)
• Earned Revenue
o Existing revenue from non-aeronautical leases (leases would be limited to 15 years)
o Earned revenue from park programs, e.g. paid parking, special events, food and beverage concessions, and sporting tournaments
• Philanthropy (this would require further analysis to estimate the potential) • Other Strategies
o Partnership with the State to manage and operate a portion of the parkland o Reducing costs by allocating areas to non-park uses (reservoir, municipal operations)
Additional information on each of these funding sources and considerations is available in Attachment H.

Points of Consideration for Scenario 1

1. Alignment with Measure LC and Community Vision
• Scenario 1 does not require a vote pursuant to Measure LC by proposing new development of only parks, open space, and recreational uses, there is no new housing or commercial development.
• This approach reflects one of the most strongly supported community desires from earlier phases: preserving the airport land as public open space. • The emphasis on biodiversity, nature access, and climate resilience directly responds to sustainability goals and Santa Monica’s broader environmental policy frameworks and plans.

2. Incremental, Phased Implementation

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios • The scenario envisions adaptive reuse and phased development rather than largescale transformation, allowing for a project with reduced scope tied to available funding. The timeline for this scenario could be much longer due to uncertain funding sources for capital projects.
• Reuse of existing infrastructure and the strategic use of the runway for recreational purposes (e.g., running loops, observation decks, flexible programming) provides early activation without large capital investments.

3. Funding Considerations
• This scenario has more limited potential to generate earned revenue than the other scenarios due to no on-site real estate development, limited leasable facilities, and no major commercial anchors to offset operations or capital costs. • Operating revenue would likely rely heavily on smaller scale earned income (existing leases, paid parking, memberships, permits) and other categories of sources.
• This scenario is anticipated to have the lowest capital construction cost among the three because it avoids high development costs tied to infrastructure-heavy land uses. It still anticipates major investments by non-General Fund sources (e.g. using the Water fund for the reservoir, a PPP for the sports fields and courts, etc.). • The combination of potential funding sources will require City and community commitments and tradeoffs to realize the scenario, which is true for all three scenarios.

4. Long-Term Stewardship and Governance
• The scenario contemplates potential partnerships (e.g., with the State) for park operations, which may reduce costs but require new governance models and longterm interagency coordination. • Establishing an enterprise fund for airport-related revenues could enhance transparency and allow ringfencing of funds, specifically the $6-7M of current net

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios revenue from non-aeronautical leases, for this site but may require City Council action and new administrative processes.
• Proposition 26 restricts cost-recovery mechanisms, limiting opportunities for surplus-generating revenue from public amenities.

5. Equity and Access Considerations
• The scenario prioritizes ecological restoration and wellness but may be less responsive to active recreation demands, especially for underserved youth sports and court users.
• It proposes a community farm, orchard, and/or garden to address local food access, helping to center equity in the site’s design, though these elements alone may not meet all community needs.

Scenario 2: Weaving Park and Community aims to create strong physical and social connections between the park and surrounding neighborhoods through amplified pedestrian connections and minor vehicular network integration. This scenario emphasizes a mix of passive and active uses, distributed housing, and strategically placed revenue-generating elements. It seeks to balance ecological goals with access and equity while generating enough revenue to support enhanced park operations. This scenario adds 102 acres of park bringing the City’s number of park acres per 1,000 residents to 2.6 acres.
- Big Idea Statement: The park is carefully structured around a meandering water system and a multi-use path. Santa Monica Airport becomes a rich tapestry of cultural and ecological places through the sculptural introduction of water, topography, and circulation.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios - Aspirational Narrative: This scenario envisions a park-centered design, with the majority of the site dedicated to park and public space uses, and key development zones for housing introduced north and south of the runway. The multi-use path organizes a series of cultural, recreational, and natural spaces - meadows, event lawns, free and membership-based sports complexes. The creek serves as the ecological organizing feature and works with park trails to create a sense of movement, stitching the north and south sides of the runway. Key new roads and trails connect to and through new neighborhood development zones in the south and north loops of the existing airport Lands. This scenario focuses on accentuated biodiversity and celebrates all the regional plant communities that can be responsibly curated on-site. The park includes both membership-based sports programs and free sports courts and fields, as well as unique activities, such as large imagination and nature-based playgrounds, a canopy walk, and an art market. Additional facilities that could be third-party operated include a large-scale outdoor performing arts venue, and an indigenous and native plant nursery and learning garden. The result is a richly layered ecological and cultural system that celebrates the distinctive landscape of the Santa Monica region.

Financing/Implementation Considerations:

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios The following potential capital and operating sources and strategies could be applicable and considered as part of Scenario 2.

Potential Operating Revenue Sources and Strategies
• Public Funds
o General obligation bond that could allow an increase in ad valorem taxes to pay for park infrastructure (but requires a 2/3 voter approval) o Federal, State, and regional grants
• Value Capture
o Climate Resilience District (CRD)
o Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD)
o Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD)
o Sale of a portion of the site for on-site real estate development o Sale of the portion of the site in Los Angeles (at highest and best use) • Philanthropy (this would require further analysis to estimate the potential) • Other Strategies
o Partnership with the State to manage and operate a portion of the parkland o Reducing costs by allocating areas to non-park uses (reservoir, municipal operations) that may entail expenditures to the city’s general fund or utility enterprise funds, necessitating additional bond revenue debt to finance large capital improvements, with concurrent rate payer impacts.

Potential Operating Revenue Sources and Strategies
• Value Capture
o Climate Resilience District (CRD)
o Ground lease(s) for on-site real estate development
o Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD)
• Earned Revenue
o Existing revenue from non-aeronautical leases (leases would not be limited to 15 years)
o Earned revenue from park programs, e.g. paid parking, special events, cultural festivals, food and beverage options, etc.
• Philanthropy (this would require further analysis to estimate the potential) • Other Strategies

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios o Partnership with the State to manage and operate a portion of the parkland o Reducing costs by allocating areas to non-park uses (reservoir, municipal operations)
Points of Consideration for Scenario 2

1. Integrated Land Use Strategy
• Scenario 2 represents a blended approach that seeks to integrate nature, community, and culture through a highly designed, interconnected park system. It balances active and passive recreation, ecological enhancement, and selective development, aiming to stitch together the site and surrounding neighborhoods physically and socially.
• The design is centered around a multi-use path and water feature that serves as both an organizing infrastructure and symbolic connector. It weaves together meadows, cultural destinations, ecological restoration, and recreational amenities across the north and south sides of the runway.

2. Balancing Open Space and Community Uses
• Unlike Scenario 1, this scenario includes distributed housing and strategic commercial areas, but these are at the edges of the central park experience. Nonpark development is limited to the north and south loops and the Bundy Dr. side of the former airport.
• Housing could be pursued only if supported by the community and would be subject to voter approval pursuant to Measure LC. If implemented, on-site housing development could generate capital funding if the City sells the developable area of land or operating revenue through a ground lease.

3. Enhanced Access, Equity, and Cultural Identity
• The scenario emphasizes inclusive access and a culturally rich public realm, with amenities such as free and paid sports courts, several plaza areas for events, large-scale playgrounds, and an art market.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios • Ecological storytelling and biodiversity are embedded in the design, with curated plant communities and a potential Indigenous and native plant nursery/garden, and ziggurat spiral nature walk.
• By activating a range of passive, active, and cultural uses, the scenario supports park equity goals and offers diverse experiences for different user groups including a large amphitheater that could generate significant income for the scenario.

4. Funding Considerations
• On-site development can generate capital or operating revenue as part of the funding strategy.
• This scenario is likely to generate the property tax and sales tax revenue, which could either be captured by a financing mechanism (e.g. EIFD) as part of the funding strategy)
• It relies in part on a market-dependent approach: success hinges on the allowable uses and development program as well as future real estate conditions (including rents and sales prices, financing interest rates), which is currently challenged. • The combination of potential funding sources will require City and community commitments and tradeoffs to realize the scenario, which is true for all three scenarios.

5. Balancing Risks and Flexibility
• A ballot measure would be required to authorize park-serving commercial development (e.g., event venues, cafes, art markets) to secure ongoing operations funding. This introduces risk but also an opportunity to build a self-sustaining civic asset. A ballot measure could occur after the airport closes. • The plan allows flexibility to explore affordable housing and municipal utility infrastructure in ways that reduce costs to the park budget without compromising open space.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Scenario 3: Growing Park, Growing Community envisions the highest degree of transformation, including significant new development for housing and revenue generation, inclusive of necessary pedestrian and vehicular network upgrades. It seeks to fund a robust park program through increased on-site revenue sources and external funding. This scenario emphasizes density and integration but raises questions about park space preservation and long-term management. This scenario adds 114 acres of park bringing the City’s number of park acres per 1,000 residents to 2.8. - Big Idea Statement: Santa Monica Airport becomes the newest neighborhood of the City, with new residential blocks framing the largest city public park in Santa Monica. This new community and park are centered on a grand recreational lake and waterfront that serves as an emergency reservoir.
- Aspirational Narrative: This scenario explores maximizing the potential of the site for a park and a new residential development, creating a complete neighborhood. This design features a large-scale urban recreational lake that doubles as a park irrigation and emergency reservoir, adventure play areas, waterfront restaurants, and extensive free athletic, cultural, and public facilities.

Programs are organized by neighborhood ‘rooms’, suited to the immediate context with existing and proposed city blocks. Organic circulation patterns and

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios neighborhood-scaled parklets and paseos, extend the core park into the urban fabric, seamlessly integrating the developed edges with the main park and maximizing porosity into the wider city fabric. With its robust financial strategy, this scenario enables grand park features, enhanced connectivity, more free programs and venues, making it a regional destination for recreation, culture, and new neighborhoods, growing the parklands together with the growing community.

Financing/Implementation Considerations:

The following potential capital and operating sources and strategies could be applicable and considered as part of Scenario 3.

Potential Operating Revenue Sources and Strategies
• Public Funds
o General obligation bond that could allow an increase in ad valorem taxes to pay for park infrastructure (but requires a 2/3 voter approval) o Federal, State, and regional grants
• Value Capture
o Climate Resilience District (CRD)
o Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD)
o Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD)
o Sale of a portion of the site for on-site real estate development o Sale of the portion of the site in Los Angeles (at highest and best use), • Philanthropy (this would require further analysis to estimate the potential) Potential Operating Revenue Sources and Strategies
• Value Capture
o Climate Resilience District (CRD)
o Ground lease(s) for on-site real estate development
o Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD)

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios • Earned Revenue
o Existing revenue from any remaining non-aeronautical leases (leases would not be limited to 15 years)
o Earned revenue from park programs, e.g. paid parking, special events, food and beverage options, sporting tournaments (cost recovery only as per Proposition 26 limitations), etc.
• Philanthropy (this would require further analysis to estimate the potential) • Other Strategies
o Partnership with the State to manage and operate a portion of the parkland Points of Consideration for Scenario 3

1. Maximum Site Transformation and Development
• Scenario 3 proposes the most ambitious and urban-forward vision for the Santa Monica Airport site of the three, blending a large central park with significant new housing and commercial development.
• It reframes the site as a new “complete neighborhood,” integrating development around a grand recreational lake that doubles as an emergency reservoir and irrigation source.
• Circulation systems for pedestrian, vehicular, and park connectivity are fully restructured, creating a porous and organically connected urban district around a central civic park.

2. Funding Considerations
• Compared to Scenarios 1 and 2, this scenario has the largest site area dedicated to real estate development, and therefore, potential capital and operating revenue generation through housing and commercial ground leases or land sales. • Based on the land area and assuming consistent density across scenarios, on-site development in this scenario is also likely to generate the greatest amount of potential property tax and sales tax revenue, which could either be captured by a

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios financing mechanism (e.g. EIFD) as part of the funding strategy or generate new revenue to the City General Fund.
• It reflects a market-dependent approach: success hinges on the allowable uses and development program as well as future real estate conditions (including rents and sales prices, financing interest rates), which is currently challenged. • The combination of potential funding sources will require City and community commitments and tradeoffs to realize the scenario, which is true for all three scenarios.

3. Housing, Equity, and Legal Considerations
• Housing is included in this scenario, with a blend of market-rate and affordable units. The affordable portion is key to satisfying the Surplus Land Act (SLA) requirements.
• A ballot measure would be required to authorize development which introduces political risk and could become a focal point for public debate over growth, equity, and community identity.
• Significant infrastructure investment is needed for utilities and roads, adding to the upfront cost and planning complexity of this scenario.

4. Park as a Regional Civic Destination
• The central feature of a recreational lake surrounded by parklands, play areas, cultural facilities, and commercial amenities positions the site as a citywide and regional destination.
• Public spaces are organized around neighborhood-scaled “rooms” and paseos, which extend park character into the surrounding urban form, making the park feel embedded in daily life for future residents and current community members. • The robust revenue model allows for more free, publicly accessible programs and venues, offering greater civic benefit if successfully implemented.

5. Fiscal Strategy and General Fund Benefits

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios • With the greatest number of potential funding sources, this scenario channels future revenue back into the City’s General Fund, which could be used broadly across community services as well as park maintenance, safety, cleanliness, etc. • Funding tools include development agreements, ground lease revenue, park impact fees, grants, and philanthropy—offering diversified options but contingent on a favorable market and timely approvals.

6. Potential Tradeoffs and Concerns
• While the park gains scale and amenities, some community members may see the level of development as incompatible with the original Measure LC intent or their vision of a very large open space park.
• The scenario raises questions about long-term park identity and whether it remains a civic anchor or becomes a central green within a privatized development pattern. • Complexity in implementation due to ballot approval, utility planning, horizontal infrastructure costs, phasing, and equity protections requires significant staff, consultant, and political capacity over many years.

In summary, the three scenarios offer distinct yet overlapping pathways for transforming the Santa Monica Airport site into a legacy place. Each reflects a unique balance of environmental priorities, community access, financial feasibility, and citywide needs, shaped by extensive public engagement and City Council direction. Together, these scenarios illustrate the breadth of possibilities and trade-offs ahead. As the City Council considers financial feasibility, community priorities, and alignment with long-term sustainability goals, and what parts and pieces of each should be considered for the creation of a Preferred Scenario in Phase 3b that is both visionary and achievable.

Phase 3a Community Event Summary
The team held a large, in-person, Community Event on May 17, 2025, at the Airport from noon to 5 p.m. where the three scenarios were revealed to the public with space to provide

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios feedback. It is estimated that over 400 community members attended over the five hours, 158 folks boarded one of the seven bus tours that took participants inside the fence, and 12 small group discussions were offered providing multiple ways for community members to participate and provide feedback. All display boards and materials were presented in English and Spanish. This event was also accompanied by an online experience CoMap, in English and Spanish, for folks who were unable to attend the event in person, and it was open from May 17, 2025 through June 22, 2025. The event map and workbook questions are shown below.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios The event results included: 12 small group discussions, 374 sticky note comments, and 75 completed workbooks. Participants responded to the three conceptual design scenarios and explored themes including open space, housing, transportation, revenue, and long-term land use priorities.

Small Group Discussions
The facilitated small group discussions revealed a strong preference for a park-first vision, with many calling for a central, nature-based park serving Santa Monica and the broader Westside. Environmental remediation and sustainability were recurring concerns, including calls for soil analysis and sustainable water management.

Participants expressed mixed views on housing: while some supported affordable or workforce housing, particularly at the park edges, many others opposed housing altogether, often referencing Measure LC or concerns about overdevelopment. Many

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios also stressed transportation and access, advocating for transit solutions like shuttles and bike connectivity. Ideas for revenue generation included adaptive reuse of hangars, stormwater capture, and small-scale cultural events, with widespread caution toward large commercial projects like a 20,000-seat amphitheater. The need for transparent, community-led decision-making was a dominant theme.

Sticky Note Comments
The sticky note wall allowed participants to share quick reactions to each scenario.

Scenario 2 received the most engagement and the most positive feedback, praised for its organic and natural layout, though some expressed concern about overdevelopment and housing. Scenario 1 drew mixed sentiment, many criticized its large water feature and perceived lack of nature, while a few noted its recreational potential. Scenario 3 received the most negative feedback, with participants citing excessive development, minimal green space, and disagreement with the overall scale and layout. Across all three scenarios, housing was the most polarizing topic, generating strong support from those prioritizing affordability and essential workers, and strong opposition from others concerned about density and access to nature priorities.

Workbook Responses
Workbook data provided structured feedback across six design layers: mobility, water, ecology, recreation, housing, and revenue. Scenario 2 was the top choice for most categories related to natural features, including spending time in nature, water integration, and passive ecological uses. Scenario 1 performed best in categories related to housing location (none), safety, and revenue generation (only existing), though it received lower marks for connectivity and ecological quality. Scenario 3 consistently ranked the lowest across nearly all design categories. The workbook results mirrored the sticky note and discussion feedback in valuing open space, ecological health, and access, while revealing divided opinions on the inclusion and locations of housing.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Community Event 3A surfaced a wide range of perspectives but highlighted clear areas of alignment: participants strongly favored a future park that maximizes open space, prioritizes ecological restoration, and reflects community values of equity, sustainability, and accessibility. While opinions on housing and revenue generation varied, there was broad agreement on the importance of protecting the site from too much development, integrating history and culture, and maintaining a transparent, participatory planning process. The feedback from this event echoes what was heard in the Layers Survey and will help in refining the design scenarios for the Preferred Scenario in fiscally sustainable ways to reach self-sufficiency remains a primary goal.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Photos from the Community Event

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios CoMap Summary
The CoMap tool is an interactive platform designed to gather community feedback on the parts and pieces of each of the three scenarios. It allowed users to drop a pin on specific elements of the three proposed scenarios by selecting icons that represent approval (thumbs up) or areas needing improvement (thumbs down) across six (6) site design layers: connectivity and mobility, water and topography, ecology and passive uses, active park uses, housing, and revenue generation and using those icons to pinpoint the feedback . There was also an ‘other’ category included if participants just wanted to leave a general comment or pin.

By placing these icons on the scenario plans, participants can visually pinpoint their preferences and add comments to provide more detailed input. This tool helped the planning team understand what elements have consensus and which do not, which areas folks support and which areas they do not.

Images of the CoMap experience in English and Spanish environments CoMap was open for almost five weeks, opened May 17 and closed June 22 collecting 12,473 comments from 1,253 community members. Details will be shared on the project website under the “Resources” tab and at the presentation to City Council.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Also, we received some feedback that native Spanish speakers were having some trouble with the Layers Survey, so for CoMap there was one link in English and one link in Spanish to address this concern.

Boards, Commissions (Cx), Taskforce Meeting Summaries
The team attended 17 public meetings in Phase 3a and has including summaries of the meetings in May and June about the Three Scenarios to provide an overview of the types of comments from each board, commission, or taskforce the team heard. • May 14 Disabilities Cx for the Three Scenarios; discussion focused on ensuring that accessibility and inclusivity are central to the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project from the earliest stages. Commissioners raised questions about the project timeline, the types of revenue-generating uses being considered, and how much those uses, such as housing or cultural facilities, might realistically contribute. There was strong support for community-serving elements like gardens and food spaces over housing, and calls for more clarity on financial models and reference projects.

Accessibility considerations included distributed parking, elevator alternatives, and digital inclusion, with an emphasis on designing for flexibility as standards evolve over time. The Commission encouraged a long-term, ambitious vision, describing the site as a “500-year park”, and highlighted the importance of integrating Clover Park and ensuring that every element of the future space is welcoming and usable for all. • May 19 VaP Advisory Board mentioned CoMap and the Three Scenarios • May 20 Airport Cx for the Three Scenarios; Commissioners and community members engaged in a thoughtful discussion about the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project and the draft scenarios presented in Phase 3A. A central concern was whether community feedback, particularly the low support for housing reflected in earlier surveys, was adequately represented in the current concepts.

Commissioners emphasized the importance of transparency and urged staff to clearly show where consensus exists, where it does not, and how public input has shaped the scenarios. There was appreciation for the CoMap tool as a more

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios accessible method for collecting feedback, and a desire to ensure that City Council receives a clear, honest reflection of community priorities.

Commissioners and commenters also called for greater clarity around revenue generation, specifically the assumptions behind housing as a funding mechanism, and stressed the need to better communicate phasing, cost estimates, and the longterm vision for the site. Many emphasized that the scenarios should be understood as conceptual frameworks rather than fixed designs, and encouraged staff to make that distinction clear in the staff report and public-facing materials. Public comment highlighted a mix of skepticism, hope, and creativity, with calls for nature-based solutions, caution around overdevelopment, and thoughtful consideration of how the site might evolve over time. The Commission's feedback reinforced the need for a flexible, transparent, and community-rooted approach as the project moves toward defining a Preferred Scenario.
• May 28 Urban Forest Taskforce for the Three Scenarios had a packed agenda so the presentation was fairly short and the comments revolved around public open space, space for more trees, and a park first approach. • May 28 SM Democratic Club for the Three Scenarios; at this community forum the participants voiced a range of perspectives on the future of the airport site. Many expressed strong support for prioritizing open space, with some questioning the inclusion of housing given the site’s potential as a once-in-a-generation public park.

Others emphasized the need to ensure racial and economic equity—both in access to the future park and in who gets to shape its development. Concerns were raised about the long-term accountability of the project, especially through political transitions, and about the risk of losing community vision over time.

Several attendees questioned how the proposed scenarios align with Measure LC and whether the inclusion of housing would undermine the goal of maximizing open space. Others asked about the regulatory hurdles, such as CEQA and the Surplus Lands Act, and how financial sustainability could be achieved without sacrificing public benefit. The conversation reflected both enthusiasm for the opportunity and a

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios strong desire for transparency, equity, and lasting community influence in shaping the site’s legacy.
• June 4 Planning Cx for the Three Scenarios; public commenters expressed strong interest in both affordable housing and significant park space as part of the Santa Monica Airport conversion. Many speakers, particularly Unite Here Local 11 workers and Community Corps residents, highlighted the urgent need for below-market housing to support essential workers who currently face long commutes. Others, especially from the Great Park coalition, advocated for a large public park, urging the City to avoid a ballot measure before the airport closes and to explore financing models not reliant on revenue generation.

Commissioners raised questions about how community input is reflected in the scenarios, the assumptions behind financial models, and the role of housing in funding park development. They called for clearer outreach to youth, better integration of scenario layers with survey data, and closer coordination with Los Angeles on planning. While there was broad support for exploring diverse scenarios, concerns were expressed about land sales, park bond history, and the need for more detailed economic and infrastructure analysis.
• June 5 Housing Cx for the Three Scenarios; members and community participants engaged in a robust discussion about the future of the Santa Monica Airport site, with a strong focus on the role of housing, long-term land use, environmental concerns, and financial feasibility. Questions were raised about how the Surplus Lands Act (SLA) and CEQA requirements shape the planning process, and whether housing, particularly affordable or community-led models, could or should be part of the site's future. While some participants expressed concerns about special interests overriding public input or the possibility of overdevelopment, others emphasized that Santa Monica’s primary challenge is not a general housing shortage, but a lack of deeply affordable and family-oriented units. Suggestions such as Community Land Trusts and reparative housing efforts (e.g., Right to Return) were discussed as potential compromises, while market-rate and luxury housing were broadly opposed.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios There was also significant concern about the city’s ability to fund and maintain a major new park without long-term revenue strategies, prompting debate over whether housing or other uses could support that goal. Environmental considerations, including urban heat island effects, water reuse, biodiversity, and mental health benefits, were highlighted as reasons to prioritize open space and sustainable design over development. Participants called for distributed parking, accessible infrastructure, and design flexibility to ensure the site remains inclusive and future-focused. While views on housing varied widely, there was broad agreement on the need for transparent planning, financial clarity, and a commitment to preserving the airport land as a long-term public asset that reflects community values and environmental responsibility.
• June 9 Landmarks mentioned CoMap and the Three Scenarios • June 12 Rec and Parks Cx for the Three Scenarios; comments from commissioners focused on refining their formal recommendation to Council regarding the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project. Concerns centered on the inclusion of housing, particularly in Scenarios 2 and 3, given past survey results showing housing as one of the least preferred land uses. Several commissioners and speakers criticized the perceived disconnect between community feedback and the presented scenarios, questioned the calculation of open space, and raised issues related to CEQA, project costs, and transparency around the decision-making process.

