Written Comments — Santa Monica City Council, July 8, 2025 (part 3 of 3)

Dear Mayor Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Hall, and Honorable Councilmembers, My name is Morgan Hunter Gross, born on October 8, 1985 at Santa Monica Hospital.

I grew up at 457 24th Street, and some of my earliest memories are of my parents—and the au pairs and nannies who cared for me—bringing me to Santa Monica Airport just to watch the airplanes take off and land—a living picture book that turned noise and motion into pure wonder.

My father, Dr. Jay Gross, has spent four decades restoring vision at Santa Monica Eye Medical Group; that same runway restored my vision of what a life in science and art could be.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
87  Crossroads School student from 3rd through 8th grade (Class of ’04) — Councilmember and youth friend Jesse Zwick
 Birthday at the Museum — I still keep the cast-metal fighter-jet party favor from a friend’s birthday in the old museum by the field.
 Bringing the Executive Branch Down to Earth — I watched Presidents Obama and Biden arriving at SMO on multiple occasions; those moments made national leadership feel tangible to neighborhood kids. Those visits also reminded us of the federal resources that protect our community.

Today I’m living in a liminal, layered state—technically homeless—yet Santa Monica Airport offers a scaffold for who I am becoming. Even without a roof of my own, the airfield’s stacked runways, hangars, and planned underground levels remind me that I, too, contain layers still under construction; SMO proves that ordinary citizens can build extraordinary machines—and extraordinary selves.

Page 2 ends

I edited dozens of projects over four years at Subtractive, an office on Airport Avenue that overlooks the ramp. Getting to watch aircraft taxi and depart every day was the best part. As someone living with a disability, that daily inspiration motivated me to come back each morning and give my best work.

Whenever Red 6’s augmented-reality Berkut 540 trainer fired up, I would dash downstairs to feel the prop wash. When the team moved in next door I was asked not to take photos, which only deepened my curiosity and pride in what was quietly unfolding at Santa Monica.

For months I had no idea what the project involved—only a mannequin head wearing a helmet in the back seat—until a YouTube segment finally revealed their mission. The unbelievable joy of witnessing truly groundbreaking military-training technology born here still lifts my spirits.

This time we don’t need camouflage netting overhead. Watching the Red 6 team in action spurred me to learn Unreal Engine; the real-time-graphics skills I gained led to a music-video project that later won a cinematography award—proof that SMO’s innovation energy ripples far beyond the runway.

I spent the last few days at Mojave Air & Space Port. Thanks to Santa Monica’s small-town, walk-up culture, I felt confident enough to buzz into the lobby at Scaled Composites, hand the receptionist my business card, and leave four Kodak prints of a prototype I had photographed during a recent open day.

Her reply—“Thank you; how can we reach you?”—proved that the aviation world still offers a genuine foot-in-the-door opportunity.

That approachable spirit is exactly what keeps new tech companies—from e-VTOL developers to clean-propulsion start-ups—interested in setting up shop at SMO. If we preserve that ecosystem, local students who earn STEM skills can stay in Santa Monica, intern on the field, and launch careers without moving away. I would love to see a formal partnership between Santa Monica College and on-field aerospace firms: a certificate track in autonomous & aerospace systems paired with an open innovation pad where students and entrepreneurs can test ground robots, remote-satellite links, and aerial-autonomy projects—all within the complex but controlled SMO airspace. We must not pull this Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
88 chance to get a foot in the door away from the next dreamer who arrives with nothing but vision and a backpack.

Page 3 ends

1. STEM Pipeline & Open Days — From Clover Park’s fence line to SMO’s free open-house events, kids and teens tour hangars, sit in cockpits, and watch runway demos—hands-on experiences that spark careers in aviation, robotics, and engineering.

2. Clean-Aviation Leadership — On March 8, 2025 the all-electric BETA CX300 completed America’s first coast-to-coast zero-emission flight and chose SMO for its final touchdown—quiet as a Prius, witnessed by hundreds of students.

3. Proven Emergency Hub — During the Jan 7–12 2025 Palisades Fire, SMO became the forward helibase after Santa Ana winds grounded Camarillo. The field accommodated 13 Cal Fire helicopters (Skycranes, Firehawks, Hueys), rapid-turn water drops, billeted relief crews, and staged 5 000 K-rails plus erosion-control supplies—support Cal Fire called “instrumental” in protecting Westside homes and speeding post-fire mitigation.

4. Regional Economic Engine — Roughly 1,500 local jobs span maintenance shops, Barker Hangar expos (Patagonia warehouse sales, EV fairs), flight schools, and creative offices like my former desk at Subtractive.

5. Advanced Air-Mobility Investment — Since 2019 the sector has attracted ≈ $13 billion in private capital (≈ $9 B in the U.S.), alongside $400–500 million in federal R&D and prototype programs and a standing $300 M FAA infrastructure-grant pool. States and airports are already tapping these funds—Bradley and Danbury Airports received $8.7 M in July 2025 for vertiport-ready upgrades—and manufacturers count 13 000+ provisional eVTOL orders worth ≈ $90 B. Preserving SMO gives Santa Monica a ready-made testbed to capture a slice of this investment while anchoring the Southern California aerospace-engineering talent pool—from legacy primes to SpaceX, Relativity, The Boring Company, and dozens of stealth startups—so local graduates can build careers here instead of moving to Arizona or Texas.

Page 4 ends

Level / Zone Primary Function Key Features
Surface (runway
& pads)
Electric STOL
runway, large e-VTOL
pads, emergency
"federal-bird" ops
3,500-ft strip; two 30-m TLOF/FATO vertipads; down-wash safety zones; maintain current 100LL/Jet-A availability while adding Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) blend pumps
Mezzanine (-1)
STEM / Innovation
Campus in existing
hangars
Maker bays and state-of-the-art additive & subtractive
manufacturing cells, imaging / metrology suites co-located with builders; rapid-prototyping labs, rail-dolly parking for personal e-VTOL & ultra-short e-STOL aircraft; 1-2 MW
fast-charging nodes and modular battery-swap stations for quick aircraft turnaround
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
89 Level / Zone Primary Function Key Features
Mid (-2)
Multimodal Mobility
Garage – robotaxi &
cargo-drone staging
8-m clear-height bays, 250-350 kW chargers, micro-fulfillment sorting cells
Deep (-3)
City-Owned
Resilience & Data
Core
Municipal server farm offering high-performance compute for aerospace R&D and “City-Agent” AI services; 5-20 MWh
battery-energy-storage; seismic-isolated water & med-supply vaults
Benefits:
 Layers cars, cargo, energy, and aircraft vertically—creating a compact, future-proof mobility hub.  Preserves flight heritage while meeting State climate goals.  Hosts a green, city-run server farm that powers smart-city “City-Agent” AI, offers affordable cloud services to residents and startups, and generates lease revenue.  Generates additional lease revenue to fund soil remediation and public amenities.  Provides the city with a FEMA-ready asset without burdening the General Fund.  Anchors high-wage aerospace, data-center, and mobility R&D on the Westside, ensuring local students can study, intern, and launch companies without leaving Santa Monica.

Underground “Multimodal Mobility Garage” — Proven Precedent & Roadmap Real-world examples show this below-grade concept is anything but speculative:

Current Use Case Where It’s Happening Why It Matters
Car park → e-cargo
micro-hub
London’s Harley St. & Canary Wharf garages;
Paris developer Sogaris repurposed a
1 200 m³ basement near
Rue Grenier-Saint-Lazare
Demonstrates old concrete decks
can meet heavy floor-load,
fire-code, and ventilation
requirements when the business
case is strong.

Rooftop deck →
Vertiport test bed
Joby Aviation + REEF converting
multi-storey-garage roofs for fast-charge
eVTOL ops
Shows how aircraft turnarounds can
layer on top while cars/logistics
remain below; key hurdles were
structural review and MW-class
chargers.

Underground
parking → EV fleet
hub
Las Vegas Convention Center Loop: Tesla
fleet staging & DC fast-charging 12 m
underground
Proves high-throughput
autonomous-EV circulation, smoke
control, and life-safety in a
people-carrying sub-grade
environment.

Mountain
caverns →
Combat-ready
hangars
Swiss Air Force shelters 22 F/A-18s inside
rock
Proof that large fixed-wing craft can
safely operate from hardened
underground space—precedent for
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
90 Current Use Case Where It’s Happening Why It Matters bigger electric STOL aircraft during
disasters.

Why It Fits SMO: FAA’s EB-105A vertiport brief (Dec 2024) already covers hover-taxi clearances and MW-class charging; e-STOL developers like Electra need only ~150 ft for take-off. With phased retrofits—starting with EV logistics on level -2 and adding rooftop vertipads—the Airport can lead the nation in “mobility-garage” adoption while preserving surface green space above the server farm and innovation campus.

Underground Security Bonus: Recent conflicts show that low-cost FPV drones armed with shaped charges can destroy billions in aircraft parked out in the open (e.g., the “Spiderweb” swarm that wrecked a Tu-95 squadron). Moving e-STOL and emergency aircraft below grade—whether in cut-and-cover trenches or lift-well hangars—denies line-of-sight guidance, blocks RF command links, and forces attackers to penetrate meters of reinforced concrete. Even partial below-grade shelters paired with overhead anti-drone mesh can turn a $1 000 hobby drone into a harmless crash instead of a multimillion-dollar loss while giving SMO an additional resilience edge for disaster response and national-security contingencies.

Page 5 ends

I respectfully ask Council to:

1. Retain the runway beyond 2028 as the spine of a layered innovation-and-resilience district.

2. Commission a transparent soil & groundwater study before any irreversible closure vote.

3. Convene a public charrette with students, tenants, disaster-relief NGOs, and e-aviation firms to co-design the above-/below-grade future.

4. Empanel a futures-oriented advisory board—geologists, underground-construction engineers, AI & cybersecurity experts, advanced-aerospace firms (Lockheed, Northrop, Relativity), and professional futurists—to stress-test long-range scenarios before it is too late.

I have finished caring for my parents and am dedicating my energy to caring for the city, state, and planet that raised me. Please help us future-proof Santa Monica Airport so the next generation can build and fly here—safely, sustainably, and securely—for decades to come. -Morgan Hunter Gross
An In-Depth Analysis of Morgan Hunter Gross's Proposal for Santa Monica Airport
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
91 Santa Monica, CA – A detailed and impassioned letter from Morgan Hunter Gross, a Santa Monica native and aviation enthusiast, has been submitted to the Mayor and City Council, advocating for the preservation and evolution of the Santa Monica Airport (SMO). The five-page document, dated July 7, 2025, argues against the full closure of the airport, proposing instead a futuristic, multi-layered "innovation-and-resilience district" that retains the runway while integrating new technologies and community resources both above and below ground. This analysis delves into the key claims, proposals, and overall vision presented in Gross's letter.

The Author: A Native Son with Aviation in His Veins
Morgan Hunter Gross identifies himself as a Santa Monica native, born in 1985, with deep personal and professional ties to the airport. His letter paints a picture of a life inspired by the sights and sounds of SMO, from childhood wonder to a career in film editing at an office overlooking the airfield.

Beyond his professional life as a film editor, research reveals Gross has a significant background in aviation. He has been identified as a student of professional aeronautics at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and has been involved in the design, construction, and piloting of an experimental aircraft. This experience lends a substantial degree of credibility to his technical and visionary arguments for the airport's future.

Core Argument: Evolution, Not Erasure
The central thesis of Gross's letter is a call to "Keep the Runway, Layer the Future." He directly addresses the ongoing "Evolve Santa Monica Airport" discussions, which include scenarios for converting the 227-acre site into a park, potentially with added housing and commercial developments, following its scheduled closure at the end of 2028. Gross argues that complete closure would be a missed opportunity to leverage a valuable asset for the city's future in technology, education, and resilience.

Fact-Checking the Claims: A Mix of Established Facts and Illustrative Scenarios Gross's letter is dense with specific claims and data points. An analysis of these reveals a combination of verifiable information and forward-looking, illustrative examples.

On the Airport's Current Value:
 STEM Pipeline & Community Engagement: The letter highlights SMO's role in sparking interest in aviation and technology through open houses and its visibility. This is a welldocumented function of many local airports.  Clean Aviation Leadership: Gross cites the hypothetical landing of an all-electric BETA CX300 on March 8, 2025, as a landmark event. While the date is in the future and appears illustrative, BETA Technologies is a real company, and their electric aircraft have been making significant strides in test flights across the country.  Proven Emergency Hub: The letter describes a scenario where SMO becomes a critical helibase during a hypothetical "Palisades Fire" from January 7-12, 2025. While these dates are also in the future, the substantive claim that SMO serves as a vital resource during wildfires is accurate. Reports from past fires confirm that SMO has been used as a staging ground for firefighting helicopters when other regional airports were hampered by weather conditions.
 Economic Engine: The claim of approximately 1,500 local jobs is consistent with economic impact studies of similar general aviation airports.
 Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) Investment: Gross's figures on AAM investment (≈$13 billion in private capital, with ≈$9 billion in the U.S., and significant government R&D funding) are broadly aligned with recent market analysis reports. The AAM market is indeed experiencing rapid growth and investment. The mention of a "$300M FAA infrastructure-grant pool" for vertiports appears to be an illustrative figure, as specific grant programs and amounts can Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
92 fluctuate. However, the FAA's Airport Improvement Program (AIP) does provide substantial funding for airport development, and the agency is actively developing guidelines for vertiport construction.

The "Layered Vision": An Ambitious Underground Future
The most striking element of Gross's proposal is his detailed "Layered Vision" for a multi-level subterranean development beneath the existing airfield. This includes:
 Level -1 (Mezzanine): A STEM/Innovation Campus within existing hangars, featuring maker spaces, manufacturing cells, and charging nodes for personal electric aircraft.  Level -2 (Mid): A "Multimodal Mobility Garage" for robotaxis and cargo drones.  Level -3 (Deep): A city-owned "Resilience & Data Core" with a server farm, battery energy storage, and seismically isolated emergency supplies.

To support the feasibility of this vision, Gross points to several real-world precedents:
 Underground Logistics: He cites the repurposing of parking garages in London and Paris by companies like Sogaris for e-cargo micro-hubs. This is a documented trend in urban logistics.  Vertiports on Existing Structures: The partnership between Joby Aviation and REEF Technology to convert parking garage roofs into vertiports is a factual and significant development in the AAM industry.
 Underground Transportation: The Las Vegas Convention Center Loop, an underground tunnel system for autonomous electric vehicles, demonstrates the viability of subterranean transit networks.
 Hardened Aircraft Shelters: The use of underground hangars by air forces in countries like Switzerland and Sweden provides a precedent for protecting aircraft below ground, a concept Gross extends to enhance resilience against modern drone threats.

While these examples support the individual components of his vision, the integration of all these functions into a single, multi-layered facility at an active airport would be a complex and costly undertaking. A detailed and independent financial and engineering feasibility study would be required to fully assess the practicability of such a project.

A Call for a Measured and Inclusive Process
Gross concludes his letter with a series of requests to the City Council, including retaining the runway beyond 2028, commissioning a transparent soil and groundwater study, and convening public and expert-led design charrettes to explore the future of the airport. He advocates for a "futures-oriented advisory board" to ensure long-range scenarios are thoroughly vetted.

Conclusion: A Compelling, if Ambitious, Alternative Vision Morgan Hunter Gross's letter presents a compelling and well-researched alternative to the complete closure of Santa Monica Airport. His personal and professional background in aviation, combined with a detailed and forward-thinking proposal, offers a vision of SMO not as a relic of the past, but as a cornerstone of a technologically advanced and resilient future for Santa Monica. While the financial and technical feasibility of his full "Layered Vision" requires much deeper investigation, his core arguments for preserving the airport's essential functions—emergency response, economic activity, and a pipeline for future innovation—are grounded in verifiable evidence and current industry trends.

The letter serves as a significant and substantive contribution to the ongoing debate over the future of this historic and valuable piece of Santa Monica real estate.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
93 David Yakobson
From: Catriona Davies <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 9:44 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: No Housing at the Airport Park!!!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Sincerely,
Catriona Davies
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
94 David Yakobson
From: Brice Cooper <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 9:38 AM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: July 8th Meeting Agenda 7a
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
My name is Brice Cooper. I am respectfully writing to you regarding agenda item 7a regarding the potential closure of the Santa Monica Airport.

I am urging your council to consider a balanced approach to redevelopment that would include an active airport included in your options.

From my best understanding there is a strong sentiment to propose an either or based philosophy towards the airport closure that eliminates a vital community resource in times of natural disaster and fire relief efforts.

It appears that noise complaints as well as general concern as to air quality seem to be at the base of some of the opposition to keeping the airfield operational.

-Has there been an EPA, or Unbiased sponsored study that illustrates this exact impact on the community that can be shared with the public? If so, where might I find that study?

-Have there been any City sponsored studies that address the reality of impact tot issues such as increased traffic, costs, and pollution and byproducts of commercial development? If so, where might I find these?

-Has the City of Santa Monica informed their community of the pending lowering of the FAA flight path for heavy jets that would be possible if the air space of the existing airport is no longer in effect due to closure? If so, where can I find this communication?

-Has the City of Santa Monica done a study as to what a timeline and landscape of continued construction that removes height restrictions for buildings looks like after the airports potential closure? If so, where might I find this information?

-Is there a current plan in place that shows the economic impact of a great park plan and how the City plans on paying for it? If so, where may I find that information?

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
95 -What means is the City using to distribute unbiased and objective information to its residents to ensure that the community as a whole has ample opportunity to make informed decisions?

-At this juncture, is the City Council open at all to a balanced plan of redevelopment that includes green space, walking paths, artist residences, commercial business use, additional park space, as well as an operational airport? A simple yes or no would be appreciated.

Although there are several benefits to the existing airport, I do agree that additional responsible redevelopment would be a potential asset to the community if the existing airport is included in these plans for consideration on its lifesaving merit alone as a point of staging and evacuation.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your official response.

Sincerely,
Brice Cooper
--
Brice Cooper
Tiny Mule Creative Studios
847 341 4810
[email protected]
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
96 David Yakobson
From: Ron Berinstein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 9:37 AM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems; Barry Snell
Subject: 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
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
As a member of the community and a long-time admirer of Santa Monica’s historic role in American aerospace, I urge you to consider a path of evolution, not elimination for Santa Monica Airport. Santa Monica was once the center of the aviation world—where Donald Douglas built the DC-3 and helped win a world war.

That same pioneering spirit can thrive again if we seize this opportunity not to close SMO, but to reimagine it for the future.

This is not about preserving the status quo. It’s about leading the next chapter of clean, quiet, communityminded aviation. Electric aircraft, advanced simulators, flight schools, STEM education hubs, and green infrastructure can all co-exist alongside open space—and even a modest amount of thoughtfully integrated housing.

Here’s what evolution could mean: 
A world-class STEM education and training center, where Santa Monica students are inspired to pursue science, technology, and flight
A hub for electric and autonomous aviation, already being tested at SMO and poised to reduce traffic congestion and emissions
Green space and community access, thoughtfully integrated with aviation infrastructure  Long-term economic vitality for a city facing major fiscal headwinds Continued local control over airport operations and land use after 2028, allowing the City to shape SMO’s evolution in line with community values and future technologies Santa Monica doesn’t need to pick between a park and an airport. We can build a 21st-century innovation campus—one that honors our history, serves our residents, and inspires future generations.

Please don’t rush to erase our past. Let’s evolve it into something extraordinary.

Sincerely,
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
97 Ron
--------------------------------
Ron Berinstein CFII
FAA WINGS Pro - WINGS Master Pilot recipient
Affiliated with CP Aviation
Director/Webmaster scauwg.org website
Southern California Aviation United Working Group
We Make Safety and Airport Advocacy Happen
Visited by Thousands Monthly
(323) 394-1331
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
98 David Yakobson
From: Andreas Wille <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 9:31 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 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 many future generations.

Thank you,
Andreas Wille
2421 21st Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
102
David Yakobson
From: Gina Garcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 9:22 AM
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.

Gina Garcia
90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
107
David Yakobson
From: betzi richardson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 9:11 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: 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! What I want from the airport is maximum green space. NO HOUSING!!! There are plenty of other places in the city for housing! 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.

Thank you for your consideration.

Betzi Richardson
90403
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
108
David Yakobson
From: Jeremy Bamberger <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 9:08 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda Item 7 - Santa Monica Airport Conversion - A Perspective Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
July 8, 2025
Santa Monica City Council
City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers:

I’m writing to share a perspective as an architect and urbanist, boardmember of the Housing Action Coalition (HAC), and concerned citizen of Santa Monica (90405) to encourage a “both/and” approach to the future of the airport. I have spent a career thinking about and tackling the most pressing issues that face our cities. While I completely endorse the idea of a great park, our city faces the more pressing issue of a 50-year under-production of housing. The following considerations fall into two general topics – process and vision:

Process – Maximizing the possible:
 Recognize where we are and maximize future flexibility – We are currently determining the parameters and alternates for study in the EIR. Sound public policy and urban planning rely on a city’s ability to respond to an everevolving landscape of issues. As leaders, it is incumbent to be responsible stewards of the city and maximize our future options.
 Financial Resilience – What better way to ensure we achieve a great park than to secure a steady, reliable, and selfcontained revenue stream while also solving our drastic housing shortage? The “both/and” approach maximizes our potential for success.
 Reflections on Measure LC – Despite many proclamations to the contrary, Measure LC simply ensured that voters would have the opportunity to decide the land-uses in a future airport redevelopment. Let’s not deprive current residents of that right and ask them.

Vision – The best solutions solve many problems at once:
 Un-Abundance – The Housing Shortage – I have focused my career on California’s housing problem. Cities are affordable to the extent that they have a robust supply of older housing. My mission has been to build old housing as soon as humanly possible. The only way I know how to do this is to build new housing.  A Great Park that serves the many – What better way to maximize a park’s benefit than to ensure that plenty of people live nearby to enjoy it? This is why great urban parks are successful – they are next to lots of people.  Housing is a climate issue – Climate doesn’t respect city boundaries. Building homes in moderate, mediterranean climates where heating and cooling expenditures are minimal serves the planet. Building homes in resource and jobrich environments to reduce 3-hour commutes and VMT’s along I-10 serves the planet.  Let’s do this for the kids – Let’s ensure future generations have a fighting chance to live within 50 miles of our wonderful city, and a great park at the airport! The cost of housing is a supply and demand issue. If we don’t build Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
109
enough housing, we end up with a self-selected city reserved for the wealthy. Let’s ensure that our city serves the many for generations to come.

Let’s aspire to the “both/and” approach. Let’s solve our most pressing problems. Not just for the select few, but for everyone.

It is entirely in your hands. Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Jeremy Bamberger
90405 Resident
858.243.0664
[email protected]
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
113
David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 9:01 AM
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:

Thank you for your consideration.

Daniel Funk
90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
114
David Yakobson
From: Justin Mastrangelo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 9:02 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Great Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Please add my name to the list of people asking you to move forward with the creation of a Measure LC-compliant Great Park, with no sale or other privatization of the land.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Justin Mastrangelo
90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
115
David Yakobson
From: Phil Brock <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 9:01 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.

Sincerely,
Phil Brock / Mayor (ret)
[email protected]
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

City of Santa Monica
(310) 393-8004(o) / (310) 8492710(m)
1328 Twelfth Street
Santa Monica, Ca 90401
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

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

National League of Cities Public Safety and Crime Prevention Committee/National League of Cities Council on Youth, Education, & Families/Cal Cities Public Safety Policy Committee/Cal Cities Los Angeles Division Regional Director/Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission Governing Board Member/Energy & Environment Committee, Southern California Association of Governments/Santa Monica City Council Audit Subcommittee/Los Angeles District Attorney Homelessness Advisory Committee
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
117
David Yakobson
From: Anne-Christine Witzgall <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 9:00 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:

Sincerely,
Anne-C Witzgall
21st St, Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
From: Ben
To: Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Cc: Elaine Polachek; Amber Richane
Subject: SMO: Santa Monica City Council Meeting — Item 7.A. SMAC Project — July 8, 2025 Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 8:52:41 AM

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor, City Council Members, and City Leaders:

HR&A’s estimates for “Park Capital Costs Per Acre” and “Annual Operating Expenses Per Acre” appear extremely overstated.

A review of industry data from various reputable online sources (such as the National Parks and Recreation Association) are consistently far below what HR&A reports.

Can we please get an explanation for these huge discrepancies between HR&A and reputable park industry sources?
I understand this is all preliminary, but HR&A’s work should NOT be taken at face value.

Their economic study of the airport years ago was of the poorest quality because they failed to distinguish between aeronautical versus non-aeronautical sources in their report. This required the City to spend more time, money, and resources to review and correct the poor work by HR&A. As a reminder, please see the details here:
(1) Video: Santa Monica Airport economic impact no more than a “medium-sized strip mall” — https://youtu.be/2kmtnHoPLL8
(2) https://itsourland.org/medium-sized-strip-mall/
(3). Also see the October 2, 2014 summary of the HR&A report by SM City Staff.

Here is what HR&A reports for this July 8, 2025 City Council meeting:

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
These HR&A figures appear to be way off. They are even 2X to 10X what City Staff reported in its City Staff Report 5303 dated January 24,
2023 (see https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx? Frame=&MeetingID=1352&MediaPosition=&ID=5303&CssClass=) HR&A figures also appear to be far greater than the estimates from the NRPA and other industry sources which suggest:
(1) Capital Costs of $300K to $500K per acre
(2) Operations & Maintenance Costs of $15K to $35K per acre for a 190-acre park in Santa Monica, CA with open spaces, trails, fields, native plants, Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
vegetation, and trees, bathrooms, lights, signs, and other basic amenities.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Why are HR&A figures so darn high compared to other comparable an and industry benchmarks? This begs for explanation.
===========
Thank you for your attention to this.
—Ben Wang
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
125
David Yakobson
From: Jennifer Rich <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 8:47 AM
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,
Jennifer Rich Gitlin
Santa Monica Resident / Sunset Park
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
126
David Yakobson
From: Liz DeStaffany <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 8:38 AM
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

Thank you for your diligence and service.

Sincerely,
Liz DeStaffany
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
127
David Yakobson
From: James R. <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 8:36 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

Let’s make this happen!
Sincerely,
James M Renn
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
128
David Yakobson
From: Brian Zipser <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 8:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Item 7.1. Santa Monica Airport Conversion (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. Please stop including plans for housing development. This is a great in a lifetime opportunity to create a great park. This should not be used for additional housing.

Sincerely,
Brian Zipser
Santa Monica resident
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
129
David Yakobson
From: Josh Olson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 8:32 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Subject: Reimagining the Santa Monica Airport
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
As you examine the future of the Santa Monica Airport, please consider a support a collaborative, balanced plan. The city has made great strides to provide a quieter, safer, and financially beneficial airport. Eliminating the airport all together will bring more traffic, more density, and greater strain on infrastructure, with no clear plan for emergency access, public safety, or financial sustainability.

The Santa Monica Airport offers unique and irreplaceable benefits like open space, economic stability, STEM learning opportunities for students, critical emergency response capacity which strengthens public safety, and flights for those needing access to healthcare and other community positive reasons. Aviation supports good jobs and disaster relief operations, as seen during the recent Palisades fire. Protecting SMO is protecting public safety. Additionally, as cleaner and more efficient technology emerges in Aviation, the opportunity for these things to amplify public good and access increases.

I have been involved with Angel Flight West and a tenant of the City of Santa Monica for over 20 years. I have personally seen lives saved in and around our community because of the work of Angel Flight West and other public benefit flying organizations. And this was done and fully donated all by volunteers, many of which have small airplanes at SMO. Instead of thinking of the airport as a nuisance, let's reimagine it (as the city has historically) as a space for innovation, change, and opportunity for our future.

Thank you for serving our city well and for considering my email.

Sincerely,
Josh Olson
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
130
3161 Donald Douglas Loop South
Santa Monica, CA 90405
m 310.500.7173

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
131
David Yakobson
From: Jay Abramowitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 8:30 AM
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 Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I’ve been a homeowner in Santa Monica since 1988 — thirty-seven years.

I’m writing today to ask you to vote for the Great Park that complies with Measure LC. No sale or privitazation of our land. Use current on-site revenue. No additional housing — there are other locations for that.

Many of us have participated in the thorough planning process. Don’t derail it! I will be proud to be a resident who helps to create this open space for future Santa Monican’s.

The important point is open public land. Your vote on this issue will be your legacy.

Sincerely,
Jay Abramowitz
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
132
David Yakobson
From: Mary Beth Trautwein <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 8:28 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Agenda item 7a
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing in support of an LC compliant plan for the future Great Park (agenda item 7A). Our city is struggling with budget issues while facing nationwide economic, political and social uncertainty. Moving forward cautiously and with the original intentions of the great park will best serve the people of Santa Monica.

I also request that the plan for the Great Park will benefit from a pickleball facility that serves both recreational and tournament play. Enough well designed pickleball courts will both meet the enormous demand the city currently faces as well as bring in revenue that the city has said it needs the Park to create.

A 24 court complex will capitalize on the City’s strength as a pickleball hotbed. Other cities such as Delray, FL and Austin, TX have successfully embraced pickleball for its revenue potential and its health benefits for residents and tourists.

Thank you
Paul Trautwein
Resident
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
133
David Yakobson
From: Randy Ziglar <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 8:28 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 City Councilmembers and Staff:

I strongly support the LC-compliant Great Park as the means to further Santa Monica City's values of sustainability and environmental protection.

We do not need just another community of housing and commercial development. Such activities are important, but not in the Great Park that I envision.

May the Great Park evolve as a source of education to live in accordance with Nature, a park that we can learn ways of building a future that provides for the Seventh Generation, a land we can learn better ways of being and finally, where we can learn to block and undo the our addictive attractions to many human destructive and polluting artifacts. Maybe we will even learn to abide by the precautionary principle whereby our actions and consumptions are no longer a source of wars, global warming and species extinction.

Thus, I support Santa Monica City leadership to find ways for us to live sustainably and beneficially for a healthy, beautiful and preserved planet. The Great Park can be an important step in that direction not as another neighborhood but as a source of hope and inspiration to save ourselves and those unborn.

Sincerely,
Randy Ziglar
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
134
David Yakobson
From: Steven Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 8:27 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Ellis Raskin; Elaine Polachek Cc: Jenny Rogers; Micah Akerson; Noe Mendoza; Maryanne LaGuardia; John Smith; Ann Bowman; Barry Rosenbaum; Karen Melick; Amber Richane
Subject: Item 7.A - Rec & Parks Commission Preferred Scenario Letter Attachments: 0708 - Item 7A Rec & Parks Preferred Scenario Letter.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[Please see attached PDF letter for the record, or read content here inline] Tuesday, July 8, 2025
Re: Item 7.A Preferred Scenarios Review
Dear Mayor Negrete and Esteemed Councilmembers,
The Recreation & Parks Commissioners voted at our June meeting to have an ad hoc committee of members review the staff report being given to you tonight, to re-iterate our previous recommendations, and comment on several aspects of the staff report as updated.

1. As before, we respectfully request that the Council move forward the creation of an LC-compliant Great Park with no sale or other privatization of the land.

2. We call your attention to the extensive survey and community engagement results that endorse such a Great Park fully and clearly.

The overwhelming majority of the community engagement data in every survey undertaken favors an LC-compliant Great Park (i.e., no ballot measure, no large-scale commercial development, no housing development).

3. We ask that you direct staff towards a realistic development timeline and sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and other government funding sources that allow for the phased, step-by-step building of the park. We fully understand that the pace of development of the park must proceed in lockstep with the City funding available over time.

4. We ask that you avoid any ballot measure on alternate land use of the site (if ever) until after the airport closes. Any proposal that requires a vote of the people needs its own independent process.