The Commission discussed the importance of political strategy in shaping Council engagement and unanimously recommended that Council include a "no-vote" option moving forward, with one abstention. They also strongly opposed selling or privatizing any portion of the land. Suggestions included expanding public outreach and requesting examples of how similar parks have been financed elsewhere. • June 14 tabled at the Juneteenth Celebration at Virginia Ave Park for the Three Scenarios where approximately 20-30 community members stopped by and many of them had not heard about the project yet. All were encouraged to participate in the

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios CoMap activity and asked questions about each scenario so they could then provide their comments online.
• June 16 Sustainability Cx for the Three Scenarios; a robust discussion and strong support for the creation of a regenerative park. Commissioners emphasized that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to advance the City’s sustainability goals through native vegetation, adaptive reuse of existing buildings, and design that supports long-term health, self-sufficiency, and climate resilience. The Commission voted to recommend that City Council reaffirm the park as a regenerative landscape that does not require a vote under Measure LC, and that all built and planted elements be focused on nature, recreation, and community health.

A majority of Commissioners also recommended that no housing be included in the future park, citing the site’s lack of transit access and the availability of more appropriate locations for housing elsewhere in the city. They expressed concern that introducing housing would both undermine sustainability goals and risk triggering a vote under Measure LC, potentially jeopardizing the entire project. One Commissioner voted against the no-housing recommendation, noting the need for more information and case studies before making a final determination. The Commission’s formal recommendation will be transmitted to City Council to be included as part of the record for the July 8th City Council meeting. • June 18 Landback and Reparations Taskforce for the Three Scenarios; Taskforce members and community participants raised thoughtful and pointed questions centered on equity, representation, and meaningful engagement in the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project. A central concern was whether Indigenous and Black communities, particularly the Tongva people and long-displaced Black residents, would be genuinely centered in the planning and outcomes, or merely included as symbolic gestures. Participants emphasized the need for the project to deliver real reparative benefits, such as land return, affordable housing, and cultural space, rather than using terms like “land back” or “rewilding” in ways that diminish Indigenous stewardship or misrepresent the intent.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Frustration was also expressed around data fatigue, with community members noting a long history of surveys and input that rarely lead to tangible results. Calls were made for the City to act on past data rather than repeatedly asking historically excluded groups to “prove” their needs. Participants urged early and inclusive consultation with tribal communities, broader representation of Black and Indigenous professionals in design and development roles, and greater transparency around how community voices shape City Council decisions. Ideas such as free access for Indigenous people to future park facilities and exploration of meaningful partnerships (e.g., MOUs with tribal organizations) were proposed as steps toward more inclusive and reparative outcomes.
• June 23 Arts Cx for the Three Scenarios; commissioners discussed opportunities for integrating arts into the future of the space. Key topics included reaffirming that the former runway and taxiway would serve as open space, exploring non-revenuedependent models such as land trusts, and ensuring that Measure LC’s intent is upheld in planning discussions—particularly concerning housing. Commissioners emphasized the importance of including artists in the planning process and using the Arts Commission as a platform for creative collaboration. Public comment included a request from a Frieze representative for space to accommodate major cultural events or a permanent museum-quality venue. The Commission approved a letter to Council with minor revisions, reinforcing their ongoing role in shaping an arts-forward vision for the site.
• June 23 VaP Advisory Board for the Three Scenarios; members raised a wide range of questions and concerns, focusing heavily on themes of racial equity, accessibility, housing justice, and inclusive planning. A major point of discussion centered on the historic and ongoing exclusion of Black residents from homeownership opportunities in Santa Monica. Several attendees questioned why housing is not more prominently included in the draft scenarios, with some calling for as much as 50% of the site to be dedicated to housing, particularly affordable and reparative models, such as Right to Return and Community Land Trusts.

Participants expressed frustration that prior efforts, like Section 8 vouchers or small

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios units, fail to meaningfully address the displacement experienced by Black families, especially those who once worked at the Douglas Aircraft facility but were barred from living nearby. The sentiment was clear: equitable access to land and housing should be central to any future vision for the site.

Others emphasized the need for more accessible and inclusive engagement tools, noting that the surveys have been too difficult for less tech-savvy community members. There were questions about the size and traffic impact of proposed uses, including the amphitheater, and a request for clear data on trip generation and traffic studies, particularly around streets like 23rd Street. Members appreciated the “parts and pieces” approach to scenario development, which allows for more specific feedback rather than forcing support for entire plans. Several also urged the City to present demographic breakdowns of survey respondents, pointing out that the perspectives of communities of color, especially those in zip codes like 90404, must be fully recognized in both analysis and Council deliberations. Finally, they asked how to most effectively make their voices heard by City Council, and thanked staff for their presence and transparency.

Community Engagement Review
The Layers Survey, the three conceptual scenarios, and the multiple avenues of community engagement, including CoMap, the online survey, in-person events, and presentations to Boards and Commissions, were all intentionally designed to make a complex planning process more accessible, transparent, and inclusive. Staff aimed to clearly illustrate the trade-offs involved in shaping a 192-acre park, invite meaningful public input on specific design elements and system-level decisions, and ensure that a diverse range of voices could be heard throughout the robust process. By breaking down the design process into understandable components and offering multiple ways to participate, the goal was not only to gather feedback, but to build shared understanding, surface values, and support City Council in making informed decisions about what should be included in a new hybrid Preferred Scenario in Phase 3b.

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail [Revision 6] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Attachment B – Letter of Interest Details
The City of Santa Monica received 69 Letters of Interest (LOIs) for the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project, representing a wide range of ideas and ambitions for transforming the site into a thriving civic destination. These proposals reflect a diversity of sectors, including:
• Recreation and athletics (such as surf parks, aquatics facilities, multi-sport complexes, racquet sports, and playgrounds),
• Arts and culture (including amphitheaters, artist villages, museums, and immersive storytelling experiences),
• Housing and mixed-use development,
• Environmental sustainability and ecological restoration (ranging from native plant centers and regenerative agriculture to biomimicry-based design), • Education and youth programming (including STEM hubs, adventure learning, and community schools), and
• Mobility and innovation (e.g., electric aviation, car-free urbanism, and VR pilot training).

Proposals also reflect a wide range of financial models, from privately financed initiatives and philanthropic ventures to hybrid public-private partnerships designed to generate long-term revenue for park operations and community benefit. Some submissions offer immediate activation and interim uses (e.g., events, temporary venues, or modular structures), while others envision permanent developments supported by long-term lease agreements, land trusts, or mission-driven operators. Many proposals that were focused on adaptive reuse noted being able to recommend a more well-defined financial model upon review of available sites, their corresponding condition, and available infrastructure.

In terms of physical scale, proposals range from small modular or mobile installations (e.g., artistic benches or bike gardens) to projects spanning 1–5 acres (e.g., surf parks, wellness centers, sports hubs), medium-scale facilities of 10–20 acres (e.g., native plant nurseries, agriculture centers, school campuses), and large-scale redevelopment visions covering 50–75 acres (e.g., youth sports tournament complexes, mixed-use villages, or

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: AttachmentB-LOIs [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) ecological parks). This broad spectrum of size, scope, and funding potential provides the city with a flexible foundation for shaping an inclusive, resilient, and visionary future for the Airport site.

A brief summary of each LOI is as follows:

Group Name Big Idea:
1 AAM Vertiports, LLC Proposes a sustainable, electric-powered Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) hub—a vertiport—integrated into Santa
Monica’s multimodal transportation future, supporting
zero-emission air taxis and regional mobility via electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft.
2 Ann Bowman Advocates for a new regional-scale skatepark at the Great Park to honor Santa Monica’s skateboarding
legacy, promote inclusivity and accessibility, and
generate revenue through events, retail, and youthoriented programming 3 Aresis Ensemble Inc. Expresses interest in having a new location for City Garage theater, presently at Bergamot Station, of
approximately 7,500 – 10,000sf to ensure this company
can continue its almost 40-year history in the Santa
Monica community.
4 Atomic Venus Media Envisions a cultural green space anchored by an outdoor amphitheater, blending arts, entertainment,
flexible green infrastructure, and civic engagement to
create a year-round, revenue-generating cultural
destination.
5 Aventuur Proposes a 15-acre surf park and wellness district featuring a Wavegarden surf lagoon, community
recreation, adaptive reuse of hangars, and inclusive
programming that merges Santa Monica’s surf heritage
with health, equity, and environmental leadership.

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: AttachmentB-LOIs [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 6 Back Bay Barrels,
LLC
Contemplates a world-class urban mountain biking
destination that also serves as a regional hub for
outdoor recreation, youth engagement, and
environmental stewardship. Includes a bike park
integrated into the natural topography, featuring flow
trails, jump lines, skills zones, and adaptive cycling
infrastructure.
7 BETA Technologies,
Inc.

Suggests retaining airport operations by modernizing
the site into an electric aviation hub, integrating AAM technologies for sustainable package delivery,
emergency response, and passenger mobility, while
reducing noise and emissions.
8 Biomimicry Group,
Inc.

Proposes a regenerative ecological transformation of
the site using biomimicry, remediating toxic soils in
place and turning the airport into a living system that models nature’s resilience, sustainability, and
educational potential.
9 Black Pearl
Investments LLC
Offers a broad redevelopment vision that includes an
outdoor amphitheater, green spaces, mixed-income
housing, cultural venues, and civic amenities—delivered through a public-private partnership focused on equity
and economic development.
10 Boulevard Partners –
Residential
Proposes sustainable, community-driven housing on
the site, integrating a range of affordable to market-rate units, designed through public-private partnership with a focus on walkability, resilience, and inclusive urban living. 11 Boulevard Partners –
Sports Park
Envisions a premier outdoor sports and recreation
campus with fields, courts, a golf driving range, and
family-oriented amenities, creating a self-sustaining hub for health, play, and community gathering via private
investment and public benefit.

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: AttachmentB-LOIs [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 12 Boys and Girls Club
of Santa Monica
Proposes a public-private partnership to deliver
youth-focused recreation and education programs
within the Great Park, using flexible park spaces or a
potential new 12,000-sq-ft facility to expand affordable, inclusive afterschool and summer services.
13 California State Parks Proposes converting part or all of the site into a State Park managed by California State Parks, bringing
long-term stewardship, habitat restoration, cultural
programming, and public recreation aligned with the
state’s climate and equity goals.
14 Community
Corporation of Santa
Monica
Discusses some affordable housing at the airport to
balance skyrocketing costs of housing Santa Monica has
experienced over the past decade, financial details
dependent on amount of land possible.
15 Corporate Realty
Group, Inc.

Offers real estate advisory services and a plan to
repurpose existing hangars and infrastructure for
short- and long-term revenue, including arts, events,
EV hubs, gardens, and potential land leases or sales to fund park development.
16 Crow Comedy Inc. Envisions a new artist colony and performance district at the site featuring comedy, storytelling, music, and inclusive live arts experiences—anchored by
subsidized artist venues, education programs, and a
shared outdoor amphitheater.
17 Curious Creative Proposes a story-driven, immersive public destination blending nature, art, and interactive
experiences—leveraging design expertise from theme
parks and museums to create a dynamic civic space that
evolves with community input.

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: AttachmentB-LOIs [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 18 Design Build Labs Proposes a bold, fully integrated affordable housing, events, sports, and renewable energy campus,
including the “Santa Monica Bowl,” 12 soccer fields, artist venues, and housing supported by land trusts and a
community-owned microgrid.
19 Eduardo Ostrogovich
/ La Ola Group /
Surf’s Up Santa
Monica
Proposes a 5-acre surf park powered by advanced
wave technology, surrounded by a 20-acre mixed-use,
sustainable residential village, delivering recreation, wellness, tourism, and economic development rooted in
Santa Monica’s surf culture.
20 Electra Suggests a modular, low-noise, hybrid-electric aviation node occupying ≤15% of the site, offering
regional air mobility via Electra’s EL9 aircraft while
preserving the rest of the land for parks and public uses— positioning Santa Monica as a model for sustainable
post-airport mobility.
21 Flags Unlimited LTD Proposes a Flag Heritage Park with a central U.S. flagpole, educational pavilion, and community
celebration space honoring American heritage, powered
by solar lighting and sustainable design.
22 Frieze Envisions a permanent cultural venue or flexible event infrastructure to host Frieze LA and other major
art and design events, positioning Santa Monica as an
international arts hub while generating significant cultural and economic value.
23 GoCarFree.org Proposes making the entire airport site car-free, serving as a national model for sustainable mobility and civic design by eliminating parking infrastructure and
integrating zero-car transportation from the ground up. 24 Good Body Pilates
Studio, Inc.

Suggests a modular, inclusive Pilates and wellness
hub with outdoor classes, a converted hangar for

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: AttachmentB-LOIs [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) movement arts, and a mobile studio to promote public
health and joy through accessible fitness.
25 Great Park Coalition –
Culture & Arts
Working Group
Envisions a network of pavilions and a landmark
ziggurat integrating performance, visual arts, cultural exchange, and ecological design — including
partnerships with UCLA and local arts organizations.
26 Great Park Coalition –
Sustainability Working
Group
Advocates for a 192-acre ecological park with
regenerative agriculture, native habitat restoration,
and a land trust model, transforming the site into a hub of sustainability, equity, and nature-based education.
27 Greystar
Development West,
LLC
Proposes scalable residential development (marketrate, mixed-income, student, senior housing) to generate long-term revenue for park operations through a publicprivate partnership, leveraging Greystar’s national P3 experience.
28 Griffith Company Proposes a construction materials recycling and processing yard on-site to repurpose concrete and
asphalt from airport demolition, reducing emissions, truck traffic, and costs while generating royalty revenue for the City.
29 Ground Review, LLC Proposes a mixed-use village integrating an artist colony, culinary collective, wellness campus,
adaptive reuse, housing, and trails—blending cultural,
recreational, and residential uses within a lush, natureoriented park environment. 30 Hollywood Balloon,
LLC
Proposes a tethered helium balloon ride offering scenic aerial views and an educational aviation exhibit—
providing an immediate, low-impact tourist attraction with revenue potential and a connection to the site’s flight legacy.

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: AttachmentB-LOIs [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 31 Hyperquake Offers to lead the creative vision, storytelling, and experience design for the entire site—creating a unified, participatory narrative architecture that integrates culture, ecology, and identity into every aspect of the park’s
development.
32 Individual Contributor Advocates for zoning and establishing a communityserving equestrian facility to support public recreation, therapeutic riding, and equitable access to horse
programs for youth and families, especially after regional barn losses.
33 Joby Aviation Proposes preserving a portion of the site as an eVTOL (electric aircraft) innovation and operations hub,
enabling sustainable urban air mobility and STEM
workforce training, while supporting clean transportation and resilience goals.
34 Linc Housing Proposes to develop affordable, supportive, and mixed-use housing with community-serving
infrastructure based on proven public-private models,
addressing housing needs while fostering health,
education, and economic mobility.
35 Live Nation Proposes an amphitheater or live performance venue integrated into the park’s design—offering a flexible,
community-benefiting cultural space for music, comedy,
graduations, and civic events while boosting economic
and social vitality.
36 Loft Dynamics Proposes a VR aviation training and innovation campus focused on electric flight, pilot simulation, and aerial firefighting preparedness—positioning Santa
Monica as a global center for green aviation and hightech workforce development.

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: AttachmentB-LOIs [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 37 Los Angeles Bulls
Soccer Club
Proposes a multi-sport athletic complex with 10+
lighted fields, a stadium soccer venue, and rec courts to serve youth sports, grow economic activity through
tournaments, and position Santa Monica as a regional
hub for active recreation.
38 Los Angeles
Pétanque club
Proposes repurposing a hangar for indoor/outdoor
pétanque courts, offering a low-cost, inclusive,
intergenerational sport rooted in cultural heritage, with potential for year-round events and regional leagues.
39 Love thy Nature LLC Proposes a weekly nature immersion experience using “forest bathing” techniques to reduce stress and
foster human-nature connection, led by a trained
mindfulness and eco-therapy facilitator with ties to UCLA and Esalen.
40 MAQ Real Estate
Solutions
Proposes a 10-acre, turnkey active sports district with a surf park, skatepark, climbing wall, and pump track—
privately financed and operated with a public-private
revenue-sharing model to support community access
and economic vitality.
41 Individual Contributor A 7th-grade student proposes a teen-designed space for ages 12–16 focused on creativity, connection,
entrepreneurship, and mentorship—a rare youthauthored vision advocating inclusion of teen voices in planning.
42 New Roads School Proposes relocating their K-12 campus to the airport site through a land swap or lease, offering shared-use
facilities like a theater, gardens, and recreational areas while freeing up their current Olympic Blvd site for
housing or civic use.
43 PCN3, Inc Proposes a modular cultural and recreational village blending art, fitness, food, learning gardens, and

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: AttachmentB-LOIs [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) potential affordable housing—developed in phases and
grounded in sustainability, reuse, and public-private
partnership.
44 PongFit, Inc. Proposes a citywide table tennis initiative with outdoor and indoor ping pong tables as a fun, inclusive, low-cost way to build fitness and community—filling a gap in LA’s recreational infrastructure.
45 ReDiscover Center
Inc
Proposes a 1.5-acre hands-on adventure playground
where kids build, tinker, and create from reclaimed
materials—merging play with environmental education,
art, and youth workforce development in a rotating
sculpture park.
46 Roots & Soulchild //
Cloverfield Commons
Proposes a 10-year, phased development of 3,000
below-market housing units interwoven with a great
park, featuring a mix of low, moderate, and middleincome homes across 60–90 acres, supported by layered public and private financing strategies—including equitylimited co-ops, federal/state affordable housing funds, and park revenue cross-subsidies. The plan aims to
address historic displacement, affordability gaps for
workers and families, and generate sustained funding for park infrastructure and operations
47 Santa Monica AYSO,
FSAC, Rectangular
Fields
Proposes building a 10–12 field multi-sport complex at
the Great Park through a public-private partnership to
address severe field shortages for youth soccer,
lacrosse, and rugby, while generating revenue via
tournaments and rentals.
48 Santa Monica College Proposes creating customized park exploration maps and an interactive interface tailored to diverse user
groups (e.g., parents, seniors, educators, fitness users) to promote inclusive, accessible engagement with the
Great Park.

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: AttachmentB-LOIs [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 49 Santa Monica
Community Gardens
Proposes a 20-acre Regenerative Urban Agriculture
Center including community gardens, orchards, herb
gardens, and a working farm—designed for food justice,
education, climate resilience, and community connection. 50 Santa Monica
Conservancy
Proposes a place-based outdoor interpretive
exhibition celebrating Santa Monica’s cultural, natural, and aviation history through digital storytelling,
monuments, and art—developed in partnership with
museums, artists, and local institutions.
51 Santa Monica High
School Aerospace
Engineering Club
Proposes a STEM and Robotics Innovation Hub in
reused hangars, providing hands-on learning,
internships, and green-tech development space for high
school and college students, particularly those from
underrepresented communities.
52 Santa Monica
Pickleball Club
Proposes building at least 24 dedicated pickleball
courts to meet surging demand, promote health and
social connection, and enable revenue-generating
tournaments and programming through a low-barrier,
inclusive sport.
53 Santa Monica Rugby
Club
Proposes building or adaptively reusing a facility to
create a shared-use athletic fieldhouse that supports
rugby and other sports with training, meeting, and
recovery spaces—funded through private donations and
partnerships.
54 Santa Monica Spoke Proposes a Traffic Safety Learning Garden: a modular, bike/pedestrian education campus for all ages to learn
active mobility and street safety skills, supported by
existing materials, civic partnerships, and private
funders.

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: AttachmentB-LOIs [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 55 Seedlings Co-Living A 12-acre creative mixed-use district centered on a 250,000-square-foot Los Angeles Artist Series Hub with
2,000 rental units (500 reserved for middle-income
artists), combining cultural production, inclusive housing, and optional convention space.
56 Individual Contributor Proposes a certified competition-level aquatics center with multiple pools to meet overwhelming unmet
demand, improve swim safety and equity, and generate
revenue via events and rentals.
57 ShareWell dba
Cayton Children’s
Museum
Envisions a landmark children’s museum (75,000–
95,000 sq ft) rooted in play, nature, and communitybuilding—offering STEAM learning, cultural programming, and intergenerational engagement to
serve 1M visitors annually.
58 Simi Arts
Conservatory
Proposes a flexible, self-sufficient community arts
center offering year-round visual and performing arts
education, workshops, and performances with a focus on
adaptive reuse and wide community access.
59 Sports Facilities
Management, LLC
Offers a national-caliber public-private partnership
strategy to anchor the site with a revenue-generating
sports, recreation, and entertainment destination
backed by feasibility analysis and long-term operational modeling.
60 Snug Harbor and
Related
A surf lagoon-centered mixed-use destination called
“Santa Monica Landing,” blending recreation, housing,
culture, hospitality, and sustainability into an iconic, revenue-generating coastal hub.
61 Swimming Patrons of
Santa Monica
Proposes building and managing a new world-class
aquatics facility in the Great Park, backed by 70 years of local programming, to expand community access,
competitive sports, and swim safety ahead of LA 2028.

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: AttachmentB-LOIs [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 62 Teapot Gardens
501c3
A large-scale, climate-adaptive botanical tea garden
inspired by ancient “paradise gardens” that blends
ecology, wellness, cultural expression, and community
gathering, with earth domes, herbal tea cafes, artist
spaces, and regenerative landscape design.
63 The 5, LLC A world-class, privately funded youth baseball and softball complex spanning 50–75 acres with 13 turf
fields, a “Player’s Village,” training facilities, and
community events—addressing regional demand while
generating economic benefits.
64 Children’s Lifesaving
Foundation
Adaptive reuse of 5,000 sq ft in an airport hangar into a community hub offering youth education, family
services, and nature-based programming rooted in equity and sustainability, led by a long-established nonprofit serving BIPOC and homeless families.
65 The Milky Way
Foundation
Install handcrafted, artist-adorned benches designed
for public breastfeeding and family rest throughout the Great Park to normalize nurturing, enhance inclusivity, and promote maternal and child well-being.
66 Theodore Payne
Foundation
Establish a Nature Center featuring native plant
demonstration gardens, an education center, and
retail nursery to restore biodiversity, improve climate resilience, and inspire regional ecological stewardship through education and plant sales.
67 Van Denburgh
Consulting Group
A multi-sport racquet facility (tennis, pickleball, paddle tennis, and padel) with community amenities like the
“Racquet Ramada” and “El Cobertizo,” designed for
inclusivity, fitness, and social interaction through active recreation and flexible programming.

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: AttachmentB-LOIs [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 68 Vanilla Fire, LLC Describes a unique destination venue that is a vibrant community gathering space available for reservationbased rentals and celebrations. 69 VIP Rallies Temporarily convert the runway and hangars into a motorsports and entertainment venue featuring drag
races, car shows, and filming, activating the site postairport closure while preserving flexibility for future redevelopment.

At this time, there are no further steps associated with the LOIs. This list is provided to City Council for consideration on how the Preferred Scenario of Phase 3b should move forward and if any of these ideas are intriguing enough to instruct staff to continue exploring any of these ideas in the future.

7.A.b
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: AttachmentB-LOIs [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Attachment H
6/26/2025

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 2
This project will establish a preferred scenario for the conversion of the Santa Monica Airport, centered on a great park (consistent with Measure LC), after its closure at the end of 2028.

In this phase, the Consultant Team developed three scenarios for the site to spark conversation and invite the community and City Council to comment on the parts and pieces that they like. This input will be considered in developing the Preferred Scenario.

Project Goals

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 3
Financial Analysis Tasks
HR&A is evaluating potential capital and operating funding sources and financing mechanisms to ultimately develop a funding strategy for the preferred scenario.

This analysis assumes that the City General Fund is not anticipated to be a source for new capital or operating revenue.

Capital Funding Strategy 1 How to pay for construction? 2 Operating Funding Strategy
How to pay for operating & maintenance costs?
3 Economic & Fiscal Benefit
What other economic and fiscal benefits should be
accounted for?

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 4
Capital costs to build parks vary depending on quality of design; required infrastructure; type, provision, and intensity of use; and more.

Capital Costs
$.8M
$2.M
$4.M $4.M
$4.6M
$5.9M
$M
$1M
$2M
$3M
$4M
$5M
$6M
$7M
Los Angeles State
Historic Park
Scissortail Park Memorial Park Wilmington
Waterfront Park
Sarasota Bay
Park
Brooklyn Bridge
Park
Park Capital Costs Per Acre
Capital costs are adjusted to 2024 dollars from year of completion, except for Memorial Park (estimated FY 26-28). HR&A analysis of park capital costs.

Source: HR&A Analysis (all parks except noted otherwise), City of Santa Monica (Memorial Park), and Sasaki (Wilmington Park). Sarasota Bay Park acreage and capital costs are only for Phase 2.

Total: $493M
85 acres
Total: $142M
70 acres
Total: $40M
10 acres Total: $161M
40 acres
Total: $65M
Phase 2: 14 acres
Total: $20M
32 acres
Phases 1&2 estimate,
Phases 3&4 will be in
addition to this.
per acre
per acre
per acre per acre
per acre
per acre

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 5
While upfront construction costs are significant, operators of urban parks need to plan for significant ongoing operating and maintenance costs, with higher costs for more highly activated and used spaces.

Operating Costs
$94K $100K $109K
$178K
$224K
$423K
$K
$100K
$200K
$300K
$400K
$500K
Scissortail Park Santa Monica
Public Landscape
Division
Los Angeles State
Historic Park
Central Park Sarasota Bay
Park
Brooklyn Bridge
Park
Park Annual Operating Expenses per Acre
All operating costs are based on operations in 2023 except for Brooklyn Bridge Park (2022), Central Park (2024). The City’s Public Landscape Division number is from the City’s 2024 adopted budget. The City’s budget only includes landscaping and tree-trimming. This total does not reflect true costs including security and programming. Sarasota Bay Park acreage and operating costs is for both Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Total: $36M
85 acres
Total: $7M
70 acres
Total: $14M
144 acres
Total: $5M
24 acres
Total: $150M
Total: $4M 843 acres
32 acres
This is limited to
landscaping and
irrigation at parks,
not programs,
security or other
operating expenses.
per acre per acre
per acre
per acre
per acre
per acre

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 6
HR&A is assessing the potential capital and revenue from the relevant funding sources and financing mechanisms, which could be combined to develop a feasible funding strategy.

Funding Strategy Approach
Public Funding
Real Estate &
Value Capture
Philanthropy
Construction (all
phases)
Capital Cost Capital Sources
Public Funding
Real Estate &
Value Capture
Philanthropy
Administration
Equipment
Events and
Programming
Maintenance
Security
Other
Operating Expenses Revenue Sources
Earned Income
Funding sources are categorized in four categories:
• Public Funding: provided by government entities at the local, state, or federal level. The General Fund is not anticipated as a potential source of capital or revenue for this project. • Philanthropy: contributions from individuals, corporations, and foundations. • Real Estate and Value Capture: real estate and other tools to redirect projected increases in land values and tax revenues from park investments to fund park construction and/or operations. • Earned Income: revenue generated through park amenities and programs, only applicable to operations.

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 7
Each funding source/mechanism will have trade-offs.

Any preferred scenario and associated funding strategy will require a commitment from Council and community members to be realized.

Funding Strategy Approach
Allow uses
other than
parks and
recreation.

Potential Trade-offs
Impose new
taxes or fees
on property
owners.

Forego
General Fund
revenue to
the City.

Require a
public vote to
approve.

Prompt
Surplus Land
Act process
with potential
delays.

Extend
timeline to
secure funds
and realize
vision.

Reduce park
scope on site.

Require LA
County or
City
partnership.

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 8
Category Source Capital or
Operating
Revenue
Imposes new taxes
or fees on property
owners or residents
Example
Public
Sources
General Obligation Bond (GO Bond) Capital Yes Measure QS, Santa Monica (2024) $495M
Federal, State, and Regional Grants Capital No Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project, Santa Monica (2021)
$8.8M from State Water Resources
Control Board Prop 1
$7.5M County of LA Measure W
Real Estate &
Value
Capture
Enhanced Infrastructure Financing
District (EIFD)
Capital No La Verne EIFD, La Verne (2020) $44M
est. present value as of 2020 based
on projected revenue at 3%
Mello-Roos Community Facilities
District (CFD)
Both Yes OC Great Park, Irvine (2013)
$60M in FY24
Climate Resilience District Both Depends on the
financing tool used.

Regional Climate Protection
Authority, Sonoma County (2022)
Ground Lease Operating
Revenue
No The Viceroy Hotel, Santa Monica
(1966)
Land Sale Capital No NA
Philanthropy Philanthropy
Philanthropic potential is not
anticipated to be substantial based on
a lack of precedent, but remains
subject to specific analysis.

Both No Annenberg Community Beach
House , Santa Monica (2005)
$45M in 2025 dollars
Earned
Revenue
Existing Airport Lease Revenue Operating
Revenue
No NA
Income-Generating Programs Operating
Revenue
No NA
Summary of Funding Sources/Mechanisms
and Considerations
We’re not anticipating the City General Fund to be a source of new capital or operating revenue for this project.

Sources: HR&A Advisors, City of Irvine, City of La Verne EIFD Infrastructure Financing Plan Amended 2020, City of Santa Monica, LA Conservancy.

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 9
General Obligation Bond
(GO Bond)
Capital
Overview
A General Obligation (GO) Bond is a
voter-approved municipal bond backed
by the issuing government's credit and
taxing power.
• It is typically repaid through a property
tax levy, which would result in
additional property taxes for Santa
Monica residents.
• A GO Bond requires approval from
two-thirds (2/3) of registered voters.

Pros
 Can achieve a large sum of upfront capital
early.
 Since they’re backed by the General Fund,
GO Bonds can typically anticipate more
favorable interest rates than other financing
tools.

Considerations
 Increases property taxes to pay bond debt
service, which can negatively impact
property values if the obligation is too high.
 Requires 2/3-voter approval, timeline for
which may delay project implementation.
 Need bond issuance to be coordinated with
SMMUSD and SMC.

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 10
Capital
Overview
Allocates tax-increment revenues
generated in an area to finance
specified public benefits like
infrastructure, parks, or affordable
housing. It is one of the only forms of TIF
allowed in CA.
• Formed by vote of local elected
officials.
• Must expire within 45 years of
approving issuance of bonds.
• Improvements can be financed
either through bond issuance or
under a “pay-go” model.
• Funding potential and
implementation complexity vary
depending on the district and
jurisdiction participation.

Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing District (EIFD)
Tax-Increment Financing
Illustrative Graph
Pros
 Does not impose new taxes or fees on
property owners.

Considerations
 The City would forego revenue that would
otherwise go to the General Fund for the
period of the EIFD (45 years).
 City share of revenue may be insufficient
without County participation.
 Revenues ramp up slowly over time.
 Use of funds is limited to capital
expenditures.

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 11
Capital & Operating Revenue
Overview
Special district that can collect taxincrement revenues and/or levy a special tax to finance public
improvements.
• Shares common features with both
EIFDs and CFDs.
• Proceeds can be used to cover
capital or operating costs.
• Authorized to finance projects that
address climate change mitigation,
adaptation, or resilience.
• Implemented through the same
process as an EIFD.

Climate Resilience District Pros
 Does not always impose new taxes or fees on
property owners.
 Can leverage multiple funding sources.

Considerations
• City share of tax-increment revenues may be
insufficient without County participation.
• City/County participation can be
challenging.
• Depending on the tools used, the City may
forego revenue that would otherwise go to
the General Fund for the period of the CRD.

Tax-Increment Financing
Illustrative Graph

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 12
Capital & Operating Revenue
Overview
Imposes an additional tax on property
owners to finance public infrastructure
and certain services (e.g., as street
improvements, parks, public buildings,
and sewer improvements).
• Formation requires a two-thirds
approval of registered voters within
the district, making an on-site CFD
more straight-forward to
implement than an off-site CFD.
• Most CFDs fail if the total property
tax levy exceeds 2% of assessed
value.
• Improvements can be financed
either through bond issuance or
under a “pay-go” model.
• Funding potential and
implementation complexity vary
depending on districts and
jurisdiction participation.

Community Facilities District Pros
 Relatively simple implementation process if
established before 12 or more voters are in
place.
 Allows for flexibility in defining tax allocation
per parcel.
 Generates meaningful long-term revenues,
which can be used flexibly for capital or
operating revenue.

Considerations
 May be difficult to secure voter approval, if
required by an off-site district.
 Could require a complex and long
implementation timeline.

1.00%

0.07%

0.07%

0.01%

0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00%
Value
Applicable Levies & Assessment
City of Santa Monica
General Levy Community College
School District Water District
Potential CFD Levy
(0.85%)

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 13
Operating Revenue
Overview
On-site development in which the City
retains ownership of the land and
ground-leases to a developer can
generate long-term, ongoing operating
revenue.
• The value of land on-site will depend
on a public vote allowing uses other
than parks and recreation.

Project
Value Cost to
Develop
Residual
Land
Value
Pros
 Can address other community needs like new
housing and commercial space.
 Can generate sustainable long-term
operating revenue.

Considerations
 Would require a public vote to allow uses
other than parks and recreation.
 Proceeds would depend on allowed uses
and density.
 Difficult current market conditions limit
viable uses today.
 Would require compliance with Surplus Land
Act and coordination with the California
Dept. of Housing and Community
Development requirements.

Supportable development
values are calculated by
deducting construction costs
and developer profits from
estimated development
proceeds.

The result is the value that a
developer could pay for land
and still achieve the desired
return.

On-Site Development
(Ground Lease)

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 14
Capital
Overview
The City could sell a portion of the airport
site to generate capital for construction.
• The City could sell land on the site
within the City of Santa Monica for onsite development. • The City could also sell the portion of
the site that is located within the City
of Los Angeles (17 acres).
• The value of land on-site will depend
on a public vote allowing uses other
than parks and recreation.

Community members who participated in
engagement surveys expressed
opposition to land sale as a funding
source.

Pros
 Can potentially generate significant upfront
capital if the right pieces are in place (e.g.
zoning and market conditions).

Considerations
 Community expressed opposition in
engagement surveys.
 Proceeds would depend on allowed uses
and density.
 The Los Angeles parcel is currently zoned for
single-family housing, with limited likelihood
of rezoning, which would require partnership
with the City of LA.
 Difficult current market conditions limit
viable uses today.
 Would require compliance with Surplus Land
Act and coordination with the California
Dept. of Housing and Community
Development requirements.

Land Sale
Source: Sasaki
17 acres
in the
City of LA

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 15
Earned Revenue
Existing Airport Lease Revenue
Income-Generating Programs
Operating Revenue
Overview
The City currently earns revenue from
non-aviation leases at the site, such as
Barker Hanger, Ruskin Theater, and Freize
Art Fair. This revenue could remain at the
site.

Pros
 Utilizes an existing revenue source at the site.
 Provides ongoing revenue without new taxes
or City debt.

Considerations
• Operating revenue is limited to existing nonaviation leases.

Operating Revenue
Overview
Revenue-generating uses and programs
can provide ongoing operating revenue.

Program revenue is typically correlated
to the attendance and frequency of
programs (i.e. larger events generate
more gross revenue).

Examples: Amphitheatre, event venues
and rentals, paid parking, food/beverage
concessions, and sporting tournaments.

Pros
 Can enhance visitor experience through
amenities and activities.

Considerations
• Some income-generating uses rely on
ticketed entry, limiting access to residents.

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 16
Category Source Capital,
Operating
Revenue
Considerations
Approval Requirements Foregoes
City General
Fund
Revenue
Imposes new
taxes or fees on
property
owners or
residents
Public Funding General Obligation Bond (GO
Bond)
Capital Requires 2/3 approval of
registered voters.

No Yes
Federal, State, and Regional
Grants
Capital NA No No
Real Estate &
Value Capture
Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing District (EIFD)
Capital Requires a vote by local
elected officials.

Yes No
Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District (CFD)
Both Requires 2/3 approval of
registered voters.

No Yes
Climate Resilience District Both Requires a vote by local elected officials.

Yes Depends on
the financing
tool used.

Ground Lease Operating
Revenue
Requires public vote to
allow uses other than parks
and recreation.

Yes No
Land Sale Capital Requires public vote to
allow uses other than parks
and recreation.

Yes No
Philanthropy Philanthropy Both Potential is not anticipated to be substantial based on a lack of precedent, but remains subject to specific analysis.

Earned Revenue Existing Airport Lease Revenue Operating Revenue
NA No No
Income-Generating Programs Operating
Revenue
NA No No
Summary of Funding Sources /Mechanisms
and Considerations

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 17
Takeaway
Any scenario for the site could have a feasible funding strategy, but each option will have clear trade-offs and costs that are shared by the City and community.

Next Steps
HR&A, in collaboration with the City and Sasaki, will:
• Estimate annual operating expenses of the preferred scenario, • Assess the potential capital and operating revenue potential of each funding source to develop a funding strategy for the preferred scenario, and
• Analyze economic and fiscal impacts of the scenarios to compare the potential benefits.

Discussion & Next Steps

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 18

1. Any person who relies on or otherwise uses this analysis is required to have first read, understood and accepted the following disclosures, limitations and disclaimers, and will, by reason of such reliance or other use, be deemed to have read, understood and accepted the same.

2. HR&A Advisors, Inc. (HR&A) has been engaged and compensated by the City of Santa Monica to prepare this analysis. In preparing this analysis HR&A has used its independent professional judgment and skills in good faith, subject to the limitations, disclosures and disclaimers herein.

3. This analysis is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed by HR&A. Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the data contained in this analysis are accurate as of the date of this analysis; however, factors exist that are outside the control of HR&A and that may affect the estimates and/or projections noted herein. HR&A neither guarantees any results nor takes responsibility for their actual achievement or continuing applicability, as actual outcomes will depend on future events and circumstances beyond HR&A’s control.

4. HR&A reviewed the information and projections provided by third parties using its independent professional judgment and skills in good faith, but assumes no liability resulting from errors, omissions or any other inaccuracies with respect to the information provided by such third parties referenced in this analysis.

5. HR&A also relied on data provided by or purchased from the Redfin and the CoStar Group. HR&A assumes no liability resulting from errors, omissions or any other inaccuracies with respect to the information provided by these parties.

6. In addition to relying on data, information, projections and forecasts of others as referred to above, HR&A has included in this analysis estimates and assumptions made by HR&A that HR&A believes are appropriate, but HR&A makes no representation that there will be no variances between actual outcomes and such estimates and assumptions.

7. No opinion is intended to be expressed and no responsibility is assumed for any matters that are legal in nature or require legal expertise or specialized knowledge beyond that of a real estate consultant.

8. Many of the figures presented in this report will be rounded. HR&A disclaims any and all liability relating to rounding errors.

9. This analysis may be relied on and otherwise used only by persons who receive this analysis from HR&A or with HR&A’s prior written consent and only for the purpose stated in writing in conjunction with such receipt or consent. No reliance on or other use of this analysis by any person or for any purpose other than as stated in the previous sentence is permitted. HR&A disclaims all responsibility in the case of any reliance on or other use of this analysis in conflict with the above portions of this paragraph.

10. If the analysis is referred to or included in any offering material or prospectus, the analysis shall be deemed to have been included for informational purposes only and its use shall be subject to these General and Limiting Conditions. HR&A, its directors, officers and employees have no liability to recipients of any such offering material or prospectus. HR&A disclaims any and all liability to any party.

11. This analysis is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of these General and Limiting Conditions. By use of this analysis, each party that uses this analysis agrees to be bound by all of the General and Limiting Conditions stated herein.

General and Limiting Conditions

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Case Studies:

Park Funding Strategies
Case study capital and operating costs are
reported in 2024 dollars unless otherwise noted.

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 20
Los Angeles State
Historic Park
Los Angeles, CA
32 Acres
Sources: California State Parks, Los Angeles Times
Image Source: California State Parks
Capital Strategy Example
Los Angeles State Historic Park was funded by
public funding, including $20M from Proposition

40. However, this is not an available or applicable
source to the Santa Monica Airport.

Total Capital Cost: ~$20M
Capital Cost Capital
Sources
Public Funding
100%
Proposition 40

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 21
Sarasota Bay
Sarasota, FL
53 Acres, 10 acres in Phase 1, 14 acres in Phase 2
Sources: Sarasota News Leader
Image Source: The Bay Sarasota
Capital Strategy Example
Sarasota Bay was primarily funded by a TIF-
backed City bond ($47M). The TIF district
encompasses the park and surrounding property.

Additionally, government grants ($12M) and
private philanthropy ($5M) contributed to
complete the capital goal.

Phase 2 Capital Cost: $65M
Capital Cost Capital
Sources
Public Funding
18%
Grants
Philanthropy 8%
Real Estate & Value
Capture 74%
TIF-backed City
bond

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 22
Brooklyn Bridge
Park
New York City, NY
85 Acres
Sources: Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy, Annual Report (2022); Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation, Financial Statement (2022).

Image Source: Brooklyn Bridge Park Conservancy
Operating Strategy Example
Ground lease revenue at Brooklyn Bridge Park
exceeds operating cost needs. Operating costs
are supplemented by earned revenue, allowing
the park to grow a reserve fund with lease
revenue.

Annual Operating Cost: $36M
Operating
Cost
Operating
Sources
Earned
Income 2%
Philanthropy
7%
Real Estate & Value
Capture 90%
Ground leases for
on-site real estate

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 23
City Park
New Orleans, LA
1300 acres
Sources: New Orleans City Park (2025)
Image Source: New Orleans City Park
Operating Strategy Example
By necessity, City Park in New Orleans generates
nearly 75% of operating expenses from earned
income. Their top income drivers are special
events and venue rentals.

Annual Operating Cost: $31M
Operating
Cost
Operating
Sources
Public Funding
15%
State TIF and
special tax
Philanthropy 6%
Earned
Income 75%

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 24
Gloria Molina Grand
Park
Los Angeles, CA
12 acres
Sources: The Music Center (2024)
Image Source: Gloria Molina Grand Park
Operating Strategy Example
Through an agreement with Los Angeles County,
The Music Center manages Gloria Molina Grand
Park until 2031.

The Music Center receives reimbursements for
specialty production and event activities.

Annual Operating Cost: $7M
Operating
Cost
Operating
Sources
Earned
Income 15%
Public
Funding 86%
LA County
General Fund

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 25
Los Angeles State
Historic Park
Los Angeles, CA
32 Acres
Sources: Los Angeles State Historic Park
Image Source: Los Angeles State Historic Park
Operating Strategy Example
Los Angeles State Historic Park generates almost
half of its operating revenue from earned
revenue, the largest source of which is special
events like concerts. Additional revenue sources
are paid parking, film and photoshoot permits,
and concessions.

Annual Operating Cost: $3.5M
Operating
Cost
Operating
Sources
Earned
Income 43%
Public
Funding 57%
California State
Parks

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion SMACP Attachment H | HR&A 26
Presidio Trust
San Francisco, CA
1500 acres
Sources: Presidio Trust (FY2024 Budget)
Image Source: Presidio Trust
Operating Strategy Example
Presidio Trust provides housing for ~3,000
residents and leases to 200+ commercial
tenants. This and other uses make up its
business revenue, which subsidizes park
operations to meet operating needs above
what earned income generates.

Annual Operating Cost: $63M
Operating
Cost
Operating
Sources
Real Estate &
Value
Capture 68%
Ground leases
for on-site
real estate
Earned Income
32%

7.A.h
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 2 AboutUs
‣ A Santa Monica–based experience design company specializing in theme park shows and attractions, museum exhibits, showcase pavilions, and public spaces & events.
‣ We focus on the Guest Experience, crafting environments that inspire wonder, foster connection, and reflect the communities they serve.
‣ We bring together a multidisciplinary team of artists, writers, designers, planners, and project managers to turnkey your project from first spark to opening day.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 3 Phase 3B Observations
Funding strategies for capital
& operational expenses.

Allocation of public and
private land uses.

Short & long-term plans for park
development and investment.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 4 Ticketed Daytime Experience
Descanso Gardens
Seasonal Nighttime Experience
La Cañada Flintridge
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 5 Permanent or Rotating Exhibition

TEAMLAB
SuperBlue
Permanent or Rotating Exhibition

MEADOWS
Miami, Florida
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 6 Theater Venue
The
Commercial Campus
San Francisco
Presidio
(As referenced by HR&A)
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) A Holistic Approach
Collaboration between
LDC and CDC
Alignment of Program
& Amenities
A Holistic Guest
Experience
+ =
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Contact Info:
+1 310 770 9452
[email protected]
https://www.curiouscreative.design
STAY Curious. INSPIRE Creative.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 474
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 475
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 476
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 477
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 478
Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 1 David Yakobson
From: Alex Novakovich <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 9:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Alex Novakovich
90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 2 David Yakobson
From: David Alper <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 8:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

More intense development of this area will create an impossible web of traffic and noise that will choke what is now a beautiful neighborhood that is already challenging to navigate.

Sincerely,
David Alper and Susan Stein
516 18th St, Santa Monica, CA 90402
--
David Alper
Mobile: 310.963.4443
[email protected]
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 5 David Yakobson
From: YIMBY Los Angeles <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 4:17 PM
To: YIMBY Los Angeles
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: City Council Regular Meeting 7/8/2025 Agenda Item #7 Public Comment Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Councilmembers –
On behalf of Yimby Los Angeles, I want to express our enthusiastic support for the comprehensive redevelopment of the 192-acre Santa Monica Airport site. We support the City’s Scenario 3: Growing Park, Growing Community proposal, which incorporates approximately 48 acres of new mixed-use development.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape Santa Monica's legacy for decades to come.

The site presents a rare opportunity to create a transformative new community, balancing the forecasted need for housing with a magnificent trophy park. Our region faces a major housing affordability crisis today, with average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Santa Monica at nearly $3,000 per month (source); and with an eye toward the future, developing this publicly owned land can significantly contribute to alleviating this burden.

Envision a vibrant, mixed-use community framed by a massive trophy park offering passive, active, and cultural activations. Studies consistently show that proximity to well-designed public parks can increase surrounding property values by 8-20% (source), enhancing desirability and creating a lasting civic asset.

This integrated approach will foster a highly desirable neighborhood where homes activate open spaces, ensuring a dynamic, safe, and well-utilized park for everyone.

While some in the community desire a park-only future, forgoing housing would be a squandered opportunity and a municipal finance albatross. An integrated development offers a fiscally responsible and sustainable model. Developing on city-owned land significantly reduces housing production costs, making affordable housing more achievable, and revenue-generating activities within a mixed-use scenario can ensure the park's long-term operational sustainability.

This is a chance to build a truly integrated community that exemplifies what Santa Monica stands for: progress, sustainability, and equity. The lasting positive impact on future generations and the region cannot be overstated. As City Councilmember Jesse Zwick wisely noted, "A lot of people like to say we need our Central Park. But if Central Park in Manhattan had a perimeter entirely of single family homes, it wouldn’t function and be as great as it is.”
Sincerely,
Christopher Russell, Lead
Yimby Los Angeles
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 6 David Yakobson
From: Sejon Ding <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 3:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: The Santa Monica Park will increase its value everyday through eternity Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
30 year, 50 years, 200 years from now, it will remain a great park for the people of Santa Monica and surrounding communities. It's not going to be big enough but it's the best we can do. If we put in housing, we're screwed for eternity. When you think of Mendoza, Vancouver, San Franciso or any other cities with incredible parks, they conjure beauty, health and care. Yes, the creation and maintenance of a great park for the public says we care about your well-being. And this is the greatest gift each one of you in power can give to the people.

Best regards,

Sejon Ding
Pristine Windows, Inc
Tel: 310-446-8180
www.pristinewindows.com

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 7 David Yakobson
From: Leslie Lambert <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 2:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 7A
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
There are several necessary corrections to my recent submission for 7A. First, the next Housing Element cycle is the 7th, not the 8th. Second, this cycle is for the period 2029-2036.

Thank you and sorry for any confusion
Leslie Lambert
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 8 David Yakobson
From: Leslie Lambert <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 2:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Subject: Item 7A
Attachments: Item7A.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Attached are my comments on Item 7A for the Tuesday meeting. Thank you.

Leslie
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 9 David Yakobson
From: Jehangir Dastur <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 2:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Santa Monica Airport Redevelopment Project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:

As a local resident who lives in the vicinity of Santa Monica Airport, I believe this is a great opportunity to develop airport land to build a wholistic community that would include below market rate housing, community center and park. The priority should be below market rate housing for people who work in Santa Monica like teachers, nurses, firefighters, police and those who work in the commercial sector earning less than $150,000 per year. This will begin to address the housing shortage and one of the root causes of homelessness, that is lack of affordability. Offering this kind of housing to working families will also help to rebuild the middle class in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your understanding and support in bringing affordable housing back to Santa Monica in a meaningful way.

Sincerely,
Jehangir Dastur
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 10 David Yakobson
From: Erika Bell <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 12:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

I know this is our only chance to protect wide, open, regenerative space in our city. It is a very real opportunity to address climate concerns and enhance our city’s resilience. Creating a Great Park will not only serve the residents and visitors of Santa Monica, but it will also stand as a sustainable gift to future generations.