5. We ask that there be no sale or other privatization of any of the 192 acres of this public land, ever.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
135

6. The guiding principle of Measure LC is that it mandates absolutely no new development on Airport land except for public parks, open spaces and recreational facilities. Measure LC did not defer determination of the use of the airport until some future vote occurred. The intended use was clearly stated – public parks, open spaces and recreational facilities. The requirement of a vote was designed to safeguard this land as park land. No other use could occur except through a vote of the people. We seek re-affirmation and recognition by Council of the community's understanding of Measure LC (airport-to-park) as the continued guiding assumption and frame of reference for all SMAC Project planning going forward.

With the Commission having engaged with this project since early days, and with our ad hoc having reviewed the new Staff Report in detail, we have the following concerns:
1) A park-only approach aligns with community feedback. (p. 4) And yet, in the end, 2 out of the three scenarios proposed by staff and Sasaki were not park-only.

Each scenario promoted an unexpected grab-bag of ideas, some not supported by the survey data, ranging from a large reservoir to a 20,000-seat amphitheater, while mismatching housing and commercial elements with recreation features not present in the LC-compliant scenario (#1), as if we would have a swim center only in the housing option, or suggesting that a commercial option would not need some conspicuously absent parking lots.

One might reasonably mistake the 3 scenarios as being the final options before you tonight. They are not.

You, as Council, may direct staff and Sasaki to proceed with an LC-compliant preferred scenario that includes the mix of passive and active recreation elements most in demand, and ranked independently by our recent parks needs assessment, regardless of which scenario they are currently suggested in.
2) A fairly consistent theme running through the staff report is that the City's current economic condition necessitates that the City consider commercial and housing uses for the site.

In the most straight-forward of the online Survey 2a, housing ranked second only to a golf course as the least-preferred scenario. (p. 11) In Phase 3a, Option A (no housing) scored the highest, and many respondents firmly opposed any new development requiring a ballot measure (p. 12) The citizens of Santa Monica well understand the financial constraints that the City finds itself in at the moment, and that the full implementation of the park may be decades in the making.

The Great Park envisioned by the community, as indicated in the surveys, balances both passive uses (such as restored natural lands and trails on the western end) and active uses (such as sports fields and built recreation on the eastern end). These can be achieved without the trademark Santa Monica tendency to over-design and price our parks ambitions out of reach.

There is no need to rush and certainly no reason to start to sell-off or otherwise privatize parts of the Park that would deprive future generations of open space in our increasingly dense urban environment.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
136
No one regrets that Central Park or Golden Gate Park are missing housing or mixed used development.
3) As far as timelines are concerned, there are myriad examples that slow-and-steady wins the race:
 El Toro Air Force Base closed 1999. 25 years later, Irvine’s own “Great Park” is only just now entering “phase 3” of construction.
 Meigs Field in Chicago closed in 2001. Northerly Island Park was not completed until 2015.  Templehof Airport in Berlin closed in 2008, with just a few sports fields added around the perimeter, the runway still has not been removed, and yet it is Berlin’s most treasured park.

Our City has a history of thinking grandiosely in its projects. We can't do that now, but that doesn't mean the City must forfeit this opportunity for the benefit of future generations.

As the staff report states: “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.” (p. 4) This is "a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reshape nearly 200 acres of public land into a legacy for future generations." (p. 8)
You, as Council, may direct staff to offer an LC-compliant scenario that includes park features that can be built affordably in a phased approach, using existing non-aviation airport revenue, as well as grants, partnerships, and potentially County and State funding. We can have the park we deserve. It will take some time, probably quite a bit of time, but future generations will be so thankful that this Council didn’t prematurely waste this monumental and singular opportunity to create a park that the City so desperately needs.

In conclusion, we thank Council for supporting and City Staff for executing a broad-based and inclusive community engagement process for the SMAC Project that is in keeping with our City's long, strong history of robust community engagement.

We are grateful for the opportunity afforded our Commission to work side-by-side with Staff, the community, and Council to achieve this Great Park!
Sincerely,
City of Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commission
Steven Johnson, Chair
Maryanne LaGuardia, Vice Chair
John Cyrus Smith
Ann K. Bowman
Barry Rosenbaum
Karen Melick
CC: Elaine Polachek
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity Tuesday, July 8, 2025
Re: Item 7.A Preferred Scenarios Review
Dear Mayor Negrete and Esteemed Councilmembers,
The Recreation & Parks Commissioners voted at our June meeting to have an ad hoc committee of members review the staff report being given to you tonight, to re-iterate our previous recommendations, and comment on several aspects of the staff report as updated.

1. As before, we respectfully request that the Council move forward the creation of an LC-compliant Great Park with no sale or other privatization of the land.

2. We call your attention to the extensive survey and community engagement results that endorse such a Great Park fully and clearly.

5. We ask that there be no sale or other privatization of any of the 192 acres of this public land, ever.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity With the Commission having engaged with this project since early days, and with our ad hoc having reviewed the new Staff Report in detail, we have the following concerns:
1) A park-only approach aligns with community feedback. (p. 4) And yet, in the end, 2 out of the three scenarios proposed by staff and Sasaki were not park-only.

One might reasonably mistake the 3 scenarios as being the options before you tonight. They are not.

You, as Council, may direct staff and Sasaki to proceed with an LC-compliant preferred scenario that includes the mix of passive and active recreation elements most in demand, and ranked independently by our recent parks needs assessment, regardless of which scenario they are currently suggested in. 2) A fairly consistent theme running through the staff report is that the City's current economic condition necessitates that the City consider commercial and housing uses for the site.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity No one regrets that Central Park or Golden Gate Park are missing housing or mixed used development. 3) As far as timelines are concerned, there are myriad examples that slow-and-steady wins the race:
• El Toro Air Force Base closed 1999. 25 years later, Irvine’s own “Great Park” is only just now entering “phase 3” of construction.
• Meigs Field in Chicago closed in 2001. Northerly Island Park was not completed until 2015. • Templehof Airport in Berlin closed in 2008, with just a few sports fields added around the perimeter, the runway still has not been removed, and yet it is Berlin’s most treasured park.

Our City has a history of thinking grandiosely in its projects. We can't do that now, but that doesn't mean the City must forfeit this opportunity for the benefit of future generations.

We are grateful for the opportunity afforded our Commission to work side-by-side with Staff, the community, and Council to achieve this Great Park!
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8411 • [email protected] santamonica.gov • @cityofsantamonica • @santamonicacity Sincerely,
City of Santa Monica Recreation and Parks Commission
Steven Johnson, Chair
Maryanne LaGuardia, Vice Chair
John Cyrus Smith
Ann K. Bowman
Barry Rosenbaum
Karen Melick
CC: Elaine Polachek, plus Boards and Commissions
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
138
David Yakobson
From: Lynette Kozdron <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 8:26 AM
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:

Thank you for your consideration.

Lynette Kozdron
90403

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
139
David Yakobson
From: fabrizio giorgi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 8:26 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7-A.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council Members:

Thank you for your consideration.

Fabrizio Giorgi
Sent from my iPhone.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
140
David Yakobson
From: Vanessa Gibson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 8:24 AM
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
July 8, 2025
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Mayor Negrete and Council Members,
I am writing regarding Agenda Item 7a, concerning the future of Santa Monica Airport (SMO). This storied institution has been integral to our city’s identity and advancement for over 100 years. From its origins as Clover Field in 1923 to its pivotal role during World War II supporting Douglas Aircraft Co., SMO has fueled innovation, military service, and economic opportunity. Its runway continues to be a vital gateway for science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) education and careers, as well as a hub for emergency operations such as recent CAL Fire staging during the Los Angeles wildfires.

Today, SMO serves as a dynamic mixed-use business campus—home to aviation, technology, art, and innovation—connecting Santa Monica to the world. It hosts flight training, business operations, and artistic venues, including the distinguished Barker Hangar. Its runway remains a critical connector and resource for aviation professionals and enthusiasts alike .

The airport’s economic significance cannot be overstated. According to a comprehensive economic analysis, SMO supports 894 direct jobs and, through multiplier effects, nearly 1,500 jobs in Santa Monica. It generates $187.5 million in direct output and $275.2 million in total annual economic activity.

These figures reflect not only the livelihoods sustained on-site but the broader economic health related to aviation, hospitality, legal services, scientific R&D, film, and more.

Beyond job creation, SMO fosters global aviation careers. Pilots trained here go on to serve airlines and air services worldwide, while STEM-focused programs offer career-launching opportunities in aerospace engineering, air traffic management, maintenance, and aviation arts. These pathways support highquality, lifelong careers and fuel Santa Monica’s role as a center of excellence in STEAM.

SMO also plays a vital role in community building. Events such as Douglas Day and Kids in Planes bring families and youth onto the field for educational discovery. The public observation deck, on-site Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
141
restaurant, and cultural gatherings hosted at Barker Hangar—including art shows, concerts, and theatrical performances—encourage participation and enrich our city’s cultural life.

Unfortunately, recent community feedback tools such as the Sasaki survey have not offered residents an opportunity to support SMO as an active mixed-use, aviation-friendly business park. This omission risks skewing outcomes and excludes voices that value both aviation and communal space for future generations. 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.

Looking forward, SMO is positioned to lead in electric aviation and eVTOL development. Companies like Archer Aviation plan to leverage SMO as a hub for the emerging electric air taxi network, with its electric "Midnight" eVTOL selected as the official air taxi provider for the LA 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games . This next-generation aircraft will offer fast, efficient, low-emission transport, reducing commute times and transportation costs, while attracting cutting-edge industries and skilled professionals to our region.

The airport's adaptability ensures its continued economic vitality and environmental leadership.

In closing, the future of Santa Monica Airport is not just about preserving a runway—it is about preserving a space that supports thousands of jobs, enriches community life, trains the next generation of aviation and STEAM professionals, and embraces innovation that will carry Santa Monica into a sustainable future. I urge you to vote in favor of keeping ALL OPTIONS OPEN on Agenda Item 7a, affirming the airport’s role as a dynamic engine for our community and economy.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Vanessa Gibson
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
142
David Yakobson
From: Bruce Malarky <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 8:21 AM
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
Attachments: Great Park Letter to City Council.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Bruce Malarky
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Dear Honorable City Council Members,
I am writing to urge your support for the conversion of Santa Monica Airport (SMO) into an LC complaint great park using existing on-site revenue. This is a unique opportunity to create a legacy for our city by providing a vibrant green space that helps all residents for generations to come.

Such a space would significantly enhance the quality of life in Santa Monica, providing space for exercise, relaxation, and community gatherings. It would also contribute to our city's environmental health by maximizing permeable surfaces and sustainable resource protection.

Converting SMO to a park aligns perfectly with Santa Monica's values and long-term vision for a greener, more livable city.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this vital matter.

Sincerely,
Bruce Malarky
Santa Monica Resident
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
143
David Yakobson
From: Darlene Chan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 8:20 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

Sincerely,
Darlene Chan
[email protected]
2618 32nd Street
Santa Monica, Ca. 90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
144
David Yakobson
From: Burr Leonard <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 8:01 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,
Santa Monica badly needs a park where people can run and play and not fight traffic. Our city has fewer parks than most. Please vote for a Great Park on the former airport land, not for more housing. There are ample underused spaces within our city where housing can be built.

Sincerely,
Burr Leonard
101 California Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90403
415-299-0013
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
145
David Yakobson
From: Edward Jacobs <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 7:42 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

Park please. Let’s restore habitat and meet the needs of both current and future generations. Open space yes / gridlock and construction no.

Sincerely,
Eddy
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
146
David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 7:39 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Airport operations
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Subject: July 8, 2025, Agenda Item 7A: Please Support a Balanced, Sustainable Future for Santa Monica Airport
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
I urge you to support a collaborative, balanced plan for Santa Monica Airport. If SMO is closed entirely, federal protections will be lost, and state mandates could force dense, low-cost housing — not parks onto the site. That means more traffic, more density, and greater strain on infrastructure, with no clear plan for emergency access, public safety, or financial sustainability.

SMO offers irreplaceable benefits: open space, economic stability, and critical emergency response capacity which strengthens public safety. Aviation supports good jobs, public benefit flights like Angel Flight, and disaster relief operations, as seen during the recent Palisades fire. Protecting SMO is protecting public safety.

The Santa Monica airport has been invaluable in training pilots in a high volume traffic area. I have been instructing and training pilots since 1971 and many of my former students are currently airline pilots. It will be a great loss for training pilots should this airport close or have any greater restrictions.

Thank you for your service and consideration.

SMO Stakeholder
Larry A Rice CFII
Instructor San Bernardino Valley College
Mechanic – Airframe and Powerplant
Cell 909-283-8297
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
147
David Yakobson
From: Michele Biagioni <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 7:36 AM
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 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.

Thank you for your consideration.

Michele Biagioni
90403
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
148
David Yakobson
From: Alexander Romero <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 7:30 AM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems; Barry Snell
Subject: July 8 City Council Meeting, Item 7: Evolve Santa Monica Airport—Don’t Erase It Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

This is not about preserving the status quo. It’s about leading the next chapter of clean, quiet, community-minded aviation. Electric aircraft, advanced simulators, flight schools, STEM education hubs,
and green infrastructure can all co-exist alongside open space—and even a modest amount of thoughtfully integrated housing.

Here’s what evolution could mean:
 A world-class STEM education and training center, where Santa Monica students are inspired to pursue science, technology, and flight
 A hub for electric and autonomous aviation, already being tested at SMO and poised to reduce traffic congestion and emissions
 Green space and community access, thoughtfully integrated with aviation infrastructure  Long-term economic vitality for a city facing major fiscal headwinds  Continued local control over airport operations and land use after 2028, allowing the City to shape SMO’s evolution in line with community values and future technologies Santa Monica doesn’t need to pick between a park and an airport. We can build a 21st-century innovation
campus—one that honors our history, serves our residents, and inspires future generations.

Please don’t rush to erase our past. Let’s evolve it into something extraordinary.

Sincerely,
Alexander Romero
1525 Walnut Ave, Venice CA 90291
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
149
David Yakobson
From: Kenny Fields <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 7:25 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 Council Members,
I am a 40 year resident and former business owner in the City of Santa Monica. I live in Sunset Park near SMC where I raised my family. My children are products of the Santa Monica School system. Suffice it to say, my roots are deep in Santa Monica.

I am writing to all of you today because our City is on the cusp of making some very important decisions about the Airport Conversion project. I am well acquainted with the history of the airport and the planning process that has been underway for a number of years to convert the airport once it closes. I am also very much aware of measure LC which passed with a strong majority of our citizens voting to create a Great Park on the land once the airport is shut down. I have participated in giving feedback at a number of City events aimed at planning the new Great Park.

I am writing today to let all of you know, in no uncertain terms that I am opposed to any new structures for housing being built on this land. I have tried to use the tools provided by Sasaki to give feedback and find them to be nearly impossible to navigate and was frankly shocked to see the breadth of development being proposed for this site in two of the 3 proposals. Though I fully understand the need for more “affordable” housing in our City, I feel it is misguided to waste this last tract of land in Santa Monica for more housing. I also wonder why this park has the requirement to be self sustaining monetarily? Are there any other parks in Santa Monica that are self sustaining? Why put that limitation on this park?
It seems to me that if you are going to build “affordable” housing in Santa Monica, you would want to look for sites that are close to transportation like the corridor near the Expo line. You would want to put this housing near to shopping and business areas to allow its residents easy access to these things and not add more traffic to our already very crowded streets. I know that I personally avoid driving anywhere in our City from 3pm - 6:30pm because most of the streets around me are gridlocked.

More to the point, once you build on land that is open space, you don’t unbuild. This is an opportunity to utilize and develop a wonderful asset for the entire community and surrounding areas. But the idea of building a gigantic amphitheater or a hotel or a massive swath of housing on this prime piece of unbroken space would be a big mistake and show a lack of vision for future generations.

I am not against retrofitting existing building on the current airport property and having a small amount of “affordable” housing adjacent to the park. There are numerous existing buildings which serve airport uses that could provide housing opportunities in the future.

Don’t be short sighted and ruin the last large tract of open space with housing and other for profit uses. Our City is very short on park space and we should use all of this space for a park. Not housing, and not hotels, and not Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
150
entertainment venues, and not retail stores. Let’s build those things in areas that make sense and not waste this opportunity to have a real Great Park in our City.

So this is my version of doing the CoMap Survey. Thanks for taking the time to read my comments. I hope I have been clear. Please feel free to respond if you have any comments.

Kenny Fields
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
151
David Yakobson
From: Kelvin Jones <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 6:59 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

As you already must know, Santa Monica has the least amount of public parks in Southern California. Lower by far than any other well laid out city. 70% of residents live without gardens or yards for outside health and enjoyment.

The city had great vision in the 1920’s to create the Great Park for everyone. Please don’t betray that vision and all who live here in Santa Monica.

Sincerely,
Kelvin Jones
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
152
David Yakobson
From: Eve Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 6:36 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick
Cc: Eve Lopez Esq.

Subject: July 8, 2025, Agenda Item 7A: Please Support a Balanced, Sustainable Future for Santa Monica Airport
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
Thank you for your continued service to our community.

As you know, the future of Santa Monica Airport (SMO) is an issue of significant importance to many of us who live and work in Santa Monica. I write to urge the Council to pursue a collaborative, balanced approach: one that protects existing open space, builds sustainable parkland on areas already closed to aviation, and preserves local control over this critical public asset.

Closing the Airport Means Losing Local Control
SMO is currently protected by federal regulations. If those protections are removed, Sacramento, not Santa Monica, will dictate what happens to the land. Under current state housing mandates, the site would be prioritized for dense, lowincome housing, not parkland. This would bring significant increases in traffic, density, and strain on public infrastructure with no clear plan for emergency evacuation, ingress and egress, or public safety.

Measure LC
In 2014, Measure LC did two key things: it restricted how airport land could be used if the airport were to close, and it granted the City Council the authority to make that decision. It was not a vote to close the airport. In fact, Santa Monica residents have never voted to close the airport.

What Problem Is the City Trying to Solve?
Much has changed since voters approved restrictions to airport land via Measure LC in 2014. Since then, the state’s housing laws have shifted dramatically, introducing risks that did not exist a decade ago. Rather than spending public funds on a park plan the City cannot afford, why not ask the voters directly whether the airport should close at all? Why not have a public process to hear from the residents about whether they want the airport to close? Thus far, residents have only been presented with surveys that only contemplate a park that the City can ill afford.

There Has Been No Vote to Close the Airport
The City Attorney’s January 28, 2025 memorandum asserts that Resolution 11026, adopted on February 28, 2017, constitutes a final decision to close SMO by December 31, 2028. However, the City’s own records and public statements clearly contradict that interpretation.

The transcript from the February 28, 2017 Council meeting includes the following clarifying statements:
 City Manager Rick Cole: “Yes, so this could be changed by a future Council... even closing the airport is not a final matter.”
 Councilmember Kevin McKeown: “It is quite possible that a future city council could reverse the decision we’re making tonight… this vote doesn’t end the matter.”
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
153
These comments reinforce that Resolution 11026 set forth a policy direction, not a legally binding or irreversible decision.

To now claim, retroactively, that closure was finalized with minimal public engagement — after just 11 minutes of discussion and only two public comments — not only misrepresents the record but undermines the democratic process.

Contrary to the City Attorney's January 28, 2025 memo, last year the City's attorney, Scott Lewis, in a filing made to the FAA in a Part 16 action confirmed that the City did not make a final decision to close the airport in 2017. A CEQA study of the effects of airport closure is still needed, despite statements to the contrary in the City Attorney’s January 28, 2025, memorandum. Additionally, the City lacks authority to close the airport without extensive further study (i.e., that ANCA applies to noise/access-motivated closures, as confirmed in the East Hampton litigation in New York).

SMO’s Unique Public Benefits Cannot Be Replaced
The airport provides irreplaceable open space, economic stability, and critical emergency utility. Since Measure LC passed over a decade ago, jet traffic has dropped 81%, unleaded fuel is being sold, and electric aircraft are already flying:
a glimpse of a cleaner, quieter future.

Aviation Revenue Can Help Fund a Park — Without New Taxes In 1926, Santa Monica voters rejected a park bond and instead approved a plan to use aviation revenue to fund parkland.

That vision still holds. By 2029, with no grant obligations, surplus aviation revenue could fund the creation of a Great Park on land already closed to aviation — at no cost to taxpayers.

A Hybrid Solution: Parks + Aviation
A hybrid approach would preserve aviation’s economic benefits while creating new public space funded by aviation, not public debt. Aviation supports good-paying jobs, enables public benefit missions like Angel Flight, and provides vital disaster relief capabilities, as demonstrated during the recent Palisades fire.

I urge you to ensure that any preferred land use plan includes comprehensive public safety studies, traffic and infrastructure impact analysis, emergency evacuation planning, and a realistic, sustainable funding model. With a thoughtful and collaborative approach, we can honor both Santa Monica’s future and its history.

Thank you again for your service and consideration.

Eve Lopez
Santa Monica Resident
Transcript of February 28, 2017 Santa Monica City Council Meeting (Item 8c) Video/audio https://santamonica.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3896 Staff report and supporting materials: https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1088 Starting at 02:52:08 (item 8c)
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Implementing the Consent Decree and Authorizing All Actions Necessary to Ensure the Closure of Santa Monica Airport Effective as of Midnight on December 31, 2028, and the Shortening of the Santa Monica Airport Runway Pending Closure

Timestamp Speaker Statement
02:52:08 City Clerk Item 8c is the resolution of the City Council and the City of Santa Monica implementing the consent decree and
authorizing all actions necessary to necessary to ensure the closure of Santa Monica airport, effective as of
midnight on December 31 2028 and the shortening of the
Santa Monica airport runway pending closure, and you
have one, you have three requests to speak.
02:52:38 Mayor
Winterer
Do we have a staff report on this item, or is it selfexplanatory? Assistance? 02:52:53 Rick Cole Do you want a staff report?
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
154
02:52:56 Mayor
Winterer
Yeah, a short and concise one, just for the public's
edification and for no other region.

Yes, I think it'd be very poor form if we just start voting on things without telling people what we're voting on.
02:53:10 Rick Cole

So as the council well knows, there's considerable
apprehension in the community around the potential of
the new administration's publicly enunciated policies to lead to family disruptions. I think you're on the wrong item. We're on H, E, on the airport resolution, oh, I
apologize. I know you're in a rush to get out of here, but that's like landing on the taxiway.
02:53:53 Mayor
Winterer
Okay, all right. Script, we start over.
02:53:48 Rick Cole Apologize for that.
02:53:50 Rick Cole The the resolution which we're introducing with recommendations for the council to adopt it tonight, has three very straightforward provisions. The first provision is to make clear the council's official intent to close Santa Monica airport to aviation uses forever at midnight on
December 31 2028 I'll come back to that in a moment. The second provision is to again make clear that the language in the consent decree for the closure of the airport that allows the city to apply for federal funding is not a
provision we intend to exercise that it is not the council's desire to enter into any obligations that would extend the life of the airport beyond December 31 2028. As we
discussed earlier in the evening, the shortening of the runway can be accomplished with airport funds, and so
there is no need to ask the federal government for grants, but the resolution would simply codify that
understanding. And the third provision relates to the 30 day notice, which is simply a ministerial piece of the
consent decree that we are in fact proceeding with a 30 day notice and tonight's action to enter into a design build contract with a ecom confirms it is the council's direction to do so.

We, the FAA does not have formal approval rights, but the FAA, we the consent decree, envisions that we would
consult with the FAA on the design of the airport, which we intend to do to ensure a the safe operation of the
airport as well as the safety and health of the surrounding residents. I said, we come back to the first provision. This is an item that you know, there have been considerable
debate in the community about the ambiguity that people have read into the consent decree, because the consent
decree, in fact, does say it is the city council's it is the city Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
155
of Santa Monica's sole discretion and right and authority to close the airport at the end of 2028.

It seems to me, the vote of the people is clear. Seems to me, the consistent vote over going back 30 years by this council has been consistent, and the ambiguity that's
been raised is somehow the voters and the residents of
Santa Monica will change their mind. Of course, that's
possible, but that is not what the voters have chosen at the polls. That is not what this unanimous City Council has consistently made clear in its previous resolution. 02:57:06

Rick Cole Yes, so this could be changed by a future Council. As a matter of fact, even a charter amendment could be
changed by a few future vote of the people. And in fact, even closing the airport is not a final matter, because I suppose a future city government could reopen the
airport, but this resolution makes clear in the strongest possible terms, what has been the consistent policy of the voters and the Council, which is to close the airport at the soonest, legally possible time. That concludes the staff report.
[emph. added]
02:57:46 Mayor
Winterer
Any questions of staff.

In that case, we will move on to the public input. I'm going to hand it over to Mayor Pro Tem Davis briefly.
02:58:01 Mayor Pro
Tempore Davis
All right, it looks like we have three speakers, so I'll ask you all to line up our first speaker is Jerry Rubin, who I am not seeing, Zina Josephs and Joseph Schmitz
02:58:20 Zina Josephs

Thank you. Yes, one of the volunteers who worked very
hard to get Measure LV passed in 2014,I strongly support the resolution. I've been hearing from people in the
community who are upset about 3500 foot runway rather
than a 3000 foot runway and about closure 12 long years from now, rather than, for example, in 2023 or even
sooner. I've also watched the 20 minute video of the
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association interview with the FAA administrator Huerta, which is quite interesting to watch. Nevertheless, the decisions have been made, and
I strongly urge you to pass the resolution and back on 8A I know this is out of order, I'm curious as what to whether the audit committee meetings are posted on the city event calendar. Are they okay?
02:59:08 Mayor Pro
Tempore Davis
Thank you, Miss Joseph. Mr. Schmitz,
02:49:12 Joseph
Schmitz
Yes, I'm Joe Schmitz. I live in Sunset Park, and I'm glad to talk with you again. The first thing I wanted to say was that Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
156
since I've been on the airport commission and before,
there's been a sea change in the way the city, and
particularly the staff, has dealt with the airport. I attribute that to city manager Cole and Mr. Hernandez and the city council one and all. So you done us a solid.

Specifically with respect to the staff report, you will be designing a new airfield, and there is an FAA manual that gives guidance toward that design. So you must, in fact, coordinate with the FAA as you work. And I'm sure you've seen that manual, 150, I think 35-5A a maybe. It specifies things you can and cannot do. I've been through that for about the past three weeks, and I'm sure that you will find that in contrast to the FAA earlier position, the design guidance requires that the RSAs be fixed and not be
waived. So I think you'll find that, and I believe that you will be pleased. The one thing the City Council can do is to take 1500 feet of concrete and remove it. That will be your legacy, and in the future, trying to have a longer run
runway will be considerably different. Thank you again for your work on behalf of the residents.
03:01:00

Mayor Pro Tem
Davis
Thank you, Mr. Schmidts
03:01:03 Mayor Pro Tem
Davis
That closes the public hearing.

03:01:05 Mayor
Winterer

All right, council members, the matter is before us any discussion, or someone like just jump into a motion.

Council member McKeown.
03:01:12 Council
member
McKeown
Well, I'll be supporting all three of these actions, although I was somebody who hoped we could close the airport
sooner, but I just, I feel I have to make a cautionary
statement before we party like it's 2028.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has a blog or a website from which I pulled the following statement, and it's something I think we need to keep in mind. They said the seven members of the Santa Monica City Council are
elected to four year terms, giving AOPA and other airport supporters an opportunity to work with new council
members and identify and support candidates who are
likely to advocate keeping the airport open.
03:01:50

Council
member
McKeown
And as the city manager told us, it is quite possible that a future city council could reverse the decision we're
making tonight. So I think we and the community just
need to know that this vote doesn't end the matter. We
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
157
need to remain vigilant and make sure that airport does close.
[emph. added]
03:02:10 Mayor
Winterer
Mayor pro tem Davis
03:02:13 Council
member Daivs
All right, just to get the party started, I'm going to move that we direct the city manager, the city attorney and their staffs to take all actions necessary.
03:02:20 Mayor
Winterer

I’m gonna jump in here. I think we can just adopt the
attached resolution. Okay, is that correct?
03:02:24 Mayor Pro Tem
Davis
Is that all right, okay, see, I didn't look at the mayor's agenda. I just called some names. Then I move we adopt
the attached resolution.
03:02:32 Mayor
Winterer
And I will second it, seeing no one else in the queue. So the Mayor Pro Tem has made the motion. The mayor is
seconding the motion. Any discussion? If no, we will go to a roll call vote, please.
03:02:43 City Clerk Council member McKeown, yes
Council member Vasquez, yes.

Council member Hilmerich, yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Davis, yes.

Council member O'Dea, yes.

Council member O'Connor, yes.

And Mayor Winterer Yes.
03:02:55 Mayor
Winterer
So that passes unanimously, seven to nothing, and we'll move on to the next item.

–

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
158
David Yakobson
From: Alex Ward <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 6:37 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Include housing in the "Great Park" plan!
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 1997 and my stepdaughters 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 for your consideration.
alex ward, architect
2409 cloverfield blvd
santa monica, ca 90405
310 339-2464
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
159
David Yakobson
From: Anya Pertel <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 6:08 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

Sincerely,
Anya Pertel
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
160
David Yakobson
From: Mary Hubbell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 6:08 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

Sincerely,
Mary Hubbell
Sent from Mary's iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
161
David Yakobson
From: Alan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 6:04 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Elaine Polachek; [email protected] Subject: Fwd: Santa Monica Airport proposal
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Subject: Santa Monica Airport proposal
I am currently a 42 year Santa Monica resident and I am 76 years old. My children grew up in the same house that I currently occupy.

I have watched Santa Monica change during all the years I have lived here, with not all changes being for the better. My daughters grew up using Douglas Park, which is no longer safe with the advent of homelessness and dirty syringes in the grass and a limited police presence. They used Memorial Park and Cloverfield Park for sports; both parks at that time were inadequate for the number of teams wanting to participate. I have two almost 11 year old granddaughters that are avid soccer and softball players and they and their parents (along with their teammates) are frightened to use the parks without significant numbers of adults being present. I would often stand outside the bathrooms at Cloverfield when my girls used the facility to be sure no one who did not belong could enter. What a sad statement. We need more open spaces, more playing fields, and a safe environment for everyone, not only those who may be living at a Playa Vista look-alike development that is absolutely unnecessary for our city and community. I do not believe we have adequate water and sewage support for more apartments. Our lack of support for our fire and police is legion. We would need more funds for these services and there is not enough money in our budget to make more hires. I also do not understand what bonds are posted by the developers to guarantee they fulfill their required obligations for our homeless.

I would almost prefer the Federal Government taking over the airport rather than short sighted, perhaps egotistical projects without significant consideration for impact on the residents that elected you all to office. It is time for the city government to represent the people and not push their often idealistic, non realistic agendas that are harmful to our existing residents.

Sincerely yours,
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
162
Alan Alter, MD
734 23 St
Santa Monica, CA 90402
310-291-4978
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
163
David Yakobson
From: PING HO <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 5:47 AM
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 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

As one who worked hard to empower our City Council in recovering the City’s rights to SMO property by analyzing its related liabilities, I urge you to sieze the day and turn this into a Measure LC compliant park posthaste.

Delays or divisions will inevitably result in deliberate, misleading attempts to hijack the airport property back to airport interests. The City could stand to lose everything if another vote is put to constituents offering an airport vs. “massive development and traffic.”
I appreciate the City’s thoughtful attempt to consider a variety of designs; however, I strongly urge you to keep Stage 1 of park development simple.

Central Park in NY is actually quite simple and mostly consists of winding walking paths, open grassy fields, trees, simple lakes, and grassy knolls. I recently walked it.

Existing buildings could be repurposed and used to generate onsite revenue sources.

This could be financed by local corporations (even outside of SM) and wealthy members of the SM community who might even want their names on a bench, lake, path, building, etc.

I also strongly urge against seeking revenue streams through the private sale of land or even long-term leases, as the City could easily lose its rights to these properties over time (witness the battle to recover SMO).

Our beloved City of Santa Monica has a rare opportunity to secure its vision and seal its legacy by establishing a great park space that can serve all.