Take care,
Erika Bell
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 11 David Yakobson
From: Peter Spelman <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 12:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Nothing but PARK at the airport
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
7/5/25
Hello Council Members:

There's really not much more to say. You all know that the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Santa Monica, my family included, want nothing but a GREAT PARK on the airport land - no housing, no new commercial structures, nothing but PARK. You all know that. Now, the only question is, do you follow the will of the majority of your citizens or do you violate their trust in electing you by voting for something they don't want?
You do realize, of course, that if you put a housing-at-the-airport measure on the '26 ballot it will be hugely expensive, terribly divisive and damaging for our City's civic health, and, worst of all, a tremendous distraction from the real work of fighting back against the authoritarian and cruel MAGA folks.

What more can we say? You know what the right thing to do is here. Just do it.

We're all watching.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Peter Spelman & Stephanie Tainsky
730 Marine St.

SM 90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 12 David Yakobson
From: DALE STRUMPELL <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 12:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I believe that Santa Monica’s growth, while beneficial in many ways, has come at the cost of the city’s green spaces. All great cities have great parks, and Santa Monica has the opportunity to create something truly wonderful. It is important that such an LC-compliant Great Park be funded with on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land. thank you
Dale Strumpell
…………………….

I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library - Jorge Luis Borges Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 13 David Yakobson
From: JOHN VENTURA <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 12:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7 - The Great Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
As a long time Santa Monica resident from the Sunset Park area, and the Wilshire Montana area, I would like to voice my support for the closing of the Santa Monica airport and replacing it with a Great Park. The city-owned buildings on airport land are fully leased, debt-free, and are projected to generate approximately $22 million annually in annual income in 2029 — enough to fund both park development and operations based on comparisons to similar parks in the region and elsewhere. In 2014 the Santa Monica voters passed Measured LC to ensure this land becomes a park, and I urge all city council members to move forward to advance the park now.

Thank You,
John
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 14 David Yakobson
From: Robert Mickelson <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 11:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Robert
Robert Mickelson
3204 Pearl Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 15 David Yakobson
From: John Londono <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 10:57 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7 - The Great Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council:

I am in favor of the airport land being converted to a Great Park that is compliant with measure LC.

This includes no new housing or development.

Whatever buildings currently exist can be repurposed or leased for revenue to cover park maintenance costs.

I expect the Council to vote in line with the will of the majority of Santa Monica resident IN FAVOR of the Great Park.
-John Londono
Sunset Park
90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 16 David Yakobson
From: Laurie Irwin <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 9:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete
Cc: Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya Subject: Santa Monica Great Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Hello Council Members,
It is time to lead and ensure that residents of SM have a park to enjoy for decades to come. There is a plan in place with current and projected revenue, no need to add housing to a land-locked area. There should only be park related services and no thoroughfare roads to ensure health and safety of everyone at the park, which will likely be made up of many seniors and children.

Vote with a sound mind and heart to move forward with the park so that Santa Monica can truly shine as a nature loving and community-building locale. Many of us have been part of the planning and decision phases thus far and have an interest in the favorable outcome as having voted this way.

The desolation of downtown Santa Monica with overbuilding is already being felt. Please leave the Eastside as a sanctuary for nature, learning, and pure enjoyment of the outdoors together with a small town feel.

Thank you for voting to move forward quickly with the park! We are all excited about it!
Sincerely,
Laurie Irwin
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) JUNE 5, 2025
RE: ITEM 7A (July 8, 2025)
Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Torosis and Councilmembers:

I am writing to encourage you to consider the development of both housing and a park on the Airport Property. If necessary to support a project that is compliant with Measure LC, then I suggest that you leave your options open by limiting the park planning to the runway and postponing plans for the remaining site until after the Airport has closed in December 2028. This can happen by your favoring Scenario 1 as applied to the runway only.

I ask you to consider the following:

1. Affordable Homeownership - We all are aware of the affordable housing shortage in Santa Monica and the absence of any first time homebuyers’ opportunities that are affordable to moderate and middle income people. Many of these people likely were born and raised in Santa Monica but are locked out of homeownership and the opportunity for their children to take advantage of the District’s excellent school system and the City’s many recreational opportunities.

Through land write downs on the Airport Property, the City could provide these opportunities.

Please consider Village Green as a model for this type of development. Village Green is a 627-unit medium density development in Los Angeles, which is characterized by abundant green space.

There is no vehicular access within the project. Instead, peripheral parking is provided. Village Green is a National Historic Landmark because of its excellent planning and livability. I am not proposing that this many units be built on the Airport Property. I am only citing it as an excellent example of a human scale, vehicle-free environment.

2. 8
th Cycle Housing Element - The 8th Cycle Housing Element (2029-2037) must be finalized by October 2029. The RHNA on which the next Element is based must be issued no later than two years before that. If the RHNA numbers are of the same magnitude as the current RHNA, the City will be seriously challenged in finding development sites to accommodate this new allocation.

Those sites on the current Element’s Suitable Sites Inventory (SSI) can be added to the 8th Cycle’s SSI. However, any repeated sites must be zoned to allow for inclusion of 20% very low and low income units. Since the upzoning of the current SSI properties was based on 5% very low/5% low and 5% moderate income units, the City will be facing a major upzoning of the already upzoned sites in order to make the very low income and low income units feasible. Further, while the 7th Cycle upzoning was limited to commercial areas, it is predictable that new upzoning may have to occur in Residential districts. Finally, I am certain that HCD will not be pleased if the City refuses to zone any of the Airport property for affordable housing given the land write down potential notwithstanding Measure LC.

In anticipation of 8th Cycle planning, I strongly encourage you to include a substantial number of affordable units in your future planning for the Airport Property.

3. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) - As you know, this is a very high priority of the State. Its intent is to provide housing opportunities in high opportunity areas and those segregated racially and economically even if this segregation is de facto (the result of real estate prices). The Airport Property is in the southeastern quadrant of Sunset Park. Although the Sunset Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Park has more multi-family units than single family residences, it is predominantly white and middle to higher income. Providing affordable housing opportunities on the Airport Property would further the objectives of AFFH.

A few additional thoughts:

Creation of an Enhanced infrastructure Financing District – Actually the more appropriate State authorized program would be a Climate Resilience District. The financing district need not be limited to the Airport property. Instead, its boundaries could extend to all properties that would benefit from the park, assuming it doesn’t run into redevelopment agency debt payment issues. The beneficiary is probably much of Santa Monica. In order to collect the tax increment from district property owners, the City and the County must agree to give up all or a portion of their property tax increment. The good news about either of these districts is that 25% of revenues can be used for affordable housing. An important point about these financing districts is that they have no impact on the amount of property taxes paid by Property owners. They rely only on tax increment.

Mello-Roos Bonds – These bonds can be used for the construction of infrastructure needed for development where none exists. It is certainly an option for new housing development on the Airport Property. The bonds are paid off by the property owners.

In conclusion, let me address the argument that Santa Monica is a “park poor” community. When I say that to my neighbors they look at me as though I have lost my marbles. First, every neighborhood in the city has at least one sizable park. North of Montana is the exception, but we all know the front and back yards and the street trees provide a lot of open space, albeit private, and visual relief. Second, most schools in the District have joint use agreements, meaning their playing fields and playgrounds are open for public use in off hours. Finally, discounting the beach is ridiculous. I have concluded that this omission is due to the City’s not owning it as well its use by non-Santa Monica residents. My daughter and her friends from Samo always gravitated to the beach for recreation. They still do. Not Clover Park. Several years ago we hosted a very large family reunion, all of which was held on the beach and at the Annenberg Beach House. Not Clover Park. I know for a fact that these personal experiences are not unique.

Community Participation – I applaud the exhaustive community outreach efforts of City staff and the consultants. But, by their own admission, the responses skewed heavily toward older, white residents.

That is often the case with such efforts for a variety of reasons we all know. At the risk of sounding patronizing, I think it is important that we, as leaders, represent everyone in our decision making including those who, for whatever reason, could not participate in the public dialogue. Our last Planning Commission meeting on the Airport was illuminating on this point. The speakers were pretty evenly divided on “housing versus park”. The difference was their race and ethnicity. Local 11 submitted a petition, with 150 member signatures, urging the inclusion of housing in the park plan.

Thank you for your consideration.

Leslie Lambert (Planning Commissioner, for ID only)
Sunset Park Resident and Beach User
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 17 David Yakobson
From: Stephen Unger <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 1:52 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Close the Santa Monica Airport!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
At the upcoming July 8th meeting, we urge you to do what was promised to the Santa Monica citizens: Close the Santa Monica Airport no later than January 1, 2029. Thank you.

Respectfully,
Stephen Unger
Longtime Santa Monica Resident, Homeowner, Taxpayer and Voter Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 18 David Yakobson
From: Hal Bogotch <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 4, 2025 8:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item # 7 - our Great Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Rep -

I urge you to vote FOR our Great Park and AGAINST any housing or commercial development on the S.M.

Airport site!
-- Hal

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Hal Bogotch
2520 Cloverfield Blvd
S.M. 90405
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Begin forwarded message:

From: NoJets <[email protected]>
Date: July 4, 2025 at 7:59:41 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: The Majority Has Spoken — Now It’s Council’s Turn Reply-To: NoJets <[email protected]>

View this email in your browser
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

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

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 19 We can afford the park.

Now we need council to honor their campaign
promises on July 8th

Santa Monica voters and residents have made their
intentions clear — repeatedly and democratically: they
want the airport closed and replaced by a Great Park —
with open space, sports fields, and nature — not housing or commercialization. As council considers how to move
forward, it's crucial to focus on a key fact left out of HR&A's financial report commissioned by the city: In 2029 the parkland will generate approximately $22 million
annually in lease revenue from city-owned and fully paid for buildings that already exist on the parkland. The lease revenue must stay in the park enterprise fund in the same way the funds were managed when the land was an airport.

Key Points:
• The city-owned buildings on airport land are fully leased, debt-free, and are projected to generate approximately $22 million annually in annual income in 2029 — enough to fund both park development and operations based on comparisons to similar parks in the region and elsewhere. • Lease income can support a revenue bond to finance construction of the park without burdening the general fund or the taxpayers.
• Operating and development costs of comparable parks (LA State Historic Park, Crissy Field) are modest — and well within reach given our revenue. • The HRA report downplays lease revenue and overstates projected costs — presenting a misleading picture that questions affordability and invites delay and reconsideration. (see chart below)
The Public Has Spoken — Democratically:

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 20 • 1926: Voters taxed themselves to buy this land for a park. • 2014: Voters passed Measure LC to ensure this land becomes a park. • 2023–25: Thousands of residents participated in the Sasaki visioning process and demanded a Great Park.
• Resolution 11026: Council committed to closing the airport as soon as legally allowed.
• 2024–25: The Parks & Rec, Airport, Urban Forest, the SM Community Gardens Advisory Committee, Sustainability Commissions — and the Santa Monica Democratic Club — all endorsed a pure, LC-compliant park with no housing.

What’s Needed Now:
• Recognize the city projected $22 million in lease revenue as a primary funding source.
• Direct staff to begin planning for a Great Park without housing or delay. • Don’t let another round of "what ifs" open the door to privatization or ballottriggering scenarios. • Recognize the same consultant previously overstated airport economic impact by claiming $275 million in benefits — a number later debunked and downgraded to “the equivalent of a mini-mall.” The current HRA report downplays lease income, overlooks city ownership of assets, and inflates future costs — undermining affordability and inviting delay.
• Acknowledge that state housing mandates are real, but they do not override Measure LC or the city’s right to honor voter-approved park use.

These mandates can and must be addressed elsewhere in the city’s Housing Element — not on protected parkland.
• Call for unity among residents, Council, and staff to respect the democratic process and advance the park now — without triggering delays through housing studies or development scenarios already rejected by the public through visioning, testimony, and years of public comment.

The July 8 decision is a test of trust — in voters, governance, and Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 21 truth.

We urge the council to lead with clarity and courage.

Special Thanks to Councilmember Dan Hall for publicly stating he is for a LC compliant park for all of the right reasons. Maybe he'll be the one to make a motion for an LC compliant park we can afford?
Let’s lead clearly, confidently, and with the knowledge that we can afford the Great Park residents have demanded for nearly a century.

Four votes make history.

Four votes closes the airport on schedule – January 1, 2029.

Four votes begin the Great Park.

We only need four, but we'll take more.

Please attend the July 8th Council meeting and The Rally For The Great Park at 4:30PM at City Hall. Write to Council.

Thanks for hanging in and Happy 4th!
Alan Levenson
Write to council before the July 8th meeting. Subject: Item 7 - The
Great Park

 Lana Negrete (Mayor): [email protected]
 Caroline Torosis (Mayor Pro Tem): [email protected]  Jesse Zwick: [email protected]
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 22  Dan Hall: [email protected]
 Ellis Raskin: [email protected]
 Barry Snell: [email protected]
 Natalya Zernitskaya: [email protected] Email the full Council: [email protected]

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

Copyright © 2025 NoJets SMO, All rights reserved.

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
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 23 David Yakobson
From: Ose Dalldorf <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 4, 2025 8:28 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fw: The Majority Has Spoken — Now It’s Council’s Turn Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear council members,
I whole - heartedly agree with the thoughts Alan Levenson expressed below.

How could we possibly and illegally sell out the determination and repeated democratic votes of the SM residents ?
It is unfathomable to me that we have even come this far to suggest and then allow other than legal, voted for( by SM residents) uses of this land ?
How does one square that with one's conscience ?
I used to be such a strong believer in democratic principles ! PLEASE VOTE FOR the LC COMPLIANT PARK !!!
Thank you for your considerations !

View this email in your browser
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

We can afford the park.

Now we need council to honor their campaign
promises on July 8th

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 24 Santa Monica voters and residents have made their
intentions clear — repeatedly and democratically: they
want the airport closed and replaced by a Great Park —
with open space, sports fields, and nature — not housing or commercialization. As council considers how to move
forward, it's crucial to focus on a key fact left out of HR&A's financial report commissioned by the city: In 2029 the parkland will generate approximately $22 million
annually in lease revenue from city-owned and fully paid for buildings that already exist on the parkland. The lease revenue must stay in the park enterprise fund in the same way the funds were managed when the land was an airport.

Key Points:
• The city-owned buildings on airport land are fully leased, debt-free, and are projected to generate approximately $22 million annually in annual income in 2029 — enough to fund both park development and operations based on comparisons to similar parks in the region and elsewhere. • Lease income can support a revenue bond to finance construction of the park without burdening the general fund or the taxpayers.
• Operating and development costs of comparable parks (LA State Historic Park, Crissy Field) are modest — and well within reach given our revenue. • The HRA report downplays lease revenue and overstates projected costs — presenting a misleading picture that questions affordability and invites delay and reconsideration. (see chart below)
The Public Has Spoken — Democratically:
• 1926: Voters taxed themselves to buy this land for a park. • 2014: Voters passed Measure LC to ensure this land becomes a park. • 2023–25: Thousands of residents participated in the Sasaki visioning process and demanded a Great Park.
• Resolution 11026: Council committed to closing the airport as soon as legally Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 25 allowed.
• 2024–25: The Parks & Rec, Airport, Urban Forest, the SM Community Gardens Advisory Committee, Sustainability Commissions — and the Santa Monica Democratic Club — all endorsed a pure, LC-compliant park with no housing.

What’s Needed Now:
• Recognize the city projected $22 million in lease revenue as a primary funding source.
• Direct staff to begin planning for a Great Park without housing or delay. • Don’t let another round of "what ifs" open the door to privatization or ballottriggering scenarios. • Recognize the same consultant previously overstated airport economic impact by claiming $275 million in benefits — a number later debunked and downgraded to “the equivalent of a mini-mall.” The current HRA report downplays lease income, overlooks city ownership of assets, and inflates future costs — undermining affordability and inviting delay.
• Acknowledge that state housing mandates are real, but they do not override Measure LC or the city’s right to honor voter-approved park use.

These mandates can and must be addressed elsewhere in the city’s Housing Element — not on protected parkland.
• Call for unity among residents, Council, and staff to respect the democratic process and advance the park now — without triggering delays through housing studies or development scenarios already rejected by the public through visioning, testimony, and years of public comment.

The July 8 decision is a test of trust — in voters, governance, and truth.

We urge the council to lead with clarity and courage.

Special Thanks to Councilmember Dan Hall for publicly stating he is for a LC compliant park for all of the right reasons. Maybe he'll be the one to make a Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 26 motion for an LC compliant park we can afford?
Let’s lead clearly, confidently, and with the knowledge that we can afford the Great Park residents have demanded for nearly a century.

Four votes make history.

Four votes closes the airport on schedule – January 1, 2029.

Four votes begin the Great Park.

We only need four, but we'll take more.

Please attend the July 8th Council meeting and The Rally For The Great Park at 4:30PM at City Hall. Write to Council.

Thanks for hanging in and Happy 4th!
Alan Levenson
Write to council before the July 8th meeting. Subject: Item 7 - The
Great Park

 Lana Negrete (Mayor): [email protected]
 Caroline Torosis (Mayor Pro Tem): [email protected]  Jesse Zwick: [email protected]
 Dan Hall: [email protected]
 Ellis Raskin: [email protected]
 Barry Snell: [email protected]
 Natalya Zernitskaya: [email protected] Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 27 Email the full Council: [email protected]

To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Copyright © 2025 NoJets SMO, All rights reserved.

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,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Email
Marketing
Powered by
Mailchimp
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 30 David Yakobson
From: Sam Butler <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 4, 2025 3:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Please finalize the creation of an LC-compliant Great Park with a financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and no sale or other privatization of the land. As a westside resident, I am looking forward to seeing a new accessible green space that I can recreate in and that will serve as a lifeline for native plants and wildlife. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to establish something good and at scale for the residents of Santa Monica and the surrounding communities, that will also help our local ecosystems to survive the on-going challenges of climate change and loss of habitat through overdevelopment.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Given that a park has already been approved by ballot and is the only option that would not require further expensive and time consuming ballot measures, the creation of an LC-compliant Great Park is clearly the best option.

Kind regards,
Sam Butler
Westchester, Los Angeles
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 31 David Yakobson
From: Jing Liu <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 4, 2025 2:38 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council members,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Jing

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 32 David Yakobson
From: Vivien Flitton <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 4, 2025 2:25 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek
Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Please move forward with the creation of an LC-compliant 'Great Park' with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you
Vivien Flitton
Santa Monica Resident
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 1 David Yakobson
From: Ingrid Mueller <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Today's SMO votes::

EXTERNAL
Respected Council members,
You can figure out by the attached 1990's GO GREEN NOW! poster for how long this now 82-year old tenant at the Historic Lincoln Place Apartments has envisioned No Noise & Air Pollution beneath the SMO flight path in Venice...
¡¡You Can Afford to get on with THE GREAT PARK Plan!!
Please cast your valued votes for a better tomorrow.

MerciGraciasTak!
Sincerely, indeed.

Ingrid Mueller
Just beneath/SW of SMO
and toward Pacific/S of Rose
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 3 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 4 David Yakobson
From: Y Ma <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 3:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: Important Correction Immediate Call to Action

EXTERNAL
Keep the airport! We need it
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 33 David Yakobson
From: Andreas Kemkes <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 4, 2025 11:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
This is the last chance for the creation of sufficient open and regenerative space within city limits that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

The process has been overbearing with planning. Less is more. Start slow as finance permits and keep options open for the future. That implies prioritizing existing on-site revenue sources and no sale or other privatization of the land.

I support the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park in the spirit of Frederick Law Olmsted.

Sincerely,
Andreas Kemkes
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 34 David Yakobson
From: Green Mother Zen <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 4, 2025 10:49 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Ms. Frankie Lou Thorn
Sent from GreenMotherZen 걭걮걯거
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 35 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, July 4, 2025 10:06 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I support the goals of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations, including, by the way, significant recognition in the site’s re-design of the place of aviation in Santa Monica’s history.

I do NOT support any subversion of the voters’ original intention to replace the airport with anything other than public open space. That means no private ownership, no housing, no yielding to any pressures of the current moment. Anything would other than 100 percent dedication of this land to a public park will be a betrayal of the public trust.

Anything less would cause this voter to revert to his support for keeping the airport in its current state.

Sincerely,
Erik Lerner
25 VIllage Parkway
Santa Monica CA 90405
310 729 4597
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 36 David Yakobson
From: Daniel Galamba <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 4, 2025 9:42 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: July 8, 2025 City Council Meeting Item 7.A
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please move forward the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land for the benefit of the people of Santa Monica.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Dr. Daniel Galamba
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 37 David Yakobson
From: Jason McBride <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 4, 2025 9:33 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Jason McBride
3224 18th St
a 30 yr Santa Monica resident.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 38 David Yakobson
From: Lisa Sandbank <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 4, 2025 9:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Esteemed Mayor and City Council members,
It is our greatest civic responsibility to recommission the airport space upon its closing with an LC-compliant park.

Beginning with the purchase of the land in 1926 with a parks bond, to the city charter addition in 2014 to “prohibit new development on airport land except for parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities”, the necessity, and benefits, for a great, public park on the entire 190+/- acres is evidenced not just by former intentions, from future environmental and public and civic health safety.

We are in a fortunate position which allows our existing on-site revenue sources to exclude the sale or other privatization of the land.

We must seize this opportunity to build an open, recreational, and regenerative space that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Lisa Sandbank
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 40 David Yakobson
From: Allison Greene <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 4, 2025 8:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I have forwarded the email below as a sign of my full support for the great park, and only a park. As a relatively new resident of Santa Monica, (5 years now!) we purchased our home in Sunset Park under the assumption that we would someday live close to this wonderful park, that it had already been voted on and decided by the city. I am emailing to say, please honor that commitment to all of us. Thank you.

Allison Greene
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
"Sent from a handheld so please excuse terseness and typos" Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 41 David Yakobson
From: Federico Bianchi <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 4, 2025 8:20 AM
To: Federico Bianchi
Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Honorable City Councilmembers,
I respectfully urge you to move forward with the creation of an inspirational, LC-compliant Great Park supported by a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, without selling or privatizing this vital public land.

As our increasingly park-poor city continues to densify, it is essential that we secure sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative green spaces to restore habitat and serve the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your leadership on this important issue.

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
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
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 42 David Yakobson
From: Camilla Chan <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 4, 2025 8:01 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Support for a Great Park—A Vital Investment in Our Community’s Future Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
As a Santa Monica resident and parent of a teenager and a tween, I’ve spent many years watching my children
grow up on our city’s playing fields. Both have played
soccer for years in Santa Monica parks, and my son has
also played baseball here. These parks have been more
than just recreational spaces—they’ve been essential to their development, offering structure, community, and a safe place to grow.

But as our city becomes more dense, the shortage of open space is increasingly apparent. Santa Monica already has less park space per resident than many other cities, and this imbalance is only getting worse. That’s why I believe so strongly in the opportunity we have with the airport site.

Creating a Great Park that complies with Measure LC isn’t just about adding green space—it’s about investing in the kind of “third spaces” that are critical for youth. Parks Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 43 give kids a place to build independence, form friendships, and develop socially outside of home and school. These
are the spaces where community is built and where
future generations will thrive.

Please vote to create a truly public, LC-compliant Great Park on this once-in-a-lifetime site—for the benefit of all Santa Monicans, now and in the future.

With appreciation,
Camilla Benham
(Santa Monica resident)
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 44 David Yakobson
From: Irit Raz-McBride <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 10:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Irit Raz-McBride
3224 18th street
Santa Monica 90405
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.iritraz.com__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!rjga8rZXIPGYUsw_Go06XZN6qomw uN8WViL9U9-mQGLijUQm3CQIM67UVxDElJDXyOa2NjIIOHE-ax2YOgelIhBXRvst8WnzruCo$ Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 45 David Yakobson
From: great park <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 9:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Elaine Polachek
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 7.a SMAC Project June 8
Attachments: FSAC LOI FINAL.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council.

I am writing from Santa Monica AYSO, a 100% volunteer, non-profit, community organization and the largest sports org in Santa Monica. Santa Monica AYSO is a member of the Great Park Coalition and we strongly support a LC-Compliant Great Park at the airport location.

As you may know, Santa Monica AYSO provides a high-quality, low-cost program to over 1500 Santa Monica kids every year, and tens of thousands of Santa Monica kids have grown up in our program, including some of your own kids. We are inclusive and have soccer programs for all kids, whether they have special needs or they are elite players, and everyone in between. We serve the entire economic spectrum of Santa Monica, including many families receiving government assistance, and we provide significant financial aid to everyone in need. We believe ALL kids should have access to play soccer and gain the important life-skills and physical and mental health benefits from playing sports.