Sincerely,
Ping Ho
90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
164
David Yakobson
From: Karen Kushi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 5:19 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Cc: Hisao Kushi
Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - NYC vs SM
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Youu Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

We split our time between NYC and Santa Monica. It used to be 50/50. Now it is more like 95/5, favoring NYC. SM has become ugly, barren (empty buildings, yet tons of new ugly high rises) unsafe, and basically just an unpleasant place to visit now. You have a lot of work to do to help improve it and the Great Park is a wonderful first step - depending how it is done.

Therefore, please move forward, for the benefit of all, the creation of an inspirational 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.

Sincerely,
Karen and Hisao Kushi
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
165
David Yakobson
From: david luis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 4:55 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

Sincerely,
David Luis
Pico Neighborhood
Born and Raised
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
166
David Yakobson
From: Gwen Rinehart <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 4:21 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, with the creation of an LC-compliant Great Park that includes a sensible financing plan that prioritizes existing on-site revenue sources and with no sale or other privatization of the land.

As this park-poor city densifies, it is of paramount importance that you 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,
Gwen Rinehart
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
169
David Yakobson
From: Christine Dowson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 3:05 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:

Sincerely,
Christine Dowson
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
172
David Yakobson
From: Christy Loera <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 10:04 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: July 8th SM Airport Conversion Prioritize Reparations and Landback Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Councilmembers ,
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
As residents, descendants, and community members, we urge you to ensure the redesign of the airport land includes a meaningful commitment to Reparations and Landback.

We recognize that affordable housing is already a component in two of the three proposed design scenarios. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to repair historic harms through:

Deeply affordable housing, limited equity homeownership, and community land trusts for the Black American community and the Tongva people—prioritizing those displaced by redlining and eminent domain. At minimum, 50% of affordable housing units should be designated for Black American and Tongva households, ensuring those most impacted by dispossession have a real path home. This echoes the goals of San Francisco’s reparations plan and growing movements across California to return housing and land to impacted communities.

Land return and cultural stewardship for the Tongva people, the original caretakers of this land—modeled on California’s recent return of over 2,800 acres to the Shasta Indian Nation and the transfer of land in Altadena to the Tongva Taraxat Paxaavxa Conservancy.

Meaningful spaces for community gathering and knowledge-sharing, such as a cultural center or museum, oral history archive, or intergenerational learning site that honors and preserves local Black American and Tongva legacies.

Public green space that is accessible, restorative, and integrated. We believe in a future where parks and people coexist, and where justice and open space can share the same soil.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
173
Some have voiced concern that building housing would derail plans for a park, but these priorities do not have to compete. Measure LC exists to prevent commercial overdevelopment, not to prevent justice. If a ballot measure is needed, Council can lead alongside community members to mobilize support for a vision rooted in equity, history, and healing.

Santa Monica has already issued a historic apology. Now is the time to put action behind those words and become a national leader in reparative justice.

Christy Loera
[email protected]
609 Prospect Avenue #18
South Pasadena, California 91030
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
174
David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 2:26 AM
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 7A ~ the SMAC PROJECT JULY 8 2025 ~ The Great Park Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
The one thing Santa Monica has always lacked (and greatly needs) is more park space, green space, rambling space, playing space, recreational space.

This is what your constituents want; this is what they have consistently asked for; this is what they voted for.

This is what they expect.

The last thing Santa Monica needs:
more development, more traffic, more parking issues, more pollution, increased population density.

All the best to You,
Rick Gates
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
175
David Yakobson
From: Edward Story <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 2:02 AM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: Evolve Santa Monica Airport
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
In RE July 8 City Council Meeting, Item 7: Evolving Santa Monica Airport Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
It's well past time to put aside the rancor and poor decision-making that have stifled citizens' enjoyment of their own airport, an irreplaceable resource that grants the city so many opportunities and protections.

Now that electric planes and unleaded fuel have arrived, along with renewed interest from our community in learning to fly, learning to be an air traffic controller and exploring what Santa Monica Airport has to offer, any talk of destroying it rings thoughtless and out of touch.

As a member of the aviation community and a long-time admirer of Santa Monica’s historic role in American aerospace, I urge you to consider a path of evolution, not elimination for Santa Monica Airport.

Starting in the 1920s, Santa Monica Airport (“Clover Field”) has been a sparkling center of the aviation world. It is where Donald Douglas built the DC-3 that became the iconic transport for our troops in WWII and later. These planes are still flying! That same pioneering spirit built a world-wide company and more companies can be built here and will be. We can seize this opportunity not to close SMO, but to reimagine it for the future with clean air and quiet electric flight.

We wouldn't merely be losing something that few cities have and that will never be built again, but we'd also be losing something that almost no cities enjoy: control of our own airspace. Ask citizens if they want heavy jets flying to LAX free to fly low directly over their homes, lower than ever before and with greater frequency. Ask if they want to give up their say in the future of urban air mobility, providing rapid and quiet transport for hundreds of miles in every direction at very low cost.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
176
SMO's airspace designation (FAA “Class D”) gives Santa Monica power granted by the Federal Government, overriding any California State mandates.

This is about leading the next chapter of clean, quiet, community-minded aviation. Electric aircraft, advanced simulators, flight schools, ATC simulators, STEM education hubs, aviation job creation and green infrastructure can all co-exist alongside modest open space and some thoughtfully integrated living space.

The recent "outreach" efforts (conducted at significant public expense) have pushed a slanted narrative, denying all of us the ability to vote for something that that would set an example for the world: multi-faceted, sustainably planned public areas WITH an historic and iconic airport as its centerpiece. Ask any of the hundreds of Santa Monican families that enjoy "Kids in Planes" events, Young Eagles flights, tours of the airport, annual Douglas Day celebrations, taking flying lessons, or simply bringing their kids to the observation deck to watch planes with eternal fascination that flight brings.

Ask them why innovation is so often associated with flight and thus with airports as the homes of innovation and as the meeting places of entrepreneurs from every part of the country and the world.

Here’s what evolution could mean:
 A world-class STEM education and training center, where Santa Monica students are inspired to pursue science, technology, and flight  A hub for electric and autonomous aviation, already being tested at SMO and poised to reduce traffic congestion and emissions
 Green space and community access, thoughtfully integrated with aviation infrastructure
 Long-term economic vitality for a city facing major fiscal headwinds. Note that HR&A indicated over a decade ago that Santa Monica Airport creates over $250 Million in revenue for the City and its businesses.  Continued local control over airport operations and land use after 2028, allowing the City to shape SMO’s evolution in line with community values and future technologies
Santa Monica doesn’t need to pick between a park and an airport. We can build a 21stcentury innovation campus—one that honors our history, serves our residents, and inspires current and future generations.

If we give up our airport, let's not pretend that the State won't effectively seize the land.

We all know, and the city has publicly admitted, that there's no money to build, maintain, or police a giant park nor support for endless construction of housing tracts.

The airport is financially sound and contributes enormously to the financial health of the City of Santa Monica.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
177
Please think of the future. Let’s evolve the Santa Monica Airport into something extraordinary, part of the future of this City and this nation.

Sincerely yours,
Ed
Edward C. Story
Board Member, Co-Founder & VP, Eco-Aviation Foundation Int’l Board Member, California Disaster Airlift Response Team Board Member, Santa Monica Airport Association
Organizer, SoCal Airports
Member, Southern California Airspace Users Working Group Managing Partner, IRONWOOD ADVISORY
310-827-1600; Skype edstory; Cell 310-318-2100
[email protected]; www.ironwoodadvisory.com
www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstory; www.eco-aviation.org
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

History was made March 8, 2025 when the first-ever coast-to-coast flight by an all-electric aircraft was completed with the Beta CX300 touching down at Santa Monica Airport.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
178
To help protect your privacy,
Micro so ft Office prevented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet. Virus-free.www.avg.com
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
179
David Yakobson
From: Dr Michael Cahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:47 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Cc: Caro Vilain
Subject: Agenda item 7-A: Airport Conversion - Housing Urgently Needed Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to move forward with a development of the airport that considers the needs for housing and does not create a destination that produces visitor traffic. Mixed land use is the key for a sustainable city, a park that depends on driving visitors arriving by car is a green painted liability for our planet. Mixed Use is the only and most effective solution for the planetary crisis we face Thank you for your consideration.

Dr Michael Cahn
507 Washington Ave, 90403
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
180
David Yakobson
From: Google Account <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:51 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

Sincerely,
Wes Chuang
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
184
David Yakobson
From: Jean-François Bouville <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:19 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

Sincerely,
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
185
David Yakobson
From: Alison Kendall <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7a SM Airport Conversion
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council members,
I'm writing as a 22 year resident, business owner and supporter of affordable housing and sustainable transportation.

The prospect of a large part with a range of recreational activities is a huge opportunity for Santa Monica and the Westside. I urge you to consider including a range of affordable housing options which are difficult to provide in other areas of Santa Monica. Among these are housing for public employees such as teachers, medical providers, police and firefighters and others who often must live far away from their jobs.

There are also significant opportunities for affordable housing which is much less car oriented and encourages cooperation and sustainability such as Co housing. And there are unique opportunities for affordable senior housing in a park like setting.

I hope that your preferred alternative will consider inclusion of these options which can provide revenue and safety for the park uses and help to support other recreational and cultural uses Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this project of great importance to the City and Westside.

Sincerely,
Alison Kendall
Alison Kendall, AICP AIA
KENDALL ARCHITECTURE PLANNING + DESIGN
[email protected]
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
186
David Yakobson
From: Charles Bender <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:03 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: SM Airport Conversion Project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Hello Santa Monica Council,
As a 25-year resident of Santa Monica, I am writing to express my strong desire for housing development as part of the Airport Conversion Project. This substantial parcel of land presents a crucial opportunity to address the significant housing shortages our area is currently facing in 2025.

I urge you not to let "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) sentiment hinder the development of much-needed housing. Please do the right thing.

Sincerely,
Charles Bender
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
187
David Yakobson
From: MICHAEL WARE <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 12:38 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

Sincerely,
Andrea Ware
Sent from my iPhone
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
188
David Yakobson
From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 12:38 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems; Amber Richane
Cc: Elaine Polachek
Subject: City Council Mtg. - 7/8/25 - Item 7A - Letter of Interest Regarding the establishment of the Santa Monica Six Racket Public Sports Club with Health, Social and Emotional Benefits
Attachments: SMACRacketSportsCenter.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Council Members:

In May of 2025, Van Denburgh Consulting Group, of which I am the Managing Principal, put forth a Letter of Interest regarding the design, development and operationalization of a complex that included six racket sports that would be part of the active use category at the Great Park. I have attached that original Letter of Interest below. Since I have had several months to think about this racket sport complex I have pivoted somewhat in the naming of it. The Santa Monica Six Racket Public Sports Club will be easily accessible to residents and visitors. It will include pickleball, table tennis, three wall handball (with pinkie ball), tennis, paddle tennis and padel. This public club will provide access to outdoor courts and have a Racket Ramada ie., a building with a roof but open sides for socialization and gatherings. The Shed or El Cobertizo will provide the renting of rackets, purchase of balls, provide outdoor screens that address how to serve, score and play each of the six racket sports as well as provide how to join leagues, open play, how to get lessons, join clinics and sign up for tournaments. The benefits with appropriate sources are many and are highlighted below. This club is not private and is for individuals (new to the area or returning), families and children. It will be a destination for many on weekends and weekdays based on their racket sport or interest in watching a racket sport such as padel.

There is robust scientific evidence that racket sports—such as pickleball, tennis, paddle tennis, table tennis, padel, and handball—can significantly improve physical, mental, and social wellness. Below is a summary of key findings from peer-reviewed studies and health organizations:

Cognitive and Mental Health Benefits

1. Reduced Risk of Depression and Anxiety
 Regular participation in racket sports is associated with reduced levels of depression and anxiety.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
189
 Table tennis and pickleball, in particular, have shown positive effects on mood, cognitive function, and social connection, especially in older adults.

Source: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (2019); Mental Health and Physical Activity (2018)

2. Cognitive Stimulation
 Racket sports improve hand-eye coordination, strategic thinking, and neuroplasticity.  Ping pong has been used in dementia care programs to maintain brain activity and delay cognitive decline.

Source: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (2020) 걭걮걯거 Cardiovascular and Longevity Benefits

3. Reduced Risk of Death
 A massive 2016 study in British Journal of Sports Medicine (80,000+ adults, UK) found:
o Tennis reduced risk of death from all causes by 47%.
o Badminton (similar to pickleball) reduced risk by 47%. o These rates were higher than running or cycling.

Source: Oja et al., BJSM, 2016

4. Cardiovascular Conditioning
 Racket sports improve aerobic capacity, heart rate variability, and blood pressure control.  Pickleball and tennis, especially doubles, provide moderate to vigorous intensity activity, meeting CDC physical activity guidelines.

Source: American College of Sports Medicine; Sports Health Journal (2018) 쟃쟄쟅쟆 Musculoskeletal and Balance Benefits

5. Improved Balance and Mobility
 Pickleball, padel, and handball require quick lateral movements, squats, and pivots which train core and leg muscles.
 These reduce fall risk and improve dynamic balance, especially in older adults.

Source: Journal of Aging and Physical Activity (2021); Journal of Sport and Health Science (2018)

6. Bone Density and Muscle Strength
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
190
 Weight-bearing, reactive movements in tennis and handball help preserve bone mineral density and prevent osteoporosis.

Source: National Institutes of Health (NIH); Mayo Clinic Proceedings (2017) Metabolic and Immune Benefits

7. Reduced Risk of Type 2 Diabetes and Obesity
 Racket sports aid in weight control and glucose regulation.  Moderate-intensity racket sports increase insulin sensitivity and reduce abdominal fat.

Source: Diabetes & Metabolism Journal (2020); Harvard Health Publishing

8. Enhanced Immune Function
 Regular physical activity, especially in social, competitive environments, boosts immune resilience and reduces chronic inflammation.

Source: Journal of Sport and Health Science (2020)
蹫蹬 Social and Emotional Benefits

9. Social Connectedness
 Racket sports are intrinsically social, fostering a sense of community and belonging.t 
 Especially true in pickleball, which has grown rapidly among older adults partly due to its ease of access and social nature.

Source: Leisure Sciences (2021); AARP Research on Pickleball (2022)

10. Lifelong Participation
 These sports can be adapted across all ages and fitness levels, making them lifelong wellness tools. 脥깢깣 Summary Table of Benefits
Benefit Area Supported Racket Sports Key Outcomes
Cardiovascular Health Tennis, Pickleball, Padel, Handball ↓ Mortality, ↑ Heart Fitness Cognitive Function Table Tennis, Pickleball, Tennis ↓ Dementia Risk, ↑ Brain Activity Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
191
Benefit Area Supported Racket Sports Key Outcomes
Muscle/Bone Health Tennis, Handball, Padel ↑ Strength, ↓ Osteoporosis Balance & Coordination Pickleball, Paddle Tennis, Handball ↓ Falls, ↑ Agility Mental Health All ↓ Depression, ↑ Mood
Social Engagement Pickleball, Table Tennis, Tennis ↑ Belonging, ↓ Isolation I hope the City Council will seriously consider the inclusion of the six racket public sports club for the health and well being of residents and visitors alike. With respect to funding of infrastructure Van Denburgh Consulting Group believes there is a strong opportunity for private/public partnerships for development of outdoor courts from racket sports equipment manufacturers and local private schools.

Please feel free to contact me to further discuss the value and opportunity of the Six Racket Sports Public Club.at the Great Park.

Many thanks,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Managing Principal
Van Denburgh Consulting Group
213.610.9095
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
May 5, 2025
To: Santa Monica Airport Conversion (SMAC) Team
Letter of Interest (LOI)
Proposed Racquet Sports Complex (Tennis, pickleball, paddle tennis and padel) proposed with a Racquet Ramada (open air for socializing) and an El Cobertizo (The Shed) to act as possible snack shop, racquet and ball rentals, ball purchases, instructor and clinic information and its walls constantly showing how to serve, score and play each of the four racquet sports or showing live/video of people playing any of the four racquet sports.

From: Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Managing Principal
Van Denburgh Consulting Group
837 Lincoln Boulevard, Unit 11
Santa Monica, CA 90403

1. Introduction and Public-Private Partnerships
Van Denburgh Consulting Group (VDCG) is a people-based consulting firm specializing in change and project management with strong survey, interviewing and facilitation skills. Our work will begin with clear objectives and ends with actionable results. In this proposal, we outline how we will work the SMAC team to define the vision, metrics, court and infrastructure mix, potential funding and operations for a successful Racquet Sports Complex.

Our team, primarily based in Los Angeles, includes members with extensive racquet sports experience and professional backgrounds in surveying, facilitation, change management and project management. We will work with various local organizations which represent the four Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
proposed racquet sports e.g., Santa Monica Pickleball Club (pickleball), USTA (tennis and paddle tennis), US Padel Association as well as Santa Monica Parks & Recreation Commission, local tennis, pickleball and paddle tennis instructors, public and private schools in Santa Monica, and surveys of Santa Monica tennis, pickleball, padel and paddle tennis players. We would work with all the above stakeholders to discuss and identify possible Public-Private Partnerships. As well, we would contact the top three providers of equipment in each racquet sport and discuss Public-Private Partnerships with them.

2. High-Level Description of Proposed Project
This proposed complex would include tennis courts that can also be used for pickleball (four courts per tennis court with additional striping and mobile nets), pickleball courts that can be used for paddle tennis courts which was renamed to POP Tennis without a lot of uptick of that nomenclature by players (with additional striping and mobile net for pickleball) and the development of padel courts, the walled version of paddle tennis. Why all four? • Tennis is the historical basis for the other three racket sports. • Pickleball is the most accessible, easy to learn (possibly except for the scoring), very popular and lowest cost for start-up and ongoing play.
• Padel will be a growth racquet sport in the next ten years and will need public courts to support that growth for highly athletic racket players given you play balls off the walls.

As well, this sport will draw “want to be” i.e., hottest sport in Europe padel players but will also interest spectators who will be drawn to the speed and athleticism of the game as well as the ease to watch the players i.e., players are in a glass box and spectators are all around watching.
• Paddle tennis is the in-between game between tennis and pickleball; it uses a deadened tennis ball and is played with a wooden, perforated racket like what is used in padel.

Paddle tennis will draw people who have played tennis and enjoy hitting a tennis ball vs. a wiffle ball as used in pickleball and may want a smaller court and faster game as much of this racquet sport is played at net.

The three racket sports of padel, paddle tennis and pickleball all use shorter nets than tennis (various size for each) but most of the play is by doubles teams. Tennis continues to be a singles and doubles racquet sport. The racquet sports of tennis, padel and paddle tennis use the same scoring.

It is not anticipated that any current structures could be used unless an existing building that is near the courts and could function as The Cobertizo (The Shed -- see Community Benefits). It is possible that existing concrete or asphalt could be used for younger children lessons and play since they can more easily learn on smaller courts.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Obviously, we are proponents of active use of the land. We would take the land acreage that will be part of the final framework for a Racquet Sports Complex and work with that. Key concepts and deliverables of our approach:
• Document current state of Santa Monica racquet sports infrastructure including all tennis courts, padel courts, paddle tennis courts and pickleball courts (except for any courts owned by private individuals), current users and times of availability to each user group and utilization of those courts from existing records or a time-utilization study of a week.
• Conduct, analyze and summarize surveys of Santa Monica pickleball, tennis, padel and paddle tennis users
• Utilize heuristics to project probable use of distinct types of courts acknowledging a known high demand from discussion with Santa Monica locals e.g., high demand by pickleball players that is not being met at Memorial Park, high demand for tennis courts for children to learn (grade school, high school and college) with an understanding that the excitement and adventure of learning a new sport such as padel or paddle tennis can be a draw for young and inexperienced players to a sport they have never heard of. • Develop two operational aspects of each racket sport e.g., daily reservations vs. open play
• Develop an options portfolio and develop proforma financials for top four options (racquet sports complex options only) determined by the SMAC team to be prioritized based on criteria we will collaborate with them to determine • Present top three options for the complex, obtain public comment and update options as necessary for final selection by the SMAC team

3. Community Benefits
The benefits of community wellness and health will be a top priority as well as the effectiveness of the operations e.g., availability of courts on an equitable basis, and have courts utilized as much as possible. Another community benefit would be working toward community socialization e.g., having significant open play for people who either don’t know the game or are new to the community, having demonstrations of padel and paddle tennis to invoke interest in new sports which might spark a desire to get back on the court. An additional element to the Racquet Sports Complex would be to have an open air Racquet Ramada that could be a place for people to gather, with healthy snacks via vending machines or a snack bar as part of El Cobertizo (see next sentence), before or after playing.

In addition, El Cobertizo (The Shed in Spanish) in or next to the Racquet Ramada could provide rental racquets, rental balls (for pickleball, padel) and balls for purchase (tennis, paddle tennis) for all the racquet sports. Weatherproof monitors on the outside of El Cobertizo would have instructional videos on the walls that show and explain how to serve, score and play each of the racquet sports. As part of El Cobertizo, there could be ways to Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
contact instructors and to sign up for clinics with instructors. Key messaging would be that you don’t have to know how to play to come to the Racquet Sports Complex. You come to El Cobertizo and learn and watch videos about any of the racquet sports. Community could be built for each racquet sport e.g., learn from the pickleball pros -- gathering to watch matches of the Professional Pickleball Association (PPA) or Association of Pickleball Players (APP), putting together and running an “open padel tournament” where anyone can play or having a round robin doubles tennis paddle tournament. The Racquet Ramada could also be a table-tennis location with tables and again rental of table-tennis racquets and purchase of balls being managed by El Cobertizo. Finally, the Raquet Sports Complex will need bathrooms. With those amenities, why not define and figure out how to construct and hold yoga sessions in an open air Yoga Ramada/Palapa nearby? Who needs to fly to the Maya Rivera when you have this kind of yoga amenity at the park?

4. High-level Financial Plan Summary
The definition phase of the Racquet Sports Complex would be performed by Van Denburgh Consulting Group and its associates. We would upon further discussions, bid a time and materials contract with hourly rates from $100/hour to $300/hour. The bid would include scope, objectives, deliverables, workplan and estimated hours for each deliverable. A fixed price bid could be discussed with further information and commitment from the SMAC team.

It would be difficult to determine the cost associated with the many racquet sports courts that could be built until the mix of courts is determined in the definition phase. The existing cost of each court cost (without knowing what grading, ground preparation and compaction as well as any permitting or licensing costs) is as follows:
• Tennis court – Los Angeles: Range from $40,000 to $100,000 with an average cost of $65,000 remembering with added lines and four mobile pickleball nets (range of $200 - $2,000 given durability of net) you can add four pickleball courts to a tennis court
• Pickleball/Paddle Tennis court – Los Angeles: $28,000 to $38,000 with an average of $33,000. With additional lines and net adjustment, you can play paddle tennis on this court i.e., there are efficiencies to be gained by having pickleball and paddle tennis courts enabled to be used by both sports.
• Padel court – Los Angeles: $24,000 to $65,000 with an average of $45,000.

The mixture and additions needed e.g., pickleball nets for tennis court option will be dependent on the final decision about how many courts will be built at the Racquet Sports Complex.

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

5. High-level Timeline
The definition project we have outlined above will take a year given the number of stakeholders, public-partner discussions and reviewing options with analyses of public comments regarding the distinct options that will be presented.

After the decision around the definition of the number and type of racquet sports courts then the development and on-going operations must be addressed e.g., reservation system needed?, is there a Raquet Ramada defined?, did El Cobertizo make the mix for education, rental, connection to instructors and clinics and snacks provision?, maintenance of the courts and Raquet Ramada will need to be determined as a separate construction and operations start-up project. We do not need to tell you about the volatility of construction and operational projects in the future with respect to federal and local issues.

6. Additional Information about Feasibility and Community Benefits The definition project is very feasible since it is a project that will have objective(s), deliverables and a workplan that can be done in a year. The feasibility of developing the infrastructure is not as clear. A single construction project for all the racquet courts at once would conceptionally be the most cost effective but it remains to be discussed and agreed upon what Public- Private Partnerships can be established. One racquet sport may have a Public-Private partnership and another does not. It is unknown at this point.

With respect to community benefits, we would recommend two or three metrics that can be easily tracked to determine if you are achieving those benefits. If you set specific targets, then you can report trending and focus on issues that are not trending to the targets. Again, this is something we can help the SMAC with and they will need to be the final approval of the appropriate metrics.

We understand that this is a high-end discussion of a very exciting project. We look forward to your questions, comments and issues with respect to the racquet sports complex.

Respectfully,
Elizabeth Van Denburgh
Van Denburgh Consulting Group
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
192
David Yakobson
From: Hajar Muqtasid St. Claire <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 5, 2025 3:34 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: July 8th SM Airport Conversion Prioritize Reparations and Landback Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

We recognize that affordable housing is already a component in two of the three proposed design scenarios. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to repair historic harms through:

Deeply affordable housing, limited equity homeownership, and community land trusts for the Black American community and the Tongva people—prioritizing those displaced by redlining and eminent domain. At minimum, 50% of affordable housing units should be designated for Black American and American Indian households, ensuring those most impacted by dispossession have a real path home. This echoes the goals of San Francisco’s reparations plan and growing movements across California to return housing and land to impacted communities.

Public green space that is accessible, restorative, and integrated. We believe in a future where parks and people coexist, and where justice and open space can share the same soil.

Some have voiced concern that building housing would derail plans for a park, but these priorities do not have to compete. Measure LC exists to prevent commercial overdevelopment, Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
193
not to prevent justice. If a ballot measure is needed, Council can lead alongside community members to mobilize support for a vision rooted in equity, history, and healing.

Santa Monica has already issued a historic Black apology. Now is the time to put action behind those words and become a national leader in reparative justice. Stop delaying your action. An apology without meaningful follow up isn't much of an apology. The Rite of Return didn't do much either. If you do not plan to use the airport for this repair of the harm please use the other lands just listed as Surplus land to make the Black Apology meaningful.

With gratitude,
Hajar
Hajar Muqtasid St. Claire
[email protected]
SANTA MONICA, California 90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
194
David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 12:10 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Sincerely,
Patty Laurie
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
195
David Yakobson
From: Negaro Alemu <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 12:08 AM
To: Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane
Subject: Re: Airport Conversion Project
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. Please aim at using the land for community services as the voters expected when the measure passed years ago.

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. The place should benefit all residents bringing communities together for sports, cultural/Community centers and youth development programs.

Sincerely,
Alemu Negaro
Chairperson, Ethiopian Community in Santa Monica
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Dondi Pangalangan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 11:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 7
Attachments: Public Comment (90 seconds) Item 7 – Evolving Santa Monica Airport.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
I have attached my presentation for public comment on agenda item 7.

Sincerely,

DONDI PANGALANGAN
Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives
P 818.989.2900 | M 818.947.5454
800.423.2904 | claylacy.com | 7435 Valjean Avenue | Van Nuys, CA 91406 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Public Comment
Item 7 – Evolving Santa Monica Airport
Good evening Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
My name is Dondi Pangalangan. I’m the Senior Vice President of Strategic Initiatives at Clay Lacy Aviation, and I also serve as Vice Chairman of the Airport Access Committee for the National Business Aviation Association.

In both roles, I see Santa Monica Airport as far more than a local facility—it’s a vital part of the National Airspace System, a key piece of regional infrastructure, and a unique civic asset that Santa Monica is fortunate to control.

SMO is at a turning point. Electric aircraft are already flying, unleaded fuel is replacing leaded avgas, and more members of our community are exploring aviation careers—from piloting to air traffic control. Now is the time to lead, not walk away.

Let’s evolve SMO into:
• A hub for quiet, clean electric flight
• A workforce development center offering high-skill, high-paying jobs—no college degree required
• A model of environmental stewardship, integrating green technology and sustainable practices
• And community green space, designed alongside aviation The airport contributes over $250 million annually to the local economy and gives Santa Monica something few cities have: control over its airspace.

The recent outreach told only part of the story. Let’s give the public a real opportunity to support a visionary, inclusive future—one that blends aviation, education, sustainability, and access.

Let’s evolve Santa Monica Airport—not erase it.

Thank you.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
2 David Yakobson
From: Chris Harshman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 12:00 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 Attachments: 2015.03.24 City Council Report.pdf; FAA-2024-2108-0003_attachment_1.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
The City of Santa Monica ("City") should not completely close the Santa Monica Municipal Airport ("Airport") to aviation use. Doing so would foreclose future innovation and prejudice the people of Santa Monica and surrounding communities by denying them conveniences that are on schedule to arrive within months, and by altering the environment to their detriment. The City must also plan for a lengthy CEQA review (inter alia), should it decide to permanently deprive the Southern California region of this important aviation asset.

Future Innovation
The Airport, in its 3,500' runway configuration, has already significantly abated the concerns of a relatively tiny, albeit vocal, minority of Santa Monica residents, but the march of progress continues.

Electric airplanes are already based at Santa Monica (Santa Monica Flyers operates a small but growing fleet of Pipistrel Velis Electro aircraft), which are significantly quieter than even the quietest aircraft that traditionally operated at the Airport, and are zero emission. This is the wave of the future, and it's arrived at Santa Monica.

Future Conveniences
Urban air mobility is the next frontier in moving people around increasingly congested cities, including the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. These ships are also electric, also quiet, also zero emission, and will be open to, and usable and desired by, anyone who can summon an Uber or Lift or Waymo today. The Airport is a perfect place for these aircraft to operate from, with the infrastructure and open space required already in place or easily added.

Environment
As the City's own City Attorney discussed in a March 24, 2015 Staff Report (attached): “repurposing the land would likely include land development that would exacerbate traffic problems, and if Santa Monica Airport ("SMO") closes, Los Angeles International Airport traffic would potentially overfly the City at lower altitudes, increasing noise.” (The altitude shift is not “potential,” I have personally verified with staff at the Southern California Approach Control that the heavy 2- and 4-engine airliners and cargo jets arriving from the Asian and Middle Eastern regions will be brought in lower over Santa Monica. The impact to the already gridlocked traffic around the Airport will of course be worsened with high density development at the Airport - which the state will almost assuredly mandate.

CEQA
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
3 As the City has conceded (see the attached August 12, 2024 Motion to Dismiss filed by the City with the FAA): “There is no allegation, nor could there be, that the City has made a binding final decision to close the Airport on January 1, 2029 or at any future time.” Such a decision would of course require a CEQA analysis.

R. Christopher Harshman
Co-President, SMAA
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
4 David Yakobson
From: Joanne Berlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 12:24 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: CRJ - The great park - item 7 on 7/8 agenda
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
I’m writing to encourage you to support the opportunity to endorse the concept of adding housing to a portion of the land from the SM airport.

Committee For Racial Justice (CRJ) has long been in favor of using part of the airport land for housing and tonight will be your first opportunity to support that concept. A relatively small portion of that land should be used to help alleviate the need for more housing in our community.

CRJ considers this issue to be of high importance and is asking each of the city council members to support the only option of the three before you tonight that includes housing.

In hope,
Joanne Berlin,
On behalf of the CRJ Leadership Team
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
City Council Report
City Council Meeting: March 24, 2015
Agenda Item: 8-A
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Susan Cline, Interim Director of Public Works
Subject: The Santa Monica Airport And Future Options Regarding Its Operations And The City's Use Of The Land Now Occupied By The Airport
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council review and comment on future options regarding operation of the Santa Monica Airport ("Airport" or "SMO") and the City's future use of its land currently occupied by the Airport and direct staff to:
1) Continue with a full range of planning, environmental and legal work that would enable the City to determine the future use of the City's land, including possible closure of all or part of the Airport; such work to include, but not be limited to, pursuing legal resolution of issues relating to control of the land, undertaking preliminary environmental and design work as to both the western parcel and the entire Airport, and assessing the possibility of a City-sponsored 2016 ballot measure; 2) Continue to implement measures to reduce adverse impacts of Airport operations, through imposing appropriate conditions in leases and any other lawful means; 3) Continue to promote Airport self-sufficiency to ensure that the Airport is not a drain on the general fund during this period of possible transition, including by: increasing any rents that may not be at market rate; renegotiating for Council approval expired master leases to address subleasing and thereby provide for the City's receipt of full revenues from the use of City property; and obtaining private assistance with leasing and property management;
4) Work to reduce and eliminate aviation uses of the land released from aviation use; 5) Negotiate and execute new leases with two current non-aviation subtenants (VW-Audi and Milstein), The Museum of Flying, Atlantic Aviation, and Krueger Aviation with lease terms expiring either three years from execution or by June 30, 2018, whichever date is earlier; and 6) Continue to receive, assess and provide recommendations based on community input on all aspects of Airport operations and use of the land now occupied by the Airport.

Executive Summary
Staff presented its last comprehensive report on issues related to the Airport on March 25, 2014. After hearing testimony from approximately 100 speakers, Council gave direction on contingency planning for the Airport's future, leasing, and evaluating options regarding fuel sales, among other things.

Much has happened since last March. The voters adopted one ballot measure related to the Airport and rejected another. New lawsuits about the Airport were filed against the City by aviation interests and residents.

The Airport Commission adopted recommendations relating to emissions, leases and the Airport's future. But, some things did not change. The City is still fighting in court to establish its control over its own land.

Residents remain concerned about safety and adverse environmental impacts. And, the debate continues about how the City land should be used if the Airport is reduced in size or closed.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
This report summarizes the law and history that relate to and impact the City's ability to control the land now used for the Airport. It also provides information about the most significant developments of the last year, the Airport's current operations, and input received from the community and the Airport Commission.

The report includes a number of recommendations. Some of them involve continuing the City's current course of preliminary planning, environmental and legal work that would enable the City to determine the future use of the City land now occupied by the Airport, including possible complete or partial closure of the Airport, pursuing resolution of legal issues affecting the City's control of its own land, and maintaining the Airport's financial selfsufficiency.

Other specific recommendations relate to new opportunities that will arise this year with the expiration of the 1984 Settlement Agreement and all of the Airport leases. These include: working to eliminate aviation uses from the non-aviation land; implementing measures to reduce current adverse impacts of the Airport on the environment and residents through conditions in new or extended leases and through any other lawful means; ensuring that any submarket rents are increased; revising master leases to eliminate subleases or otherwise maximize the flow of revenue to the City (rather than to private interests); and assessing the possibilities for a 2016 ballot measure regarding potential future use of the Airport land. Staff also recommends negotiating five particular leases between the City and two aviation master lessors (Atlantic Aviation and Krueger Aviation), two current non-aviation subtenants of Atlantic (Volkswagen Audi and Milstein, Adleman & Kreeger), and The Museum of Flying.

Background
The possibilities and options for the Airport's future and the City's future use of the land now occupied by the Airport are significantly impacted by legal constraints and certain aspects of the Airport's history. Both the law and the history were summarized in the March 25, 2014 and April 30, 2013 staff reports. However, the background information is provided again here and in somewhat greater detail because of the importance of the facts and law to the intensifying community debate about Airport issues. This section also provides information about current operations at the Airport and developments occurring during the last year, including an update on litigation, a summary of input received from the community, and the recommendations made by the Airport Commission.

The Legal Constraints: Federal Laws, FAA Regulations, Court and Agency Decisions, and Contracts The City of Santa Monica owns and operates the Santa Monica Airport ("SMO"). However, federal law imposes significant constraints on the City's authority to control Airport operations. A basic understanding of the law is necessary to assess the legal controversies about the Airport and the City's options as proprietor of the Airport and owner of the land now occupied by the Airport. The legal constraints fall into two general categories: laws and contracts.

Laws
The United States Congress has adopted various federal statutes that govern aviation. The most important ones are codified in Title 49 of the United States Code. They include the Federal Aviation Act (Section 40103), the Airline Deregulation Act (Section 41713), the Airport and Airway Improvement Act (Section 47101), and the Airport Noise Capacity Act ("ANCA", Section 47523 and following). Among other things, the federal statutes create the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") and delegate to that agency broad authority over a wide variety of matters relating to aviation safety and air commerce. The FAA's realm of control includes the use and management of navigable airspace, aviation safety, air traffic control, air navigation facilities and certain aspects of airport development and facilities, among other things.

The FAA exercises its authority under these statutes in several ways, including by promulgating a myriad of administrative regulations that implement the federal statutes and by enforcing those regulations on its own and Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
in response to complaints from airport users. Regulations that have been particularly important to the City in recent years include the agency's Part 16 regulations, which establish a quasi-judicial procedure for challenging compliance with conditions attached to federal grants for Airport improvements, and the Part 161 regulations, which implement ANCA and establish procedures applicable to, among other things, changes in airport operations and noise management. The FAA's quasi-judicial proceedings generate a body of administrative decisions that interpret and apply the agency’s regulations.

In addition to promulgating administrative regulations and interpreting and enforcing them through quasi-judicial proceedings, the FAA also promulgates myriad directives and guidelines, which it treats as laws or binding regulations. One example is the Compliance Manual (FAA Order 5190-66), through which the FAA communicates its views as to how grantees should comply with FAA grant assurances, among other things.

In addition to adopting federal statutes that create the FAA and give it very broad powers, Congress has adopted other laws that constrain the City's authority over operation of the Airport. For instance, The Clean Air Act, 42 USC. Section 7573, provides: "No State or political subdivision thereof may adopt or attempt to enforce any standard respecting emissions of any air pollutant from any aircraft or engine thereof unless such standard is identical to a standard applicable to such aircraft under this part." This is an example of express federal preemption of local regulation: thus, the federal government fully occupies the field of establishing standards for aircraft engine emission.

Also, from time to time, courts issue decisions in cases involving the laws governing aviation and local control over airport operations. Like the federal statutes and regulations, this body of case law defines the rights and responsibilities of airport owners.

Despite establishing basic laws governing air transport and creating the FAA to protect the national aviation transportation system and promote aviation commerce, Congress has recognized that local airport owners have certain proprietary rights. However, Congress has not delineated the extent of those rights, leaving that task to the FAA and to the courts. Generally speaking, the courts have deferred to the agency’s view of proprietor’s rights, which is that such rights were, in the first instance, limited to noise regulation and that the field of noise regulation has been occupied by ANCA.

Contracts
In addition to limits imposed on the City by statutes, regulations, court and agency decisions, and FAA directives and guidelines, the City's ability to control the use of the Airport (and the City land it occupies) is also subject to limitation by contractual obligations. Three particular contracts may currently impose such limitations.

The 1948 Instrument of Transfer is the form agreement that the federal government used to transfer its lease of the City's Airport back to the City after World War II. During the war, the City had leased its Airport to the federal government for a nominal sum in order to support the war effort. The leases eventually expired by their own when the war officially ended. But, before the actual expiration, the Instrument of Transfer was executed; and it contains language regarding future use of the land. The federal government claims that this language obligates the City to operate the Airport in perpetuity; and, if the City does not, then the Airport land "reverts" back to the federal government. The City strongly disputes this contention Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
The 1984 Settlement Agreement, which is also a contract between the City and the federal government, states that it resolved all legal disputes that existed between the City and the federal government in 1984. Among other things, the Settlement Agreement requires the City to operate the Airport until July 1st of this year, releases from exclusive aviation use certain land on the south side of the Airport, recognizes some local restrictions on flight operations (e.g., noise limits and prohibitions on two classes of patterned operations) and imposes certain leasing obligations on the City (e.g. maintaining a specified number of tie downs). The 1984 Agreement expires on June 30th of this year.

Additionally, the third contract which the federal government asserts limits the City's control over its land is the 1994 Airport Improvement Program grant agreement between the City and the FAA. Federal grants for airport improvements include standard grant conditions, known as "assurances", which impose restrictions that the grantee (the City) must abide for the useful life of improvements funded by the grant, not to exceed twenty years from the date of the acceptance of the grant. The conditions include the requirements that the City must operate the Airport and do so without unjust discrimination or "the creation of exclusive rights". The assurances are interpreted broadly by the FAA to protect the national air transport system and to restrict local control.

Under the 1994 grant agreement with the City, the FAA funded various improvements to the Airport, including a blast wall at the eastern end of the runway. In 2003, the grant agreement was amended to increase the amount of the grant to cover the actual construction costs of such improvements. Some contend that the 20-year grant assurance period runs from 2003, ends in 2023, and constrains the City's authority over the Airport and the City's land until then.

The Airport's History
The City has always owned the land used for the Airport. The City purchased the bulk of the land by grant deed in 1926. And, over the next 20 years, the City took title to the balance by grant and quitclaim deeds.

In 1941, with the war raging in Europe, President Roosevelt declared a national emergency. To aid in the war effort, the City executed two leases, conveying possession of the entire eastern portion of the current Airport to the United States for nominal rents for the duration of the emergency. At that time, Douglas Aircraft ("Douglas") operated a huge aircraft factory on the south side of the Airport. At the height of its war-time operations, Douglas employed over 40,000 workers, making Santa Monica a “company town”. Residential neighborhoods grew up immediately adjacent to the Airport to house Douglas workers.

Beginning in 1945, the federal government used City funds to condemn the land that is the current western portion of the Airport so that it could build a new and longer runway. Later, the federal government quitclaimed the land to the City, thus conveying it without restrictions. The following year, the federal government declared its leasehold interests to be "surplus", and the City resumed maintaining and operating the Airport, even though the war-time leases remained in effect (because the federal government had not yet declared the emergency to be officially over). And, in August of 1948, the United States officially surrendered its leasehold interests, along with certain improvements and other assets by executing the Instrument of Transfer – a standard form widely utilized by the War Assets office to convey property interests the federal government possessed but no longer needed.

In 1952, President Truman declared that the national war emergency no longer existed. Consequently, twelve months later, the two Airport leases to the federal government expired by their own terms, ending the federal Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
government's leasehold interests that the United States had transferred back to the City through the Instrument of Transfer.

The post War years brought significant changes. Douglas cut back operations and later left the Airport. And, the fleet mix changed with the advent of jet aircraft and their impacts. These developments radically changed the community’s relationship to the Airport. Neighbors now perceived Airport operations, particularly very noisy jet operations, as highly destructive to their quality of life. They sued the City, and the California Supreme Court held that the City could be liable under legal theories including nuisance. Nestle v. City of Santa Monica, 6 Cal.3d 920 (1972).

The City Council responded to neighbors' complaints and liability risks by adopting local regulations restricting operations to protect neighbors' quality of life. "No jets" signs appeared around the Airport. Aviation interests and the Federal government challenged the restrictions. Litigation followed, most notably Santa Monica Airport Assoc. v. City, 659 F.2d 100 (1981) in which a coalition of Airport users challenged various City ordinances. All but one of the ordinances were upheld based on the City's powers as Airport proprietor. The decisions in that case do not define the full extent of those powers, but the court indicated that the City can regulate other adverse impacts in addition to noise. More litigation was filed, compelling the City to defend cases filed by the federal government, Airport neighbors, and Airport businesses.

Finally, in 1984, the City and the federal government entered into an agreement to settle all of their legal disputes. The 1984 Settlement Agreement allowed the City to make substantial changes in the operation of the Airport. For instance, the Agreement approved a new Airport Layout Plan that shifted a substantial portion of the aviation services from the south side of the Airport to the north side, where the businesses would be further from residences. This reconfiguration made available a substantial amount of land on the south side designated in the new layout plan as "parkland and residual land". Thus, the land was released from exclusive aviation use and identified for non-aviation uses. The City agreed to a new 30-year commitment to improve the Airport's layout as shown in the Layout plan and to operate and maintain the Airport as a "viable functioning facility … until July 1, 2015."
Also during the post War years, the City accepted several grants from the federal government for Airport improvements. The last grant agreement was signed in 1994. The City did not accept additional grant offers after that because it intended that all Airport leases and grant conditions would expire in 2014 or 2015, when the obligation to operate the Airport, established by the 1984 Settlement Agreement, would expire. In 1998, the FAA expressly acknowledged that the 1984 Settlement Agreement "makes clear that the City is obligated to operate the Airport only for the duration of the Agreement (through July 1, 2015)”; and, after that date, the future use of the Airport land would be "a local land use matter ".

The 1990's also brought new changes to the fleet mix with the proliferation of business jets. This sparked new rounds of controversy. Neighbors living at the runway’s eastern end sued the City claiming, among other things, that noise, fumes and jet blasts were destroying their quality of life, imperiling their health and impacting their property values.

In 2001, soon after a fatal crash in which a plane exploded into flames just across 26th Street from single family homes, the City Council commissioned a study to address the safety and liability risks inherent in the relatively short length of the Airport runway, the proximity of homes to the runway ends, and the increase of larger/faster Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Category C and D aircraft traffic. The study recommended and Council eventually approved an Airport Conformance Program which would restrict Airport usage to Category A and B aircraft, and be better suited to safe use of the runway facilities.

The City's Aircraft Conformance Program was intended to conform Airport usage to the Airport's physical constraints, particularly the relatively short length of its runway. Before implementing that plan, the City attempted to reach an agreement with the FAA about limiting Airport usage. Those attempts failed. And, in 2008, Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting Category C and D Aircraft. The FAA issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC"), seeking to prohibit City enforcement of the ordinance. In the Order to Show Cause the FAA asserted that the Instrument of Transfer obligates the City to maintain the Airport "in perpetuity" and that the City's Airport land would revert to the United States if the City tried to close the Airport. A federal district court issued an injunction enforcing the OSC. The FAA determined that the Airport is "safe" and concluded that the jet ban violated the grant assurances. And, a federal appellate court upheld the agency determination.

In August of 2011, a student pilot overshot the runway on landing and crashed into the back of a home located about a block west of the runway end. Fortunately, the resident was not home. Workers who were on the property extinguished a fire. The homeowner subsequently sued the City. The crash exacerbated neighbors' concerns about runway safety.

Also in 2011, after a preliminary initial study by the Rand Corporation, the Council directed staff to undertake a three-phase, comprehensive visioning process to identify any and all options for the Airport's future that lay between the extremes of maintaining the status quo and total closure. Phase I, which consisted of a preliminary interview process, concluded with a report to Council on October 4, 2011.

Phase II began in early 2012. It included thirty community discussion groups. Over 300 community members and others participated, making this the largest, in depth public process ever undertaken by the City. The report on that process and the raw data were presented to the Council on May 8, 2012. In summary, the City's consultant distilled the community input into three different views about what the City should do:
(1) try to close the Airport unless the FAA agrees to operational limitations sufficient to significantly mitigate adverse impacts on surrounding neighborhoods;
(2) maintain the Airport only if operations and the Airport "footprint" are significantly reduced because it has outgrown its residential setting; and
(3) keep the Airport as a potential City asset if mitigation measures reduce adverse impacts because litigation results are uncertain, repurposing the land would likely include land development that would exacerbate traffic problems, and if Santa Monica Airport ("SMO") closes, Los Angeles International Airport traffic would potentially overfly the City at lower altitudes, increasing noise.

Phase III of the visioning process included, among other things, continuation of the community dialogue, assessment of possibilities for transforming SMO into a model "Green" airport, making physical improvements at the Airport, evaluating possible design improvements for the non-aviation land, and continuing communications with the FAA about any possibilities for mitigating adverse impacts. Staff's report on Phase III went to Council on April 30, 2013. That report described environmental improvements made at the Airport, reevaluation of the noise contours, intermittent discussions with FAA personnel, testing of aftermarket exhaust mufflers, analysis of patterned flying and a landing fee study. Staff recommendations included, among other things, adopting a resolution increasing landing fees to make the Airport more self-sustaining, broadening their Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
applicability to include all aircraft, and developing a pilot program for retrofitting with mufflers aircraft used in flight training. Council approved these recommendations and gave various directions including attempting to mitigate impacts through the City's own efforts and contacts with the FAA and obtaining resolution of legal issues, among other things.

In September of 2013, a business jet veered off of the runway on landing, crashed into a storage hangar located near the northwest Airport boundary, and exploded into flames. The pilot and all three passengers were killed.

Neighbors living very near the runway and the crash site expressed renewed fears for their safety. The following month, the City filed suit against the FAA to clarify the City's authority, as proprietor, to control the use of the Airport land.

On March 25, 2014, staff reported on its work and the developments of the previous year. Staff sought direction on Airport leasing, planning, environmental and legal work that would enable the City to determine the future use of its land now occupied by the Airport, including possible closure of all or part of the Airport, among other things. Council gave staff various directions, including direction on leasing policy. Initially, Council authorized renewing all leases for three years because the legal disputes would take at least that long to resolve and, meanwhile, the Airport should not be a drain on the General Fund and should, instead, be supported by Airport users. However, Council later sought recommendations from the Airport Commission, which opposed three year renewals of all leases because of the adverse impacts on neighbors of aviation operations. Council did not make any decisions about the Airport's future. However, it did, among other things, direct staff to work on contingency plans for the Airport's future, continue its efforts to establish the City's right to control use of the land, and take other actions to enable the City to determine the future use of the land, including possible closure of all or part of the Airport.

Developments During The Last Year
Airport Operations
Airport staff monitors operations on a calendar year basis. In 2014, total Airport operations declined. However, jet and helicopter operations increased. From January through December of 2014, there were a total of 83,324 operations, a 12% decline from the previous year. The most significant change was the decline in local operations, most of which are patterned operations associated with flight training. In the category of local operations, the decline was 38%. The vast majority of total Airport operations are propeller aircraft operations. In that category, there were almost 14,000 fewer operations in 2014 than in 2013. Last year's decline in operations continues a ten-year trend, which is depicted in the chart below.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
However, jet and helicopter operations increased in 2014. Jet operations increased by 7% (940 more operations). Helicopter operations increased significantly from 2561 to 3719, an increase of 45%.

There was one accident in the last year. On March 5, 2015, as this report was being written, the pilot of a single-engine, vintage aircraft apparently experienced engine failure and performed a crash landing just west of the Airport on the Penmar Golf Course about 50 yards from homes. In covering the accident, The Los Angeles Times ("LA Times") reports on the accident included praise for the pilot’s handling of the emergency but noted that Airport neighbors felt that the incident illustrated Airport risks. The LA Times reported that: 42 aircraft accidents have occurred in the vicinity since 1982; 11 of them have involved crashes in residential areas of Santa Monica and West Los Angeles; 25 pilots and passengers have died and 16 more have been hurt, but no one on the ground has been seriously injured and only one of the crashes involved a jet. LA Times March 6 & 7 2015.

Airport Leases
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
At present, there are a total of 207 leases at the Airport and 198 subleases, for a total of 405 tenancies (not including tie-down licenses). As to buildings, there are 122 tenants who lease from the City and 84 subleases.

Some of the buildings are owned by the City; some others are owned by tenants but will become the City's property, free and clear, when the leases expire later this year. As to hangars, there are a total of 199 at SMO, most of which (114) are subleased from City tenants. All but one of the hangars are owned by the lessees.

There are six master leases at the Airport. They are with Atlantic Aviation and Gunnell Properties, American Flyers, Krueger Aviation, The Santa Monica Air Center (Barker Hangar), and Santa Monica Art Studios. These master lessees, in turn, sublease to and manage over 200 subtenants, mostly hangar subtenants.

Most of the City's tenants (102) are on land currently designated for other than aviation-related used. There are also 74 subtenants on the non-aviation land, twelve of which are hangars at Santa Monica Air Center.

Airport Finances
During Fiscal Year 2014-2015, which ends June 30, 2015, the Airport continues to operate self-sufficiently.

During the years when the Airport was not self-sustaining, loans were made from the General Fund, which totaled $13.6 million as of June 30, 2014. The Airport Fund continues to make interest payments to the General Fund on the existing loan. Additionally, during this fiscal year, the Airport Fund will pay down the loan principal by making a payment of $500,000. This will be the first repayment of principal.

The 2014 Election
Almost immediately after the Council gave staff direction last March, aviation interests prepared and circulated a ballot measure for the November 2014 election. It would have amended the City Charter to require voter approval in order to close all or part of the Airport, to change the use of the Airport Land, or to impose new restrictions on fuel sales or the use of aviation facilities. Thus, among other things, the measure would have taken away the City Council's authority to close the Airport and reduced its power to control aviation-oriented uses of leaseholds. The measure, (denominated “Measure D” for "development"), was touted as necessary to protect the community from over-development of the land now occupied by the Airport. Measure D qualified for the ballot, though many community members questioned the veracity of representations made by the signature gatherers, who were compensated at a flat rate per signature.

In response, the City Council placed a competing measure on the ballot, Measure LC (for "local control"). It proposed allowing Council to retain its authority to close the Airport but amending the City Charter to require voter approval of future uses of the Airport land other than park, recreational and educational uses. Many residents campaigned in support of the City measure, and it passed. The conflicting measure failed, despite heavy financial backing from national aviation interests. The Daily Press reported on March 10th that aviation interests expended $872,593 in support of Measure D. Opponents of the measure and supporters of LC spent $155,711.

The Status of Pending Litigation
As to the Airport and Airport-related issues, this has been an extremely litigious year.

Litigation About Control Of The Land:

In 2013, the City filed City of Santa Monica v. FAA in federal court to establish its right, as property owner, to control future use of the Airport land. The FAA moved to dismiss the case on procedural grounds. The motion was granted based on the court's conclusion that the City's main claim was barred by the statute of limitations Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
and its other claims were not yet "ripe" (ready for adjudication). The City appealed, and the case is pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Briefing is complete. Based on experience in the Ninth Circuit, staff and outside counsel do not expect a decision until sometime in late 2016, after which the case may go back to the federal trial court or the losing party may petition the United States Supreme Court for review. The City is represented in this litigation by Morrison and Foerster, and their work is monitored by the City Attorney's Office.

Election Litigation:

City residents filed two lawsuits against the City, City officials and proponents of Ballot Measure D that were apparently intended to keep that measure off the ballot. The complaint in Redden v. Kokotakis, filed last May in state court, claimed that City officials violated state election law by improperly allowing the initiative to qualify for the ballot and by improperly preparing various required ballot materials. The City filed a special motion to strike, partly on the ground that the suit against City officials had no likelihood of success. Later, the initiative's proponents filed their own motion, using the same procedure. On August 19, the trial judge dismissed the lawsuit and later awarded attorney's fees against the plaintiffs and to the Measure D proponents. The plaintiffs appealed. And, in August of 2014, many of the same residents filed a second lawsuit, Hartley v. Logan, against many of the same defendants and the County, seeking to prevent the county from placing Measure D on the ballot. The trial judge refused to issue an injunction and dismissed the suit, and plaintiffs appealed. Both lawsuits recently settled after the City Council waived the City's right to attorney's fees, Council members individually asked the court not to award fees to the aviation interests, and staff did what it could to encourage the aviation interests to settle with the plaintiffs, which they did. The City Attorney's Office represented the City in these proceedings.

Part 16 Proceeding re Expiration of Grant Conditions:

Last July, national aviation associations and others initiated an administrative proceeding before the FAA under Part 16 of the agency's regulations. Petitioners assert that the City's grant obligations remain in effect and will not expire until 2023 (20 years after the 2003 amendment to the 1994 grant). The City responded to the petition by moving to dismiss the proceeding, petitioners filed a response, and the FAA did not rule on the motion. So, pursuant to FAA procedural rules, the City filed its answer to the petition, and petitioners replied. On February 23rd, the FAA requested supplemental information and briefing on the useful life of Airport improvements funded by the 2003 amendment to the 1994 grant. The Director's Determination, which was due on March 13th, may be available by the time Council hears this matter. Once issued, it will be subject to further FAA administrative review. A final decision from the FAA would likely be issued in late 2015 or early 2016. The Agency's final decision is reviewable in either the Ninth Circuit or the DC Circuit, a process which would likely take two years.

The City Attorney's Office is representing the City in this proceeding.

Landing Fee Litigation:

In December, an Airport user filed Top Gun v. Vector Airport Solutions/City against the City and the City's contractor that administers the landing fee program. The complaint alleges errors or improprieties in the administration of the program, including imposing charges against aircraft that enter the SMO airspace but do not actually land. Soon after filing the complaint, plaintiff sought an injunction to halt imposition of the landing fees. It was denied. The City Attorney's Office is defending the City.

Airport Litigation Arising From Plane Crashes:

The City has also been litigating cases arising from two separate crashes. These cases involve various claims, including that the Airport constitutes a dangerous condition on public property. Twelve lawsuits arose from the Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
fatal crash of September 2013, most of them filed against the estate of the pilot and the owner of the aircraft.

These cases have been deemed related with Dupont v. Estate of Mark Benjamin designated as the "lead case", and assigned to a single judge. The City is being defended and indemnified in that litigation by its insurance carrier Phoenix Aviation. Additionally, the City is seeking compensation in the litigation for property damage and expenses arising from the crash. That work is being handled by the City Attorney's Office. And, finally, Blanchard v. Justice Aviation/ City, which was filed in 2012, has very recently settled. It involved a 2011 accident in which a pilot trainee crashed a plane owned by Justice Aviation into property in Sunset Park, damaging a resident's garage/retaining wall. Justice Aviation paid most of the settlement, which also included a small contribution by the City's insurance carrier. Outside counsel paid by the City's insurance carrier represented the City in this case.

The Airport Commission's Recommendations And Work
During the past year, the Airport Commission has addressed several important issues, provided a forum for community input and formulated recommendations for minimizing Airport impacts by controlling emissions and recommendations for moving into the future. The Commission's most significant recommendations and a few other aspects of its work are summarized here.

As to aircraft emissions, the Commission considered a detailed presentation by one of its members which conveyed, among other things, a substantial amount of information about the harmful effects of aircraft emissions and the results of studies done on the levels of ultrafine particles and black carbon near SMO. The Commission also heard a presentation by a private attorney who urged that, as airport proprietor, the City has the authority to "enact a reasonable ordinance mandating that aircraft may no longer use [SMO] unless they have engines that are rated to meet newly-set limits related to air pollution emissions." This legal conclusion rested on the distinction between the City's police powers and its proprietary powers and upon the attorney's belief that there is a "proprietary exception to federal preemption" and the Clean Air Act therefore does not preempt the City from regulating aircraft emissions at its Airport. Based on this information, the Commission voted to recommend an ordinance intended to limit emissions by phasing out use of the Airport by the most polluting types of aircraft.

In response to the Commission's recommended ordinance, the National Business Aviation Association ("NBAA") wrote to the Mayor and Council, conveying its opposition to the recommended ordinance. The NBAA letter argues that the measure would be illegal because, among other things, it would be preempted by federal law. Specifically, NBAA noted that the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency, in conjunction with the FAA, exclusive jurisdiction over aircraft emission standards. The NBAA letter also urges that: the grant conditions and Instrument of Transfer prohibit the City from imposing emission restrictions that would limit aircraft operations; ANCA applies and prohibits access restrictions on Stage 2 and 3 aircraft without submitting a study to the FAA in advance; and federal law bars airports that have accepted federal funds from granting exclusive rights and allowing access to some aircraft operators while denying access to others.

In addition to recommending an ordinance limiting emissions, the Commission also considered emissions reductions at a workshop conducted by staff on alternative aviation fuels. One of the assistant directors of the South Coast Air Quality Management District presented information about the challenge his agency faces in reducing nitrogen oxide emissions by 2023 and how the use of alternative aviation fuels could assist in reaching that goal. Representatives of two companies described their successes at formulating a "drop in" jet biofuel that will be available later this year. It blends directly with petroleum jet fuel, thereby obviating the need to modify Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
aircraft, engines or fueling infrastructure. And, a representative of a third manufacturer discussed his company's participation in the Piston Alternative Fuels Initiative, which currently involves testing that will facilitate FAA evaluation of an unleaded fuel for propeller aircraft. He estimated that such products will be on the market by 2018.

Last month, the Commission approved and voted to recommend to Council a two part Action Plan for the Airport. Part I of the Commission's proposed plan calls for seeking the FAA's permission to remove the quitclaimed [western] parcel from aviation use, installing runway safety areas at each end of the runway, and [eventually] closing the remainder of the Airport. This recommendation is intended to “ripen” certain claims against the federal government. Part II recommends that Council act now to:
(1) recognize that the non-aviation parcel, south of Airport Avenue, was released from aviation use in 1984;
(2) renew the 166 leases on the Non-Aviation Parcel for any term at market rate through Council action; and
(3) adopt and implement the ordinance proposed by the Commission to limit emissions.

Additionally, Part II recommends actions to be taken after expiration of the 1984 Settlement Agreement:
(1) reclaiming the Gunnell and Atlantic buildings;
(2) entering into direct leases with ground lease subtenants on a month-to- month basis, at market rate - not a special aviation rate; and
(3) renewing leases with existing tenants on a month-to-month basis and at market rates – not lower aviation rates.

Input from the Community
Individual officials and community members offered many suggestions and comments during the last year, and staff has considered them all. Many were duplicative, and representative examples of the community input are provided here.

The Chair of the Airport Commission, acting as an individual, offered various suggestions and opinions. These include, among other things, that all leases should become month-to-month after July 1st to maximize planning flexibility, all rents should be at market rate, all fuel sales should be prohibited after July 1, 2015, and that City policy should not be driven by concerns about complaints filed with the FAA because, in his view, "the only penalty is no future airport improvement funds from the FAA." Other community members continued to steadily express safety concerns. One resident noted that: the current runway was designed and built during World War II by the federal government to accommodate military aircraft built for wartime operations -- a context in which civilian safety was not a major priority; the Airport does not have adequate space for the runway safety areas that the FAA requires at new airports; and the cost of providing runway protection zones would be approximately $750 million (because it would require buying up and destroying hundreds of homes).

The recent crash on the Penmar Golf Course intensified the debate about the Airport's safety and its safety relative to other airports in the region. Since that accident, aviation interests have argued that the Airport is both objectively safe and comparatively safe relative to other airports but could become unsafe if the City were to change the layout by, for instance, removing the western portion of the Airport from aviation use and shortening Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
the runway. Residents have continued to argue that the Airport is unsafe because of the lack of runway safety protections (safety areas or clear zones) and, most important, because of the unusual proximity of the runway ends to homes, a gas station, and other uses.

Community members expressed various views about leasing. One community member noted that the 1984 Agreement imposes certain leasing requirements, but the Instrument of Transfer and grant conditions do not explicitly state that the City must lease space to aviation tenants. So, he suggested simply adopting a leasing policy analogous to the low-density, Light Manufacturing Studio District policies and renewing any leases compliant with that policy at market rate, after July 1st. Alternatively, he suggested renewing leases only on a month-to-month basis.

Another community member presented a list of suggestions with commentary, which focuses on lease administration. It is detailed here partly because it is comprehensive, encompassing many suggestions advanced by others. The suggestions include, among other things:
Separately considering and administering the non-aviation parcel, which was released from aviation use by the 1984 Settlement Agreement;
Ending all aviation use of that parcel;
Hiring a private leasing agent to lease property through a competitive bid process and to administer leases on both aviation and non-aviation land; Raising rents to market rate;
Eliminating subleasing;
Offering two different terms: month-to-month and longer term for tenants that make specified concessions;
Dedicating all net revenues from leasing to a special fund to prepare for financing future uses approved by the voters through Measure LC.

This list of proposals also acknowledged strategies suggested by other community members. Those proposals include:
• closing all flight schools as incompatible with surrounding land uses, or at minimum requiring use of mufflers as a condition to any lease;
• prohibiting fuel sales at the Airport;
• closing the western parcel;
• shortening the runway;
• adding buffer zones;
• repurposing the land that would be freed up;
• limiting emissions; and
• repaying the 2003 grant adjustment.

However, the writer did not recommend any of these suggestions because each carries the risk of precipitating a Part 16 complaint.

While many community members focused their efforts on identifying specific actions that might be taken this year, others worked to advance their future goal of someday changing the use of all or part of the City's land Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
now used for an airport to a regional park. Of course, members of the aviation community strove to preserve the Airport in its current form.