With our 2500+ actively involved parents and community volunteers each season, we are an important and engaged part of Santa Monica's community.

Santa Monica is park-poor. There is simply not enough open space and sports fields in Santa Monica to adequately serve our active kids and families, and this significant problem is only getting worse as the city continues to densify. Building an LC-Compliant Great Park is the solution to this problem and helps maintain balance between development and open space so Santa Monica stays vibrant, healthy, and liveable, now and in the future.

To that point, I want to ensure that you saw the LOI that Santa Monica AYSO and other FSAC organizations (representing soccer, rugby, and lacrosse) submitted. I am attaching it here for your convenience. As you can see from the attached LOI, we are willing to work with Santa Monica, in a private-public partnership, to fund and build rectangular fields as part of a LC-compliant Great Park.

Please don't privatize public land that the public desperately needs for park and recreation space. Let's roll up our sleeves and work together as a community to build a fiscally responsible, LC-compliant Great Park for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans, now and for generations to come.

Thank you,
Lisa Demsky, Regional Commissioner, AYSO
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 46 Melinda Mehringer, Board Member, AYSO
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins))

We are the Santa Monica Fields Sports Advisory Committee (FSAC) members that utilize Santa Monica’s rectangular-fields, across multiple sports including soccer, lacrosse, and rugby. Together we teach sports -- and the life lessons of teamwork, commitment, and resilience -- to close to 2000 Santa Monica kids annually. We submit this Letter of Interest to indicate our interest in supporting a private-public partnership with Santa Monica to create more rectangular sports fields at the new Great Park.

1. Santa Monica needs more Sports Fields to Support our Kids’ Physical and Mental Health Playing sports helps keep kids physically active and fit in the face of growing screentime and childhood obesity.
1 Team sports also benefit kids’ mental health, resulting in lower rates of anxiety, lower drug use, higher self-esteem, healthier body image, better sleep, improved cognitive performance, and higher GPAs/test scores/graduation rates. These physical and mental health benefits extend into adulthood.2 Especially considering the modest cost of sports fields, there is truly no better return-on-investment for our city’s future than to provide fields for our kids to play sports.

Currently, we have a critical shortage of soccer/multi-use field space in Santa Monica. There are only two city-owned rectangular fields in all of Santa Monica – Airport Park and Belmar. Two fields are not enough for all of Santa Monica’s kids! The two other rectangular fields (JAMS, Lincoln) are controlled by the schools, so youth sports’ use is restricted and conditional on the schools’ needs and holiday schedule. (This is also largely true for Belmar, because SAMOHI gets permitting priority after school). With the new middle school athletics programs, the schools are using their fields after school for their own students more than ever, exacerbating the field shortage. Fields at the schools are typically unavailable to permit before at 5 or 5:30pm at the earliest. We try to schedule the very youngest kids to the earlier times, so this pushes “older” kids – who may just be 10 years old – to late practices that run until 9 or 9:30PM at night, which is hard on these kids and families. More city-owned fields would allow us to hold very young kids’ practices earlier, like after school at 3:30 or 4pm, allowing the 10–12-year-olds to also practice earlier and get to bed at a reasonable time. In addition, the lack of field space often requires squeezing six or eight teams on one field, which is not best for teaching or safety.

The field crunch for rectangular sports gets even worse in January to June, as diamond sports get permitting priority during their core, spring season, so the rectangular field at JAMS (and the open grass space between baseball diamonds at Marine and Clover) become unavailable to us. Unfortunately, this lack of field space means we must limit the number of teams we can form, and we sadly turn away kids who want to play rectangular field sports but there is no room for them to practice on our local fields. We can fix all these field access issues by building more rectangular fields in the Great Park!

2. We will Invest in Santa Monica and Provide the Capital to Build Rectangular Fields at the Great Park Between our organizations’ direct contributions, fund-raising, and sponsorships from foundations, corporations, and national and major league sports organizations, we can fund the $7-10 million it would take to build a first-class Field Complex with 10-12 new rectangular playing fields at the Great Park using a “Friends of the Park” conservatorship structure.
1 One in five U.S. children are medically obese, per the CDC. See www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood-obseity-facts. 2 See Benefits of Youth Sports, President’s Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition Science Board.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins))

3. We urge the City to adopt a FIELDS FIRST building strategy at the Great Park.

Fields can be Built Quickly and Will Help Fund the Build-Out of the Rest of the Great Park.

Rectangular sports fields provide surplus revenue, as they are consistently permitted by our organizations. Currently, our organizations pay Santa Monica over $100,000 annually for field permits, which covers not only the maintenance for the fields we use, but also provides surplus revenue to the City. Fields at the Great Park would similarly add value and produce surplus revenue for the Great Park.

But there is a much larger opportunity here. If we built a multi-use rectangular Field Complex at the Great Park with 10-12 fields, it would also create opportunities to bring significant revenue into Santa Monica through hosting tournaments. Teams travel to attend tournaments, with many teams staying two to three nights in local hotels, eating out at restaurants and passing time between games buying merchandise and food at booths at the fields and at shops in town, and experiencing other local entertainment – all bringing in millions of dollars to their host cities.

We are attaching a sampling of news articles about cities across the country that value youth sports as an economic driver and are making many millions of dollars hosting sports tournaments. We could easily replicate this success in Santa Monica. Based on other cities’ experiences, a conservative estimate is that a Santa Monica field sport tournament at the Great Park would bring in $2,000,000-3,000,000 in economic benefit to Santa Monica in a weekend. With Santa Monica’s premier location, and our base of local sports organizations across lacrosse, rugby, football, field hockey, and soccer, Santa Monica’s Great Park Field Complex would easily host at least five tournaments during the year, conservatively contributing $10-15 million to Santa Monica’s economy annually. With a first-class Field Complex, we could even host major league teams who are in town and need practice space during the weekdays (when kids are in school), thus maximizing use of – and revenue from -- the fields.

By building FIELDS FIRST, we will help fund the rest of the Great Park! Fields can be built quickly and at a relatively low-cost, and can immediately produce surplus revenue to be used to build out other recreation facilities at the Great Park. We are committed to structuring our tournaments to raise and share revenue DIRECTLY with Santa Monica (or a Santa Monica Great Parks Foundation) to reinvest in the Great Park.

For example, premier tournaments typically charge $15-20 per day for parking and have preferred hotel partners; we would use these techniques to raise millions of dollars that we would reinvest back into the Great Park to build out other recreation facilities that the community wants, e.g., community meeting room, gym, futsal/tennis/pickleball courts. Adopting a FIELDS FIRST strategy will help fund the rest of the Great Park.

Building a multi-use Field Complex at the Great Park would keep Santa Monica’s kids and our economy healthy and strong for decades to come. We urge the City to adopt FIELDS FIRST as a planning strategy, because the fields would produce so much surplus revenue that they would fund the build-out of many other recreation facilities at the Great Park. We hope Santa Monica with partner with us to make a Field Complex happen at the Great Park.

Respectfully,
Albion SC Santa Monica
Autobahn Soccer Club
Santa Monica AYSO
Santa Monica Rugby Club
Santa Monica Vikings
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins))

SPORTS FIELDS ARE ECONOMIC DRIVERS FOR THEIR HOST CITIES Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins))

YOUTH SOCCER TOURNAMENT IN WESTLAKE HOPES TO BOOST LOCAL ECONOMY Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 47 David Yakobson
From: Paula Mazur <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 9:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Cc: Robert Mickelson
Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I’m a longtime Santa Monica resident and business owner. I am a 100% advocate of an LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

We are starved for open, green space.And as our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

We can do this and it will be an amazing legacy!
All the best (...for us and future generations!), Paula Mazur 32nd and Pearl Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 48 David Yakobson
From: Kimberly Turner <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 9:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Kimberly Turner
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 49 David Yakobson
From: MICHAEL OSMENT <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 7:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely, Michael Osment

MICHAEL OSMENT
Osment Productions & Photography
[email protected]
310-291-1272
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 50 David Yakobson
From: Mehringer Family <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 7:36 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Cc: Great Park Coalition
Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I strongly support an LC-Compliant Great Park at the SM Airport site.

Please approve, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

We can use private-public partnerships to fund recreational facilities — the public desperately wants these and will find the funding. Give us time to get this done. Keep our public land owned by the public and controlled locally. This is the best course of action for the future of Santa Monica. By transforming this land into a Great Park, it will become the crown jewel of Santa Monica, and will improve the livability of our city, now and for generations to come.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Steve Mehringer,
Santa Monica Resident
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 51 David Yakobson
From: Alison Campbell <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 7:21 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Cc: Marc Campbell
Subject: Please support a public Great Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
We live in Santa Monica with my family. Our kids are active and play sports, but there is a shortage of park and open space because Santa Monica is park-poor and has significantly less park space per resident than other cities. This problem is only getting worse as the city gets more and more dense. The airport site is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a Great Park and make Santa Monica more livable for families, now and for generations to come. Please vote to create a LC-compliant Great Park on our public land, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans.

Thank you!
Ali & Marc
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 52 David Yakobson
From: Ann Hoover <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 6:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis
Cc: Elaine Polachek
Subject: July 8, 2025 Council Meeting - Item 7.A. - SMAC Project - Skatepark LOI Attachments: GPC - Skatepark LOI V2.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Letter of Interest - Regional Skatepark!
Dear Mayor Negrete and Esteemed Councilmembers -
Attached please find my Letter of Interest (LOI) for a new regional-scale skatepark at the Great Park to honor Santa Monica's skateboarding legacy (Dogtown), promote inclusivity and accessibility, and generate revenue through events, skateboard retail, cross promotions with local skate shops like Rip City Skates, and youth-oriented programming.

If a skatepark space is reserved in the final design for the Great Park, then as set forth in the LOI I will work very hard to line up the capital to build it and the revenue for its maintenance will be generated through the sources mentioned above. It would be great for the skatepark to be free to all, but user fees can be considered in the future if managing the # of users at any given time becomes necessary.

Thank you for your consideration!
Sincerely,
Ann Bowman
Resident, 28+ years
Skateboarding enthusiast
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) May 5, 2025
Dear SMAC Project Team –
With gratitude for the opportunity, I submit this short Letter of Interest regarding a new skatepark at the Great Park to accommodate both vertical skateboarding (“vert”)-style and street-style skating. While Santa Monica’s and the regions’ skateboarders love and treasure The Cove, which is an excellent Mid-City amenity for beginner and mid-level skaters, both Santa Monica and the region deserve a second and larger skatepark at the Great Park for skaters of all ages, abilities, and skill levels.

Although in some ways a sport that may have evolved almost simultaneously from the midcentury zeitgeist throughout the United States, skateboarding as recreation has seminal, defining roots in Santa Monica and nearby Venice. Many skateboarding historians believe it originally evolved from the surfing community, with surfers taking their thrill-seeking onto land initially with wheeled surfboards, which then evolved into the skateboards we see today.

Burnished by the California sunshine and marketing of the “California dream”, Santa Monica’s and Venice’s influential skate cultures have dominated the skate community imagination for decades, ever since the sport’s inception. That history and influence has been documented and further popularized in films like LORDS OF DOGTOWN and DOGTOWN AND Z-BOYS.

Skating over the years has evolved through both intention and effort to become one of the most open and inclusive sporting communities of all, populated with thrill-seeking mavericks that include women, LGBTQ+ members, and people with disabilities. One of its Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) most respected and honored street skaters is a trans man – Leo Baker, born Lacey Baker in Covina, CA. As Lacey, Leo won Gold medals in the 2016 and 2017 Skateboarding World Championships and would have represented the United States as a woman in the 2020 Olympics but withdrew to come out as a trans man.

Skateboarders often travel around to different skateparks in a region, both seeking new physical challenges and new friends and sporting connections. A skatepark at the Great Park could be both an inclusive space that accommodates disabled athletes (like the new Watts Skatepark, see below) and a locus of regional connection for the entire Southern California skating community.

Tony Hawk, a California native, skateboarding icon, and entrepreneur who pioneered vert skateboarding, established his philanthropic The Skatepark Project (originally the Tony Hawk Foundation) in 2002, which builds skateparks in underserved communities and has awarded over $13 million in grants to create parks enjoyed by an estimated 17 million people annually.

Partners, naming rights, sponsorships, and donors can be assembled to help fund the build, with user fees, a small skate shop, merch kiosk, or pop-up to help generate revenue for annual operations and maintenance. In addition, skater/spectator patronage of a nearby café or food kiosk can help drive tax revenues that will fund overall Great Park operations, as would parking revenue for skater/spectators who arrive from further afield by car. Annual revenue data and an estimate of annual maintenance costs for The Cove can be assembled as a starting point to help illuminate the financial way forward to a well-run and well-maintained skatepark at the Great Park.

A skatepark at the Great Park is directly in line with and able to more-than-satisfy the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project’s Guiding Principles of Inspiring Wonder (see photos throughout this LOI), Balancing Economics (at minimum the skatepark itself can help generate various revenue streams to help support its operations), and Celebrating Place (Santa Monica helped create, incubate & popularize the sport of skateboarding, now a worldwide phenomenon and Olympic sport enjoyed by millions).

I look forward to helping the City and our community make this skatepark become a reality.

Sincerely,
Ann Bowman
Resident, 28+ years
Recreation and Parks Commissioner
Co-Founder, Santa Monica Great Park Coalition
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) SIZE: 20,000-30,000 square feet, plus surrounding seating, landscaping, space for a small skate shop or merchandise pop-up area to sell merch and cross-promote with local skate shops and related merchants. Locate near a café or kiosk. If Sasaki will reserve adequate space in the Great Park for the skatepark, supporter could then work to find a design partner and potential financial supporters.

POTENTIAL FUNDING & PARTNERS: If sufficient space is committed to a skatepark within the Great Park, the following are just a few of the public and private organizations and businesses to approach to become funding and/or promotional partners – Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) City of Santa Monica https://www.santamonica.gov/categories/arts-culture-fun/parksand-recreation Los Angeles County Parks & Recreation https://parks.lacounty.gov/ LA Parks Foundation https://laparksfoundation.org/
California Skateparks (design and build) https://www.californiaskateparks.com/ Annenberg Foundation https://annenberg.org/
Other private philanthropy
The Skatepark Project (offers grants to help finance public skateparks in low-income communities) – although communities like Santa Monica and Venice are overall considered quite privileged, there are low-income communities within both areas that may draw the attention of The Skatepark Project for either funding or advising; in addition, the Los Angeles County is in many ways an entire region of underserved (see below) - https://skatepark.org/
THE SKATEPARK PROJECT’S DEFINITION OF “UNDERSERVED”
The primary mission of the The Skatepark Project is to help underserved communities create safe and inclusive public skateparks for youth. “Underserved” can be defined as communities marginalized by poverty, geography, or racial, gender and other forms of social inequality or discrimination. Below are some examples of information The Skatepark Project may use to determine if a community qualifies as underserved:
• Distance to existing contemporary skate space (concrete, public) • Median Household Income
• Racial and Ethnic Composition
• Poverty Rate
• Free and Reduced Lunch Rate
• Suicide, Overdose & Disconnected Youth Rates”
Rip City Skates https://ripcity-skates.com/
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) Bay Street Boards https://baystreetboards.com/
Board Blazers https://boardblazers.com/pages/about-us
VANS (for skate shoes & accessories) https://www.vans.com/en-us Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) PARK AND REVENUE SYNERGIES: The skatepark could help drive sales tax revenues (and fuel both skaters and observers) at a nearby café or food kiosk. A small skate shop or skating pop-up likewise would help drive sales tax revenues and help give local companies like Rip City, Bay Street Boards, etc. and national skate gear suppliers like VANS an opportunity to sell and/or promote their product; prominently placed QR codes can help direct skaters and afficionados to the local shops, The Cove, Venice Skate Park, and skate shops in Downtown Santa Monica or on The Promenade, driving sales in some of Santa Monica’s more far-flung retail/tourist locations.

LOCAL SKATE HISTORY/REGIONAL RESOURCES: Signage or simply QR codes also could inform visitors and participants alike both of Santa Monica’s contributions to skate history and culture and direct people to regional attractions like the Venice Skate Park, the Skateboarding Hall of Fame Skateboard Museum in Simi Valley, etc.

CONSIDERATIONS (Locating for Accessibility and Noise Mitigation): Skateboarding can be loud, especially street-style skating where skaters practice tricks over and over, and so some thought needs to go into location within the park. It likely should go near Centinela both for regional accessibility and to mitigate potential noise issues. Designers would want to make it easy for participants to get to (i.e., not buried deep within the middle of the park) and also put it where it won’t draw noise complaints. One other option that could be cool, but maybe less accessible, would be on the very Western end of the park, overlooking 23rd Street/Walgrove, which likely will always be a noisy area due to heavy traffic. Could be a pretty breathtaking place for people to both skate and spectate.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) AUXILLIARY LOCATION: If part of the SMO runway is retained like at Tempelhof, there could be a designated “skate area” or “skate lane” there too, although this would not take the place of a more complete skatepark with both bowls and street features elsewhere in the Great Park.

BENEFIT - less damage to public and private property: Street-style skaters unfortunately can have a tendency to damage both public and private property. Street skaters love to find rails and walls to slide down, steps to jump over, curbs to grind on, etc. My own son has yelled from time to time over the years as heads out the door things like: “We’re skating (Santa Monica) City Hall today” or “We’re skating the West L.A. Courthouse today”….. my admonition to him is always: “PLEASE DO NOT DAMAGE ANYTHING!!!!” A large, attractive and challenging skatepark at the Great Park will pull in street skaters and help keep them away from attractive (from a skater’s perspective) public and private properties. [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins))

INSPIRATIONS
THE SKATEPARK PROJECT – https://skatepark.org/
FISE LIST OF 20 BEST SKATE PARKS IN THE WORLD –
https://www.fise.fr/en/fise-world-series-2020/news/our-20-best-skateparks-world [CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE]
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) VENICE SKATE PARK –
VANCOUVER PLAZA SKATEPARK – for street skating
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) WATTS SKATEPARK – an all-access park for both adaptive skaters and the nondisabled; a park for EVERYONE THE SKATEROOM / PHILANTHROPY –
Maybe the skate shop or pop-up directs visitors through a QR code to THE SKATEROOM (headquartered in Belgium), which sells skateboard art and raises funds for social impact projects worldwide. https://theskateroom.com/?srsltid=AfmBOoqyuHqw80egj8v8iCp72- 5UIF8xSSZjsgks7jK3fYYauMoSaoNr
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME!
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 53 David Yakobson
From: Brian Lanich <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 6:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Hi,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, on the creation of an LC-compliant Great Park with no sale or other privatization of the land. This isn’t a place for more housing in our densifying city- or a way to enrich developers -it needs to continue as an open space for everyone.

Thank you and please keep it LC!
Brian
Sunset Park
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 54 David Yakobson
From: Jessi Salas <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 6:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for a Great Park at the Santa Monica Airport Site Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
As someone active who participates in local sports, I want to express my strong support for transforming the Santa Monica Airport site into a public Great Park.

Access to open space is essential for the health and well-being of children and families. In a time when outdoor recreation and community connection are more important than ever, this is a unique opportunity to create a lasting, positive legacy—one that will serve current residents and future generations alike.

A thoughtfully designed park would provide space for youth sports, recreation, walking, gathering, and unstructured play—things every vibrant community needs. It would help make Santa Monica a healthier, more family-friendly place to live.

Thank you for considering this vision and for your service to the community.

Sincerely,
Jessi Salas
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 55 David Yakobson
From: Gonzalo Ugarteche <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 6:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Great Park!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I live in Santa Monica with my family. My kids are active and play sports, but there is a shortage of park and open space because Santa Monica is park-poor and has significantly less park space per resident than other cities. This problem is only getting worse as the city gets more and more dense. The airport site is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a Great Park and make Santa Monica more livable for families, now and for generations to come. Please vote to create a LC-compliant Great Park on our public land, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans.

Thank you!
Gonzalo Ugarteche
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 57 David Yakobson
From: Susan Angenendt <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 5:15 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

There are other areas suitable for increased housing density. Please ensure that Santa Monica joins cities such as San Francisco, Denver, Berlin and Athens in reclaiming space for their citizens’ wellbeing.

Sincerely,
Susan Angenendt
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 58 David Yakobson
From: William Fordes <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 4:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
There is no great city without a great park. I know this well because I grew up in Park Slope, Brooklyn, and experienced the irreplaceable joy of playing in a great park — in my case, Prospect Park, designed by the same brilliant landscape architects who built Central park. I knew it as a child, as a young person, as a young man, as an adult, as an older adult. It was an inspiration. And a joy. It still is.

It contained no housing. No commercial sites. No auditoriums. No places that were not dedicated to quiet and rest. A great park is a PARK, not a money-making operation. A great park is a PARK, not a solution to a housing crisis born of decades of neglect by towns, cities, municipalities, counties, states and the nation. A truly great park is a place of peace, not profit or a substitute for an amusement park.

Yes, of course, SM needs new and more housing.

The GREAT PARK is NOT the place.
60% of the voters voted for LC to build a park.

If forced to vote again, I predict 75% of the voters will vote to build a park. Not housing. Not amusement areas. A park. How much simpler can it be, and how much easier is it for you to build a park that the OVERWHELMING per centage of the city voters want.

Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
William N. Fordes
Sunset Park, SM
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 59 310-913-4579
“And like everyone who’s had enough,” said Control as Alleline noisily left the room, “he wants more.” Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy — John le
Carre
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 60 David Yakobson
From: Gavin Scott <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 4:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Gavin and Nicola Scott
1801 Marine Street,
Santa Monica
CA 90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 61 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 4:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Airport to Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

As decades-long residents of Santa Monica (renters in Ocean Park; homeowners in Sunset Park), we have long supported creating a Great Park where the airport now sits. Measure LC was aimed at doing this and was supported in voting precincts across the city (not just those near the airport).

Now for the next step – the actual creation of the park, along the lines of the Number One draft-example favored by the public at various recent gatherings, and online.

Our city took a welcome step in the eventual conversion of the airport land by trimming the runway length a few years ago. Meantime, at the adjacent business park along Ocean Park Blvd, the high vacancy rate suggests the possibility of some conversion into apartments.

What we don’t have in our city, in abundance, is parks. A big step in changing that is to convert the current airport land into a Great Park.

Sincerely,
Jeanne and Brian Bland
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 62 David Yakobson
From: Stacey Ravel Abarbanel <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 4:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land. As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Wishing you a happy fourth!
Stacey Ravel Abarbanel, 1039 Harvard Street, Santa Monica Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 63 David Yakobson
From: RICHARD BERNSTEIN <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 4:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Richard Bernstein
2606 29th Street
Santa Monica 90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 64 David Yakobson
From: Uproar LA <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 3:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
UproarLA
www.uproarla.org
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 65 David Yakobson
From: John Greene <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 3:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward with the building on our Park. We did not vote for housing of any type, strictly a Park. Please be good stewards in the positions you hold during this historic event, follow responsibly through with the Peoples choice: A Park!
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

I am a homeowner that lives within two blocks of the airport. Thank you.

Sincerely,
John Greene
2211 Pier Ave.

Santa Monica, CA
90405
Sent from my iPad
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 66 David Yakobson
From: Robert Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 3:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Robb Brown
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 67 David Yakobson
From: Mehringer Family <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 3:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Cc: Great Park Coalition
Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I am a 20+ year resident of Santa Monica and live here with my family, including two sports-playing kids (soccer and tennis). We strongly support creating an LC-compliant Great Park at the Airport site.

This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to build a Great Park, to benefit ALL Santa Monicans. Please do not sell out Santa Monica and our future by selling off this unique public site to private developers; housing can — and is — being built at many other locations. But this is the ONLY location where a Great Park could be built. A Great Park at the airport site will help future-proof Santa Monica's green space in light of the ongoing, increased densification throughout the rest of the city. Please resist the big-money developer special interests — who are after short-term profits and don't care about Santa Monica residents. Let's build an inclusive, historic public Great Park to benefit ALL Santa Monicans - now and for generations to come.

Over the past 20 years, I have seen the city densify dramatically, with more and more large apartment buildings throughout the city. I happened to be at Broadway x 7th yesterday and was amazed at the new block-long housing complex under development. Glancing west, I observed the string of large modern apartment buildings that weren't here when I moved to Santa Monica in 2002. Around the corner on 6th, was a proposed new 18 story high-rise apartment building. New housing is going up everywhere! But our park development has not kept up! Unfortunately, our city is highly park-poor. We have much less park space per resident than concrete jungles like NYC and San Francisco, and we also have much less than our beach city neighbors. This dismal statistic will get worse every year, as Santa Moncia continues to densify. Building a Great Park at the airport site will help future-proof our city as we densify more and more every year. We need to safeguard this land for a Great Park so Santa Monicans who live in apartments (80% and growing!) have access to open green space and recreational facilities. This is an equity and social justice issue, which will only grow more extreme as our city continues to densify! Public land at the airport site should inclusively benefit ALL Santa Monicans.

Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land. There were many, many LOIs submitted that offered funding in the context of private-public partnerships to create recreational facilities on the site. I appreciate that money is tight, but I can't fathom why City Council would sell off (including long term ground leases) our public land to Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 68 private developers before you've even given public-private partnerships a chance to work. The public CARES about creating a Great Park. We will work with you to find the funding to create a beautiful Great Park, responsibly and over time, and we will — together - leave a legacy for future generations! Please vote to create an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park for ALL Santa Monicans.

Sincerely,
Melinda Mehringer,
Santa Monica Resident & Voter
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 69 David Yakobson
From: Gary Avrech <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 3:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Regarding Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

My dear friends, Martin Rubin and his wife Joan Winters, lived a few blocks due east of Santa Monica Airport, along the flight path, and both died this Spring a month apart from each other, after a 5 year bout with cancer... possibly due to toxins related to pollution from private jet landings at the airport a decade earlier.

In their names, please do all you can to move forward, for the benefit of all of our neighbors and local communities, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our communities become more dense, and families and individuals require more park space, it is critically important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Let your constituents and others know that this park is for the greater good, and that you will need ample support from individuals and voters, so you can fend off the significant pressure, campaign contributions, and attempted bribes from a monied interests, most notably developers and others business operations, that will come to attempt to profit from the airport's closing.

Also be prepared to stand up to pressure and threats from Donald Trump's FAA that will try to keep the airport open, to allow private jets and military helicopters to resume landing at the airport (further polluting the air in communities surrounding the airport).

Best wishes.

Sincerely,
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 70 Gary Avrech
139 N Westgate Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Cell: 818-321-3984
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 71 David Yakobson
From: Jane Dempsey <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 3:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: RE: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Jane Dempsey
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 72 David Yakobson
From: Cindy Bendat <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 3:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Creating a Great Park - Agenda Item 7A SMAC Project - July 8, 2025 Council meeting Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and CIty Councilmembers:

I am writing to you as a 35 year resident in Santa Monica and as someone who was active in the LC Campaign, AIrport2Park and now the Great Park Coalition.

I am excited that you have the opportunity to create something incredible for us and for future generations to enjoy - a beautiful LC-compliant park on our public land. It's about time.

Great cities have great parks. Think London, Paris and New York. And those parks happened because a prior generation made them happen. It is now our turn to do the same. Doing so will undoubtedly be one of the most important accomplishments in our lives.

I just returned from Berlin, and I visited Templehof Park, once an airport. I consider it to be an underdeveloped park, and yet I saw people skating, walking, biking, running, a dog park, a BBQ area, a beer garden, community gardens, an area where arts and crafts was happening with kids, a miniature golf area, volleyball courts, and more. There was also educational signage and even an airplane describing the past aviation history of the site. At another park in Berlin called Mauerpark where I also went, every Sunday there is an antiques and artists flea market, eclectic food kiosks, and there is a small amphitheater with a fun and very popular karaoke scene. Anyone can perform. There was also a platform where informal dance and exercise classes were happening, a BBQ area, people lounging on the grass, people enjoying picnics, and more. I have photographs of all of this if you want to see them:
people enjoying themselves and experiencing connection and community. Parks in Berlin are truly loved and viewed as essential to the health and well being of everyone in the city. For me, Palisades Park has played a similar role.

There is no need to overdevelop what will be our beautiful Great Park in Santa Monica. Meadows, walking paths, bike paths, places to meditate, breathe the air and enjoy the views is what we initially need. We can gradually do more.

And residents have made it clear that it is an LC- compliant park we want without privatization or sale of any of the land. That was clear with the votes on LC and D in 2014. And it is still true as evidenced by the recent vote of the Santa Monica Democratic Club and by the growth and involvement of organizations and individuals who are now part of the ever expanding Great Park Coalition. The Great Park Coalition Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 73 now includes more than 60 organizations, representing more than 20,000 participants, and more than 700 individual supporters!
Housing belongs elsewhere in Santa Monica, not on airport land. It belongs near transit lines, where there is existing infrastructure, and where there is no need for remediation, to wait until 2029, or to have a resident vote. I know the Council has been actively pursuing housing, including affordable housing, in many other parts of the City. We don't want it on airport land. This is a once-in-a-lifetime generational opportunity to create - as our legacy - open regenerative green space on land originally purchased with a park bond. We can do this.

Again, residents, your constituents, want a park on our public land. And we want an LC-compliant park. It is essential that nothing be done to trigger a resident vote between now and the closing of the airport on January 1, 2029. Without complication, we need to get the land back.

The bottom line: it is now in our power to finally make the decades-long effort to close the airport and create a park a reality, to turn a hazard zone into a green zone, and it will be a shining example to other communities of what persistence and activism can bring. Together, we can do this, and we will do this.. Make us proud with your vote at this Council meeting..

Thank you.

Cindy Bendat
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 74 David Yakobson
From: Phyllis Chavez <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 3:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Phyllis Chavez and Ken Legaux
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 75 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 2:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Adrian Harewood
Sunset Park Homeowner
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 76 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 2:42 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Mary Nardoza
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 77 David Yakobson
From: Ravi <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 2:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Ravi Shah
Sunset Park, Santa Monica
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 80 David Yakobson
From: K Blanc <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 2:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Dissent: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I disagree with the Great Park Coalition's push for 100% non-residential use of the airport property. Why are they against mix-use?
The Coalition claims that Santa Monica is "park-poor" -- as if the airport property's large adjoining Clover Park isn't spacious enough. As if our city's 10 other parks, athletic fields, pickle ball courts and recreation centers don't add up to a tremendous amount of space in which residents can relax and play.

Most puzzling, the group appears to have forgotten about our "park-poor" city's miles of BEACH PARK.

Why is the Coalition fighting so hard against mixed-use? Is it truly about habitat restoration and legacy, or might it also have something to do with upholding property values in the airport area? 'Tis a mystery! Sincerely,
Blanc Comm
Santa Monica
Sent from my mobile
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 81 David Yakobson
From: Matt Goldenberg D.O. <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 2:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I want to share my perspective as a kid who grew up in Santa Monica and now the father of two daughters who are currently at Franklin. There are three reasons why I am in support of a great park:

First, I spent much of my childhood at Douglas Park. It’s a great example because it also has an aviation history and was part of Donald Douglas airplane factory prior to being turned into a park in 1933. My daughters have also both spent much of their childhood at Douglas Park. In over 40 years of enjoying Douglas Park, I have never heard one person wish they had fewer slides, or fewer tennis courts, or fewer open spaces or fewer trees. I have never once heard anyone wish they had made the park smaller to accommodate other things.

I don’t think this is unique to Douglas Park, have you ever heard anyone wish any park in Santa Monica was smaller? Or anyone, other than a developer, wish Central Park in New York City was smaller? So, the first reason I support the great park is because 100 years from now, our children and their children will never regret having a large and great park in Santa Monica. No one will ever wish the Santa Monica Great Park was smaller.

This is more relevant today, compared to 11 years ago when LC was passed, because after the recent fires much of the State Parks to our north, including Will Rogers State Park, are indefinitely closed. A great park will be even more critical in the future as we increase the density of our city, those who will live in affordable and other new housing deserve the right to have access to outdoor public places to spend time and enjoy nature.

The second reason why I support a great park is because of my progressive values. Throughout history, from Roosevelt to Wilson, progressives have always fought for conservation and for public parks.

Progressives are why we have the National Park System. Progressive have been and always will be who fight to preserve our public open spaces. Just like the progressive heroes that came before us, I hope the progressive members of the Santa Monica City Council will now support and fight for the right of future generations to have a great park in Santa Monica.

The third and final reason I support a Great Park is because we will be stronger if we come together to support a great park. If we stand united and come together in support of a great park for Santa Monica, Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 82 we can continue the fight for affordable and below market housing in other parts of Santa Monica and not fight ourselves and our neighbors.

Sincerely,
Matt Goldenberg
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 83 David Yakobson
From: Eileen Tunick <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 2:13 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Cc: Barbara Roe; Betsy Potter; Alyea Marianne >; Holland Jason; Josephine Wallace; [email protected]
Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,

EILEEN TUNICK
Homeowner in Santa Monica since 1979
Advocate for more nature and no commercialization/development Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 84 David Yakobson
From: Amanda O'Brien <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 2:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Cc: Ido Gruberger
Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
As an 11 resident of Santa Monica, please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land. The people who actually live near the airport do not want housing and the voters were clear on LC. We should not be asked to vote again because there are outside parties that have commercial interests in the land. Our children deserve better and it is critical that our locally elected officials support the best interest of current Santa Monica voters and residents.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Best,
Amanda OBrien and Ido Gruberger
Homeowner of 1744 Bryn Mawr Ave, Santa Monica 90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 85 David Yakobson
From: Julia Carnahan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 2:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Julia Carnahan
2239 27th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
cell: 323-244-9663
P.S. I’m also on the Santa Monica Public Art Committee
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 86 David Yakobson
From: Kari Hidalgo <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 2:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Elaine Polachek
Subject: Support for a Great Park at the Santa Monica Airport Site Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
As a parent of active children who participate in local sports, I want to express my strong support for transforming the Santa Monica Airport site into a public Great Park.

Access to open space is essential for the health and well-being of our children and families. In a time when outdoor recreation and community connection are more important than ever, this is a unique opportunity to create a lasting, positive legacy—one that will serve current residents and future generations alike.

A thoughtfully designed park would provide space for youth sports, recreation, walking, gathering, and unstructured play—things every vibrant community needs. It would help make Santa Monica a healthier, more family-friendly place to live.

Thank you for considering this vision and for your service to the community.

Sincerely,
Kari Hidalgo
Parent of a LA Bulls Soccer Player/Supporter of Youth Sports Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 87 David Yakobson
From: nancykless <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 2:01 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
This is my second email to you about this topic. I am contacting you again to beseech you to hear the SM community which elected you to City Council. We voted for LC to close the airport AND replace it with a park. We understand the need for more affordable housing, but there are sites with existing infrastructure which are close to public transportation that make a whole lot more sense for housing. As more people can afford to live in Santa Monica, the need for more park space will keep increasing. "Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations."
Sincerely,
Nancy Kless
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S21 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 88 David Yakobson
From: Ken Borden <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 1:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Great park only please!! NO housing and NO commerical space please!! Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I live in Santa Monica with my family (my 2 children and their families also in santa monica). My grandkids are active and play sports, but there is a shortage of park and open space because Santa Monica is park-poor and has significantly less park space per resident than other cities. This problem is only getting worse as the city gets more and more dense. The airport site is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a Great Park and make Santa Monica more livable for families, now and for generations to come. Please vote to create a LC-compliant Great Park on our public land, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans.

Please do not include housing and commercial space in the new great park. also, please do NOT use up so much space with a water pond/lake.

I also believe the system for you requesting input is flawed. santa monica residents are the only people who should be able to provide input. non santa monica residents can provide input as a santa monica resident, and there is no check to verify. also, there is no check to prevent anyone from submitting multiple times.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 89 Thank you
ken borden
958 18th St, Santa Monica, Ca 90403
310-714-6214
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 90 David Yakobson
From: Victor Fresco <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 1:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 91 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 1:44 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I am a Santa Monica resident. I urge you to adopt an LC-compliant plan for the airport when it closes. We need more park space. Housing and commercial development belong elsewhere in the city.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Harris Gabel
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 92 David Yakobson
From: Laura Marcus <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 1:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Laura
(\ /)
( . .)
c(”)(”)
Sent from my iPad
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 93 David Yakobson
From: ZEKI MELIKHAJI <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 1:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Zeki Abebeker
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 94 David Yakobson
From: Hope Muller-Tabanera <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 1:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Feedback about Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Please move forward, for the benefit of all of the westside of LA, the creation of a beautiful LC-compliant Great Park.

Our city is full of buildings and concrete on almost every corner. Some say we have "a lot of parks", but almost all of those are small block-by-block parks. It would be wonderful to have a park ASAP in our community, so we don't need to drive to Griffith Park or pay for the Huntington Library to get lost in nature. Let's have a place for people to gather in nature and relax, walk, bike, swim, have picnics, and play.

Let's make an LC-compliant park, so we can get this ball rolling! We don't want to be 50 before we see a decent park in our community. Thank you for considering this!

Have a great day,
Hope Muller Tabanera
“If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world."
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 95 David Yakobson
From: Nichole Delansky <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 1:18 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Nichole Delansky- Santa Monica resident and mom of 2 boys under 12 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 96 David Yakobson
From: Monica Limon <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 1:16 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek; Barry Snell; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Monica L.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 97 David Yakobson
From: Jeremy Borden <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 12:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Great Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am a lifelong Santa Monica resident.

My wife is a teacher at Franklin.

And my kids go to Franklin and Lincoln.

We are as invested in the community as you can possibly be.

We want the airport to be converted to a Great Park--as the voters intended.

We do not want the airport site to be used for private interests or to build housing.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 98 The City is already building a ton of housing everywhere else.

Let the community have a public space it can be proud of.

There is a shortage of park and open space because Santa Monica is park-poor and has significantly less park space per resident than other cities.

This problem is only getting worse as the city gets more and more dense.

The airport site is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a Great Park and make Santa Monica more livable for families, now and for generations to come.

Please vote to create a LC-compliant Great Park on our public land, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans.

Thank you
Best Regards,
Jeremy Borden
310.663.5501
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 99 David Yakobson
From: Gonzalo Ugarteche <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 12:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall
Subject: Great Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I’m a Santa Monica resident and parent. My children are active and involved in sports, but we often struggle with the lack of accessible parks and open areas. Santa Monica has far less green space per person compared to other cities, and this issue continues to grow as our community becomes increasingly dense.

Transforming the airport site into a Great Park is a rare and valuable opportunity to improve quality of life for families like mine—both today and for future generations. I urge you to support the creation of an LCcompliant Great Park on this public land, for the benefit of all who call Santa Monica home.

Thank you.
--
Gonzalo Ugarteche
Mixer Engineer
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 310-204-1669 310-936-9100
trulovepost.com
To
help
prote
ct
your
priva
cy,
Micro
so ft
Offic
e
prev
To
help
prote
ct
your
priva
cy,
Micro
so ft
Offic
e
prev
To
help
prote
ct
your
priva
cy,
Micro
so ft
Offic
e
prev
To
help
prote
ct
your
priva
cy,
Micro
so ft
Offic
e
prev
To
help
prote
ct
your
priva
cy,
Micro
so ft
Offic
e
prev
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 100
David Yakobson
From: Soledad Ramos <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 12:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Great Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I’m a Santa Monica resident and parent. My children are active and involved in sports, but we often struggle with the lack of accessible parks and open areas. Santa Monica has far less green space per person compared to other cities, and this issue continues to grow as our community becomes increasingly dense.

Transforming the airport site into a Great Park is a rare and valuable opportunity to improve quality of life for families like mine—both today and for future generations. I urge you to support the creation of an LC-compliant Great Park on this public land, for the benefit of all who call Santa Monica home.

Thank you.

Soledad Ramos
c 310 927 1811
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 101
David Yakobson
From: Will von Bernuth <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 12:06 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Please vote for an LC Compliant Great Park only Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My family and I are residents of Santa Monica. My children are very active and participate in sports, and we've personally experienced the shortage of park and open space in our city. Santa Monica is significantly park-poor, with considerably less park space per resident compared to other cities. This issue is only being exacerbated by the increasing density of our city.

The airport site presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to develop a Great Park, which would significantly enhance the livability of Santa Monica for families, both now and for future generations. I urge you to vote in favor of creating a LC-compliant Great Park on this public land for the benefit of all Santa Monica residents.

Please use this historic opportunity to vote for a park only.

Sincerely,
Will von Bernuth
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 102
David Yakobson
From: Robert Morra <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 11:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 7.A./July 8th - Support for an LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council, I support LC-compliant Great Park.

Robert and Linda Morra
Santa Monica residents
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 103
David Yakobson
From: Robert Morra <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 11:43 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 7.A./July 8th - Support for an LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council, l am supporting LC- compliant Great Park.

Thank you,
Robert Morra
Resident and homeowner in Santa Monica
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 104
David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 11:46 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Vote for ONLY a LC Compliant Great Park on Our Public Land Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I live in Santa Monica with my family. My kids are active and play sports, but there is a shortage of park and open space because Santa Monica is park-poor and has significantly less park space per resident than other cities. This problem is only getting worse as the city gets more and more dense. The airport site is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a Great Park and make Santa Monica more livable for families, now and for generations to come. Please vote to create a LC-compliant Great Park on our public land, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans.

Thank you,
Kelly Hsiao
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 105
David Yakobson
From: Shuli Lotan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 11:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item number 7A Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project, Preferred Scenarios Review Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Hello esteemed council members -
I am writing in support of the inclusion of below market rate housing in the plans for the rebuilding of the airport park area.

As a resident of Santa Monica and employee of our local school district, I have seen many people who work in our city have to take other jobs due to long commutes. We lose talented, qualified, experienced school teachers and other staff who would benefit the community greatly because they cannot afford to live here. Public education is severely underfunded so people are not making what they deserve - a separate larger issue to be sure, but if we could create more affordable housing here we could retain and attract these employees. This could also create a more diverse community, both economically and racially, which is good for all of us.

Please consider the inclusion of affordable workforce housing in the airport project.

Sincerely,
Shuli Lotan
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 107
David Yakobson
From: Dixie Sellers <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 9:23 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Vote for a great park for airport park and Santa Monica Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I live in Santa Monica with my family, my husband and two sons ages 11 and 8. My kids are active and play sports, but there is a shortage of park and open space because Santa Monica is park-poor and has significantly less park space per resident than other cities. This problem is only getting worse as the city gets more and more dense. The airport site is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a Great Park and make Santa Monica more livable for families, now and for generations to come. Our favorite park is Central Park and this is the opportunity to have something similar for all people of Santa Monica and Los Angeles to enjoy. More green, healthy space! Please vote to create a LC-compliant Great Park on our public land, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans.

Thank you,
Dixie Sellers-Kern and the Kern Family
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 108
David Yakobson
From: Brett Hollenbeck <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 8:58 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: SUPPORT for Scenario 3 of the Santa Monica Airport Conversion – 7/8/2025 City Council meeting agenda item # 7
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica City Council,
As a housing advocate with YIMBY Los Angeles, I write in strong support of the City’s visionary efforts to redevelop the 192-acre Santa Monica Airport site into a dynamic, mixeduse neighborhood with abundant housing and expansive open space. This is an unprecedented opportunity to address our region’s most urgent challenges — housing affordability, climate resilience, and sustainable land use — on public land, in one of the most desirable and opportunity-rich cities in the country.

Santa Monica is in the midst of a severe housing shortage, with the average one-bedroom apartment renting for nearly $3,000 per month. Thousands of families are burdened by high rents, pushed farther from jobs, schools, and services. Redeveloping this city-owned site with a bold vision — 48 acres dedicated to new residential or commercial development — can be a game-changer. It allows the city to plan for deeply affordable, workforce, and market-rate housing in a way that is fiscally responsible and environmentally sustainable.

Higher-density housing on this site will help activate new public spaces, ensuring parks are vibrant, welcoming, and safe. It also reduces car dependency by enabling residents to walk, bike, or use transit to access jobs, schools, and services, supporting the city’s ambitious climate and transportation goals. This kind of land use planning is not just smart — it’s essential to meeting the moment.

Some have called for a park-only future for the site, but this would be a missed opportunity and an unsustainable financial burden on the city. A mixed-use neighborhood can generate the resources needed to build and maintain world-class public parks while ensuring Santa Monica remains inclusive, not exclusive. Studies show that thoughtfully integrated parks and Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 109
housing increase public safety, improve mental health outcomes, and can raise nearby property values by 8–20%.

This project should be a model for cities across California, a showcase for how we can use public land to promote equity, inclusion, and long-term livability. As Councilmember Jesse Zwick wisely noted, “If Central Park in Manhattan had a perimeter entirely of single-family homes, it wouldn’t function and be as great as it is.” Homes and parks must work together to build a successful community.

We urge the Council to move this project forward with housing as a central pillar and adopt Scenario 3: Growing Park, Growing Community. The scale of the opportunity demands nothing less.

Brett Hollenbeck
[email protected]
4431 Purdue Ave
Los Angeles, California 90230
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 110
David Yakobson
From: Steven Naftali <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 9:07 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Support for an LC Compliant Great Park an the current site of the Santa Monica Airport Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Honorable City Council Members and Dear City Staff,
I respectfully submit our family's full support for a Measure LC compliant Great Park at the site of the Santa Monica Airport SMC. Please comply with the Measure LC. We appreciate that you please make sure that our park cover the entire site of the SMO. In compliance with Measure LC, please use the existing structures at the site of the SMO for future revenue generating operations that are compliant with the park on site.

Regards,
Steve Naftali
[email protected]
The information transmitted is intended only for the person which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 111
David Yakobson
From: Brooke Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 8:51 AM
To: David White; councilmtgitems; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; [email protected]; Barry Snell; [email protected] Subject: Vote for public park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I live in Santa Monica with my family. My kids are active and play sports, but there is a shortage of park and open space because Santa Monica is park-poor and has significantly less park space per resident than other cities.

This problem is only getting worse as the city gets more and more dense. AND YOU ALLOW HOMELESS TO OVERTAKE THE PARKS WE HAVE, NOT ALLOWING CHILDREN A SAFE PLACE TO PLAY.

Please vote to create a LC-compliant Great Park on our public land, for the benefit the children YOU ARE

CURRENTLY FAILING THESE CHILDREN BY ALLOWING HOMELESS TO OVERTAKE THEIR SPACES. PLEASE GIVE THEM SOMETHING BACK. Dont believe me—go check out douglas park, christine reed park today. It is shocking and embarassing and UNSAFE.

Do something about it.

Thank you
The cohen family
Dax,7
Reese 5
Scottie 5
---
Brooke Hawkins Cohen
(818) 730-8155
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 112
David Yakobson
From: Evan Nicholas <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 8:05 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Great Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I live in Santa Monica with my wife and two young children. My kids are active and play sports, but there is a shortage of park and open space because Santa Monica is park-poor and has significantly less park space per resident than other cities. This problem is only getting worse as the city gets more and more dense. The airport site is a one time opportunity to create a Great Park and make Santa Monica more livable for families, now and for generations to come. Please vote to create a LC-compliant Great Park on our public land, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans.

I believe very much that with rising density in the coming decades a great park will be more important than ever. Let's please not ruin the opportunity by trying to solve the housing crisis with public land. The market will always provide, one way or another. What we can't get back is 180 acres of green space.

Thank you!
Evan Nicholas
1715 Ashland Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90405
323.445.3011
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 113
David Yakobson
From: Guille Farber Torre <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 7:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin Subject: AirPort Park ayso
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I live in Santa Monica with my family. My kids are active and play sports, but there is a shortage of park and open space because Santa Monica is park-poor and has significantly less park space per resident than other cities. This problem is only getting worse as the city gets more and more dense. The airport site is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a Great Park and make Santa Monica more livable for families, now and for generations to come. Please vote to create a LC-compliant Great Park on our public land, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans.

Thank you
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 114
David Yakobson
From: Pauline Lalezari <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 1:16 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Support a Great Park for Santa Monica
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I’m a Santa Monica resident and a parent. My kids are active and love playing sports, but we’ve really felt how limited the park space is in our city. Santa Monica has far less park space per person compared to other cities, and with more people moving in, it’s only getting worse. The airport site is an incredible, once-in-a-generation chance to turn that around by building a truly great park — something that would improve quality of life for families like mine and for future generations. I strongly urge you to support an LCcompliant Great Park on this public land, for the good of everyone in Santa Monica.

Thank you,
Pauline
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 115
David Yakobson
From: Simone Filosto <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 1:12 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: A Great Park for Santa Monica (Airport site)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
As a Santa Monica resident raising an active, sports-loving family, I’m deeply concerned about the city’s limited park and open space.

Compared to other cities, Santa Monica offers significantly less parkland per resident—and the issue continues to worsen as urban density increases.

The airport site presents an extraordinary, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform our community by creating a truly Great Park.

This space would offer much-needed recreation, nature, and respite not only for families today, but for generations of Santa Monicans to come.

I respectfully urge you to vote in favor of a Great Park that aligns with LC requirements and prioritizes public benefit. Let’s make the most of this public land for all who call Santa Monica home.

Thank you.
kind regards,
Simone
Simone Filosto, PhD.
1418 26th St, Unit 4
Santa Monica (CA), 90404
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 116
David Yakobson
From: Taahira Major <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 11:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: soccer park near airport
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Im apart of the Santa Monica AYSO family as my son has played for 4 years with friends in the league. My kid had to stop when he got older because of the lack of field space for the older boys. This kept my kid out of trouble and also focused towards a team sport that provided him good health. The city helping to provide A park space for any activities to play sports that’s an open space because Santa Monica has poor parks and the space doesn’t allow soccer especially. There is also significantly less park space than neighboring other cities. This problem is getting worse as the city gets more and more dense. The airport site is the greatest opportunity to create a Great Park and make Santa Monica more livable for families, and for others in the near future. Please vote to create a LC-compliant Great Park on our public land, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans and your budget as well. AYSO brings particularly brings in a lot of revenue and ready to pay park rental fees to support this Great Park! Hosting games also brings more money as well!
Thank you
Taahira
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 117
David Yakobson
From: Danica Ferrin Klein <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 8:44 PM
To: Lana Negrete
Subject: SM AIRPORT
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I’m a parent raising my children here in Santa Monica, and like so many families, we cherish the time our kids spend outside, running, playing, being active, and connecting with nature. But it’s hard not to notice how little green space there actually is. Santa Monica has far less park space per resident than other cities, and as our community grows denser, that gap only becomes more urgent.

The airport site represents something rare and powerful: a chance to give our children, and all future Santa Monica families, a gift that will last for generations. A Great Park would be a space for connection, joy, health, and community. It would change the way families experience this city.

Please vote to create an LC-compliant Great Park on this public land. Let’s do something truly meaningful for our children and for the future of Santa Monica.

With hope,
Danica Klein
21st place
Santa Monica 90402
__
Danica Ferrin Klein
T: +1 949.354.8324
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 119
David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 7:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Please Support a Great Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I’m a Santa Monica resident and parent, and like many families here, we depend on parks and open space for our kids to play, stay healthy, and enjoy the outdoors. Sadly, Santa Monica remains one of the most park-poor cities in the region, with far less green space per resident than neighboring cities—a problem that’s only getting worse as our city becomes more dense.

The airport site is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change that. It should be transformed into an LCcompliant Great Park—a bold, forward-looking investment that will make Santa Monica more livable and equitable for generations to come.

Please don’t let this rare opportunity slip away by selling off our public land to private developers. Once it’s gone, we won’t get it back. This land belongs to the people of Santa Monica and should be used to benefit the entire community—not a select few.

I strongly urge you to vote in favor of creating a Great Park that serves all Santa Monicans.

Thank you for your leadership and service.

Sincerely,
Tali Ekstein
2617 24th St Santa Monica 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 120
David Yakobson
From: Joey Seiler <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 7:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Build a Great Park!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I'm moving to Sunset Park this month. Part of what excited me was the transition of the airport to a park. I have a two- and six-year-old, both of whom want to live at the park. Santa Monica is park-poor and has significantly less park space per resident than other cities. This problem is only getting worse as the city gets more and more dense. The airport site is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a Great Park and make Santa Monica more livable for families, now and for generations to come. Please vote to create a LC-compliant Great Park on our public land, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans.

Thank you
—Joey Seiler
--Joey
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 121
David Yakobson
From: Jenia Gorton <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 7:47 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: SM airport land
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I currently live in Santa Monica with my family and was born and raised in the area. I am third generation born in Los Angeles. The airport site is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a Great Park and make Santa Monica more livable for families, now and for generations to come. This is the whole reason we wanted to close the airport in the first place! If it is sold off to developers, then what is the point?! My family, friends and neighbors have filled out every survey, attended many related events, and still it feels to many of us residents and voters that we are not being heard. We want this area to be a park and community space.

Please vote to create a Great Park on our public land, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans.

Thank you,
Jenia Gorton Campos
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 122
David Yakobson
From: Cristina Rivard <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 7:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Vote for Great Park at SM Airport
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I have lived in Santa Monica with my family for nearly 10 years. We are in a two-bedroom tiny apartment, so we view public outdoor green spaces as a way to extend our living space and have a yard that we will never be able to afford. We’ve hosted all of my daughter’s 7 birthday parties at parks, played numerous sports, and explored all they have to offer. But there is a shortage of park and open space because Santa Monica is park-poor and has significantly less park space per resident than other cities. This problem is only getting worse as the city gets more and more dense. The airport site is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a Great Park and make Santa Monica more livable for families, now and for generations to come. Please vote to create a LC-compliant Great Park on our public land, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans.

Thank you,
Cristina Rivard
612-418-7538
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 123
David Yakobson
From: Nano Recondo <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 7:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Support for a public Great Park at the SM Airport site! Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
As a Santa Monica resident and parent, I’m writing to express strong support for creating more parks and open space in our community. My children are active and love playing sports, but like many families here, we face a real shortage of recreational space. Santa Monica has significantly less parkland per resident than other cities, and this issue is only growing as our city becomes more densely populated.

The airport site presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change that. Transforming it into a Great Park—one that complies with Measure LC—would be a visionary investment in the well-being of current and future generations. It would make Santa Monica more livable, equitable, and vibrant for all.

Please vote to support the creation of an LC-compliant Great Park on our public land—for the benefit of all Santa Monicans.

Thank you.

Nano Recondo
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 124
David Yakobson
From: Samantha Robbins <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 6:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Great park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I’m a Santa Monica resident and parent. My children are active and love playing sports, but unfortunately, there’s a real lack of parks and open space in our city. Santa Monica has far less park space per person compared to other cities, and this issue is only getting worse as our population grows denser.

The airport site presents a rare, once-in-a-generation chance to create a true Great Park — one that would improve quality of life for families now and for decades to come. I urge you to vote in favor of an LC-compliant Great Park on this public land for the benefit of all Santa Monicans.

Thank you,
Samantha Jamali
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 125
David Yakobson
From: Lucy Moogan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 6:46 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Santa Monica Airport
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I live in Santa Monica with my family. My kids are active and play sports, but there is a shortage of park and open space because Santa Monica is park-poor and has significantly less park space per resident than other cities. This problem is only getting worse as the city gets more and more dense. The airport site is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a Great Park and make Santa Monica more livable for families, now and for generations to come. Please vote to create a LC-compliant Great Park on our public land, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans.

Thank you
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 126
David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 6:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White; Jen Jen Cell Subject: SANTA MONICA GREAT PARK
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:

As a Santa Monica resident for over 46 years, a graduate of Lincoln Middle School and SAMOHI (class of 1984), with 4 daughters, two attending Lincoln Middle School and two attending SAMOHI and as a business owner in Santa Monica for over 25 years, I would urge you to use the property that is the currently the Santa Monica Airport for use of GREAT PARK, with fields. In fact, one of my daughter was on the same softball team as Mayor Lana Negrete. This organized youth sports engage the community and foster respect and community FAR BEYOND THE FIELDS!!! As a coach of AYSO and Santa Monica fast pitch Softball, I think additional field space is critical. WE really don't need a HUGE housing development in this city, where the traffic congestion is already too great.

As a coach of AYSO, I have take tournament trips to numerous city park, that have 15 plus soccer field for tournaments involving hundred of youth participants, area like, Riverside, Newbury, Camarillo, Santa Barbara, etc. we have nothing remote close to this in Santa Monica.

AGAIN, I urge you to vote for the GREAT PARK!!
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Robert R Shiri
Attorney at Law
A Professional Corporation
2530 Wilshire Blvd., 3rd Floor
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Tel: (310) 829-9943
Fax: (310) 899-9844
The information contained in this communication is confidential and if directed to a client, or between lawyers or experts for a client, it is intended by the sender to be subject to the attorney-client and attorney-work product privileges. This information may constitute privileged information and is intended only for the use of the intended recipient. This communication is the property of Law Offices of Robert R Shiri, APC and/or its clients. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately via e-mail at [email protected], and then destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 127
David Yakobson
From: Sloca, Beck <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 6:23 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: We Support Great Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I live in Santa Monica with my family. My kids are active and play sports, but there is a shortage of park and open space because Santa Monica is park-poor and has significantly less park space per resident than other cities. This problem is only getting worse as the city gets more and more dense. The airport site is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a Great Park and make Santa Monica more livable for families, now and for generations to come. Please vote to create a LC-compliant Great Park on our public land, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans.

Please consider this seriously – you have voted for so many bad developments that sit nearly or entirely empty. It has made the city more and more depressing. It certainly invites scrutiny into why you keep thinking empty buildings are better for Santa Monica than spaces the community can thrive in? I sincerely hope that is not what you wish for Santa Monica in your position as a representative of the city and it’s residents.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Beck Sloca
Sunset Park
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 128
David Yakobson
From: Evelyn Diaz <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 6:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: park Space
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I live in Santa Monica with my family. My kids are active and play sports, but there is a shortage of park and open space because Santa Monica is park-poor and has significantly less park space per resident than other cities. This problem is only getting worse as the city gets more and more dense. The airport site is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a Great Park and make Santa Monica more livable for families, now and for generations to come. Please vote to create a LC-compliant Great Park on our public land, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans.

Thank you
Atte Cumes Diaz family 2001 Olympic blvd 90404
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 129
David Yakobson
From: Erin Copen Howard <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 6:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; David White
Subject: Support a Great Park at Sm Airport
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please vote to create a LC-compliant Great Park on our public land, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans! As Santa Monica residents this is extremely important to me and my three kids.

Thank you
Erin Copen Howard
Film/TV Development
C: 310-709-7898
LinkedIn Profile
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 131
David Yakobson
From: Gregg Chadwick <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 3:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 7.A./July 8th - Support for an LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
As a homeowner and small business owner in Santa Monica, I deeply believe in the possibilities for our community. Creating an LC Compliant Great Park is at the top of my list for what our beautiful city needs. Thank you for supporting the Great Park in Santa Monica! Gregg Chadwick
www.greggchadwick.com
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 1 David Yakobson
From: SUSAN STEIN <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 11:37 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City
Councilmembers:

Please move forward, for the benefit of all,
the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant
Great Park with a sensible financing plan
that prioritizes existing on-site revenue
sources and with no sale or other
privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is
paramount that we plan for the creation of
sufficient open, recreational, and
regenerative spaces that can restore habitat
and meet the needs of both current and
future generations.

Sincerely,
Susan Stein
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 2 David Yakobson
From: Maria Faillace <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 11:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land. It’s what we voted for in 2014!
I think it’s crazy that our beautiful city wouldn’t want some gorgeous park for all to enjoy! And again, we voted for it! Sincerely,
Maria Faillace
Sunset Park
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 3 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Great Park Coalition <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 11:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Elaine Polachek; Amber Richane Cc: Zina Josephs; John Fairweather; Frank Gruber; Cris Gutierrez; Joe Pertel; [email protected]
Subject: July 8, 2025 Council Meeting - Item 7.A. - Airport Conversion Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL

Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers -

The Great Park Coalition is a non-partisan, grassroots organization composed of organizations and individuals committed to bringing back the Great Park that once existed on the grounds of the Santa Monica Airport in accordance with Measure LC. The Great Park Coalition is comprised of 64 non-profit organizations representing more than 20,000 organizational members, 900 individual supporters, and 13 former Mayors and City Councilmembers.

Great Park Coalition organizations represent K-12 and outdoors education, the visual and performing arts, broadcasting and filmmaking, museums, the Gabrielino-Tongva community, the Ecomism Ethiopian community, climate and sustainability solutions, environmental advocacy, water quality monitoring, community gardens and regenerative farming, neighborhood and cultural affinity groups, healing through the arts & nature, airport closure advocacy, and recreational soccer, rugby, lacrosse, baseball, softball, pickleball, paddle tennis, pétanque, ping pong, cycling, aquatics, native dance, and basketball.

Over the past year, Great Park Coalition members formed working groups in the areas of regenerative sustainability, rectangular field sports, arts and culture, community gardens, creative play, aquatics, park financing, and a youth alliance, producing policy white papers and Letters of Interest (LOI’s) for amenities within the Great Park.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 4 All of these GPC supporters and member organizations are very, very excited to help the City of Santa Monica realize this Great Park!

Accordingly, on behalf of our wide-ranging coalition, the Great Park Coalition urges Council to move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of a 192-acre, inspirational LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, that will not trigger a ballot measure before airport closure, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our extremely park-poor City densifies, it is paramount to plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Adding 192 acres of park uses and open space will still leave our City only "moderately-parked" at our current population, i.e., at only about 3.6 acres of park space per 1,000 residents, up from the current

1.4 acres per 1,000 residents. State and national metrics mandate a minimum of 5 acres of open and park space per 1,000 residents.

Let's address this deficit and build a Great Park that will serve our community now and for many, many future generations.

Sincerely,

Santa Monica Great Park Coalition Leadership Team
John Fairweather
Cris Gutierrez
Frank Gruber
Zina Josephs
Joe Pertel
Ann Bowman

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 5 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 6 ==============================
Santa Monica Great Park Coalition
Web: www.GreatParkCoalition.org
E-mail: [email protected]
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 7 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 11:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: hiThe Great Park, no housing - just nature elements, Mitchell Lachman 90405 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 8 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 9 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 10:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: the airport to a no housing onsite in the Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Hello Counsel members, i request you vote for airport conversion to the Grand Park with no housing, athletic forums- rather natures vegetation. it would be used for pea
ceful recreation of natures setting.

Good bye, Mitchell Lachman
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 10 David Yakobson
From: John Redfield <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 10:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your consideration.

John Redfield 90404
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 11 David Yakobson
From: Wendy Dembo <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 10:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

As much as our City needs more housing, we desperately need more parks. The residents of Santa Monica voted for a park. We have plenty of empty housing.

I urge you to move forward with a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park and water-poor city densifies, it is essential that we plan for the creation of sufficient open spaces and recreational areas that can restore habitats and meet the needs of both current and future generations. And we need to think about water usage.

Thank you for your consideration. Please move forward with an LC-compliant Great Park.

Wendy Dembo
Resident
90404
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 12 David Yakobson
From: Kent Strumpell <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 10:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7A, airport conversion project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As we move ahead with planning the creation of our great park, I want to express my support for the next steps recommended by staff and urge that we undertake this lifetime opportunity with vision, realism and care.

I see no urgency to lock in a grand plan dependent on a big price tag, perhaps dependent on too much private investment. The vagaries of funding availability and the need to integrate appropriate responses to the climate crisis warrant a more patient process I think.

There is much that can be done with minimal investment and current on-site revenue sources. Of course thought and planning will need to be given for the siting of even quick-build things with an eye to the future. But please let’s allow time and consideration for the major, big-ticket changes and features. I do support reasonable revenue generation, like a variety of food concessions, renting of event spaces and careful leasing of a modest amount of space for well-vetted, compatible commercial uses.

Of course the preservation of the airport decommisioning milestone is paramont, so it should go without saying that the risks of triggering a vote to amend LC is unacceptable until that is complete.

Thank you for your care in overseeing the transformation of this truly amazing resource! Kent Strumpell
1211 Michigan Ave.

Santa Monica
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 13 David Yakobson
From: Sue Edwards <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 10:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Sue Edwards
428 - 15th St.
90402
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 14 David Yakobson
From: Cassandra Gross <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 10:45 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems; Elaine Polachek
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 7.a SMAC Project June
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Hello, My name is Cassie Gross and I am a resident of Santa Monica. I am a rising 6th grader at Lincoln and I play club soccer and AYSO but to get to tournaments I have to drive at least an hour away. It would be really cool if I could just ride my bike there. This is one of the many reasons I think the Santa Monica Airport should be turned into a giant park with plenty of sports fields and recreation areas. Another reason is that the Santa Monica Airport has caused a negative impact on the climate. I know we can’t fix what happened but moving forward we can try to have a positive impact on the environment. A giant park would do just that. You might think “Oh we already have Clover Park, why do we need another park?”. Well I think the more parks we have the more we can get together as a Santa Monica community.

Thank you,
Cassie Gross
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 15 David Yakobson
From: Jane Walker <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 10:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jane H Walker
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Texture
716 Montana Ave.

Santa Monica, CA 90403
310.393.0707
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 16 David Yakobson
From: Valerie Alter <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 10:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Elaine Polachek
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 7.a SMAC Project June 8
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I am a lifelong Santa Monica resident, and have chosen to raise my family here. I grew up playing fastpitch softball at Memorial and Clover Parks, and my children now use the same fields for softball, soccer, and ultimate frisbee. My children experience the same paucity of field space and open space more broadly that I did growing up. Softball teams share fields with limited dirt time, soccer teams get fields 1/2 the size of what they use for games, and frisbee is relegated to whatever corner no one else is using. We have a once-in-alifetime chance to fix this problem, not just for this generation, but for generations to come. With more fields, our kids will not only get sufficient space to practice, but our community at large will have sufficient space for unstructured outdoor recreation.

If the airport is going to close, please take this opportunity to do something that benefits the current Santa Monica community and voters. The voters were clear with LC that we want a great park and more open space. There is the opportunity to build more housing in other ways--newer buildings can be taller, for example--but never again will we have the opportunity to create a park that would rival Central Park or Golden Gate Park.

Thank you,
Valerie Alter
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 17 David Yakobson
From: Gayle Gilman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 10:00 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Every day, all over the city, I see new buildings. Some are under construction. Some are finished and have vacancies. I assume each new development accommodates for low income houses.

This Park is not land for more overdevelopment. It shall be restored to the Park it was a hundred years ago. The people voted. It was approved.

Thank you
Gayle Gilman.

Sincerely,
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 18 David Yakobson
From: Barbara Osborn <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 9:59 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public Comment Item 7A Santa Monica Airport Conversion, Preferred Scenarios Review Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear council members -
I’m writing to express my hope that the Council will not direct staff to proceed with a Preferred Scenario on item 7A that includes only a “great park.” The City should keep its options open and maintain as much flexibility as possible for use of the space in the face of unknown costs and financing.

Great Park advocates have had little to say about ongoing costs and nothing regarding construction costs. On Tuesday night you will probably see a lot of local enthusiasm for a park (who doesn’t like a park?) with zero fiscal reality attached.

But we all know, the construction cost of a 200-acre park will be staggering.

Your choice will be to ignore the formidable costs of park construction, or to find a way to keep the city’s options open as the fiscal reality slowly becomes clear. You might consider Irvine’s experience for context: About a decade ago the first phase of Irvine's “Great Park” was constructed on a 200 acre parcel. It cost about $250 million, financed through a bond, which is being paid for by a special tax district. Nearby homeowners are paying between $2k and $20k per year in perpetuity.

I don’t know anyone who thinks Santa Monica voters will approve this kind of tax — in which case if the city decides to move forward with a park, and nothing but a park, Santa Monica’s 200 acres could sit undeveloped for years. That would be a real tragedy given the city’s desire for a park, and urgent need for more below-market housing.

Please, in your direction to staff, keep the city's options open. Down the road, it may well become clear that the only viable way to finance a park will be by offsetting some of the costs with housing development.

Barbara Osborn
Cell: 310.963.1595
[email protected]
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 19 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 20 David Yakobson
From: Chris Downey <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 9:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

There should be no housing on the site, whatsoever.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Chris Downey
90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 21 David Yakobson
From: RIEHER BERZE <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 9:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7.a SMAC Project June 8
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Please vote for a Great Park, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans, with all new uses dedicated to park and recreation, including plenty of sports fields.

My family is active and my kids enjoy youth sports. Unfortunately, Santa Monica is park-poor – with much less park space per resident than other cities. We deserve better. The airport site is a unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a 192-acre Great Park to address today's acute shortage of open and field space and to balance future density and population growth. Please vote for a Great Park for our kids, our active community -- and for generations of Santa Monicans to come.

Thank you,
[saba]
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 22 David Yakobson
From: Charlie Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 9:31 PM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: July 8 City Council Meeting, Item 7: Evolve Santa Monica Airport—Don’t Erase It Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Subject: July 8 City Council Meeting, Item 7: Evolve Santa Monica Airport—Don’t Erase It Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
My name is Charlie Cohen. I’m a Santa Monica High School student and a member of the SAMO Aerospace Engineering Club. I’m also someone who’s always admired Santa Monica’s role in American aerospace history.

I’m writing to ask you to consider a path of evolution, not elimination, for Santa Monica Airport. This airport inspired my passion for aerospace engineering. It has the potential to inspire the next generation too—if we choose to reimagine it for the future instead of closing it.

I believe we can create something great:
 A world-class STEM center for students
 A hub for electric and autonomous aircraft
 Green space for the community
 A boost to the local economy
 Continued local control beyond 2028
We don’t need to pick between a park and an airport. We can build a 21st-century innovation campus that honors Santa Monica’s past while serving its future.

Please don’t erase this piece of our city’s history. Let’s evolve it into something extraordinary.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Charlie Cohen
Member, Santa Monica High School Aerospace Engineering Club Santa Monica Residen
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 23 David Yakobson
From: Barbara Goodson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 9:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Barbara Goodson Gustafson
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 24 David Yakobson
From: Bea Nemlaha <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 9:22 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Elaine Polachek; councilmtgitems
Subject: 7/8/25 Agenda Item 7: OUR GREAT PARK
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Council,
One of your most important of many responsibilities is to protect the well-being of our community and its residents. Creating a Great Park where the airport now sits enables you to do just that.

Santa Monica is one of the most densely populated cities in California. We are woefully underserved by parks, gardens, and nature reserves.

Over 70% of our citizens are renters. Under the onerous housing building requirements of state law, this percentage will increase. Renters typically do not have yards or play spaces for their kids to grow, or gardens or green environments for adults to relax and refresh.

Honor the clear mandate of the great majority of our citizens to restore the airport land to its historic purpose solely as a City Park. This will define you as a responsible Council. Be that Council.

Bea Nemlaha
Ocean Park
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 25 David Yakobson
From: SUELLEN WAGNER <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 9:22 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Suellen Wagner
Studio City, CA
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 26 David Yakobson
From: Song <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 9:11 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Please move forward with the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

It is paramount that we create sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Wansun Song
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 27 David Yakobson
From: Marc Buhaj <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 8:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Thank-you for your time.

As a proud local family of 5 we are hoping for multi-purpose sports fields - especially soccer -for the city in the near future. Our Santa Monica youth are amazing and the ability to get them out and running around and learning through the gift of outdoor competitive sports has changed our lives.

Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational spaces that can meet the needs and build the future of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Marc Buhaj
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 28 David Yakobson
From: Avni Vora Gandhi <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 8:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Avni Gandhi
90402
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 29 David Yakobson
From: Warren Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 8:39 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 7.A./July 8th - Support for an LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I hope you are all well.

Well-being of course is individual, but a great part of it comes from personal satisfaction and selfrespect.

If you vote for an LC-compliant Great Park, you will always have the inner satisfaction of knowing you voted for the best interests of Santa Monica, both current and future! And you will be able to hold your head high knowing your family, descendents and future Santa Monicans will finally have a park worthy of this amazing city.

Please say NO to those developers who want to crush this dream! Yours sincerely,
Warren Allen, MD, resident of Sunset Park for 20 years
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 30 David Yakobson
From: Suzanne Watson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 8:33 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Suzanne Watson
90403
Sent from my iPad
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 31 David Yakobson
From: Maralee G <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 8:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Maralee Grantham 937 3rd street 302 SM CA 90403
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 32 David Yakobson
From: Maralee G <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 8:30 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your consideration.
(Your name)
90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 33 David Yakobson
From: Sarah Tamor <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 8:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7.A - SM Airport Conversion Project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
To Santa Monica City Councilmembers:

I am writing to express my STRONG preference for the inclusion of housing, particularly low-income and moderate-income units, in the development of the SM Airport.

Since Measure LC was passed, local and regional housing needs have ballooned to an unsustainable level.

The airport project is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make a dent in this seemingly intractable problem.

I have lived in Santa Monica since 1978 and my daughters were born here. But they can’t afford to live here as adults.

Excluding affordable housing from the airport development would solidify Santa Monica’s current path of being a haven only for the wealthy.

I urge you to reject that outcome and vote to support the inclusion of affordable housing in the airport development.