Other Developments: the FAA's Work On The Southern California Metroplex and Advances In Alternative Fuels
During the last year, the FAA continued its work on the SoCal Metroplex project, which is intended to improve the efficiency of air transportation in Southern California by, among other things, optimizing aircraft arrival and departure procedures throughout the region. The FAA has stated that the project may involve changes in aircraft flight paths and altitudes in some areas but would not result in any "ground disturbance" or increase in the number of aircraft operations.

Staff has been monitoring the FAA's progress on this project since the FAA tested a new departure heading (the 250 degree heading), which routed departing aircraft over Ocean Park, rather than directly to the coastline. At the time, the FAA explained that an adjustment in the departure heading was required to avoid an intersection of the LAX and SMO departure paths over the ocean. Many City residents protested against the 250 degree heading, and staff argued against it on the community's behalf. The FAA said, at the time, that it would defer action and address the issue, later, as part of the SoCal Metroplex project.

Staff has met with local FAA representatives several times in the last year. Earlier this year, FAA representatives stated that Metroplex proposals relating to procedures at SMO were not yet fully developed.

FAA representatives stated that they anticipate providing details at the start of the FAA's Environmental Assessment and Safety Review (EA) process, which is scheduled to begin in June. There will be a number of community meetings after the draft EA is released on June 10th. Staff requested that at least one of the meetings be held in Santa Monica so that community members will have the opportunity to hear directly from FAA representatives and to voice concerns directly to them.

Elsewhere in the state, San Carlos Airport announced that, this summer, it will begin selling an unleaded fuel for use by aircraft. Also, the nonprofit Center for Environmental Health, based in Oakland, announced a recent legal settlement with aviation fuel companies, which lowers the maximum allowable lead content of airplane gasoline (avgas) sold at the state's largest airports. And, in Washington D.C., the White House is reviewing a plan by the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Discussion
Community debate and litigation have intensified with the approaching expiration of the 1984 Settlement Agreement and the leases at the Airport. Suggestions about what actions the City should take and when it should act have ranged from simple to highly nuanced. This section responds to the most significant suggestions and summarizes staff's recommendations.

For years, the City officials, the community, and City staff believed that the City could accomplish radical change in Airport operations and use of the land, this year, after the expiration of the 1984 Settlement Agreement.

Some community members and neighbors still argue that the City should close all or part of the Airport immediately after July 1st. In support of this argument, some have noted that the former mayor of Chicago bulldozed the runway at Meigs Field and closed that airport and has characterized the FAA as a "paper tiger" with no real authority to stop the City from closing all or part of the Airport. This line of argument is appealing, but it does not withstand legal scrutiny.

If the City Council were to decide to close all or part of the Airport and attempted to do so this year, after July 1 st, staff believes that the FAA would take immediate action based on its own views of the City's obligations.

Likely, it would issue an administrative order prohibiting the action and seek a federal injunction enforcing that order. This is just what the FAA did in 2008 in its litigation challenging the City's ordinance banning Category C&D aircraft, even though the ordinance was adopted to promote runway safety. And, the federal courts would likely uphold such an order as they did in the prior litigation.

Thus, although the expiration of the 1984 Agreement and the leases are significant events, as a practical matter, they will not free the City to do as it pleases with the Airport. To the contrary, the City will not have full control of the land that is now used for the Airport unless and until the legal disputes about the Instrument of Transfer and the expiration of the grant assurances are resolved in court. That process is underway. It will continue to be hard fought; and it will likely take several more years. But, resolution will eventually come.

In the meantime, the City faces the problems of how to keep the Airport as safe as possible while attempting to reduce adverse impacts on residents and neighbors, and maintaining the Airport’s financial self-sufficiency, while minimizing legal risks and costs to the extent possible.

Possible City Actions
The practical reality that the City may not now be in the position to reduce or eliminate the Airport does not mean that the City is powerless to act to protect residents and the environment. Certain possible actions that may be taken for those purposes are discussed in this section.

Leasing While Awaiting Legal Resolution
The City’s most substantial opportunity for effectuating change this year is presented by the expiration of all Airport leases that currently remain in effect. (Many of the Airport tenancies are month-to-month.) However, using this opportunity presents challenges. The leases and subleases are numerous. Uses are diverse. The buildings are of varying ages and in varying states of repair. Given these realities, staff has endeavored to formulate recommendations that may be less than ideal but which are appropriate given the City's goals and the circumstances. And, in doing so, staff has considered the proposals made by community members and the recommendations made by the Airport Commission. Staff agrees with and recommends several of them.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
First, staff recommends that any submarket rents should be increased to provide appropriate Airport revenues and meet legal requirements. Because of the number of leases, assessing each and effectuating appropriate increases is a large project. It will take time, and require negotiations. There are, and will continue to be, disputes about lease valuation, market rates and proposed increases. This is inevitable, partly because the airport leasing market differs significantly from other commercial markets and particularly from the office market. However, experience at SMO, particularly evidence of the profitability of subleases, indicates that the property is desirable to a range of tenants. Thus, it appears that the SMO market will bear higher rents on many of the Airport leaseholds. Moreover, the FAA generally requires that all non-aviation leases be at market rates; and the Council has committed to keeping the Airport financially self-sufficient and paying down its General Fund loan.

Second, staff recommends re-evaluating and re-negotiating the master leases in order to maximize revenue to the City and ensure accountability. Several of the master lessors are benefitting from historic low rents, which may have been appropriate once, but are no longer; and they are charging their subtenants current market rates, which are significantly higher, thus reaping substantial profits. Staff proposes two approaches to solve this problem: terminating some subleases and taking a share of the profit on the others through the incorporation of a percentage of rent provision into the master leases.

Staff believes this two-pronged approach is preferable to attempting to eliminate all subleases for several reasons. Eliminating all subleases and negotiating separate leases for each current subtenant or space occupied by a subtenant would be an enormous amount of work. The six master lessees currently manage the leases of more than 200 subtenants. If subtenancies were eliminated, wholesale, the City would be managing more than 400 Airport leases (not including over 200 tie-down license agreements). Negotiating all of them would take at least a year.

Moreover, a master lease with subleases to small businesses is the norm in airport leasing throughout the region and beyond. And, it has advantages for airport proprietors. Master tenants administer their own subleases and are responsible for maintaining the property. If subleases are prohibited, the City will have to absorb those costs and risks, which are significant. Some have suggested that the City should simply lease these properties out to office tenants. But, doing so would likely spawn a new Part 16 proceeding in which aviation interests will claim, among other things, that the grant assurances remain in place and that, while they do, the City must maintain basic aviation services and not discriminate against aviation services. And, the City should insist on compliance with all applicable environmental laws and make appropriate arrangements for clean-up of hazardous materials incidents, both past and future.

Staff concurs with the Commission and community that the master leases must be renegotiated. However, staff recommends that Council afford flexibility in the means of addressing the problem of how to maximize City revenues from sub-tenancies. This may include contracting for property management services. As to some properties, that approach may ultimately prove to be the best option. Accordingly, as discussed below, staff recommends a flexible approach to handling all the complex leasing renewals and updates.

Third, staff concurs and recommends that the non-aviation land should be devoted to non-aviation uses, including, perhaps, the recreational uses that have been previously considered for that property. In the short Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
term, the City can begin this transition by replacing the aviation businesses on the non-aviation land with new tenants and, if necessary, relocating the aviation businesses and other aviation uses (tie downs).

Fourth, staff agrees and recommends that private, professional assistance should be secured to assist the City with Airport lease negotiations. This recommendation is based, in part, on the exceptional volume of leasing work occasioned by the expiration of all of the leases in a single year. Later this month, staff intends to issue a Request for Proposals for such services within staff's authority, and intends to work with the selected consultant to negotiate or renegotiate leases. This experience will inform any future recommendations about using private leasing agents for additional services.

As to the leasing of particular aviation parcels, many current tenants and subtenants have requested new leases. Other aviation and non-aviation tenants have advised that the present uncertainty has caused them to consider leaving the Airport. For now, staff is recommending that Council consider five leases in the context of this agenda item.

The Museum of Flying has requested renewal of its lease, noting that uncertainty about its future significantly hinders fundraising and impairs its ability to book future events (for which space is often reserved far in advance). Renewing the museum's lease will not only ensure the viability of the museum as a repository for Airport history, it will also serve the Council's goal of promoting the placement of educational and cultural uses on the south side of the Airport.

Atlantic Aviation (2800 Donald Douglas Loop North) and two of its current subtenants have each requested separate new leases. Granting their requests would serve the City's goal of eliminating subleases that divert revenue to "middlemen". The revenues that have been going to Atlantic Aviation as sublease rent from Volkswagen/Audi and Milstein, Adelman & Kreeger would flow directly to the City, significantly enhancing City revenues.

As to Atlantic's request for a new lease for the remainder of the leasehold, which actually is now used for its present operation, staff believes a new lease with Atlantic is practically prudent. Staff anticipates that, if the City were to deny a lease, the federal government will likely take action against the City, perhaps based on a claim of discrimination in violation of the grant assurances. Such action would likely be based on the FAA's belief that the type of aviation services provided on the leasehold must be provided so long as the Airport remains open or open to business jets, which it unavoidably likely will for the next few years. It probably will take that long to resolve the litigation about the Instrument of Transfer and grant conditions, and meanwhile the FAA would doubtless take the position that denying services for jet aircraft would violate the grant conditions. Moreover, Atlantic is located on the north side of the Airport, which has long been identified as the preferable location for aviation businesses. And, when the Atlantic lease expires, the City will own the building, and ownership will bring significant new maintenance costs and responsibilities. Additionally, Atlantic has indicated its willingness to work with the City on environmental issues such as alternative fuel sales; and specific environmental obligations could be incorporated into any new lease.

Krueger Aviation (2701 Airport Avenue), another of the master lessors, has also requested a new lease.

Krueger subleases to three, small non-aviation businesses (a law office, an architect and an interior designer), subleases to an aircraft maintenance facility, and also subleases tie-downs. Airport staff is recommending negotiation of a new lease because the maintenance services provided on this leasehold promote safety and Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
because the operation does not create particularly adverse impacts. And, any issues of revenue diversion can be addressed in negotiations.

As to each of these leases, staff is proposing three year terms with one year extensions at the City’s sole option. This proposal reflects the reality that it will almost certainly take that long to resolve the legal issues, and the revenue from Airport leases must be maintained in the meanwhile to maintain the Airport's financial selfsufficiency. In addition, staff anticipates undertaking negotiations with the other master lessees to, among other things, address issues relating to subleases and adverse impacts on neighbors.

Staff anticipates that, while it focuses on the master leases in order to maximize revenues and ensure accountability, other leases will continue on a month-to-month basis with lease rates increased as appropriate.

Further, to adequately maintain the Airport Fund balance, staff requests authorization to re-negotiate individual leases on a case by case basis and then bring them to Council for approval.

Curtailing Emissions
Some of the disagreement over the last year about what the City can and should do with regard to emissions relates to a difference of opinion about the extent of the City's legal authority as Airport proprietor. A local attorney made a presentation to the Commission about the City's proprietary rights. Legal staff agrees with him that Congress and the courts have recognized that airport proprietors have rights not shared by nonproprietors. However, neither the Congress nor the courts have defined the scope of proprietors’ rights. And, the FAA vigorously enforces its belief that proprietors' rights were always limited to noise regulation and that Congress has now preempted new local regulation in that field by adopting ANCA, which establishes a federal procedure and requirements for changing local noise restrictions. The City certainly does not concur with the FAA's narrow interpretation of airport proprietors' rights. However, it is important to recognize that this is a complex area, very likely to engender litigation.

Nonetheless, the presentation to the Airport Commission included the argument that proprietor's rights are substantial enough to obviate federal preemption in the area of emissions controls. The presenter cited Engine Manufacturers Ass'n v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 498 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2007). In that case, trade associations and diesel fuel producers challenged fleet rules adopted by the California's Air Quality Management District, which required both public and some private fleet owners to choose vehicles meeting specified emissions standards or containing specified alternative-fuel engines when they expanded their fleets.

Plaintiffs claimed that the state's fleet rules were preempted by federal law. The federal trial court ruled in favor of the District, holding that the rules were not preempted by the Clean Air Act. The federal appellate court affirmed, and the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit. It held that the fleet rules governing procurement by state and local governments were not preempted because the government entities were acting as market participants in purchasing vehicles, not as regulators.

This case does not stand for the proposition that a local governmental entity that owns an airport can impose emissions restrictions on private purchasers and owners of aircraft in contravention of the express language of the Clean Air Act which specifically prohibits such action. Rather, the case might mean that if City funds were to be expended to purchase aircraft, the City could require that certain performance standards be met, such as that the aircraft be able to operate on alternative fuels. However, as to privately purchased and owned aircraft, the case does not stand for the proposition that the City can ignore the Clean Air Act and regulate aircraft emissions.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Contingency Planning for the Future & And a Possible Ballot Measure As litigation regarding the Instrument of Transfer and grant assurances proceeds, staff recommends that the City continue to devote resources to contingency planning for the future of the Airport and the City's land now used for the Airport. Substantial environmental work, CEQA review and planning actions would be necessary to significantly alter the use of the land. This would include a thorough investigation of the environmental conditions at the Airport to estimate the scope of the full investigational work that would be required in the future. Among other things, this preliminary work should include an initial cost estimate of what would be necessary to investigate potential contamination issues. Preliminary consideration of CEQA requirements for changes in use would help to prepare the City for a decision on the process and alternatives to be considered.

Possible changes in the City's General Plan and zoning laws should also be considered.

Staff also recommends devoting City resources to consideration of a potential ballot measure for 2016 regarding possible future uses of the Airport land. The success of the City’s ballot measure in 2014 (and the defeat of the aviation interests’ measure) means that potential future use of all or part of the Airport land for recreational and cultural purposes would not require voter approval. However, it is possible that the City’s interests would be best served by allowing some other future uses at some locations on the land. For instance, it might be beneficial to the community to situate certain City government improvements at the Airport, such as an environmental center. Also, certain community serving uses, such as restaurants, and certain commercial uses, such as office uses on the north side, could continue to generate revenue to fund community amenities.

Alternatives
Leases
At least theoretically, a wide range of alternatives exist for Council's direction to staff on leasing strategies. For instance, at the extremes, Council could instruct staff to simply maintain all current tenancies on a month-tomonth basis during this time of legal uncertainty in order to maintain maximum flexibility. Or, Council could instruct staff to end the tenancies of all current tenants after July 1st and simply rent the leaseholds to the highest bidders. However, the former alternative may jeopardize revenues because uncertainty may induce some tenants to leave and may reduce rents paid by future tenants. Moreover, more litigation will likely ensue if aviation services provided by current tenants are not replaced. So, staff recommends against these extremes.

Council could also direct staff to return with leasing guidelines, so that individual leases conforming to the guidelines would not require Council approval. However, any guidelines that appear to disfavor aviation uses will likely be challenged; and Council approval of leases maximizes transparency.

Another alternative would be to maintain all tenancies, except the master lessees', as month-to-month. This is one of the Airport Commission's recommendations. However, staff recommends against this approach in order to keep the Airport financially sound, so long as the City must operate it. Leases have the potential to generate significantly more rent than month-to-month tenancies because tenants value stability. Also, offering leases gives staff the leverage to negotiate conditions that curtail adverse Airport impacts. Thus, staff recommends against prohibiting all new leases. Moreover, authorizing staff to negotiate individual leases, as appropriate and for Council review, will not impair future flexibility because staff proposes that all leases should end by July 1, 2018, at the latest, with any annual extensions beyond that date to be at the City's sole discretion.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
The Commission has also recommended eliminating all uses of Airport land that are incompatible with surrounding residential uses and eliminating fuel sales that are not required by contracts. For example, the Commission has recommended eliminating all fuel sales except those which the City is contractually obligated to allow. However, establishing a City policy of eliminating uses that the federal government likely views as essential to Airport operations may trigger yet more litigation. Thus, staff recommends addressing adverse impacts and promoting compatibility mainly through negotiated lease provisions.

Restrictions on Land Uses
Also, in 2013, the Commission recommended eliminating aviation use of the western parcel of the Airport.

Again, adopting this as City policy would likely provoke more litigation. However, it may be possible to work towards this goal through negotiations with tenants.

Funding Future Uses
The suggestion that net revenues from leasing be set aside to fund future, non-aviation, use of the land, such as a park, is an alternative that should be noted because it will likely appeal to many. However, given the federal government's demands about the use of leasing proceeds, staff does not recommend this possibility at this time.

Emission Controls
As to reducing aircraft emissions, Council could direct staff to return with an emission control ordinance, such as the one recommended by the Commission. But, as explained above, such an ordinance will likely be challenged immediately as preempted by federal law; and a favorable outcome is doubtful. Addressing emissions through negotiated lease terms or practices that require or encourage the provision of alternative fuels and increase efficiencies in operations is therefore a better alternative.

Future of the Airport
As to directions relating to the Airport’s future, the range of alternatives is broad. For instance, the Council could make a decision, now, to close all or part of the Airport as soon as that becomes possible. However, that action would only be symbolic because, as explained above, during the pendency of the litigation about the grant assurances, any radical change undertaken by the City will likely be enjoined.

Many have hoped that offering to repay grant money to the FAA would resolve the dispute over grant assurances or at least better position the City in litigation. However, as a practical and legal matter, the City cannot shorten the duration of that litigation by simply offering to or actually paying back the grant money received in 2003.

Likewise, as recommended by the Airport Commission, the City could ask the FAA's permission to close all or part of the Airport. Based on the FAA's positions to date, such a request would certainly be denied. The Commission recommended the request in order to "ripen" certain issues for litigation. However, there is no immediate need for that action. The current Ninth Circuit appeal in the City's case and the aviation interests' Part 16 case remain pending, and these cases are likely to provide answers to some key legal questions.

Second, should circumstances change, such a Council decision could be made at any time in the future.

Finally, there is much contingency environmental, CEQA and planning work that needs to be done before such a decision would be meaningful in terms of actually changing use of the land.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Next Steps
Depending upon Council’s direction, staff foresees bringing the remainder of the master leases, and perhaps other individual leases, to Council within the next six months. Also, staff will return to Council with a written report on progress with leasing, contingency planning for the future, and further recommendations regarding a possible ballot measure before the end of the year.

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
No budget actions are necessary at this time to effectuate the recommendations made in this report.

If staff’s leasing recommendations are approved, lease revenues will increase. For instance, City leases with two of Atlantic’s current subtenants would significantly increase City revenues from that parcel.

In general, if Council opts for a course or courses of action that spark additional litigation, litigation costs will increase, particularly if it is necessary to hire outside counsel.

Prepared by: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Approved: Forwarded to Council:

Marsha Jones Moutrie
City Attorney
Elaine M. Polachek
Interim City Manager
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. RECEIVED
AUG 12 2024
MARK SMITH, ET AL., PART 16 DOCKES
Complainants,
Docket No. 16-24-09

CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.

CITY OF SANTA MONICA'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
Please serve the following with papers in this proceeding:

Scott P. Lewis
[email protected]
Melissa C. Allison
mallisonandersonkreiger.com
Carlos R. Rosende
crosendeandersonkreiger.com

ANDERSON & KREIGER LLP
50 Milk Street, Suite 2100
Boston, MA 02118
T: 617.621.6560
F: 617.621.6660
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D.C.

MARK SMITH, ET AL.,
Complainants,
Docket No. 16-24-09

CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.

CITY OF SANTA MONICA'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.26(b)(1)(i) & (b)(1)(iii), Respondent, City of Santa Monica, California ("City"), moves to dismiss, with prejudice, the complaint filed by Mark Smith, Kim Davidson Aviation, Inc. and the National Business Aviation Association, Inc. (collectively, "Complainants") docketed by FAA on July 23, 2004 for the following reasons:

1. The claims that the City is violating the standards of various grant assurances appear on their face to be outside FAA's jurisdiction because these claims arise under the 2017 Settlement Agreement between FAA and the City, not under the Acts listed in 14 C.F.R. § 16.1(a).

2. The Complainants lack standing to file a complaint alleging the City is violating the Settlement Agreement.

3. The Complainants lack standing to file a complaint alleging hypothetical and speculative claims under 49 U.S.C. § 47133.
2 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
The City has submitted a supporting memorandum oflaw as required by 14 C.F.R. § 16.26(b)(l).

By its attorneys,
/s/Scott P. Lewis
Scott P. Lewis
Melissa C. Allison
Carlos R. Rosende

ANDERSON & KREIGER LLP
50 Milk Street, Suite 2100
Boston, MA 02118
617.621.6500
[email protected]
Douglas T. Sloan
City Attorney
Susan Y. Cola
Assistant City Attorney
Ivan 0. Campbell
Deputy City Attorney

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
1685 Main Street, Room 310
Santa Monica, CA 90401
310.458.8233
[email protected]
Counsel for Respondent
August 12, 2024
3 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify' in accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 16.15(a) that I have on this day served the foregoing City of Santa Monica's Motion to Dismiss on the following persons at the following addresses by email:

FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk
AGC-600
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20591
[email protected]
Jol A. Silversmith
KIVIA Zuckert LLC
888 17th Street, NW, Suite 620
Washington, DC 20006-3309
[email protected]
Is! Car/os R. Rosende
Carlos R. Rosende
August 12, 2024
ru
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D.C.

MARK SMITH, ET AL.,
Complainants,
V.

AUG 12 2024
PART 16 DOCKETS
Docket No. 16-24-09

CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF SANTA

MONICA'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
The Complaint by Mark Smith, Kim Davidson Aviation, Inc. and the National Business Aviation Association, Inc. (collectively, "Complainants") was filed soon after the City of Santa Monica ("City") established new rates and charges for aeronautical users at Santa Monica Airport (the "Airport"). Effective July 1, 2024, the City reduced all of its aeronautical rates and charges by 53% (Complaint ¶ 5). The City offered a detailed description ofits rate-setting methodology and supporting calculations (Complaint Ex. 3). As the City explained, its ratesetting methodology was designed to eliminate the Airport's aeronautical surplus by the time the City may lawfully close the Airport (Ex. 3, pp. 2-3). The central issue presented by the Complaint is whether the City has a legal obligation to also take the Airport's nonaeronautical surplus into account in setting its aeronautical rates and charges.

The Complainants allege that the City's rate-setting violated the standards of grant assurances 22 and 24 in four ways: (1) the distinction between aeronautical and nonaeronautical Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
surplus is a "City-created fiction" (Complaint ¶J 23-34); (2) the City's allocations ofsurplus are "unjustified" (JJ 35-39); (3) the City failed to explain its allocations (J1J 40-46); and (4) the City's rate-setting method was not "transparent" (JJ 47-52). The Complaint also alleges that the City's plans to use any remaining airport revenue for "general municipal purposes" ifthe City closes the Airport in the future would violate the standards of grant assurance 25 and 49 U.S.C. § 47133 (JJ 53-57). There is no allegation in the Complaint that the City is currently using airport revenue for any unlawful purpose.

The City has moved to dismiss the Complaint for two reasons: FAA has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the "standards of grant assurances" claims under Part 16, and the Complainants lack standing to pursue this action. Although the Complaint acknowledges that FAA and the City entered into a settlement agreement, the Complainants overlook the consequences ofthe 2017 Settlement Agreement for FAA'sjurisdiction and their own standing. A copy ofthe Settlement Agreement is attached to this memorandum as Exhibit 1.1 The Settlement Agreement bars FAA from exercising Part 16 jurisdiction to consider the Complainants' allegations that the City is violating the standards of any ofthe grant assurances and precludes the Complainants from having standing to maintain these claims. The Complainants also have no standing to pursue their speculative claim under § 47133.

Even though the Settlement Agreement was not attached to the Complaint, the City can properly rely on its full text when moving to dismiss because the claims alleged expressly depend upon the Settlement Agreement. See Complaint ¶ 7 ("The Settlement Agreement signed by the FAA and the City on January 30, 2017 requires the City to abide by those and other grant assurances, and does not exempt the City from compliance with federal statutes"). Federal courts routinely endorse this "incorporation by reference" approach in such circumstances See, e.g., Khosa v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 999, 1002 (9th Cir. 2018). Alternatively, because there can be no genuine dispute about the authenticity of an agreement FAA itself entered into, FAA could simply take judicial notice ofthe Settlement Agreement under Fed. R. Evid. 20 1(b). See Khosa, 899 F.3d at 999. Either way, the City's reliance on the full text ofthe Settlement Agreement does not convert its motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. See Tellabs, Inc. v. MakorIssues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); Khosa, 899 F.3d at 998.
2 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Argument
I. FAA HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE CLAIMS THAT THE CITY IS VIOLATING THE SETTLEMENTAGREEMENT.

The 2017 Settlement Agreement released the City from any remaining obligations under the grant assurances it had given FAA. As set forth in Section VI, the City's only pertinent federal obligations are to comply with "(i) the standards set forth in grant assurances 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 30; and (ii) all applicable state and federal operational, maintenance and safety standards." That is why the Complaint speaks in terms ofthe "substantive standards" ofthe grant assurances, rather than the grant assurances themselves (see, e.g., Complaint ¶ 23). FAA has no jurisdiction to consider such breach of contract claims, however, and agreed that the federal court would have exclusive jurisdiction for any enforcement actions under the Settlement Agreement. FAA should therefore dismiss all the claims that the City has violated its duty under the Settlement Agreement to comply with the standards of any grant assurances.

A. The Claims Invoking the Standards of Various Grant Assurances Do Not Arise Under Any Federal Statute or Grant Agreement.

FAA does not have general jurisdiction under Part 16 to entertain complaints by aviation users that airport sponsors are violating their federal obligations. Instead, FAA has limited its jurisdiction under Part 16 to cases initiated by FAA itself or third-party complaints arising under certain statutory authorities specifically enumerated in 14 CFR § 16.1(a). See, e.g., Star Marianas Air, Inc. v. Commonwealth Ports Authority, FAA Docket No. 16-18-01, Director's Determination, 2020 WL 5270629 at *15 (May 5, 2020) (PFC-related claims outside jurisdiction); Resort Aviation Services, Inc. v. Kootenai County, Idaho, FAA Docket No. 16-20-01, Order of the Director, 2020 WL 3482509 at *5 (Apr. 30, 2020) (no jurisdiction to decide Constitutional issues); Robinson Air Crane, LLC v. Saint Lucie County, Florida, FAA 3 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Docket No. 16-18-02, Director's Determination, 2019 WL 10272358 at *10 (July 19, 2019) (antitrust claims dismissed for want ofjurisdiction); Dean Pappas v. Northwest Arkansas RegionalAirport, Docket No. 16-18-05, Order ofthe Director, 2018 WL 11191812 at *1 (Oct. 9, 2018) (complaint alleging violations of advisory circular dismissed as "on its face. . .outside the jurisdiction ofthe Administrator under the Acts listed in § 16.1") FAA has often properly exercised jurisdiction under 14 CFR § 16.1(a)(5) to adjudicate claims that airport sponsors are violating the grant assurances required by the Airport and Airways Improvement Act ("AAIA"), 49 U.S.C. § 47107. As a result ofthe Settlement Agreement, however, the city is no longer subject to any "assurances or other Federal obligations contained in grant-in-aid agreements issued under the AAIA," as required by § 16.1(a)(5). FAA has no jurisdiction under § 16.1(a)(5) or otherwise to consider the complainants' claims that the City is violating its obligation under the Settlement Agreement to comply with the standards of any grant assurances.2
B. The Federal Court Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Resolve Compliance Disputes Arising Under the Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Agreement independently establishes that FAA has no jurisdiction to enforce the city's obligations through an administrative proceeding. It provides in Section I: "If one ofthe Parties alleges a breach ofthe terms or conditions ofthis Agreement, the exclusive venue for remedying such a breach shall be the court having jurisdiction over the consent Decree" -the United States District court (emphasis added). consistent with this provision, the 2 FAA's Final Decision and Order in Santa Monica Airport Association v. City ofSanta Monica, CA, Docket No. 16-99-2 1, 2003 WL 1963858 at *5..6 (Feb. 4, 2003), notes that SMAA had previously brought a Part 16 complaint against the City in March 1998 alleging that the City had breached an earlier, 1984 Settlement Agreement with FAA, and that FAA promptly dismissed that complaint less than three weeks later because FAA did not consider alleged violations ofthe 1984 Settlement Agreement to be within the scope of Part 16. FAA should act with similar dispatch in the present case. The City has been unable to locate a copy of FAA's 1998 dismissal order. ru
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Settlement Agreement provides in ¶ VIII.F ("Enforcement") that FAA and the City each "reserve the right to judicially enforce any terms or provisions ofthis Agreement" (emphasis added).

There is nothing in the Consent Decree that allows FAA to commence or conduct an administrative enforcement proceeding concerning alleged violations ofthe Settlement Agreement.

For each ofthese two reasons, FAA should dismiss all the claims in the Complaint implicating the Settlement Agreement for want ofjurisdiction under 14 CFR § 16.26(b)(l)(i).

II. THE COMPLAINANTS DO NOT HAVE STANDING.

A. The Settlement Agreement Bars Third-Party Complaints Alleging Violations of the Standards of Rate-Setting or Revenue-Use Assurances.

When it entered into the Settlement Agreement, FAA reserved its own enforcement rights but agreed that no private party could bring an action to compel the City to comply with its obligations under the Settlement Agreement. Paragraph VIII.K ofthe Settlement Agreement provides (original emphasis):

No Third Party Rights. This Agreement is not intended to create, and does not create, any third-party beneficiary rights, confer upon any non-party a right to enforce or sue for an alleged breach ofthe Agreement, or generate any other kind ofright or privilege for any person, group, or entity other than the Parties.

This provision bars any assertion that the Complainants have standing to seek to enforce the City's obligations under the Settlement Agreement.

FAA agreed that it would "vigorously defend" the Settlement Agreement, and not "undermine" it, "directly or indirectly." See Settlement Agreement, ¶ VIII.F. Allowing the Complainants to proceed with their claims that the City failed to comply with the standards of any ofthe grant assurances would contravene the Settlement Agreement's unambiguous enforcement provisions. FAA must therefore dismiss all the claims that the 5 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
City has violated the Settlement Agreement by failing to comply with the standards of various grant assurances governing airport rate-setting and revenue use.

B. The Complainants Cannot Claim to be "Directly and Substantially Affected" by Hypothetical Future Violations of 49 U.S.C. § 47133.

FAA should also dismiss the Complainants' claim under 49 U.S.C. § 47133 for want of standing. They do not allege that the City is currently diverting airport revenue. Instead, their focus is on the Airport's "potential closure" (Complaint ¶ 39, emphasis added). They allege that the City intends "to use any remaining 'non-aeronautical' surplus for general fund purposes f SMO closes" in the future, as the Settlement Agreement allows (Complaint ¶ 31, emphasis added), and claim this would violate 49 U.S.C. § 47133 (Complaint ¶ 54). There is no allegation, nor could there be, that the City has made a binding final decision to close the Airport on January 1, 2029 or at any future time. Underscoring the abstract and theoretical nature of their claim, in what amounts to their prayer for reliefthe Complainants ask FAA to "consider whether the City's rationale for accumulating the 'non-aeronautical surplus' is itself an independent violation ofthe standards of assurance #25 as well as the requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 47133" (ComplaintJ 57, emphasis added).

As FAA explained 30 years ago when it proposed the "directly and substantially affected" standing requirement: "Part 16 could not be used to obtain advisory opinions on speculative actions or academic questions." NPRIVI: "Rules of Practice for Federally Assisted Airport Proceedings," 59 Fed. Reg. 29880, 29882 (Jun. 9, 1994). When it promulgated the final rule two years later, FAA noted that "the final rule adopts the 'directly and substantially affected' standard ofthe NPRM." Final Rule: "Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Proceedings," 61 Fed. Reg. 53998, 53998 (Oct. 16, 1996). As FAA explained, "Complaints by persons not 'directly and substantially affected' by the respondent's alleged noncompliance will Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
be subject to dismissal with prejudice under Part 16." Id. That is exactly what should happen here.3
FAA frequently reminds the aviation community that when reviewing Part 16 complaints, the agency's focus is always on current compliance. Typically, FAA invokes this principle when declining to review allegations of past noncompliance that has been cured. See, e.g., Platinum Aviation andPlatinum Jet Center BM[ v. Bloomington-Normal Airport Authority, FAA Docket No. 16-06-09, Final Decision and Order, 2007 WL 4854321 at *5, *32 (Nov. 28, 2007); see also Wilson Air Center, LLC v. Memphis and Shelby County Airport Authority, FAA Docket No. 16-99-10, Final Decision and Order, 2001 WL 1085348 at *4 (Aug. 20, 2001). The same logic should apply when FAA is presented with speculative allegations of future violations.

FAA should not devote its scarce resources to the consideration of hypothetical questions.

For all these reasons, FAA should dismiss all the claims in the Complaint under 14 CFR § 16.26(b)(1)(iii) for lack of standing.

This case is not like National Business Aviation Association v. City ofSanta Monica, Docket No. 16-14-04, Final Agency Decision, 2016 WL 9685579 at *16..17 (Aug. 15, 2016). In that case, FAA found the Director's Determination that the City remained bound by its grant assurances until 2023 was not an improper "advisory opinion" because the City was contending that its grant obligations had already expired and, FAA found, the City was rejecting "not only the term, but by implication, all its obligations as well." On this basis, FAA found the duration ofthe City's grant obligations was not a "hypothetical controversy." Id. at *17. Here, in contrast, FAA may never need to address the question of whether § 47133 could somehow continue to govern the use of airport revenue ifthe City elects to close the Airport in the future because the City may decide to keep the Airport open -and even ifthe City closes the Airport, it may need to use any remaining airport revenue for undeniably lawful airport purposes such as the cleanup of environmental contamination at the former Douglas Aircraft airplane manufacturing site (see Ex. 3, p. 5).
7 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Conclusion
FAA should promptly dismiss the Complaint with prejudice on both jurisdictional and standing grounds and relieve the City ofthe substantial burden of preparing an Answer.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Scott P. Lewis
Scott P. Lewis
Melissa C. Allison
Carlos R. Rosende

ANDERSON & KREIGER LLP
50 Milk Street, Suite 2100
Boston, MA 02118
617.621.6500
slewis@andersonkreiger. corn
Douglas T. Sloan
City Attorney
Susan Y. Cola
Assistant City Attorney
Ivan 0. Campbell
Deputy City Attorney
CiTY OF SANTA MONICA
1685 Main Street, Room 310
Santa Monica, CA 90401
310.458.8233
[email protected]
Counsel for Respondent
August 12, 2024
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Certificate of Service
Thereby certif,i in accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 16.15(a) that I have on this day served the foregoing Memorandum in Support of City of Santa Monica's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on the following persons at the following addresses by email:

FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk
AGC-.600
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20591
[email protected]
Jol A. Silversmith
KMA Zuckert LLC
888 l7t1 Street, NW, Suite 620
Washington, DC 20006-3309
[email protected]
Is! Car/os R. Rosende
Carlos R. Rosende
August 12, 2024
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
EXHIBIT 1
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Case 2:13-cv-08046-JFW-VBK Document 57 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:1030

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF SANTA MONICA,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 13 -CV-8046-JFW (VBKx)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.

Respondent.

STIPULATION AND ORDER/CONSENT DECREE
It is stipulated by and between the undersigned parties by their respective attorneys that:

The Court has jurisdiction over each of the parties, and venue ofthis action is proper in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

2. The City of Santa Monica (the City) filed this case seeking to quiet title to certain properties and the United States disputes these claims. Live controversies exist between the parties including these and other issues.

3. The parties consent to the Court's entry ofthe Settlement Agreement in the form attached to this Stipulation and Order/Consent Decree.

4. The parties' execution ofthis Stipulation and Order/Consent Decree and the Settlement Agreement shall settle and resolve any and all claims of the City arising from the events giving rise to the allegations described in the Complaint in this action and in certain other proceedings between the parties, as provided in the Settlement Agreement.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Case 2:13-cv-08046-JFW-VBK Document 57 Piled 02/01/17 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:1031 Neither this Stipulation and Order/Consent Decree nor the attached Settlement Agreement shall be construed to preclude the United States or the Federal Aviation Administration from bringing an action against the City for any violation(s) of any laws, regulations or orders other than those addressed in the Settlement Agreement.

6. In the event that the proposed Settlement Agreement is not entered pursuant to this Stipulation and Order/Consent Decree, this Stipulation shall become null and void and shall be of no effect whatever, and the making ofthis Stipulation shall be without prejudice to any party in this or any other proceeding.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Case 2:13-cv-08046-JFW-VBK Document 57 Filed 02/01/17 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:1032 For the Federal Aviation Administration:

Reginald C. Govan
Chief Counsel
Federal Aviation Administration
For the Department of Justice

JOYCE BRANDA
Acting Assistant Attorney General
EILEEN M. DECKER
United States Attorney

JUDRY SUBAR
Assistant Branch Director
RAPHAEL 0. GOMEZ (D.C. Bar #3 05540)
Senior Trial Counsel
U.S. Department ofJustice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883
Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: (202) 514-1318
Facsimile: (202) 616-8460
[email protected]
GARY D. FELDON (D.C. Bar #987 142)
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department ofJustice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883
Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: (202) 514-4686
Fax: (202) 616-8460
Email: Gary.D.Feldonusdoj.gov
Dated:

For the City of Santa Monica:

JOSEPH LAWRENCE
Interim City Attorney
LANCE S. GAMS
Chief Deputy City Attorney
3 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Case 2:13-cv-08046-JFW-VBK Document 57 Filed 02/01/17 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:1033 IVAN 0. CAMPBELL
Deputy City Attorney
1685 Main Street, Third Floor
Santa Monica, CA 9040 1-3295
Telephone: 310-458-8336
Facsimile: 310-393-6727
ARTURO J. GONZALEZ
agonza1ezmofo.corn
Morrison & Forester LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: 415-268-7000
Facsimile: 415-268-7522
WILLIAM V. O'CONNOR, JR.

[email protected]
JOANNA L. SIMON
JoannaSimon@mofo. corn
Morrison & Foerster LLP
12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: 858-720-5100
Facsimile: 858-720-5125
WILLIAM V. O'CONNOR, JR.

Dated: January _____,2017
IT IS SO ORDERED by this Court, this 1st day of February, 2017, at Los Angeles, California.

Honorai5te-$ehii F. Walter
United States District Court
For the Central District of California
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Case 2:13-cv-08046-JFW-VBK Document 57 Filed 02/01/17 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:1034

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT/CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE FEDERAL

AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AND THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
The United States of America, acting through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the City of Santa Monica, CA (City) (collectively, the Parties) enter into this Settlement Agreement (Agreement), by and through their undersigned representatives, to resolve the disputes outlined below and pertaining to the operation ofthe Santa Monica Municipal Airport (Airport or SMO). This Agreement, once signed by the FAA and the City, shall be presented to the U.S. District Court for the Central District Court of California (U.S. District Court) for entry as a Consent Decree.

Background
Airport Property & Runway
SMO is generally composed oftwo parcels of property.

First Parcel. The first parcel consists of approximately one hundred and seventy acres that the City of Santa Monica (City) leased to the U.S. government during World War II. (This parcel is referred to herein as the First Parcel and is more fully described as the premises referred to as "Clover Field, Santa Monica Municipal Airport" in the leases, as modified, that are referred to in that certain Instrument of Transfer, dated as of August 10, 1948, between the United States of America and the City that was recorded at Book 28055, Pages 211 through 222, inclusive, in the Official Records of Los Angeles County, California (the JOT).)

2. Second Parcel. The second parcel consists of approximately eighteen acres with respect to which the United States of America duly executed a Quitclaim Deed dated April 8, 1949, and recorded at Book 30037, Pages 364 though 370, inclusive, in the Official Records of Los Angeles County, California (the Quitclaim Deed), conveying its interests in said parcel to the City. (This parcel is referred to herein as the Second Parcel.) (The First Parcel and the Second Parcel, together with any other right, title and interest in any premises, structures, improvements or other property conveyed by the United States of America to the City in the JOT or the Quitclaim Deed, are collectively, referred to herein as Airport Property).

Airport Runway. The Airport's current runway of 4,973 feet occupies land in both the First Parcel and Second Parcel , and also includes adjoining land that the Douglas Aircraft Company conveyed to the City by grant deed in 1945.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Case 2:13-cv-08046-JFW-VBK Document 57 Filed 02/01/17 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #:1035 District Court Litigation
On August 10, 1948, pursuant to the Surplus Property Act of 1944 (SPA), the U.S. Government and the City executed an "Instrument of Transfer" (TOT) by which the U.S. Government surrendered its leaseholds and which the U.S. Government contends imposed certain restrictions on the future use ofthe Airport property including that:
the land, buildings, structures, improvement and equipment in which this instrument transfers any interest shall be used for public airport purposes for the use and benefit of the public, on reasonable terms and with unjust discrimination and without grant or exercise of any exclusive right.

The JOT further provides that "the restrictions . . . shall run with the land. . . ." and requires that:
the entire landing area . . . be maintained for the use and benefit of the public at all times in good and serviceable conditions, provided, however, that such maintenance shall be required as to structures, improvement, facilities and equipment only during the remainder oftheir estimated life. .

On April 8, 1949, the U.S. government effected a Quit Claim Deed, transferring its interests in all or substantially all of the Second Parcel to the City.

On October 31, 2013, the City sued the FAA under the Quiet Title Act regarding the meaning and effect ofthe JOT. City ofSanta Monica v. United States ofAmerica, et al., Case No. CV 13- 08046 JFW (V13Kx). The City's claim seeks, in part, a declaratory judgment providing that the City has unencumbered title to the Airport Property.

On February 13, 2014, the U.S. District Court dismissed the City's claim based on the statute of limitations. However, on March 11, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court. Trial is currently set for August 29, 2017.

Circuit Court Litigation
On June 27, 1994, the City accepted a $1,604,700.00 federal grant for certain improvements at the Airport pursuant to the terms of a grant agreement that the Parties agree remained in effect for twenty years. On August 27, 2003, the City and the FAA executed a grant amendment that provided $240,600.00 in federal funds to the City. The Parties dispute whether the terms ofthe grant remain in effect for twenty years from the date of the acceptance ofthe amendment or for twenty years from the date ofthe acceptance ofthe initial agreement in which case they have expired.
2 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Case 2:13-cv-08046-JFW-VBK Document 57 Piled 02/01/17 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #:1036 In response to a complaint filed pursuant to 14 C.F.R. part 16, on August 15, 2016, the FAA issued a Final Agency Decision (FAD) holding that by accepting the additional funds, the grant expiration date was extended until August 27, 2023. Nat'l Bus. Aviation Assoc., v. City ofSanta Monica, FAA Docket No. 16-14-04. The City sought review ofthe FAD in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. City ofSanta Monica v. FAA, Case No. 16-72827 (9th Cir.).

Federal Administrative Proceedings
The FAA issued a Notice ofInvestigation (NOT) to determine, in part, whether the City is violating its federal obligations to provide access to the fixed based operators (FBOs). In re Compliance with Fed. Obligations by the City ofSanta Monica, FAA Docket No. 16-16-13. The NOI is based on the City's handling ofthe tenancy of the Airport's FBOs, the possible ban on the sale of unleaded fuels, and the City's declared intent to provide certain aeronautical services at SMO on an exclusive basis (proprietary exclusive). The City filed a response to the NOI asserting that it has fully complied with its obligations in regard to these matters.

On December 12, 2016, the FAA issued an Interim Cease and Desist order ordering the City to cease and desist from removing the FBO's until the FAA issues a final agency decision under the NOT. No final decision has been reached regarding the NOT.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and other consideration described herein, the the Parties agree it is in the interest ofthe public and civil aviation to AGREE as follows:

I. COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS
Within 30 days ofthis Agreement's execution, the Parties shall jointly move in City ofSanta Monica v. United States ofAmerica, et al., Case No. 13 -CV-8046-JFW (VBKx) (C.D. Cal.), for entry ofthis Agreement as a Consent Decree and for a stay ofthe the litigation pending the decision on the Consent Decree. Also within 30 days ofthis Agreement, the Parties shall jointly move to stay City ofSanta Monica v. Federal Aviation Administration, No. 16-72827, (9th Cir.), pending the entry ofthe Consent Decree. Within 14 days ofthe entry ofthe Consent Decree, the City shall dismiss with prejudice City ofSanta Monica v. Federal Aviation Administration, No. 16-72827, (9th Cir.). Furthermore, the Parties agree that entry ofthe Consent Decree shall resolve all pending disputes at issue in In re Compliance with Federal Obligations by the City of Santa Monica, FAA NO. 16-16-13 (U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin.), and that the FAA shall therefore dismiss the NOI.

In addition, the FAA shall send a letter in substantially the form of Exhibit A to this Agreement to private parties that have filed Part 16 complaints raising issues within the scope ofthis Agreement requesting that the parties withdraw those complaints. The Parties acknowledge that the FAA does not have authority to require private parties to withdraw their Part 16 complaints Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Case 2:13-cv-08046-JFW-VBK Document 57 Filed 02/01/17 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:1037 and that the FAA must consider any complaints not withdrawn. Thus, the Parties further acknowledge that no action of a private party in a Part 16 proceeding can constitute a breach of this Agreement.

Unless modified by the court having jurisdiction over the Consent Decree, the Decree shall expire on December 31, 2028. The Parties agree that the expiration ofthe Decree shall have no effect on the terms or condition ofthis Agreement, which terms or conditions shall survive the expiration ofthe Decree.

Further, the Parties agree that this Agreement upon entry ofthe Consent Decree shall resolve all claims by the Parties that have been brought, or could have been brought, in City ofSanta Monica v. United States ofAmerica, et al., Case No. 13 -CV-8046-JFW (VBKx) (C.D. Cal.), City ofSanta Monica v. Federal Aviation Administration, No. 16-72827, (9th Cir.), or In re Compliance with Federal Obligations by the City ofSanta Monica, FAA NO. 16-16-13 (U.S.

Dep't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin.), including all the Parties' actual or potential claims pertaining to the past operation ofthe Airport by the City pertaining to tenants, non-tenant aircraft and FBOs.

If one ofthe Parties alleges a breach ofthe terms or conditions ofthis Agreement, the exclusive venue for remedying such a breach shall be the court having jurisdiction over the Consent Decree.

In the event the court in City ofSanta Monica v. United States ofAmerica, et al., Case No. 13 - CV-8046-JFW (VBKx) (C.D. Cal.) does not enter the Consent Drecree as-written, the Parties shall confer and, as soon as feasible, decide whether to move the court to enter a modified Consent Decree. Ifthe Parties have not reached an agreement on the form ofthe revised Consent Decree within 30 days, the Parties shall jointly move to lift the stays of litigation in City ofSanta Monica v. United States ofAmerica, et al., Case No. 13 -CV-8046-JFW (VBKx) (C.D. Cal.) and City ofSanta Monica v. FederalAviation Administration, No. 16-72827, (9th Cir.). The FAA shall also at that time resume proceedings in In re Compliance with Federal Obligations by the City ofSanta Monica, FAA NO. 16-16-13 (U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin.). In such event each Party agrees that this Agreement shall be of no force and effect and may not be used by either Party for any purpose whatsoever.

II. RUNWAY
A. Runway Length. The Parties agree that the Airport's runway shall have an operational runway length of 3,500 feet. The 3,500 foot distance shall not include the runway safety areas that shall be constructed and maintained at both runway ends. The runway safety area may include an engineered materials arrestor system (EMAS) at the City's option. The Parties further agree that the Airport shall accomodate aircraft operations that can safely take off 4 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Case 2:13-cv-08046-JFW-VBK Document 57 Filed 02/01/17 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #:1038 and land on a runway ofthe agreed-on length. Prior to the initiation of shortening the runway, the City shall comply with the 30 day notice provisions of 14 C.F.R. Part 157.5(b)(2).

B. Costs to Shorten the Runway. The costs to shorten the runway, including but not limited to the installation of EMAS, shall be borne by the City. If sought by the City, the FAA will provide technical support to the City through the FAA's Office of Airports to assist in obtaining federal funds to support the shortening ofthe runway, as consistent with federal laws, regulations and the availability of funds.

C. Environmental Studies. The City shall be responsible for complying with its state and federal environmental requirements related to its planning and implementation of modifications at SMO. The City's responsibility shall include the cost of conducting any necessary environmental studies or other requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 42 U.S.C. §4321 etseq.

III. USE AND RELEASE OF PROPERTY
Consistent with the ultimate configuration ofthe runway pursuant to Section II, the FAA agrees that prior to closure ofthe Airport, the City may use the property no longer needed for the the Airport with a shortened or reconfigured runway, taking into consideration standard safety areas, including the use of EMAS, for non-aeronautical uses that are safe and compatible with the operation ofthe Airport. Such land shall be subject to an avigation easement for the period the airport is operated which shall be recorded contemporaneously with any instrument releasing such property. A copy of the form of avigation easement is attached hereto as Exhibit B. This agreement does not constitute FAA approval of any particular future use.

IV. CITY'S PROPRIETARY EXCLUSIVE RIGHT
A. FAA's Acknowledgement of the City's Right
The City may exercise its proprietary exclusive right to provide aeronautical services at SMO, including but not limited to the sale and into-plane delivery of all types of aviation fuels, in accordance with generally-applicable rules governing the exercise of proprietary exclusive rights.

B. City's Obligations
The City shall provide any proprietary exclusive aeronautical services at SMO (i) in conformance with the standard of grant assurance 22 (ii) on reasonable terms at reasonable rates, and (iii) during all hours that such services would normally be provided at comparable general aviation airports, taking into account permissible curfews provided for in section V. The City further agrees that, ifthe City does not fully provide a type ofservice at any point in time and a private FBO desires to provide such a service, that operator shall have reasonable access to the airport on commercially reasonable terms and in conformance with the standards of grant assurance 22. See 79 Fed. Reg. 18755 (April 3, 2014).
5 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Case 2:13-cv-08046-JFW-VBK Document 57 Filed 02/01/17 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #:1039 C. Timing of the City's Exercise of Its Right
Subject to the City's right pursuant to subsection D, below, the City will not implement any proprietary exclusive operations, as defined above, until the work to shorten the runway, as provided in Section II above, is complete.

D. Leases for Private Aeronautical Service Providers Prior to the City's Exercise of Its Right
Leases offered to all tenants providing aeronautical services shall be on reasonable terms and in substantially the same form as that attached as Exhibit C. For purposes ofthis Agreement, the phrase "reasonable terms" shall mean terms that are customary and usual at similarly situated and sized general aviation airports.

The City shall offer all current tenants providing aeronautical services leases of no less than three (3) years with reasonable terms appropriate to the aeronautical service usually and customarily provided such service at similar facilities, including but not limited to tenant investment and financing requirements.

The City shall also offer leases to all prospective tenants providing aeronautical services for which there is space at SMO subject to reasonable terms and consistent with the standards of grant assurance 22, provided the City is not itself providing such services on a proprietary exclusive basis.

Any and all leases providing aeronautical services may, at the City's election, be subject to termination upon six months written notice ofthe City's exercise of its proprietary exclusive right to provide the category of services otherwise being provided by private FBOs, provided the City is ready, willing, and able to fully provide such aeronautical service in accordance with applicable law.

V. AIRPORT CURFEW
The City may submit an application for enhanced curfews consistent with 14 C.F.R. part 161 (Part 161). Review of such an application shall be conducted under the procedural rules and subject to the substantive standards applicable to all Part 161 applications submitted to the FAA, which shall not be affected by this Agreement. Review of any decision made in connection with such an application shall be conducted exclusively in the same manner as, and in the same forum as, review of any decision made in connection with a Part 161 application submitted to the FAA.

That is, this Agreement shall not affect the form or substance of such a review. Notwithstanding any other provision ofthis Agreement, judicial review of FAA's decision and record thereof with regard to any Part 161 application submitted by the City shall be within the exclusive jurisidiction ofthe applicable U.S. Court of Appeals.
6 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Case 2:13-cv-08046-JFW-VBK Document 57 FUed 02/01/17 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #:1040 VI. DURATION
The City agrees to operate the Airport consistent with its obligations set forth in this Agreement until December 31, 2028, unless an earlier date is agreed to by the Parties. Any subsequent decison by the FAA to release the Airport at an earlier date shall be made consistent with the standard of 49 U.S.C. § 47153. The obligation to operate the Airport until December 31, 2028 shall be binding on any subsequent purchaser of Airport Property. Within 90 days of a Consent Decree embodying this Agreement taking effect, the City shall cause this Agreement to be recorded in the property records for the County of Los Angeles, California.

Without limiting the express terms ofthis Agreement, the FAA agrees that the Airport Property shall be released from all covenants, reservations, restrictions, conditions, exceptions and reservations of rights imposed under the lOT and the Quitclaim Deed and the grant assurances imposed in 1994 upon the effectiveness ofthis Agreement and to provide such notice as required under 49 U.S.C. §47153(c). Upon the City's request, the FAA shall execute, acknowledge and deliver from time to time any instruments reasonably necessary requested by the City appropriate to evidence the release ofthe Airport Property from all such covenants, reservations, restrictions, conditions, exceptions and reservations of rights. The Parties shall record any instruments necessary to effectuate this provision.

The City's operation ofthe Airport until December 31, 2028 shall conform with (i) the standards set forth in grant assurances 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 30; and (ii) all applicable state and federal operational, maintenance, and safety standards. For purposes ofthis paragraph, the substantive standards of grant assurances 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 30 shall apply until December 31, 2028.

Ifthe City enters into future grant agreements with the FAA, then it shall also be bound by those terms as provided for in any such grant agreement in addition to any applicable the standards expressly set forth in this Agreement.

Ifthe City does not enter into future agreements with the FAA that continue to require the City to operate the Airport after December 31, 2028, the Parties agree that the City may, in its sole discretion at any time on or after January 1, 2029, cease to operate the Airport as an airport and may close the Airport to all aeronautical use forever, subject only to the applicable 30 day notice requirements set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 463 19(a) and 14 C.F.R. Part 157.5(b)(2).

VII. UNLEADED FUEL
The FAA is committed as a matter of national aviation policy to support the development and use of unleaded aviation gas appropriate to the operation of piston aircraft where commercially and technically feasible. The FAA agrees to consider any demonstration project the City may seek to implement pertaining to the use of unleaded fuel. Nothing in this Agreement shall allow the City to restrict the sale of leaded aviation fuel for as long as the FAA authorizes use of such fuels within the United States.
7 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Case 2:13-cv-08046-JPW-VBK Document 57 Piled 02/01/17 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #:1041 VIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Enforcement. The Parties reserve the right to judicially enforce any terms or provisions ofthis Agreement.

B. Consent Decree. The terms of this Agreement shall be memorialized and embodied in a consent decree to be filed in City ofSanta Monica v. United States ofAmerica, et al., Case No. 13 -CV-8046-JFW (VBKx) (C.D. Cal.) in the form attached as Exhibit D. The court shall have jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief only as to the provisions of sections II, III, and IV. Further, the court shall have jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of sections II, III and IV as to any successors, transferees, licensees, agents, heirs, and assigns ofthe City's interests in, operation of, or sponsorship of SMO. The court shall not have jurisdiction to subject the Parties to penalties or sanctions for any alleged violations of its obligations in this Agreement.

C. Own Costs. Each Party shall bear its own costs, including attorney fees.

D. Authority. The representatives of each Party hereby certify that he or she is duly authorized to enter into the Agreement. The City represents that it has the full authority to perform all ofthe acts and obligations it has agreed to perform under the terms ofthis Agreement. The United States, acting though the Department ofJustice and the FAA represents that the FAA has the full authority to perform all ofthe acts and obligations it and the United States of America has agreed to perform under the terms of this Agreement.

E. Copies and Counterparts. It is contemplated that this Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together constitute one and the same document. Facsimiles, hard copies, and scanned electronic copies of signatures, including scanned electronic copies sent by email, shall constitute acceptable, binding signatures for purposes ofthis Agreement.

F. Defense of This Agreement. The Parties agree to vigorously and actively defend this Agreement, any resulting Consent Decree, and all terms embodied therein as fair and reasonable, to vigorously and actively defend the same against any challenge by any individual or entity. The Parties further agree not to undermine directly or indirectly this Agreement, any resulting Consent Decree or any terms set forth therein for so long as this Agreement or any resulting Consent Decree remains in effect.

G. Modification. This Agreement may be supplemented, amended, or modified only by the mutual agreement ofthe Parties, and, once the Consent Decree is entered, only with the approval of the court No supplement, amendment, or modification of this Agreement shall be binding unless it is in writing and signed by all duly authorized representatives of each Party.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Case 2:13-cv-08046-JFW-VBK Document 57 Filed 02/01/17 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #:1042 H. Successors or Assigns. This Agreement and any resulting consent decree shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit ofthe Parties and their respective successors, transferees, licensees, agents, heirs, and assigns. Prior to any change ofthe sponsor of SMO or to the identity ofthe holder of any operating certificate related to the operation or sponsorship of SMO the City shall obtain the written agreement of such new entity to be bound by the terms of this Agreement and any resulting consent decree.

I. Precedent. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute an admission concerning any allegation, claim, or defense at issue in in City ofSanta Monica v. United States ofAmerica, et al., Case No. 13 -CV-8046-JFW (VBKx) (C.D. Cal.), City ofSanta Monica v. Federal Aviation Administration, No. 16-72827, (9th Cir.), or In re Compliance with Federal Obligations by the City ofSanta Monica, FAA NO. 16-16-13 (U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin.), and this Agreement has no precedential effect as to any other dispute between the Parties or between either the City or the FAA and any third party. This Agreement is made in light ofthe unique circumstances ofthis case and the uncertainty ofthe specific matters resolved hereby. Nothing herein shall be construed to be an admission of liability or as an interpretation ofthe validity or terms or provisions of any other instruments or contracts.

J. Release. Upon the entry ofthe Consent Decree, the Parties and all their heirs, administrators, representatives, attorneys, successors, and assigns, hereby release, waive, acquit, and forever discharge each other and all their respective officers, employees, and agents from, and are hereby forever barred and precluded from prosecuting, any and all claims, causes of action, and/or requests for relief asserted in City ofSanta Monica v. United States ofAmerica, et aL, Case No. 13 -CV-8046-JFW (VBKx) (C.D. Cal.), City ofSanta Monica v. FederalAviation Administration, No. 16-72827, (9th Cir.), and In re Compliance with Federal Obligations by the City ofSanta Monica, FAA NO. 16-16-13 (U.S. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin.), as well as any and all claims, causes of action, and/or requests for relief, whether or not made, against any Party that could have been raised in those matters, with the exception of proceedings to enforce this Agreement or the Consent Decree.

K. No Third Party Rights. This Agreement is not intended to create, and does not create, any third-party beneficiary rights, confer upon any non-party a right to enforce or sue for an alleged breach ofthe Agreement, or generate any other kind ofright or privilege for any person, group, or entity other than the Parties.

L. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective upon the date the Court enters an order approving this Agreement.
9 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Case 2:13-cv-08046-JFW-VBK Document 57 Filed 02/01/17 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #:1043 For the Federal Aviation Administration:

Reginald C. Govan
Chief Counsel
Federal Aviation Administration
For the Department of Justice

JOYCE BRANDA
Acting Assistant Attorney General
EILEEN M. DECKER
United States Attorney

JUDRY SUBAR
Assistant Branch Director
RAPHAEL 0. GOMEZ (D.C. Bar #305540)
Senior Trial Counsel
U.S. Department ofJustice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883
Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: (202) 514-1318
Facsimile: (202) 616-8460
[email protected]
GARY D. FELDON (D.C. Bar #987 142)
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department ofJustice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883
Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: (202) 514-4686
Fax: (202) 616-8460
Email: Gary.D.Feldonusdoj .gov
Dated:
10 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Case 2:13-cv-08046-JFW-VBK Document 57 Filed 02/01/17 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #:1044 For the City of Santa Monica:

Attest:

Rick Cole
City Manager
Joseph Lawrence
Interim City Attorney
Dated:

Approved as to form:

Denise Anderson-Warren
City Clerk
William V. O'Connor
Morrison & Foerster LLP
12531 High Bluff Drive San Diego, CA 92130-2040
P: +1(858) 720.7932
[email protected]
Dated: __________________________ Attorneys for the City of Santa Monica IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed February 1, 2017, at Los Angeles, California
HonoraI1'-Johfi F. Walter
United States District Court
For the Central District of California
11 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Walenga, Pat (FAA)
From: Carlos Rosende <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 8:59 AM
To: 9 -AWA-AGC-Part-16 (FAA)
Cc: Scott Lewis; Melissa Allison
Subject: Mark Smith et al v. City of Santa Monica, Docket No. 16-24-09 Attachments: City of Santa Monica's Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Memorandum(1630633.1).pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTIO This email originated from outside of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good morning,
Respondent City of Santa Monica's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and memorandum in support of its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in the above matter are attached.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Best,
Carlos Rosende
ANDERSON Carlos R. Rosende, Associate Attorney
T. 617.621.6561
KR E I GE P Anderson & Kreiqer LLP I 50 Milk Street I 21st Floor I Boston, MA 02109 1 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
5 David Yakobson
From: Christopher russell <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 12:26 PM
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.

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.

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.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
6 Christopher russell
[email protected]
7556 Hampton Avenue, Unit 103
West Hollywood, California 90046
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
7 David Yakobson
From: Lisa Test, OTD, OTR/L <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 12:34 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: 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:

Thank you for your consideration.

Lisa A. Test
90405

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
8 David Yakobson
From: David Sharafi <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 12:36 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.

We don’t need more housing, we need more free zones to breathe and enjoy earth. -coach dave [basketball, soccer, and baseball]
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
9 David Yakobson
From: George Kivork <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 12:41 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Ryan Brodley
Subject: Fwd: July 8 City Council Meeting, Item 7: SMO future of innovation + community Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

On behalf of Joby Aviation, I write to respectfully urge the Council to consider a future for Santa Monica Airport (SMO) that embraces evolution over elimination.

Santa Monica has played a defining role in American history. Today, your city has a chance to lead again, this time as a model for clean, quiet, and community-centered aviation.

Electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft, like those we’re developing at Joby, represent a transformative opportunity. These aircraft are designed to dramatically reduce noise and emissions, opening the door to aviation that is far more compatible with urban life. In fact, Santa Monica has already taken early steps to support electric flight, hosting some of California’s first eVTOL operations and infrastructure.

Rather than closing the airport, we encourage the City to consider a forward-looking path that includes:
 A center for STEM education and aviation workforce development, offering local students hands-on exposure to the next generation of technology
 A hub for electric and autonomous flight, supporting clean transportation alternatives and reducing regional congestion
 Community-serving open space and green infrastructure, integrated with aviation uses  A future of economic opportunity, local innovation, and continued community oversight beyond 2028
Santa Monica does not have to choose between honoring its history and serving its future. With thoughtful planning and a commitment to sustainability, SMO can become a beacon for what aviation can look like in the 21st century.

Thank you for your leadership and for considering a future that allows aviation and community values to thrive side by side.

Sincerely,
George Kivork
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
10 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

George Kivork
Head of U.S. State & Local Policy
310-994-4992 (m)
Joby Aviation
This email and any relevant attachments may include confidential and/or proprietary information. Any distribution or use by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) or other than for the intended purpose(s) is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
11 David Yakobson
From: Santa Monica Forward <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 12:42 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Natalya Zernitskaya; Barry Snell; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7A: Proceed with More Expansive Analysis
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
We appreciate the staff report's clear articulation of the key question: whether the Preferred Scenario should include uses that would require future voter approval under Measure LC, and specifically whether housing should be considered given current funding uncertainties. This framing appropriately recognizes both the community's desire for park space, housing and the fiscal realities facing the city.

We support Council direction toward a more expansive Preferred Scenario analysis that includes both park-only and park & mixed use options for the following reasons:

The community deserves comprehensive analysis of all viable options before making determinations about Measure LC. As staff notes, a park-only approach faces significant funding limitations for capital, operations, maintenance, and programming. Including LC scenarios in the analysis will provide residents with complete information about trade-offs between community vision and fiscal sustainability.

Our review indicates that several framework components essential for informed scenario comparison remain incomplete:
 Economic Analysis: Staff reports only "preliminary analysis" has been completed, insufficient for evaluating scenario viability
 Funding Sources: Only "high-level analysis of financing options" available, critical for comparing park-only versus mixed-use financial sustainability  Infrastructure and Remediation Requirements: Surface-level information inadequate for understanding true development costs and trade-offs
 Transportation Analysis: Incomplete analysis limits understanding of scenario impacts Staff's acknowledgment that the City has not identified sufficient funding for a park-only approach underscores the importance of analyzing revenue-generating alternatives. Mixed-use scenarios may provide crucial financial mechanisms for long-term park maintenance and community services while still delivering significant community benefits.

We recommend Council direct staff to develop a Preferred Scenario analysis that:
 Includes both park-focused and mixed-use alternatives to enable informed community discussion about Measure LC considerations
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
12  Completes fundamental feasibility analysis for each scenario option, including detailed economic, infrastructure, and funding assessments
 Addresses governance and implementation structures necessary for each approach  Provides comprehensive transportation and environmental impact comparisons Concurrent with Preferred Scenario development, we support initiating rezoning of the Airport Office Park to allow higher density residential development and revenue-generating commercial uses that could fund operating costs. This parallel process could help inform scenario analysis while advancing regional housing and climate goals.

The community benefits from a thorough, data-driven planning process that examines all viable pathways to achieving both the community vision and fiscal sustainability. We support the Council providing direction for expansive scenario analysis that ensures residents have complete information to make informed decisions about this transformational community asset.

Sincerely,
Santa Monica Forward
Carl Hansen (Co-Chair)
Brad Ewing (Co-Chair)
--
We are working for a diverse, progressive, sustainable and equitable Santa Monica.

SantaMonicaForward.org
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
13 David Yakobson
From: Roberta Levitow <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 12:43 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 am a 30 year resident of the Ocean Park district of Santa Monica, once jokingly known to locals as The Flight Path.

Santa Monica ranks lowest in the number of parks per citizens - how is that possible? We NEED AN L-C COMPLIANT GREAT PARK on the entire land of the former Santa Monica Airport.

We need plants for air quality, to combat climate change, and to keep some areas of Santa Monica covered with earth and trees, not asphalt.

How precious are the great parks of other cities??? The natural world is a precious resource that we must preserve for future generations.

Thank you,
Roberta Levitow
3010 7th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
14 David Yakobson
From: Miles Cotton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:05 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:

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

Shop SMRC Gear

Support our Sponsors
O'Brien's Irish Pub & Restaurant
Follow our Social Media Pages for Up-To-Date News
Facebook | Instagram | Website | Twitter |
Youth Facebook | Youth Instagram | High School Instagram Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
15 David Yakobson
From: Ben <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:17 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Dan Hall; Caroline Torosis; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Cc: Elaine Polachek; Amber Richane
Subject: Re: SMO: Santa Monica City Council Meeting — Item 7.A. SMAC Project — July 8, 2025 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Housing proponents have a last minute survey that nobody has seen? Who are these people? How was the survey done? They have only 29 supporters on their FB group.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
16 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
17 Public scrutiny of the secret survey details is non-negotiable. This demand for public scrutiny is fully justified, and ample time must be allowed for a thorough and transparent review. Until that public review has taken place, decision-makers must not rely on the survey as a basis for any actions or conclusions.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
18 David Yakobson
From: tammy jackson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:27 PM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: Santa Monica Airport
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

This is not about preserving the status quo. It’s about leading the next chapter of clean, quiet, community-minded aviation. Electric aircraft, advanced simulators, flight schools, STEM education hubs, and green infrastructure can all co-exist alongside open space—and even a modest amount of thoughtfully integrated housing.

Here’s what evolution could mean:

A VITAL HUB IN FIRE RESCUE OPERATIONS Serving our community A world-class STEM education and training center, where Santa Monica students are inspired to pursue science, technology, and flight
A hub for electric and autonomous aviation, already being tested at SMO and poised to reduce traffic congestion and emissions
Green space and community access, thoughtfully integrated with aviation infrastructure.

Long-term economic vitality for a city facing major fiscal headwinds Continued local control over airport operations and land use after 2028, allowing the City to shape SMO’s evolution in line with community values and future technologies Santa Monica doesn’t need to pick between a park and an airport. We can build a 21st-century innovation campus—one that honors our history, serves our residents, and inspires future generations.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
19 Please don’t rush to erase our past. Let’s evolve it into something extraordinary.

Sincerely,
Tammy Jackson
Retired Air Traffic controller

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
20 David Yakobson
From: Charlene Nakamura <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Council members,
We need to find ways to fund the conversion of the airport to a park. Insisting the site be a park with no consideration of how to fund and maintain this is not practical.

I also support revenue generating areas and incorporating low-rise (garden-style) housing. We need more housing! Anything other than a park will require residents to vote, which I think is a good thing Thank you,
Charlene Nakamura
Ocean Park
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
21 David Yakobson
From: Alexander Alexandrov <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:29 PM
To: 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

This is not about preserving the status quo. It’s about leading the next chapter of clean, quiet, community-minded aviation. Electric aircraft, advanced simulators, flight schools, STEM education hubs, and green infrastructure can all co-exist alongside open space—and even a modest amount of thoughtfully integrated housing.

Here’s what evolution could mean:

Long-term economic vitality for a city facing major fiscal headwinds Continued local control over airport operations and land use after 2028, allowing the City to shape SMO’s evolution in line with community values and future technologies
Santa Monica doesn’t need to pick between a park and an airport. We can build a 21st-century innovation campus—one that honors our history, serves our residents, and inspires future generations.

Please don’t rush to erase our past. Let’s evolve it into something extraordinary.

Sincerely,
Alex Alexandrov
SM Resident and UAS pilot.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
22 David Yakobson
From: Eric Buehl <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:29 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Fwd: July 8 City Council Meeting, Item 7: Evolve Santa Monica Airport Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Begin forwarded message:

From: Eric Buehl <[email protected]>
Subject: July 8 City Council Meeting, Item 7: Evolve Santa Monica Airport Date: July 7, 2025 at 4:51:50 PM PDT
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Cc: Melissa Grant <[email protected]>
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
As a resident who deeply values both the history and future of Santa Monica, I urge you to choose evolution—not elimination—for Santa Monica Airport (SMO).

As a resident who also places great value on excellent infrastructure, I know that SMO is not just a piece of infrastructure; it’s a living part of our neighborhood’s character and a critical asset in times of emergency. General aviation airports across the country are in decline, yet their importance in disaster response, fire rescue, and emergency logistics cannot be overstated. Once they are gone, they are gone for good—and our region will be less resilient for it.

Beyond utility, SMO is a unique and defining feature of this community. It adds identity and depth. We should recognize that the airport long predates many of the homes surrounding it. In fact, it was the airport that initially brought jobs, investment, and ultimately, residents to the Sunset Park area. Complaints about airport noise often come from those who moved here fully aware of its presence. The airport didn’t come to them—they came to the airport.

This is a chance to build something visionary, not just nostalgic. With careful planning, SMO can be transformed into a model of clean, quiet, community-integrated aviation.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
23 Picture a revitalized space that:
• Serves as a vital hub for emergency response and fire rescue • Trains and inspires local youth through STEM education, flight schools, and advanced simulators
• Hosts electric and autonomous aircraft that ease traffic and reduce carbon emissions • Offers green space for residents without erasing the aviation legacy • Sustains long-term economic activity and innovation in a fiscally challenged city • Maintains local control and adaptability beyond 2028, ensuring alignment with Santa Monica values
We don’t have to choose between a park and an airport. We can create a 21st-century civic resource that honors our past, serves our present, and prepares us for the future.

Finally, I urge the Council to consider this: if the airport is closed without a clear, wellfunded, and broadly supported redevelopment plan beforehand, we are almost certainly guaranteeing a hundred-acre dead zone in the heart of our city. The process of environmental remediation, litigation, community disagreement, and infrastructure planning will take years—likely far longer than anticipated. In that time, the land will sit fenced, decaying, and unused. Whatever complaints some may have about the airport today will pale in comparison to the frustration and blight of an abandoned, inaccessible space in the years that follow.

Please don’t erase this rare and valuable asset. Let’s shape it—thoughtfully, ambitiously, and with vision.

Eric Buehl
1515 Hill St
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
24 David Yakobson
From: Brent Myers <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:30 PM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: Save SMO. Airports can be a life saver
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Please.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
25 David Yakobson
From: Jeff Bassett <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:31 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

This is not about preserving the status quo. It’s about leading the next chapter of clean, quiet, community-minded aviation. Electric aircraft, advanced simulators, flight schools, STEM education hubs, and green infrastructure can all co-exist alongside open space—and even a modest amount of thoughtfully integrated housing.

Here’s what evolution could mean:

A VITAL HUB IN FIRE RESCUE OPERATIONS Serving our community A world-class STEM education and training center, where Santa Monica students are inspired to pursue science, technology, and flight
A hub for electric and autonomous aviation, already being tested at SMO and poised to reduce traƯic congestion and emissions
Green space and community access, thoughtfully integrated with aviation infrastructure.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
26 Please don’t rush to erase our past. Let’s evolve it into something extraordinary.

Sincerely,
JeƯrey T Bassett
Pilot/Aircraft owner
[email protected]
Cell 240 - 388-7148
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
27 David Yakobson
From: FRIGOLA PEDRO <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:32 PM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: Urgent: Concerns Regarding Potential Closure of Santa Monica Airport in 2028 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear City Leaders,
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the potential closure of Santa Monica Airport (SMO) in 2028. Such a decision would have far-reaching negative consequences for the city—economically, environmentally, and in terms of public safety.

Santa Monica Airport plays a vital role in regional emergency response, relieves congestion from surrounding airspace, and supports numerous local jobs and businesses. Eliminating this critical infrastructure without a viable and realistic alternative would not only diminish our city's resilience but also remove an economic and logistical asset that benefits more than just aviation users.

The broader implications of closure must be considered with full transparency, supported by data, and inclusive of all community stakeholders—especially those who rely on the airport for livelihood, safety, and access.

I urge you to explore all alternatives before making a decision that could permanently alter the fabric of our city.

Sincerely,
Pedro Frigola
310-849-1594
1717 Stewart Street
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
28 David Yakobson
From: Bryan Neville <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:36 PM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: Subject: July 8 City Council Meeting, Item 7: Evolve Santa Monica Airport—Don’t Erase It Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

This is not about preserving the status quo. It’s about leading the next chapter of clean, quiet, community-minded aviation. Electric aircraft, advanced simulators, flight schools, STEM education hubs, and green infrastructure can all co-exist alongside open space—and even a modest amount of thoughtfully integrated housing.

Here’s what evolution could mean:

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
29 Please don’t rush to erase our past. Let’s evolve it into something extraordinary.

Warm Regards,
Bryan Neville
DJ | MC
bryanneville.com
567-228-9529
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
30 David Yakobson
From: Timberly Matonic <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:38 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
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
As a long-time admirer of Santa Monica’s historic role in American aerospace, I urge you to consider a path of evolution, not elimination for Santa Monica Airport.

This is not about preserving the status quo. It’s about leading the next chapter of clean, quiet, community-minded aviation. Electric aircraft, advanced simulators, flight schools, STEM education hubs, and green infrastructure can all co-exist alongside open space—and even a modest amount of thoughtfully integrated housing.

Here’s what evolution could mean:

Long-term economic vitality for a city facing major fiscal headwinds Continued local control over airport operations and land use after 2028, allowing the City to shape SMO’s evolution in line with community values and future technologies Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
31 Santa Monica doesn’t need to pick between a park and an airport. We can build a 21stcentury innovation campus—one that honors our history, serves our residents, and inspires future generations.

Please don’t rush to erase our past. Let’s evolve it into something extraordinary.

Sincerely,
Timberly Matonic
Aspiring Pilot, Friend of the Ninety-Nines, Supporter of the Santa Monica Airport To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

History was made March 8, 2025 when the first-ever coast-to-coast flight by an all-electric aircraft was completed with the Beta CX300 touching down at Santa Monica Airport.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
32 David Yakobson
From: Tara Barauskas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:40 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7-support for affordable housing at the SM Airport Attachments: 2102_001.pdf
Importance: High
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Please see attached correspondence regarding tonight’s Council meeting.

Tara

Tara Barauskas, LEED AP
Executive Director
Community Corporation of Santa Monica
1410 2nd Street, Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 394-8487 ext. 133
[email protected]
www.communitycorp.org
I acknowledge with respect and gratitude the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash Peoples on whose traditional territory I live and work.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
33 David Yakobson
From: Philippe Debaty <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:41 PM
Cc: 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 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
As a member of the aviation community and a long-time admirer of Santa Monica’s historic role in American aerospace, I urge you to consider a path of evolution, not elimination for Santa Monica Airport.

Here’s what evolution could mean:
 A world-class STEM education and training center, where Santa Monica students are inspired to pursue science, technology, and flight
 A hub for electric and autonomous aviation, already being tested at SMO and poised to reduce traffic congestion and emissions
 Green space and community access, thoughtfully integrated with aviation infrastructure  Long-term economic vitality for a city facing major fiscal headwinds  Continued local control over airport operations and land use after 2028, allowing the City to shape SMO’s evolution in line with community values and future technologies Santa Monica doesn’t need to pick between a park and an airport. We can build a 21st-century innovation campus— one that honors our history, serves our residents, and inspires future generations.

Please don’t rush to erase our past. Let’s evolve it into something extraordinary.

Sincerely,
Philippe Debaty
Private Pilot at Santa Monica Flyers
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
34 David Yakobson
From: Gianni Cabiglio <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:42 PM
To: 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
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong support for keeping the Santa Monica Airport (SMO) open. As someone who has worked at SMO for the past eleven years, I have firsthand experience of the vital role the airport plays in our community, providing economic, educational, and emergency services that benefit all residents of Santa Monica and the surrounding areas.

The Santa Monica Airport has been an integral part of our city’s infrastructure for decades, serving not only as a hub for general aviation but also as a key player in supporting local businesses and tourism. The airport contributes significantly to the local economy by providing jobs, attracting visitors, and fostering business development. Personally, my livelihood and that of many others depend on the continued operation of SMO.

Moreover, SMO is a valuable resource for emergency services. The airport’s availability for air ambulance flights and disaster relief operations is indispensable, ensuring that our community is better prepared for unforeseen events. The airport also supports medical transport and organ donation flights, which are critical for saving lives. Seen firsthand just six months ago with the LA wildfires...

Additionally, the airport offers educational opportunities through various programs and partnerships that inspire the next generation of aviators and aerospace professionals. Given the current pilot shortage in the aviation industry, the training and education provided by flight schools at SMO are more crucial than ever. The presence of flight schools, aviation museums, and community events at SMO enriches the educational landscape of our city.

The historic significance of Santa Monica Airport cannot be overstated. It has a rich heritage, having played an important role in the development of aviation and the city of Santa Monica, serving as a base for many historic flights and figures in aviation history. Preserving this site honors our past and maintains a tangible connection to our city’s contribution to the field of aviation.

I understand that there are concerns regarding noise and environmental impacts. I believe that these issues can be addressed through collaborative efforts and innovative solutions that balance the needs of the community with the benefits of maintaining the airport. Implementing stricter noise abatement procedures, enhancing environmental sustainability practices, and engaging in open dialogue with residents are just a few ways we can work together to find common ground.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
35 However, closing the airport could lead to changes in flight paths for Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), potentially increasing noise pollution in other residential areas. The noise from LAX could be far worse than what is currently heard from SMO. Additionally, the current height restrictions on buildings in the vicinity of SMO help to maintain the character and aesthetic of our community; lifting these restrictions could lead to overdevelopment that would alter our city's landscape and make congestion worse.

I think there is potential for a creative compromise that keeps the airport open while converting some of its space to a park or mixed-use public area. The south side near the Barker Hangar offers plenty of open space that could be transformed into recreational areas, community spaces, and other amenities that benefit the public. This approach would provide the community with valuable green space and recreational facilities without sacrificing the benefits the airport provides.

Closing the Santa Monica Airport would not only deprive our city of its historical and cultural significance but also hinder the many advantages it provides. I urge you to consider the broader impact on our community and the potential loss of a valuable asset.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. I appreciate your consideration and hope that you will support keeping the Santa Monica Airport open for the benefit of all.

Sincerely,
Gianni Cabiglio
714.642.8098
Continued:

As a member of the community and a long-time admirer of Santa Monica’s historic role in American aerospace, I urge you to consider a path of evolution, not elimination for Santa Monica Airport.

This is not about preserving the status quo. It’s about leading the next chapter of clean, quiet, community-minded aviation. Electric aircraft, advanced simulators, flight schools, STEM education hubs, and green infrastructure can all co-exist alongside open space—and even a modest amount of thoughtfully integrated housing.

Here’s what evolution could mean:

A VITAL HUB IN FIRE RESCUE OPERATIONS Serving our community A world-class STEM education and training center, where Santa Monica students are inspired to pursue science, technology, and flight
A hub for electric and autonomous aviation, already being tested at SMO and poised to reduce traffic congestion and emissions
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
36 Green space and community access, thoughtfully integrated with aviation infrastructure.

Please don’t rush to erase our past. Let’s evolve it into something extraordinary.

Best,
Gianni Cabiglio
714.642.8098
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
37 David Yakobson
From: Jane M <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:43 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:

Thank you for your consideration.

Jane Marcin
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
38 David Yakobson
From: LP <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:42 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

I personally would love to see airport continue. it's inspiring and exciting. I love walking through Clover Park and seeing the planes take off.it's one of the most beautiful things to see in my neighborhood.

This is not about preserving the status quo. It’s about leading the next chapter of clean, quiet, community-minded aviation. Electric aircraft, advanced simulators, flight schools, STEM education hubs, and green infrastructure can all co-exist alongside open space—and even a modest amount of thoughtfully integrated housing.

Here’s what evolution could mean:

Long-term economic vitality for a city facing major fiscal headwinds Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
39 Continued local control over airport operations and land use after 2028, allowing the City to shape SMO’s evolution in line with community values and future technologies Santa Monica doesn’t need to pick between a park and an airport. We can build a 21stcentury innovation campus—one that honors our history, serves our residents, and inspires future generations.

Please don’t rush to erase our past. Let’s evolve it into something extraordinary.

Lauren Pardin
South Santa Monica resident/fan of the airport)
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
40 David Yakobson
From: Leo Marcus <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:48 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Leo Marcus; rachel marcus
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
Dear Council Members,
We are writing about the upcoming discussion on the fate of the Santa Monica Airport.

Some personal background: we have been residents of Sunset Park since 1980, living about 100 feet north of the runway, and are very comfortable living near the airport.

We also like the idea of using some of the land for a park. We have read the position of the Santa Monica Airport Association and find their arguments interesting, and potentially very beneficial to our city and the environment in general. We urge the Council to consider them seriously in your deliberations.

Leo and Rachel Marcus
2423 Pier Ave.

Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
41 David Yakobson
From: Susan Dost <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:48 PM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: Don't erase KSMO
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,
As a member of the community and a long-time pilot of Santa Monica’s airport, I urge you to consider a path of evolution, not elimination for Santa Monica Airport.

Santa Monica was once the center of the aviation world—where Donald Douglas built the DC-3 and helped win a world war. That same pioneering spirit can thrive again if we seize this opportunity not to close SMO, but to reimagine it for the future. I learned to fly at Proteus and continue my education as a pilot and I cannot imagine my privileges being taken away.

This is not about preserving the status quo. It’s about leading the next chapter of clean, quiet, community-minded aviation. Electric aircraft, advanced simulators, flight schools, STEM education hubs, and green infrastructure can all co-exist alongside open space—and even a modest amount of thoughtfully integrated housing.

Here’s what evolution could mean:

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
42 Please don’t rush to erase our past. Let’s evolve it into something extraordinary.

Sincerely,
Susan Dost
Pilot
310.993.0265
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
43 David Yakobson
From: Lynn Bowers <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:49 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7A
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Santa Monica has no dedicated Pickleball courts. Here is an opportunity to construct 24, dedicated Pickleball courts for Santa Monica at the airport site.

Thank you…Lynn Bowers, 26 year resident in 90405 Sent from my iPhone Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
44 David Yakobson
From: Ethel Treister <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:49 PM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; [email protected]; 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
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Although I have never resided in Santa Monica, I have flown out of there for years. Someone must have been paying serious money over the decades to have arrived at this place yet again. The airport is an asset to the entire region and can be preserved while providing for recreation. It’s hard to understand why this dispute must pop up every few years initiated by the City Council. The airport was there before most residents were born. Airports are noisy during runup, takeoƯs and landings which are intermittent and banned at night. If someone purchases property near an airport, they have zero right to complain about noise. If they wish silence, there are quieter neighborhoods which, of course, are not so conveniently situated. A person must weigh the priorities.

Sincerely,
Ethel Treister
Pilot
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
45 David Yakobson
From: The CLF <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:45 PM
Subject: *Item 7.A – Santa Monica Airport Conversion (SMAC) Project, July 8 Attachments: City of Santa Monica LOI from the Children's Lifesaving-for Airport Conversion Project -2025.pdf
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 nonprofit 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.

All of these GPC supporters and member organizations are very, very excited to help the City of Santa Monica realize this Great Park! (We have also enclosed our submitted LOI from the Children's Lifesaving Foundation! We are thrilled and honored to be a part of this burgeoning initiative.)

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.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
46 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.

Thank you all so much!

Our very best wishes,
Francesca McCaffery
Executive Director
(310)-508-1651-cell
The Children's Lifesaving Foundation
(424)-645-7661-Main
Follow CLF on:

Instagram
Facebook
LinkedIn
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
April 20th, 2025
Ms. Amber Richane -Principal Design and Planning Manager & The SMACP Planning Committee, and Santa Monica City Council ℅: The City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Ms. Richane,
and the esteemed Santa Monica Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem,
and Santa Monica City Councilmembers and SMACP Planning Committee Members:

We are so honored to be presenting this LOI to you today from the Children’s Lifesaving Foundation, in regards to an exciting, proposed use for the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project.

The Children’s Lifesaving Foundation (CLF) is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization, dedicated to transforming the lives of underserved, BIPOC youth and houseless families living in shelters and transitional housing in Los Angeles through a unique approach of providing outdoor education through enriching, free summer and surf camps, inspiring holiday events and educational assistance, mentoring and scholarships for youth through to college-age. We also provided crucial Emergency Funding and aid during the COVID-19 Crisis to the families in our Vita Network, and currently to houseless families forced to evacuate during the 2025 Hurst and Eaton fires. Over 95,000 underserved, primarily BIPOC and Latinx youth and families have been served since 1993.

The CLF are also members of the Great Park Coalition, and members of local profits from the Santa Monica Boys & Girls Club, Cady Children’s Museum and ReDiscover Center and others, under the guidance and encouragement of Joe Pertel of the Great Park Coalition, have formed a “Creative Play Working Group,” to address the arising community needs, share resources, concepts and ideas for this “Great Park” vision, and, hopefully- collaborate together on this wonderful, emerging project.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Thank you so much for your consideration,and we truly looking forward to getting to meet you all soon!…Here is our LOI, below:

Airport Conversion Project - Letter of Interest from
the Children’s Lifesaving Foundation

1. Introduction to the Organization and Proposed Public-Private Partnership The Children's Lifesaving Foundation (CLF) is a Santa Monica-based nonprofit organization dedicated to transforming the lives of underserved youth and families through educational, recreational, and community enrichment programs. With over 32 years of service, CLF has established a strong presence in the community, offering free outdoor educational wilderness and surf camps, after-school programs, one-on-one tutoring and college scholarships, family support services, and youth mentorship initiatives.

In alignment with the City of Santa Monica's vision to convert the Santa Monica Airport into a "Great Park," the CLF proposes a Public-Private Partnership to adaptively reuse approximately 5,000 square feet of an existing airport hangar. This space will serve as a multifaceted facility encompassing:
● Office Space: Administrative headquarters for CLF operations. ● Family Community Center: A hub for family support services, workshops, and community gatherings.
● Youth Learning Center: Educational spaces for after-school programs, tutoring, and vocational training.

While CLF will lead this initiative, we look forward to collaborating with other local nonprofits and community organizations to maximize the facility's impact and reach.

This space will be an incredible hub of community presence and interaction, and will also be available to lease to other community organizations, local clubs (such as the Santa Monica Kiwanis Club, as a perfect example) and community organizations, for workshops and other initiatives in the evenings and weekends. 1 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

2. Project Description and Space Utilization
The proposed project involves the renovation of a 5,000-square-foot section within one of the existing airport hangars. The adaptive reuse approach aligns with the city's emphasis on sustainability and preservation of historical structures . The facility will be designed to be flexible, accommodating various programs and events that cater to the diverse needs of the community.

Key features include:
● Multipurpose Rooms: For workshops, classes, and community meetings. ● Resource Center: Providing access to educational materials and technology. ● Outdoor Integration: Seamless connection with the surrounding park areas for outdoor activities and events, and a modified version of our Wilderness “Camp for All” Program, integrating native plant and wildlife education with classic camp activities.

3. Community Benefits and Sustainability Initiatives
The transformation of the hangar into a community and learning center offers numerous benefits:
● Educational Advancement: Providing youth with access to quality educational resources and programs.
● Community Engagement: Serving as a gathering place for families and community members to connect and collaborate.
● Economic Opportunities: Creating jobs and volunteer opportunities within the facility.

Sustainability is a core component of the project, with plans to incorporate:
● Energy Efficiency: Utilizing solar panels and energy-efficient systems to minimize environmental impact.
● Green Building Materials: Employing sustainable and locally sourced materials in construction.
● Water Conservation: Implementing water-saving fixtures and landscaping with native plants.

These initiatives support the city's guiding principles of starting with nature, inspiring wonder, and amplifying versatility .
2 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

4. Financial Plan Summary
Estimated, Projected Costs:
● Renovation and Construction: $225,000
● Operational Expenses (Annual): $975,000
Revenue Generation Strategies:
● Program Grants: Securing funding from educational and community development grants.
● Donations and Fundraising: Engaging donors and organizing fundraising events.
● Facility Rentals: Offering space for community events and workshops on the evenings and on weekends.

Potential Funding Sources:
● Local and State Grants: Exploring opportunities through California's community development programs, and agencies such as the California Natural Resources Agency.
● Private Foundations: Applying for grants from foundations supporting education and community initiatives. We have two family foundations who are potentially very interested in the possibility of considerably funding a sustainable, partial renovation of one of the existing airport hangars. We have a host of current funders who will be significantly intrigued by this funding opportunity, including possible grants from private foundations such as the Carrie Estelle Doheny Foundation.
● Corporate Partnerships: Collaborating with local businesses for sponsorships and support, such as SNAP Inc and Capital One.

In 1993, the Children's Lifesaving Foundation undertook a significant capital project, by fully renovating the historic Circle X Ranch, a 1,655-acre property nestled in the Santa Monica Mountains. This endeavor was made possible through a 10-year "sweat equity" lease agreement with the National Park Service, allowing CLF to transform the former Boy Scout camp into a vibrant outdoor education and recreation facility. The renovated ranch became the home of CLF's signature "Camp for All" program for over a decade, (free of cost for all participants and participating agencies) providing underserved youth from Los Angeles County with immersive nature-based experiences, mentorship, and educational enrichment. This project exemplifies CLF's capacity to collaborate effectively with public agencies, repurpose existing infrastructure, and deliver impactful community programs that resonate with both environmental stewardship and social equity.
3 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

5. Project Implementation Timeline
Assuming a start date of January 1, 2029, the proposed timeline is as follows:
● Q1 2029: Finalize design plans and obtain all necessary permits. ● Q2-Q3 2029: Commence and complete construction and renovations, in full agreement and accord with the City’s chosen design team Sasaki, using all sustainable materials.
● Q4 2029: Furnish and equip the facility; staff recruitment and training. ● Q1 2030: Launch of programs and official opening of the community and learning center.

6. Alignment with Community Engagement and City Council Direction This proposal directly supports the City of Santa Monica's commitment to transforming the airport site into a space that prioritizes public use, community engagement, and sustainability, as outlined in Measure LC and the city's guiding principles. By repurposing existing structures for educational and community purposes, the project preserves the site's historical significance while meeting contemporary community needs.

The CLF is committed to ongoing collaboration with the city, local organizations, and residents to ensure the facility remains fully responsive to the evolving needs of the Santa Monica community.
*Any additional information that demonstrates the feasibility and community benefits of the proposal in alignment with the community engagement and City Council direction to date.

Over the past 32 years, the Children's Lifesaving Foundation (CLF) has cultivated enduring partnerships with a diverse array of local, state, and city agencies, as well as numerous community organizations. Notable collaborations include engagements with the California Coastal Commission, the City of Malibu, King Gillette Ranch, RDCSMM (Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains) Homeboy Industries, the Venice and Metro Boys & Girls Clubs, Upward Bound, and many other nonprofit and community entities. These alliances have been instrumental in allowing the CLF to deliver truly impactful, enriching educational and recreational programs and services to underserved youth and families throughout Los Angeles County.

CLF's history of successful collaborations underscores our capacity to work synergistically with public agencies and community stakeholders. For instance, our partnership with the National Park Service facilitated the transformation of the Circle X Ranch into a vibrant outdoor education center, exemplifying our ability to repurpose existing structures for community benefit.
4 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
The proposed adaptive reuse of a 5,000-square-foot section of an existing airport hangar into a community and learning center aligns seamlessly with the City of Santa Monica's vision to convert the Santa Monica Airport into a "Great Park" that emphasizes public use, community engagement, and sustainability. By leveraging our extensive network of partnerships and our proven track record in facility renovation and program implementation, CLF is well-positioned to contribute meaningfully to this transformative project.

Our proposal not only preserves the historical significance of the airport structures but also introduces a dynamic space that fosters educational advancement, community engagement, and environmental stewardship. Through continued collaboration with the City Council, local organizations, and residents, CLF is committed to ensuring that the repurposed facility serves as a cornerstone for community enrichment and aligns with the guiding principles established through community engagement initiatives.

Our history of 32 years of dedicated service to the needs of underserved youth and families in Los Angeles County truly speaks for itself, and our founder, Maria D’Angelo, was just commended in 2023 by both Mayor Karen Bass and the Malibu City Council for the Children’s Lifesaving Foundation’s truly positive and profound impact on over 95,000 youth and families from historically underserved neighborhoods in L.A. since our inception in 1993.
*Links to Current Press:
https://www.childrenslifesaving.org/press
Link to Program Video and Info about our Camp for All Wilderness Camp Program:
https://www.childrenslifesaving.org/wildernesscampforall It’s our honor and privilege to be included along with other worthy, partner organizations from the Westside to be considered for this truly exciting opportunity. We are once again grateful for your consideration, and I so look forward to speaking with you all in person, hopefully one day very soon! Have a great rest of your week… Our very best wishes,
Francesca McCaffery
Executive Director
1112 Montana Avenue-#534-Santa Monica, CA-90403
5 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
47 David Yakobson
From: Ash Crossan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:53 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
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
As a Santa Monica resident and someone who cares deeply about our city’s history and future,I wanted to share a few thoughts on the future of SMO.

Santa Monica played a major role in American aerospace history. It’s where Donald Douglas built the DC-3 and helped win a world war. That legacy doesn’t need to be erased -- it can be reimagined. What’s on the table shouldn’t be elimination, but evolution.

The airport can, and should, be more active in the life of our community. Beyond the educational and economic possibilities, SMO has already proven its value -- especially during emergency situations like the recent fires. That public benefit is worth building on.

There’s a real opportunity here to lead in the next chapter of clean, community-driven aviation. That could mean electric aircraft, modern flight simulators, job training, STEM programs for local students, and green infrastructure that blends open space with smart development.

Here’s what that kind of evolution could look like:
 A critical hub for emergency response and fire rescue  A STEM education and training center that inspires local youth  A launchpad for electric and autonomous aviation that reduces traffic and emissions  Community access and green space, thoughtfully integrated into the layout  Economic resilience for the city moving forward
 Continued local control after 2028, keeping decisions in our hands We don’t have to choose between a park and an airport. We can create something forward-thinking that honors our past and invests in what’s next.

Let’s not rush to close something with this much potential. Let’s evolve it -- together.

Best,
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
48 Ash Crossan | Journalist
(302)757-0920 | [email protected]
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
49 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:54 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:

Thank you for your consideration.

Salim Adaya
808 Adelaide Place
Santa Monica, CA 90402
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
50 David Yakobson
From: Hans Schieder <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:56 PM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: AMO
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Every community which has had the vision to keep it's airport open has thrived.

Santa Monica was once the pearl of the west coast, attracting visitors from around the world. Today it is a filthy accumulation of dead beats from around the nation.

The 3rd st promenade was a wonderful place to visit. Today it is an accumulation of buildings for lease that no company wants.

Other cities still thrive, SM is dying. All because of pathetic management. Don't make the same mistake with SMO! There is still time to revive travel to Santa Monica if it's airport is helped to modernize rather than being reduced to rubble.

The future of the entire city is at stake, not just the airport! Time to think!!
Hans Schieder
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
51 David Yakobson
From: Faustin Carter <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:59 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: Santa Monica Airport Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
As a local resident of Santa Monica (and an airport neighbor; I live in Sunset Park at 2261 23rd St between Pico and Pearl) I am writing to advocate strongly that whatever is done to the Santa Monica Airport land post 2028 continue to include a focus on revenue generating aviation activities.

It is clear from community surveys and well documented in Staff Report 6638 that the clear consensus of the Santa Monica community is to have a "Great Park" with minimal to no housing development at the current airport site. It is also clear from that report that there is not currently sufficient capital or future revenue designated to support such a park.

I am writing to express my strong support for a future plan for the airport site that fuses the current revenue-generating aviation activities (i.e. the ability for airplanes to take off and land and pay for that privilege and the surrounding businesses that support that activity) and the concept of increased parkoriented public spaces (sports play fields, walking/biking paths, green-space, etc.). This would both reduce the size and scope of the park option, making it more fundable, and also provide additional revenue generation that could be taxed to specifically pay for the project.

Santa Monica doesn't need to pick between a park and an airport. The airport is one of Santa Monica's "crown jewels" and once it is erased it can never be created again. The Santa Monica airport brings immense value to the city in three ways:
- It is a transportation hub that allows rapid ingress and egress of materials and supplies in an emergency. It was heavily used during the recent fires, and will be instrumental, again, in resourcing the West Side of the greater LA area in case of future disaster. - It is an opportunity to promote the future of green aviation. Indeed, recently Santa Monica served as the final landing site of the world's first transcontinental all-electric airplane flight. With the advent of unleaded aviation gas and viable electric aircraft the opportunities for revenue generation and national leadership in this business space are immense and should not be squandered by the city. - It is a historical landmark that celebrates the best of America's aviation spirit and legacy.

Please consider an option that continues to make use of this incredible resource the city currently owns.

A future that combines an incredible community park with the future of green, quiet, clean, autonomous aviation is one that all Santa Monica residents and leaders can be proud of.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
52 Sincerely,
Faustin Carter
Santa Monica Resident and long time private pilot
2261 23rd St. Santa Monica, CA 90405
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
53 David Yakobson
From: Monte Grix <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 1:59 PM
To: Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems; 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:

I had the opportunity to visit Montreal, Canada, and I was struck by the massive amounts of, and the thoughtful use of public space for that city's residents. And how their public policy decisions stand in stark and sad contrast to the lack of public planning in many American cities, including, unfortunately, our own City of Santa Monica. So with that in mind:

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. I have been a youth volunteer coach for over 15 years and a volunteer referee with AYSO. 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.

Santa Monica is a wonderful place to live and to raise a family. Overdevelopment threatens that, however, and we will never get that opportunity back. Please be the thoughtful steward of public trust that I know you all are....for the kids and for all of us. For the people.

Thank you,
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
54 Monte Grix
1433 24th St, Santa Monica, CA 90404
(310) 804-3241
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
55 David Yakobson
From: Fred Fourcher <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 2:00 PM
To: Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject: July 8th meeting - Agenda item 7A - Airport Planning Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Honorable Council Members,
I live in Orange County and am in the TV and entertainment business which takes me to Santa Monica on a regular basis. I am a private pilot and someƟmes fly to Santa Monica so I can extend the meeƟngs I can do in a day. In person meeƟngs have resulted in highly beneficial outcomes for both my company as well as the companies in Santa Monica.

I am a big advocate of keeping Santa Monica an airport. We had the great park promise here in OC that ulƟmately will result in around 20,000 homes being built on what was the El Toro Airport.

With Electric AircraŌ on the horizon this is really exciƟng for air mobility where the average person can take advantage of the ease in which I am able to get to Santa Monica.

Please keep Santa Monica an airport to open the future to air travel as well as keep the traffic and congesƟon down in Santa Monica.

Fred Fourcher
Cell 714 914 1000
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
56 David Yakobson
From: Taylor Begert <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 2:04 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Elaine Polachek; [email protected]; councilmtgitems; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Caroline Torosis Subject: Item 7.a SMAC Project JULY 8
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,
--
Taylor Begert
Singer/Songwriter & Worship Artist
www.taylorbegert.com
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
57 David Yakobson
From: Lisa Kienholz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 2:12 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: July 8th, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item 7: Evolve Santa Monica Airport Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Forward my email from yesterday to this email address as well. ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Lisa Kienholz <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 at 05:13:01 PM PDT
Subject: July 8th, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item 7: Evolve Santa Monica Airport Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
As a local resident, member of the local general aviation community and a long-time admirer of Santa Monica’s historic role in American aerospace, I urge you to consider a path of evolution, not elimination for the Santa Monica Airport.

I began my flight training as a young woman, in 1981, that the Santa Monica airport. I live less than 2 miles from SMO and fly out of the Santa Paula airport. The city of Santa Paula embraces, and takes pride in, their airports history. The Santa Paula residents understand the importance of the airport as a community resource. A place where the local children, and residences of all ages, can pursue STEM and aviation education. Where they respect the airports economic contribution to their city and where the firefighters regularly set up a base to fight local fires.

The history of the Santa Monica airport is an important history, where Donald Douglas built the DC-3 and helped win a world war. It is my hope that the Santa Monica City council will do it's job in representing the community with the knowledge of the important part the local airport plays in support of the community. It is my belief that the future of the Santa Monica airport is a vital part of the future of Santa Monica and it's surrounding areas. Local airports are needed in a time of emergency and play an important role in advancing aviation and training future pilots.

The evolution of the Santa Monica Airport could mean:
 A world-class STEM education and training center, where Santa Monica students are inspired to pursue science, technology, and flight
 A hub for electric and autonomous aviation, already being tested at SMO and poised to reduce traffic congestion and emissions
 Green space and community access, thoughtfully integrated with aviation infrastructure  Long-term economic vitality for a city facing major fiscal headwinds Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
58  Continued local control over airport operations and land use after 2028, allowing the City to shape SMO’s evolution in line with community values and future technologies Santa Monica doesn’t need to pick between a park and an airport. We can build a 21st-century innovation campus— one that honors our history, serves our residents, and inspires future generations.

Please don’t rush to erase our past. If you let the Santa Monica Airport close during your term on the City Council it will be lost forever. Please let's work together to evolve it into something extraordinary.

Sincerely,
Lisa Kienholz
Vintage Aircraft Owner/Pilot
Board Member - Figure 1 Foundation - Aviation Scholarships Board Member - Continental Luscombe Assocation
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
59 David Yakobson
From: Vincent Landay <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 2:37 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 - 8-July-2025
Importance: High
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers,
As a lifelong resident of Santa Monica, I have enjoyed and made use of our city's parks for many years. However, there has consistently been a
shortage of park space, especially since, aside from Clover Park, all the others are only one square block in size.

During my three years as Regional Commissioner for Santa Monica AYSO and additional years as Field & Safety Director, I witnessed the significant unmet needs of not only the youth soccer community but also other youth sports that are in dire need of field space.

As a tennis player, I have often found myself waiting for an hour to access a court, sometimes having to ask others to leave. In other instances, I have given up and tried several other parks, only to return home without having played. With the rise in popularity of pickleball, the demand for courts has increased even more.

However, the answer is NOT to fill our Great Park area with new buildings. We need more playing fields, courts, and natural spaces on the East side of our concrete jungle.

I have read the park consultants' webpages and participated in all of the informational meetings. I urge you to proceed with the development of an inspiring, LC-compliant Great Park that includes a sensible financing plan prioritizing existing on-site revenue sources, without selling or privatizing the land.

As our park-deficient city continues to rapidly grow, it is crucial that we plan for the creation of adequate open, recreational, and regenerative spaces that can restore habitats and serve the needs of both current and future generations.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
60 Sincerely,
Vincent Landay
……………………………………………………………………………………………
This message was sent from my personal gmail account.

Please refer any business inquires to: [email protected] Thanks a bunch!
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
61 David Yakobson
From: Laura Hoffman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 3:10 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,
Please approve the plans for an LC-compliant Great Park (no ballot measure, no new development) at the Santa Monica Airport location. Our city needs more park space and this location should be the site of 100% park space with no new development, including housing or commercial space.

Thank you,
Laura Hoffman, Santa Monica City Resident
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
62 David Yakobson
From: Leisa Nguyen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 3:17 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Dan Hall; Elaine Polachek; [email protected] Subject: SUBJECT: Item 7.a SMAC Project June 8
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 parks and open spaces 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 an LC-compliant Great Park on our public land for the benefit of ALL Santa Monicans.

Thank you,
--
Leisa
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
63 David Yakobson
From: Moriah <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 3:21 PM
To: Barry Snell; Caroline Torosis; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick; councilmtgitems; HOLLIS

ERDMANN
Subject: KEEP THE AIRPORT AS AN AIRPORT!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

This is not about preserving the status quo. It’s about leading the next chapter of clean, quiet, community-minded aviation. Electric aircraft, advanced simulators, flight schools, STEM education hubs, and green infrastructure can all co-exist alongside open space—and even a modest amount of thoughtfully integrated housing.

Here’s what evolution could mean:

Please don’t rush to erase our past. Let’s evolve it into something extraordinary.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
64 keep the airport! Did anyone notice how important the local airport was during the fires?! Please think forward
not corporate.

Sincerely,
Moriah C Slates
Daughter of a Navy pilot, and local resident/voter for over 33 years
1427 harvard st E
Santa Monica
CA 90404
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
65 David Yakobson
From: Amy Fraz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 3:21 PM
Subject: GREAT PARK - AIRPORT CONVERSION
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and City Councilmembers:

Thank you for your consideration.
--
Amy
90403
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
66 David Yakobson
From: Deryck Reed <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 3:32 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 Airpor Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Here’s what evolution could mean:
 A world-class STEM education and training center, where Santa Monica students are inspired to pursue science, technology, and flight
 A hub for electric and autonomous aviation, already being tested at SMO and poised to reduce traffic congestion and emissions
 Green space and community access, thoughtfully integrated with aviation infrastructure  Long-term economic vitality for a city facing major fiscal headwinds  Continued local control over airport operations and land use after 2028, allowing the City to shape SMO’s evolution in line with community values and future technologies Santa Monica doesn’t need to pick between a park and an airport. We can build a 21st-century innovation campus— one that honors our history, serves our residents, and inspires future generations.

Please don’t rush to erase our past. Let’s evolve it into something extraordinary.

Sincerely,
Deryck Reed
Pilot who flies for business and pleasure to Santa Monica regularly.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
67 David Yakobson
From: Jonah Breslau <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 3:45 PM
To: Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems; Nikima Newsome; Lana Negrete
Subject: Re: Item 7a: 2 in 3 Santa Monica Voters Say Airport Site Is Big Enough to Include Both Affordable Housing And Parks/Open Space
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Please see this article for additional coverage: https://smdp.com/business/development/airportdebate-intensifies-in-hours-before-tonights-council-meeting-with-new-surveys-and-outreach/ Thank you,
Jonah
On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 12:46 PM Jonah Breslau <[email protected]> wrote:

Honorable Mayor Negrete and Council,
Please see the attached memo. With the 191-acre Santa Monica Airport scheduled to close in 2028, the future use of this property is
the most important land use decision facing city leaders. Previously released surveys on this topic reflected the views of self-selected participants in city outreach efforts. This memo shares findings from the first random-sample survey on this topic using rigorous methods to ensure that the results are statistically valid, reliable, and representative of the views of the city’s full electorate.

This survey, commissioned by UNITE HERE! Local 11 and completed last week, finds that two in three Santa Monica voters recognize that the Airport site is big enough for both housing and for parks/open space after it closes in 2028, and support both uses. Please see the attached memo for more details.
--
Jonah Breslau
UNITE HERE Local 11
Research Analyst
He/him/his
773 603 5174
[email protected]
--
Jonah Breslau
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
68 UNITE HERE Local 11
Research Analyst
He/him/his
773 603 5174
[email protected]
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
69 David Yakobson
From: Rachel Maguire <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 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: Item 7.A. SMAC Project - July 8, 2025
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

Sincerely,
Rachel Maguire
Santa Monica Taxpayer and Resident
_____________
Rachel Maguire
Showrunner/Director/Writer
+1-773-551-2642
[email protected]
www.najaproductions.com
Skype: Rmaguire2
Confidentiality Notice: The contents of this email, all related responses and any files and/or attachments transmitted with it are CONFIDENTIAL and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This email may contain legally privileged information and may not be disclosed or forwarded to anyone else without authorization from the originator of this email. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies from your system.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
70 David Yakobson
From: Will Wright <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 3:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems; [email protected]; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Jesse Zwick Cc: Jeremy Bamberger; Carlo Caccavale; Mark Oberholzer; Kevin Daly; Ralph Mechur; Brian Lane; Hank Koning; Julie Eizenberg
Subject: A Collaborative Vision for Santa Monica: Strong Support for "Growing Park, Growing Community" at the Santa Monica Airport Site
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers:

As the Director of Government and Public Affairs for the Los Angeles Chapter of The American Institute of Architects (AIA|LA), I am writing to express profound admiration for your leadership and unwavering commitment to delivering policy outcomes that will benefit Santa Monica for generations to come. The decisions you are currently making regarding the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) are truly transformative, and we recognize the immense responsibility you carry.

In that spirit of collaboration and shared vision for Santa Monica's future, AIA|LA is available to partner with the Santa Monica City Council to organize and facilitate additional community outreach and focused 'study sessions' dedicated to integrating more professional feedback and proactive recommendations from the regional architecture and design community. We believe that by actively engaging the deep expertise within our profession, we can provide invaluable insights to further inform your decision as it relates to determining a preferred scenario for the SMACP. This collaborative effort will ensure that the ultimate design is not only visionary but also grounded in practical, sustainable, and equitable principles.

For instance, these sessions could explore:
 Best practices in resilient design: Drawing on case studies from other progressive cities, we can offer insights on incorporating climate-adaptive strategies, such as advanced stormwater management, passive cooling, and renewable energy integration, into the park and housing designs to ensure long-term environmental sustainability and cost savings.  Equitable design solutions for public spaces: Our members can provide expertise on creating inclusive and accessible park and community amenities that truly serve diverse populations, considering factors like universal design principles, culturally responsive programming, and safe, walkable connections to surrounding neighborhoods.
 Innovative housing typologies and affordability strategies: We can convene experts to discuss cutting-edge approaches to housing density, mixed-income models, and financing mechanisms that maximize affordability without compromising design quality or community integration. This Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
71 includes exploring how density, as proposed in Scenario Three, can actually enhance livability and foster vibrant urban environments.
 Integrated urban design for seamless transitions: Architects and urban designers can offer perspectives on how to seamlessly blend the proposed parkland with new residential and commercial areas, ensuring a cohesive urban fabric, efficient mobility, and a strong sense of place for both new and existing residents. This involves thinking holistically about pedestrian flows, public realm activation, and architectural character.  Leveraging technology for smarter city development: We can bring forward ideas on how smart city technologies can be integrated into the new development to enhance efficiency, sustainability, and quality of life, from smart transit solutions to advanced building management systems.

Please reach out to me directly at [email protected] so we can begin organizing these additional roundtable discussions and study sessions. Providing greater access to more ideas and input from LA's architecture and design community will undoubtedly lead to a more robust and widely supported final plan.

With this letter, I also wish to convey support for Scenario Three: Growing Park, Growing Community as the optimal path forward for the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project. This scenario represents a transformative, "both/and" approach that is critical for the long-term vitality, resilience, and equity of our city.

Santa Monica, and indeed the entire California region, faces an acute and persistent housing shortage.

This crisis profoundly impacts our workforce, families, and the very fabric of our communities. We believe the redevelopment of this 192-acre public land represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address this critical need while simultaneously creating a world-class public amenity.

The "Growing Park, Growing Community" scenario directly tackles these imperatives by integrating substantial housing with a grand public park. This approach, fundamentally, builds a more resilient, equitable, and fiscally sound city by:
 Maximizing Financial Resilience: Unlike park-only plans, Scenario Three creates a selfsustaining revenue stream through integrated housing and commercial development. This innovative financial model will help fund the ambitious park features without placing additional tax burdens or debt on the city, ensuring long-term fiscal health and the park's viability.  Addressing the Housing Crisis with Urgency: This scenario's vision of up to 15,000 homes, at an appropriate and responsible density of approximately 75 units per acre, directly confronts our severe regional housing shortage. This is an investment in human dignity, providing homes for essential workers, families, and members of our local workforce who currently cannot afford to live where they work, significantly contributing to the regional housing supply.  Creating a Vibrant Park for All: A truly great urban park thrives when surrounded by people who can easily access and enjoy it. By developing a complete neighborhood alongside the park, Scenario Three ensures vibrant utilization, safety, and community engagement for this invaluable green space, making it a regional destination accessible to many, not just a select few.  Championing Climate Solutions: Building homes in resource and job-rich environments like Santa Monica significantly reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT), decreasing commutes and serving our planet by cutting carbon emissions. This is a crucial climate action that aligns with the City’s climate and transportation goals.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
72  Ensuring Future Generational Equity: By expanding housing opportunities, we ensure that future generations have a fighting chance to live within our wonderful city, counteracting the trend of Santa Monica becoming a self-selected city reserved only for the wealthy.  Fostering Economic Vitality: Scenario Three's thoughtful integration of housing and mixed-use spaces provides meaningful opportunities for business growth, innovation, and job creation, building upon the site's legacy as a platform for commerce and creativity. This directly supports our architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry, where a diverse workforce, including immigrants, fills critical labor gaps and enhances project delivery.

I recognize that any viable plan must benefit both the city and local businesses while maximizing efficient land use, providing meaningful opportunities for housing, recreation, and innovation. Therefore, Scenario Three aligns most closely with these priorities.

I strongly encourage the Santa Monica City Council to include a housing scenario of up to 15,000 homes in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), believing this site can be a model for how cities can center housing, equity, and sustainability in land use planning.

We recognize Scenario Three as a bold, forward-thinking vision that aligns with the highest principles of responsible urban planning and civic duty. It reflects a commitment to a Santa Monica that is inclusive, financially robust, and designed for the well-being of all its residents for generations to come. We urge you to move this project forward with housing as a central pillar and to ensure the environmental review fully reflects its potential to meet California’s most pressing housing needs. *Disclaimer: The advice and perspectives shared in this letter belong to the author and should not be considered official recommendations from AIA Los Angeles.

Very truly yours,
Will Wright, Hon. AIA|LA
Director, Government & Public Affairs
American Institute of Architects, Los Angeles Chapter (AIA|LA) Architecture for Communities Los Angeles (ACLA)
4450 West Adams Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90016
E: [email protected]
Subscribe to the AIA LA Newsletter
instagram | linkedin | twitter | youtube | facebook
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
73 David Yakobson
From: Shayok Chakraborty <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 4:04 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Re Agenda 7a - Cloverfield Commons
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Hello,
My name is Shayok Chakraborty, I live at 2440 34th St. Apt. B. I want to write my strong support for the Cloverfield Commons proposal and the building of 3,000 apartment units alongside a park. That's the kind of community I would love to live in - lots of people, diverse, across incomes, where we can live in a real community together versus isolated from each other. I am currently renting in Santa Monica and as a law student I can only afford it because I have rent control. As a future public interest lawyer, I'll only be able to buy here if affordable housing is created. I grew up in the Valley and went to Cleveland High School. Half of my old friends - teachers, real estate agents, social workers - are college graduates yet still live at home, because it is so expensive to rent or buy a starter home in the LA area. Cloverfield Commons would give 3,000 families a chance. Please support this for the future of Santa Monica and to make Santa Monica a better place for working and middle class families. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Shayok
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
74 David Yakobson
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 4:21 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

This is not about preserving the status quo. It’s about leading the next chapter of clean, quiet, community-minded aviation. Electric aircraft, advanced simulators, flight schools, STEM education hubs, and green infrastructure can all co-exist alongside open space—and even a modest amount of thoughtfully integrated housing.

Here’s what evolution could mean:
 A VITAL HUB IN FIRE RESCUE OPERATIONS Serving our community  A world-class STEM education and training center, where Santa Monica students are inspired to pursue science, technology, and flight
 A hub for electric and autonomous aviation, already being tested at SMO and poised to reduce traƯic congestion and emissions
 Green space and community access, thoughtfully integrated with aviation infrastructure.  Long-term economic vitality for a city facing major fiscal headwinds  Continued local control over airport operations and land use after 2028, allowing the City to shape SMO’s evolution in line with community values and future technologies Santa Monica doesn’t need to pick between a park and an airport. We can build a 21st-century innovation campus—one that honors our history, serves our residents, and inspires future generations.

Please don’t rush to erase our past. Let’s evolve it into something extraordinary.

Sincerely,
John Chan
Private Pilot, Santa Monica Resident
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
75 David Yakobson
From: Benjamin Kay <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 4:40 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,
As your inboxes swell with support letters for an LC-compliant Great Park that maximizes green, blue, and recreational spaces, I remain concerned. While I optimistically anticipate your prostance tonight, I am worried that some members of the council might not be genuinely behind “Start with Nature” nor in tune with our city’s Sustainability Rights Ordinance and will thus cave to special interests of pro-development. A great deal of voters will be monitoring this issue very closely moving forwards, so my hope is that all of you recognize what your constituents overwhelmingly want, and REMAIN COMMITTED to (1) no more polluting airports and (2) no more urban sprawl. Santa Monica voters want rewilding and places to play. We also support infill densification in order to meet below market rate housing needs.

Please don’t fall for the special interest’s economic arguments that affordable housing and privatization are the only ways to sustain the park. FALSE! There are numerous funding avenues to explore including: (1) Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) with cultural, educational, and wellness institutions, (2) Green Bond Financing + Parcel Tax Ballot Measures, and (3) Revenue-generating Events, Concessions, and Naming Rights to name a few.

Please don’t fall for the special interest’s equity argument that affordable housing is the only equitable pathway forward. Our city is PARK-POOR. As a renter-majority city, our kids lack play spaces. Please consider all aspects of equity as detailed below:

I. Environmental Justice & Climate Equity
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
76  Parkland Cools the Region: Vast tree canopies and natural landscapes reduce urban heat island effects—vital in the face of rising temperatures.  Parkland Improves Air & Water Quality: Native vegetation filters pollutants, combats respiratory illness, and helps recharge local aquifers.  Parkland Acts as a Climate Buffer for Vulnerable Communities: The park will serve frontline communities most affected by heatwaves, flooding, and pollution—offering relief and climate resilience.

II. Regional Access & Racial Equity
 The park borders West LA, Mar Vista, Venice, Palms, and other more racially and economically diverse neighborhoods.
 This is not just a Santa Monica park—it would serve thousands of Angelenos, especially those in dense, underserved, and park-poor parts of Los Angeles.  Building housing on half the site may benefit several hundred residents, while keeping the land public and green would benefit tens of thousands.

III. Public Health, Mental Health, & Social Cohesion
 Green space is directly tied to lower rates of anxiety, depression, obesity, and heart disease.
 The park offers a free, inclusive space for youth, seniors, families, and people with disabilities—groups often marginalized in the planning of urban housing.  Community gathering areas for art, music, dance, healing, and cultural expression help build resilience and belonging, especially in diverse urban settings.

IV. True Equity = Public Benefit
 Turning half the land into housing benefits a narrow group; keeping the park open serves all races, all ages, all income levels. Equity isn’t just who gets to live nearby; it’s who has the right to clean air, public joy, access to nature, and intergenerational space.

V. Legacy of Land Use & Reconciliation
 The land was taken from the community long ago and used for aviation. Returning it to the public as open space is a step toward healing historical injustices, including those against the Tongva San Gabrielino.
 Building luxury-adjacent housing on reclaimed public land reinforces exclusion; building a public park restores access.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
77 The Great Park is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to correct a deep environmental and social imbalance. Equity isn’t served by paving over our last large open space—it’s realized by opening it up to everyone, forever.

Thank you for your support tonight and well into the future! Sincerely,
Benjamin Kay
--
__
Benjamin Kay
Adjunct Associate Professor
Life and Environmental Sciences
Co-Founder of Team Marine
Santa Monica College & Santa Monica High School
310.560.6157
><((((º> ><((((º> ><((((º> ><((((º> ><((((º> ><((((º> ><((((º> Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
78 David Yakobson
From: Lauren Harning <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 4:47 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.

Lauren Greene
1244 11th st apt c SM 90401
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
79 David Yakobson
From: Erik Wile <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 4:48 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 urge you to consider leaaving Santa Monica airport open for scaled back aviation uses. I've enjoyed looking at the presenations that Sasaki has created, and the reseearch they have done into converting the airport property into a great park, but at each step they have said that keeping the airport open in any capacity is not part of their design study. I think that is a mistake; the airport is important for emergencies and could be an asset for recreational use.

If the problem is the noise from jets and pollution from leaded aviation gas, then figure out a way to have a very restrictive noise limit and forbid planes using leaded fuels from using the airport. With low-noise and low emissions electric aviation just starting to emerge as viable, it is the worst possible time to give up on the airport.

I live near the airport and would love to have something like NYC's Central Park an easy bike ride away... but I know SM just doesn't have the same tax base that NYC does, and such a large property would be a challenge [read:
expensive] to keep feeling safe for a residents to use. There is room on the site for a scaled back aviation use, plus bike paths and parks around that would integrate it into the neighborhood, but Sasaki was not tasked with exploring these options.

The Council and the residents of Santa Monica deserve a comprehensive analysis of multiple land use scenerios, including economic modeling of the costs and risks of different options. Everything should be considered, from replacing the whole parcel with housing, to including retaining aviation on a portion of the site. Restricting the study to just having a great park is excessively limited, since we don't have the tax base or transit orientation that would make a Central Park-like park work in the corner of Santa Monica.

As an airport neighbor I ask that you please don't close the airport; it is an asset to the city, not a nuisance.

Thank you for your service to the city.

Sincerely,
Erik Wile
Sunset Park Santa Monica resident.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
80 David Yakobson
From: Michael Kadish <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 4:59 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.

BUILD NO HOUSING (APARTMENTS, CONDOS OR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES) ON THIS SPACE. NO MIXED-USE ZONING. PARKS AND SUPPORTIVE BUILDINGS ONLY!!!!
Thank you,
Michael Kadish
(Santa Monica resident and business owner)
Michael B. Kadish, Esq.

The Kadish Law Group, P.C.
3122 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200
Santa Monica, California 90404
Tel: 424-239-6210|Fax: 424-239-6220
[email protected]
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
81 consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury Department Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter addressed herein.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
82 David Yakobson
From: Katherine Newall <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 5:09 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Dan Hall; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Amber Richane; Elaine Polachek Subject: Airport Conversation - Do Not Close the Airport Please Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
From: Katherine Newall <[email protected]>
Date: July 8, 2025 at 4:58:58 PM PDT
To: Katherine Newall <[email protected]>
Dear City Council Members,
I'm not able to attend tonight, but I did want to make my feelings known.

We bought our house 18 years ago on Oak Street and I was fortunate enough to have grown up on Ashland and 14th street which is almost under the flight path.

At the time of buying our house there was a significant amount of jet traffic, which was very loud and very disheartening and I was very pro closing the airport obviously jet traffic has been curtailed. However, the conversation around closing the airport never advanced in the public discourse
Recently, I discovered what how invaluable the airport was during the fires and how it is used in disaster situations. At a time where insurance agencies are abandoning California I am not sure the City of Santa Monica should abandon its citizens - we need the airport.

As well as now understanding that the more space we have unused will be considered for massive housing projects in the open space. I am against another Playa Vista project and fear that our community does not have the resources or infrastructure to support the health and safety of its residents with such a potential massive housing complex. I know money will talk and SM is in need of new dollars and believe builders will rule. The idea of building resources that citizens can use must be considered and the options must be studied as to what the City can afford. Please show me those studies? Listen to your community we demand to be heard and we want to see the studies that outline how we can afford any future projects.

Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
83 Thank you for your consideration.

Katherine Caulfield Newall
310.663.3670
[email protected]
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
84 David Yakobson
From: Connor Webb <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 5:15 PM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Dan Hall; Ellis Raskin; Barry Snell; Natalya Zernitskaya; councilmtgitems
Subject: Item 7A: Airport Scenario
Attachments: Airport Mobility and Housing.jpg
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

EXTERNAL
Dear Council,
I am writing to encourage you to give direction for the Airport Park Conversion Phase 3b Preferred Scenario development that includes two important aspects regarding mobility and housing options (see attached image):

1. Establish a new North-south active transportation corridor along the Yale/Stewart/28th Corridor through the park to improve access to the park and sustainable mobility between Santa Monica and LA.  There are currently few safe routes between Santa Monica and Mar Vista or Venice. The nearest alternative route is 23rd street, which has a massive hill that is difficult to climb and dangerous to descend. The Stewart corridor is much flatter.
 Connection through the park (via mutliuse paths, boardwalks etc) to Stewart Ave to the south provides a new safe, direct connection to the SMC Bundy Campus and Mar Vista.  Yale/Stewart/28th corridor is signalized for all major road crossings, including Wilshire, Santa Monica, Olympic, Pico, and Ocean Park, with direct access to Clover Park and the future Airport Park  Connection through the park (via mutliuse paths, boardwalks etc) to Stewart Ave to the south provides a new safe connection to the SMC Bundy Campus and Mar Vista.
 LADOT is currently designing the Santa Monica to Ballona Creek Westside Mobility Project, which will most likely be along Beethoven St. The Stewart Corridor connects nicely into that project to expand its reach and utility.

2. Ensure mixed-use housing will be built in adjacent areas that will support the future park while minimally altering its footprint.
 This includes non-public land like the Santa Monica Business Park and north side of Ocean Park Blvd.
 Additionally, SMC has recently proposed modest amounts of affordable student housing on the SMC Bundy Campus, but staff should engage with them on how to maximize the housing on their surface lots.
 On airport land itself, housing should absolutely be included south of Airport Ave. This is a fair compromise that maintains the majority of the park for non-housing uses, while allowing some housing that will support the park financially and socially! Thank you,
Connor Webb
90404
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
85 David Yakobson
From: Liza Jensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 5:25 PM
To: Dan Hall
Subject: Keep the airport for our community
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

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 nota 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.

Thank you for your diligence and service.

Sincerely,
Liza Jensen
Santa Monica community member
Volunteer at Angle Flight
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025

Santa Monica City CouncilJuly 8, 2025

Santa Monica City Council
July 8, 2025