Thank you,
Sarah Tamor
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 34 David Yakobson
From: Diane Watanabe <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 8:19 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. Vote for a Park-Only Airport Conversion - July 8, 2025 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

As a longtime resident of Santa Monica, I urge you to please move forward the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

Santa Monica has a severe shortage of fields able to accommodate youth and adult soccer, rugby and lacrosse. A Great Park with an even split between passive and active uses should include 6 or more FIFA-sized rectangular GRASS sports fields to relieve our current dependence on toxic and harmful artificial surfaces.

Very sincerely,
Diane Watanabe
Santa Monica Rugby Club
--
Diane Watanabe
(310) 779-7286
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 35 David Yakobson
From: karen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 8:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Airport Repurpose
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Karen Bailey
90403
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 36 David Yakobson
From: Sheila Forsander <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 7:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
To: [email protected]
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Sheila Forsander
17th St
Santa Monica
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 37 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 7:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers: I urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land. As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations. Thank you for your consideration. Steve & Judy Shapiro
1133 9th St. Santa Monica, Ca. 90403
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 38 David Yakobson
From: Alex Silver <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 7:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Re: July 8, 2025, Agenda Item 7A & the future of Santa Monica Airport Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I first want to say that I appreciate each of your commitment to this city. I ask that when you consider the future of Santa Monica Airport, you consider that there are ways to take action towards building park space that doesn't completely remove the aviation usage of the space. We're so lucky as a city to have such a unique asset in the airport. It would be a shame to shut out the residents that utilize the airport, rather than allowing both aviation usage and park usage to thrive, together. I'm definitely biased as a pilot and user of the airport, but at the same time, I have a great appreciation for parks and open spaces in this beautiful city. For me personally, it's not an either/or scenario. I think a lot of my fellow residents feel this way, especially those that want to see the airport stay. It's difficult to have our voices heard when there's organization around a park-or-nothing strategy. Most of my friends that use the airport that are my age (millennials) support additional green spaces, but also have an interest in the aviation and innovation use cases of the airport. So many pilots like myself learn and become well paid career professionals through general aviation airports like SMO. It's something we should celebrate, in all honesty.

So to reiterate my question to you is: why can't we have both? There's enough space for expanding park space while keeping aviation usage. Like many things in government / civics, it's not black and white.

Why does the desire to expand park space necessitate a full closure of aviation use? Again, I appreciate your time in reading this and I sincerely hope that you consider this as a reasonable position.

Sincerely,
Alex Silver
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 39 David Yakobson
From: Anna Marie <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 7:51 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Anna Marie Howell 90403
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 40 David Yakobson
From: F D <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 7:43 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Fern Decena
90403
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 41 David Yakobson
From: Michael Katz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 7:35 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Together, Let's Make the Great Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Greetings, Councilmembers!
My wife and I are excited the majority has spoken in favor of the Great Park. We now urge the Council to direct Staff to begin planning for a Great Park without housing and without delay. We want the Council to join us in recognizing the city projected $22 million in lease revenue is a primary funding source for the Great Park!
Let’s not allow another round of “what ifs” to open the door to privatization or ballot-triggering scenarios.

We urge the Council to recognize and acknowledge that the same consultant who wildly overstated the airport economic impact (by claiming SMO had $275 million in economic benefit — a number later debunked and downgraded to the “equivalent of a mini-mall” seems to be working to undermine the Great Park’s affordability and inviting delay. The current HRA report, by downplaying lease income, and the city ownership of assets, inflates future costs, presented in an troubled and deeply flawed report.

State housing mandates are real, but they do not override Measure LC or the city’s right to honor voter approved park use. The mandates can and must be addressed elsewhere in the city’s Housing Element— not on protected parkland.

My wife and i would like to see the the Council call for unity among residents, Council and staff to respect the democratic process and advance the park now — without triggering delays through housing studies or development scenarios already rejected by the public through visioning, testimony, and years of public comment.

Please Let’s Build a Great Park Together — all of us together! May the Council unite the city in this great and wonderful project. Move the Park Forward!
Best,
Michael Katz
3016 Ruskin Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 42 David Yakobson
From: Betsy Katz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 6:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

The existing city-owned buildings are fully leased and projected to generate $22 million annually in 2029. This revenue can support a bond to finance construction of the park.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations. Santa Monica needs open space, sports fields and nature. Voters and participants in the Sasaki visioning process have already made it clear that we don’t want or need housing in the Great Park.

Let’s move forward together and build the Great Park that we’ve been needing for a long time now.

Thank you..

Sincerely,
Betsy Katz
3016 Ruskin Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-415-0130
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 43 David Yakobson
From: Cris Popenoe <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 6:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Cris Popenoe
90403
Cris Popenoe
[email protected] - 917.566.8770
http://www.linkedin.com/in/popenoe/
www.dawn-productions.com
Sent from my iPad
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 44 David Yakobson
From: Anthony Mindlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 6:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Anthony Mindlin
90403
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 45 David Yakobson
From: Kim Drobny <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 6:14 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Support for an LC-compliant Great Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Kim Drobny
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 46 David Yakobson
From: Linda Kuhns <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 6:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Re: CALL TO ACTION BY WILMONT MEMBERS & RESIDENTS --- City Council Agenda Item 7A -- Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 47 Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LCcompliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Linda S Kuhns
90403
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 50 Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your consideration.
(Your name)
90403
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 52 This email was sent to [email protected]
why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences WILMONT · PO Box 607 · Unit 8 · Santa Monica, CA 90406-0607 · USA Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 53 David Yakobson
From: Katharine Dreyfuss <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 6:07 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes its existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

When the city first designated this property to be used for recreation for Santa Monica residents, it specified recreation for the whole city. It prohibited use of the property for individual residences or other opportunities for personal gain. The park-land is ineligible for use for public housing, much as the city needs to support that cause in appropriate locations. Please abide by the original agreements.

Thank you for listening to the appeal of your citizens.

Sincerely,
Katharine Dreyfuss
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 55 David Yakobson
From: Valeska <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 5:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek; [email protected]
Subject: Item 7.a SMAC Project June 8
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Please vote for a Great Park, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans, with all new uses dedicated to park and recreation, including plenty of sports fields. My family is active and my kids enjoy youth sports.

Unfortunately, Santa Monica is park-poor – with much less park space per resident than other cities. We deserve better. The airport site is a unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a 192- acre Great Park to address today's acute shortage of open and field space and to balance future density and population growth. Please vote for a Great Park for our kids, our active community -- and for generations of Santa Monicans to come.

Thank you,
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 56 Valeska Andrea Donoso
AYSO Parent
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 57 David Yakobson
From: Karen Blechman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 5:54 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Please ensure that any plans for the park are fully compliant with Measure LC and reflect the need for green open space. Do not risk jeopardizing the closure of the airport by inserting other elements that are not allowed under Measure LC..

Thank you,
Karen Blechman
Ocean Park
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 58 David Yakobson
From: Chrissi Durbin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 5:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Need portion airport for EMERGENCIES
will cost too much & EPA removal will be outrageous dollars. No speaks about environmental issues & years to remove debris .

Thank you for your consideration.
(Your name)
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 59 David Yakobson
From: Sandy Weisman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 5:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sandra Weisman
90403
Get BlueMail for Android
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 60 David Yakobson
From: Bee Barba-Padilla <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 5:32 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek; Cris Gutierrez; Cris Gutierrez
Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
My name is Bee Barba-Padilla and I am a community member serving on the 19th Street Community Farm & Wellness Garden and member of the City of Santa Monica Land Back & Reparations Education subcommittee. I currently live in the Ocean Park neighborhood and am committed to joining local efforts toward ensuring the newest installments of the Santa Monica Airport conversion project prioritizes our public's access to green space, future localized ecological restoration efforts and potential urban agriculture opportunities. As a former California Climate Action Corps Fellow with the City of Santa Monica Community Gardens program 2023-24, I learned the value and biodiversity that green space provides in our urban jungles. I received a wealth of professional training and built a local network of community members committed to transforming and continuing urban gardening, food systems, sustainability and climate education efforts.

I am deeply committed to the education of future generations and youth in Santa Monica on food justice, food sovereignty, land stewards and Indigenous ecological knowledge. I am unable to attend the council meeting this Tuesday and the rally because I will be en route to UC Santa Cruz, my alma mater where I was recently accepted into their Summer Agroecology Intensive program. I look forward to learning more about organic gardening and agriculture, Indigenous ecological knowledge and ensuring that Santa Monicans practice land stewardship and solidarity with local Indigenous communities and Tongva elders and leaders. I know my experience in the past two years with both City of Santa Monica Community Gardens, the 19th Street Farm, FoodCycle L.A. has opened up this amazing door of opportunity. It is my hope and intention to bring back as much knowledge as I can and create pathways between UC Santa Cruz and Santa Monica for young people committed to ecological justice, environmental sciences and sustainability in our city.

Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 61 Sincerely,
Bee Barba-Padilla (she/they)
California Climate Action Corps Alum 23-25
nobleflowernetwork
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 62 David Yakobson
From: Karen Fisher <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 5:10 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
To:

Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I highly urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Karen M Fisher
90405 Homeowner
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 63 David Yakobson
From: Toby Berlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 4:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Toby Berlin
1701 Pier Ave
Santa Monica, CA
90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 64 David Yakobson
From: Deborah Maddis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 4:56 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
As a 40 year resident of Sunset Park, I urge you to take action to include below market rate Housing interwoven with a grand park in the EIR study of Phase 3b. of SMAC Project to promote the safety, security, and revenue for the viability of future Santa Monica generations.

With gratitude,
Deborah Maddis, MPH
Consultant
Integrating Healthcare and Housing
3201 17th Street
Santa Monica
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 65 David Yakobson
From: Shana Levin Zarcufsky <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 4:53 PM
To: Shana Levin Zarcufsky
Subject: SM Great Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I own a home in Santa Monica with my family. My kids are active and play sports, but there is a shortage of park and open space because Santa Monica is park-poor and has significantly less park space per resident than other cities. I currently drive 55 miles each way for my daughter to practice and play softball due to insufficient space in SM.

This problem is only getting worse as the city gets more and more dense. The airport site is a once-in-alifetime opportunity to create a Great Park and make Santa Monica more livable for families, now and for generations to come. Please vote to create a LC-compliant Great Park on our public land, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans.

Thank you,
Shana Zarcufsky
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 66 David Yakobson
From: Daphne Dennis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 4:52 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7-A: Airport Conversion Preferred Scenarios review Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am a 50-year resident of the City in two different neighborhoods as a renter and (very luckily) a homeowner. With our active, athletic, musician daughter, our family has made good use of every park, our largest park-the beach!- and every possible performance venue the City has to offer.

It is with decades of experience in our family’s use of public spaces that I urge you to include options for a belowmarket-rate residential community on the former airport land along with a substantial public park.

We can embrace both uses and address both needs.

Thank you and City staff for the continued, thoughtful consideration of this important plan for our future.

All best, Daphne Dennis
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 67 David Yakobson
From: John Fairweather <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 4:20 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7A, July 8 - A brief history of the LC promise Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council Members,
As I am sure you know, the ultimate building of an LC-compliant Great Park at the airport is what the public has expected since passage of measure LC in 2014. Back then, those of us who collaborated with the cIty in crafting the language of Measure LC had no idea when, and in what sequence, the land would return to us as it was “released from aviation use”. We had just spent months fighting signature gatherers for Measure D, the national aviation lobby measure to wrest all control over the airport permanently from the city. In the end D got their signatures, but to do it they triggered a national signature-gatherer gold-rush to our City as our activities forced them to ultimately pay gatherers over $20 per signature (a new national record). The lies told by these invaders to get each $20 you would not believe.

At that point, City Council, who could not advocate for their own counter-measure (LC), came to us asking that we fight the measure D/LC fight for them.

Knowing the kind of spending and dirty tricks we’d seen in the signature gathering phase would be a fraction of that brought to bear in the D campaign, we also knew that only if the people believed a Great Park would ultimately replace the airport could we win that ballot fight. Our agreement to run the LC campaign was therefore contingent on the “Great Park” promise being made clear and enshrined in the City Charter. It took many drafts of the LC language before we, the Council, and the City Attorney finally agreed on the language of LC.

We then accepted the D/LC challenge. We went out and ultimately won that battle primarily by telling the people of Santa Monica about the Great Park that was to come. Anyone who claims that a vote for LC was not essentially a vote by the people of Santa Monica for an LC-compliant park instead of an airport is simply wrong. The fact that almost every living past mayor of Santa Monica supports the Great Park Coalition (as they did LC back in 2014) underscores that they know that a Great Park was promised, and promises should be kept.

In the decade following LC, the agreement with the FAA made clear when that Great Park would start to be realized - January 1st, 2029.

I’m sure I don’t need to tell you how important it is that on July 8th you reaffirm that promise, and that you direct staff to plan an LC-compliant park, including those commonly accepted park features that can be brought into LC-compliance through zoning changes alone.

We all agree that housing is important, but housing and parks are complimentary sides of the same coin, and unlike housing, which can and will be built throughout the city, this airport site is our only chance to restore and build the Great Park that first existed on the site in the 1920’s. This Great Park is essential FOR future housing, but not AS housing. A Great Park that will serve the whole city as the essential hub of a modern interconnected (fully offItem 7-A July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 68 road) park network that will make our densifying city truly livable for all. A park that will become Santa Monica’s greatest enduring tourist attraction as sea-level-rise diminishes our beaches. A park that will be cherished and loved, and that evolves for centuries to come. It may take decades to complete, but with a densifying city and a deteriorating climate, this is our obligation to future generations.

Now it is your turn to make the next step. I trust you will do the right thing.

Sincerely,
John Fairweather
Chair - Measure LC
Board - Airport2Park and Great Park Coalition

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 69 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 4:08 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Santa Monica Airport Redevelopment Project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members:

As residents, who live adjacent to the Santa Monica Airport, we believe there is a great opportunity to develop the former airport into a comprehensive community, including below market rate housing, a community center, and a park. Priority should be given to below market rate housing for people who work in Santa Monica such as teachers, nurses, firefighters, police, and those who work in the commercial sector earning less than $120,000 per year. We are of the mindset that this could go a long way to addressing the housing shortage and a major cause of homelessness, that is lack of affordability. Addressing the housing shortage would allow working families to remain in our community and will also help to rebuild the middle class in Santa Monica.

Thank you for your time and consideration in the matter of bringing affordable housing back to Santa Monica in a meaningful way.

Sincerely,
Dean and Nancy Fredgant
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 70 David Yakobson
From: E. Durst and C. Gilman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 4:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

We need you to be visionaries and to ensure that we have sufficient green space in Santa Monica well into the future.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Durst
Christopher Gilman
Cy Gilman
Leo Gilman
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 71 David Yakobson
From: Susan Sazer <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 3:55 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Airport Park + housing
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Hello,
I am a member of the Santa Monica Democratic Club and also a resident in Brentwood, or, Santa Monica adjacent.

I lived in Santa Monica for 10 years when I first moved to California in 1974, and have watched as the City has been changed over these years.

I strongly support the park + below market rate option for the airport redevelopment, as the space is large enough to support both uses. Furthermore, this option helps address the lack of affordable housing, especially for seniors and people that work in SM.

Please consider studying this option alongside a park only option.

Thank you,
Susan Sazer
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 72 David Yakobson
From: Benjamin Tshibasu-Kabeya <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 3:53 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek; [email protected]
Subject: Item 7.a SMAC Project June 8
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Please vote for a Great Park, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans, with all new uses dedicated to park and recreation, including plenty of sports fields.

My family is active and my kids enjoy youth sports. Unfortunately, Santa Monica is park-poor – with much less park space per resident than other cities. We deserve better.

The airport site is a unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a 192-acre Great Park to address today's acute shortage of open and field space and to balance future density and population growth. Please vote for a Great Park for our kids, our active community -- and for generations of Santa Monicans to come.

Thank you.

Best,
Benjamin Tshibasu-Kabeya
2625 Arizona Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90404
AYSO Parent & AYSO Board Member
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 73 David Yakobson
From: Robin Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 3:45 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Great Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council members:

I urge you to move forward with the Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, with no sale or other privatization of the land.

I’ve grown up within 5 minutes of the Santa Monica Airport my entire life. First on Mar Vista Hill, then in Sunset Park. I walk Clover Park twice a day with my dog, and play tennis at the courts. The airport has provided a buffer for the continuing density of our city. A Great Park, with exclusive open and recreational space can help restore habitat and help meet needs of both current and future generations, leaving a legacy of nature, space, and comfort .

Please don’t sell out to developers. Please don’t build any housing which would only create more gridlock in an already overly dense area.

Robin Anderson
2333 Oak St #4
Santa Monica , CA 90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 74 David Yakobson
From: Bradley Kottman <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 3:40 PM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: July 8 Meeting – Item 7 - Please Keep All Options Open Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I’m writing to respectfully urge you to keep all options on the table as you consider the future of Santa Monica Airport. The Sasaki presentation scheduled for July 8 presents a narrow view focused on a single park-oriented vision, but the decision before you is far too consequential to proceed without full economic due diligence.

The city faces extraordinary financial headwinds — from budget deficits and depleted reserves to declining tourism and a possible credit downgrade. Before making a historic decision representing consequences in the BILLIONS of dollars, the Council deserves a robust comparative analysis of multiple land use scenarios, including economic modeling and site pro formas. How can you be expected to make a decision about which path to pursue when you don’t know how much each will cost? I also believe a public vote would help build consensus and legitimacy. Measure LC was not a mandate for a park. Measure LC merely requires a vote of the people for development on land formerly used for aviation purposes (with limited exceptions). Much has changed since that 2014 election, which, by the way, had historically low turnout. It’s only fair to give all voters a voice on how this land is used moving forward.

Finally, please consider the risk of unintended consequences. Closing the airport at the end of 2028 without a clear, funded path forward will result in an unmanaged, blighted site or a state-imposed solution — neither of which serves our community.

Thank you for your diligence and service.

Sincerely,
Brad Kottman & Madison Livingston (Santa Monica Residents Since 2017) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 75 David Yakobson
From: Holly Silvers <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 3:38 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; [email protected]; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek; councilmtgitems
Cc: Dennis Granelli
Subject: Please support the park, the voters wishes & our community Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Please vote for a Great Park, for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans, with all new uses dedicated to park and recreation, including plenty of sports fields. My family is active and my kids enjoy youth sports. Unfortunately, Santa Monica is park-poor – with much less park space per resident than other cities. We deserve better. The airport site is a unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a 192-acre Great Park to address today's acute shortage of open and field space and to balance future density and population growth. Please vote for a Great Park for our kids, our active community -- and for generations of Santa Monicans to come.

My husband and I coach multiple sports (soccer, basketball & baseball), I am on the AYSO board & we are both very active members of the Grant PTA. Please, please, please listen to your constituency!!! Thank you,
Holly Silvers Granelli
Owner/Resident/Business owner 90405
Grant PTA
AYSO board member
AYSO coach
[OPTIONAL Add “AYSO Volunteer Coach” or your other affiliations] Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 76 David Yakobson
From: Robin Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 3:26 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Robin Anderson
90405
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 77 David Yakobson
From: Michele Perrone <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 3:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 7.A./July 8th - Support for an LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I fully support an LC compliant great park without housing. The people of this city worked hard and got people out to vote on this specifically. No more no less.

Michele Perrone
Ocean Park Resident since 1997.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 78 David Yakobson
From: Leisle Bartley <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 3:20 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
Open outdoor space please -
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational LC-compliant Great Park with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramount that we plan for the creation of sufficient open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Sincerely,
Leisle Bartley
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 79 David Yakobson
From: Ben Marcus <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 3:06 PM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: July 8 Meeting – Item 7 - Why Guess on Billion-Dollar Decisions? Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I’m writing as a lifelong Santa Monican, a Sunset Park resident, and the cofounder of UP.Partners, based at the Santa Monica Airport. You’ve met me, so you know my venture capital firm has invested hundreds of millions into sustainable transportation startups, carrying on the innovative legacy of the Douglas Aircraft Company that once called this airport home. But above all, as a dad to my 7-year-old daughter, my biggest hope is for her and her peers to grow up thriving in our community—becoming engaged, creative citizens who build value for the world and make Santa Monica proud. The future of the 192-acre airport site could shape that vision, and I’m asking you to keep all options open and do the hard work of a thorough process to get this right.

I appreciate Sasaki Associates’ renderings and the community feedback through surveys and workshops—it’s got people talking, which is great. But I’m worried we’re missing a key piece: a clear, side-by-side comparison of what different paths could mean for our city’s future, especially financially. We don’t even know what this land is worth—maybe billions—and that’s a huge gap when we’re making a decision this big. What would it cost to convert the airport into a park? You don’t know. What would it cost to operate as a park? You don’t know. How much additional traffic would a park create? You don’t know. What are the legal implications of a change in land use, state housing mandates, etc.? You don’t know. Is it fair (or even possible) for 90,000 Santa Monicans to pay for a park that 13,000,000 Metro LA residents will use? What is the potential economic impact to our city of using the site in part for non-park use? You don’t know what opportunities you’re missing!
Without those numbers, we’re guessing on something that could define Santa Monica for generations.

Especially at a time when the city is doing everything it can to find pennies in the cushions, why would we not understand our options for the airport better? You wouldn’t buy a car without comparing the economics of various options - why would you make a decision like this worth billions without a detailed comparison? We shouldn’t start down an EIR path without a clear idea of how this is all going to go - the city could very well end up at the end of that process with no viable options and lose control of the outcome.

I also think we need to dream bigger than the plans already out there. This land could be a vibrant public space where kids like my daughter play and learn, housing to keep families here, a hub for innovative businesses, or a mix that does it all. Measure LC from 2014 doesn’t lock us into just a park; it gives us room to explore other ideas with voter approval. Let’s not box ourselves in when we could create something truly special.

As a business owner, I see the airport’s value every day. Our firm’s investments create jobs and keep Santa Monica a leader in sustainable technology. If the airport closes without a plan that supports this kind of energy, we’d have to think about moving to places like El Segundo or Hawthorne, where deeptech innovation is Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 80 buzzing. I don’t want to leave—I love this city—but we need a vision that keeps businesses like ours here. At the same time, as a dad and a resident, I want a future for this land that inspires our kids, keeps our community strong, and helps Santa Monica shine.

To make the best decision, I’m asking you to:

1. Figure out the land’s value: Hire experts to pin down what this property is worth for different uses—park, housing, business, or a mix. We need to know if we’re talking billions.

2. Compare many options: Look at many plans side by side, with clear numbers on costs, benefits, and longterm impacts.

3. Get creative: Invite planners, innovators, and residents to pitch bold ideas that spark creativity and opportunity for our kids and community.

4. Hear everyone: Make sure you’re getting input from all of us, maybe with random polling to balance the surveys.

5. Be upfront: Share the pros, cons, and detailed numbers openly so we can trust the process and weigh in.

I’ve stayed in Santa Monica essentially my whole life because I believe in this place—its people, its spirit, its potential. My daughter and her peers deserve a city that nurtures their creativity and gives them a chance to build amazing things. This airport decision could shape that future, and we can’t afford to rush it or settle for less. By valuing the land, comparing options, thinking big, and listening to all of us, you can create a legacy that makes our kids and our city proud.

Thank you for your hard work and for hearing me out. I’m ready to stay engaged—as a resident, a dad, and a business owner—to help make this a win for Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Ben Marcus
Co-founder & Managing Partner, UP.Partners
Sunset Park Resident and Product of Santa Monica Schools (Go Vikings!) Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 81 David Yakobson
From: Sandy Laderas <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 3:05 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources, and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As our park-poor city densifies, it is important that we plan for the creation of sufficient open space and recreational spaces that can restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sandra Laderas
90405
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 82 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 3:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: LC Compliant Great Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmemb
Please move forward, for the benefit of all, t
compliant Great Park with a sensible financ
revenue sources and with no sale or other p
As our park-poor city densifies, it is paramo
sufficient open, recreational, and regenerati
meet the needs of both current and future g
Sincerely,
Tim Bowler and Ishara Bailis
Main Street Gardeners
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 83 David Yakobson
From: Betty Green <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 2:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya
Subject: Item 7.A./July 8th - Support for an LC-compliant Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
My family and I VERY STRONGLY SUPPORT AN LC COMPLIANT GREAT PARK! We are very long time residents of Sunset Park.

PLEASE ! NO DEVELOPMENT AFTER SM AIRPORT CLOSES!!
Thank you,
Betty Green and Family
Santa Monica Resident
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

7.A.i
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 1] (6638 : Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review (90 mins)) 84 David Yakobson
From: President TSM <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 2:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 7.1 – Santa Monica Airport Conversion (SMAC) Project, July 8, 2025 Attachments: TSM_Santa Monica Partnership letter 5.5.25.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged