SR 10-10-2023 7A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 10, 2023
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 19
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Architecture Services
Subject: Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that City Council:
1. Review and comment on the democratic lottery process as the primary public
engagement method for the Future of the Santa Monica Airport project;
2. Provide direction to staff about: the framing question the Lottery Selected Panel
would answer and whether the Lottery Selected Panel should be comprised of
Santa Monica residents only or also include business owners and/or people from
the adjacent West Los Angeles area; and
3. Direct staff to prepare a sole source contract, as an exception to the competitive
bidding process pursuant to Section 2.24.250 (b), for Healthy Democracy to
provide the services related to the democratic lottery process and bring it back
for Council review in November.
Summary
As per Council direction on January 24, 2023 (Attachment A), City staff have been
working to assemble a team of consultants to help the City prepare for the
anticipated closure of the Santa Monica Airport (SMO) after December 31, 2028.
During these past eight months, staff explored the notion of a democratic lottery-
selected panel for the outreach scope of this project to happen concurrently with the
work of the Design and Technical Team (D+TT) instead of being led by the D+TT
and Staff, the traditional way of engaging community members.
The City has a long history of reaching out to and engaging with our community
members on long-range planning projects. From the General Plan Land Use and
7.A
Packet Pg. 361
2 of 19
Circulation Element (LUCE) to the most recent Housing Element, staff designed the
planning efforts to maximize community participation and find consensus on trade-
offs. While each of these were adopted by a majority of City Council members, each
plan took longer than expected and many in our community were left feeling
disenfranchised and disconnected. Previous outreach methods attempted to bring
each of these plans to every Santa Monican but even with these concerted efforts
only those with life circumstances that afforded them the ability to participate were
able to do so. These traditional planning efforts faced challenges due to limited
participation opportunities, individual unwillingness to participate, and plan fatigue,
among others.
To overcome these issues, staff proposes a democratic lottery process facilitated by
the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization Healthy Democracy (HD). This process is
designed to efficiently navigate the complexities of planning by involving a broad and
diverse panel of individuals that represent the Santa Monica community at large. The
Lottery- Selected Panel (“Panel” or “LSP”) is intended to be the focal point for public
engagement, with multiple opportunities to gather input from stakeholders and the
wider community. The goal is to establish a comprehensive and inclusive approach
to planning the airport's future that considers the realities of Measure LC, the needs
of our community now and in the future and seeks to foster broad consensus on how
to move forward. The principles of the Lottery-Selected Panel approach include:
selection by democratic lottery (or sortition), transparency of the process and
recommendations, collaboration between differing points of view, ample time for
information gathering and deliberating ideas iteratively, independence from special
interest groups, and accessibility to all participants.
An Information Item detailing the proposed outreach process was provided to the
City Council on September 25, 2023, and is included as an attachment to this Staff
Report (Attachment B).
Discussion
7.A
Packet Pg. 362
3 of 19
Over the last two decades, land-use planning has been a contentious issue in Santa
Monica. The City has undertaken several major planning endeavors, including the
LUCE, Bergamot Area Plan, Downtown Community Plan, and the most recent
Housing Element, aimed to encourage robust community involvement and to find
consensus on proposed changes. Despite achieving City Council approval for each
of these plans, they all encountered significant opposition. This resistance, directed
at key plan components, or the plan as a whole, led to prolonged disputes that forced
City Council into the challenging task of managing conflicting viewpoints. This
scenario created a “winner/loser” dynamic, leaving many community members
feeling excluded from or upset by the decision-making process. Even though City
staff and their consultants made efforts to extensively engage residents and
businesses through various traditional methods of outreach/engagement, including
workshops, pop-up events, and participation in local groups and City Council
meetings, the community’s reaction often expressed dissatisfaction with these
methods and only a small percentage of community members could participate.
Traditional outreach methods are further challenged due to limited participation
opportunities for community members (the number of events are limited and times
may not align with the availability of community members), personal barriers to
volunteering time to attend engagement events (the only people who can participate
are those with life circumstances that allow them to do so); and plan fatigue, as these
efforts can take years and those who can and want to participate grow weary.
In contrast to the above, LSPs are a democratic innovation that are designed to
involve everyday people in public decision-making. Often called “Citizens’
Assemblies” or “Policy Juries,” these processes merge two crucial elements: a
democratic lottery that guarantees a diverse panel that is representative of our actual
community, and a deliberative process that allows Panelists to collaboratively
formulate well-informed policy and/or land-use recommendations that go directly to
decision-makers. With over 600 examples globally to date, the model is gaining
traction as a way for governments to engage residents in collaborative, inclusive,
and durable policy solutions.
7.A
Packet Pg. 363
4 of 19
Figure 1 – Healthy Democracy’s lottery-selected panel
process.
7.A
Packet Pg. 364
5 of 19
In LSPs, participants are selected through a democratic lottery, ensuring
representation across demographic factors. The process actively invites randomly
chosen community members, breaking participation barriers by reaching people in
their homes via mailers. Those who respond to the invitation mailer opt-in to a pool of
respondents who are then selected in a public lottery selection event to participate in
the process. To encourage diverse participation, it is anticipated that healthy
Democracy may provide Panelists stipends and reimbursements to alleviate the
financial burden of participating and other accommodations are made to ensure
inclusivity and break down some of the challenges noted above. Support services for
the Community Panel, such as translation and adaptive technology, catering to
diverse learning styles, further ensures that a representative sample of Santa
Monica’s community members can participate fully in the process. It should be noted
that the work of the Panel does not supplant the traditional planning process. The
preferred scenario would be presented to the City Council as the Panel’s
recommendation, but the City Council has the authority to accept, revise, or reject the
scenario. If it is accepted, only then would the City begin the Specific Plan, Zoning,
and General Plan updates necessary to move forward. This next phase of work is not
included in the Panel’s work.
Once selected, the Panel is tasked with answering the framing question. To do so
they are guided by professional third-party facilitators, to collaboratively explore
guiding principles and scenario options related to the question. The deliberative
process places community members at the center of comprehensive decision-making
and fosters the ability to identify common-ground solutions. They gather information
from presenters, stakeholders, and experts, and use it to evaluate options and trade-
offs through facilitated small-group work. The broader community can view the
plenary discussions, even if they were not selected to be on the Panel, as all group
discussions will be live streamed. There will also be opportunities to provide input to
the Panel during their sessions through a variety of methods.
7.A
Packet Pg. 365
6 of 19
The Panel will work over the course of nine months to understand existing conditions,
learn from each other, create guiding principles, deliberate on scenarios, and provide
recommendations to the City Council, with emphasis on community buy-in.
Participants will have access to a Design and Technical Team (D+TT), contracted
through the City separately from this work, to support the Panel's work as well and
ensure the recommendations the Panel creates are rooted in an actionable plan that
considers ‘Day 1’ through full realization scenarios. Stakeholders and the broader
community will be involved in the process by nominating presenters and engaging in
feedback loops thereby deepening the reach and understanding of the Panel and
community support. Given their extensive time commitment and collaborative
orientation, Panelists quickly become leaders who are trusted, both by the public and
elected officials, to work in service of the broadest public good. The
recommendations, written by the Panelists themselves, will be presented directly to
City Council. This thorough and cooperative approach fosters recommendations with
wide community support and strong legitimacy.
Lottery-Selected Panel Process Specifics
The processes of Lottery-Selected Panels prioritize universal access, ensuring that
everyone can meaningfully participate in decision-making. In contrast to traditional
methods that place the responsibility on participants, these panels uphold the belief
that every individual has the right to be involved in decisions affecting their lives. To
achieve this inclusivity, barriers are actively reduced, and support is offered to
Panelists throughout the process. This support starts from the moment the Panelists
are selected, including personalized contact to address accessibility needs and
provide an orientation to the process. Dedicated staff are available to offer intensive
assistance to each panelist, setting a new standard for inclusivity and countering
unequal barriers often faced by marginalized individuals. By adopting this people-
centric approach to land-use and policymaking, the aim is to create an environment
where all individuals feel that they belong at the decision-making table, minimizing
obstacles to participation.
1. Preparation for the Selection Process
7.A
Packet Pg. 366
7 of 19
a. City Council to approve the framing question the Panel would answer.
b. An education campaign for Santa Monica community members about the
democratic lottery process and what the mailers look like and why folks
might want to send in the response and participate.
2. Panelist Selection Process
The selection process begins 10-12 weeks before the Panel’s first day. Panelists in
LSPs are chosen using a democratic lottery, ensuring a representative sample from
the general public. Unlike traditional methods that rely on self-selected participants,
this approach engages new residents through a randomized process. The process
starts with Healthy Democracy invitations to randomly chosen residential addresses,
simplifying participation by offering incentives like stipends, language services, and
expense reimbursements, if needed. From the respondents, a panel is randomly
selected to represent a diverse cross-section of the city.
a. Mailings are sent to 15,000-20,000 randomly selected (by Healthy
Democracy) residential addresses.
b. Any qualified residents at the selected addressees may reply by self-
reporting demographic information and returning the postage-paid mailer
back to Healthy Democracy. A “qualified” person is one who is at least 18
years of age, primarily lives at the address that the mailing was sent (or
have received a ‘golden ticket’ from a social service agency), are not a
current or former elected official and are not a current City staff member.
c. Healthy Democracy staff will take the responses and develop hundreds of
possible panels using the community demographics of Santa Monica
guaranteeing that any panel selected will reflect the diverse population in
the city. Each respondent is given a number to protect the privacy of the
Panelists.
d. A public lottery selection event is held to select the Panel and an alternate
panel in case any folks need to drop off before the Panel is seated. Only
the numbers are shown, not names at this stage.
7.A
Packet Pg. 367
8 of 19
e. Panelists are then informed by Healthy Democracy’s Panelist Liaison and
provided with comprehensive support services so they can participate fully
once the Panel is seated.
f. It is anticipated that the Panel will consist of approximately 40 people.
3. Panelist Services
In addition to ensuring that the Santa Monica community is represented fairly and
equitably, Healthy Democracy may compensate the Panelists for their time and effort
to alleviate the financial burden of participating. This helps ensure level footing by all
community members and illustrates the City’s commitment to listening to community
members and not filtering responses about the future of the Santa Monica Airport.
Healthy Democracy proposes to offer the following services:
a. Stipends are a key equity component of this process to ensure a
wider audience can participate. Traditional public engagement relies
on residents’ ability to give freely of their time, which allows those with
greater access to resources to have their voice heard more
frequently. It is anticipated that offering a stipend to offset the burden
will incentivize participation of those with fewer resources in terms of
time and money.
b. Reimbursements for additional expenses incurred in order to
participate, such as public transportation, further level the playing
field by providing support for community members that typically do
not participate due to family circumstances or lack of access to
reliable transportation to and from Panel discussions.
c. Comprehensive language services are provided so that residents
whose primary language is not English can participate fully.
d. Technology support is provided if an in-person meeting is not
possible, mostly this was needed as a response to COVID-19
outbreaks but if an unforeseen circumstance occurs, necessary
equipment and tech support will be provided.
e. Process orientation is critical and provided after the Panel is finalized.
This includes a personalized interview and information session,
7.A
Packet Pg. 368
9 of 19
survey of accessibility needs, dietary requirements, and intake
paperwork.
f. Accessibility accommodations are proactively identified and
provided for in-person venues and electronic communications as
well.
g. Other logistical support might include setting up carpools, one-
on-one phone support, delivery of materials in case of illness,
and addressing other needs as they come up to ensure Panelists
can fully participate.
h. Meals and refreshments are also provided throughout Panelist
deliberation days and accommodates food allergies and
restrictions.
4. Deliberation
The deliberative process places everyday individuals at the core of well-informed and
collaborative decision-making. Analogous to a jury trial, Panelists receive
comprehensive information and then independently deliberate on recommendations.
By engaging with numerous presenters, stakeholders, and experts, Panelists will
gain an understanding of the diverse perspectives about the Airport project.
Through carefully structured small-group discussions facilitated by professionals,
Panelists analyze options, assess trade-offs, and collaboratively devise solutions.
The broader public's input is integrated throughout the process to ensure diverse
community voices are considered. The recommendations, crafted in Panelists' own
words, are presented directly to decision makers. The rigorous and collaborative
nature of the deliberative process generates recommendations that typically enjoy
widespread community support and notable legitimacy.
Healthy Democracy will provide these unique process elements:
a. The deliberative process leaves time and space for deep and
thoughtful deliberation that will occur over 140 hours of discussion
in six weekend-long meetings allowing Panelists to ‘dig in’ to the
7.A
Packet Pg. 369
10 of 19
topic. At these meetings the Panel will utilize diverse and iterative
formats, led by third-party facilitators, that allow for larger group
discussions and then small-group work and activities to bring about
trust and understanding when tackling hard questions.
b. Healthy Democracy will engage in an intensive onboarding process
to yield productive collaboration by including activities related to
communication styles cognitive biases, and power and privilege.
This is important to unlock people’s natural knack for collaborative
problem solving and move beyond “win/lose” thinking.
c. There will be an extensive learning phase with dozens of
presenters, personal story-telling and site-specific learnings. During
this time Healthy Democracy will also demystify policy making and
empower Panelists to become experts on this complex topic,
exercise judgement and believe in their lived experiences.
d. Healthy Democracy will convene an Information Committee (IC) that
will ensure balanced information reaches the Panel during its initial
learning phase.
e. The notion that stakeholders and experts are “on tap, not on top” to
help inform the Panel but allow Panelists to recommend common
ground solutions and work through their own process to make
decisions.
f. Panelists will lead several community engagement opportunities
including a community workshop and by utilizing a tool called Pol.is
to “listen at scale” to what the community thinks about what the
Panel is working on without it being filtered through City staff or
electees. The Panelists receive direct feedback from the community
and can consider it in future discussions.
g. There is a strict process/content delineation over what and how the
Panel receives information and then delivers recommendations.
Typical outreach engagements rely on consultants of City staff to
collect, interpret, and summarize comments that can lead to
misunderstanding or mischaracterization of what the public thinks.
7.A
Packet Pg. 370
11 of 19
The LSP process eliminates outside intervention so that the Panel
speaks for itself and reports out directly to City Council.
h. Panel autonomy is of paramount importance. Panelists define the
process and Healthy Democracy is there to support and guide them,
but the Panel makes its own self-governance decisions.
i. There is third-party academic evaluation at each stage of the project
to continue learning and improving the LSP process.
5. Timeline
Healthy Democracy has proposed the following time commitment for the Future of the
Santa Monica Airport project: six (6) weekends and each weekend is expected to be
three-day weekends (Friday – Sunday) that could shift as the actual Panel is selected.
Full workdays would be from 9 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. with a break for lunch. The full schedule
is in the attached proposed scope of services (Attachment C), but an overview is
provided below with anticipated timeframes.
1. Weekend 1 (Fall 2024)
a. Welcome, introductions, Panelist lived-experiences, and Airport tour.
b. Meet and greet with Design and Technical Team (D+TT) and
other Information Committee (IC) approved presenters.
c. Activities around identifying potential Guiding Principles, Pol.is
usage, and decision-making methodologies.
d. Initiate first Pol.is engagement with broader community.
2. Weekend 2 (Fall 2024)
a. More IC selected presenters and the first Panel
requested presentations.
b. Independent Panelist research and interactions with D+TT
c. Review Pol.is feedback.
d. Brainstorming and iterative workshopping of Guiding
Principles in rotating small groups.
e. Initiate self-governance structure through Panelist-led
subcommittees.
3. Weekend 3 (Winter 2025)
7.A
Packet Pg. 371
12 of 19
a. Panelist-driven research and additional Panel-requested presenters.
b. Panel-hosted community event.
c. Initiate second Pol.is to the broader community.
d. Guiding Principles Report finalization and delivery.
e. Exploration of specific land-use frameworks in rotating small groups.
4. Weekend 4 (Winter 2025)
a. Review responses back from the Guiding Principles Report.
b. Deep Dive #1 with D+TT, to collaboratively explore potential
land-use frameworks and precedent case studies.
c. Review Pol.is feedback from broader community.
d. Iterative brainstorming and exploration of land-use frameworks
and tradeoffs analysis.
e. Organize around concepts for scenarios.
5. Weekend 5 (Spring 2025)
a. Review feedback from D+TT and stakeholders.
b. Deep Dive #2 with D+TT, to collaboratively develop
multiple comprehensive site use alternatives.
c. Alternative Scenarios Report finalization and delivery.
6. Weekend 6 (Summer 2025)
a. Review responses from City Council, stakeholders, and the
broader public on the Alternative Scenarios Report.
b. Deep Dive #3 with D+TT, to bring the Panel’s alternative
scenarios together into one cohesive recommendation.
c. Preferred Scenario Report finalization and delivery.
Anticipated LSP Project Timeline
7.A
Packet Pg. 372
13 of 19
Item Date
Info Item Submitted to City Council September 25, 2023
City Council Study Session October 10, 2023
City Council Contract Authorization November 14, 2023
Panel Process Kick-off January 2024
Design & Technical Team Kick-off January 2024
Public Panel Selection Summer 2024
Design & Technical Team Existing Conditions Report Summer 2024
First Panel Weekend Fall 2024
Second Panel Weekend Fall 2024
Third Panel Weekend Winter 2025
Fourth Panel Weekend Winter 2025
Fifth Panel Weekend Spring 2025
Final Panel Weekend Summer 2025
Table 1 – Anticipated Lottery-Selected Panel Timeline
7.A
Packet Pg. 373
14 of 19
7. Cost
7.A
Packet Pg. 374
15 of 19
Figure 2 – Healthy Democracy’s Proposed Project Timeline
7.A
Packet Pg. 375
16 of 19
While there is no budget request now, the anticipated cost for this robust
and diverse community outreach process which will ensure that a
representative portion of Santa Monica’s population is able to participate is
$1,200,000 – 1,500,00.00 (including a 20% contingency). Staff have
included the detailed proposed scope of services as an attachment to this
staff report for reference and consideration (Attachment C). Also, the
Design and Technical Team has been mentioned throughout this Staff
Report and the anticipated cost for their scope of work is $1,300,000 -
$1,400,000 (with a 10% contingency). Both contracts would be brought to
the City Council for consideration and approval at the November 14th
meeting.
Questions for City Council Related to the LSP Next Steps
Staff requests feedback on the following items related to the Lottery-Selected Panel
process specifically.
1. The Panel’s work focuses on answering the framing question set forth by
City Council. Please confirm or revise the following suggested framing
question:
a. With the anticipated closure of the Santa Monica Airport after 2028,
there is an exciting and unique opportunity to develop a vision for
over 200 acres of public land to serve generations to come. In all of
its work, the City strives for a community that is vibrant, safe,
sustainable, resilient, mobile, culturally rich, ethnically diverse, and
equitable to serve the needs of the entire community and to foster a
thriving local economy. Therefore, the project and this land, which
was originally purchased for a public park, must be in service of this
vision. With this background, how should the diverse needs of our
community inform the future of the Airport land and the balance
of land-uses and development, that will most effectively
contribute to Santa Monica’s long-term vitality?
2. Council to confirm if the Panel should be comprised of:
7.A
Packet Pg. 376
17 of 19
a. Santa Monica residents only (unless displaced); or
b. Include business owners as well; and/or
c. Include up to two people from the adjacent West Los Angeles area.
Staff recommends that Healthy Democracy use the current general population data for
Santa Monica, based on the most recent US Census data (except where Census data is
not available – e.g. unhoused individuals – in which case other current sources will be
used) for the Panel selection.
Why Healthy Democracy?
Healthy Democracy (HD) is a unique nonpartisan, nonprofit organization in the
United States that focuses on designing and coordinating Lottery-Selected Panels
with local governments. Unlike other similar organizations, HD maintains a strict
separation between process and content, avoiding practitioner bias and promoting
Panel participant agency. Their processes are topic-agnostic, and moderators only
ask non- content questions to help guide the process, not the outcome. The
organization employs democratic methods for informational input, involving a
separate deliberative process conducted by the Information Committee, which is
independent from the convening agency to curate introductory information for the
Panel.
Moreover, HD has worked in California on a land-use planning project process, while
other LSP practitioners in the US have worked on policy frameworks only. Also, the
HD process considers participatory disparities and suggests adjustments to ensure
the inclusion of marginalized communities for a more equitable LSP. Further, Panelist
empowerment is a core principle, as their processes center around Panelists'
authority, featuring Panelist-led governance, conflict resolution, oversight of
designers and moderators, and external communications.
These distinct aspects set Healthy Democracy's Lottery-Selected Panels apart within
the realm of citizens' assemblies, differentiating their approach from other
organizations both in the United States and internationally.
7.A
Packet Pg. 377
18 of 19
Update on RFQ/P Process
As per Council direction on January 24th of this year (Attachment A), staff solicited a
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the Airport Conversion Project on February 13th
that received 27 responses for three scopes of work: 1) Existing Conditions Report;
2)
Community Outreach; and 3) Scenario Planning and Analysis when it closed on
March 13th. From those 27 responses, staff short-listed eight (8) teams and invited
them to submit for the Request for Proposal (RFP) on May 15th. It was during the
writing of the RFP that Staff decided to remove Scope 2 (Community Outreach) from
the RFP and pursue the democratic lottery selection process with Healthy
Democracy and have the Design and Technical Team (D+TT) perform a much
smaller/supportive role for the outreach work. The deadline for responding to the
RFP was June 29th and from the eight proposers, five (5) teams were invited to
participate in virtual interviews. Those interviews occurred the week of July 14th and
those five teams were permitted to revise their proposals as a ‘best and final’
response due August 4th. Of the final five teams Staff has selected a recommended
proposer that will be brought before Council for consideration on November 14th. If
approved by Council, this team would be the D+TT referenced throughout this staff
report.
Past Council Actions
While Airport matters have been before City Council many times in the past several
decades, below are the previous dates that the Airport Conversion Project has been
before City Council.
Meeting Date Description
01/24/2023 (Attachment A) City Council directed staff to begin working on the
Future of the Santa Monica Airport
09/25/2023 (Attachment B) Information Item sent to City Council
Environmental Review
7.A
Packet Pg. 378
19 of 19
No environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) is required at this time since the purpose of this study session is to receive
Council direction and comments. No actions are being undertaken that will result in
direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.
Financial Impacts and Budget Action
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of this Study
Session. However, with City Council’s direction and comments, staff will return to City Council
at the November 14th meeting for contract approval.
Prepared By: Amber Richane, Acting Chief Operating Officer – Special Projects
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. January 24, 2023 - Staff Report (Web Link)
B. Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process
C. SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services
D. Written Comments
E. PowerPoint Presentation
F. Presentation Outreach Overview
7.A
Packet Pg. 379
Information Item
Date: September 25, 2023
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director
Subject: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel
Outreach Process
Introduction
This Information Item introduces the plan to engage the community for the “Future
of Santa Monica Airport Project”. Staff proposes that the City utilize a Democratic Lottery
process to guide community engagement and this Information Item provides an
overview of the process.
Background
At direction from the City Council at the January 24, 2023 meeting and after a series of
twenty outreach meetings to the City’s Boards and Commissions, neighborhood groups,
local and regional stakeholder organizations, and other interested parties, project staff
have developed an approach to address public engagement in a way that deepens
the community’s understanding of the core issues and tradeoffs related to transforming
the 227 acres that comprise the Santa Monica Airport into a sustainable community asset
(including a “great park”) that can serve the needs of multiple generations of Santa
Monicans. The approach is designed to address many of the traditional inadequacies of
the land-use planning process that foment divisions within the community, and result in
barriers to participation that exclude or marginalize the voices of important segments of
our population.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process
2
The scale of opportunity presented by the closure of the Santa Monica Airport after
December 31, 2028, mandates a unique public engagement model to develop a vision
and implementation strategy that enjoys the support of the community, contemplates
an outcome that is focused on utilizing the Airport land to provide multi-generational
benefits, and builds resiliency against environmental, economic, and social impacts.
Given the far-ranging expectations for the land to accomplish these goals, and the
interest in allowing the community to participate in exploring the complexity of issues
faced by Airport conversion, staff proposes to utilize a Democratic Lottery process to
guide community engagement.
A Democratic Lottery is a method of selecting community representatives through a
randomized lottery-based system to serve as a Community Focus Group Panel that would
have a direct connection to decision-makers. This approach demands broad
demographic representation, and minimizes the influence of special interests, as it allows
individuals from all segments of the community to participate in the decision-making
process. While not common in North America, the Democratic Lottery process is utilized
in many countries as a standard for addressing contemporary policy questions around
land-use, economics, environmental stewardship, and voter representation. In over 600
examples globally to date, the model is gaining traction as a way for governments to
deeply engage their community in collaborative, inclusive, and durable policy decisions.
Recently, the City of Petaluma utilized a Democratic Lottery to identify a future land-use
plan for its historic Fairgrounds, a 55-acre parcel in the middle of their community that
served as a seasonal gathering space for over 100 years. Similar to the Santa Monica
Airport, the Petaluma Fairgrounds presented the City of Petaluma with an opportunity to
reimagine a large public parcel into a more connected, accessible, and productive
community space, but after nearly two decades of failed attempts to determine the fate
of the site no consensus had been reached. In a renewed effort in 2022, Petaluma
officials unveiled an entirely new approach that utilized the Democratic Lottery process.
In under six months, the lottery-selected panel delivered its recommendation to the
Petaluma City Council for adoption. The Panel’s recommendation was backed by broad
community support involving many previously adversarial counterparts who had bought
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process
3
into the process and found compromise and agreement on the preferred land-use
recommendation.
Staff proposes to use the Democratic Lottery process for the Future of Santa Monica
Airport project.
Discussion
The Santa Monica Airport (“Airport” or “SMO”) is more than just another municipal real
estate asset or functional transportation facility; it is a living piece of Santa Monica’s
history. In continuous use since 1917, the Airport has been part of the community for over
100 years, during which time its aviation functions have changed considerably. Starting
out as a grass landing strip in a barley field for WWI pilots, it then became home of the
Douglas Aircraft company, and served as a critical manufacturing center for the Federal
Government’s WWII effort. After the war, it emerged as an aviation technology center,
and finally a local general aviation airport, which it continues to be to this day.
The City of Santa Monica is authorized to close the Airport after December 31, 2028,
pending Council action. The City’s authority to close the Airport was established in 2017
with a settlement agreement between the City and the Federal Aviation Administration
(“FAA”) that was entered as a "Consent Decree” in U.S. District Court. This expansion of
the City’s proprietary rights over the Airport comes after nearly five decades of litigation
and other strategic investments of City resources to gain local control of the Airport’s 227
land acres. Closure of the Airport presents a rare opportunity for Santa Monica to design,
program, and develop one of the largest remaining spaces in Los Angeles County. The
“Future of Santa Monica Airport Project” will be a multi-year effort to engage the
community and other stakeholders on how this space can best serve Santa Monica and
how the City can fund and govern this asset.
Land-use planning is often a hotly debated topic. Over the past 20 years, the City has
taken on a number of high-profile planning efforts to alter the organization and zoning of
the cityscape, including the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), the
Bergamot Area Plan, the Downtown Community Plan and the recently adopted 2021-
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process
4
2028 Housing Element. All of these long-range planning efforts were designed to
maximize community participation, and to find consensus on trade-offs associated with
the level of change contemplated by policy makers. Though each plan was ultimately
adopted by the City Council, they suffered tremendous opposition from vocal
community members whose resistance to key elements of each plan – or even the entire
plan itself – resulted in protracted land use battles that placed Council in a difficult
position of navigating narrow majority perspectives and fostered a “winner/loser”
paradigm that left many in the community feeling disenfranchised from the decision-
making process. Further, despite staff and consultant teams’ best efforts to “bring the
plan to the doorstep” of every Santa Monica resident or business owner, the traditional
outreach methodology of workshops, pop-up’s, and participation at neighborhood
groups, City Council and Boards and Commission meetings, aroused sentiments of
dissatisfaction throughout the community based on the following themes:
• Limited opportunities for participation: Outreach activities are typically limited
during a planning effort to available staff resources and project outreach
budgets, as well as agendized discussions with City Council or the City’s Boards
and Commissions. Even projects like the Downtown Community Plan, which
spanned six years and included 22 public workshops was viewed by some
members of the community as insufficient to hear comprehensively from residents
and businesses.
• Requires individual volition to participate: Staff always endeavors to design an
outreach process that is accessible and meets people “where they are.” Typically,
this involves hosting workshops on weekends or evenings when working people
have less obligations. For this reason, City Council and Boards and Commission
meetings are also conducted in the evenings. Despite this arrangement, other
barriers to participation exist that prevent many segments of the community from
lending their voice to the narrative, including family obligations (childcare or senior
care), transportation to access planning workshops or scheduled civic meetings,
technology to meet in a virtual space, or a general feeling of disenfranchisement
from decision-making based on lived experience. The 2030 LUCE, which spanned
five years and involved over 4,000 residents and business members was presented
to the community in dozens of workshops, meetings and events, and was debated
by nearly every Board and Commission. Despite the comprehensive intent of the
outreach and the project’s exposure to over a half-decade of community
discussion, only 4% of residents actually participated in the plan formation. The
other 96% of Santa Monica’s population chose not to participate based on many
of the factors described herein.
• Caters to those with time and interest: Two key components to voluntary
participation in outreach activities are a) having the time to attend city-sponsored
events or meetings, and b) a personal or collective interest in the outcome.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process
5
Because of the onerous time commitment to participate in long-range planning
efforts (either attending lengthy workshops or waiting hours at Council meetings
to speak for two minutes) many members of the community opt out, leaving vocal
minorities to fill the airspace with special interests or contrarian viewpoints. This
results in a narrow representation of perspectives during the planning exercise,
which is often dominated by “frequent fliers” who have both the time and interest
in engaging the City on future outcomes. By only engaging community members
whose life circumstances provide for civic participation in the formats that are
traditionally offered, we miss the City’s diversity, equity, and inclusion goals of
engagement.
• Plan fatigue: Given the duration of many of these planning efforts, the number of
choices, and the level of passion inherent in the discussion of future tradeoffs and
change, many in the community experience a sensation known as “plan fatigue.”
Plan fatigue, also known as “decision fatigue” or “choice overload” occurs when
individuals become overwhelmed or exhausted by having to make numerous
decisions or evaluate multiple options. Plan fatigue is particularly acute when
large audiences, such as those who have participated in the City’s past long-
range efforts, are asked to commit to lengthy multi-year discussions.
To adequately plan for the future of the Santa Monica Airport, the City seeks to
implement a model of civic participation that resolves the factors above. Importantly,
the City must also use a process that can move efficiently through the steps of defining
existing conditions, elaborating a vision, and then using that vision as the basis of
traditional planning work to develop a framework for implementation prior to planned
closure at the end of 2028. The proposed Democratic Lottery process is a solution that
can help the City and the community to address the complexity of the visioning effort
efficiently and effectively. To bring the appropriate level of both breadth and depth, the
City has engaged Healthy Democracy (HD), a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, to
manage the Lottery-Selected Panel (“Panel”). This process will be the primary
component of the City’s public engagement on the Future of the Santa Monica Airport
project and will also include additional methods for collecting input from stakeholders
and the broader community.
What is a Democratic Lottery?
Lottery-Selected Panels (LSP) are democratic systems that help governments tackle
difficult policy questions. Panelists are everyday people. They are community members
who are randomly selected and reflective of Santa Monica. They are a representation of
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process
6
the city in one room. These Panels are professionally facilitated and follow a structured
process to ensure fairness and productivity. They are designed to focus on collaborative
problem solving and evidence. Academic research and real-world examples have
shown that they handle complex policy questions effectively and fairly.
What makes a Lottery-Selected Panel different
Although Lottery-Selected Panels act in the role of a community focus group, their
principles and practices differ from standard advisory committees in a number of key
ways:
● Panelists are selected by democratic lottery – a stratified random sample of
individuals aged 18+, a microcosm of the community in one room. Because
Lottery-Selected Panels are composed of individuals who typically do not
volunteer for other City processes, they are capable of more deliberative
arbitration of controversial topics.
● Stakeholders and interest groups are not absent from the process, but they
do not sit on the Panel itself. Rather, they participate in the process in two
primary ways:
o As a presenter: A diverse selection of stakeholder organizations
nominate and prioritize introductory presentations to the Panel. The
presenters are vetted by an Information Committee that is made up
of representatives from various Santa Monica Boards and
Commissions, to determine those initial presenters. After the first
meeting the Panel then selects additional presenters for their future
meetings.
o As a feedback loop: Stakeholders and community members are
invited to participate in feedback loops with the Panel through online
deliberative tools and other Panel-hosted events.
● The Panel is treated more like a community focus group than a typical City
board and commission. Staff serves the Panel in supportive, rather than
directive, role. This paradigm shift is reflected in process design, moderation
style, and budget.
● The Panel gathers a wide range of evidence. In addition to stakeholders, the
Panel typically hears from staff and non-staff expert presenters, has ample time
to review documents and question all presenters, and may call its own
presenters. It may also receive other public engagement inputs – including
survey data, listening sessions, walking tours, etc. – or hold open public
workshops.
● The Panel engages in lengthy deliberations around grounding values and
principles, before delving into any project solutions. These discussions seek
mutual understanding and shared goals, but they do not force consensus. As
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process
7
with the rest of the process, they are professionally moderated and follow a
detailed process design established in advance – while remaining flexible to
the Panel’s needs.
● The Panel has the opportunity to engage in in-depth feedback loops with
technical staff, to review proposed policies in detail.
● The Panel’s output is therefore substantial, including both:
o Criteria on which it believes any decision should rest, and
o Detailed policy/land-use recommendations.
● In order to accomplish these significant tasks, Panels are highly efficient public
processes, while remaining comfortable, supportive, and collaborative
environments for Panelists.
● Since randomly selected Panels include folks from many walks of life, universal
accessibility is emphasized and stipends/reimbursements may be provided to
alleviate potential financial impediments to participating. Both the in-room
process and out-of-room logistics seek to accommodate Panelists’ specific
needs, providing support services such as translation and assistive technology
and adapting to differential learning styles to ensure a representative sample
of Santa Monica’s community members can fully participate.
How Will This Panel Be Selected?
Participants are selected from the general public using a democratic lottery, also known
as a representative random sample or sortition, using open-source software called
Panelot. While most public engagement processes rely on the same self-selected
individuals, democratic lotteries engage new residents through a randomized selection
process. The lottery begins with a proactive invitation to randomly selected residential
addresses that makes it as easy as possible to say “yes.” From the resulting pool of
respondents, a Panel of approximately 40 people is randomly selected (at a public
event). Lottery-Selected Panels don’t just “work toward” representation; they are
designed to achieve a cross-section of the community’s diversity. Selected Panelists are
offered language interpretation and may be reimbursed for expenses incurred from
participating on the panel. This sets a new standard for access and inclusion of all
communities and mitigates unequal barriers to participation often faced by marginalized
residents, it helps ensure panelist remain engaged throughout the entire process.
The deliberative process then puts everyday people at the center of in-depth, well-
informed, and collaborative decision-making. Given that most lottery-selected Panelists
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process
8
do not have prior experience with the policy topic, they have a unique capacity for
identifying common ground solutions in the public’s best interest. Much like a jury trial,
they receive a vast amount of information before independently deliberating on
recommendations. Rather than being presented with pre-packaged information from a
sponsoring government agency, Panelists hear from dozens of background presenters,
stakeholders, and technical experts to understand the landscape of opinions and
information on the topic. Then, through meticulously designed small-group work aided
by professional moderators, Panelists carefully consider options, weigh tradeoffs, and
collaboratively identify solutions. Panelists hear from the broader public throughout their
process to ensure a wide range of community voices and interests are considered. The
Panel’s recommendations, written entirely in Panelists’ own words, are submitted directly
to decision-makers. The time-intensive and collaborative nature of the deliberative
process results in recommendations with broad community buy-in – and unusual public
legitimacy.
How Will the Process Be Accessible to All Community Members?
This process is centered on accessibility. Panelists will be provided with accommodations
to support their ability to participate fully in the process, such as reimbursement for
transportation costs and comprehensive language access services (interpretation and
translation). While not all community members will be invited to participate on the Panel,
the randomized selection process allows for community members to see their views
represented throughout the Panel. There will also be multiple opportunities for the
community to provide feedback to the Panel throughout the process.
How Will the Panel Conduct Its Work?
Lottery-Selected Panels model a different kind of collaborative policymaking, with
plentiful time for consideration of the many views and sources of information on the topic
at hand. The Panel will meet in-person for six weekends over the course of approximately
nine months, anticipated to be Fall 2024 – Summer 2025. This community focus group will
begin its work with a robust information-gathering phase, covering the history and
context of the topic, as well as a wide range of perspectives on the Airport’s future.
Panelists will receive background materials and hear from introductory presenters – with
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process
9
all materials and presenters selected by a diverse group of stakeholders. Then, the Panel
will select numerous presenters of its own, conduct a site visit, receive the results of initial
community outreach, and gather additional information as needed. The Panel will also
thoroughly consider Panelists’ own lived experiences related to the Airport. Gathering this
uniquely diverse range of expertise comprises about a third of the Panel’s total work
hours. All panel meetings are live-streamed and recorded so the Santa Monica
community at large can see and hear what is being discussed adding to the
transparency of the discussions and outcomes.
The Panel will then move into a deliberation phase – creating guiding principles, exploring
long-term visions for the site, and finally crafting recommendations about the Airport’s
future. All deliberation is designed to take place in iterative small- and large-group work
sessions, moderated by a team of professional process staff and informed by decades
of research on effective collaborative decision making – and by advisors and Panelists
themselves.
Decision-making context
The work of this Panel will be to make recommendations to City staff and the City Council.
It is anticipated that:
● The Panel's recommendations will be thoroughly considered, with
substantial written responses provided to the Panel after the completion
of each of the Panel's deliverables.
● City staff, including technical experts, will provide thorough details to the
Panel of the surrounding decision-making context upon request, but will
not constrain the Panel's work beyond the initial framing question.
Furthermore, in addition to its official reporting-out to the City, Panelists (or the Panel in
aggregate) may choose to speak publicly about their work, without restriction by Healthy
Democracy or the City of Santa Monica. In fact, the project staff, partners, and budget
will help to foster such opportunities.
The Panel will also have several designed opportunities to hear from the broader public
and will have full authority to further engage the public as it wishes.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process
10
How Will Stakeholders Be Involved?
Stakeholders will be involved throughout the LSP process to inform project plans, curate
information for Panelists, and present information directly to the Panel, as requested.
Healthy Democracy will begin engaging stakeholders early by conducting initial
information sessions to share information about the proposed process with key local
leaders.
The Information Committee (IC), made up of representatives from existing Boards and
Commissions, will be tasked with curating quality, balanced, introductory presenters who
present to the Panel during the beginning of its information-gathering phase. A list of
stakeholder organizations will have the opportunity to nominate presenters into this
process. The list of stakeholder organizations will consist of diverse interests, possibly
including tenants, neighbors, community advocates, and anyone else with an interest in
the future of the site.
The IC will conduct the following activities within this process:
● Select initial presenters to provide a balanced “lay of the land” to the Panel.
● Compile a list of potential additional presenters, to assist the Panel when it
selects its own slate of presenters.
Stakeholders who are not part of the IC process will have opportunities to present to the
Lottery- Selected Panel and offer feedback at points throughout the process as well.
What Will the Panel Deliver?
The Panel will be asked to provide a series of reports that answer a key question which
will be approved by the City Council. All reports are developed, written, and edited
exclusively by Panelists themselves:
● Principles – a prioritized list of overarching values, decision-making criteria,
key interests, and important activities that any final recommendation should
take into consideration.
● Scenarios – an outline of the possibilities and visions for the Airport site,
including options considered and rationales based on lived experience and
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process
11
outside evidence.
● Final Report – the Panel's recommendations, including preferred Airport land-
use(s) and rationales, dissenting opinions, and supporting details.
What Will Happen with the Panel’s Deliverables?
The Panel’s reports will be delivered to the City Council, who will be asked to thoroughly
consider and publicly respond to them. The public will have opportunities to engage with
the Panel’s recommendations and make comments as well. The City Council may seek
the Panel’s opinion when determining next steps for the Airport property related to the
vision and land-use designation(s) for the site in the City’s General Plan update (2030).
The Panel may reconvene on an ad hoc basis, to clarify its recommendations, consider
any additional questions, and respond to further policy developments. It should be noted
that the work of the Panel does not supplant the traditional planning process. The
preferred scenario would be presented to the City Council as the Panel’s
recommendation, but the City Council has the authority to accept, revise, or reject the
scenario. If it is accepted, only then the City would begin the Specific Plan, Zoning, and
General Plan updates necessary to move forward. This next phase of work is not included
in the Panel’s work.
Overarching principles of Lottery-Selected Panels
The following are basic principles common to most lottery-based deliberative
processes, including all of Healthy Democracy’s Panels.
● A paradigm of Panelists-on-the-dais, not in the audience.
○ Think of Panels as fact-finding, well-informed, community focus groups
that speak directly to Council.
● A direct path to decision makers.
○ Real influence over the future of the airport.
● An emphasis on collaborative decision-making.
○ Working toward shared solutions, without forcing consensus.
● Accountable and transparent governance over the process.
○ An independent Information Committee makes decisions about initial
presenters to the Panel and advises the Panel on additional presenters
to consider.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process
12
○ A group of Program Advisors, made up of practitioner experts, former
moderators, and former Panelists, works with Healthy Democracy staff
on process details.
○ A Process Sub-group of the Panel, made up of current Panelists, makes
high-level process decisions and improvements beyond the
information-gathering phase.
● Independence from outside political interference.
○ Everyone involved agrees to certain guidelines to prevent undue
influence over the Panel’s work – this includes guidelines for Panelists, City
staff, elected City officials, process staff (i.e., Healthy Democracy),
presenting experts, public observers, media, and others.
● Selection of Panelists through a democratic lottery.
○ Randomly selected from the general public.
○ Ensures a representative group of Santa Monica’s population
● A commitment to universal accessibility.
○ Panelists may be reimbursed for expenses incurred associated with
participation (e.g. transportation) and a stipend to alleviate any
financial burden of participating
○ Appropriate technology, training, and one-on-one logistical support
is provided to all Panelists.
● A substantial information-gathering phase, including:
○ Substantial background information provided by the City and expert
consultants.
○ Information presented by stakeholders are selected by the Information
Committee.
○ Information presented by individuals selected by the Panel itself.
○ Other public input that engages the broader community.
● A structured, in-depth deliberation phase.
○ Designed by professional process designers and based on research.
○ Moderated by professional, trained moderators.
○ Designed to encourage collaboration across differences without forcing
consensus.
○ Substantial collaborative work directly with technical experts, deep
deliberation on the most contentious tradeoffs, and a methodical
pathway toward agreement.
● Actionable Reports of prioritized recommendations.
○ Written by the Panelists themselves, with no writing or editing by staff.
○ Delivered by the full Panel but with room for dissenting opinions and
individual voices.
● Third-party evaluation of process design and execution.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process
13
○ Academic evaluators not paid by the process, the convening agency,
or Healthy Democracy observe and review the process, and report to
the public and the convener on its fairness and quality.
○ An Evaluation Committee, made up of Panelists, works with these
external evaluators to provide its own evaluation of the process, often
surveying the broader public about the process.
Next Steps
This Info Item is the first step in explaining what this exciting, fair, and balanced outreach
process is and serves as the basis of future discussions. City Staff and Healthy Democracy
will be presenting to City Council in a Study Session on October 10, 2023, to further discuss
this process, answer questions, listen to public comments, and receive direction from the
City Council. At this Study Session, Healthy Democracy will present a detailed scope of
work for the lottery-selected panel and be available to answer any questions that arise.
Cost will be discussed at this session as well.
Staff anticipates coming back to the City Council on November 14, 2023, to award
contracts for this process as well as the Design and Technical Team that will support City
Staff and the lottery-selected panel’s work. The Design and Technical Team (DT+T) will
help the Panel understand the existing conditions realities and potential economic
strategies as well as provide several presentations on topics such as: sustainability,
ecology, policy frameworks, multi-generational design, etc. The DT+T will also aid the
panel through a series of ‘deep dives’ in envisioning the options they want to explore as
they create a preferred scenario that will be presented to Council at the conclusion of
the Panel’s work.
Anticipated Project Schedule
Item Date
Info Item Submitted to Council September 2023
Council Study Session October 10, 2023
Council Contract Authorization November 14, 2023
Panel Process Kick-off January 2024
Design & Technical Team Kick-off January 2024
Public Panel Selection Summer 2024
Design & Technical Team Existing Conditions Report Summer 2024
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
Information Item: Future of the Airport (SMO): Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process
14
First Panel Meeting Fall 2024
Final Panel Meeting Summer 2025
Prepared By: Amber Richane – Acting Chief Operations Officer for Public Works and the
Airport Conversion Team, Chris Dishlip – Assistant Director of Public Works, Amelia
Feichtner – Capital Program Manager; Alex Parry – Sr. Design Manager
Attachments: Attachment A – Lottery Selected Panel Overview
Attachment B – Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Attachment C – Panel Process Diagram
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
Overview of Lottery-Selected Panels
Prepared for the City of Santa Monica by Healthy Democracy
Updated 27 April 2023
Lottery-Selected Panels are a 50-year-old democratic innovation –inspired by ancient
democracies in Greece and India –that put everyday people at the heart of public decision making.
Often called Citizens’Assemblies or Policy Juries,these processes combine two key design
elements that fundamentally transform public decision making:1)a democratic lottery selects a
Panel that is demographically representative of the community and fully supported to participate,
and 2)a deliberative process allows Panelists to collaboratively consider many perspectives and
produce well-informed policy recommendations.With over 600 examples globally to date,the
model is gaining traction as a way for governments to deeply engage residents in helping find
collaborative,inclusive,and durable policy solutions.
Participants are selected from the general public using a democratic lottery,also known as a
representative random sample or sortition.While most public engagement processes rely on the
same self-selected individuals,democratic lotteries engage new residents through a randomized
process that ensures representation across an unusually broad set of diversities.The lottery begins
with a proactive invitation to randomly selected residential addresses that makes it as easy as
possible to say “yes.”From the resulting pool of respondents,a Panel is randomly selected (at a
public event)to reflect a microcosm of the city.Lottery-Selected Panels don’t just “work toward”
representation;they guarantee a cross-section of the public’s diversities every time –in terms of
age,gender,race,ethnicity,geography,educational attainment,and other factors.Selected
Panelists are paid a substantial stipend,offered language interpretation,and reimbursed for
childcare,eldercare,and transportation expenses.This sets a new standard for access and
inclusion of all communities and mitigates unequal barriers to participation often faced by
marginalized residents.
The deliberative process then puts everyday people at the center of in-depth,well-informed,and
collaborative policymaking.Given that most lottery-selected Panelists do not have prior experience
with the policy topic,they have a unique capacity for identifying common ground solutions in the
public’s best interest.Much like a jury in a criminal court,they receive a vast amount of information
before independently deliberating on recommendations.Rather than being presented with
pre-packaged information from a sponsoring government agency,Panelists hear from dozens of
background presenters,stakeholders,and technical experts to understand the landscape of
opinions and information on the policy topic.Then,through meticulously designed small-group
work aided by professional moderators,Panelists carefully consider options,weigh tradeoffs,and
collaboratively identify solutions.Panelists hear from the broader public throughout their process to
ensure a wide range of community voices and interests are considered.The Panel’s final
recommendations,written entirely in Panelists’own words,are delivered directly to decision
makers.The time-intensive and collaborative nature of the deliberative process results in
recommendations with broad community buy-in –and unusual public legitimacy –that are
frequently adopted by government officials.
healthydemocracy.org •(503)841-6865 •info@healthydemocracy.org page 1/1
Attachment A
SelectedSelected
bursed for
.
Panelists are paid a substantial stipend,offered language interpretation,and reimbursed for
childcare,eldercare,and transportation expenses.This sets a new standard for access and
inclusion of all communities and mitigates unequal barriers to participation often faced by
marginalized residents.
The deliberative process then puts everyday people at the center of in-depth,well-informed,and
collaborative policymaking.Given that most lottery-selected Panelists do not have prior experience
with the policy topic,they have a unique capacity for identifying common ground solutions in the
public’s best interest.Much like a jury in a criminal court,they receive a vast amount of information
before independently deliberating on recommendations.Rather than being presented with
pre-packaged information from a sponsoring government agency,Panelists hear from dozens of
background presenters,stakeholders,and technical experts to understand the landscape of
opinions and information on the policy topic.Then,through meticulously designed small-group
work aided by professional moderators,Panelists carefully consider options,weigh tradeoffs,and
collaboratively identify solutions.Panelists hear from the broader public throughout their process to
ensure a wide range of community voices and interests are considered.The Panel’s final
recommendations,written entirely in Panelists’own words,are delivered directly to decision
makers.The time-intensive and collaborative nature of the deliberative process results in
recommendations with broad community buy-in –and unusual public legitimacy –that are
frequently adopted by government officials.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
LOTTERY-SELECTED PANELS
healthydemocracy.org (503) 841-6865 info@healthydemocracy.org
In-Depth Deliberation changes
decision-making itself. Panelists hear from
experts and stakeholders on all sides of an issue,
consider policy options, and collaboratively write
recommendations.
Lottery-Selected Panels are innovative democratic systems
Panelists are everyday people capable of extraordinary
Democratic Lotteries ensure all of us
– from every walk of life – have a place in public
of the communities they serve.
Around the world, governments are
employing Lottery-Selected Panels – often called
Citizens’ Juries or Citizens’ Assemblies – to put
people at the center of governance. Healthy
Democracy has designed and convened panels
We are best known for Oregon’s Citizens’ Initiative
Review (CIR), which is one of the most researched
deliberative processes in the world and was one
institutionalized in government.
A New Kind of Democracy
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
B ene ts
PRINCIPLES AND BENEFITS
of Lottery-Selected Panels
healthydemocracy.org (503) 841-6865 info@healthydemocracy.org
Boosts
diversity in
civic participation
and increases access
for historically
marginalized
groups
Fosters
ownership
over public decision
making and enhances
mutual trust in
governance
Surfaces
previously
untapped ideas,
and encourages
co-production
Promotes
evidence-driven
public discourse,
and showcases a more
cooperative
politics In c lu s i v i t y
EmpowermentRepre
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
onIntegrityCollaboration
Principles
Proactive, invitation-based
recruitment methods and
accessibility-driven design bring
entirely new voices to the table.
Lottery selection
guarantees representation
across a uniquely broad set
of demographic diversities
– “a city in one room.”
Panelists have full
authority over their
process and the support
to impact real policy
decisions.
Skillfully moderated discussions
ensure thorough comprehension
of the issue, respectful exchange,
and thoughtful decision-making.
Independent evaluation and
oversight drives research-
based process design and
continuous improvement.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
Invitation
A group of randomly selected
residential addresses receive a
letter inviting them to participate
in the Panel.
letters mailed
1
THE PROCESS
Selection
healthydemocracy.org (503) 841-6865 info@healthydemocracy.org
Democratic Lottery
Of those who respond to the invitation, a Panel
is selected that represents the unique demographic
characteristics of that community.
Education Attainment
No Diploma
High school diploma
Some college
Bachelor’s degree Population Respondents Panelists
2
my belief in the value of public
participation in the democratic
- Melissa, Former Panelist
others gave, too. That’s really
- Dylan, Former Panelist
5k-20k
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
Recommendations
The Panel produces a set of policy
recommendations, including rationales and any
dissenting opinions. Their report – written entirely in
their words – carries an inherent legitimacy with the
public and decision makers. Policy recommendations
can inform any stage of the policy process:
THE PROCESS
In-Room
healthydemocracy.org (503) 841-6865 info@healthydemocracy.org
Information Gathering
The Panel interviews dozens of experts
and stakeholders, and conducts its
own research on the topic at hand. With
and conduct gaps analyses to ensure
Agenda Setting Visioning Policy Making Implementation
Feedback Loops
and empowerment of the process –
and helps make better policy.
3
5
Deliberation
criteria, consider potential policy
options, and prioritize alternatives
through extensive discussions over
multiple days. Panelists spend most of their
time in small groups with trained professional
moderators. Meticulous process designs
enable collaboration between iterative small
and large groups.
4
many perspectives on the issue.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
Better metaphor: more Democracy Pies!
Open to
Anyone
Specific
Invitation
Lottery
Selection
e.g., surveys, hearings, voting e.g., stakeholder negotiations,
outreach to particular community
e.g., Lottery-Selected Panels
➕ Anyone! (in theory...)
➖ Same individuals, “thin”
participation, debate-oriented
➕ Can be targeted &
specialized to issue or impact
➖ Often same individuals,
often top-down orientation
➕ Guarantees new &
diverse folks, in-depth
deliberation, Panelist-led
➖ Needs time & design 7.A.bPacket Pg. 399Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a Lottery-Selected Panel?
This is a different kind of democratic process.A Lottery-Selected Panel brings together a
group of everyday people to examine an important public issue.Lottery selection ensures
that all of us have a place in public decision making.Five to twenty-thousand letters are
mailed out to randomly selected residential addresses inviting residents to participate in the
Panel.Of those who respond,a Panel is selected that represents the unique demographic
characteristics of that community.Additional Panelists who may not live at an address are
selected via “golden tickets”provided to social service agencies.Panels are professionally
moderated and follow a structured process to ensure inclusion,collaboration,and
innovation.They are designed to reduce the influence of political bias and put everyday
people at the heart of policy making.
What are the principles that guide these processes?
Inclusivity:Proactive,invitation-based recruitment methods and accessibility-driven design
bring new voices to the table.
Representation:Lottery selection guarantees representation across a uniquely broad set of
demographic diversities –“a city in one room.”
Integrity:Independent evaluation and oversight drive research-based process design and
continuous improvement.
Collaboration:Skillfully moderated discussions ensure thorough comprehension of the
issue,respectful exchange,and thoughtful decision-making.
Empowerment:Panelists have full authority over their process and the opportunity to
impact real policy decisions.
What makes a Lottery-Selected Panel different from a typical community
advisory committee?
Selection Process:Panelists are selected by democratic lottery –a stratified random
sample of community residents aged 16+,a microcosm of the city in one room.Because
Lottery-Selected Panels are composed of residents who typically do not volunteer for other
City processes,they are capable of more deliberative arbitration of fraught political topics.
Stakeholder Involvement:Stakeholders and interest groups are not absent from the
process –in fact,they are essential to it –but they do not sit on the Panel itself.Rather,they
participate in the process in four ways:1)A selection of 100 stakeholder organizations,from
all sides of the topic at hand,nominate potential presenters to the Panel,2)Representatives
from existing City boards and commissions sit on an Information Committee (IC),which
curates a slate of initial presenters and creates a menu of other presenters for the Panel to
consider inviting,3)A wide array of stakeholders present to and engage with the Panel
healthydemocracy.org •(503)841-6865 •info@healthydemocracy.org page 1/5
Attachment B
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
(some called by the IC and some by the Panel itself),and 4)Stakeholders are invited to offer
feedback on the Panel’s work at multiple points later in its deliberative process.
Panel Autonomy:Although it only offers recommendations,the Panel is treated more like a
council,commission,or other decision-making body than a typical advisory committee.Staff
serve the Panel in supportive,rather than directive,roles.This paradigm shift is reflected in
process design,moderation style,and budget,with typically around ¼of project funds
being paid directly to Panelists.
Evidence Driven:The Panel gathers a wide range of evidence.In addition to stakeholders,
the Panel hears from staff and non-staff expert presenters,has ample time to review
documents and question all presenters,and may call its own presenters.It may also receive
other public engagement inputs –including survey data,listening sessions,walking tours,or
hold open public workshops.
Deliberation:The Panel engages in lengthy conversations around grounding values and
principles,before delving into any policy solutions.These discussions seek mutual
understanding and shared goals,but they do not force consensus.As with the rest of the
Panel,they are professionally moderated and follow a detailed process design established
in advance,while remaining flexible to the Panel’s needs.
Built-In Feedback Loops:The Panel has the opportunity to engage in in-depth feedback
loops with technical staff,to review proposed policies in detail.
Outcomes:The Panel’s output is therefore substantial,including both:1).Criteria on which it
believes any decision should rest,and 2).Detailed policy recommendations (or a review of
existing proposals).
Efficiency &Efficacy:In order to accomplish these significant tasks,Panels are highly
efficient public processes,while remaining comfortable,supportive,and collaborative
environments for Panelists.
Inclusivity and Accessibility:Since randomly selected Panels include folks from many
walks of life,universal accessibility is emphasized.Panelists are paid a stipend and
reimbursed for transportation,childcare,and eldercare.Both the in-room process and
out-of-room logistics seek to accommodate Panelists’specific needs,providing support
services such as translation and assistive technology and adapting to differential learning
styles.In online processes,transportation and child/eldercare reimbursements are replaced
by technology and hot-spot internet access,as needed.
What are the benefits of Lottery-Selected Panels?
Lottery-selected Panels bring a host of benefits to the community where they take place.
●Boosts diversity in civic participation.
●Increases access for historically marginalized groups.
●Surfaces previously untapped ideas.
●Encourages effective policy co-production.
●Promotes evidence-driven public discourse.
●Showcases a more cooperative politics.
healthydemocracy.org •(503)841-6865 •info@healthydemocracy.org page 2/5
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
●Fosters ownership over public decision making.
●Enhances mutual trust in governance.
How do these processes guarantee equality?
Lottery-Selected Panels strive for equality in three primary ways:1)community members
have an equal opportunity of being invited to serve;2)Panelists reflect the exact
demographic makeup of their communities;and 3)deliberation creates an inclusive
environment in which everyone’s voice has the same weight.
How can these processes work toward equity?
While equality is a minimum guarantee of these processes,it is possible to integrate equity
through selection targets,interactions with stakeholder groups,and in-process support for
Panelists.
How does Healthy Democracy ensure that the Panel is inclusive of all
perspectives?
Although bias is a natural human condition,we strive for a process that minimizes
unproductive political bias.The process follows an evidence-driven structure that fosters
problem-solving that goes beyond partisanship.Our professional moderator teams are
specifically trained to balance participation,manage power imbalances,and put Panelist
autonomy first,assisting them to make their own informed decisions.
What is deliberation?
Deliberation involves carefully weighing different options,access to accurate,relevant,and
diverse information,and participants finding common ground to reach shared
recommendations.Most processes are split into two main phases.
Information gathering:The Panel interviews dozens of experts and stakeholders and
conducts its own research on the topic at hand.With external support,Panelists filter
information and conduct gaps analyses to ensure information is strong,reliable,and
reflects many perspectives on the issue.
In-depth deliberation:Panelists define decision-making criteria,consider potential
policy options,and prioritize alternatives through extensive discussions over multiple
days.Panelists spend most of their time in small groups with trained professional
moderators.Meticulous process designs enable collaboration between iterative
small and large groups.
What role do stakeholders play?
Stakeholders and interest groups are vital to these processes,even though they do not sit
on the Panel itself.Here’s how stakeholders are involved at each stage of the process:First,
stakeholders serve as information curators for the Panel.A large number of stakeholders
suggest ideas for presenters,and then a smaller Information Committee creates an initial
slate of presenters to the Panel,as well as a menu of additional presenters the Panel should
consider inviting.Many of these presenters will themselves be stakeholders,offering the
Panel a wide variety of viewpoints,expertise,and ideas –and engaging directly with
healthydemocracy.org •(503)841-6865 •info@healthydemocracy.org page 3/5
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
Panelists during a lengthy information gathering phase of the process.After this phase,
stakeholders act in an essential ongoing role,offering the Panel feedback on its work at
multiple points,both in person and online.
Where else is this being used?
Around the world,governments are employing Lottery-Selected Panels –often called
Citizens’Juries or Citizens’Assemblies –to put people at the center of governance.See
OECD graphics.In over 600 examples globally to date,the model is gaining traction as a
way for governments to deeply engage their residents in collaborative,inclusive,and
durable policy decisions.Healthy Democracy has designed and convened Panels in five U.S.
states and three countries since 2008.We are best known for Oregon’s Citizens’Initiative
Review (CIR),which is one of the most researched deliberative processes in the world and
was one of the first modern lottery-selected processes institutionalized in government.
Why can’t anyone decide to participate in the Panel?
Lottery-Selected Panels offer an innovative way of getting new voices to engage in public
decision making.While everyone has an equal chance of receiving an invitation to join,
self-selection alone tends to privilege voices with the most access.Panels almost always
accompany many other public engagement opportunities in which any community member
can make their voice heard –for example,public forums and open surveys.Any member of
the community who wants to participate in decision-making related to the policy area is
encouraged to be involved.If someone isn’t selected for the Panel but still wants to
participate,all Panel sessions are available via livestream,and,like all members of the
public,everyone is welcome to visit the Panel in person as an observer.
Common Concerns
Are everyday people really qualified to make quality decisions about
technical policy questions?
Yes!When you give a diverse group of people access to quality,balanced information,
sufficient time,and skilled facilitators,they can find common ground and make innovative
and practical recommendations on even the most complex policy issues.Everyday people
have weighed in intelligently on the financial plans of large cities,the location of a new
hospital,and how to deal with nuclear waste.
Shouldn’t anyone be allowed to participate?
Lottery-Selected Panels are only one piece of the “democracy pie”.They are a missing tool
in our public engagement toolbox –not the only one;other forms are still essential to our
democracy.And,Panels can include informational inputs that are open calls for participation
(e.g.,surveys,workshops).We can’t all be involved on every issue.But we should all be
deeply involved on some issues,sometimes –and have faith that others like us are deeply
involved at other times.Lotteries allow that.
healthydemocracy.org •(503)841-6865 •info@healthydemocracy.org page 4/5
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
Let’s focus on outcomes:Are we actually getting broad-based participation in traditional,
open-to-all engagement processes or just allowing for the possibility of it?Open-in-theory
doesn’t usually mean open-in-practice.Just because any can show up at a council meeting
doesn’t mean that everyone has an equal opportunity to do so.We don’t want to only hear
from the loudest,most active voices,we want to hear from people from all walks of life.
Isn’t this sidelining existing stakeholders?
No!In fact,existing stakeholders are essential to the process –they curate initial information,
present to the Panel,and provide feedback later in the process.However,existing advocates
are often not the right (or best)deliberators;that’s why trials have juries.While organized
advocacy is vital to democracy –and to these processes –lots of folks are stakeholders,not
just those who are organized.And all of us deserve a chance to be at the table.
That said,we know what it’s like to feel a stake,to believe in an idea –yet to struggle to even
be given the time of day.So we don’t just build processes that work for decision makers and
the wider public;we build processes that work better for everyone,advocates included.
Traditional processes often make us fight to be heard –limited to two minutes at a
microphone or meetings where it feels like everyone is yelling and no one is listening.
Lottery-Selected Panels are the exact opposite:processes that take the time to hear from all
sides,that pay folks to seriously consider every proposal,that encourage deep collaboration
and innovation,and –most of all –that create solutions with inherent power that can’t be
ignored.If you are a stakeholder who believes in the value of your ideas,we hope you’ll find
the Panel a breath of fresh air.
Isn’t this too expensive?
Panels typically cost no more than traditional methods.Plus,this is not just engagement;it is
an investment in new civic leaders and in new civic infrastructure.The benefits of
Lottery-Selected Panels go beyond recommendations:a broader culture of mutual trust
and reframing of government as a tool we all use and not some entity that does things to us.
We must also consider the quality and credibility of decisions –a strong process now has
benefits later:smarter policy,more public legitimacy and support,and long-term financial
savings.
Isn’t this equality and not equity?
Equality is a minimum guarantee.Democratic lotteries guarantee representation on 7+
demographic factors –all at the same time.That typically doesn’t happen even in
equity-based processes.And equality is only a starting place.There are many ways to
incorporate equity:
●In setting targets (e.g.,based on future population,compensating for past
disengagement).
●In informational inputs (e.g.,stakeholder outreach).
●In the process itself (e.g.,support for Panelist-organized,identity-based enclave
deliberation).
healthydemocracy.org •(503)841-6865 •info@healthydemocracy.org page 5/5
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery Selected Panel Outreach Process (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
Lottery-
Selected
Panel
Broader Public
Stakeholder &
Informational
Presenters
City Staff &
Decision
Makers
Santa Monica Airport Panel Process
Design &
Technical Team
Information Cmte
Stakeholders
Attachment C 7.A.b
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Information Item - Future of the Airport Lottery
DRAFT2024–2025 SMO
Community Panel
Draft Scope of Services
for the City of Santa Monica –Sept.2023
Prepared by:
In consultation with City of Santa Monica staff
Last updated:25 Sept.2023 1/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
This page intentionally left blank.
2/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Table of Contents
1.Project Overview 4
i.Project Introduction 4
ii.What Makes a Lottery-Selected Panel Different 6
iii.Overarching Principles of Lottery-Selected Panels 7
iv.Project Timeline 8
2.Project Elements 9
i.Panelist Selection &Care 9
a.Overview 9
b.Panelist Selection 9
c.Panelist Care 10
ii.Deliberative Process 13
a.Overview 13
b.Unique Process Elements 14
b.Timeline 16
c.Panel Deliverables 22
d.Information 23
e.Broader Public Engagement 25
f.Panel Autonomy &Self-Governance 27
g.Transparency &Privacy 28
iv.External Communications 28
a.Overview 28
b.Communicating Democratically 29
c.Communications Elements 29
v.Policy Impact 35
vi.Independent Evaluation 36
3.Roles of Project Partners 37
i.Roles,Responsibilities &Areas of Final Authority 37
ii.Relationships Between Parties 42
iv.Additional Project Partners 43
v.Dispute Resolution Methodology 44
Appendix A:Detailed Policies &Procedures for Panelist Selection 46
Appendix B:Transparency &Privacy Policy 48
Appendix C:Example Group Working Agreements 51
Appendix D:External Communications Toolkit 52
3/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
1.Project Overview
i.Project Introduction
The Santa Monica Airport is a beloved community resource with rich historic
significance –and its future should be decided through robust and inclusive community
engagement.
Lottery-Selected Panels are a 50-year-old democratic innovation –inspired by ancient
democracies in Greece and India –that put everyday people at the heart of public decision
making.Often called Citizens’Assemblies or Policy Juries,these processes combine two key
design elements:1)A democratic lottery selects a Panel that is demographically
representative of the community and fully supported to participate.2)A deliberative process
allows Panelists to collaboratively consider many perspectives and produce well-informed
policy recommendations.With over 600 examples globally to date,the model is gaining
traction as a way for governments to deeply engage residents in helping find collaborative,
inclusive,and durable policy solutions.
As an innovative City with a highly engaged community,Santa Monica is poised to become a
leader in this new model for local democracy.This Scope of Services outlines how a
Lottery-Selected Panel could reimagine the future of the Santa Monica Airport property.
Forty-two Panelists,reflective of Santa Monica,would meet for six long weekends from
September 2024 to May 2025 to gather information and collaboratively craft a vision for the
site’s future.Together,they would answer the question:
Santa Monica has an exciting and unique opportunity to develop a vision for over 200
acres of public land to serve generations to come with the anticipated closure of the
Santa Monica Airport after 2028.The City’s adopted policy frameworks envision a Santa
Monica that is a thriving,safe,sustainable,resilient,mobile,culturally rich,ethnically
diverse,equitable,local economy that serves the needs of the entire community.
Therefore,the project and this land,which was originally purchased for a public park,
must be in service of this vision.Keeping these things in mind,how should the diverse
needs of our community inform the future of the Airport land and the balance of
land-uses and development,that will contribute most effectively to Santa Monica’s
long-term vitality and leadership in our region?1
Aided by an expert urban design team,City of Santa Monica staff,community stakeholders,
and others,Panelists would engage in an extensive learning phase in which they become
experts on a wide range of community perspectives and design possibilities.Through a
series of collaborative design sessions,intensive internal deliberation,and feedback loops
with the broader community,the Panel would then create multiple viable scenarios and
eventually build agreement for one preferred vision.This recommendation would set the
stage for future decision making by the City Council.
Given their extensive time commitment and collaborative orientation,Panelists quickly
become leaders who are trusted –both by the public and elected officials –to work in
service of the broadest public good.
1 This framing question is pending final approval by City Council.
4/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
The future of the Santa Monica Airport will impact residents for many generations.The
process proposed herein sets a new standard for independence,inclusivity,and
collaborative planning deserving of such great possibility.
5/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
ii.What Makes a Lottery-Selected Panel Different
Traditional Public Engagement Lottery-Selected Panels
Self-selected volunteers and
stakeholders with a vested interest in the
topic.
Frequent overrepresentation of those
with the most time and resources.
Participants often skew whiter,older,and
more highly educated than the general
public.
Everyday community members,most of
whom don’t engage in other public
processes.
Guarantees demographic
representation.Reduces practical
barriers to participation (e.g.,time,
money,childcare,and information).
Participants expected to do their own
research or rely on pre-packaged
information from a government agency.
Debates over “the facts”prevent
collaborative critical thinking and
overshadow substantive conversation
about solutions.
Access to a wide range of viewpoints
and evidence,selected in part by an
independent stakeholder body.
Collecting and analyzing information is a
collaborative undertaking –with the goal
of understanding diverse viewpoints and
identifying creative solutions.
Fundamentally designed to encourage
adversarial debate about specific policy
positions,creating a zero-sum political
environment.
Time-constrained –e.g.,a 3-minute
public comment or afternoon workshop
–lending itself to superficial input.
Designed by staff or consultants,without
input from participants,external
advisors,or independent evaluators.
Fundamentally designed to encourage
thoughtful and respectful deliberation
about what solutions serve a variety of
community interests.
Plenty of time and freedom to dig
deeply into a topic and produce
comprehensive policy recommendations
from scratch.
Panelists oversee process staff and have
power to direct their own process;third-
party evaluation and advice is standard.
Emphasizes one-directional community
input.Staff and electeds receive
comments from many opinion groups
and mediate a policy solution
themselves.
Effect of public feedback is often
unknown.
Emphasizes community-driven problem
solving,in which everyday residents and
stakeholders work among themselves to
identify creative solutions.
Decision makers commit to,at minimum,
thoroughly considering and
substantively responding to Panel
reports.
6/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
iii.Overarching Principles of Lottery-Selected Panels
●A paradigm of Panelists-on-the-dais,not in the audience.
○Think of Lottery-Selected Panels as fact-finding commissions,task forces,or a
jury for policy –just not focus groups.
●Presentations directly to decision makers.
○Elected officials thoroughly consider the Panel’s recommendations and
provide rationale for their decision.
●An emphasis on collaborative decision-making.
○Working toward shared solutions,without forcing consensus.
●Accountable and transparent governance over the process.
○An independent Information Committee makes decisions about initial
presenters to the Panel and advises the Panel on additional presenters to
consider.
○A group of Program Advisors,made up of practitioner experts,former
moderators,and former Panelists,works with HD staff on process details.
○A Process Committee,made up of current Panelists,makes high-level
process decisions and improvements beyond the information-gathering
phase.
●Independence from outside political interference.
○Everyone involved agrees to certain guidelines to prevent undue political
manipulation of the Panel’s work –this includes guidelines for Panelists,
project convener,elected officials,process staff (i.e.,Healthy Democracy),
presenting experts,public observers,media,and others.Standard guidelines
are available from HD upon request.
●Selection of Panelists through a democratic lottery.
○Randomly selected from the general public,and
○Representative on a number of
demographic factors.
●A commitment to universal accessibility.
○Panelists are supported in ways that offset
the financial burdens of participation (e.g.
child care,elder care,transportation).
○Appropriate technology,training,and
one-on-one logistical support is provided
to all Panelists.
●A substantial learning phase,including:
○Substantial background information
provided by the City and expert
consultants.
○Information presented by presenters
selected by the Information Committee.
○Information presented by presenters selected by the Panel itself.
○Other public input that engages the broader community.
●A structured,in-depth deliberation phase.
○Designed by professional process designers and based on research.
○Moderated by professional,trained moderators.
○Designed to encourage collaboration across differences without forcing
consensus.
7/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
○Substantial collaborative work directly with technical experts,deep
deliberation on the most contentious tradeoffs,and a methodical pathway
toward agreement.
●Actionable recommendations,prioritized in order of agreement.
○Written by the Panelists themselves,with no writing or editing by staff.
○Delivered by the full Panel but with room for dissenting opinions and
individual voices.
●Third-party evaluation of process design and execution.
○Academic evaluators not paid by the process,the convening agency,or
Healthy Democracy –typically academics or other deliberative experts –
observe and review the process,and report to the public and the convener on
its fairness and quality.
○An Evaluation Committee,made up of Panelists,works with these external
evaluators to provide its own evaluation of the process,often surveying the
broader public about the process.
iv.Project Timeline
8/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
2.Project Elements
i.Panelist Selection &Care
a.Overview
Selecting Panelists through a democratic lottery
guarantees demographic representation and helps
ensure new voices in local policy making.For many
Panelists selected by lot,this will be their first and
most meaningful experience in public decision-
making.Outlined in great detail below,there are many
unique elements in a Lottery-Selected Panel.To begin,
selected Panelists are offered support to offset
financial burdens,offered language interpretation,and
reimbursed for childcare,eldercare,and transportation
expenses.This sets a new standard for access and inclusion of all communities and
mitigates unequal barriers to participation often faced by marginalized residents.The
personal care and support we provide helps ensure that Panelists know that their
contributions are valued,and helps ensure Panelist retention throughout the deliberative
process.
b.Panelist Selection
Panelists are selected from the general public using a democratic lottery,also known as a
representative random sample or sortition.While most public engagement processes rely
on the same self-selected individuals,democratic lotteries engage new residents through a
randomized process that ensures representation across an unusually broad set of diversities.
The lottery begins with a proactive invitation to randomly selected residential addresses that
makes it as easy as possible to say “yes.”by offering support for Panelist time and language
services.From the resulting pool of respondents,a Panel is randomly selected (at a public
event)to reflect a microcosm of the city.Lottery-Selected Panels don’t just “work toward”
representation;they guarantee a cross-section of the public’s diversities every time.
The lottery selection for a Panel process generally commences approximately 10-12 weeks
in advance of the Panel’s first day.Here’s how the process works:
●Mailings are sent to 15,000–20,000 randomly selected residential addresses.2
2 Recipients may be exclusively Santa Monica residents or encompass particular geographies beyond
Santa Monica,pending decision by City Council.
9/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
●Any qualified3 residents at those addresses may reply.This reply includes
self-reported demographic information.Typically,the response rate for Panels in the
United States is 2.5 to 3.5%.
●HD staff also distribute “golden tickets”to social service agencies,for distribution to
folks without residential addresses.
●Meanwhile,HD collects data on the demographic makeup of Santa Monica.
●A public Lottery Selection Event is held to select the Panel,as well as a number of
alternates.(See Appendix –External Communication Elements)
●Panelists are informed of their selection by HD’s Panelist Liaison and provided with
comprehensive support services.
For more information,see Appendix A:Detailed Policies and Procedures for Panelist Selection.
Population Pool
The population from which a Panel is selected may be limited to Santa Monica residents or
may extend beyond Santa Monica city limits,depending on direction from City Council.
Regardless of this decision,non-resident stakeholder organizations and presenters will be
involved in providing information to the Panel.
c.Panelist Care
Our processes radically prioritize access for everyone –absolutely everyone.While
traditional processes put the onus of participation on participants,Lottery Selected Panels
uphold that everyone has the right to participate meaningfully in the decision making that
affects their lives.To ensure access and inclusion,and to support Panelist retention,we
provide thoughtful support to Panelists throughout every step of the process and actively
work to reduce potential barriers.This support and care begins as soon as Panelists are
selected,with one-on-one personal contact to identify accessibility needs,orient Panelists
to the process,and start building a relationship with them.
Staff are made available to provide intensive support for each Panelist.This sets a new
standard for access and inclusion of all communities and mitigates unequal barriers to
participation often faced by marginalized residents.By bringing this human-centric
approach to policy making,we create a space where all people feel like they belong at the
decision making table and reduce as many barriers to participation as possible.
3 “Qualified”varies by project,but,typically,members of the public are qualified if they:
●Are at least 18 years of age,regardless of official citizenship or resident status,
●Primarily live at the address to which the mailing is sent (or have received a “golden ticket
from a social service agency”),
●Are not a current or former elected official,and
●Are not a current City staff member.
Note that,as part of their response forms,all respondents are asked to certify that they qualify by
initialing statements about each of these factors.
10/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Panelist Services
Offsetting financial
burdens
Each Panelist is supported in ways that reduce common financial
barriers to participation.
Traditional public engagement relies on residents’ability to give freely of their time,
which allows those with greater access to resources to have an outsized impact.By
offering support of those with fewer resources in terms of time and money.
Reimbursement
Panelists are reimbursed for the following expenses:
●Childcare
●Eldercare
●Transportation
We offer reimbursement for childcare and eldercare to make it possible for those
with caregiving responsibilities to participate,as well as reimbursement for the cost
of public transportation to and from Panel sessions.
We also provide reimbursement for small expenses incurred during the post-Panel
subcommittee phase,such as printing costs.
Comprehensive
Language Services
HD will contract full translation of written materials and
simultaneous interpretation of oral communications in Spanish.
The invitation mailer will also include a slip inviting responses and
phone-based support in several additional languages (including
Farsi and Amharic).Further language services may be offered
pending the needs of selected Panelists.
Language services are provided so that residents whose primary language is not
English can participate fully.We oscillate between simultaneous and sequential
interpretation so that non-English speakers can be heard and understood in both
small and large group conversations effectively and efficiently.
Technology
Support
Wherever the use of technology is incorporated into process
designs,HD staff provides the equipment and personal coaching
to ensure that all Panelists are able to participate meaningfully.
This can include but isn’t limited to:
●Access to laptops
●Access to hotspots
●Technical support,personal assistance
11/57
Potential for Panelists may be reimbursed for the following types of expenses:
HD may offer reimbursement to make it possible for those with family circumstancesthat make it hard financially to participate typically, are able to do so. As well,
reimbursement for the cost of public transportation to and from Panel sessions
further ensures participation. We may also provide reimbursement for smallexpenses incurred during the post-Panel subcommittee phase, such as printing costs.
TransportationPrinting
Other
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
While our preference is always for in-person deliberation,we do sometimes use
technology to facilitate Panel decision making.This was needed as a response to
Covid outbreaks in recent years.If technology is necessary –either within the
process or to respond to unforeseen circumstances that prevent in-person
gathering –we will provide the necessary equipment and tech support.
Process Orientation
After being selected,every Panelist is contacted by an HD staff
member to go through the following:
●Personalized interview and information session (including
for alternates);
●Survey of accessibility needs and dietary requirements;
●Administration of intake paperwork (W-9,photo/video
release,reimbursement procedures,etc.).
Personalized intake allows us to anticipate Panelists'needs for accommodations so
they can participate fully.It allows for confidential sharing of needs or concerns.
Studies show that it is typical for Panelists to experience some anxiety at the
beginning of the process.We make direct personal contact a priority to alleviate
concerns,set expectations,and begin to build a relationship.
Accessibility
Accommodations
Accessibility accommodations are proactively identified and
provided,and universal accessibility is a baseline design principle.
We take accessibility into account in selecting venues and
designing printed and electronic communications.
Prioritizing access and inclusion means making every effort possible for Panelists to
contribute meaningfully to the deliberative process.Accommodating a range of
accessibility options ensures that we have new voices at the decision making table.
Other Logistical
Support
HD provides the administrative support for financial supports,
including tracking Panelist attendance,verifying expenses,and
reporting taxable income.This includes as-needed
troubleshooting to address Panelists’needs,especially as they
relate to accessibility.This can include but is not limited to:
●setting up carpools,
●delivering materials in case of illness,
●providing one-on-one phone support as needed.
●providing access to technology as needed.
Reducing barriers comes in many forms.In order to most effectively serve all
Panelists,our all-inclusive Panelist concierge services include all administrative
costs.We aren’t always able to account for every barrier that someone might face.
We leave extra time and space for incidentals to ensure that we reduce as many
barriers as possible.We center the importance and value of each person’s
12/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
contribution to the Panel.Thorough support also increases Panelist retention,which
is essential –particularly in long processes.
Meals &
Refreshments
HD staff coordinate and manage:
●Coffee service,snacks,beverages,and lunch are provided
at each Panel session.
●We accommodate food allergies and sensitivities and work
to serve Panelist preferences in food selection as much as
is possible.
Including meals and refreshments not only reduces the cost and stress of
participating in a Panel process;it also has the effect of enhancing group cohesion
and allowing for informal yet vital Panelist interactions.
ii.Deliberative Process
a.Overview
The deliberative process puts everyday
people at the center of in-depth,
well-informed,and collaborative
policymaking.Given that most
lottery-selected Panelists do not have prior
experience with the policy topic,they have
a unique capacity for identifying common
ground solutions in the public’s best
interest.Much like a jury in a criminal court,
they receive a vast amount of information
before independently deliberating on
recommendations.Panelists hear from
dozens of background presenters,
stakeholders,and technical experts to
understand the landscape of opinions and
information on the policy topic.
Then,through meticulously designed
small-group work aided by professional moderators,Panelists carefully consider options,
weigh tradeoffs,and collaboratively identify solutions.Panelists hear from the broader
public throughout their process to ensure a wide range of community voices and interests
are considered.The Panel’s recommendations,written entirely in Panelists’own words,are
delivered directly to decision makers.The time-intensive and collaborative nature of the
deliberative process results in recommendations with broad community buy-in –and
unusual public legitimacy –that are frequently adopted by government officials.
Healthy Democracy has designed and coordinated lottery-selected deliberative processes
like this one for 15 years and draws on decades of international research in all our projects.
13/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
We work with a team of project-specific program advisors –made up of former Panelists,
former project partners,and practitioner colleagues –to ensure our process designs are
delivering the best practices our field has to offer.
b.Unique Process Elements
Time &Space for
Deep &Thoughtful
Deliberation
●Unusually lengthy process –in this case over 150 hours.
●Unusually diverse iterations within process design –groups
larger and smaller,creative mixing,and many different
types of activities
Allow for Panel cohesion,to create conditions to consider hard questions from a
collaborative orientation.
Allow for time to dig fully into contentious tradeoffs and technical details.
Allow for innovation and creativity to flourish,to bubble up new ideas to highly
complex issues.
Conditions for
High-Quality
Deliberation
●Intensive process onboarding to yield productive
collaboration,including activities related to communication
styles,cognitive biases,and power and privilege.
●One professional small group moderator for every 6
Panelists.
Deliberation has the power to unlock people’s natural knack for collaborative
problem solving –but only with careful planning and intentional exercises that
move beyond “win/lose”thinking that dominates most political discourse.
Skilled moderation creates meaningful participation by empowering quiet voices
and encouraging difficult conversations.
Extensive Learning
Phase
●Prior knowledge or expertise is not a prerequisite for
participation.
●Unusually lengthy information-gathering process –
typically including dozens of presentations,extensive
written materials,personal storytelling,and
hands-on/site-specific learning.
●Transparent and participatory process for selecting
informational presenters.
●Substantial portion of informational inputs controlled by the
Panel.
Demystifying policy makes our democracy stronger.Everyone has a role to play in
the policy decisions that affect their lives –and everyone is capable of becoming
an expert on even the most complex topics.
14/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Exercising considered judgment requires access to high-quality information and
lived experience.
Reducing hand-selection of presenters by project conveners increases public
legitimacy and buy-in.
Stakeholders &
Experts “On Tap,Not
On Top”
●Stakeholders and experts are important sources of
information,but not directing the process.
Existing stakeholders are integral to the policy landscape,but not always
best-positioned to recommend common ground solutions.
Randomly selected community members need the expertise and wisdom of
existing actors in order to do their job well.
Panelist-Led
Community
Engagement
●Polis,a virtual deliberative survey tool,allows the Panel to
“listen at scale”to many more voices in the broader
community that would typically be able to meaningfully
participate.
●Panelist-hosted community workshop.
With Polis,Panelists can gather ideas from hundreds of community members –
easily identifying points of agreement and disagreement across the opinion groups
and ensuring key ideas aren’t missed.
As recipients of all community input,all information flows through the Panel itself –
avoiding interpretation by consultants,process staff,or conveners.
Collaborative,
Interactive Site
Design
●Collaborative “Deep Dives”with the Design &Technical
Team.
●Hands-on,tactile design work that brings the place alive.
The people who will use a space should be the ones to design it.Collaborative
design workshops bring out the inherent wisdom of the community with the aid
and guidance of professionals.
Lengthy charrette-style workshops put Panelists on eye-level with designers,
evening out typical power imbalances.Multiple iterative feedback loops between
Panelists and designers ensure that there is time to develop innovative alternatives
and work out sticking points.The resulting designs gain the benefits of both
energetic,real-time group collaboration and quiet,individual creativity.
Complete Panel
Authority Over
Recommendations
●Panelists are entirely responsible for content,while staff are
solely responsible for the process.
●Panelists author every word of their final reports,down to
the last typo.
15/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
●Recommendations are delivered directly to decision
makers by Panelists themselves.
Strict process/content delineation reduces both actual and perceived bias,and
improves overall public credibility.
Typical processes rely on consultants or City staff to collect,interpret,and
summarize comments –creating possible misunderstanding or mischaracterization
of public will.
Starting from a blank page and co-authoring reports builds an unparalleled sense
of ownership and agency among Panelists.Often they become leaders on the topic
for years following delivery of their recommendations.
Maximum Panel
Self-Governance
●Panel subcommittees handle and oversee key staffing
functions.
Panelists themselves are the most trustworthy experts on their own process.
Process staff should act merely as support staff to the Panel,transferring power
and ownership over to Panelists at every opportunity.
Fully Independent
Academic
Evaluation
●Qualified third-party researchers,not paid for by the project
or associated with HD,observe every stage of the process
in person.
●In addition to evaluating each process on a standard set of
criteria,evaluators typically pursue a variety of individual
research interests.
Deliberative processes benefit from decades of research and constant innovation.
HD is committed to receiving constructive feedback and making continuous
improvements in every new project.
Past research on HD’s processes have produced some of the most important work
in the field of deliberative democracy internationally –including dozens of articles
and at least one book.
b.Timeline
The outline below includes planned Panel activities within each phase of the deliberative
process.Each weekend represents 3 full days (Friday-Sunday),with an additional half-day
on Weekend 1 and Weekend 6.Full days are scheduled from 9:00AM -4:30PM,with an hour
break for lunch.Sessions 5.5 and 6.5 represent shorter (2-3 hour)meetings involving only a
subset of the Panel.
16/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Note that this outline is not comprehensive and is subject to changes in response to process
direction from the Panel’s Process Subcommittee or the needs of other project partners.
Activities are organized by theme within each weekend,rather than in strict chronological
order.
As part of the customized process design for this project,Healthy Democracy will develop a
highly detailed Process Manual.A detailed agenda will be published to the public project
web page for each meeting of the Panel.
Weekend 1 (Sept.2024)
Process
Welcome
○Dignitary welcome
○Comprehensive introductions
Process
Orientation
○Timing,logistics,roles,conduct,and other details
○Cognitive biases activity
○Power and privilege activity
○Collaborative decision-making activity
○(Continuous process reorientation and signposting will follow
throughout the Panel’s subsequent sessions –not noted in this outline)
Informational
Inputs
○Introductions and handoff from the Information Committee
○Policy context
○Panelist discussions of their lived experience
○Presented and written material from the City
○Presenters selected by the Information Committee
○Introduction to Polis online deliberation process
Interactions
with the DTT
○Meet &greet with Design &Technical Team (in person)
○Two “learning sessions”with Design &Technical Team (in person)
●Site tour
●Existing Conditions report summary
Analyzing
Information
○Reading and collaborative sense-making of initial informational inputs
○Information gaps analysis
●Select additional presenters
●Request additional information/analysis from Design &Technical
Team
Guiding
Principles
○Introduction to the use of principles in decision making
○Practice activity
○Non-judgemental principles brainstorming work
○Parking lot for visions and site use options
17/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Broad Public
Engagement
○Initiate Polis for broader community feedback on brainstormed
Guiding Principles concepts
Weekend 2 (Oct.2024)
Process
Orientation
○Reminders and additional orientation activities
Informational
Inputs
○More IC-selected presenters
○First Panel-selected presenters
○More review of written materials
○Independent Panelist research
○Additional presenters and/or materials
Interactions
with the DTT
○Third “learning session”and review of any new information from the
Design &Technical Team,with them in real time (virtual)
Analyzing
Information
○Gaps Analysis:
●Request additional information/analysis from Design &Technical
Team
●Request additional information from the City team
Panel Sub-
committees
○Introduction to the concept of Panel subcommittees and
self-governance
Broad Public
Engagement
○Training on how to read and interpret Polis reports
○Review Polis feedback on brainstormed Guiding Principles concepts
Guiding
Principles
○Iterative workshopping of concepts and Polis feedback in small
groups
○Creation of rough-draft Guiding Principles
Begin Site-
Specific
Visioning
○Non-judgemental brainstorming of visions for the site,using tactile
and creative modalities
Weekend 3 (Jan.2025)
Informational
Inputs
○Panelist-driven research on land use topics
○Policy context review
18/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
○Any Panel-requested presenters/materials
Broad Public
Engagement
○Panel-hosted community event
○Initiate new Polis instance to gather feedback on land use ideas
Guiding
Principles
○Iterative workshopping in small groups
○Revision and refinement
○Prioritization process
○Finalize Guiding Principles report
Panel Sub-
committees
○Internal subcommittees convened for the first time
●These subcommittees will continue to work on their independent
process oversight,planning,and outreach tasks throughout the
rest of the Panel’s process (not noted further in this outline)
Land Use
Topic Groups
○Creation of Panel subgroups to work on Panel-identified subtopics
○Fact finding
○Design concepts
○Tradeoffs analysis
○Presentations back to large group
Overarching
Site-Specific
Visioning
○Community/regional needs analysis
○Identifying overarching land use goals that satisfy Guiding Principles
Analyzing
Information
○Prepare for Deep Dive 1:
●Prepare questions,information requests,and any additional
presenters in topic groups and between groups
●Begin tradeoff analysis across topic groups &identification of
polarizing points
●Engage in additional information gaps analysis
DELIVERABLE:Guiding Principles Report
(presented to City Council by Panelists)
Weekend 4 (Feb.2025)
Informational
Inputs
○Review response from City to Guiding Principles report,including Q&A
session with City staff and/or City Councilors (if needed)
○Additional independent reading and research time
○Any additional Panel-requested presenters/materials/collaboration
19/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Stakeholder
Engagement
○Panel-directed feedback on initial land use concepts from
pre-identified stakeholder organizations
Broad Public
Engagement
○Review Polis feedback on land use ideas
Initial Design
Concepts
○Panel introduces vision/design concepts from its own prior work and
collected previously from stakeholders and broader public
Interactions
with the DTT
○Design &Technical Team begins to present design precedents /case
studies and conceptual frameworks –in plenary and also within land
us topic groups
○DEEP DIVE 1:Intensive charrette-style design work (in person)
●First hands-on work between Panel and Design &Technical Team.
Tradeoffs
Analysis
○Continue tradeoffs analysis,now with help from DTT analysis and data
on polarizing points from Polis report
Land Use
Topic Groups
○Further Panel deliberation in and between topic groups
Analyzing
Information
○Gaps Analysis
●Identify additional expert and/or stakeholder presenters
Prep for
Deep Dive 2
○Organize design elements into draft visions
○Identify additional information,analysis,and design aspects to be
requested from Design &Technical Team
Weekend 5 (March 2025)
Informational
Inputs ○Review feedback from Design &Technical Team
○Review feedback from stakeholders and/or broader community
○Additional independent reading and research time
○Any additional Panel-requested presenters/materials/collaboration
Analyzing
Information
○Identify questions and additional analysis needed from Design &
Technical Team
Broader
Public/
○Identify questions for stakeholders and/or broader community
20/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Stakeholder
Engagement
Interactions
with the DTT
○DEEP DIVE 2:Intensive charrette-style design work (in person)
●Second work session between Panel and Design &Technical Team
●Refine conceptual visualizations of each land use scenario
●Negotiate tradeoffs within each land use scenario
Evaluating
Scenarios
○Evaluate scenarios based on existing information,including:
●Guiding Principles
●Overarching land use goals
●Policy context
●Needs analysis
●Financial analysis
●Other analysis from Existing Conditions phase or elsewhere
Session 5.5 (March 2025)
Interactions
with the DTT
○Panel reviews and approves final visualizations refined by Design &
Technical Team.(Note:only a predesignated subset of the Panel meets
in-person and liaises with the DTT.)
DELIVERABLE:Alternative Scenarios Report
(presented to City Council by Panelists prior to Weekend 6)
Weekend 6 (May 2025)
Informational
Inputs
○Review the City’s response to Alternative Scenarios report
○Q&A with City staff related to the feasibility and/or policy implications
of each alternative scenario
○Review feedback from public workshop/surveys hosted by Sasaki on
the Panel’s 3 alternative scenarios
Interactions
with the DTT
○DEEP DIVE 3:Intensive charrette-style design work with the Design &
Technical Team,to build agreement between alternative scenarios (in
person)
●Organization of Panel work will be somewhat context dependent –
on the nature and scale of existing conflict points or unsolved
questions/issues
●Design &Technical Team provides creative design concepts to aid
in building trans-scenario agreement
21/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
○Iterative small-and large-group agreement-seeking towards one
preferred alternative
●Tradeoffs negotiated between alternative scenarios (as opposed to
within scenarios,as in Deep Dive 2)
Final
Agreement
Seeking
○Final large-group agreement-seeking on any remaining conflict points
and resolution-seeking of any other remaining unsolved
questions/issues
Report
Delivery &
Refinement
○Plan for report delivery and follow up
○Final refinement,editing,and approval of narrative scenario material
Session 6.5 (May 2025)
Interactions
with the DTT
○Panel reviews and approves final visualizations refined by Design &
Technical Team.(Note:only a predesignated subset of the Panel meets
in-person and liaises with the DTT.)
DELIVERABLE:Preferred Scenario Report
(presented to City Council by Panelists)
Following the formal process activities outlined below,Panelists will be supported for an
additional 30 hours to continue engaging with the community and decision makers about
their recommendations.In addition to events organized by Panelist subcommittees,at least
one full-Panel event will be scheduled for approximately a year after conclusion of the
process.
c.Panel Deliverables
The Panel will author at least three documents,which we have temporarily titled and placed
within the overview of the Panel's process above.These reports will include (but may not be
limited to):4
1.Guiding Principles
A prioritized list of overarching values,decision-making criteria,key interests,and
important activities that any final recommendation should take into consideration.
Principles will be ordered using a multidimensional prioritization mechanism.
2.Alternative Scenarios
4 City Council should approve or amend the description of each deliverable.
22/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
An outline of multiple comprehensive and viable visions for the Airport site,including
options considered and rationales based on lived experience and outside evidence.
3.Preferred Scenario
The Panel's recommendations,including preferred Airport land use(s)and rationales,
dissenting opinions,and supporting details.
All Panel deliverables will be authored exclusively by Panelists,without intervention or
suggestion by HD staff,City staff,or any other non-Panelist.In addition,all editing –up to
and including typos –will be done exclusively by Panelists,with no editing done by staff or
any other non-Panelist.
Panelist reports will be presented as written to the public as soon as they are completed
and approved by the Panel for distribution.Neither HD staff nor anyone other than the Panel
in aggregate may delay the release of a Panel report for any reason.
Any attempts to direct,edit,delay,or otherwise compromise the Panel's independent work
should be reported to the Panel's Process Subcommittee and dealt with through the Panel's
Dispute Resolution process,as outlined in this document.
In view of the importance of non-majority views –even those of one person –Panel reports
are created through a process of nondestructive addition and editing,with less-favored
ideas dropping to the bottom of the report,rather than being eliminated.To accomplish this,
we design processes that use prioritization mechanisms wherever possible,rather than
simple yes/no voting.Only in cases where proposals are in direct conflict,or where a single
recommendation is necessary will a simple vote be used.
The formatting of all public Panel reports will be created by Healthy Democracy and
approved by the Panel's Policy Impact Subcommittee.Any explanatory preamble or other
text on a report will be written by Healthy Democracy,clearly marked as such,and approved
by the Policy Impact Subcommittee.
d.Information
High-quality information from a wide variety of sources is a cornerstone of any deliberative
process.Many actors play a role in ensuring that Panelists have access to the information
they need to complete their work.Prior to the Panel’s first meeting,a group of stakeholders
select introductory presenters that introduce the Panel to the topic.The City and Design &
Technical Team act as key sources of information about the policy context,existing site
conditions,and initial design opportunities.Local stakeholders and members of the general
public engage with the Panel in feedback loops throughout the process,and as sources of
specific informational presentations when invited by the Information Committee or the
Panel.Ultimately,the Panel itself contains a wealth of lived experience and capacity for
independent research that drives its analysis and decision-making process.
Information Committee
The Information Committee (IC)is a group of stakeholders tasked with curating background
informational presenters for the Panel.Rather than rely on hand-selected presenters by the
City,the following process ensures broad representation among those initial sources of
information through the following process:
23/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
1.HD invites designated stakeholder IC participants to nominate up to two introductory
presenters each,with rationales for why it’s important that the Panel hear from them.
2.Once all presenter nominations are received,HD invites the stakeholder
organizations to participate in an online Polis engagement;through their evaluation of
each other’s nominations,the list of nominees is sorted and prioritized.
3.The 5 presenters who receive the most consensus from poll respondents are
automatically invited to speak to the Panel.
4.The Information Committee meets for a series of 5 sessions to select an additional 15
presenters.
5.All 20 selected presenters are contacted and scheduled by HD staff.
For more detailed policies and procedures related to the Information Committee,see
Appendix C:Information Committee Policies.
Sources of Information
The following partners act as core information collaborators with the Panel:
City of Santa Monica staff will act as core collaborators with Panelists,delivering key
policy context and background information throughout the process.City staff reserve
availability throughout the process to answer Panelist questions related to the policy
context.
The Design &Technical Team will act as a key information source for the Panel
during the learning phase and as co-designers during the “deep dives,”in which
Panelists and DTT develop alternative scenarios together for the Airport site.
The following actors engage in feedback loops with the Panel –responding to its thinking
and offering suggestions.
Everyday community members who are not serving on the Panel –and in some
cases,residents of surrounding areas –have opportunities throughout the process to
give the Panel feedback.Opportunities will be varied in format,from online
deliberation tools like Polis to an in-person community workshop hosted by the
Panel itself.More on broader public engagement can be found in the next section.
City staff and City Council will have opportunities to give the Panel feedback on its
reports and draft site plans.Feedback loops with staff and policymakers serve the
specific purpose of helping ensure the Panel’s recommendations are actionable
according to the City’s existing policy frameworks and commitments.
Stakeholder organizations are vital sources of information and feedback throughout
the process –helping the Panel understand the full landscape of land use options
available and why different groups are interested in particular land use types.
The following sources of information are built into the process during the Panel’s Learning
Phase to portray a wide variety of perspectives and on the topic.
As an inherently diverse group,Panelists bring a wealth of lived experience to the
room which creates a rich foundation for deliberation.
24/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Many informational presenters –including background experts in relevant
professional fields and stakeholders with unique perspectives on the topic –will
speak to the Panel during its learning phase.An initial slate of informational
presenters is selected by the Information Committee,while all additional presenters
are selected off a ‘Menu of Presenters’by Panelists themselves.
Panelists conduct independent research and information requests to the extent the
group deems necessary.Requests can be made from any external party or source.
e.Broader Public Engagement
While the Panel is uniquely representative of the Santa Monica public –and of new voices to
local politics –every democratic process must also include open calls for participation.
Opportunities open to any interested participants will always be subject to self-selection
biases,but broader engagement also comes with important upsides:to provide a window
on the overall political landscape and to create a way for ideas percolating among the
public to be assured of making their way into the Panel’s process –regardless of any
decisions about informational inputs made by the City,the DTT,the Information Committee,
or the Panel itself.If there is a brilliant idea out there,then there should be a way for it to rise
to the top and make its way to the Panel.In Santa Monica,a combination of low-and
high-tech tools will help realize this goal.
Public Workshops &Surveys
At several stages throughout the project,the Panel will hear from the broader community
through open-invitation events,to ensure it has captured and integrated ideas from all
residents.Workshops and surveys will occur at several points throughout the project:
●Jan.–Sept.2024:Broad community engagement led by the DTT (accompanying
technical work on Existing Conditions)will identify community needs and
opportunities at the Airport site.A summary of this engagement will be produced by
the DTT for the Panel.
●Jan.2025:A Panel-hosted community event will provide an open-invitation,
interactive forum for Panelists to hear directly from community members about their
needs and interests related to the Airport.
●Apr.2025:Surveys and engagement “events”led by the DTT will showcase the
Panel’s three alternative scenarios for the Airport and collect community feedback to
feed into the Panel’s development of a single preferred scenario.
Polis
At two points in the process,the Panel will benefit from an open source tool called Polis,
designed and maintained by our partner,the nonprofit Computational Democracy Project.
Polis is an online platform that allows for large numbers of people to participate in a form of
“light deliberation,”involving suggesting short ideas,opinions,or proposals and then
reacting to those submitted by others.Unlike similar tools,Polis is not a black box that
collects content or tallies opinions.Rather,it acts as an aid to participants,helping them –in
real time –to understand the ways in which their statements sit within the broader
landscape of ideas and helping new ideas with more agreement to emerge.
25/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
In this process,the Panel will utilize Polis to test its own ideas,to understand the full breadth
of the opinion landscape,and to source new concepts.This will happen in a similar manner
both times that Polis is employed:
●Between Weekends 1 and 2:The Panel will send its early guiding principles
concepts to Polis as “seed statements”;Polis participants will evaluate these
concepts and suggest new potential principles of their own.
●Between Weekends 3 and 4:The Panel will send its early site use ideas to Polis as
“seed statements”;Polis participants will evaluate these concepts and suggest new
potential site uses of their own.
(Note that Polis will also be used for a specialized purpose during the Information
Committee’s process.See the Information Committee section above for more details.)
Distribution
Each time Polis is launched,Polis participants will be invited in two phases:
●Phase 1:First,Polis will be opened to a near-representative sample of several
hundred members of the broader public,including
○All community members who responded to the initial Panelist mailing but
who were not selected onto the Panel,supplemented by
○Targeted outreach to help fill in gaps in representation among that
respondent list,to bring the overall group as close as possible to the
representativeness on the Panel.
●Phase 2:After the near-representative group above has had a chance to interact with
Polis,an invitation will be opened to all Santa Monica residents.This general
invitation will be pushed out through:
○The stakeholder list used during the Information Committee process,
○The project’s communications partners,and
○The City’s local communications channels.
The goals of this phased approach are to:
●Give an early boost to the voices of a (near-representative)cross-section of the
public,before Polis is opened to a fully self-selected broader public.
●Offer a meaningful participatory opportunity to respondents to the democratic lottery
who are likely to be enthusiastic first-time participants –but who were simply
unlucky in the lottery.
(Note that none of this applies to the specialized use of Polis during the Information
Committee’s process.See its section above for more details.)
Technical Description
Polis is an open source platform that leverages machine intelligence to scale up deliberative
processes.Polis was designed with respect for the extremely difficult work of facilitation.
The goal of Polis is to enable open and constructive dialogue between people with diverse
viewpoints.Using a combination of machine learning and human interaction,Polis helps
groups understand each other and identify points of common ground.Polis can be used for
a variety of purposes,including group decision-making,public engagement,and public
opinion research.Polis has a proven track record of hosting open and constructive dialogue
between people with diverse viewpoints (see e.g.Horton,2018;CPI,2019).Polis works by
26/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
allowing participants to submit comments in response to an open-ended prompt,and votes
in response to other people’s comments.By arranging the votes in a vote matrix and
applying dimension reduction and clustering techniques—specifically Principle Components
Analysis (PCA)(Pearson,1901)and K-means clustering (MacQueen,1967)—Polis is able to
learn a 2-dimensional opinion space and opinion groups,which are used as the basis for
syntheses of the deliberations.Specifically,it is possible to surface comments which best
distinguish opinion groups,as well as points of consensus between groups (group-informed
consensus).This manifests in a real-time visualization within the participation interface,as
well as in an automated report for deeper analysis.
f.Panel Autonomy &Self-Governance
Panel Independence
To maintain the integrity of the process,we believe it is important that process and content
are independent of each other.Panelists are entirely responsible for content –with inputs
from other actors –while HD staff are only responsible for convening a high-quality process.
This is for the sake of reducing both actual and perceived bias,and improving overall public
credibility.In practical terms,this means:
●Process staff design and deliver a
process that is content-agnostic,
with advice from external process
advisors,Panelists,and others –
and with oversight by the Panel’s
Process Subcommittee.
●City staff consult on process design
but do not hold final process
decision-making power.
●City staff,stakeholders,and elected
officials agree that they will not
attempt to contact Panelists
directly.All Panelist
communications should be directed
through Healthy Democracy staff to
protect Panelist privacy.
Panel Subcommittees
For the purpose of further realizing our goal of Panel autonomy,we propose the following
Panel subcommittees,where the Panel will have the opportunity to act as its own staff
members,make certain decisions,and speak for itself with the public and decision makers.
●Public Outreach Committee:
○Work with HD and City Communications staff to tell the story of Panelists and
their experience to a general public audience.
○Liaise with members of the media,as appropriate.
○Advise on the creation of materials that explain the process to the community.
○Assist in the design and implementation of public events and public
engagement opportunities in connection with the process.
27/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
○[Refer to Section 2.iv -External Communications for additional Public
Outreach Committee opportunities.]
●Policy Impact Committee:
○Liaise with City staff and elected public officials to ensure the Panel has
substantial impact on future decision making.
○Provide proofreading of the Panel’s written reports,for the purpose of
maximizing the readability –and therefore impact –of the Panel’s policy
recommendations.(Note that this subcommittee may not change the original
meaning of the text,and that all edits must receive final approval from the full
Panel –or from the text’s original author,as appropriate).
○Help coordinate the Panel’s presentations at Council and other public
meetings and answer any questions about the Panel’s recommendations
outside of public meetings (any Panelist may opt out of speaking publicly).
●Process Committee:
○Make key high-level process decisions in collaboration with HD staff.
○Co-create any additional process elements in collaboration with HD staff.
○Review process mandates,time allotments,and activities for clarity and
effectiveness.
○Act as first point of contact for any concerns or disputes raised related to the
Panel process,with the authority to directly determine a resolution (by
supermajority)or call together a broader stakeholder group (outlined in
Section 3.v Dispute Resolution Methodology).
●Evaluation Committee:
○Liaise with independent evaluators regarding their research.
○Review end-of-day Panelist surveys and make recommendations to HD staff.
○Conduct additional surveys or evaluation strategies to measure the
effectiveness of the process,staff,and any other components.
○Follow and evaluate the public perception and policy impact of the Panel’s
work.
○Optionally,advise the City on general public engagement strategies,based on
the experience of this Panel.
g.Transparency &Privacy
HD process staff take both public transparency and Panelist privacy very seriously.Please
see Appendix D:Transparency &Privacy Policy for more details.
iv.External Communications
a.Overview
The primary goal of project communications is to amplify the work of the Panel and to
connect everyday Santa Monicans with its work.Ensuring that the broader public,decision
makers,and city staff have a clear,accessible,and deep understanding of the Panel
process is essential to generating buy-in and adding to the Panels’legitimacy.
A secondary goal of project communications –utilizing private funding and partnerships –is
to elevate Santa Monica as a model to cities everywhere.As the first ever Lottery-Selected
28/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Panel to be convened in Southern California,this is a unique and powerful opportunity to
show Santa Monica’s peers,near and far,the revolutionary way in which the City is deeply
involving everyday people in policy making –and on a highly complex land use topic,no
less.Lottery-selected democracy is increasingly popular around the world,and we believe
this project will be a groundbreaking step forward for democratic innovation.
b.Communicating Democratically
With both of these goals in mind,the way we talk about the process becomes as important
as the process itself.We envision a world where more of us have more collaborative power
over more of our lives.And we believe that realizing that vision will require conscious
changes both to how we do decision making and how we describe it.
Therefore,we work consistently to democratize not only our organizational structures and
our programmatic designs,but also the language we use –publicly and privately.
●We aim for accessibility,clarity,and honesty by being simple and straightforward.
●We aim to focus on our role as process experts by being impartial to other content.
●We aim to emphasize that democracy is for everyone by being proactively inclusive.
●We aim for humility and empowerment of others by being oriented toward service.
These four tenets guide our approach to all external communications about the Panel and
its work.HD staff aims to ensure that the broader public has accurate,timely,and accessible
information about the Panel’s proceedings through live broadcasting of plenary sessions,
regular webpage updates (including daily public agendas and Panelist materials),social
media posts,and press releases.Aside from our standard external communications
practices,we want to highlight some of the more creative ways5 we plan to bring the
broader public along on this democracy ride of a lifetime6.
c.Communications Elements
Project Kickoff
Panel Promotion
●Seek partnerships with public broadcasting stations and
local print media
●Create and display print ads on public transportation hubs
(buses,bus stops,light rail,light rail stops)and public
places (library,city buildings),and in local newspapers
●HD may pursue the creation of short spots for broadcast TV
and public radio pending outside funding/partnerships.
6 The following elements are jumping-off concepts.Many of the elements listed can and will be
directed by the Panel’s Public Outreach Subcommittee.
5 Please note that this chart also has a ‘scale’field for each element.Most of these elements can be
scaled up to include farther-reaching outreach opportunities.The scale field is broken up into a)the
level we are committing to in this Scope of Services and b)the potential for growth,pending outside
resources like funding,partnerships,and/or volunteers.
29/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Proposed scale:
●Current scope includes purchase of a small number of local print ads.
Potential scale pending outside resources:
●With partnerships from local stations/channels and/or support from the
City to display messaging in public places,promotional material could reach
much wider audiences.
Panel promotion can provide a brief explanation of what the Panel is and what it is
tasked with.This can encourage a better understanding of the City’s broader public
engagement plan and of the Panel process.A better understanding of the Panel
process can boost response rates to the initial mailing and build excitement about
the process,about the City’s dedication to hearing from everyday people,and
about local democracy generally.
Public Selection
Event
●Conduct a public Lottery Selection Event where a Panel,
both random and demographically representative,is
selected.
●The event typically includes a presentation from the City
and process staff on the project and serves as a
press-friendly kickoff of the Panel.
Proposed scale:
●Healthy Democracy designs,coordinates,and publicly broadcasts a virtual
selection event via an online meeting platform.This includes translation into
one other language and an ASL interpreter.
Potential scale pending outside resources:
●With private funding,the selection event could be an in-person event,if
desired.It could be professionally produced and broadcast to encourage
understanding and buy-in from a broader section of the public.
A live and public selection event is an essential piece in creating trust and process
legitimacy.Appearing professional,transparent,and accessible is essential at this
initial stage.A larger event that is celebratory in nature can help bolster public
sentiment and belief in the process.It can encourage participation of everyday
folks in this process and,more generally,in local decision making.
Democracy Art
Installations
●Partner with a local arts nonprofit on art installations around
Santa Monica that center on democratic engagement,the
Panel process,and Panelist stories.
●This can happen before,during,and after the Panel.
Proposed scale:
●Currently,no staff time or resources is included for this task.
Potential scale pending outside resources:
●Dedicating HD staff time to this body of work is entirely reliant on finding
outside resources and forming connections to local arts nonprofits.
Assistance and buy-in from the City could make this possibility a reality.
30/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Inviting the arts into spaces that traditionally place higher value on the written
word,deductive reasoning,and oratorical mastery invites people into different
perspectives and ways of life.It can help foster a sense of empathy that is required
in a democracy and breathe new life into otherwise bland and bureaucratic
processes.It often encourages more youth involvement and generally generates
excitement about the Panel and the City’s innovative approach.
Throughout Panel Sessions
Public Gallery
●A public gallery allows members of the public to watch the
Panel’s plenary sessions in person.
●Attendees have access to a communal hard copy version of
the Panel’s public documents.
●Attendees are not allowed to interfere in Panel proceedings
or otherwise engage Panelists.
Proposed scale::
●This is a core feature of all our in-person processes,and is open while the
Panel is in session,except in the case of extenuating circumstances (e.g.,
Covid or other safety precautions).
Potential scale pending outside resources:
●Pending qualified volunteer support,the public gallery could have a
volunteer host.This person could help orient attendees to the Panel process
and the Panel’s progress.A public gallery host can help take demands off of
event staff who are occupied supporting Panelists.
Much like a congressional public gallery,the Panel’s public gallery ensures the
highest level of transparency while protecting Panelists’privacy.The public gallery
allows members of the public to watch a new kind of democracy in action.
Live Broadcasting
●All plenary sessions are broadcast live.However,the
camera(s)are oriented toward the front of the room (away
from Panelists’faces),in order to show any presenters or
people in the front of the room while still maintaining
Panelist comfort and privacy.
●All Panelists,moderators,and presenters are required to
use microphones for the benefit of observers,language
interpreters,and those who experience difficulty hearing.
●Sessions are broadcast in all languages for which
interpretation is available.
31/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Proposed scale:
●Healthy Democracy live streams the sessions to our YouTube channels (in
English and Spanish).Contracted tech support helps ensure the live stream
runs smoothly and that audio is intelligible.
Potential scale pending outside resources:
●With outside resources and/or connection to a local broadcaster,the live
streams could be more produced.This could make the recordings more
accessible and more readily watched.
Much like the public gallery,maintaining accessible viewing opportunities through
live streaming ensures the highest level of transparency and encourages buy-in
from the broader public and stakeholders by ensuring that everyone can view the
Panel’s proceedings.
“A Glimpse of ...”
Session Recaps
●At the end of each weekend,self-selected Panelists will
record a brief recap of the work completed by the Panel
and what they’d like the broader public to know about the
Panel’s progress.
●These will be compiled by HD staff and displayed on HD’s
social media channels,the Panel webpage,and HD’s
YouTube channel.
Proposed scale:
●Healthy Democracy will record and compile Panelist videos and upload
them to the channels mentioned above.
Potential scale pending outside resources:
●With outside resources and/or connection to a local broadcasting
organization,these videos could be professionally produced.This could
make the video compilations more accessible,attractive,and tied into other
media.
Though all plenary sessions are recorded,watching hours and hours of Panel
deliberations is not usually the most accessible way to understand what the Panel
is up to,nor does it highlight the emotion and connection often built in the room.
These short session recaps will function as a highlight reel of that session’s key
moments as seen through the eyes of Panelists.These are meant to encourage
understanding of the Panel and connection to the real,everyday people who are a
part of this groundbreaking process.
Lottery Selected
Panel Tours
We’ll curate special tour days throughout the Panel that are open
to local government staff,elected officials,and members of the
press.An HD staff member will serve as tour guide,and tour
elements may include:
●An introduction to Lottery-Selected Panels
●An update on Panel progress and a roadmap for where the
process will go
●Materials that provide a snapshot of the process
32/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
●An opportunity to observe the Panel in person at a
specifically selected key moment in the process
●A Q&A with process staff
●Interaction with Panelists (pending approval by Panelist
Public Outreach Subcommittee)
Proposed scale:
●Dedicated staff time for two 3-hour Panel tours at key moments in the Panel
process,with invitations to Santa Monica press,decision makers,and staff.
Potential scale pending outside resources:
●With private funding and financial support,tour days could make the
process a model for other cities in the region and beyond.We are in
discussions with the Berggruen Institute related to this element in particular.
Involvement and deep understanding by members of the press encourages
accurate coverage that hones in on important programmatic elements that make
this model distinct –and boosts the Panel’s legitimacy by offering a more in-depth
view of the inside of the process.Involvement by decision makers and City staff
builds knowledge of the process –so the City can make the most of the Panel’s
later work.Finally,the experience of having outside visitors builds a sense of gravity
among Panelists.
Panel Report
Learning Sessions
●Geared specifically to Santa Monica City staff and decision
makers,HD will provide learning sessions prior to the
publishing of each report.Learning sessions will include HD
staff and/or a subsection of Panelists,to explain the Panel’s
work that led to the report.Learning sessions will act as a
user manual of sorts,so that decision makers and staff
understand how best to interpret and use the forthcoming
report.
●It is important to note these sessions are not intended to
help interpret the content of the Panel’s report,as the
report won’t be complete.Rather,these sessions will help
guests understand the process and context in which the
report sits.
Proposed scale:
●Dedicated staff time for three 1-hour learning sessions just preceding each
Panelist report.The intended audience is Santa Monica city staff and
decision makers.
Potential scale pending outside resources:
●With desire from City staff and decision makers,and outside funding,there
may be flexibility in the number and structure of learning sessions.If there is
a desire to broaden the audience,this can be explored.
33/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Due to the nature and complexity of the Panel’s reports,we have learned that it can
sometimes be useful for decision makers and staff to understand the context
surrounding each report.A past Panel subcommittee created its own “user’s
manual”for decision makers;now,this will be a standard part of the process from
the start.
Panel Closing
Panelist Stories
Video
●Throughout the final sessions of the Panel,HD staff will put
together a short video that encapsulates Panelists’personal
experiences of the process and final thoughts they wish to
express about the process to Council.
●Previously,this video has been shown at the public
presentation of the Panel’s recommendations.
Proposed scale:
●Healthy Democracy will record and compile the Panelist testimonial video,
upload it to HD’s social media channels,and work with City staff to have it
ready for public presentation.
Potential scale pending outside resources:
●With outside resources and/or connection to a local broadcaster,the video
could be more fully produced.
Much like the session recap videos,the Panelist stories video will function as a
highlight reel of what it is like to be a Panelist,including key moments and
takeaways in Panelists’own words.This is meant to encourage understanding of
the process and connection to the real,everyday people who are a part of it.
Joint Letter from the
Panel
●In the past,some Panels have chosen to write a brief letter
related to their experience.This may take the form of a
letter to the editor or an open letter to decision makers.
●The direction and content of any letter would be chosen by
Panelists.
Proposed scale:
●If the Panel’s Public Outreach Subcommittee chooses to write a letter –or
make any other public statement –HD would share it on our channels and
on the project web page.
●Any other audiences for dissemination of the letter would be chosen and
pursued by Panelists themselves.
Potential scale pending outside resources:
●If members of the press and decision makers make use of the Panel Tour
Days,this element may be a great follow up or final stage for Panel
advocacy.
34/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
A joint letter could further amplify the work of the Panel,if the Panel chooses this
approach.Sharing the work of the Panel in multiple modes,mediums,and tones
helps ensure that more people are along for the ride.Panelists often seek
opportunities to share their experience in a meaningful democratic process;this is
one of several avenues that Panelists could choose to take.
Democracy
Celebration
●At the culmination of the Panel process,we need a joyous
celebration!Presenting to Council never feels like quite
enough after all the time the Panel has spent together and
all the work it has done for the community.
Proposed scale:
●After delivering the recommendations to decision makers,HD will host a
simple outdoor gathering where Panelists and their families can get
together and celebrate a job well done.
Potential scale pending outside resources:
●Pending outside funding and partnerships,the sky (could be)the limit.We’re
inspired by the “democracy festivals”overseas to bring a truly festive
atmosphere back to public decision making.Food?Arts?Music?Talks?
Democracy?Sure!
Democracy isn’t only the hard stuff.The detailed policy making is a crucial element,
but so is having an emotional and human connection with our neighbors.Panelists
deserve to celebrate their success –and we all deserve to experience the fun side
of democracy along with them.The more folks involved,the better!
See Appendix F:External Communications Toolkit for the following resources:FAQ,Common
Concerns,and Overview of Lottery-Selected Panels.
v.Policy Impact
Given the time-intensive and collaborative nature of Panel processes,their resulting
recommendations tend to be adopted at unusually high rates by decision makers.
According to a 2021 report by the OECD,which reviewed the results of over 500
lottery-selected deliberative processes internationally:
●In 28%of cases,public authorities implemented 100%of the Panel’s
recommendations.
●In 39%of cases,public authorities implemented more than 50%(but less than 100%)
of the Panel’s recommendations.
●In only 11%of cases,public authorities implemented none of the Panel’s
recommendations.
As a minimum condition of our work on any project,Healthy Democracy requires that
decision makers commit to formally receiving and replying to the Panel’s work.As part of
authorizing this process in Santa Monica,this would mean:
35/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
●The Santa Monica City Council commits to hearing a presentation directly from
Panelists after the release of each of the Panel’s reports.
●The Santa Monica City Council commits to thoroughly considering the Panel’s
recommendations and providing a substantive response to each report.7
vi.Independent Evaluation
Like all Healthy Democracy Lottery-Selected Panels,this process will be evaluated by
third-party observers.These observers will be either academic deliberation researchers or
staff from fellow deliberative practitioner organizations in the United States or abroad.
These evaluators may produce,at their discretion,their own independent reports about the
process,not subject to review by Healthy Democracy or the City.
Evaluators will communicate directly with members of the Panel's own Evaluation
Subcommittee.
All evaluators will be independently funded –not funded by Healthy Democracy,the City,or
any other project partner.Evaluators will have no formal association with HD,the City,or any
other project partner.
Healthy Democracy staff will send a notice to potential lead evaluators to observe the
project.Lead evaluators will be announced on HD’s project page and will assemble a
research team.Any qualified evaluator is welcome to contact them about this opportunity.
All evaluators must receive prior approval and orientation from the project’s lead evaluators
in advance of the Panel’s first day.Evaluators will be approved based on qualifications in
deliberative evaluation and as long as space permits,but without bias toward prior
statements or work.
As is our standard policy,Healthy Democracy guarantees evaluators will be provided with
full access to the process,including but not limited to:
●Access to the complete Process Manual and all materials given or shown to the
Panel.
●Access to any other internal materials created by Healthy Democracy related to the
project,upon request –with the exception of materials containing personal
demographic or contact details.
●Access to internal planning and design meetings,as feasible.
●Access to closely observe all Panel sessions,including all small-group work,from
within the Panel's domain (i.e.,not only from the public gallery).
7 Pending approval by City Council.
36/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
3.Roles of Project Partners
As an innovative model,project partners’roles and responsibilities differ from a typical
staff-driven planning process.The Panel acts as the primary conduit of information and final
author of recommendations to decision makers.Healthy Democracy serves as process
managers and primary support staff to the Panel.The Design &Technical Team acts as a key
source of information and works alongside Panelists as expert planning and design
collaborators.The City of Santa Monica provides key background information,partners on
logistics and communications,and facilitates pathways to policy influence for the Panel.The
Information Committee selects background presenters for the Panel.Stakeholders and the
broader community participate via informational presentations to the Panel,online
engagement,and Panel-hosted participatory events.
i.Roles,Responsibilities &Areas of Final Authority
This represents the proposed division of work between the City,Healthy Democracy,the
Panel,the Design &Technical Team,and the Informational Committee.
Healthy Democracy
Areas of
Final
Authority
●Details related to Panelist selection methodology,beyond the policies
in this Scope of Services.
●Logistics-related decisions related to the process.
●Final process design details and urgent process adjustments during
the Panel.
●Moderation-related process decisions,including adding or removing an
assistant moderator or adjusting moderation methods.
●Management of communications,public engagement,interpretation,
and process facilitation subcontractors.
Pathways to
Impact
●Consult on selection of a policy question that is specific and fitting for
deliberation.
●Produce and distribute the Panel’s self-authored reports,accompanied
by an explanation of the process by HD.
●Support the City’s follow-up with Panelists after the Panel concludes,
including helping to coordinate Panelist attendance at Council
meetings.
●Advise on the use of feedback loops throughout the process.
●Provide resources and training for City staff and decision makers about
the Lottery-Selected Panel model and the process leading to the
Panel’s reports.
Process ●Provide professional,customized process designs tailored to the
characteristics of this policy-making context.
●Engage in continuous redesign and improvement in response to
feedback from Panelists,advisors,and partners.
●Lead the process team and act as primary representative of the
process design before,during,and after the deliberations.
●Recruit and train all moderators and other support staff.
●Act as liaison between the Panel and the City,the DTT,and other
37/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
presenters.
●Lead on project management for the Panel process.
●Work with the City to conduct initial stakeholder analysis.
●Collaborate on the selection process for IC members,and convene and
facilitate IC meetings.
●Design and coordinate interactions with the online engagement tool
Polis.
Logistics ●Lead on logistics,including scheduling and on-the-ground
preparations.
●Deliver all aspects of Panelist selection.
●Deliver all aspects of Panelist care.
●Lead on technical concerns (both hardware and software),with
assistance from the City when possible.
●Administer financial supports for Panelists.
Accessibility ●Arrange the distribution of funds and materials to reduce barriers to
participation,including transportation,childcare,eldercare,tech
support,and equipment.
●Coordinate translation of materials,simultaneous interpretation,and
any other language services.
Staffing ●Provide logistics staff,including Panelist care,logistics lead and project
management,
●Provide Panelist tech support,and presenter liaison.
●Provide process staff,including customized process design,
professional moderators,lead process advisor,and ombud.
●Provide communications staff,including external communications with
the broader public and public resource curation.
Communi-
cations
●Conduct ongoing promotion of the Panel’s work,including maintaining
a public project page,creating outreach materials,liaising with media
about process questions,providing educational sessions about the
Panel process,and distributing the resulting report(s).
●Manage relationships with external communications partners.
●Design and coordinate guided tours of Panel sessions for members of
the press and interested local government staff and decision makers.
Oversight &
Evaluation
●Distribute surveys at the end of each day and upon the Panel’s
conclusion.
●Take process design feedback and direction and the Panel’s Process
Committee.
●Find,orient,and coordinate a team of independent evaluators
(academic researchers or peer practitioners)to observe Panel sessions.
●Coordinate team of Program Advisors –composed of former Panelists,
moderators,and deliberative experts –to advise on key process
decisions.
●Lead debriefs with process staff.
●Receive and publish any reports created by third-party evaluators.
38/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
City of Santa Monica
Areas of
Final
Authority
●Minor and/or urgent content-related updates during the Panel,in
consultation with process staff.
●Substantial written response to the Panel’s reports,presented publicly.
Pathways to
Impact
●Identify a concrete topic to be reviewed,through a participatory
process.
●Build political support among decision makers to ensure the Panel’s
recommendations have a pathway to impact.
●Participate in training to better understand the process and reports.
●Commit to producing a formal,substantive response to the Panel’s
recommendations.
●Facilitate opportunities for Panelists to speak with decision makers and
to be involved in ongoing public engagement.
●Lead on all political concerns and relationships with others in the City.
●Be a visible cheerleader of the process –not of any particular potential
results but of the process itself.
Process ●Suggest easy-to-understand background information and relevant
policy summaries on the topic in the Panelists’welcome packet.
●Consult on key process design decisions.
●Support HD’s stakeholder analysis by suggesting stakeholder
categories and contacts.
●Identify stakeholders to nominate informational presenters and advise
on the formation of the the Information Committee.
●Provide access to staff support for Panelist questions throughout the
deliberative process.
●Identify and connect HD with any additional staff members from the
City /DTT who will deliver introductory presentations to the Panel.
Logistics ●Provide data and consultation related to the Panelist selection process,
conducted by HD.
●Assist with identifying an accessible venue and other on-the-ground
support.
●Provide access to storage space throughout the project.
Accessibility ●Provide explainers and/or training to help Panelists work with
technical policy language and concepts.
●Advise on the procurement of language services.
●Assist with any special outreach necessary to the selection process,
such as contacting social service agencies to invite community
members without residential addresses.
Staffing ●Appoint project support staff to support the coordination of logistics,
process advising,and informational inputs from the City.
●Appoint communications support staff to collaborate on promotion
and outreach efforts.
39/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
●Manage planning and/or design contractors to workshop technical
options and proposals with the Panel.
Communi-
cations
●Prepare communications staff in advance of the process.
●Conduct ongoing promotion of the selection process and the Panel’s
work through regular outreach channels.
●Support relationships with local media outlets.
Oversight &
Evaluation
●Receive and publish reports from third-party evaluators.
●Collaboratively develop and implement additional evaluation
protocols,if desired.
The Panel
Areas of
Final
Authority
●All writing and editing of reports.
●High-level process decisions following the learning phase.
Pathways to
Impact
●The Panel’s Policy Impact Committee works with City staff and decision
makers to promote their reports and process.
Process ●Engage in good faith in learning and deliberation.
●Uphold group discussion agreements in all small and large group
work.
Logistics ●Coordinate all necessary personal travel and arrangements with
external parties (including work,school,and family)to ensure full
participation in the Panel process.
●Arrive on time and ready to engage in all Panel time.
Accessibility ●Communicate needs for accommodations (interpretation services,
child/elder care,transportation,etc.)to program staff.
Staffing ●Serve on one of four task-specific committees throughout the process.
Communi-
cations
●The Panel’s Public Outreach Committee works with communications
staff to promote the Panel’s work and share their experiences with the
broader community.
Oversight &
Evaluation
●The Panel’s Process Committee approves of high-level process outline
for the deliberation phase –or work with staff to amend the process to
reach approval.Monitor and approve any high-level changes to this
portion of the process,as it moves forward.
●The Panel’s Evaluation Committee works with independent researchers
to help create and interpret evaluations of the process,and make
recommendations to the Panel’s Process Committee and HD staff as
necessary.
40/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Design &Technical Team
Note:All contracting and scope of work decisions for the Design &Technical Team (DTT)are
managed exclusively by the City of Santa Monica,not Healthy Democracy.Details are included
here as reference with regard to the DTT’s interactions with the Lottery-Selected Panel.
Areas of
Final
Authority
●Creation of technical materials,including Existing Conditions reports.
●Creation of design concepts and rendering of site visualizations in
accordance with Panelist deliberation and collaborative design sessions.
Pathways to
Impact
●Present supporting technical and design details to City Council and
City staff,accompanying Panelist reports.
Process ●Participate in collaborative design sessions that support Panelist-led
deliberation,learning,and development of land use scenarios.
●Answer Panelist questions and complete additional Panelist-requested
technical analysis.
Logistics ●Coordinate with HD on the procurement of tools and materials (e.g.,
site maps,tactile objects)needed for Deep Dive workshops.
●Schedule in-person and virtual engagements with the Panel as part of
process plans,to be developed collaboratively with HD.
Accessibility ●Translate technical reports into plain language and images that are
understandable by everyday Santa Monicans with a wide variety of
educational backgrounds.
Staffing ●Provide adequate staffing from relevant teams.
Communi-
cations
●Update HD communications staff about project branding and outreach
activities,as it pertains to the Panel process.
Oversight &
Evaluation
●Participate in debriefs with HD process staff after sessions with the
Panel;make necessary adjustments and improvements for the future.
Information Committee
Areas of
Final
Authority
●Select most initial presenters to the Panel.
●Create a ‘menu’of potential presenters for the Panel.
Pathways to
Impact
●Ensure the Panel is provided with diverse and high-quality information,
leading to feasible and innovative recommendations that carry as much
community and political support as possible.
Process ●Select an initial group of background presenters to speak to the Panel.
●Select additional presenters for the Presenter Menu.
●Engage in feedback loops with the Panel as community stakeholders.
41/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Logistics ●Respond to scheduling requests in a timely manner.
●Attend all meetings of the IC.
Accessibility ●None.
Staffing ●None.
Communi-
cations
●None.
Oversight &
Evaluation
●Debrief Panel process and meet with Panel Subcommittees,if
requested by either party.
ii.Relationships Between Parties
Healthy Democracy &the City of Santa Monica
Healthy Democracy will work in close collaboration with a cross-departmental team of City
staff during regular meetings to be scheduled by project partners.Each party will provide
regular updates on their areas of responsibility and authority.Subsets of programs-and
logistics-focused staff members may choose to schedule additional meetings on an
as-needed basis.
HD and City communications staff members will work together to develop a system of
approval to efficiently and effectively share social media campaigns and website content.
Both the City and HD will designate a team of 2-3 staff members to approve information for
public release by the other party on project websites and press releases.Alternatively,HD
and City communications staff will develop a shared folder of pre-approved social media
posts and website content.The communications teams will have a minimum of a half-hour
meeting every other week to check content and create a shared vision and workplan.
Healthy Democracy &the Design &Technical Team
Healthy Democracy will remain in regular communication and coordination with the Design
&Technical Team to design and implement interactions with the Panel and informational
inputs from broader public engagement conducted by the DTT.Healthy Democracy process
staff will act as the lead process designers for all activities involving the Panel –with input
from the Panel,the City,and the DTT.All public engagement conducted by the DTT will be
co-designed with HD process staff to ensure integration and logical information flows with
the Panel.
The Panel &All Parties
The Panel may initiate contact with any party at any time.The same,however,is not true in
reverse –for the sake of Panelist privacy,prevention of undue influence,and Panel
autonomy –unless a Panelist or Panelist subcommittee has made first contact.Panelists are
encouraged to never speak on behalf of the whole Panel,and all parties are encouraged to
not let any personal interactions result in preferential treatment or special influence on the
Panel’s process.
42/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
The Panel’s primary points of contact will be HD staff and contract moderators.All questions
related to logistics,the process,and Panelist participation should first be directed to HD
staff.Relevant correspondence with the Panel’s subcommittees may be forwarded via
Healthy Democracy staff.
All project partners (and all members of the public)are welcome to attend any Panel
sessions as observers,but direct interactions with Panelists will be reserved for designated
sessions according to the process plan and pre-identified points of interaction.
Information Committee &All Parties
The Informational Committee will work primarily with HD staff in regularly scheduled
meetings to fulfill its commitments to the Panel process.Members of the IC may maintain
individual relationships with HD staff and/or City staff to support their Committee
participation,as long as these interactions do not result in preferential treatment of any
particular stakeholder interest.
iv.Additional Project Partners
A team of accomplished project partners will be integral to the success of the Panel
process.Healthy Democracy has assembled a team of process and communications
professionals to ensure not only that this project is a success,but that it becomes a
world-class example of innovative deliberative democracy.
A list of project partners and subcontractors follows.In addition to these partners,Healthy
Democracy will also contract with local professionals skilled in group facilitation,event
logistics,and technical support.
Berggruen Institute
Role:Amplification of the Panel’s story and impact to audiences within Santa Monica and
beyond.
The LA-based Berggruen Institute was established in 2010 to develop foundational ideas
about how to reshape political and social institutions in the face of great transformations.
They work across cultures,disciplines,and political boundaries,engaging great thinkers to
develop and promote long-term answers to the biggest challenges of the 21st Century.The
Berggruen Institute is optimistic about supporting the following areas of collaboration:
documenting the Panel process in ways that are accessible and shareable to a wide range
of audiences;providing logistic and outreach support for Tour Days to ensure a diverse and
robust group of attendees;if met with support from other interested parties,supporting a
celebratory event that shares the story of the Panel with the broader public and elevates it
as a model for deliberative democracy in North America.
Computational Democracy Project
Role:Train HD staff and Panelists in the distribution,management,and interpretation of
the Polis tool.Provide advice,custom data science,and design for new applications of the
Polis tool to the Santa Monica project.
The Computational Democracy Project researches,develops,supports,and maintains open
tools and systems which leverage advanced mathematics and computation to enable novel
43/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
processes of citizen-driven agenda setting,public deliberation,and participatory decision
making.The Computational Democracy Project was founded in 2018 as a nonprofit
continuation of Polis's open source work toward a world in which governance better reflects
public will.
HD’s Program Advisors
Role:Provide advice on process design decisions by HD Program Co-Directors.
HD’s diverse group of Program Advisors are made up of our former Panelists,former project
partners,public engagement practitioners,and international deliberative democracy
experts.A group of 5 advisors will be selected (by lottery,of course)specifically for this
project,to provide regular feedback and advice on process design to HD Program
Co-Directors.Advisors’involvement in the Santa Monica project will help (and already has
helped)to ensure that the process is responsive and accountable to people with a range of
expertise related to deliberative processes.
Rahmin Sarabi
Role:Co-coordinate stakeholder and broader community engagement activities.
Rahmin Sarabi is the Founder and Director of the American Public Trust.He is a collaborative
entrepreneur,human-centered designer,and strategist with a nearly 20 year background
across social benefit startups and not-for-profit organizations.His work in deliberative
democracy includes contributions to the Michigan Citizens’Panel on COVID-19,the
Petaluma Fairgrounds Advisory Panel with Healthy Democracy,a novel integration of
mini-publics with digital deliberative tools for the State of Colorado,and the lead role in the
strategic planning for the international Democracy R&D network.He has spoken on
democratic innovations to audiences organized by Stanford,MIT,the Berggruen Institute,
and the International Association of Public Participation Professionals.He is also a board
member of the Co-Intelligence Institute.
STC Interpreting &Translation
Role:Document translation and simultaneous interpretation of all Panel proceedings.
STC Interpreting &Translation specializes in the translation of documents and websites,as
well as foreign language research.Based in Los Angeles and locally owned,their network of
qualified and experienced interpreters provide consecutive and simultaneous interpretation
in most major languages,including but not limited to:Spanish,French,Italian,Portuguese,
German,Japanese,Greek,Russian,and Chinese.Professional,culturally knowledgeable,
confidential,and flexible,STC provides onsite and in-person interpreting services
nationwide.
v.Dispute Resolution Methodology
For Conflicts or Concerns Related to Project Management
If a project partner becomes unable to fulfill any aspect of their commitment or is
dissatisfied with work done by the other party,they may first request a meeting to discuss
the concern and attempt to resolve it themselves.If no resolution can be reached,both
44/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
parties will decide whether to hire a professional mediator for a set duration of time or
amend or terminate the contract (according to procedures outlined in that document).
For Conflicts or Concerns Related to the Process
Any community member,including Panelists and project partners,may raise a concern or
conflict to be considered by the following parties,escalating as-needed in sequential order
until a resolution is reached:
a.HD staff,to present rationales and clarifications for process design choices.
b.The Panel’s Process Committee,8 to offer a resolution (to the parties)or process
change (to HD).The Process Committee may exercise final decision-making power
with a super-majority,or if they prefer,may direct the matter to the next level of
escalation.
c.An ad-hoc group of project partners and stakeholders,to offer a resolution (to the
parties)or process change (to HD).This group includes two representatives from
each of the following groups:HD staff,the City,the Panel’s Process Committee,and
the IC.If the conflict or concern reaches this group,they must exercise final
decision-making power with a super-majority.
8 Panelists may recuse themselves if they identify a conflict of interest with the conflict or concern.
45/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Appendix A:Detailed Policies &Procedures for Panelist
Selection
The following selection method is conducted by Healthy Democracy.Except where noted,
these are HD’s standard selection methods –and common across most practitioners in the
field.
The Mailing
●An invitation letter is written and designed by Healthy Democracy,in close
collaboration and agreement with the project convener.
○The letter explains the unique democratic opportunity,the compensation
provided,and the time commitment,among other relevant details.
○An attached reply form requests demographic information.Replies are also
accepted online.A phone number and staff are provided for those who may
have questions or need personal assistance to complete their response.
○Both the letter and telephone-based support will be provided in multiple
languages.
○An additional survey question on the letter will ask respondents their first
language preference,in order to deliver appropriate interpretation services.
●The invitation letter is sent as part of a 5-15,000-piece mailing to randomly selected
residential addresses within the project’s geographic scope.
○A reminder may be sent,if necessary –either to all addresses or to a
randomly selected subset.
●Meanwhile,Healthy Democracy –with advice from the project convener –contacts
social service organizations and works with them to distribute a number of “golden
tickets”to their contacts who do not live at a residential address.9
●In the very rare case of a gap in respondents that would not allow for a Panel to be
selected that represents the City of Santa Monica,Healthy Democracy or its partners
conducts additional targeted outreach.
○If the response rate is at least 2%,we do not expect this to be necessary.
○If targeted outreach is used,we will still only accept respondents who live at
the randomly selected addresses or who have received a “golden ticket.”
●Compile data to determine representation on the Panel,based on Census and
other sources.
●Select 1,000 potential Panels from among the letter’s respondents.
○Each of these potential Panels must represent Santa Monica’s population.
○This selection is done in advance of the Lottery Selection Event,using
open-source software called Panelot,developed by researchers at Carnegie
Mellon and Harvard Universities.
○Respondents are informed of which potential Panels they have been selected
onto,so they can follow along during the Lottery Event to see if one of the
Panels they’re on is selected as the final (or alternate)Panel.
●Conduct a public Lottery Selection Event,where one of the potential Panels is
chosen.
○A public lottery is held,where one of the 1,000 potential Panels is selected.
9 A further option:extend the “golden ticket”program to also include social service agencies who
work with folks who may be much less likely to reply to the mailing,including folks who live in care
homes without individual residential addresses,who are blind,who speak languages other than those
into which the mailing is translated,and so on.
46/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
○A second Panel of alternates is also selected.
○This event typically also includes a presentation from the project convener
and process staff on the project,and serves as the press-friendly kickoff of the
Panel.
○All personal Panelist data is kept fully anonymous during this event.
After the Lottery Selection Event
●Respondents are notified within 4 days.
○Those selected receive further instructions related to their involvement.Those
not selected receive other information about how they can stay involved.
●The process’Panelist Liaison reaches out to each Panelist.
○The Panelist Liaison is an HD staff member who acts as each Panelist’s
personal contact and concierge.
○Substantial one-on-one time is spent in advance of the Panel’s first day to
help each Panelist feel prepared and comfortable on the first day of the Panel.
●Any selected Panelists who decline to participate –up to midday on the first day of
the Panel –are replaced from the Panel of alternates,preserving the Panel’s overall
demographic profile as best as possible.
○The attrition rate during this period can be substantial,as things come up in
selected Panelists’lives or they better understand the commitment required.
Substantial and regular personal check-ins from the Panelist Liaison (and
sometimes other staff)help to mitigate this as best as possible and build
excitement for the Panel.
●Alternates are supported to attend the first half of the first day of the Panel,so they
can immediately be selected and called up in place of Panelists who fail to appear.
●After the first day of the Panel,Panelists may only be replaced at the discretion of
Healthy Democracy staff,based on the feasibility of bringing a new Panelist up to
speed midway through the process.
○Luckily,rates of attrition after the Panel is first convened are exceptionally low
–typically between zero and two Panelists over the course of the entire
process.This is due primarily to the Panel’s immediate investment in its work,
and the reduction of practical barriers to participation.
47/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Appendix B:Transparency &Privacy Policy
We work to push the bounds of open and transparent governance,while allowing for one
important –and equally novel –exception:designated space for candid deliberation among
Panelists.
Specific Policies
●We provide as many materials publicly as possible,including posting all
Panel-produced work and any new Panel-requested material to a project website.
●All in-person plenary sessions are live streamed.
●All in-person processes feature a public observation gallery that is open at all times
the process is running.
●All Panelists,moderators,and presenters are required to use microphones during all
plenary sessions of the Panel –for the benefit of observers,language interpreters,
and those who experience difficulty hearing.
●No small-group sessions are amplified or broadcast.The general public and media
observers are not permitted in close proximity to small-group tables (for in-person
processes)or within small-group breakout rooms (for online processes).
●During in-person processes,all observers are kept at a distance from the Panel,and
are subject to the same COVID protocols as Panelists and HD staff.
●Only first names of Panelists are ever used publicly (with the exception of a last initial,
as needed).
●All personal information –including demographic info –of Panelists and partners is
kept solely by HD in perpetuity,except when individual Panelists provide specific
written permission otherwise.More specifically:no Panelist information is ever
released to conveners,funders,government agencies,researchers,subcontractors,
other project partners,other Panelists,the media,the public,or anyone else who is
not a current HD staff member –except with the express opt-in written permission of
the Panelist whose information is to be shared,and only then for the specific purpose
for which permission was granted.
●Individual Panelists are not required to act as spokespeople for the process or to
speak to the public or media,except when they specifically volunteer to do so.
●Panels are designed to not be subject to public meetings laws.
●Small groups are never fully private to Panel members.Most small groups are
moderated by professional moderators,who are specifically trained to promote
mutual respect and understanding of the process,while staying as impartial as
possible to the content of deliberations.
●Maintenance of this process/content distinction is monitored by a Process Ombud
(paid by the project),by independent third-party evaluators (not paid by the project
or HD),and through periodic evaluations completed by Panelists themselves (and
reviewed by evaluators and a subcommittee of the Panel itself).
●All content relevant to the policy question that is generated in small groups is filtered
back into the full group process,so that Panelists’final ideas –while not their
identities –are fully public.
●Panelists are empowered through the Process Oversight Subcommittee to raise and
address any issues with the process that arise in small or large groups.
●HD commits to providing further explanation to absolutely anyone regarding its
process design.
●HD commits to abiding by decisions made through the dispute-resolution process.
48/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Our Rationales
●One primary mission of Lottery-Selected Panels is to open our governance systems
to the broadest possible public.We work to find new ways to do exactly what is so
often avoided:to show everyone “how the sausage is made.”We’re proud of every
part of our detailed designs and internal policies,and we hope to inspire others to do
the same.We must embrace and respond productively to public scrutiny if we
genuinely aim for a different kind of politics.
●This said,we also recognize that openness cannot be considered in isolation.And we
have all seen traditional political bodies –where policy discussions are almost always
in full public view –often come with unintended consequences.Ironically,
well-intentioned public meeting laws can sometimes be counterproductive to a
larger goal of openness.They often encourage meetings that are theoretically and
superficially open but not practically so.More specifically:
○First,traditional public meetings have a chilling effect on who is willing to
participate:typically only those with prior political experience,with a confident
political voice,and with high degrees of social privilege.
○Traditional public meetings also have a chilling effect on how participants
engage.Participants are more likely to “play to the camera,”to be highly
calculated in their speech,or to simply not participate fully for fear of reprisal.
○What’s more,when there is no accepted and organized space for private
negotiation,this rarely means that negotiations are public.Rather,the candid
policy conversations necessary to move toward agreement are “driven
underground.”They still happen;they just happen informally and without any
oversight whatsoever.
●To address these outcomes,we must have designated political spaces where
members of the community can work through ideas in some level of safety together.
Courtroom juries operate on this premise –and for many of the same rationales
mentioned above.In our processes,the privacy of small group sessions allows
Panelists to have substantial in-process time to speak candidly with each other and
to work through difficult issues before those ideas are subjected to public scrutiny.
●Panels are created to be supportive spaces where members of the public can
authentically learn and contribute without becoming public figures subject to
political pressures that they may not have the time,experience,or comfort to
manage.
●With all of this in mind,we also want in no way to replicate our current political
systems,which –in spite of public meeting laws –often only provide glimpses into
policy negotiations either when details are strategically leaked to the press or when a
decision is all but finalized.Our policies above relating to the periodic public sharing
of content coming out of small groups,as well as the monitoring mechanisms over
small-group process periods,attempt to directly address this concern.
●The public must know how processes work to have trust in them.Therefore,our
default must be transparency.And where we believe theoretical openness conflicts
with practical openness,we must justify our rationale in detail.
Photo/Video Release Policy
●Panelists will be asked to sign a consent form releasing their image,likeness and the
sound of voice as recorded on photograph,audiotape,or videotape for the following
circumstances:
○conference presentations
49/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
○educational presentations or courses
○informational presentations
○online educational courses
○educational videos
○research studying public deliberation
○promotional materials
●Panelists will also have the option to release the above either while the Panel is in
process or only after the Panel has concluded
Polis Open Data Policy
The Computational Democracy Project operates Polis according to an Open Data Policy.
For the purposes of this Scope of Services,"Open Data"refers to anonymous,non-personal
and non-sensitive data resulting from the Polis engagements that is made available to the
public under the Creative Commons 4.0 Attribution license.This includes,but is not limited
to,participant contributed statements,the vote matrix,and metadata related to the services
provided under this contract.Exceptions include participant contributed statements that:a.
Contain personal or private information;b.Is confidential or might jeopardize the safety or
privacy of individuals;c.Is subject to other legal restrictions;these shall be excluded from
the Open Data commitment.Data will be hosted publicly available online,and while the
data is open for public use,any public dissemination or publication of datasets,analyses,or
visualizations derived from the Open Data should attribute the Computational Democracy
Project as the data source under the Creative Commons 4.0 With Attribution license.
50/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Appendix C:Example Group Working Agreements
These example Group Agreements are typically offered by process staff to the Panel at the
start of its work together.After any modifications by the Panel (as it desires),they are used
throughout the process and apply to all Panelists,staff,and presenters.
●Use respectful verbal and nonverbal language toward everyone.
●Minimize distracting behavior.
●Attend all scheduled meetings.
●Be open to new ideas and information.Avoid making conclusions until you’ve heard
and thoroughly considered all of the available information.
●Listen with care and assume good intent.Make a genuine effort to understand the
perspectives of others.
●Keep focused on the issue at hand.
●Speak clearly and briefly,and share “airtime.”We have very limited time together.
●Disagree positively.Direct your energy toward the issues,not people.
●Be a problem solver –suggest alternative approaches or solutions.
●Have humility and contribute in good faith.This is a new process for many of us.
These sample Agreements are subject to change by process staff before the start of the
Panel –and subject to the Panel’s modifications,as noted above.
51/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Appendix D:External Communications Toolkit
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a Lottery-Selected Panel?
This is a different kind of democratic process.A Lottery-Selected Panel brings
together a group of everyday people to examine an important public issue.Lottery
selection ensures that all of us have a place in public decision making.Five to
twenty-thousand letters are mailed out to randomly selected residential addresses
inviting residents to participate in the Panel.Of those who respond,a Panel is
selected that represents the unique demographic characteristics of that community.
Additional Panelists who may not live at an address are selected via “golden tickets”
provided to social service agencies.Panels are professionally moderated and follow
a structured process to ensure inclusion,collaboration,and innovation.They are
designed to reduce the influence of political bias and put everyday people at the
heart of policy making.
What are the principles that guide these processes?
Inclusivity:Proactive,invitation-based recruitment methods and accessibility-driven
design bring new voices to the table.
Representation:Lottery selection guarantees representation –“a city in one room.”
Integrity:Independent evaluation and oversight drive research-based process
design and continuous improvement.
Collaboration:Skillfully moderated discussions ensure thorough comprehension of
the issue,respectful exchange,and thoughtful decision-making.
Empowerment:Panelists have full authority over their process and the opportunity to
impact real policy decisions.
What makes a Lottery-Selected Panel different from a typical community
advisory committee?
Selection Process:Panelists are selected by democratic lottery –a stratified random
sample of community residents aged 18+,a microcosm of the city in one room.
Because Lottery-Selected Panels are composed of residents who typically do not
volunteer for other City processes,they are capable of more deliberative arbitration
of fraught political topics.
Stakeholder Involvement:Stakeholders and interest groups are not absent from the
process –in fact,they are essential to it –but they do not sit on the Panel itself.
Rather,they participate in the process in four ways:1)Via the Information Committee
(IC),stakeholders curates a slate of initial presenters and creates a menu of other
presenters for the Panel to consider inviting,2)A wide array of stakeholders present
to and engage with the Panel (some called by the IC and some by the Panel itself),
and 3)Stakeholders are invited to offer feedback on the Panel’s work at multiple
points later in its deliberative process.
52/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Panel Autonomy:The Panel presents its recommendations directly to Council for
thorough consideration.Staff serve the Panel in supportive,rather than directive,
roles.This paradigm shift is reflected in process design,moderation style,and
budget,with typically around 20-30%of project funds going to mitigating common
barriers to participation (financial,logistical,etc.).
Evidence Driven:The Panel gathers a wide range of evidence.In addition to
stakeholders,the Panel hears from staff and non-staff expert presenters,has ample
time to review documents and question all presenters,and may call its own
presenters.It may also receive other public engagement inputs –including survey
data,listening sessions,walking tours,or hold open public workshops.
Deliberation:The Panel engages in lengthy conversations around grounding values
and principles,before delving into any policy solutions.These discussions seek
mutual understanding and shared goals,but they do not force consensus.As with
the rest of the Panel,they are professionally moderated and follow a detailed
process design established in advance,while remaining flexible to the Panel’s needs.
Built-In Feedback Loops:The Panel has the opportunity to engage in in-depth
feedback loops with technical staff,to review proposed policies in detail.
Outcomes:The Panel’s output is therefore substantial,including both:1)criteria on
which it believes any decision should rest,and 2)detailed policy recommendations
(or a review of existing proposals).
Efficiency &Efficacy:In order to accomplish these significant tasks,Panels are highly
efficient processes,while remaining comfortable,supportive,and collaborative
environments for Panelists.
Inclusivity and Accessibility:Since randomly selected Panels include folks from
many walks of life,universal accessibility is emphasized.Panelists are supported to
participate and reimbursed for transportation,childcare,and eldercare.Both the
in-room process and out-of-room logistics seek to accommodate Panelists’specific
needs,providing support services such as translation and assistive technology and
adapting to differential learning styles.In online processes,transportation and
child/eldercare reimbursements are replaced by technology and hot-spot internet
access,as needed.
What are the benefits of Lottery-Selected Panels?
Lottery-selected Panels bring a host of benefits to the community where they take place.
●Boosts diversity in civic participation.
●Increases access for historically marginalized groups.
●Surfaces previously untapped ideas.
●Encourages effective policy co-production.
●Promotes evidence-driven public discourse.
●Showcases a more cooperative politics.
●Fosters ownership over public decision making.
●Enhances mutual trust in governance.
53/57
Since randomly selected Panels include folks from
many walks of life, universal accessibility is emphasized. Panelists are supportedto participate and reimbursed for transportation and other costs. Both thein-room process and out-of-room logistics seek to accommodate Panelists'specific needs, providing support services such as translation and assistivetechnology and adapting to differential learning styles. In online processes,transportation reimbursements are replaced by technology and hot-p-spotInternet access, as needed.DRAFT7.A.c
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
How do these processes guarantee equality?
Lottery-Selected Panels strive for equality in three primary ways:1)community
members have an equal opportunity of being invited to serve;2)Panelists reflect the
demographic makeup of their communities;and 3)deliberation creates an inclusive
environment in which everyone’s voice has the same weight.
How can these processes work toward equity?
While equality is a minimum guarantee of these processes,it is possible to integrate
equity through selection targets,interactions with stakeholder groups,and
in-process support for Panelists.
How does Healthy Democracy ensure that the Panel is inclusive of all
perspectives?
Although bias is a natural human condition,we strive for a process that minimizes
unproductive political bias.The process follows an evidence-driven structure that
fosters problem-solving that goes beyond partisanship.Our professional moderator
teams are specifically trained to balance participation,manage power imbalances,
and put Panelist autonomy first,assisting them to make their own informed decisions.
What is deliberation?
Deliberation involves carefully weighing different options,access to accurate,
relevant,and diverse information,and participants finding common ground to reach
shared recommendations.Most processes are split into two main phases.
Learning:The Panel interviews dozens of experts and stakeholders and
conducts its own research on the topic at hand.With external support,
Panelists filter information and conduct gaps analyses to ensure information is
strong,reliable,and reflects many perspectives on the issue.
In-depth deliberation:Panelists define decision-making criteria,consider
potential policy options,and prioritize alternatives through extensive
discussions over multiple days.Panelists spend most of their time in small
groups with trained professional moderators.Meticulous process designs
enable collaboration between iterative small and large groups.
What role do stakeholders play?
Stakeholders and interest groups are vital to these processes,even though they do
not sit on the Panel itself.Here’s how stakeholders are involved at each stage of the
process:First,stakeholders serve as information curators for the Panel.A large
number of stakeholders suggest ideas for presenters,and then a smaller Information
Committee creates an initial slate of presenters to the Panel,as well as a menu of
additional presenters the Panel should consider inviting.Many of these presenters
will themselves be stakeholders,offering the Panel a wide variety of viewpoints,
expertise,and ideas –and engaging directly with Panelists during a lengthy learning
phase of the process.After this phase,stakeholders act in an essential ongoing role,
offering the Panel feedback on its work at multiple points,both in person and online.
54/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Where else is this being used?
Around the world,governments are employing Lottery-Selected Panels –often
called Citizens’Juries or Citizens’Assemblies –to put people at the center of
governance.See OECD graphics.In over 600 examples globally to date,the model is
gaining traction as a way for governments to deeply engage their residents in
collaborative,inclusive,and durable policy decisions.Healthy Democracy has
designed and convened Panels in five U.S.states and three countries since 2008.We
are best known for Oregon’s Citizens’Initiative Review (CIR),which is one of the most
researched deliberative processes in the world and was one of the first modern
lottery-selected processes institutionalized in government.
Why can’t anyone decide to participate in the Panel?
Lottery-Selected Panels offer an innovative way of getting new voices to engage in
public decision making.While everyone has an equal chance of receiving an
invitation to join,self-selection alone tends to privilege voices with the most access.
Panels almost always accompany many other public engagement opportunities in
which any community member can make their voice heard –for example,public
forums and open surveys.Any member of the community who wants to participate in
decision-making related to the policy area is encouraged to be involved.If someone
isn’t selected for the Panel but still wants to participate,all Panel sessions are
available via livestream,and,like all members of the public,everyone is welcome to
visit the Panel in person as an observer.
Common Concerns
Are everyday people really qualified to make quality decisions about technical
policy questions?
Yes!When you give a diverse group of people access to quality,balanced
information,sufficient time,and skilled facilitators,they can find common ground and
make innovative and practical recommendations on even the most complex policy
issues.Everyday people have weighed in intelligently on the financial plans of large
cities,the location of a new hospital,and how to deal with nuclear waste.
Shouldn’t anyone be allowed to participate?
Lottery-Selected Panels are only one piece of the “democracy pie”.They are a
missing tool in our public engagement toolbox –not the only one;other forms are
still essential to our democracy.And,Panels can include informational inputs that are
open calls for participation (e.g.,surveys,workshops).We can’t all be involved on
every issue.But we should all be deeply involved on some issues,sometimes –and
have faith that others like us are deeply involved at other times.Lotteries allow that.
Let’s focus on outcomes:Are we actually getting broad-based participation in
traditional,open-to-all engagement processes or just allowing for the possibility of
it?Open-in-theory doesn’t usually mean open-in-practice.Just because any can
show up at a council meeting doesn’t mean that everyone has an equal opportunity
to do so.We don’t want to only hear from the loudest,most active voices,we want to
hear from people from all walks of life.
55/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
Isn’t this sidelining existing stakeholders?
No!In fact,existing stakeholders are essential to the process –they curate initial
information,present to the Panel,and provide feedback later in the process.
However,existing advocates are often not the right (or best)deliberators;that’s why
trials have juries.While organized advocacy is vital to democracy –and to these
processes –lots of folks are stakeholders,not just those who are organized.And all
of us deserve a chance to be at the table.
That said,we know what it’s like to feel a stake,to believe in an idea –yet to struggle
to even be given the time of day.So we don’t just build processes that work for
decision makers and the wider public;we build processes that work better for
everyone,advocates included.Traditional processes often make us fight to be heard –
limited to two minutes at a microphone or meetings where it feels like everyone is
yelling and no one is listening.Lottery-Selected Panels are the exact opposite:
processes that take the time to hear from all sides,that support folks to seriously
consider every proposal,that encourage deep collaboration and innovation,and –
most of all –that create solutions with inherent power that can’t be ignored.If you are
a stakeholder who believes in the value of your ideas,we hope you’ll find the Panel a
breath of fresh air.
Isn’t this too expensive?
Panels typically cost no more than traditional methods.Plus,this is not just
engagement;it is an investment in new civic leaders and in new civic infrastructure.
The benefits of Lottery-Selected Panels go beyond recommendations:a broader
culture of mutual trust and reframing of government as a tool we all use and not
some entity that does things to us.We must also consider the quality and credibility
of decisions –a strong process now has benefits later:smarter policy,more public
legitimacy and support,and long-term financial savings.
Isn’t this equality and not equity?
Equality is a minimum guarantee.Democratic lotteries guarantee representation of a
city’s demographics.But equality is only a starting place.There are many ways to
incorporate equity:
●In setting targets.
●In informational inputs (e.g.,stakeholder outreach).
●In the process itself (e.g.,support for Panelist-organized,identity-based
enclave deliberation).
Overview of Lottery-Selected Panels
Lottery-Selected Panels are a 50-year-old democratic innovation –inspired by ancient
democracies in Greece and India –that put everyday people at the heart of public decision
making.Often called Citizens’Assemblies or Policy Juries,these processes combine two key
design elements that fundamentally transform public decision making:1)a democratic
lottery selects a Panel that is demographically representative of the community and fully
supported to participate,and 2)a deliberative process allows Panelists to collaboratively
consider many perspectives and produce well-informed policy recommendations.With over
600 examples globally to date,the model is gaining traction as a way for governments to
56/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
DRAFTSMOCommunityPanel:Draft Scope of Services
deeply engage residents in helping find collaborative,inclusive,and durable policy
solutions.
Participants are selected from the general public using a democratic lottery,also known as a
representative random sample or sortition.While most public engagement processes rely
on the same self-selected individuals,democratic lotteries engage new residents through a
randomized process that ensures representation across an unusually broad set of diversities.
The lottery begins with a proactive invitation to randomly selected residential addresses that
makes it as easy as possible to say “yes.”From the resulting pool of respondents,a Panel is
randomly selected (at a public event)to reflect a microcosm of the city.Lottery-Selected
Panels don’t just “work toward”representation;they guarantee a cross-section of the public’s
diversities every time.Selected Panelists are offered language interpretation,and
reimbursed for childcare,eldercare,and transportation expenses.This sets a new standard
for access and inclusion of all communities and mitigates unequal barriers to participation
often faced by marginalized residents.
The deliberative process then puts everyday people at the center of in-depth,
well-informed,and collaborative policymaking.Given that most lottery-selected Panelists
do not have prior experience with the policy topic,they have a unique capacity for
identifying common ground solutions in the public’s best interest.Much like a jury in a
criminal court,they receive a vast amount of information before independently deliberating
on recommendations.Rather than being presented with pre-packaged information from a
sponsoring government agency,Panelists hear from dozens of background presenters,
stakeholders,and technical experts to understand the landscape of opinions and
information on the policy topic.Then,through meticulously designed small-group work
aided by professional moderators,Panelists carefully consider options,weigh tradeoffs,and
collaboratively identify solutions.Panelists hear from the broader public throughout their
process to ensure a wide range of community voices and interests are considered.The
Panel’s recommendations,written entirely in Panelists’own words,are delivered directly to
decision makers.The time-intensive and collaborative nature of the deliberative process
results in recommendations with broad community buy-in –and unusual public legitimacy –
that are frequently adopted by government officials.
57/57
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: SMO Community Panel - Draft Scope of Services (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 5, 2023 8:37 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Jesse
Zwick; Caroline Torosis; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan; Denise
Anderson-Warren
Subject:Council Agenda Item 7.A 10/10/23 - Oppose Healthy Democracy and Lottery in determining Future
of Santa Monica Airport
EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
RE: 10/10/23 Agenda item 7.A ‐ Discussion of the Lottery‐Selected Panel Process for the Airport
Oct. 5, 2023
Dear Councilmembers,
We oppose approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the Future of Santa
Monica Airport. We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city decision
making. We also oppose the use of a Lottery to inform the process.
City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the
responsibility of our democratically elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform
and serve the Council.
Our opposition to Healthy Democracy:
Healthy Democracy claims to be a nonpartisan nonprofit organization. That is not the
case. Healthy Democracy is aligned with a developer lobby that would favor an outcome at the
airport in direct conflict with the expressed preferences of almost all residents of the city for an
ultra‐low‐density open space.
HD was introduced to the Housing Commission on 11‐18‐2021 by Leonora Camner based on the
rationale that they had specific expertise in housing issues. A flyer was distributed to the
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
Housing Commission noting HD’s housing issue experience in their project “City of Eugene
Review Panel on Housing” that was conducted during Nov. 2020 through April 2021. Housing is
NOT what the residents want for the airport. And, since the Housing Element has been
certified by the state without the airport, it is clear that the city does not need the airport for
housing.
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/HED/Housing/2021_09_23_HC3A_HealthyDemocracyPresentation.pdf
Healthy Democracy is not a disinterested party and has clear conflicts of
interest:
HD is identified as a “Project of” and “Resource to” an organization called Public Access
Democracy (PAD) https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/resources/.
PAD has on its coordinating committee Leonora Camner, a self‐professed YIMBY and Executive
Director of Abundant Housing LA political action committee.
https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/about/
But Leonora Camner’s singular focus on a housing outcome does not stop there. Her
organization, Abundant Housing LA (supported by the housing lobby group California YIMBY
among others) engineered an increase in the housing allocation for Santa Monica. An attorney
for Camner’s Abundant Housing LA sent a letter dated 10/11/19 to Southern California
Association of Governments, (SCAG) and that letter resulted in the increase in Santa Monica’s
housing allocation from 4,829 to 9,058 housing units.
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file‐attachments/101119abundant_housing_la.pdf?1605421607
Leonora Camner boasted about the role she played in lobbying SCAG to increase the housing
requirement for Santa Monica in an LA Times 10/25/2019 Opinion piece: "SoCal’s new housing
plan is going to make traffic and air pollution worse for everyone.” “Abundant Housing L.A.
research director Anthony Dedousis, along with UCLA urban planning professor Paavo
Monkkonen, recently developed a data‐driven methodology to determine …Santa Monica, with
its massive job base and access to rail, would get 14,155….”
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019‐10‐25/housing‐crisis‐los‐angeles‐scag‐homeless‐development
Leonora Camner took credit for the increase to the Santa Monica housing requirement in an
Opinion article published in the Santa Monica Daily Press: “Hope for a Pro‐Housing Future”
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
3
(8/29/20). Camner wrote “Fortunately, Santa Monica has been given a target of building nearly
9,000 new homes by 2029.”
https://www.smdp.com/letter‐to‐the‐editor‐hope‐for‐a‐pro‐housing‐future/195952
The Affordable Housing LA Blog announced on 11/16/21 the intention of Leonora Camner to
make a political career of supporting YIMBY candidates “Our Own Abundant Housing LA
PAC.” https://abundanthousingla.org/announcing‐our‐own‐ahla‐pac/
Because of its political alignments, Healthy Democracy cannot be counted on to act in the best
interest of the Santa Monica community. https://healthydemocracy.org
We urge Council to reject the proposed contract with Healthy Democracy because of the clear
outcome bias of the organization and the conflict created by their relationship with political
activist Leonora Camner.
Our opposition to a Lottery:
A lottery is most applicable where the impacts of an issue are uniformly spread across a
population. In such a case the selection process would only apply to divergent views of a
universally‐experienced impact. No one group would have more or less stake in the outcome.
The lottery would surface the different perspectives on that outcome.
That is the opposite scenario that the Future of the Santa Monica Airport issue represents.
A lottery is the worst process imaginable to address an issue with highly disparate
impacts. The burdens of the Airport project will not be equally distributed. Sunset Park will be
disproportionately impacted by traffic, congestion and ongoing pollution from a non‐park
development on Airport land. Proportional representation of the many stakeholders is not part
of the initial (or any) selection process for invites to the lottery.
This project involves highly technical financial elements. Understanding the impact of those
elements requires expertise that the average person does not possess.
The unprecedented scale of either a park or development is far beyond any current City
financing capabilities. Significant tax increases will be required to finance the project and those
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
4
will disproportionately fall on homeowners across the entire city. A majority of renters in the
city are shielded from much of the impact from property‐related tax increases yet renters
constitute more than 70% of city households. Randomly selected city residents without any
technical background in the financial issues at play will likely be ill‐prepared to know what
questions to ask, risking significant bias based on what information they are provided with and
what information is accidently (or otherwise) omitted.
A lottery will create conflict in the process rather than simplify it:
Stakeholders will question why they will be left out of the final process after years of
engagement and advocacy.
Santa Monicans who worked hard over many years to pass Measure LC would be completely
sidelined in this process.
In addressing the Future of the Airport, the highly disparate impacts of any of the possible
changes to Airport land use require the full participation of all city stakeholders.
Slippery Slope
The online publication New America described HD’s involvement in the Petaluma Fairgrounds
issue as “collaborative governance—or “co‐governance.”
https://www.newamerica.org/political‐reform/briefs/citizens‐assemblies‐petaluma‐california‐cogovernance/
Staff should not be allowed to introduce “co‐governance” to Santa Monica and the Council
should certainly not approve such a radical departure from our rules of governance without
clear, unambiguous, voter consent.
We strongly urge Council to reject the use of ANY substitute system to the current city
processes.
Healthy Democracy is the antithesis of democracy; it is un‐democratic. A lottery system of
choosing random people specifically disenfranchises important stakeholders from airing their
views publicly and the chance to publicly identify with those views; people put a lot of value in
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
5
seeing who aligns with whom, and who agrees or opposes what. Randomness eliminates the
community and the town square and substitutes anonymity. Randomness is un‐democratic and
a lottery is inherently unfair.
City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the
responsibility of our democratically elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform
and serve the Council.
Thank you
Northeast Neighbors
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:debbiemego@aol.com
Sent:Friday, October 6, 2023 11:30 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock;
JesseZwick@smgov.net; Caroline Torosis; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas
Sloan; Denise.Anerson-Warren@smgov.net
Subject:Re: Council Agenda Item 7.A 10/10/23 - Oppose Healthy Democracy and Lottery in determining
Future of Santa Monica Airport
EXTERNAL
On Thursday, October 5, 2023, 08:58:33 PM PDT, Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Council Agenda Item 7.A 10/10/23 - Oppose Healthy Democracy and Lottery in determining Future of Santa
Monica Airport
To: <councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>, <gleam.davis@santamonica.gov>, Oscar de la Torre
<oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov>, Lana Negrete <lana.negrete@santamonica.gov>,
<christine.parra@santamonica.gov>, <phil.brock@santamonica.gov>, Jesse Zwick <jesse.zwick@santamonica.gov>,
<Caroline.Torosis@santamonica.gov>, <david.white@santamonica.gov>, <Manager@santamonica.gov>,
<douglas.sloan@santamonica.gov>, Denise Anderson-Warren <Denise.Anderson-Warren@santamonica.gov>
To: Santa Monica City Council
Oct. 6, 2023
Dear Councilmembers,
I have been a resident of Santa Monica for over 30 years and a home owner here for 26 years.
I’m writing to let you know that I oppose approval or any involvement of Healthy Democracy in
playing a role to determine the Future of Santa Monica Airport. I also oppose the use of a
Lottery to inform the process.
City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the
responsibility of our democratically elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform
and serve the Council.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
Healthy Democracy claims to be a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, which is not accurate.
Healthy Democracy is aligned with a developer lobby that would favor an outcome at the
airport in direct conflict with the expressed preferences of almost all residents of the city for an
ultra‐low‐density open space.
HD was introduced to the Housing Commission on 11‐18‐2021 by Leonora Camner based on the
rationale that they had specific expertise in housing issues. A flyer was distributed to the
Housing Commission noting HD’s housing issue experience in their project “City of Eugene
Review Panel on Housing” that was conducted during Nov. 2020 through April 2021. Housing is
NOT what the residents want for the airport. And, since the Housing Element has been
certified by the state without the airport, it is clear that the city does not need the airport for
housing.
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/HED/Housing/2021_09_23_HC3A_HealthyDemocracyPresentation.pdf
Healthy Democracy is not a disinterested party and has clear conflicts of interest:
HD is identified as a “Project of” and “Resource to” an organization called Public Access
Democracy (PAD) https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/resources/.
PAD has on its coordinating committee Leonora Camner, a self‐professed YIMBY and Executive
Director of Abundant Housing LA political action committee.
https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/about/
But Leonora Camner’s singular focus on a housing outcome does not stop there. Her
organization, Abundant Housing LA (supported by the housing lobby group California YIMBY
among others) engineered an increase in the housing allocation for Santa Monica. An attorney
for Camner’s Abundant Housing LA sent a letter dated 10/11/19 to Southern California
Association of Governments, (SCAG) and that letter resulted in the increase in Santa Monica’s
housing allocation from 4,829 to 9,058 housing units.
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file‐attachments/101119abundant_housing_la.pdf?1605421607
Leonora Camner boasted about the role she played in lobbying SCAG to increase the housing
requirement for Santa Monica in an LA Times 10/25/2019 Opinion piece: "SoCal’s new housing
plan is going to make traffic and air pollution worse for everyone.” “Abundant Housing L.A.
research director Anthony Dedousis, along with UCLA urban planning professor Paavo
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
3
Monkkonen, recently developed a data‐driven methodology to determine …Santa Monica, with
its massive job base and access to rail, would get 14,155….”
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019‐10‐25/housing‐crisis‐los‐angeles‐scag‐homeless‐development
Leonora Camner took credit for the increase to the Santa Monica housing requirement in an
Opinion article published in the Santa Monica Daily Press: “Hope for a Pro‐Housing Future”
(8/29/20). Camner wrote “Fortunately, Santa Monica has been given a target of building nearly
9,000 new homes by 2029.”
https://www.smdp.com/letter‐to‐the‐editor‐hope‐for‐a‐pro‐housing‐future/195952
The Affordable Housing LA Blog announced on 11/16/21 the intention of Leonora Camner to
make a political career of supporting YIMBY candidates “Our Own Abundant Housing LA
PAC.” https://abundanthousingla.org/announcing‐our‐own‐ahla‐pac/
Because of its political alignments, Healthy Democracy cannot be counted on to act in the best
interest of the Santa Monica community. https://healthydemocracy.org
I urge Council to reject the proposed contract with Healthy Democracy because of the clear
outcome bias of the organization and the conflict created by their relationship with political
activist Leonora Camner.
Opposition to a Lottery:
A lottery is most applicable where the impacts of an issue are uniformly spread across a
population. In such a case the selection process would only apply to divergent views of a
universally‐experienced impact. No one group would have more or less stake in the outcome.
The lottery would surface the different perspectives on that outcome.
That is the opposite scenario that the Future of the Santa Monica Airport issue represents.
A lottery is the worst process imaginable to address an issue with highly disparate
impacts. The burdens of the Airport project will not be equally distributed. Sunset Park will be
disproportionately impacted by traffic, congestion and ongoing pollution from a non‐park
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
4
development on Airport land. Proportional representation of the many stakeholders is not part
of the initial (or any) selection process for invites to the lottery.
This project involves highly technical financial elements. Understanding the impact of those
elements requires expertise that the average person does not possess.
The unprecedented scale of either a park or development is far beyond any current City
financing capabilities. Significant tax increases will be required to finance the project and those
will disproportionately fall on homeowners across the entire city. A majority of renters in the
city are shielded from much of the impact from property‐related tax increases yet renters
constitute more than 70% of city households. Randomly selected city residents without any
technical background in the financial issues at play will likely be ill‐prepared to know what
questions to ask, risking significant bias based on what information they are provided with and
what information is accidently (or otherwise) omitted.
A lottery will create conflict in the process rather than simplify it:
Stakeholders will question why they will be left out of the final process after years of
engagement and advocacy.
Santa Monicans who worked hard over many years to pass Measure LC would be completely
sidelined in this process.
In addressing the Future of the Airport, the highly disparate impacts of any of the possible
changes to Airport land use require the full participation of all city stakeholders.
Slippery Slope
The online publication New America described HD’s involvement in the Petaluma Fairgrounds
issue as “collaborative governance—or “co‐governance.”
https://www.newamerica.org/political‐reform/briefs/citizens‐assemblies‐petaluma‐california‐cogovernance/
Staff should not be allowed to introduce “co‐governance” to Santa Monica and the Council
should certainly not approve such a radical departure from our rules of governance without
clear, unambiguous, voter consent.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
5
I strongly urge Council to reject the use of ANY substitute system to the current city
processes.
Healthy Democracy is the antithesis of democracy; it is un‐democratic. A lottery system of
choosing random people specifically disenfranchises important stakeholders from airing their
views publicly and the chance to publicly identify with those views; people put a lot of value in
seeing who aligns with whom, and who agrees or opposes what. Randomness eliminates the
community and the town square and substitutes anonymity. Randomness is un‐democratic and
a lottery is inherently unfair.
City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the
responsibility of our democratically elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform
and serve the Council.
Thank you
Debbie Mego
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Friday, October 6, 2023 4:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de
la Torre; Phil Brock; David White
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:FOSP: City Council 10/10/23 agenda item 7-A -- Future of Santa Monica Airport -- OPPOSE!
EXTERNAL
October 6, 2023
To: Mayor Davis and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 10/10/23 agenda item 7-A – “Future of Santa Monica Airport”
1) We oppose the involvement of the Healthy Democracy organization in determining the future of Santa
Monica Airport, or in any other city decision making.
2) We oppose a “Lottery-selected panel process” in our city’s decision-making. It’s the responsibility of our
elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council.
3) We oppose the suggested “framing question” on page 16 of the staff report: “How should the diverse needs
of our community inform the future of the Airport land and the balances of land use and development that
will most effectively contribute to Santa Monica’s long-term vitality?”
That framing question points the proposed panel’s deliberations toward development. Missing is the Measure
LC language about parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities. Any framing question should
include the constraints of LC, distinguishing between what can be done under the LC City Charter Amendment,
and what would need further voter approval.
Keep in mind that when aviation interests put Measure D on the 2014 ballot to keep the Airport open in
perpetuity, the City Council itself put Measure LC on the ballot to affirm the city’s authority to close the
Airport.
It was then left to residents to run the LC campaign. While the National Business Aviation Association and
other aviation interests donated $1 million to the D campaign, residents managed to raise $135,000 for 3 LC
mailers. Volunteers flyered every city household and phoned 9,000 registered voters. Measure LC won 60 to
40; Measure D lost 60 to 40. Those figures were similar in almost every voting precinct.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
What’s more, LC was endorsed by many public officials, and organizations such as the League of Women
Voters of Santa Monica, the SM/M PTA Council, Residocracy, SMCLC, the SM Democratic Club, SMRR, the
Sierra Club, Santa Monica Next, Santa Monica Spoke, FOSP, NEN, NOMA, OPA, PNA, and Wilmont. Those
endorsements are still posted at www.ItsOurLand.org
1) Our opposition to Healthy Democracy (HD) is based on these facts:
a) Cost: Healthy Democracy’s Eugene, Oregon Review Panel on Housing was budgeted at $60,000. The budget
discussed on page 16 of the staff report for this process totals nearly $3 million. That amount seems outrageous,
and at least a large portion of that could go toward building a park.
Schedule: Page 3 of the staff report discusses “personal barriers to participating” in past planning processes. On
page 11 it proposes that the panel convene for six 3-day weekends (Friday to Sunday). How could any single
parent, or any parent of young children, who might be interested in parks or other open space for their children
on the Airport land, possibly participate in a panel with such a schedule?
c) Impartiality: Healthy Democracy claims to be a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, but seems to be aligned
with a developer lobby that would favor an outcome at the Airport in direct conflict with the expressed
preferences of almost all residents of the city for ultra-low-density open space.
d) Conflicts of interest: Healthy Democracy is not a disinterested party and has clear conflicts of interest:
Healthy Democracy is identified as a “Project of” and “Resource to” an organization called Public Access
Democracy (PAD) https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/resources/
PAD’s 3-member Coordinating Committee includes Leonora Camner, Executive Director of Abundant
Housing LA, a 501c3 which added a 501c4 Political Action Committee (PAC) in 2021.
https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/about/
Leonora Camner engineered a huge increase in the housing allocation for Santa Monica and advocated for an
even higher number.
On 10/11/2019, an attorney for Abundant Housing LA sent a letter to the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG), which resulted in the increase in Santa Monica’s housing allocation from 4,829 to 9,058
housing units.
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/101119abundant_housing_la.pdf?1605421607
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
3
On 10/25/2019, Ms. Camner had an Opinion piece published in the Los Angeles Times: "SoCal’s new housing
plan is going to make traffic and air pollution worse for everyone,” in which she wrote “Abundant Housing
L.A. research director Anthony Dedousis… recently developed a data-driven methodology to determine
…Santa Monica, with its massive job base and access to rail, would get 14,155….”
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-10-25/housing-crisis-los-angeles-scag-homeless-development
On 8/29/2020, Ms. Camner took credit for the increase to the Santa Monica housing requirement in an Opinion
piece published in the Santa Monica Daily Press: “Hope for a Pro-Housing Future.” She wrote, “Fortunately,
Santa Monica has been given a target of building nearly 9,000 new homes by 2029.”
https://www.smdp.com/letter-to-the-editor-hope-for-a-pro-housing-future/195952
On 11/16/21, the Abundant Housing LA Blog announced Ms. Camner’s plan to support YIMBY candidates
with “Our Own Abundant Housing LA PAC.”
https://abundanthousingla.org/announcing-our-own-ahla-pac/
On 11/18/2021, during Ms. Camner’s term on the Santa Monica Housing Commission, Healthy Democracy
was Action Item 3-D on the Commission agenda:
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/HED/Housing/2021_11_18_HousingCommissionAgenda.pdf
HEALTHY DEMOCRACY -- Follow-up discussion and possible action regarding a recommendation to
City Council to adopt a lottery-based selection process for housing-related work groups, panels, etc.
Healthy Democracy Presentation (34 slides):
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/HED/Housing/2021_09_23_HC3A_HealthyDemocracyPresentatio
n.pdf
Healthy Democracy Handout (18 pages): Eugene, Oregon -- Middle Housing Code Amendments Project
-- 2020-21
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/HED/Housing/2021_09_23_HC3A_EugeneHB2001ReviewPanelP
roposedProjectPlan.pdf
For these reasons, we urge Council to reject the proposed contract with Healthy Democracy. Its relationship
with political activist Leonora Camner precludes its impartiality.
2) Our opposition to a Lottery-selected panel process:
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
4
A lottery is most applicable when the impacts of an issue are uniformly spread across a population. In fact,
Sunset Park will be disproportionately impacted by traffic congestion and pollution from any non-park
development on the Airport land.
Also, the project involves highly technical financial elements which the average person may not be equipped to
understand.
The huge scale of either a park or development is far beyond any current City financing capabilities. Significant
tax hikes will be required to finance the project and those will fall disproportionately on property owners.
Randomly selected residents, with no technical background in the relevant financial issues, may not know what
questions to ask.
A lottery will likely create conflict, as stakeholders will question why they’re left out of the final process. Santa
Monicans worked hard to pass Measure LC. The highly disparate impacts of various changes to Airport land
use require the full participation of all city stakeholders.
The Slippery Slope of “Co-Governance”
The online publication New America described Healthy Democracy’s involvement in the Petaluma Fairgrounds
issue as “collaborative governance” or “co-governance.”
https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/briefs/citizens-assemblies-petaluma-california-cogovernance/
Staff should not be allowed to introduce “co-governance” to Santa Monica, and the Council should certainly not
approve such a radical departure from our rules of governance without clear, unambiguous, voter consent.
“Democratic lotteries” are not democratic elections, and “random” does not mean “unbiased.” Lottery-selected
panels can be led astray with incomplete, biased, or deceptive information inputs. City decision-making, and
engagement by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our elected City Council and the staff hired by the City
to inform and serve the Council.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
5
In conclusion, we oppose the involvement of the Healthy Democracy organization in determining the future of
Santa Monica Airport.
We oppose a “Lottery-selected panel process” in determining the future of Santa Monica Airport.
We oppose staff’s suggested “framing question” on page 16 of the staff report: “How should the diverse needs
of our community inform the future of the Airport land and the balances of land use and development that will
most effectively contribute to Santa Monica’s long-term vitality?”
Thank you for your consideration.
__________________________________________________________________
Background:
The Healthy Democracy process and efforts in these two contentious land use projects seems to have led to
greater division:
Healthy Democracy at work in Eugene, Oregon
“Fear and Chaos at Eugene City Council Middle Housing Work Session”
April 22, 2022 – Eugene Register-Guard
https://www.registerguard.com/story/opinion/columns/2022/04/22/fear-and-chaos-at-eugene-city-council-
middle-housing-work-session/65351116007/
“This is a column about how Eugene will meet the June deadline to allow more housing flexibility, as required
by House Bill 2001 and passed by the Legislature in 2018. Except this is not a column about the policy changes
that have been required, proposed or contemplated.
The policies are important but they obscure something that matters more — our societal order. Strip away the
policy details and a starker image emerges — one that looks vaguely familiar. It resembles the storming of the
U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Eugene City Council work session this week extended past midnight, because 125
participants gave testimony. Councilor Mike Clark said he’d never seen anything like it.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
6
The city council knew from the start this was a hot potato. It delayed its deliberation for as long as possible. It
used that time to extend the public outreach deep and wide. It added extra layers of inclusion with an Equity
Roundtable, Healthy Democracy Panel, Middle Housing Review Panel, and other outreach efforts.
The Middle Housing Review Panel was designed to reach beyond “the usual suspects.” These were not policy
wonks or growth management experts. They were citizens. They met 15 times over 6 months, carefully
weighing how each policy change would affect everyday life. They wrestled with trade-offs, complying with
legal requirements, as well as economic changes the policies could invite.
Their hard work was unanimously approved by the Eugene Planning Commission. The planning commission
then launched its own process, including robust public comments, before sending to the Eugene City Council its
unanimous policy recommendations.
City council will continue to solicit public comment with two more work sessions. That’s an important part of
the public process. The testimony that would be most useful to them at this point would be details and data that
hadn’t been considered earlier in the process. There wasn’t much of that at Monday’s work session.
Councilors Clark and Alan Zelenka worried aloud about the strident tone in some testimony, as well as the
unprecedented volume. Councilors should consider whether the last-minute intensity was evidence not of a
failed process but of a deliberate attempt to inject fear and chaos as the decision deadline nears.
Those who stormed our Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 wanted to disrupt the democratic process for certifying the
election. They insisted that their voice hadn’t been heard, but their only evidence was they weren’t getting their
way. Because that bullying was not immediately and unanimously condemned, it has provided a playbook that
imperils democratic values and processes everywhere, including here.
Families of elected officials have been threatened at the front door of their houses. Volunteers have been
disparaged and warned to watch their backs. Volunteers are essential to making our democracy work — the
everyday citizens on the Middle Housing Review Panel, our planning commissioners, and everyone who made
this process as robust and inclusive as possible.
Some will be unhappy with the final decisions. That’s inevitable — and all the more reason we should respect
our democratic processes and trust the outcomes they produce.”
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
7
“Eugene Officials Unanimously Pass Middle Housing Rules after Months of Community Feedback”
May 25, 2022 – Eugene Register-Guard
https://www.registerguard.com/story/news/2022/05/25/eugene-oregon-middle-housing-passed-tweaked-
planning-commission-recommendation-hb-2001-duplex/65357451007/
“After voting 7-1 to reduce the maximum lot coverage, City Council unanimously passed a surgically altered
version of the planning commission’s recommended ordinance to comply with House Bill 2001. That law,
passed during the 2019 session, requires large cities to allow for development of diverse housing types such as
duplexes and cottage clusters in historically exclusionary single-family zones. As Eugene has worked to pass
regulations complying with the law or else have a model code automatically apply, the city’s proposed
ordinance has drawn both praise and ire….”
Healthy Democracy at work in Petaluma, California
“Panel Selected to Help Guide Petaluma Fairgrounds Future”
April 18, 2022 – Petaluma 360
https://www.petaluma360.com/article/news/panel-selected-to-help-guide-petaluma-fairgrounds-future/
“Fairgrounds Panel Supports Sticking with Tradition While Considering Other Uses for Property” --
July 14, 2022 – Petaluma 360
https://www.petaluma360.com/article/news/fairgrounds-panel-supports-sticking-with-tradition-while-
considering-other/
“A park space and year-round farmers market are among other ideas floated for the Marin-Sonoma Fairgrounds
property….”
“Design Session Offers Glimpse at Possible Futures for Petaluma Fairgrounds”
October 5, 2022 – Petaluma 360
https://www.petaluma360.com/article/news/design-session-offers-glimpse-at-possible-futures-for-petaluma-
fairgrounds/
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
8
“The future of Petaluma’s Sonoma-Marin Fairgrounds is still unknown, but a recent workshop may have
provided glimpses of that future by pairing up community members with professional architects in an unusual
group design session….Architects had an hour and a half to draw up the design ideas, which will be presented
to city leaders later this month….”
“Poll: Majority Rejects City Council’s Takeover of Fairgrounds”
November 3, 2022 – Petaluma 360
https://www.petaluma360.com/article/opinion/poll-majority-rejects-city-councils-takeover-of-fairgrounds/
“Nearly three-quarters of poll responders disagree with recent council action….”
“What’s the Plan for the Petaluma Fairgrounds?”
March 2, 2023 – Petaluma 360
https://www.petaluma360.com/article/opinion/commentary-whats-the-plan-for-the-petaluma-fairgrounds/
“Fairgrounds Negotiations at a Standstill amid Finger Pointing”
March 8, 2023 – Petaluma 360
https://www.petaluma360.com/article/news/fairgrounds-negotiations-at-a-standstill-amid-finger-pointing/
“Petaluma Fairgrounds Talks Remain in Limbo”
April 6, 2023 – Petaluma 360
https://www.petaluma360.com/article/news/petaluma-fairgrounds-talks-remain-in-limbo/
Opinion: “Fairgrounds Solution at Hand”
June 15, 2023 – Petaluma 360
“Petaluma’s elected officials are responsible for getting the most efficient utilization of this property for the
benefit of its owners, the citizens of Petaluma,” writes Argus-Courier columnist John Burns.
https://www.petaluma360.com/article/opinion/community-matters-fairgrounds-solution-at-hand/
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
9
City update: https://cityofpetaluma.org/fairgroundsupdate/
“The City is negotiating with the 4th District Agricultural Association (DAA) in good faith and remains
committed to transforming the Fairgrounds for community use, and further integrating the Fairgrounds into
community life, while ensuring that the Sonoma-Marin County Fair can continue.
“However, your recommendations for additional City subsidies (referenced in your proposal as “potential
funding opportunities”) to backfill the DAA’s operating deficit, including utilizing the voter-approved, locally-
controlled Measure U funds, is not realistic.
“The City, cannot in good conscience, reduce the local funding that Petalumans voted to provide for rapid 911
emergency response; fire protection services and firefighting equipment; attracting and retaining well-trained
community police officers; accelerating street and pothole repair; keeping our local public areas safe and clean;
providing support for local businesses; and other public services essential to our community’s needs and quality
of life….”
=
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Santa Monica Rx <santamonicarx@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, October 6, 2023 7:54 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Jesse
Zwick; Caroline Torosis; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan; Denise
Anderson-Warren
Subject:Council Agenda Item 7.A 10/10/23 - Oppose Healthy Democracy and Lottery in determining Future
of Santa Monica Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:
Santa Monica Residents Cross‐City (smRx) joins Northeast Neighbors and residents throughout the city in opposing
(1) the role of the non‐profit, housing advocate organization "Healthy Democracy" (so‐called)
(2) the intrroduction of a Lottery system
in the process to determine the future of the Santa Monica Airport for the reasons put forth in their letter to SM City
Council Members dated 2023 10 05. For your convenience, that letter is reproduced below.
Your close attention to the points raised in the letter and your action conforming to their logic, which reflects the will of
the vast majorioty of residents you represent, are strongly urged.
Thank you.
Derek Altmann, Secretary
Santa Monica Residents Cross‐City (smRx)
***************
To: Santa Monica City Council
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
RE: 10/10/23 Agenda item 7.A ‐ Discussion of the Lottery‐Selected Panel Process for the
Airport
Oct. 5, 2023
Dear Councilmembers,
We oppose approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the Future of
Santa Monica Airport. We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city
decision making. We also oppose the use of a Lottery to inform the process.
City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the
responsibility of our democratically elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to
inform and serve the Council.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
Our opposition to Healthy Democracy:
Healthy Democracy claims to be a nonpartisan nonprofit organization. That is not the
case. Healthy Democracy is aligned with a developer lobby that would favor an outcome
at the airport in direct conflict with the expressed preferences of almost all residents of
the city for an ultra‐low‐density open space.
HD was introduced to the Housing Commission on 11‐18‐2021 by Leonora Camner based
on the rationale that they had specific expertise in housing issues. A flyer was distributed
to the Housing Commission noting HD’s housing issue experience in their project “City of
Eugene Review Panel on Housing” that was conducted during Nov. 2020 through April
2021. Housing is NOT what the residents want for the airport. And, since the Housing
Element has been certified by the state without the airport, it is clear that the city does
not need the airport for housing.
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/HED/Housing/2021_09_23_HC3A_HealthyDemocracyPresentation.pdf
Healthy Democracy is not a disinterested party and has clear conflicts of
interest:
HD is identified as a “Project of” and “Resource to” an organization called Public Access
Democracy (PAD) https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/resources/.
PAD has on its coordinating committee Leonora Camner, a self‐professed YIMBY and
Executive Director of Abundant Housing LA political action committee.
https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/about/
But Leonora Camner’s singular focus on a housing outcome does not stop there. Her
organization, Abundant Housing LA (supported by the housing lobby group California
YIMBY among others) engineered an increase in the housing allocation for Santa
Monica. An attorney for Camner’s Abundant Housing LA sent a letter dated 10/11/19 to
Southern California Association of Governments, (SCAG) and that letter resulted in the
increase in Santa Monica’s housing allocation from 4,829 to 9,058 housing units.
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file‐attachments/101119abundant_housing_la.pdf?1605421607
Leonora Camner boasted about the role she played in lobbying SCAG to increase the
housing requirement for Santa Monica in an LA Times 10/25/2019 Opinion piece: "SoCal’s
new housing plan is going to make traffic and air pollution worse for
everyone.” “Abundant Housing L.A. research director Anthony Dedousis, along with UCLA
urban planning professor Paavo Monkkonen, recently developed a data‐driven
methodology to determine …Santa Monica, with its massive job base and access to rail,
would get 14,155….”
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019‐10‐25/housing‐crisis‐los‐angeles‐scag‐homeless‐development
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
3
Leonora Camner took credit for the increase to the Santa Monica housing requirement in
an Opinion article published in the Santa Monica Daily Press: “Hope for a Pro‐Housing
Future” (8/29/20). Camner wrote “Fortunately, Santa Monica has been given a target of
building nearly 9,000 new homes by 2029.”
https://www.smdp.com/letter‐to‐the‐editor‐hope‐for‐a‐pro‐housing‐future/195952
The Affordable Housing LA Blog announced on 11/16/21 the intention of Leonora Camner
to make a political career of supporting YIMBY candidates “Our Own Abundant Housing LA
PAC.” https://abundanthousingla.org/announcing‐our‐own‐ahla‐pac/
Because of its political alignments, Healthy Democracy cannot be counted on to act in the
best interest of the Santa Monica community. https://healthydemocracy.org
We urge Council to reject the proposed contract with Healthy Democracy because of the
clear outcome bias of the organization and the conflict created by their relationship with
political activist Leonora Camner.
Our opposition to a Lottery:
A lottery is most applicable where the impacts of an issue are uniformly spread across a
population. In such a case the selection process would only apply to divergent views of a
universally‐experienced impact. No one group would have more or less stake in the
outcome. The lottery would surface the different perspectives on that outcome.
That is the opposite scenario that the Future of the Santa Monica Airport issue
represents.
A lottery is the worst process imaginable to address an issue with highly disparate
impacts. The burdens of the Airport project will not be equally distributed. Sunset Park
will be disproportionately impacted by traffic, congestion and ongoing pollution from a
non‐park development on Airport land. Proportional representation of the many
stakeholders is not part of the initial (or any) selection process for invites to the lottery.
This project involves highly technical financial elements. Understanding the impact of
those elements requires expertise that the average person does not possess.
The unprecedented scale of either a park or development is far beyond any current City
financing capabilities. Significant tax increases will be required to finance the project and
those will disproportionately fall on homeowners across the entire city. A majority of
renters in the city are shielded from much of the impact from property‐related tax
increases yet renters constitute more than 70% of city households. Randomly selected
city residents without any technical background in the financial issues at play will likely be
ill‐prepared to know what questions to ask, risking significant bias based on what
information they are provided with and what information is accidently (or otherwise)
omitted.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
4
A lottery will create conflict in the process rather than simplify it:
Stakeholders will question why they will be left out of the final process after years of
engagement and advocacy.
Santa Monicans who worked hard over many years to pass Measure LC would be
completely sidelined in this process.
In addressing the Future of the Airport, the highly disparate impacts of any of the possible
changes to Airport land use require the full participation of all city stakeholders.
Slippery Slope
The online publication New America described HD’s involvement in the Petaluma
Fairgrounds issue as “collaborative governance—or “co‐governance.”
https://www.newamerica.org/political‐reform/briefs/citizens‐assemblies‐petaluma‐california‐cogovernance/
Staff should not be allowed to introduce “co‐governance” to Santa Monica and the Council
should certainly not approve such a radical departure from our rules of governance
without clear, unambiguous, voter consent.
We strongly urge Council to reject the use of ANY substitute system to the current city
processes.
Healthy Democracy is the antithesis of democracy; it is un‐democratic. A lottery system of
choosing random people specifically disenfranchises important stakeholders from airing
their views publicly and the chance to publicly identify with those views; people put a lot
of value in seeing who aligns with whom, and who agrees or opposes what. Randomness
eliminates the community and the town square and substitutes anonymity. Randomness
is un‐democratic and a lottery is inherently unfair.
City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the
responsibility of our democratically elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to
inform and serve the Council.
Thank you
Northeast Neighbors
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Robb Curtis Brown <rcbee44@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 7, 2023 7:32 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 7-A
EXTERNAL
In the Council's "framing quesƟon". regarding the future use of SMO land, it MUST INCLUDE language that includes the
restricƟons imposed by Measure LC!! The only uses for that land, as dictated by LC, are open spaces, park land and
playing fields. ANY ALTERNATIVES must be approved by a vote of the residents. In the spirit of HONESTY AND
TRANSPARENCY, please amend the "framing quesƟon" to include the TRUTH.
Robert Brown
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Dirk V <vandebunt@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 7, 2023 7:47 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda Item 7A
EXTERNAL
1. I live in Sunset Park, near the airport. I urge the counsel to refer back to the language of
Proposition LC, and rephrase the framing question to conform with what the voters approved.
2. I strongly disagree with the oppose the current draft “framing question” on page 16 of the staff
report: which refers to “the balances of land use and development that will most effectively
contribute to Santa Monica’s long-term vitality?” The word and concept of “development”
should be stricken from the framing question.
3. Thank you.
Dirk van de Bunt
1624 Hill St
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Lisa Sandbank <sister@brotherlab.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 7, 2023 8:18 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:City Council meeting October 10 Agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
Re: Agenda item 7‐A ‐ Study Session regarding using the “democraƟc loƩery process” as the primary public engagement
method for determining the Future of Santa Monica Airport
This loƩery is a deconstrucƟon of the exisƟng, voter‐approved measure LC—authored by city council—which the
residents fought for and won despite the millions spent to defeat it by naƟon‐wide aviaƟon organizaƟons and their
infamous power lawyers.
A loƩery commiƩee gives City Staff the private power to influence commiƩee members at their discreƟon and
undermine the intenƟons voted by City Counsel SMO Closure ResoluƟon.
I strongly support the peƟƟon against such a commiƩee.
Lisa Sandbank
Santa Monica
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Janet.Winikoff Yahoo <janet.winikoff@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 7, 2023 11:24 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda Item 7-A
EXTERNAL
To whom it may apply:
I vehemently oppose allowing private development in the area to be vacated by the Santa Monica Airport. That area should be
maintained as open space for use and enjoyment by all Santa Monica residents not for the aggrandizement of the few.
Thank you for considering this perspective in your upcoming decision about land use at the soon to be former Santa Monica airport.
Thank you.
Janet Winikoff
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Airport2Park <airport2park@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 7, 2023 11:41 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la
Torre
Subject:Airport2Park - Re: Agenda Item 7A
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
The board of Santa Monica Airport2Park Foundation supports in principle the proposed process described in agenda
Item 7(A) of the 10/10/2023 meeting, but with one important modification relating to the proposed "framing question”
in the staff report (pg. 16) which currently reads: “How should the diverse needs of our community inform the future of
the Airport land and the balance of land‐uses and development, that will most effectively contribute to Santa Monica’s
long‐term vitality?”
The inclusion of the words “and development”, despite the fact that this is expressly forbidden by measure LC (without a
general election vote), creates a false premise embedded in panel guidance. We, and the community, feel this
development issue was already settled by the voters during the LC/D fight. Inserting the idea of violating this voter
decision into panel guidance could reasonably be interpreted as a betrayal of trust, and will understandably engender
deep suspicion in many. However, with community trust, the board of Airport2Park feels the process holds the potential
to bring real benefits both to the community and the City.
Please simply strike these two words, and you have our full support.
Since the Airport2Park Foundation is the direct evolution of the Measure LC board, if we believed that this process was
fundamentally flawed, or in any way an attempt to end‐around LC, we would be the first to oppose it. However, we
believe the proposed approach is a genuine attempt by staff and Council to avoid squandering this unique opportunity,
and not as others may suspect, a subterfuge.
Big infrastructure projects in this City that follow the standard process, have a long history of bogging down in endless
squabbles and as a result, ultimately not coming to fruition. We have just 5 years to get ready for Airport closure, and
without a process like this, that won’t happen, and we’ll reach that milestone without a concrete park plan and a day‐1
build strategy. Not having these two things will create an opening and incentive for other forces, both within and
outside the city, to intervene and possibly prevail, and it may result in the Great Park slipping through our fingers. We as
a City cannot allow that to happen, so all of us need this new process to succeed.
Is the process new and unfamiliar? Yes it is, at least to us! But the approach puts control of the process in the hands of
a demographically representative community panel (of 40+), who seek and receive input from all, and we believe that
will be a good thing that will generate public trust in what is ultimately presented to City Council (which, of course,
retains final authority).
Visibly striking the words “and development” from the framing question at this juncture sends a powerful and much
needed signal that motives are genuine. We strongly encourage you do so.
We look forward to working with the City, staff, and community to make a “Park for the Ages”, as we trust all parties in
this matter do also. We understand that neither we nor others can control the process, nor can we know who the panel
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
members will be, but we do trust it will be representative of the community, that all voices will still have ample
opportunities to provide input, and of course that the results are still constrained by LC. As always, we thank you for
your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
The Santa Monica Airport2Park Foundation board:
Neil Carrey ‐ Chair
Michael Brodsky
John Fairweather
Frank Gruber
Cathy Larson
Mike Salazar
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:JORDAN ELLIS <jordanrellis@me.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 7, 2023 2:15 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda item 7-A: REJECT THE LOTTERY PROCESS FOR SMO
EXTERNAL
I oppose the involvement of the Healthy Democracy organization in determining the future of Santa Monica
Airport. It does not seem impartial and it may have conflicts of interest. I also oppose a “Lottery-selected panel
process” in our city’s decision-making. City decision-making, and engagement by all stakeholders, is the
responsibility of our elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council.
Jordan Ellis
Santa Monica resident
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Carolyn Hanlin <carolhan777@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 8, 2023 11:31 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda Item 7-A
EXTERNAL
I oppose signing with "Healthy Democracy" at the Nov. 14 meeting.
I oppose a "Lottery Selected Panel" process in city decisions.
I oppose the"framing Question" on page 16 of the staff report.
Carolyn Hanlin
Santa Monica Resident
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Betsy Katz <betsyjkatz@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 8, 2023 11:31 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda item 7(A) 10/10/2023
EXTERNAL
Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
Back in 2014 I voted for Measure LC. I was a strong supporter and even campaigned for it. LC passed overwhelmingly
with 60% of the vote. Now, however, it appears as though the will of people is being disregarded. We want a great park,
not development. We agree with Santa Monica Airport2Park FoundaƟon that the words "and development” should be
removed from the “framing quesƟon” in the staff report lest there be any confusion of the voters of Santa Monica.
Thank you for your consideraƟon of this request.
Sincerely,
Betsy Katz
3016 Ruskin Street
Santa Monica, CA
90405
310‐415‐0130
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Edward Greenwalt <greknee@earthlink.net>
Sent:Sunday, October 8, 2023 12:13 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 7A
EXTERNAL
We support the posiƟon taken by Friends of Sunset Park opposing the involvement of the Healthy Democracy
organizaƟon in determining the future of Santa Monica Airport. It is apparent that Healthy Democracy likely is not
imparƟal and may have a conflict of interest. We also agree with Friends in opposing a loƩery‐selected panel process in
decision making. That is the job of the City Council. We also agree that the “framing quesƟon” is defecƟve in the
inclusion of “development”, without other factors.
Edward Greenwalt
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Ted Winterer <tedwinterer@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 8, 2023 1:38 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline
Torosis
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White
Subject:Item 7, 10/10/23 agenda
EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and Councilmembers,
Since you are being asked by staff for feedback on the framing question for the proposed Lottery‐Selected Panel (should
you choose to go that route), I suggest now is an excellent opportunity for this Council to affirm its intention to close
SMO, as prior Councils have done.
Consequently, the opening text of the framing question "With the anticipated closure of the Santa Monica Airport after
2028..." should be replaced with stronger language such as "Since the City Council is committed to closing the Santa
Monica Airport after 2028..."
Regards,
Ted
‐‐
Ted Winterer
Realtor @Compass, 2115 Main Street Santa Monica
DRE #02047989
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:janet rt <janetrt3@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 8, 2023 2:22 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
1. Please be aware that I and others oppose the involvement of the
Healthy Democracy organization in determining the future of Santa
Monica Airport, or in any other city decision making, as it does not
seem to be impartial and it may have a conflict of interest.
2. I oppose a “Lottery-selected panel process” in our city’s decision-
making. City decision-making, and engagement by all stakeholders, is
the responsibility of our elected City Council and the staff hired by the
City to inform and serve the Council.
3. I oppose the suggested “framing question” on page 16 of the staff
report: “How should the diverse needs of our community inform the
future of the Airport land and the balances of land use
and development that will most effectively contribute to Santa Monica’s
long-term vitality?”
Janet Tunick
1224 Grant St.
90405
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Katharine Dreyfuss <kitdreyfuss@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 8, 2023 5:34 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Jesse
Zwick; Caroline Torosis; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan; Denise
Anderson-Warren
Subject:Subject: Council Agenda Item 7.A 10/10/23 - Oppose Healthy Democracy and Lottery in determining
Future of Santa Monica Airport
EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council members
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Katharine Dreyfuss <kitdreyfuss@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, October 8, 2023 6:03 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Jesse
Zwick; Caroline Torosis; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan; Denise
Anderson-Warren
Subject:Council Agenda Item 7.A 10/10/23 - Oppose Healthy Democracy and Lottery in determining Future
of Santa Monica Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council members;
Please oppose hiring "Healthy Democracy" and its "Democracy Lottery Process" as resources for helping you make
decisions about the future of our Airport. It is your job to promote the best interests of Santa Monica residents, not to
serve the building industry. Political activists like Leonora Camner have no interest in serving the needs of our city.
I urge you to take responsibility for making this urgent decision on behalf of your residents.
Thank you for your attention to my request.
Best,
Katharine Dreyfuss
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Andrew Wilder
Sent:Sunday, October 8, 2023 6:52 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la
Torre; David White; Susan Cline; Rick Valte; Stelios Makrides; Amber Richane
Subject:7-A Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport -
Dear City Council and Staff,
The Airport Commission has not yet had a chance to discuss the Lottery‐Selected Panel, but I anticipate we will
do so at our October 23rd meeting and provide a recommendation before you revisit this in November. In the
meantime, this is my own personal comment:
The proposed question is unacceptable because it is phrased in a way that seems to deliberately encourage
new development, which is in direct contradiction to the mandate of Measure LC. This is why you are seeing
such strong opposition to this proposed panel by the community.
Adding "without proposing any modifications to Measure LC" and removing the words "and development" will
solve this:
With this background, and without proposing any modifications to Measure LC, how should
the diverse needs of our community inform the future of the Airport land and the balance of
land‐uses and development, that will most effectively contribute to Santa Monica’s long‐term
vitality?
Though that is unnecessarily (and confusingly) wordy. Perhaps you could simplify it to be clearer:
With this background, and without proposing any modifications to Measure LC, what should
we do with the Airport land once it closes that will most effectively contribute to Santa
Monica's long‐term vitality?
If these changes are made to the framing question, I'm optimistic that the focus group could be a useful tool in
the planning process.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Andrew Wilder
Santa Monica Airport Commission Chair
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:fospairport@rocketmail.com
Sent:Sunday, October 8, 2023 10:33 PM
To:Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Phil
Brock; David White
Cc:councilmtgitems; Amelia Feichtner; Alex Parry; Christopher Dishlip; Amber Richane
Subject:Oct 10, 2023 Item 7-a
EXTERNAL
Councilmembers,
I usually don’t submit a lengthy public comment. Primarily because I don’t think it will get a thorough read, but in this
case, for clarity, I determined an amount of detail is essenƟal. I will aƩempt to make my points as succinct as possible.
There is a significant percepƟon in the community that staff recommendaƟons for the LoƩery‐Selected Panel Process
(Item 7‐a) are creaƟng “development” bias in the proposed airport planning process in lieu of the endorsement of the
public’s demonstrated (Measure LC) desire for park, open space, and recreaƟonal faciliƟes.
For the community members who keep close tabs on Airport Issues, this is culƟvaƟng and ferƟlizing a sense of mistrust
of the staff and the democraƟc loƩery process.
RecommendaƟon #1 states the democraƟc loƩery should be the “primary” engagement method. It is laudable
that the City is aƩempƟng to fold in voices that may normally not be heard to create “equity” in the planning
process, but there are many voices that want to be heard that will not be chosen for the panel. These voices
should NOT be leŌ out of the decision‐making process of the future of the airport land. You may hear the
loudest voices from the residents of Sunset Park. Why? The obvious answer is the airport is in their
neighborhood and they will bear the brunt of or, opƟmisƟcally, the benefit of what future airport land uses
become. The airport has been their neighbor for decades. These residents have endured noise, environmental
polluƟon, and safety risks during that Ɵme. They deserve, along with all the ciƟzens of Santa Monica, an equal
opportunity to weigh in—not just a secondary or less—engagement method.
Other avenues of Public Engagement, in addiƟon to the DemocraƟc Panel, must be given equal consideraƟon
for true equity in the decision‐making process.
RecommendaƟon #2 Even though the “framing quesƟon” for the democraƟc panel is menƟoned on page 1, the
proposed language for the quesƟon is buried on page 16:
“How should the diverse needs of our community inform the future of the Airport land and the balance of land‐uses
and development, that will most effecƟvely contribute to Santa Monica’s long‐term vitality?”
The inclusion of “and development” assumes there will be development but the current City Charter language,
an outcome of Measure LC approved by 60/40 margin, specifically states NO new development except parks,
open spaces, recreaƟon faciliƟes.
Measure LC language:
“prohibit new development on Airport land, except for parks, public open spaces and public recreaƟonal faciliƟes,
unƟl the voters approve limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land”
The people have already spoken prioriƟzing park/recreaƟonal/arts use not “development.”
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
The “framing quesƟon” for the democraƟc panel must be modified to remove any development bias language
and include acknowledgement of Measure LC limitaƟons.
RecommendaƟon #3 asks for a “sole source contract” for Healthy Democracy without going through the usual
compeƟƟve bidding process. There have been credible claims that this organizaƟon has Ɵes to housing
development. It raises the quesƟon in the community whether Healthy Democracy can be entrusted to be an
imparƟal moderator of a democraƟc loƩery panel.
Choosing a single organizaƟon without public veƫng or considering other alternaƟve providers, creates a
percepƟon of bias: the organizaƟon may influence the democraƟc panel members and, therefore, the
outcome of their recommendaƟon.
Other points I would request the council consider in reviewing in the Staff report:
Having the DemocraƟc Panel serve three‐day weekends will create more “plan” faƟgue than avoid. (page 5
LoƩery Selected Panel Process). It will also discourage a wide swath of potenƟal parƟcipants from taking part
and may hinder the goal of equity on the panel. Just because a panel member is being compensated for his/her
service on the panel, doesn’t mean that person can ask his/her boss for the Ɵme off work.
The esƟmated cost of $2.5‐3 million seems excessive. It would be informaƟve to see what other CiƟes have
invested using this process.
To sum up:
DemocraƟc LoƩery Panel can be a component of the public input process but not the only component and there
should ample opportunity for interested parƟes to be a part of the engagement process.
The Framing QuesƟon needs to be modified to delete the “development” bias.
Council should consider alternaƟves to Healthy Democracy as the facilitator of the DemocraƟc Panel process to
dispel potenƟal bias in the process.
I am a Boardmember of both Airport 2 Park and Friends of Sunset Park. This public comment reflects my own personal
views. The aforemenƟoned organizaƟons have submiƩed comments on behalf of their respecƟve Boards.
Cathy Larson
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Karen Kushi <kbkushi@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 4:05 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:10/10/23 Agenda item 7.A - Discussion of the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
We strongly oppose approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the Future of Santa Monica Airport.
We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city decision making. We also oppose the use of a LoƩery to
inform the process.
City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our
democraƟcally elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council.
We would be there in person to express our opposiƟon but we are out of town. Thank you for listening to the residents.
Sincerely,
Karen and Hisao Kushi
2520 California Avenue
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Gerda McDonough <gmcdono@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 6:43 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:10/10/23 Agenda item 7.A - Discussion of the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
EXTERNAL
>
>> Dear Councilmembers,
>>
>> We strongly oppose approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the Future of Santa Monica Airport.
We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city decision making. We also oppose the use of a LoƩery to
inform the process.
>>
>> City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our
democraƟcally elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council.
>>
>> We would be there in person to express our opposiƟon but we are out of town. Thank you for listening to the
residents.
Gerda McDonough
Santa Monica Resident
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:mfoodstylist@verizon.net
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 7:26 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:7A
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I oppose the city using the Healthy Democracy organization in determining the future of Santa Monica
Airport, as it does not seem to be impartial, and it may have a conflict of interest due to its connection to a
pro-housing advocate.
I oppose using Healthy Democracy's “Lottery-selected panel process” in our city’s decision-making. City
decision-making, and engagement by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our elected City Council and
the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council, not just a group of randomly-selected people.
I oppose the suggested “framing question” in the staff report: “How should the diverse needs of our
community inform the future of the Airport land and the balances of land use and development that will
most effectively contribute to Santa Monica’s long-term vitality?”
I have lived in Santa Monica for over 30 years. Please do not let this obvious minority special interest group destroy
the true democracy in our community.
Thanks you,
Megan FitzGerald
2437 Pier Ave, Santa Monica
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:HEIDI JO COREY <hjc777@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 7:54 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Heidi Jo Corey
Subject:10/10/23 Agenda item 7.A - Discussion of the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
EXTERNAL
>
>
> Dear Councilmembers,
>
> We strongly oppose approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the Future of Santa Monica Airport.
We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city decision making. We also oppose the use of a LoƩery to
inform the process.
>
> City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our
democraƟcally elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council.
>
> We would be there in person to express our opposiƟon but we are out of town. Thank you for listening to the
residents.
>
> Sincerely,
ᕼEIᗪI ᒍO ᑕOᖇEY
310‐656‐0000
hjc777@aol.com
1129 25th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90403
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 9:16 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Agenda Item 7.a, Tuesday, 10 October
From: Roger <rogerahill@msn.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 7, 2023 2:11 PM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Agenda Item 7.a, Tuesday, 10 October
EXTERNAL
To the City Council:
SAVE 'THE GREAT SANTA MONICA PARK'
I am writing in opposition to the Council’s adoption of the contract with Healthy Democracy in a
consultancy role for the future plans for the airport land.
Over 100 years ago, the then City Council were visionary individuals who supported a bond issue
to create The Great Santa Monica Park. It now appears that the city staff is determined to destroy
the intent of both these leaders, as well as the legal intent of the bond measure by engaging a
non‐objective consultant — Healthy Democracy.
San Francisco has it’s Golden Gate Park and New York City its Central Park and the members of
the council now have the opportunity to realize the concept of a Great Santa Monica Park focused
on a wide range of athletic facilities and open spaces to serve the city’s 90,000 residents.
Everyone knows Santa Monica is a dramatically “under parked” city.
The City Council should not be faced with a “Yes” or “No” vote on the proposed contract with
Healthy Democracy at an estimated cost of $3 million. The council should have had a public
hearing of at least three competing consultants who stress their background and capabilities. The
council should not relinquish their responsibility to unnamed, unaccountable staff members to
decide this critical, long‐term matter.
It is clear that the “lottery” methodology that Healthy Democracy has adopted as their “secret
sauce” has not been exhaustively examined by staff, and it seems likely no one on the council
could possibly explain it in detail nor defend it to the community. Santa Monica should not be
another guinea pig for this unique method that ignores various vested citizen groups. If the city
wants to spend such an excessive amount of money on a lottery, perhaps they should buy a
PowerBall ticket instead.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
It also is not lost on any informed individual that just because you call something “democratic”
does not make it so. In fact, upon further examination the name Healthy Democracy is suggestive
of an Orwellian effort to distort the consultant’s true agenda which is to make sure the road is
cleared for excessive development of this invaluable public land.
Let’s be honest, Healthy Democracy is arguably influenced by Public Access Democracy, and “PAD"
is not independent from Leonora Camner and Abundant Housing LA. Nothing would make "AHLA"
happier that to see a dozen, 100‐foot tall market‐rate high‐rises scattered across the land
purchased for The Great Santa Monica Park!
If you are truly independent in your decision making, connecting the dots is not at all difficult —
AD should have no role in the future determination of the airport land.
Please vote “NO” on Tuesday and reaffirm the city’s intent to create a unique, once in a
generation effort that will last for another 100 years.
Roger A. Hill
A 40‐year resident.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Daniel Galamba <galambadb@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 9:31 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline
Torosis; Oscar de la Torre
Subject:City Council Meeting Oct 10, 2023 Item 7.A. Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the
Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
I must ask you NOT to accept a loƩery selected process for the Santa Monica Airport and not to accept the organizaƟon
Healthy Democracy to conduct it. A loƩery selected process is clearly undemocraƟc as it excludes input from the people
of Santa Monica. Furthermore, Healthy Democracy has plainly shown its bias toward housing and against the objecƟve
of preserving the Santa Monica Airport as an open space park and this was the preference of the voters of Santa Monica
when they voted for ProposiƟon LC. ProposiƟon LC was sold to the voters of Santa Monica as converƟng the Airport into
a park, not housing. I urge you to use the standard review process to decide the future of the Santa Monica Airport in
accordance with the wishes of the voters of Santa Monica when they approved ProposiƟon LC. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr Daniel Galamba
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Gail Gordon <gailrgordon@me.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 10:17 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 7-A
EXTERNAL
I am a resident of Sunset Park and live next door to the airport. We were promised we would have total input into the
future of the airport. Developing the land was never part of the discussion when the iniƟal count was taken as to
whether the airport should stay or go.
There is no Ingres or egress for more than a few people at a Ɵme I do not wish to live near a housing development for
years. I’d rather keep the airport.
Thank you
Gail Gordon
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Carol <caroljoffe@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 10:40 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:7-A
EXTERNAL
The Santa Monica Airport is in my back yard. I strongly oppose your “Healthy' DemocraƟc loƩery .
It is neither democraƟc and certainly not healthy.
You, as our City Council, are the only authorized body to make decisions about how the land at the airport is used.
We are choking on grid lock already. This space must be preserved for breathing room. The quality of life for the
residents of Santa Monica must be respected. That would be “healthy.”
Thank you,
carol Joffe
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Cheryl Downey <cheryld2520@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 10:48 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Reject Lottery Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As a long time Santa Monica resident, I respectfully urge the Council to reject the lottery process for Santa Monica
Airport for exactly the reasons the Friends of Sunset Park have researched and detailed.
Thank you for your consideration of this extremely important issue,
Cheryl Downey
Pearl Street
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Steve Barnett <stevenmcb@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 11:08 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Pam Winn Barnett
Subject:Healthy Democracy is not Healthy or Democratic
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
Healthy Democracy is not Healthy or DemocraƟc. Neither is a loƩery to guide input.
We strongly oppose approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the Future of Santa Monica Airport.
We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city decision making. We also oppose the use of a LoƩery to
inform the process.
City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our
democraƟcally elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council.
Thank you for listening to the residents. We’re who you represent.
Sincerely
Steve BarneƩ and Pamela Winn BarneƩ
2526 California Avenue
Santa Monica
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Roger <rogerahill@msn.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 11:46 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda Item 7.A, 10 October 2023
EXTERNAL
To the City Council:
SAVE 'THE GREAT SANTA MONICA PARK'
I am writing in opposition to the Council’s adoption of the contract with Healthy
Democracy in a consultancy role for the future plans for the airport land.
Over 100 years ago, the then City Council were visionary individuals who supported a
bond issue to create The Great Santa Monica Park. It now appears that the city staff
is determined to destroy the intent of both these leaders, as well as the legal intent
of the bond measure by engaging a non‐objective consultant — Healthy Democracy.
San Francisco has it’s Golden Gate Park and New York City its Central Park and the
members of the council now have the opportunity to realize the concept of a Great
Santa Monica Park focused on a wide range of athletic facilities and open spaces to
serve the city’s 90,000 residents. Everyone knows Santa Monica is a dramatically
“under parked” city.
The City Council should not be faced with a “Yes” or “No” vote on the proposed
contract with Healthy Democracy at an estimated cost of $3 million. The council
should have had a public hearing of at least three competing consultants who stress
their background and capabilities. The council should not relinquish their
responsibility to unnamed, unaccountable staff members to decide this critical, long‐
term matter.
It is clear that the “lottery” methodology that Healthy Democracy has adopted as
their “secret sauce” has not been exhaustively examined by staff, and it seems likely
no one on the council could possibly explain it in detail nor defend it to the
community. Santa Monica should not be another guinea pig for this unique method
that ignores various vested citizen groups. If the city wants to spend such an
excessive amount of money on a lottery, perhaps they should buy a PowerBall ticket
instead.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
It also is not lost on any informed individual that just because you call something
“democratic” does not make it so. In fact, upon further examination the
name Healthy Democracy is suggestive of an Orwellian effort to distort the
consultant’s true agenda which is to make sure the road is cleared for excessive
development of this invaluable public land.
Let’s be honest, Healthy Democracy is arguably influenced by Public Access
Democracy, and “PAD" is not independent from Leonora Camner and Abundant
Housing LA. Nothing would make "AHLA" happier that to see a dozen, 100‐foot tall
market‐rate high‐rises scattered across the land purchased for The Great Santa
Monica Park!
If you are truly independent in your decision making, connecting the dots is not at all
difficult — AD should have no role in the future determination of the airport land.
Please vote “NO” on Tuesday and reaffirm the city’s intent to create a unique, once
in a generation effort that will last for another 100 years.
Roger A. Hill
A 40‐year resident.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Lauren de la Fuente <lauren@pearlstreetmarketing.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 12:30 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:I opposed Agenda item 7-A -- Study Session
EXTERNAL
City Council:
Agenda item 7‐A ‐‐ Study Session regarding using the “democratic lottery process” as the primary public engagement
method for determining the Future of Santa Monica Airport.
I oppose the city using the Healthy Democracy organization in determining the future of Santa Monica Airport, as it does
not seem to be impartial, and it may have a conflict of interest due to its connection to a pro‐housing advocate.
I oppose using Healthy Democracy's “Lottery‐selected panel process” in our city’s decision‐making. City decision‐making,
and engagement by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to
inform and serve the Council, not just a group of randomly‐selected people.
I oppose the suggested “framing question” in the staff report: “How should the diverse needs of our community inform
the future of the Airport land and the balances of land use and development that will most effectively contribute to
Santa Monica’s long‐term vitality?”
That question points the proposed panel’s deliberations toward development. Missing is the Measure LC language
about parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities. Any framing question should include the constraints
of Measure LC, distinguishing between what can be done under Measure LC’s City Charter Amendment, and what would
need further voter approval.
I vote. I voted for LC. Votes should COUNT!
Please do the right thing.
Sincerely,
Lauren de la Fuente
Lauren de la Fuente
2110 Pearl Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Founder and Strategic Advisor
Pearl Street Marketing
lauren@pearlstreetmarketing.com
310.283.8488
www.pearlstreetmarketing.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/laurendelafuente/
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Bob Sevy <bobsevy@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 1:16 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la
Torre
Subject:No SMO Airport? Be Careful What You Wish For! ( Item 7-A )
EXTERNAL
Honorable Council members,
Some of you might recall my efforts to “Save the Cottage” located at 2219 Ocean Ave. a number of years ago.
I would like to take this opportunity to provide some thoughts about the future of SMO, the Santa Monica airport.
Please allow me to summarize my thoughts as follows:
Noise for all of "us"
Public space for some of us.
Emergency Services for None of us.
Noise: I think the noise issue for “All of Us” might be a surprise for the bulk of the residents of our
city. Perhaps some of you have already noticed a bit more “Commercial Jet” noise over the city. Especially in the
mornings, and later at night? It is my understanding that the FAA regulates height restrictions of LAX jets over cities,
including SM. With the existing SMO airport, that height limit currently exists at approximately 5k feet I believe. It was
higher before the most recent changes to the airport. Once SMO is gone, the FAA will remove local airport restrictions
and LAX’s commercial jets will be able to glide into LAX at a lower level (and take‐offs of course). The reason this will
happen is simple, the airlines will save costs. In other words, it’s going to happen and jet liner noise will increase for all
of us. Are you aware of this eventuality? Think about the other communities near LAX that have been experiencing
noise issues already that are much greater than SMO.
Public Space: We are lucky to have a large public space already, the Beach and the Pier. We also have a number of
parks in our city; tennis courts, soccer fields and bike paths. Although a huge amenity for our citizens, not everyone uses
them (I’ll hold my tongue on the unhoused use).
Emergencies: This is one of those items you do not appreciate until you do. Another huge earthquake affecting our
area? More riots breakout? Some weird fire blows through our area somehow? Who knows with global warming what
will come next? I personally believe that our community will need emergency services on a grand scale at some point
and the airport will help facilitate saving lives. Our community apparently undervalued SMO and I’m afraid the collective
we will regret losing it.
These are my thoughts and I appreciate your consideration.
Bob
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Kathy Zurich-Lunsford <kathyz66@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 1:20 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Daniel Lunsford
Subject:10/10/23 Agenda item 7.A - Discussion of the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
We strongly oppose approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the
Future of Santa Monica Airport. We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in
any city decision making. We also oppose the use of a Lottery to inform the process.
City decision-making, and engagement in that decision-making by all stakeholders, is
the responsibility of our democratically elected City Council and the staff hired by the
City to inform and serve the Council.
We would be there in person to express our opposition but we are out of town. Thank
you for listening to the residents.
Sincerely,
Kathy Zurich-Lunsford
Dan Lunsford
1055 Lincoln Blvd.
Kathy Zurich-Lunsford
Julia & Derricks Mom
c: 310-569-1202
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass. It's about learning to dance in the rain.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Save The Cottage <savethecottage@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 1:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fwd: FW: No SMO Airport? Be Careful What You Wish For! ( Item 7-A )
EXTERNAL
Note: I meant to send this from the SaveTheCottage email address and not my personal email. I will resend. Please do
not post my personal email into the public record ‐ SORRY
Honorable Council members,
Some of you might recall my efforts to “Save the Cottage” located at 2219 Ocean Ave. a number of years ago.
I would like to take this opportunity to provide some thoughts about the future of SMO, the Santa Monica airport.
Please allow me to summarize my thoughts as follows:
Noise for all of "us"
Public space for some of us.
Emergency Services for None of us.
Noise: I think the noise issue for “All of Us” might be a surprise for the bulk of the residents of our
city. Perhaps some of you have already noticed a bit more “Commercial Jet” noise over the city. Especially in the
mornings, and later at night? It is my understanding that the FAA regulates height restrictions of LAX jets over cities,
including SM. With the existing SMO airport, that height limit currently exists at approximately 5k feet I believe. It was
higher before the most recent changes to the airport. Once SMO is gone, the FAA will remove local airport restrictions
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
and LAX’s commercial jets will be able to glide into LAX at a lower level (and take‐offs of course). The reason this will
happen is simple, the airlines will save costs. In other words, it’s going to happen and jet liner noise will increase for all
of us. Are you aware of this eventuality? Think about the other communities near LAX that have been experiencing
noise issues already that are much greater than SMO.
Public Space: We are lucky to have a large public space already, the Beach and the Pier. We also have a number of
parks in our city; tennis courts, soccer fields and bike paths. Although a huge amenity for our citizens, not everyone uses
them (I’ll hold my tongue on the unhoused use).
Emergencies: This is one of those items you do not appreciate until you do. Another huge earthquake affecting our
area? More riots breakout? Some weird fire blows through our area somehow? Who knows with global warming what
will come next? I personally believe that our community will need emergency services on a grand scale at some point
and the airport will help facilitate saving lives. Our community apparently undervalued SMO and I’m afraid the collective
we will regret losing it.
These are my thoughts and I appreciate your consideration.
Bob
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Save The Cottage <savethecottage@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 1:25 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:No SMO Airport? Be Careful What You Wish For! ( Item 7-A )
EXTERNAL
Honorable Council members,
Some of you might recall my efforts to “Save the Cottage” located at 2219 Ocean Ave. a number of years ago.
I would like to take this opportunity to provide some thoughts about the future of SMO, the Santa Monica airport.
Please allow me to summarize my thoughts as follows:
Noise for all of "us"
Public space for some of us.
Emergency Services for None of us.
Noise: I think the noise issue for “All of Us” might be a surprise for the bulk of the residents of our
city. Perhaps some of you have already noticed a bit more “Commercial Jet” noise over the city. Especially in the
mornings, and later at night? It is my understanding that the FAA regulates height restrictions of LAX jets over cities,
including SM. With the existing SMO airport, that height limit currently exists at approximately 5k feet I believe. It was
higher before the most recent changes to the airport. Once SMO is gone, the FAA will remove local airport restrictions
and LAX’s commercial jets will be able to glide into LAX at a lower level (and take‐offs of course). The reason this will
happen is simple, the airlines will save costs. In other words, it’s going to happen and jet liner noise will increase for all
of us. Are you aware of this eventuality? Think about the other communities near LAX that have been experiencing
noise issues already that are much greater than SMO.
Public Space: We are lucky to have a large public space already, the Beach and the Pier. We also have a number of
parks in our city; tennis courts, soccer fields and bike paths. Although a huge amenity for our citizens, not everyone uses
them (I’ll hold my tongue on the unhoused use).
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
Emergencies: This is one of those items you do not appreciate until you do. Another huge earthquake affecting our
area? More riots breakout? Some weird fire blows through our area somehow? Who knows with global warming what
will come next? I personally believe that our community will need emergency services on a grand scale at some point
and the airport will help facilitate saving lives. Our community apparently undervalued SMO and I’m afraid the collective
we will regret losing it.
These are my thoughts and I appreciate your consideration.
Bob
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Cynthia Rose <Cynthia@berettarose.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 2:07 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:In support of Agenda Item 7A
EXTERNAL
Honorable City Council:
Please support the innovative Lottery Selected public engagement process proposed in Item 7A for the future of the
airport.
The Lottery‐based process represents Santa Monica’s values that you support:
Inclusiveness and Representation — it ensures participation from people of all socio‐economic backgrounds, all
demographics.
Collaboration — the panel listens to and works with the wide range of community groups.
Integrity — the process is research based, includes input from all stakeholders/individuals/groups, which leads to
thoughtful and independent outcomes.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose
Sent from imobile device, please excuse random acts of autocorrect....
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Mark Schubb <mschubb@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 2:18 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda item 7-A
EXTERNAL
I live blocks from the airport and stand with Friends of Sunset Part on this one. No to the lottery and no on this contract.
In my many decades living in Santa Monica, one thing I 've learned is that there is NO "participatory process" that city
staff or its consultants can conduct with residents that does not lead to MORE egregious overdevelopment and traffic‐‐
confounding every resident who has ever participated in these conversations.
The filter, the framing, the process, the "professional report" ‐‐ the entire game ‐‐ is always driven to the advantage of
developers and counter to the actual input from residents. Progressive ideals like public art, sustainability or the
latest DEI language are just a distraction.
Lipstick on a pig.
Please vote no.
Thanks,
Mark Schubb
Sunset Park
90405
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Elaine Golden-Gealer <elaine@elaine360.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 2:24 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:ITEM 7-A
EXTERNAL
Santa Monica residents want to control the outcome of what happens to the airport.
A random lottery of SM & LA residents can be influenced more easily than local
activists who have educated themselves on the issues around the airport.
A lottery system will most likely lead to a developer's paradise....but a Santa
Monica hell hole with thousands of low income apartments, hundreds of multi-
million dollar condos, a magnet to out of state & non-Santa Monica California
homeless who like warm weather, lax drug laws & all of our multitudinous free
services.
Elaine Golden-Gealer
Santa Monica Resident since 1977
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Madi Hertz <srahertz@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 2:27 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:7-A
EXTERNAL
Dear Council members,
We need to do beƩer with the airport land. This is the resident’s land, not the developer’s. Please don’t let special
interests take our wealth. Land is the only riches we have leŌ, along with the Pier and the Civic Auditorium.
Do not sell our legacy. Also, you might do some research about the Great Park in Irvine. Another former airport site that
was well developed .
Thank you,
Madi Hertz
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Karen Melick <klmelick@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 12:18 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:David White
Subject:October 10 Agenda item 7A Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
EXTERNAL
Hello City Council,
My feedback for the staff's recommended action regarding the Lottery-Selected panel process for the Airport is as follows:
1) While I support looking at ways to make the community engagement process more efficient and effective, I'm
concerned that the proposed process will not adequately allow the input from residents and stakeholder groups. These
groups must go through the not well defined "Information Committee" to have access to present to the lottery committee.
Given the timetable, I don't see how all the stakeholder groups will be able to adequately provide input. I am also not
confident that the people chosen by lottery will be able to adequately represent my interests.
2) The framing question should have the words "and development" removed. The panel should not include business
owners or people from West LA. In fact there should be greater representation from the Santa Monica neighborhoods
surrounding the airport as they will be most affected by the plans.
3) THIS CONTRACT SHOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT BE SOLE SOURCED!!!!! For a contract this size ($1.2 to $1.5
million) it should go through the RFP process to make sure the City is not overpaying. If Healthy Democracy is the only
company that provides this service, then it makes me even more skeptical about going this route. The City should also
evaluate the connection that Leonora Camner has with Healthy Democracy and make sure that her involvement will not
influence Healthy Democracy to steer the Lottery-Selected panel to include housing units when Measure LC dictates that
it become a park.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Karen Melick
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Steve Mount <sjmount@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 2:40 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Healthy Democracy and the Santa Monica Airport property
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
We strongly oppose approval of Healthy Democracy in playing an outsized role to determine the future of the Santa
Monica Airport property. We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city decision making as they do not
represent the citizens of our city but instead represent the special interests of developers instead.
City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our
democratically elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council in its decision making
process as representatives of the citizens of Santa Monica.
With best regards,
Pamela and Steve Mount
2519 California Avenue
Santa Monica 90403
(951) 323‐1852
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Ann Hoover <annkbowman@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 4:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Caroline
Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Denise Anderson-Warren
Cc:David White; Susan Cline; Douglas Sloan; Susan Cola; Rick Valte; Amber Richane; Christopher Dishlip;
Amelia Feichtner; Alex Parry
Subject:Council Agenda Item 7.A. 10/10/23 - Oppose Healthy Democracy proposal; it violates the City
Charter
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and Esteemed Councilmembers:
Please reject the proposal to hire "Healthy Democracy" to conduct the City's
community outreach for the Airport-to-park process. Using "Healthy
Democracy" will result in a process that is neither healthy or
democratic. Why?
Most notably, the proposed process would undercut the controlling
impact of the Measure LC directive / City Charter Amendment, and
violates the City Charter with respect to the mandates contained within the
Charter for participation by the City's Charter-enumerated Boards and
Commissions: Planning, Aviation, and Recreation and Parks in a planning
process such as this one.
Specifically, any lottery system will violate the City charter by
displacing and usurping the "powers and duties" given to the City's
advisory Boards and Commissions, which SHALL (not may) advise
Council on many matters, including all of those that pertain to turning the
Airport into a park. This is why the Civic Working Group process in 2014-
2015 for the Civic Auditorium, as an example, included seats explicitly for
representatives from the Landmarks, Planning, Arts, and Recreation and
Parks Commissions.
In addition:
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
"Healthy Democracy" (a misnomer if I've ever seen one - think
George Orwell's "1984") has no proven track record - its one main
project (the Petaluma Fairgrounds) did not result in a plan acceptable to
the community and may trigger litigation.
The "Healthy Democracy" process will be expensive (likely over
$1.5 million dollars) - In contrast, the City paid HR&A somewhere
between $300K and $400K to do the 2014-15 Civic Working Group
process. Using "Healthy Democracy" would be 5x that cost.
The "Healthy Democracy" proposal initiates a process that is
both unnecessarily complicated and also oddly exclusive and
limited. So just say 'no'. I am confident that the traditional approach
of Staff and the Design and Technical Team working together will be
successful in thoroughly engaging community members.
There are other far less expensive ways to include people who
need financial support to participate and for a fraction of the cost
Staff can invite them. Noticing local churches and other organized
religious groups, non-profits offering supportive services, PTAs,
community service organizations, and other community groups of long-
standing is a great way to inform and seek volunteers who may need
help with babysitting or transportation to planning events. Keep it
simple!
"Healthy Democracy" is irrevocably tainted by association with
lobbyist Leonora Camner & the "build, baby, build" housing
agenda. Ms. Camner, a paid lobbyist who Council would have (and
should have) removed from the Housing Commission had her term not
almost been up, agendized "Healthy Democracy" for Housing
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
3
Commission discussion in 2021 and since that time has promoted
"Healthy Democracy" through her tool/mouthpiece on Council, Jesse
Zwick. If Council and the City want the Airport envisioning process to
be unbiased and achieve broad-based community input, they will not
hire a company to conduct the process that is so clearly connected and
synonymous with Leonora Camner & the excessive, harmful, politically-
driven, and on-steroids market rate housing development agenda that is
funded by the developer lobby & which has caused such acrimony in
our town.
It is not healthy or democratic to cut the obvious stakeholders out
of the process. One clear example is the residents and businesses in
Sunset Park - they have and will continue to bear the brunt of whatever
happens on the Airport land and should have a significant say in the
decision-making process. There also are individuals who possess
extensive Santa Monica history and institutional knowledge who should
unquestionably be part of the process, plus members of the
aforementioned the Charter-mandated City Boards & Commissions.
Hiring "Healthy Democracy" unfortunately would confirm to the
community that Council aims to undercut the Measure LC
mandate. While any airport envisioning process will flesh out details
and answer questions not specifically answered in the language of
Measure LC, both Councilmembers such as Mayor Davis in a recent
neighborhood group meeting and local organizations such as the
Democratic Club have stated that "lots of people have ideas for the
airport and we want to bring all of them into the process". Oh really?
The community already set forth its vision for the Airport Park in
Measure LC. So please remember that trying to ignore or subvert
the legitimate results of an election (60% of eligible voters
supported LC) is sadly familiar -- quite TRUMPIAN, don't you
think?
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
4
Hiring "Healthy Democracy" opens the door to the insertion of
unknown entities and influences into the planning process. Please
see the draft below from "Healthy Democracy" of a proposed
breakdown of costs by Payee (at the bottom of the chart).
o The proposed flow of money (to whom?) is incredibly opaque and
not transparent.
o Who are these "local subcontractors and services"?
o Who are these "other partners and services"?
o 60% of the contract might be paid out to these mystery entities,
so in hiring "Healthy Democracy" Council effectively would
sanction contracting or subcontracting with entities not yet
identified or able to be known at this time or in November. This
is the opposite of a transparent process and may raise Oaks
Initiative issues.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
5
In short, the proposed use of "Healthy Democracy" - being neither healthy
or democratic - is not right for Santa Monica. Accordingly, with respect to
the direction Staff seeks tomorrow night from Council:
1. Please reject the democratic lottery process as the primary public
engagement method for the Future of the Santa Monica Airport project;
However -
2. If and only if a majority of Council votes to proceed with "Healthy
Democracy", please provide direction to staff that the framing question
the Lottery Selected Panel would answer must exclude the words
"and development" and that the Lottery Selected Panel should be
comprised ONLY of Santa Monica residents and should explicitly
exclude non-resident business owners and/or people from the adjacent
West Los Angeles area.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
6
Bottom line, I respectfully ask that Council not proceed any further with
"Healthy Democracy" and thereby demonstrate your commitment to
implementing a community engagement process that is of the highest
transparency and integrity, not one that has generated community-wide
questions and objections from the very start and which has the potential to
result in legal complexities and even litigation for the City.
Sincerely,
Ann Bowman
Santa Monica resident, 27 years
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
7
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:David Earl Woodbury <davidearlwoodbury@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 4:32 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support the Innovative Lottery in Item 7A for the airport
EXTERNAL
10‐9‐23
Honorable City Council:
Please support the innovative Lottery Selected public engagement process proposed in Item 7A for the future of the
airport.
The Lottery‐based process represents Santa Monica’s values that you support:
Inclusiveness and Representation — it ensures participation from people of all socio‐economic backgrounds, all
demographics.
Collaboration — the panel listens to and works with the wide range of community groups.
Integrity — the process is research based, includes input from all stakeholders/individuals/groups, which leads to
thoughtful and independent outcomes.
Sincerely,
David Earl Woodbury
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Remember, I'm never too busy for your GUEST referrals!
DavidEarlWoodbury@Gmail.com
Cell: 310‐579‐5058
Arthur Murray Dance Center Santa Monica ‐ FREE PARKING!
928 Broadway
Santa Monica, CA 90401
310‐260‐8886
Upcoming Events!
October - Tournament of Champions Sponsorship
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
November 14 - Medal Ball
December 3 - Murray Christmas Party
December 10 - Holiday Star Ball
November - December - Tournament of Champions
Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce Member, SQA Winner!
Most Loved Winner for 2023! Best of the West Side Winners
Follow us on Facebook
Please write us a review on Google or Yelp
Write us a review on: Yelp
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:SUZANNE ESCOFFIER <escoffiers@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 4:44 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Council meeting 10/10/23, Item 7A
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council members:
Airport2Park has worked with the community to provide a solid set of goals that have withstood the
test of time, budgets, and pandemics. You already have frameworks on which to base a framing
question. Don’t ignore the work that has already done. The purpose of LC and its charter section is
clear: "Development” should not be inserted into any framing question regarding the Airport land.
Thank you
Suzanne Escoffier
Ocean Park resident
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Danielle Charney <shineshuge@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 4:51 PM
To:councilmtgitems; David White; doug.sloan@santamonica.gov; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Lana
Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Gleam Davis; councilmailbox@santamonica.gov; Phil
Brock
Subject:Item 7-A. OPPOSE HEALTY DEMOCRACY RE;SMO LOTTERY
EXTERNAL
GET RID OF HEALTHY DEMOCRACY in all ways
but never never let them near the airport decisions.
What in the hell are you thinking?
OPPOSE OPPOSE OPPOSE - both hiring this absurd company that is tied to Abundant
Housing -developer lobbyists and to SMF..enablers of it all..
WHAT ARE YOU DOING? YOU HAVE LET ABDO, SMF AND ABUNDANT HOUSING
AND LEONORA CAMNER raise out mandatory units to nearly 9000 units.They were low
before that. They also installed Jesse Zwick. They intend to take over this town and are
destroying it.
"The three groups also oppose staff's proposal to hire Healthy Democracy, a group Northeast
Neighbors linked to former Housing Commissioner Leonora Camner, executive director of
Abundant Housing LA, which "engineered an increase in the housing allocation for Santa
Monica."
"Healthy Democracy claims to be a nonpartisan nonprofit organization," Northeast Neighbors
wrote in its letter to the Council, proving links that connect the group to Camner. "That is not
the case.
"Healthy Democracy is aligned with a developer lobby that would favor an outcome at the
airport in direct conflict with the expressed preferences of almost all residents of the city for an
ultra-low-density open space."
Do it now..please ..stop playing into these people -
and stop destroying what is left of this town -
Danielle Charney
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Katharine King <kingkl@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 5:04 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Yes on Lottery Selected public Engagement Process
EXTERNAL
Dear Honorable City Council:
Please support the innovative Lottery Selected public engagement process proposed in Item 7A for the future of the
airport.
The Lottery‐based process represents Santa Monica’s values that you support:
Inclusiveness and Representation — it ensures participation from people of all socio‐economic backgrounds, all
demographics.
Collaboration — the panel listens to and works with the wide range of community groups.
Integrity — the process is research based, includes input from all stakeholders/individuals/groups, which leads to
thoughtful and independent outcomes.
Sincerely,
Katharine King
632 Pacific Street Unit1
Santa Monica. CA
Sent from AOL on Android
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Noma Boardmember <nomaboard@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 5:17 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Phil
Brock
Cc:Clerk Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Bruce Leddy; ncoleman1@verizon.net
Subject:ITEM 7A. /Council Mtg 10-10-23
EXTERNAL
To help protect yMicrosoft Office pautomatic downlopicture from the
Re: Item 7A. Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
Mayor Davis and Esteemed Council Members -
As you know, in 2014 Santa Monica voters overwhelmingly approved Measure LC which allows "the
development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities" on the airport land, and prohibits
new development without voter approval. The Executive Board of NOMA therefore urges Council to proceed
cautiously with any process that could circumvent the expressed will of voters. Friends of Sunset Park has
enumerated many potential problems with the proposed plan for a lottery-selected panel (LSP) coordinated by
Healthy Democracy. We support their concerns and have the following additional thoughts.
While an LSP is appealing in that it encourages participation by a wide cross-section of randomly selected
residents, the proposal in the Staff Report falls short of that ideal. If Council insists on this process, we
recommend the following changes:
1)REVISE THE FRAMING QUESTION - the framing question for the panel to consider must be neutral.
Currently, the suggested question in the Staff Report suggests the panel must find a "balance of land-uses and
development," (p10) which pre-supposes the inclusion of development at the airport, in direct contradiction to
Measure LC. We recommend striking that clause so the question remains neutral and open-ended, such as,
"How should the diverse needs of our community inform the future of the Airport land in a way that will
most effectively contribute to Santa Monica's long-term vitality?"
2)VET THE PANELISTS - the Staff Report describes the LSP function as, "analogous to a jury trial" (p9)
where impartial jurors are presented evidence and reach a conclusion. This is not an accurate comparison:
after random selection, jury members go through vois dire which removes people with vested interests in a
particular outcome, or other relevant experiences or biases that would predispose them to certain conclusions.
A process must be added so that potential panel members who have a conflict of interest or any potential
financial gain from a certain outcome in the airport plan are disqualified.
2)MAKE THE SCHEDULE WORK FOR MORE PEOPLE - In order for the LSP to be broadly representative of
Santa Monica residents, it needs to be structured so the maximum number of people will agree to enter the
lottery. The proposed schedule of full-day meetings, over three day weekends, for six weekends, eliminates
anyone who works regular hours, anyone who has children that need care on weekends, anyone who has a
job that includes weekends, etc. It leaves a narrow, unrepresentative pool of potential applicants. This could
be mitigated by making the meetings once a week, only in the evening or on weekends, only a few hours at a
time, holding them on Zoom... anything to make the meetings as easy as possible for a broader group
of people to say "Yes" to entering the lottery.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
3)HOLD SEATS FOR FOSP- The Staff Report mentions potentially holding two seats for residents of West LA
as they are likely to be impacted by airport changes. But Sunset Park residents will be far and away the most
impacted. A purely random lottery might result in a panel with no residents from Sunset Park, leaving the fate
of their neighborhood in the hands of non-residents. It is essential that some percentage of seats be reserved
for Sunset Park residents to ensure they have a voice at the table.
4)DEFINE "DIVERSITY" - The report states that Healthy Democracy will take the respondents who enter
the lottery and create a panel that "reflects the diversity of Santa Monica." (p7) But it doesn't define what the
criteria are for diversity: is it racial, economic, geographic, age, gender, renter/homeowner/business owner...?
Council should require a specific definition of "diversity" in this context so that the most relevant criteria are
being considered in forming a representative panel.
5)VET THE GATEKEEPERS - The panel will only be as unbiased in its assessment of the airport land options
as the people they hear from and the information they are given. Therefore, it is crucial that whoever
administers the panel be impartial. Friends of Sunset Park raises concerns about Healthy Democracy's
neutrality that should be carefully investigated. Further, the Staff Report mentions an Information Committee
(IC, p10) which will control what is presented to the panel, ostensibly to ensure unbiased information flow. But
it does not define who is on the IC and how they are chosen. This needs to be defined before going to
contract.
6)MAXIMIZE TRANSPARENCY - as with any City Commission that functions in an advisory capacity to City
Council, all meetings of the LSP should be open to the public via teleconference and recorded for the public's
benefit. This will allow public scrutiny of the information presented to the panel and help ensure its accuracy.
7)QUESTION THE COST - nearly $3 million for this process seems egregious, particularly compared to other
city projects run by Healthy Democracy. The cost needs to be justified, and if possible, the process opened to
other potential bidders. Given the fact that residents have already explicitly indicated their desire for a park at
the airport through Measure LC, one has to wonder whether this entire process, and the expense of running it,
makes any sense at all.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Bruce Leddy
Chair, NOMA
smnoma.org
NOMAboard@gmail.com
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Jan-Peter Flack <epum@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 5:42 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Jan-Peter Flack
Subject:Reject the Lottery Process for Santa Monica Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear City Counci.
As a resident and homeowner near the airport of 25 years, I urge you to respect the real democraƟc process that we
fought for long before you served in the City Council.
Namely Measure LC.
We understand how vulnerable members of the City Council have been in the past to Developer’s interests.
The park on which an airport was placed should now go back to serve the public as a park, its original designaƟon.
Don’t endanger our democraƟc accomplishment with the “democraƟc loƩery process”. It’s a smokescreen to confuse
the ciƟzens of Santa Monica,
Plain and simple.
Thank you.
Jan‐Peter Flack
2522 32nd Street
32nd Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Marc Verville <ml.verville@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 5:46 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana
Negrete
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:SMCC 2023-10-10 Item 7.A. - Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to strongly oppose every aspect of staff’s Item 7.A. recommendations, specifically:
1. The use of a staff proposal to change the fundamental structure of City governance,
especially one described as “Co‐governance” within the context of involvement by the
organization known as Healthy Democracy[a]
2. Use of a lottery process as the primary public engagement method for the Future of the
Santa Monica Airport project
3. Suggestion that any non‐Santa Monica resident and taxpayer should be involved in the
decision
4. Framing of any question on the Airport’s future to include development
1. The use of a staff proposal to change the fundamental structure of City governance,
especially one described as “Co‐governance[a]” within the context of involvement by the
organization known as Healthy Democracy
Council should not countenance any staff proposal to introduce “co‐governance” to Santa
Monica. The fact that this has been allowed to proceed onto the Council agenda is
extraordinarily troubling. It is entirely unclear how Council has failed to recognize that in its
implied contract with the voters of this city, such a fundamental disenfranchisement of the
key stakeholders in this city is entirely unacceptable, and in bad faith. Most troubling is the
precedent this would set, opening up all future contentious issues to core stakeholder
disintermediation.
Any Council contemplation of such a fundamental change in representative structure
should only be manifested by a ballot initiative presented to the residents to ensure clear
and unambiguous voter consent, if such consent is ever given.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
2. Use of a lottery process as the primary public engagement method for the Future of the
Santa Monica Airport project
Given the highly disparate and immensely consequential impacts of any Santa Monica
Airport decision on the different stakeholders in the city, there cannot be a more
inappropriate public engagement method than a lottery. That this is not self‐evident to the
staff and Council is inexplicable.
Options for the future of the Santa Monica Airport all have highly disproportionate impacts
to the various stakeholders in the city, on multiple dimensions. Sunset Park would be
disproportionately impacted from traffic, congestion, and pollution from the impacts of
permanent development.
Moreover, a random selection process would include its own biases by reflecting the highly
skewed demographics of the city which in turn are highly divergent from the distribution of
burdens for each option. Approximately 70% of the city’s housing units are multi‐family
rental while single family parcels are over 70% of the taxable parcels. Single family parcels
comprise 45% of the city’s assessed property tax base while multi‐family parcels comprise
17%. So, it will be primarily single‐family homeowners that would bear the brunt of any
new parcel taxes that would be necessary to finance the towering costs of construction
alternatives of either a park or development.
As a rough example of the potential disproportional impacts, and using the City’s Memorial
Park Plan[b], a 187‐acre Airport park could cost over $2 billion with inflation. That would
average out to between $60,000 and $98,000 per taxable single‐family parcel. Including
bond interest could double that liability.
The land use environment is also much more complex than when Measure LC was passed,
with state usurpation of much of the City’s land use authority since LC’s passage in 2014. It
is highly likely that elements of 2014’s Measure LC are now impacted by the state
legislation introduced since 2016. Eliminating federal protection against development that
accompanies an aviation facility may open up the airport parcels to subsequent
development that is not even within the control of the city. These issues need to be
thoroughly understood, viable mitigating alternatives developed, with clear presentation to
the Council and the voters.
A randomly chosen, non‐technical group will struggle with the critical analysis capabilities
required for ensuring cost estimates and financing alternatives are correct and adequately
reflect the economics of each alternative. Understanding all the implications of the state
land use constructs and legislation on the long‐term parcel outcomes will add further
analytical complexity.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
3
Residents on all sides of this issue have fought hard to present their case. Disenfranchising
all these city stakeholders in one swoop is one of the most anti‐democratic and anti‐
representative actions the Council can take.
3. Suggestion that any non‐Santa Monica resident should be involved in the decision
The mere suggestion that any representation would be given to any individual or group
that will have absolutely no obligation to assume any funding burden for the towering
once‐in‐a‐lifetime costs of any post‐airport plan is absurd and a non‐starter. The City of Los
Angeles would never allow non‐city stakeholders to dictate cost burdens to its residents.
4. Framing of any question on the Airport’s future to include development
Staff’s suggested framing includes “…how should the diverse needs of our community
inform the future of the Airport land and the balance of land‐uses and development…”
Staff seems to have completely forgotten that the entire Measure LC / Measure D contest
in 2014 was about competing visions for open space. LC even stipulated that any
development other than existing cultural had to be submitted to the voters. Since 2014, LC
proponents have vigorously denied any room for contemplation of development on the
airport parcels. Why staff believes that it is now OK to formally introduce development in
any post‐Airport visioning is in direct contradiction of all residents’ and stakeholder
expectations. This is beyond incomprehensible.
It should be noted that Santa Monica has received an approved Housing Element from the
state for the (absurd) allocation of 8,895 units it received in the state’s Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA) 6th Cycle without, it should be noted, contemplation of the use
of the Airport parcels. That means that contemplation of development at the airport is
completely unnecessary.
It should also be noted that the current 8,895‐unit mandate includes a completely
subjective and arbitrary 4,066 / 84% unit add‐on that was strongarmed into Santa Monica’s
allocation during a four week period in 2019, due entirely to an October 11, 2019 letter
sent to Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) by the Abundant Housing
LA lobby group where Ms. Camner served as Executive Director. In the December 10, 2019
Council meeting, Ms. Camner essentially threatened to send another letter to SCAG
pushing for 14,155 units if the Council objected to the grossly inflated 9,058 total she and
her group achieved in the SCAG drafting. Ms. Camner is currently a Director of Public
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
4
Access Democracy (PAD) and is on its Steering Committee. PAD is an organization that has
identified Healthy Democracy as a project partner on PAD’s website. Ms. Camner has
repeatedly pushed to involve Healthy Democracy in city land use and housing development
issues while on Satna Monica’s Housing Commission. The conflicts and bias represented by
these relationships, and the damage to Santa Monica these related groups have already
inflicted is beyond mere optics.
There is also no basis for any future contemplation of development at the airport (or
anywhere else in the city) in any future RHNA housing unit allocations. All assumptions
used in allocating the 8,895 units Santa Monica in the 6th Cycle have proven to be either
grossly overstated or highly flawed or both. Since the start of the 6th Cycle, LA County’s
population projections prepared by the state’s Department of Finance have dropped at
least 10% from the 2030 assumptions and 22% for the 2045 assumptions. This means that
Santa Monica should not receive any higher allocation in the upcoming 7th Cycle (that starts
in 2029) than it received in the 6th Cycle. In fact, the allocations should decline! That
means that contemplation of development at the airport is completely unnecessary.
Finally, if the state attempts to further inflate any unit allocation to Santa Monica in the
drafting of the 7th Cycle, perhaps to push for development at the airport, it will be the
Council’s absolute obligation to strenuously object to, and deny, any such additionally
inflated state allocation as completely arbitrary, unsound, and manipulative.
Going Forward
It is imperative that the Council devise a fully inclusive and competent stakeholder process
to determine the future of the Airport parcels. In addition to city stakeholders, this process
should also include nationally recognized, impartial consultants to assess the cost and land
use implications of any alternatives, both in the aggregate and to the various city
stakeholders that would end up footing the bills.
I strongly urge Council to reject the use of ANY substitute system to the current city
processes. I also strongly advocate for the City to fully embrace all Santa Monica, and
ONLY Santa Monica, stakeholders. In disenfranchising the City’s stakeholders from
representation, Healthy Democracy is the antithesis of democracy; it is un‐democratic.
Respectfully,
Marc L. Verville
Sunset Park
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
5
[a] Building the Future of Democracy in Petaluma, California – New America 04‐20‐2023
https://www.newamerica.org/political‐reform/briefs/citizens‐assemblies‐petaluma‐california‐cogovernance/
[b] First phases of Memorial Park redesign approved
https://smdp.com/2019/10/18/first‐phases‐of‐memorial‐park‐redesign‐approved/
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Danielle Charney <shineshuge@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 5:49 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Jesse
Zwick; Caroline Torosis; David White; Santa Monica City Manager's Office; Douglas Sloan; Denise
Anderson-Warren
Subject:Subject: Council Agenda Item 7.A 10/10/23 - Oppose Healthy Democracy and Lottery in determining
Future of Santa Monica Airport
EXTERNAL
BACKING UP NEN.. TOTALLY AGREE
OPPOSE HEALTHY DEMOCRACY AND ANY INVOLVEMENT WITH THEM IN OUR CITY
To: Santa Monica City Council
RE: 10/10/23 Agenda item 7.A ‐ Discussion of the Lottery‐Selected Panel Process for the Airport
Oct. 5, 2023
Dear Councilmembers,
We oppose approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the Future of Santa
Monica Airport. We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city decision
making. We also oppose the use of a Lottery to inform the process.
City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the
responsibility of our democratically elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform
and serve the Council.
Our opposition to Healthy Democracy:
Healthy Democracy claims to be a nonpartisan nonprofit organization. That is not the
case. Healthy Democracy is aligned with a developer lobby that would favor an outcome at the
airport in direct conflict with the expressed preferences of almost all residents of the city for an
ultra‐low‐density open space.
HD was introduced to the Housing Commission on 11‐18‐2021 by Leonora Camner based on the
rationale that they had specific expertise in housing issues. A flyer was distributed to the
Housing Commission noting HD’s housing issue experience in their project “City of Eugene
Review Panel on Housing” that was conducted during Nov. 2020 through April 2021. Housing is
NOT what the residents want for the airport. And, since the Housing Element has been
certified by the state without the airport, it is clear that the city does not need the airport for
housing.
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/HED/Housing/2021_09_23_HC3A_HealthyDemocracyPresentation.pdf
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
Healthy Democracy is not a disinterested party and has clear conflicts of
interest:
HD is identified as a “Project of” and “Resource to” an organization called Public Access
Democracy (PAD) https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/resources/.
PAD has on its coordinating committee Leonora Camner, a self‐professed YIMBY and Executive
Director of Abundant Housing LA political action committee.
https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/about/
But Leonora Camner’s singular focus on a housing outcome does not stop there. Her
organization, Abundant Housing LA (supported by the housing lobby group California YIMBY
among others) engineered an increase in the housing allocation for Santa Monica. An attorney
for Camner’s Abundant Housing LA sent a letter dated 10/11/19 to Southern California
Association of Governments, (SCAG) and that letter resulted in the increase in Santa Monica’s
housing allocation from 4,829 to 9,058 housing units.
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file‐attachments/101119abundant_housing_la.pdf?1605421607
Leonora Camner boasted about the role she played in lobbying SCAG to increase the housing
requirement for Santa Monica in an LA Times 10/25/2019 Opinion piece: "SoCal’s new housing
plan is going to make traffic and air pollution worse for everyone.” “Abundant Housing L.A.
research director Anthony Dedousis, along with UCLA urban planning professor Paavo
Monkkonen, recently developed a data‐driven methodology to determine …Santa Monica, with
its massive job base and access to rail, would get 14,155….”
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019‐10‐25/housing‐crisis‐los‐angeles‐scag‐homeless‐development
Leonora Camner took credit for the increase to the Santa Monica housing requirement in an
Opinion article published in the Santa Monica Daily Press: “Hope for a Pro‐Housing Future”
(8/29/20). Camner wrote “Fortunately, Santa Monica has been given a target of building nearly
9,000 new homes by 2029.”
https://www.smdp.com/letter‐to‐the‐editor‐hope‐for‐a‐pro‐housing‐future/195952
The Affordable Housing LA Blog announced on 11/16/21 the intention of Leonora Camner to
make a political career of supporting YIMBY candidates “Our Own Abundant Housing LA
PAC.” https://abundanthousingla.org/announcing‐our‐own‐ahla‐pac/
Because of its political alignments, Healthy Democracy cannot be counted on to act in the best
interest of the Santa Monica community. https://healthydemocracy.org
We urge Council to reject the proposed contract with Healthy Democracy because of the clear
outcome bias of the organization and the conflict created by their relationship with political
activist Leonora Camner.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
3
Our opposition to a Lottery:
A lottery is most applicable where the impacts of an issue are uniformly spread across a
population. In such a case the selection process would only apply to divergent views of a
universally‐experienced impact. No one group would have more or less stake in the outcome.
The lottery would surface the different perspectives on that outcome.
That is the opposite scenario that the Future of the Santa Monica Airport issue represents.
A lottery is the worst process imaginable to address an issue with highly disparate
impacts. The burdens of the Airport project will not be equally distributed. Sunset Park will be
disproportionately impacted by traffic, congestion and ongoing pollution from a non‐park
development on Airport land. Proportional representation of the many stakeholders is not part
of the initial (or any) selection process for invites to the lottery.
This project involves highly technical financial elements. Understanding the impact of those
elements requires expertise that the average person does not possess.
The unprecedented scale of either a park or development is far beyond any current City
financing capabilities. Significant tax increases will be required to finance the project and those
will disproportionately fall on homeowners across the entire city. A majority of renters in the
city are shielded from much of the impact from property‐related tax increases yet renters
constitute more than 70% of city households. Randomly selected city residents without any
technical background in the financial issues at play will likely be ill‐prepared to know what
questions to ask, risking significant bias based on what information they are provided with and
what information is accidently (or otherwise) omitted.
A lottery will create conflict in the process rather than simplify it:
Stakeholders will question why they will be left out of the final process after years of
engagement and advocacy.
Santa Monicans who worked hard over many years to pass Measure LC would be completely
sidelined in this process.
In addressing the Future of the Airport, the highly disparate impacts of any of the possible
changes to Airport land use require the full participation of all city stakeholders.
Slippery Slope
The online publication New America described HD’s involvement in the Petaluma Fairgrounds
issue as “collaborative governance—or “co‐governance.”
https://www.newamerica.org/political‐reform/briefs/citizens‐assemblies‐petaluma‐california‐cogovernance/
Staff should not be allowed to introduce “co‐governance” to Santa Monica and the Council
should certainly not approve such a radical departure from our rules of governance without
clear, unambiguous, voter consent.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
4
We strongly urge Council to reject the use of ANY substitute system to the current city
processes.
Healthy Democracy is the antithesis of democracy; it is un‐democratic. A lottery system of
choosing random people specifically disenfranchises important stakeholders from airing their
views publicly and the chance to publicly identify with those views; people put a lot of value in
seeing who aligns with whom, and who agrees or opposes what. Randomness eliminates the
community and the town square and substitutes anonymity. Randomness is un‐democratic and
a lottery is inherently unfair.
City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the
responsibility of our democratically elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform
and serve the Council.
FROM TRICIA CRANE AND NEN
and
I agree‐
Danelle Charney
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:emsmail135@gmail.com
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 6:05 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Jesse
Zwick; David White
Subject:CC item 7A—Oppose “Healthy Democracy” & lottery approach to SMA future
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, and esteemed Councilmembers,
I oppose the “Healthy Democracy” and lottery approach to determining the Santa Monica Airport’s future for reasons
detailed below by Northeast Neighbors and elsewhere by Friends of Sunset Park.
Vested interests driving public policy do not create a healthy democracy. Santa Monica must not empower any more
people serving unchecked conflicting interests at residents’ expense.
Please vote to oppose this newest thinly veiled effort to exploit Santa Monica for the benefit of private interests.
Thank you,
Michelle Gray
Santa Monica resident
__________
To: Santa Monica City Council
From: The Board of Northeast Neighbors
RE: 10/10/23 Agenda item 7.A ‐ Discussion of the Lottery‐Selected Panel Process for the Airport
Oct. 5, 2023
Dear Councilmembers,
We oppose approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the Future of Santa Monica Airport.
We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city decision making. We also oppose the use of a
Lottery to inform the process.
City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our
democratically elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council.
Our opposition to Healthy Democracy:
Healthy Democracy claims to be a nonpartisan nonprofit organization. That is not the case. Healthy
Democracy is aligned with a developer lobby that would favor an outcome at the airport in direct conflict with
the expressed preferences of almost all residents of the city for an ultra‐low‐density open space.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
HD was introduced to the Housing Commission on 11‐18‐2021 by Leonora Camner based on the rationale that
they had specific expertise in housing issues. A flyer was distributed to the Housing Commission noting HD’s
housing issue experience in their project “City of Eugene Review Panel on Housing” that was conducted during
Nov. 2020 through April 2021. Housing is NOT what the residents want for the airport. And, since the Housing
Element has been certified by the state without the airport, it is clear that the city does not need the airport
for housing.
https://www.santamonica.gov/media/HED/Housing/2021_09_23_HC3A_HealthyDemocracyPresentation.pdf
Healthy Democracy is not a disinterested party and has clear conflicts of interest:
HD is identified as a “Project of” and “Resource to” an organization called Public Access Democracy
(PAD) https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/resources/.
PAD has on its coordinating committee Leonora Camner, a self‐professed YIMBY and Executive Director of
Abundant Housing LA political action committee.
https://publicaccessdemocracy.org/about/
But Leonora Camner’s singular focus on a housing outcome does not stop there. Her organization, Abundant
Housing LA (supported by the housing lobby group California YIMBY among others) engineered an increase in
the housing allocation for Santa Monica. An attorney for Camner’s Abundant Housing LA sent a letter dated
10/11/19 to Southern California Association of Governments, (SCAG) and that letter resulted in the increase
in Santa Monica’s housing allocation from 4,829 to 9,058 housing units.
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file‐attachments/101119abundant_housing_la.pdf?1605421607
Leonora Camner boasted about the role she played in lobbying SCAG to increase the housing requirement
for Santa Monica in an LA Times 10/25/2019 Opinion piece: "SoCal’s new housing plan is going to make traffic
and air pollution worse for everyone.” “Abundant Housing L.A. research director Anthony Dedousis, along
with UCLA urban planning professor Paavo Monkkonen, recently developed a data‐driven methodology to
determine …Santa Monica, with its massive job base and access to rail, would get 14,155….”
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019‐10‐25/housing‐crisis‐los‐angeles‐scag‐homeless‐development
Leonora Camner took credit for the increase to the Santa Monica housing requirement in an Opinion article
published in the Santa Monica Daily Press: “Hope for a Pro‐Housing Future” (8/29/20). Camner wrote
“Fortunately, Santa Monica has been given a target of building nearly 9,000 new homes by 2029.”
https://www.smdp.com/letter‐to‐the‐editor‐hope‐for‐a‐pro‐housing‐future/195952
The Affordable Housing LA Blog announced on 11/16/21 the intention of Leonora Camner to make a political
career of supporting YIMBY candidates “Our Own Abundant Housing LA
PAC.” https://abundanthousingla.org/announcing‐our‐own‐ahla‐pac/
Because of its political alignments, Healthy Democracy cannot be counted on to act in the best interest of the
Santa Monica community. https://healthydemocracy.org
We urge Council to reject the proposed contract with Healthy Democracy because of the clear outcome bias
of the organization and the conflict created by their relationship with political activist Leonora Camner.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
3
Our opposition to a Lottery:
A lottery is most applicable where the impacts of an issue are uniformly spread across a population. In such a
case the selection process would only apply to divergent views of a universally‐experienced impact. No one
group would have more or less stake in the outcome. The lottery would surface the different perspectives on
that outcome.
That is the opposite scenario that the Future of the Santa Monica Airport issue represents.
A lottery is the worst process imaginable to address an issue with highly disparate impacts. The burdens of
the Airport project will not be equally distributed. Sunset Park will be disproportionately impacted by traffic,
congestion and ongoing pollution from a non‐park development on Airport land. Proportional representation
of the many stakeholders is not part of the initial (or any) selection process for invites to the lottery.
This project involves highly technical financial elements. Understanding the impact of those elements
requires expertise that the average person does not possess.
The unprecedented scale of either a park or development is far beyond any current City financing
capabilities. Significant tax increases will be required to finance the project and those will disproportionately
fall on homeowners across the entire city. A majority of renters in the city are shielded from much of the
impact from property‐related tax increases yet renters constitute more than 70% of city
households. Randomly selected city residents without any technical background in the financial issues at play
will likely be ill‐prepared to know what questions to ask, risking significant bias based on what information
they are provided with and what information is accidently (or otherwise) omitted.
A lottery will create conflict in the process rather than simplify it:
Stakeholders will question why they will be left out of the final process after years of engagement and
advocacy.
Santa Monicans who worked hard over many years to pass Measure LC would be completely sidelined in this
process.
In addressing the Future of the Airport, the highly disparate impacts of any of the possible changes to Airport
land use require the full participation of all city stakeholders.
Slippery Slope
The online publication New America described HD’s involvement in the Petaluma Fairgrounds issue as
“collaborative governance—or “co‐governance.”
https://www.newamerica.org/political‐reform/briefs/citizens‐assemblies‐petaluma‐california‐cogovernance/
Staff should not be allowed to introduce “co‐governance” to Santa Monica and the Council should certainly
not approve such a radical departure from our rules of governance without clear, unambiguous, voter
consent.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
4
We strongly urge Council to reject the use of ANY substitute system to the current city processes.
Healthy Democracy is the antithesis of democracy; it is un‐democratic. A lottery system of choosing random
people specifically disenfranchises important stakeholders from airing their views publicly and the chance to
publicly identify with those views; people put a lot of value in seeing who aligns with whom, and who agrees
or opposes what. Randomness eliminates the community and the town square and substitutes
anonymity. Randomness is un‐democratic and a lottery is inherently unfair.
City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our
democratically elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council.
Thank you
Northeast Neighbors
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Ruthann Lehrer <ruthannpreserves@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 7:59 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Jesse
Zwick; Oscar de la Torre
Subject:Public input on the Study Session Item 7A
EXTERNAL
Oct. 9, 2023
Item 7A: Study Session Discussion on the Lottery‐Selected Panel Process for the Airport
Mayor Davis and Councilmembers,
As a long‐time resident of Santa Monica and a participant in many community engagement planning activities
here, I feel compelled to share some concerns about the proposal to engage Healthy Democracy for the public
engagement process for Airport planning. These issues are on the table as items 1 and 3 of your study session.
Sticker‐shock ‐ The price tag of $3 million:
SM is in dire financial straits due to litigation payouts and pension liabilities.
Our libraries are not yet open.
Our historic preservation program is moribund due to the termination of City financial support.
Our iconic landmark Civic Auditorium is being offered for sale.
How can we afford this new expense?
Elimination of controversy:
Land use planning always involves controversy due to the complexity of the issues, trade‐offs and differing
views of stakeholders. It is not realistic to believe that the proposed new process, or any planning process, will
eliminate controversy. Simply establishing Healthy Democracy as the lead team has stoked controversy at the
outset, with neighborhood organizations believing that this team is not impartial.
Whatever process is established moving forward, transparency and public access needs to be embedded so
that every community voice and point of view can be heard. The outcome is likely to require voter support.
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Goals:
Outreach to constituencies and minority communities that have not been active in civic affairs is a worthy
objective, and offering stipends, reimbursements and translation services are great ideas to facilitate that
effort. This element should be retained in whatever process is established.
However, there are some barriers in the existing proposal because the workshop structure of three‐day
meetings (Friday – Sunday) will eliminate many families with children from participating. Who will be available
to meet on such a schedule should be considered. Not mothers with young or school‐age children, or many
such fathers.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
The Lottery System
The Healthy Democracy model is based upon jury selection. However, we know that juries sometimes convict
innocent people because of the biased information supplied to them by prosecutors. The burden therefore
shifts to the Information Committee and other information channels, which are very tightly controlled in this
process:
9. There is a strict process/content delineation over what and how the Panel receives information and
then delivers recommendations. (p. 10 staff report)
Are there indicators that this process leads to better outcomes than the many other community engagement
processes that have been managed by staff, with consultants used as technical support?
These are my personal observations, and I am not speaking on behalf of any organization.
Many thanks for your service to the City.
Sincerely,
Ruthann Lehrer
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Nancy Duresky <njdhope@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 8:10 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:input for December 10 city council meeting
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,
Thank you for reading this letter and considering what I have to say.
I understand that at the city council meeting on October 10, 2023, you will discuss using a
process called Democratic Lottery process, which is supposed to be a public engagement
method for what should be done with the airport land. It is sold to us by a company called
Healthy Democracy.
First, the citizens of Santa Monica have already determined what should be done with the
airport land. It should be a park. I took time off of work to collaborate with the citizens of
Santa Monica to help decide what should be done with that land. The voting citizens of Santa
Monica, the ones that you represent because they voted you into office, decided that 100% of
every inch of the current airport should be devoted to a park. I do not know why the staff of
Santa Monica is suggesting that there is any room for discussion about what should be done
with the airport land. It has been decided that 100% of every inch of the current airport
should be a park.
Second, I am strongly NOT in favor of using the Healthy Democracy organization in
determining the future of Santa Monica Airport Land. I am a professor who has conducted
scientific research and has supervised about 20 doctoral candidates during my time
teaching. I read their material and listened to their videos. The methods used by Healthy
Democracy that I have heard discussed by an employee of Healthy Democracy, and that I have
read about are not in keeping with unbiased sound research principles. In particular, I am
referring to their random process framing question. The framing question presupposes the
answer. They are not unbiased researchers. Maybe Healthy Democracy is great at a sales
pitch, but we will not get unbiased data from this organization. They use all the ‘buzz’ words
in their website without defining even one variable.
Third, I am strongly opposed to the lottery selection panel. Our state runs a lottery. It is open
to any citizen. There is a possibility of winning a million dollars. However, you have to ‘step
up’ and buy a ticket to win. I will not win the state lottery because I do not buy a ticket.
The lottery process that Healthy Democracy is suggesting does not require wanting to be
involved. In the past, the city has invited all of the citizens to participate (buy a ticket). The
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
city took the responsibility of holding discussion and information sessions to present an issue
and gather feedback. I participated in many of those meetings. If a citizen of Santa Monica
wants to have input into a city decision, she or he could attend a city-sponsored
discussion. That is one of the principles of gathering information by city councils. I have no
confidence that they have any understanding of the outcome of the previous work done by
the citizens. I believe the previous vote of the citizens of Santa Monica should inform any
further data gathering. I have no confidence that Healthy Democracy has an interest in Santa
Monica’s future.
Please do not use Healthy Democracy. If the city staff wants to opt out of its job, there are
several Santa Monica based organizations could be used to suggest a process for further
citizen discussions for our future park.
Finally, I do want Santa Monica to provide housing, low and extremely low cost
housing. However, if there are any housing projects north of Wilshire, I am unaware of
them. If there are some low-income housing north of Wilshire, what percent are north of
Wilshire and what percent are south of the 10 Freeway? The land in question is supposed to
be used for a park. Let’s find another place for low income housing.
Thank you
Nancy J Duresky
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:drcblum@aol.com
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 8:27 PM
To:Phil Brock; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Caroline Torosis; Jesse
Zwick; councilmtgitems
Subject:Re: Item 7A. Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
I must confess after reading the letter to Mayor Davis and Esteemed Council from Bruce Leddy of the
Members by the North of Montana Association the following seems to sum up the whole issue:
"Given the fact that residents have already explicitly indicated their desire for a park at the
airport through Measure LC, one has to wonder whether this entire process, and the expense
[three million dollars] of running it, makes any sense at all. "
It would seem the three million dollars could be better spent in park development ideas and
implementation. Possibly even hiring someone to write for grant applications to the federal
government and other non-profit environmental agencies.
Warm Regards,
Charles
Dr. Charles L. Blum
drcblum@aol.com
1752 Ocean Park Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90405
310-392-9795
www.drcharlesblum.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-Mail communication (including attachments) is covered by the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18, U.S.C 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the
sender that you have received this message in error, and then delete it. Thank You.
Ferpa Notice: Additionally, these records are protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act and are provided to the intended recipient under an exception to the Act found in Section 99.32.
These records must be maintained confidentially and may not be re-disclosed. They must be
destroyed when your legitimate educational interest no longer exists.
Dr. Charles L. Blum
drcblum@aol.com
1752 Ocean Park Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90405
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
310-392-9795
www.drcharlesblum.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-Mail communication (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act 18, U.S.C 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the
sender that you have received this message in error, and then delete it. Thank You.
Ferpa Notice: Additionally, these records are protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and are provided
to the intended recipient under an exception to the Act found in Section 99.32. These records must be maintained confidentially and
may not be re-disclosed. They must be destroyed when your legitimate educational interest no longer exists.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Brodsky, Michael <mbrodsky@lmu.edu>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 8:41 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Jesse
Zwick; Caroline Torosis
Subject:Agenda Item: 7.A: Re-Frame the "Framing Question" for the Lottery-Selected Panel Process
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
Please provide clear direction to staff about the framing question to the Lottery Selected Panel.
The framing question should be clearly written:
"What kind of Park, Recreational and Open Space do we want without proposing any additional, development, land use
changes, and modifications to Measure LC?”
In 2014, Santa Monica residents overwhelmingly voted for “parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the
maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses.”
Our residents voted first in 1926 and then again 2014 to meet our future park needs and to insure that future generations will have
access to much needed park space.
Yet today, our urban park space still remains among the lowest in the county and the state.
We need to reclaim the original Clover Field Park that was located where the airport is today but was lost.
Let us honor those votes and our commitment to Measure LC, and make clear that the “the framing question” meets our community
needs.
Sincerely,
Michael Brodsky
Santa Monica
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Robin Shakeshaft <robins@usc.edu>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 9:07 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:airport closure
EXTERNAL
Regarding the Council's upcoming meeting on 10/10/2023, I am writing to a request a small
change, one with a potentially significant consequence, in the language on p. 16 of the staff
report. Specifically, I believe that the words “and development” should be deleted from the
question: “How should the diverse needs of our community inform the future of the Airport
land and the balance of land‐uses and development, that will most effectively contribute to
Santa Monica’s long‐term vitality?” These words convey disregard for Measure LC, which was
passed to ensure that no development will take place once the airport is closed. Furthermore,
these words give the impression that the Council is not sincere in its stated support for
Measure LC and the goal to turn the land that will be freed once the airport closes into a public
park space.
Robin Shakeshaft
1325 Maple St., Santa Monica 90405
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:sally allen <sallyjane.allen@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 9:22 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda Item 7-A
EXTERNAL
I support the positions that FOSP have taken in regards to the development of the airport land.
Firstly, I oppose giving a nonpartial org like Healthy democracy a significant role in the decisions about the
airport land.
Secondly DO YOUR JOB city council! YOU WERE ELECTED FOR A REASON. ‐ a lottery to decide a decision as
momentous as this is truly absurd.
Especially do I oppose the “framing question” in which the development of the land (presumably by developers
wanting to enrich themselves at the expense of citizens of Santa Monica) is given equal weight with land use for
the community.
Sincerely,
Warren & Sally Allen
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:news4jd@verizon.net
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 10:03 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject:Council Agenda Item 7.A 10/10/23 – OPPOSE Healthy Democracy and Lottery in determining the
Future of the SM Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers:
I OPPOSE approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the future of the Santa
Monica Airport and OPPOSE the use of a Lottery to inform the process.
Please reference the Northeast Neighbors’ recent letter to the Council pertaining to this subject.
Thank you for allowing me to express my view.
John Dahl
Santa Monica, CA 90403
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Robert Lipman <rlipman@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 10:33 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:John Fairweather
Subject:Agenda Item 7(A)
EXTERNAL
Hello- I am in absolutely full agreement with the board of SM Airport2Park Foundation. Please
remove the words, “and development, “ per the information below. I live in Santa Monica and am an
active voter. Thank you! robert lipman.
The board of Santa Monica Airport2Park Foundation supports in principle the proposed process described in agenda Item
7(A) of the 10/10/2023 meeting, but with one important modification relating to the proposed "framing question” in the staff
report (pg. 16) which currently reads: “How should the diverse needs of our community inform the future of the Airport
land and the balance of land-uses and development, that will most effectively contribute to Santa Monica’s long-term
vitality?”
The inclusion of the words “and development”, despite the fact that this is expressly forbidden by measure LC (without a
general election vote), creates a false premise embedded in panel guidance. We, and the community, feel this
development issue was already settled by the voters during the LC/D fight. Inserting the idea of violating this voter
decision into panel guidance could reasonably be interpreted as a betrayal of trust, and will understandably engender
deep suspicion in many. However, with community trust, the board of Airport2Park feels the process holds the potential to
bring real benefits both to the community and the City.
Please simply strike these two words, and you have our full support.
Since the Airport2Park Foundation is the direct evolution of the Measure LC board, if we believed that this process was
fundamentally flawed, or in any way an attempt to end-around LC, we would be the first to oppose it. However, we believe
the proposed approach is a genuine attempt by staff and Council to avoid squandering this unique opportunity, and not as
others may suspect, a subterfuge.
Big infrastructure projects in this City that follow the standard process, have a long history of bogging down in endless
squabbles and as a result, ultimately not coming to fruition. We have just 5 years to get ready for Airport closure, and
without a process like this, that won’t happen, and we’ll reach that milestone without a concrete park plan and a day-1
build strategy. Not having these two things will create an opening and incentive for other forces, both within and outside
the city, to intervene and possibly prevail, and it may result in the Great Park slipping through our fingers. We as a City
cannot allow that to happen, so all of us need this new process to succeed.
Is the process new and unfamiliar? Yes it is, at least to us! But the approach puts control of the process in the hands of a
demographically representative community panel (of 40+), who seek and receive input from all, and we believe that will be
a good thing that will generate public trust in what is ultimately presented to City Council (which, of course, retains final
authority).
Visibly striking the words “and development” from the framing question at this juncture sends a powerful and much
needed signal that motives are genuine. We strongly encourage you do so.
We look forward to working with the City, staff, and community to make a “Park for the Ages”, as we trust all parties in this
matter do also. We understand that neither we nor others can control the process, nor can we know who the panel
members will be, but we do trust it will be representative of the community, that all voices will still have ample
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
opportunities to provide input, and of course that the results are still constrained by LC. As always, we thank you for your
consideration in this matter.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Grace Phillips <gracesadye@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 10:48 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:7A: I support the Lottery Selected process for the Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
As someone who has aƩended mulƟple City outreach meeƟngs over the years, I believe the current City process is
heavily Ɵlted in favor of people who have the Ɵme and bandwidth to come to the meeƟngs. The people who do not have
Ɵme to come are almost, without fail, those who are actually most impacted by the outcomes of the meeƟngs. WaiƟng
for hours to speak at an evening public meeƟng aŌer a full day of work is just not an opƟon for most Santa Monicans.
Therefore I support the DemocraƟc LoƩery public engagement process for the development of an equitable Airport plan.
The process is research based, includes input from all stakeholders/individuals/groups — especially those who do not
have the luxury to haunt public meeƟngs ‐‐ and has led to inclusive and transparent outcomes in ciƟes where it was
used.
Please support the LoƩery Selected public engagement process proposed in Item 7A.
Sincerely,
Grace Phillips
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Brian O'Neil <bpo42@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 7:38 AM
To:Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline
Torosis; councilmtgitems
Cc:David White; Attorney Mailbox; pna90404pico@gmail.com
Subject:10/10/23 Agenda item 7.A - Discussion of the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
EXTERNAL
To: Santa Monica City Council
From: Pico Neighborhood Association Board of Directors
RE: 10/10/23 Agenda item 7.A ‐ Discussion of the Lottery‐Selected Panel Process for the Airport
Oct. 5, 2023
Dear Councilmembers,
We are writing this letter to oppose the approval of Healthy Democracy in playing a role to determine the
Future of Santa Monica Airport. We oppose any involvement of Healthy Democracy in any city decision
making. We also oppose the use of a Lottery to inform the process.
City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our
democratically‐elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council.
Our Opposition to Healthy Democracy:
Healthy Democracy claims to be a nonpartisan nonprofit organization. That is not the case. Healthy
Democracy is aligned with a developer lobby that would favor an outcome at the airport in direct conflict with
the expressed preferences of almost all residents of the city for an ultra‐low‐density open space.
We urge Council to reject the proposed contract with Healthy Democracy because of the clear outcome bias
of the organization. Rather, the City of Santa Monica should work with the neighborhood associations and
residents that will be directly impacted by the development that will occur at the SM Airport.
Our Opposition to a Lottery:
A lottery is most applicable where the impacts of an issue are uniformly spread across a population. In such a
case the selection process would only apply to divergent views of a universally‐experienced impact. No one
group would have more or less stake in the outcome. The lottery would help surface different perspectives on
a broadly‐shared outcome. In this case, the use of a lottery would result in the undermining the input of
stakeholders and residents of Santa Monica that will be directly impacted by what happens at the Santa
Monica Airport.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
A lottery is the worst process imaginable to address an issue with highly disparate impacts. The burdens of
the Airport project will not be equally distributed. Sunset Park will be disproportionately impacted by traffic,
congestion and ongoing pollution from a non‐park development on Airport land. Proportional representation
of the many stakeholders is not part of the initial (or any) selection process for invites to the lottery.
The Airport project involves highly technical financial elements. Understanding the impact of those
elements requires expertise that the average person does not possess.
The unprecedented scale of either a park or development is far beyond any current City financing
capabilities. Significant tax increases will be required to finance the project and those will disproportionately
fall on homeowners across the entire city. A majority of renters in the city are shielded from much of the
impact from property‐related tax increases yet renters constitute more than 70% of city
households. Randomly selected city residents without any technical background in the financial issues at play
will likely be ill‐prepared to know what questions to ask, risking significant bias based on what information
they are provided with and what information is accidently (or otherwise) omitted.
We strongly urge Council to reject the use of ANY substitute system to the current city processes.
Healthy Democracy is the antithesis of democracy; it is un‐democratic. A lottery system of choosing random
people specifically disenfranchises important stakeholders from airing their views publicly and the chance to
publicly identify with those views; people put a lot of value in seeing who aligns with whom, and who agrees
or opposes what. It is clear that City staff want to undermine resident voices by creating a system that
circumvents knowledgeable stakeholders that understand the technology and know the history of advocacy
regarding the SM airport that has taken place.
City decision‐making, and engagement in that decision‐making by all stakeholders, is the responsibility of our
democratically elected City Council and the staff hired by the City to inform and serve the Council.
Thank you
PNA Board of Directors
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:ziba soroudi <zibasoroudi@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 8:20 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:No lottery
EXTERNAL
On airport
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:MICHAEL DE VILLIERS <mdevilliers@verizon.net>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 8:32 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:SMO redevelopment public engagement process
EXTERNAL
Honorable City Council:
Please support the innovaƟve LoƩery Selected public engagement process proposed in Item 7A for the future of the
airport.
The LoƩery‐based process represents Santa Monica’s values that you support:
Inclusiveness and RepresentaƟon — it ensures parƟcipaƟon from people of all socio‐economic backgrounds, all
demographics.
CollaboraƟon — the panel listens to and works with the wide range of community groups.
Integrity — the process is research based, includes input from all stakeholders/individuals/groups, which leads to
thoughƞul and independent outcomes.
Sincerely,
Michael de Villiers
1115 Arizona Ave
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Council Mailbox
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 8:49 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Santa Monica City Council Meeting - 10/10/23 - Item 7A. Discussion on the Lottery-Selected
Panel Process for the Airport
Attachments:SMO - Reject the Lottery Petition - Signatures and Comments 10-10-23.pdf
From: Ben <bcwang@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 1:04 AM
To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock
<Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete
<Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Jesse Zwick <Jesse.Zwick@santamonica.gov>; Caroline Torosis
<Caroline.Torosis@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>
Cc: Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>
Subject: Santa Monica City Council Meeting ‐ 10/10/23 ‐ Item 7A. Discussion on the Lottery‐Selected Panel Process for
the Airport
EXTERNAL
Public Comments Submitted for:
Santa Monica City Council Meeting
Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 5:30PM
Item 7A. Study Session
Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
300+
Authors and signatories submit the petition below
and attached as a PDF for easier readability.
===============
Supporters of Measure LC and
Local Residents of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice, and Mar Vista
October 5, 2023
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, California 90401
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
E-mail: council.mailbox@santamonica.gov
PETITION
We, the undersigned, urge the Santa Monica City Council to reject the proposed lottery process that would guide
the future of SMO.
We demand that the Council and Staff preserve and honor: (1) the original 1926 citywide vote to purchase the
land for a public park, (2) the definitive 2014 citywide vote that established Charter Amendment LC, and (3)
reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
To do otherwise would demonstrate contempt for repeated and clear-cut election outcomes of democratic
processes in the City of Santa Monica.
Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council Members:
We urge you to reject the Staff’s Lottery-Selected Panel Outreach Process (“Lottery”) proposal scheduled to be studied by
the City Council on October 10, 2023. You should reject the Lottery and the attempt to undermine the original
expressed intent of residents in 1926, the City Charter Amendment LC in 2014, and the City Council SMO Closure
Resolution No. 11026. Each of these votes passed by wide margins. The Lottery would substitute an untested, non-
democratic process using residents (likely unfamiliar with the complex issues surrounding the present Airport) selected by
Staff’s vague “stratification” factors to make decisions based on information largely provided by that same Staff. The
elected City Council is pledged to facilitate processes that are consistent with the 1926 public park purchase, the Charter
Amendment LC, and the City Council SMO Closure Resolution.
A. 1926 Park Bond
Residents authorized the ordinance (5568 for, and 2056 against) the purchase of a tract of land “for the purposes of a
public park”. The ordinance clearly and repeatedly states the use to be a public park. There was no mention of an airport
or any other use. Even so, the Airport presently occupies the land today, far past the end of World War 2, and far past
Douglas Aircraft’s move from Santa Monica to Long Beach in the mid-1970’s. (See Exhibit 1.)
B. Charter Amendment LC
In 2014, Measure LC was passed by more than 15,000 voters (60% to 40%) which amended the City Charter to:
“prohibit new development of Airport land, except for parks, public open spaces and public recreational facilities,
until the voters approve limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land.” (See Exhibit 2.)
In spite of almost $1 million spent to defeat Measure LC locally (with large sums spent by deep-pocketed national aviation
lobby organizations), Measure LC was endorsed by hundreds of local organizations, neighborhood groups, community
leaders, elected officials, and individuals from our local community with an average donation of only $200, totaling
$100,000 (see https://itsourland.org/endorsements). (See Exhibit 3.)
Following the 2014 election and Measure LC passage, the Santa Monica City Charter was amended to read:
“If all or part of the Airport land is permanently closed to aviation use, no new development of that land
shall be allowed until the voters have approved limits on the uses and development that may occur on
the land. However, this section shall not prohibit the City Council from approving the following on Airport
land that has been permanently closed to aviation use: the development of parks, public open spaces,
and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and
education uses.” (See Exhibit 4.)
In summary, Measure LC provides that:
1. the City Council holds full authority to close the airport,
2. new development is prohibited on the land unless voters approve it, and
3. only parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of
existing cultural, arts and education uses are allowed.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
3
The present Staff proposal seeks to replace the voters’ clearly expressed will with an un-democratic process which: 1) is
not transparent, 2) lacks accountability, 3) usurps the expressed will of the residents, 4) and ignores the role and expertise
of the Airport Commission and its mandate to advise the City Council on all matters regarding the Airport.
C. City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026
In 2017, the SMO Consent Decree was signed to legally allow for airport closure at the end of 2028. The City Council
then unanimously adopted (7-0) SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which stated:
“The City Council directs the City Manager, City Attorney and their staffs to take all actions necessary and
proper to ensure that SMO will cease to operate as an airport and shall be closed to all aeronautical use
forever effective as of midnight on December 31, 2028.” (See Exhibit 5.)
Resolution 11026 instructs City Staff to take all actions to ensure the airport is closed forever at the end of 2028.
D. The Proposed Lottery Undermines the Charter Amendment and the Closure Resolution
The “democratic lottery”, also known as sortition, is a method of selecting individuals for decision-making processes or
public office through random chance, similar to how a lottery selects winners. Democratic lotteries are recognized to have
significant challenges and shortcomings:
1. Competence and Qualifications: Randomly selected individuals result in participants who lack the expertise or
qualifications needed to meet their responsibilities, leading to decisions that are uninformed or ineffective.
2. No Accountability: Elected representatives can be held accountable through elections, whereas participants
chosen by lottery lack accountability to the public. Participants are not directly responsible for their decisions and
recommendations.
3. Lack of Proper Incentives: Elected officials have reputational and other incentives to perform and make
decisions to secure re-election and serve the interests of Santa Monica, whereas lottery-selected individual
motivations will be unclear.
4. Bias and Manipulation: The process of selecting the pool of eligible participants and the methods used for
random selection are subject to bias and manipulation. Personal agendas, conformance to group norms, and
undue influence by Staff are major risk factors (as it selects the “relevant” information presented to individuals
unfamiliar with the history of controversies surrounding the Airport).
5. Small Sample Size: The number of participants selected by lotteries may be relatively small, which limit the
diversity of perspectives and result in unrepresentative decisions and outcomes.
6. Participation and Voluntariness: Lottery-selected individuals may volunteer for their positions, leading to
potential disinterest or lack of engagement, compared to self-selected participation.
7. Complex Issues and Inputs: Information, issues, and decisions may be highly complex and require specialized
knowledge or background to assess and recognize information inputs that may be incomplete, inaccurate,
uncertain, or deceptive.
8. Lack of Mandate: Lottery-selected individuals may not have a mandate from the public, making it challenging for
them to make tough decisions, especially in controversial matters.
9. Stability and Continuity: Changes or turnover of lottery-selected individuals could lead to instability,
discontinuity, and difficulties in decision making, planning, and implementation.
10. Representation Concerns: Sortition does not guarantee equal representation for marginalized or
underrepresented groups.
Democratic lotteries are not democratic elections, and random does not mean unbiased. As a result lottery-selected
panels are not necessarily fair and impartial, and they can easily be led astray with incomplete, biased, or deceptive
information inputs. As City Staff says in its report, lotteries are “not common in North America” so its use would
essentially be an experiment on one of the most significant planning projects in Santa Monica’s history. Staff
also says in its report that it “recommends a cautious approach.” A process that is untested, is by definition not
cautious. (See Exhibit 6.)
The proposed Lottery partially shifts the authority of City Council and responsibilities of City Staff to a random lottery
process that could potentially advocate for activities that do not “ensure” airport closure, or that advocate for
“prohibited” development that is inconsistent with Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution. The
Lottery process lacks accountability and a clear direction and is founded on the principles of randomness and uncertainty,
rather than direction and vision.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
4
The Lottery creates potential off-ramps from Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution. The City should
not be facilitating it, much less funding it. If Special Interests want to propose initiatives that are counter to Charter
Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution, then they can put something before the voters, however the City Staff should
not be doing or initiating the initial groundwork. The City should only be facilitating processes that are consistent with the
clear direction and vision of Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution, which have been consistently supported
by the electorate and through broad public input.
We strongly and respectfully request you take the following actions:
1. Reject the proposed Lottery process that would guide the future of SMO.
2. Preserve and honor the Citywide votes in 2014 and 1926 in favor of a park.
3. Reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
Please continue to ensure the full closing of SMO at the end of December 2028 (62 months), review the existing body of
work and visioning already done over the years, and continue with a park planning process that is transparent and
consistent with Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution.
Please honor the residents and the democratic process.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
The undersigned Supporters of Measure LC and Local Residents of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice, and Mar
Vista
Exhibit 1.
1926 City of Santa Monica Ordinance No. 339
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
5
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
6
Exhibit 2.
The 2014 Santa Monica Ballot
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
7
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
8
Exhibit 3.
2014 Measure LC Endorsements
(See https://itsourland.org/endorsements to clearly view the extensive list)
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
9
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
10
Exhibit 5.
City Council SMO Closure Resolution
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
11
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
12
Exhibit 6.
City Council Report January 24, 2023
Public Process to Determine the Future of the Santa Monica Airport
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
13
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
14
Signed (with additional comments),
10-05-23 at 05:50 AM // Alan Levenson // Read the petition and stop this unnecessary and costly
process now.
10-06-23 at 01:40 PM // Charles Blum // Please honor the will of the people and their vote with measure
LC. Don't succumb to big money financial developer special interests and insult the intelligence of
those who elective you and trust you will govern with integrity and ethics. We will never have another
opportunity to have a park -- EVER. Please let's protect our future generations so they have a party to
appreciate as open land becomes absent from all surrounding regions.
10-06-23 at 04:21 PM // Tanya Troglin //
10-06-23 at 04:45 PM // Elizabeth Van Denburgh //
10-06-23 at 05:08 PM // David Klass // The proposed lottery is an attempted end run around SMO
closure. Special interests are influencing staff and Council to overturn repeatedly established will of
residents.
10-06-23 at 07:32 PM // David Goddard // The sortition is the most ridiculous idea proposed by staff so
far.
10-06-23 at 07:55 PM // Christine Hardin // We have already spoken through Measure LC and Measure
LC was passed by the voters of Santa Monica.
10-06-23 at 09:55 PM // Joseph Hardin // "Please no more Saturday closed door scamming the voters
of Santa Monica funded primarily by out of town, mostly out of state aviation interests! The private jet
class that has no interest in the health, safety or welfare of the overwhelming majority of Santa Monica
residents, especially young children and the elderly, not to mention the residents south and east of
SMO. These people bear the brunt of the pollution and noise from SMO, due to the prevailing wind,
and yet have no voice (vote) in the matter. We, the residents of Santa Monica, still store and sell
leaded aviation fuel knowing that it is very unhealthy for people, especially children and the elderly.
Why do we do this? So that a few aviation enthusiasts can live out their fantasies with no regard for the
thousands of residents and wildlife that surround SMO. It's time for the Santa Monica City Council to
put public interest first and honor Measure LC. Thanks for your hard work. Please make it count by
doing something good for everyone, a Great Park for the people of Santa Monica and our neighbors."
10-06-23 at 10:41 PM // Quynh Nguyen // Even though I deeply oppose the lottery focus group if it is
meant to bypass a broader vote, I am open to a minority of airport land being used for low-income and
affordable housing within mixed-use complexes to fund turning the rest of the land into parks. Respect
democracy by putting your plans to a citywide vote!
10-07-23 at 01:09 AM // John C Smith // I also oppose the use of that SHAM group “healthy
Democracy.”
10-07-23 at 02:04 AM // Joseph Schmitz // "As a former Airport Commissioner (8 years), Retired USAF
Pilot (7,000 hours), Safety Consultant for the FAA, and Research Methods Professor - I find the Staff's
proposal antidemocratic, deceptive, and an abominable usurpation of voters' expressed wishes and
residents' rights. Staff decisions, recommendations to City Councilmembers, and falsehoods (to
residents and to City Councilmembers) have demonstrably kept SMO open past 2015. At great costs
to the City, and greater costs to the health and welfare of residents nearby our Airport. Please know
that as of March 2023, only 12 Santa Monica residents base their airplanes at SMO. "
10-07-23 at 02:56 AM // Joan Schmitz // Please do not go forward with the despicable proposal to
silence Santa Monica residents and voters.
10-07-23 at 06:02 AM // River Huston //
10-07-23 at 07:17 AM // Allyson Dworkin //
10-07-23 at 07:21 AM // Susan Vandebunt //
10-07-23 at 07:33 AM // Robert Brown //
10-07-23 at 07:39 AM // Dirk W van de Bunt //
10-07-23 at 07:42 AM // Charles Gibson //
10-07-23 at 08:01 AM // Elizabeth Lerer //
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
15
10-07-23 at 08:04 AM // Diane Sabatini //
10-07-23 at 08:19 AM // Lisa Sandbank // "This lottery is a deconstruction of the existing, voter-
approved measure LC—authored by city council—which the residents fought for and won despite the
millions spent to defeat it by nation-wide aviation organizations and their infamous power lawyers. A
lottery committee gives City Staff the private power to influence committee members at their discretion
and undermine the intentions voted by City Counsel SMO Closure Resolution. "
10-07-23 at 08:39 AM // Victor Fresco //
10-07-23 at 08:45 AM // Sean Meehan // The question is too skewed toward development and omits
mention of green space.
10-07-23 at 09:47 AM // Karen Comegys-Wortz // The residents want a park! We elected you to do the
right thing and abide by our wishes!
10-07-23 at 10:13 AM // Constance Stewart //
10-07-23 at 10:43 AM // William Schoene // Under NO circumstances should SMO land become
anything not in adherence to the park and/or recreational mandate of Measure LC!
10-07-23 at 10:50 AM // Jack Drutz //
10-07-23 at 11:59 AM // Asa Greenberg //
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM // Gregg Chadwick //
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM // Flavia Baptista //
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM // Chris Waller // The residents have already voted to close the airport and use
the land as a park. Please honor the votes cast, and do not add development to that already conjested
area.
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM // Jeffrey Felz //
10-07-23 at 12:03 PM // Andrea hricko //
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM // Alvin Crown //
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM // Benjamin Shore // Stop avoiding what your residents want - they want a park
no other use.
10-07-23 at 12:07 PM // Jennifer // "Honor Measure LC. No development on the land without a vote of
the people. Close the ariport and make it a park as agreed upon."
10-07-23 at 12:07 PM // Jacqueline McDonald // do your job!
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM // Se Jong Ding //
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM // Jeffrey Rosenfeld //
10-07-23 at 12:12 PM // Gerard Raether //
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM // David Konell //
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM // Andrea Maitra //
10-07-23 at 12:14 PM // Richard Drapkin // Your JOB, is to support the will of the people, as in
"democracy." LC made that clear. Do your jobs
10-07-23 at 12:17 PM // ammar lughod // The airport is poisoning the air we breath and are kids are
getting sick. The joise pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do thr right thing and close the airport
10-07-23 at 12:20 PM // Roberto Schaefer //
10-07-23 at 12:22 PM // David Abramis // "My email to the SM City Councel RE Item 3D: Dear City
Council Members: I am a long-time resident and home-owner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm writing
you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not lease the fuel tanks. I thought
this was already settled, but apparently not. Again, please. Thank you, David Abramis"
10-07-23 at 12:24 PM // Tamra Raven // Stop housing at the airport! Enough!
10-07-23 at 12:24 PM // Weber // Get rid of the airport; it's traumatic to residents due to the insane
amount of noise and constant overhead planes. I visited my brohter who lives in the flight path, in his 2
million dollar home, and I was driven mad by the planes. This is an abomination, and you couldn't pay
me to live in that area. Be honest and serve the people affected.
10-07-23 at 12:25 PM // Iris Souza // "Dear City Council Members: I am a long-time resident and home-
owner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm writing you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic
lease and do not lease the fuel tanks. I thought this was already settled, but apparently not. Again,
please. Thank you, Iris Souza"
10-07-23 at 12:26 PM // David Ginsburg //
10-07-23 at 12:27 PM // Tamra Raven // Stop housing at the airport! Enough!
10-07-23 at 12:28 PM // Patricia Braun //
10-07-23 at 12:29 PM // Jason McClaren //
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
16
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM // Karen Croner //
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM // Susan Hartley //
10-07-23 at 12:31 PM // theo swerissen // We want a park.
10-07-23 at 12:32 PM // Victor davich // The fish stinks from the head
10-07-23 at 12:33 PM // John C Smith // Reject the lottery AND that sham group the Council wanted to
run the show. And shame on the city for suggesting such a clear, biased proposal.
10-07-23 at 12:33 PM // William Sadler // Please don’t re-litigate an issue this city already
overwhelmingly decided. Elections have consequences
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Annie Sabroux //
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Paola Levenson // We ask you to please consider the neighbors around the
airport! We were promised a park!
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Margot mcleay // We already voted on this issue
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Will Pirkey //
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Devon Pothier //
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Sandra Casillas // I live two blocks east of the airport. To say I want it closed as
of yesterday would be an understatement. When I moved in my home in 1994, I knew, of course, that
the airport was here. But I didn’t know that you could fly jets in and out of it. Since you have shortened
the runway, the jet problem is mostly resolved, however, the traffic in and out is still quite loud. I live in
Los Angeles, so I don’t have a vote, but I am deeply affected by the airport, given where I live. You
must close the airport in 2024 just like your election results told you to do. If I recall correctly, you can’t
do anything other than put a great park there, unless you put it to the vote of the city AGAIN. How
many times you going to ask the same question hoping for a different answer? Close the damn airport,
put a park there and fulfill the edict of the voters
10-07-23 at 12:37 PM // carrie davies //
10-07-23 at 12:42 PM // Nurit Pereh // We are just behind the airport. Frankly, I don't mind the small
planes. But the jets are a latecomer to the airport and need to be eliminated altogether. Helicopter
flight training should go to an airport that's not so close to residential neighborhoods. The noise and air
pollution levels are simply too high and too risky. The parks, playground, restaurants, soccer field,
museum, art studios and offices, theater - all those are so lovely for residents and visitors and should
be expanded. Please do not re-lease to aviation businesses.
10-07-23 at 12:48 PM // Ingrid Mueller // "Progressive, green City??!? SMO's immediate Venice
neighbors [!!!] can't endure noise and air pollution without increasing mental dangers...and confusions
about SM city council's weakening SMO Park Support. Please check history and create a better future."
10-07-23 at 12:49 PM // Yvonne Guy //
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM // Betsy Katz //
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM // Jessica Tracy //
10-07-23 at 12:58 PM // Michael Jerrett // Why are you so responsive to business interests at the airport
and so unresponsive to the legitimate concerns of residents who don’t want the noise, air pollution, and
risks to our water supply - show some leadership for a change and close the storage tanks and deny
the lease to Atlantic Aviation and evict the company.
10-07-23 at 01:08 PM // Joy Abbott // Please allow those of us committed to carrying out the
parameters of Measure LC to be involved in the 'visioning' process. We've worked hard for our
neighborhood. I'm especially concerned those of us living in Sunset Park area adjacent to the airport
will not have our proper representation as we will be the most impacted by any re-use development of
the that space.
10-07-23 at 01:08 PM // Ed Arias //
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM // Jason Knapp //
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM // Chutney li //
10-07-23 at 01:12 PM // Alison Buell // The community has voted on this “Great Park” already. This is a
shabby way of doing an end run around the voters.
10-07-23 at 01:18 PM // Eileen Tunick // Voter homeowner/residents overwhelmingly support airport to
park transition. Our votes will count.
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM // igor meglic //
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM // Brenda Goodman //
10-07-23 at 01:31 PM // Stephen Hewitt //
10-07-23 at 01:42 PM // Jamie Dunham //
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
17
10-07-23 at 01:48 PM // Joseph Lutz // Close the airport and build a park.
10-07-23 at 01:50 PM // Kevin Kinigstein //
10-07-23 at 01:50 PM // Andrea Lieberman // I just want to ensure that a park that was voted on is what
is put in there, not housing, and not businesses, that will entail more noise and traffic. We are seriously
deficient in park spaces for our city, and we live extremely close to the airport, closer than most people
in Santa Monica, and have been highly effected by the noise and air pollution for decades.
10-07-23 at 01:55 PM // Gary Glickman // We have been asking for your representation for many years.
Are you abandoning us?
10-07-23 at 01:59 PM // barbara whitney // I support this petition, as well as open space, rather than
commercial development at the airport property. I also think it is irresponsible, in case of civic
emergency, to negate the use of the airport for small aircraft.
10-07-23 at 02:02 PM // Randall Klarin //
10-07-23 at 02:09 PM // Jordan Ellis //
10-07-23 at 02:10 PM // William Josephs //
10-07-23 at 02:12 PM // Mara Thompson //
10-07-23 at 02:20 PM // Suanne Ware-Diaz // Honor the decision of your constituency and neighbors.
What the Westside lacks us common green area that enhances life and community. With the large
developments already underway throughout the area and the continued allowance of one family
McMansions, green area is needed more than ever.
10-07-23 at 02:29 PM // Luis Diaz // No Airport
10-07-23 at 02:29 PM // Luis Diaz // No Airport
10-07-23 at 02:40 PM // Alex Gardos // Close the airport please!
10-07-23 at 02:55 PM // Hal Bogotch // A.Great. Park. (Close SMO 4ever.)
10-07-23 at 03:16 PM // Chris Toussaint //
10-07-23 at 03:18 PM // Ann Bowman // Approving and implementing the lottery process will be
violative of the Santa Monica City Charter Boards and Commissions provisions regarding the powers
and REQUIRED duties of these appointive bodies. Approving the lottery process is therefore illegal
and opens the City up to legal challenge.
10-07-23 at 03:23 PM // ALAN KERNER // A few years ago, i participated in a process to close the SM
airport. The City Council Now it appears that the City Council is proposing to re-engage this process. I
have been enduring noise and pollution from the airport, looking forward to the closure in 2028. Please
don’t play games here and do not pass this resolution.
10-07-23 at 03:24 PM // Jilla sardashti // Wake up and respond to the citizens’wishes regarding the
future of SMO. Enough of corporate greed over the health and safety of the communities surrounding
the airport! We’ve spoken but our very legitimate demands fall on deaf ears over and over again!
10-07-23 at 03:26 PM // Karen Comegys-Wortz // List to the residents NOT the developers
10-07-23 at 03:26 PM // Anita. Byrd //
10-07-23 at 03:28 PM // Tracy Orloff // Please honor the votes and wishes of City taxpayers. We want
park space at the airport - (and, are in dire need of it with amount of housing development here
now). We want an end to jet company contracting which puts the people who live here and quality of
our air at risk. Please represent us as you’ve promised to do.
10-07-23 at 03:30 PM // David Krauss //
10-07-23 at 03:50 PM // Maureen Jacobson // This is shameful.
10-07-23 at 03:55 PM // Justin Braun //
10-07-23 at 03:58 PM // Mia Levenson //
10-07-23 at 04:28 PM // Philip Baily //
10-07-23 at 04:42 PM // Mary Duprey // It's clear that we want a public park on that space, as was
initially intended and confirmed by recent voters. Please honor that decision and get on with discussing
what we would like in our park. Thank you.
10-07-23 at 04:51 PM // Rebecca Nelson //
10-07-23 at 04:54 PM // Stephen Unger // Be true to your promise/obligation to close the airport and
replace it with a public park.
10-07-23 at 05:20 PM // Adrian Harewood //
10-07-23 at 06:03 PM // John Campisi //
10-07-23 at 06:17 PM // Jason McClaren //
10-07-23 at 06:37 PM // Donna Rosescu //
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
18
10-07-23 at 06:38 PM // William Arbenz //
10-07-23 at 06:59 PM // Roy Rico // Please honor the will of the people.
10-07-23 at 07:48 PM // Will von Bernuth //
10-07-23 at 07:48 PM // Kelly Hsiao //
10-07-23 at 08:48 PM // Will Guston //
10-07-23 at 09:03 PM // SULINH Lafontaine //
10-07-23 at 09:29 PM // Elin Katz // I support the closure of Santa Monica Airport and the
establishment of a public park in it's place.
10-07-23 at 09:35 PM // Megan FitzGerald //
10-07-23 at 09:41 PM // Jeanne Laurie // Honor the residents and the election results, not cowtow to
the developers.
10-07-23 at 10:28 PM // hal lindes //
10-07-23 at 10:51 PM // Elizabeth Estrup //
10-07-23 at 11:51 PM // Jan Simonovic //
10-08-23 at 06:00 AM // Tim Whalen //
10-08-23 at 07:38 AM // Kurt Gary //
10-08-23 at 07:42 AM // Sarah Braff // Park now!
10-08-23 at 07:49 AM // Allison Greene // Honor the original LC vote.
10-08-23 at 08:26 AM // Susan Kirch //
10-08-23 at 09:02 AM // Phyllis Chavez //
10-08-23 at 09:12 AM // Dorinne Tye // "The people have spoken. The FAA & aviation benefactors
should NEVER be granted option to override the majority. You cannot ignore constitutional processes
and protections without undoing the intent of our country's founding principals and future. Stop the
insanity of aviation abuses & pollution. This harms our productivity, health, viability, constitution and
future. "
10-08-23 at 09:21 AM // Miki Barnes //
10-08-23 at 09:23 AM // Mathew Millen // Use Measure GS funds to build 3000 units of low income
housing between Wilshire and San Vicente blvd AFFH
10-08-23 at 09:34 AM // Peter Spelman //
10-08-23 at 09:37 AM // Larry Graber //
10-08-23 at 09:45 AM // Jon Casazza //
10-08-23 at 09:58 AM // Kenny Fields // We knew when the City Council caved and made a behind
closed doors deal to extend the life of the airport until 2028 and delay the park that measure LC laid
out, that there would be attempts to not follow the PUBLIC WILL and turn the airport into lots of other
things. Well, here we are and this "democratic lottery process" is the first shot across the bow of the
great park that the residents of this city overwhelmingly approved with LC. We knew it was coming. Ask
anyone who lives in Santa Monica whether they thought that the Council would do what the residents
wanted or if they would cave to business interests and they would tell you that they were very skeptical
that the Council would follow the WILL OF THE RESIDENTS. Well placed skepticism for sure.
10-08-23 at 10:00 AM // Amanda McConnell // We live in sunset park, just south of the airport. We
support the park and updated traffic flow / control measures.
10-08-23 at 10:03 AM // hep ingham // Don't let the crooked elements defeat the will of the majority!!!
10-08-23 at 10:12 AM // Jen Murray //
10-08-23 at 10:53 AM // Sharon Rubin // "How many times are we going to have to fight the same
Battle? Does the City have NO Institutional Memory! We have filled the Chamber so many times that I
have lost count!.It is the residents that elect you to represent us. Please consider our needs! I already ,
weekly have to wipe off my deck and outside furniture because of the black toxic particles that fall on
my property daily! Thank you for your consideration of the residents needs for clean air!"
10-08-23 at 11:05 AM // Max Greene //
10-08-23 at 11:05 AM // John Greenwood //
10-08-23 at 11:23 AM // Kirsten Campisi //
10-08-23 at 12:03 PM // Clare Thomas // A random selection of citizens may not lead to a group
sufficiently educated about the issues, available to commit the time to get up to speed on the issues,
and ultimately easily swayed by those that want to make an end-run around the results of LC as
expressed by the voters of Santa Monica
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
19
10-08-23 at 12:36 PM // Natalie Greenberg // Please stop the airport immediately. It is both a danger
and nuisance to our families and community
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM // Luana Rubin //
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM // Jill Rosen // Put people over politics, quality of life over monetary gain.
10-08-23 at 12:39 PM // Leslie Seki //
10-08-23 at 12:42 PM // Brian Kelly //
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM // Haily Jovich // "The voters decided SMO would be a park. The conversation is
finished. Santa Monica City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager must stop undermining the
democratic process by inserting outside interests and lobbyists that are seeking to destroy Santa
Monica. The City is choosing to distribute drugs and drug paraphernalia rather than build a park for
residents. The City has shuttered libraries and turned our City over to lawless criminals. Santa Monica
residents need to speak up for themselves and stand up for safe streets, economic prosperity, and
education."
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM // Alessio Burgio //
10-08-23 at 12:46 PM // Natalie McAdams // Can't believe we are even considering revisiting this again.
Will this never end and SM truly become the green city it likes to hold itself up as.
10-08-23 at 12:49 PM // Lauren wallenstein //
10-08-23 at 12:50 PM // Jacquie Jordan // Seriously ?!?
10-08-23 at 12:52 PM // Zina Josephs //
10-08-23 at 12:57 PM // Matthew Muranaka //
10-08-23 at 12:58 PM // Toby Berlin // Stop this madness
10-08-23 at 01:00 PM // Patrick Ney // Reject Lottery
10-08-23 at 01:07 PM // Jonny Pray //
10-08-23 at 01:10 PM // Grady Hall // Truly great cities have truly exceptional public spaces. The
airport has long outlived its usefulness, and is only used by a very small percentage of the public --
while polluting surrounding neighborhoods with jet exhaust. That's a big part of why the community
voted overwhelmingly to transform it into a park that could be enjoyed in many ways by those in the
surrounding neighborhood and city. It was never the intention to transform the airport into another
airport (!), or to enable developers to build massive buildings that are out-of-character with every other
structure in Santa Monica. We need a park. We voted for it. We voted people out who were against
it. Current city leaders should do the right thing and transform the airport into the crown jewel of Santa
Monica's public spaces, increasing the quality of life for countless residents. With the pandemic and
post-pandemic changes now keeping people at home and working remotely, we must add more
community spaces and activities if we are to be a modern, healthy, and thriving community.
10-08-23 at 01:14 PM // Frans Klinkenberg //
10-08-23 at 01:16 PM // ammar lughod // The airport is poisoning the air we breath and are kids are
getting sick. The joise pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do thr right thing and close the airport
10-08-23 at 01:17 PM // Vic NoRMAN // Stop your underhanded tactics and cozy relation with the
aviation industry. Remember you are public servants. which means at some point you will ask us to re-
elect you.
10-08-23 at 01:18 PM // Bonnie smith //
10-08-23 at 01:20 PM // Marta Vago //
10-08-23 at 01:24 PM // Donna Urban //
10-08-23 at 01:25 PM // Stephen Mark // I served on the city Airport Commission for 8 years. I love the
idea of preserving some sense of the history of Santa Monica Airport and I appreciate we have a
housing shortage. Nevertheless it's clear to me that a process has already occurred confirming the
people's desire to have a park on this land. With a global need for ever more greenery, that feels like
the best aesthetic and functional use of the airport property. I see no reason to confuse matters by
instigating yet another open ended process for deciding what to do here. The decision has been made.
The only question is its implementation.
10-08-23 at 01:28 PM // Patrick Davenport //
10-08-23 at 01:33 PM // John Humble //
10-08-23 at 01:34 PM // Joey Reynolds //
10-08-23 at 01:40 PM // MICHAEL OSMENT // Please follow the Measure LC. Stop outside interest
trying to stop the new Grand Park
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
20
10-08-23 at 01:41 PM // Flynn Osment // Please help me grow up with a new park and not a dirty
airport. I am 9 years old.
10-08-23 at 01:42 PM // Ava Osment // Please help me, I need a new park near me to play sports! I am
11 years old
10-08-23 at 01:43 PM // Lara Osment //
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM // Nora Foran //
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM // Lucia Klass //
10-08-23 at 01:52 PM // Fae Horowitz //
10-08-23 at 01:54 PM // Jonathan Stein // This is a direct and cynical attack on the expressed will of the
residents masquerading staff opinions for public opinion under a sophistical and expensive mask.
Utterly detestable.
10-08-23 at 01:58 PM // Patrick Reardon //
10-08-23 at 02:05 PM // Lauren de la Fuente // Please respect the original desire of the LC voters and
stop with the political agenda to do an end run of what we voted for.
10-08-23 at 02:09 PM // Melanie Merians // All my family and neighbors respectfully request that you
REJECT this shameful lottery!
10-08-23 at 02:10 PM // Ellen Mark //
10-08-23 at 02:18 PM // Jay Abramowitz // The people have voted! You're acting like the Wisconsin
legislature, trying to ignore our votes. Leave it alone.
10-08-23 at 02:22 PM // James Wilson // Enough. It is time to let the airport land go for better use for
the residents of Santa Monica.
10-08-23 at 02:24 PM // Louis Bon //
10-08-23 at 02:34 PM // Karen Blechman // Please honor Measure LC. Do not attempt to subvert that
decision with a lottery or any other misguided effort.
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Lealani Ranch Dawes //
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Richard Moore //
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Patrick De Feo //
10-08-23 at 02:44 PM // Erin Ferro //
10-08-23 at 02:46 PM // Jan Simonovic // Santa Monica Airport should be a PARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10-08-23 at 02:59 PM // John Greene // Close the Airport / make it a Park as agreed too. In the
meanwhile STOP selling leaded jet fuel!
10-08-23 at 03:00 PM // Leona marolo // Please keep our city beautiful and for the people not big
business.
10-08-23 at 03:07 PM // Eric Garner //
10-08-23 at 03:09 PM // Adam Simon // Stop trying to avoid the clear will of the people you represent.
10-08-23 at 03:14 PM // H. Martin // The secret answer is revealed here•in: thou shalt build a great
park & close the disgusting, polluting airport irrevocably & permanently.
10-08-23 at 03:19 PM // Laura Lacamara // Close the airport; build a great park.
10-08-23 at 03:20 PM // Brian Stecher // I understand the desire to be objective but this approach
trades ignorance for subjectivity, not wise.
10-08-23 at 03:29 PM // Cynthia //
10-08-23 at 03:34 PM // Laura Kaiser //
10-08-23 at 03:57 PM // Olivia Kelly //
10-08-23 at 04:00 PM // Beverly Haas //
10-08-23 at 04:02 PM // Ilene Weingard //
10-08-23 at 04:05 PM // Kristina Hagman //
10-08-23 at 04:47 PM // Alice Ellis // Do not waste our money on a lottery. We already voted in 2014 to
close the airport and build the park. Get to work on the park - do the job you were elected to do.
10-08-23 at 05:00 PM // Alex Novakovich //
10-08-23 at 05:26 PM // Scott Weiss //
10-08-23 at 05:27 PM // Scott Weiss //
10-08-23 at 05:45 PM // Ofer Grossman //
10-08-23 at 05:53 PM // Mimi Wheeler //
10-08-23 at 06:01 PM // Marla Eby //
10-08-23 at 06:18 PM // Michael katz // The People spoke plainly and clearly when they voted
overwhelmingly in favor of LC. Stop the Fuel Farm danger to Santa Monica’s aquifer.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
21
10-08-23 at 06:22 PM // Lorri Benson // This issue has been voted on. Please honor the wishes of
those who elected you, and stop trying to find a way to NOT shut down the airport. The people of Santa
Monica, especially those most affected by the airport in Sunset Park and Ocean Park, have made it
clear that we want a well-thought out park and recreational area to benefit the local taxpayers. Most of
the owners of the small jets and commuter planes don't even live in Santa Monica. We who live here
want to stop breathing dangerous fumes and lead, and don't want to live with the potential of small
plane crashes over our roofs. Not to mention the sound pollution, which we've heard as late as 11pm
sometimes. There is no reason to bring up this topic again and again. We want the airport gone by
2028, as our last vote indicated. No lottery panels, no more discussion, no more stalling. Thank you.
10-08-23 at 06:25 PM // Simona Garon // Please stop this lottery process
10-08-23 at 06:26 PM // Patty //
10-08-23 at 06:26 PM // Nicola Goode // Listen to constituents whose voices and votes have repeatedly
and unequivocally settled the issue of SMO closure! Act accordingly SM City Council, reject the
Proposed Lottery!
10-08-23 at 06:28 PM // Katharine Dreyfuss //
10-08-23 at 06:36 PM // Min Shi //
10-08-23 at 06:38 PM // Makoto Kato //
10-08-23 at 07:31 PM // Joan Wilder // The panel should only be permitted to make recommendations
that do not require any changes to Measure LC.
10-08-23 at 07:41 PM // Matt Schlegel //
10-08-23 at 07:57 PM // Michael Jerrett //
10-08-23 at 08:15 PM // Jennifer Josephs // Jets have to go--Time to get rid of Polluting Fuel tank
storage
10-08-23 at 08:31 PM // Nancy Owens //
10-08-23 at 08:34 PM // John Ventura //
10-08-23 at 08:36 PM // Denise Gerber //
10-08-23 at 10:00 PM // Jan-Peter Flack // We want and need a park. Which is why the City of Santa
Monica bought the land in the 1st place.
10-08-23 at 10:11 PM // Steven T Benson // This needs to be a park
10-08-23 at 10:20 PM // Dawn Joyal // No changes to Measure LC
10-08-23 at 10:29 PM // Howard Wolfe //
10-08-23 at 10:49 PM // Mazi Lombard //
10-08-23 at 11:07 PM // Mindi Shank // One person one vote. It’s democracy. Here in Santa Monica,
and everywhere else in the world. It takes ALL of us and EVERY single voice matters! Respect the
vote! We voted.
10-08-23 at 11:39 PM // Carol Joffe // 90405
10-08-23 at 11:55 PM // Cathy Hillman //
10-09-23 at 12:17 AM // carol joffe // This is your responsibility to our community, and no one else's, to
insure that the residents can breathe and move and enjoy the best quality of life and health. Don't pass
it on to others. It's not their job.
10-09-23 at 12:27 AM // Stacey Abrams-ShericK // The matter was settled with Measure LC… The City
wants a park.
10-09-23 at 12:29 AM // Ose Dalldorf //
10-09-23 at 12:29 AM // Robert Sherick // The City already voted on this with Measure LC.
10-09-23 at 12:30 AM // Jack Sherick //
10-09-23 at 02:02 AM // Fariba Weiss //
10-09-23 at 04:43 AM // Ursula Fox //
10-09-23 at 05:25 AM // Marla Eby //
10-09-23 at 05:37 AM // Elaine Miller //
10-09-23 at 05:56 AM // John Reynolds // "WE VOTED FOR PARKS AND ANY
votes to undue the 60/40 decision "
10-09-23 at 05:58 AM // Suzanne joffe // Put in a park, like you promised. You are snakes at heart.
10-09-23 at 06:31 AM // Karla Klarin // We want and need a PARK!
10-09-23 at 06:33 AM // Dorothy Chapman //
10-09-23 at 06:39 AM // Larry Arreola, Carol Arreola // Lottery System? PULEESE. We need real
stake holders to be part of the process, not names picked out if a hat
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
22
10-09-23 at 07:04 AM // Tracey Hennessey // I’ve lived here all of my life. In the last 10 years I’ve seen
change that makes this city nearly unrecognizable for the worst. Please stop giving city land to
developers. The city of Santa Monica obviously can’t handle what’s on their plate now with homeless
and crime out of control.
10-09-23 at 07:28 AM // Val Davidson // CLOSE THE AIRPORT AS PROMISED. A great new park was
the plan! Green open space is important to the community. LC was voted on.
10-09-23 at 08:10 AM // Ashley Simonsen //
10-09-23 at 08:11 AM // Ann Lewis // We voted on this topic on Measure LC. Please accept this vote
from 2014 rather than try to change what the future of the SM Airport will be. As published by the City of
SM, "New development is prohibited on Airport land permanently closed to aviation use unless voters
approve limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land." Thank you.
10-09-23 at 08:14 AM // Sarah Lewis // Citizens have already expressed their position on this issue by
public vote. Respect their decisions.
10-09-23 at 08:15 AM // Chuck Mason // 3480 Maplewood Ave
10-09-23 at 08:38 AM // Stephanie Tainsky // Please, not again. We already went through this. WE
WANT PARKS!!!!!
10-09-23 at 08:42 AM // Eddy Winston //
10-09-23 at 08:45 AM // Steven Brady //
10-09-23 at 09:09 AM // John Reynolds //
10-09-23 at 09:27 AM // Tregg Rustad // Let's build a park, and only a park!
10-09-23 at 09:49 AM // Dennis WIlder // Stick with LC as you should.
10-09-23 at 09:50 AM // bea nemlaha // Residents most directly affected should take the lead. Random
selection irrational.
10-09-23 at 09:52 AM // Chuck Hoover //
10-09-23 at 10:16 AM // daniel funk // i reject the lottery process for the santa monica airport.
10-09-23 at 10:22 AM // Lisa Detamore // Please stop this nonsense. We already voted.
10-09-23 at 10:34 AM // Shawn Barry // we decided long ago to make this a PARK - we the people of
Santa Monica do not appreciate these back door meetings
10-09-23 at 10:40 AM // Brian Barry //
10-09-23 at 10:44 AM // Emily Dawe //
10-09-23 at 10:53 AM // Ronette Barry // WE VOTED ON THIS, PROMISED, PARK DEVELOPMENT. I
knew this was going to happen. So sick of the bate and switch. How can you look in the mirror. Let me
know when the city council meeting is?
10-09-23 at 10:56 AM // Barry Friesen //
10-09-23 at 11:16 AM // mark ford //
10-09-23 at 11:32 AM // Mark Abdou //
10-09-23 at 11:36 AM // Joy Abbott // Support Measure LC ! Council needs to pull on their big girl and
boy pants and do the 'visioning' work to commit to open parks rather than have it led housing
development concerns.
10-09-23 at 11:53 AM // Susan Jain //
10-09-23 at 12:17 PM // Dorothy Cramer // The people spoke/voted on this issue! It is your duty to
follow their choice!
10-09-23 at 12:55 PM // lois banner // I have lived in Santa Monica for 40 years. Please, please allow it
to remain the beautiful residential community 8it has always been.
10-09-23 at 01:14 PM // Sarah Bryce // This is pure corruption by BIG REAL ESTATE and the
neighborhood of Sunset Park will not stand for it
10-09-23 at 01:27 PM // Ellen Hannan //
10-09-23 at 01:44 PM // Margaret Hannan // I am so sick of you selling out our city to real estate
tycoons. I lived in a house under the airport for over 40 years! I still live in a Santa Monica rent
controlled apartment. If you want to stay employed as a member of our city council get your A in gear
and vote the way we Santa Monicans want you to!!!!
10-09-23 at 01:55 PM // Mark Schubb //
10-09-23 at 02:06 PM // Kenneth Abbott //
10-09-23 at 02:25 PM // Patrick Seeholzer //
10-09-23 at 02:27 PM // Patrick Seeholzer //
10-09-23 at 02:32 PM // Lynn Robb //
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
23
10-09-23 at 03:17 PM // Darlene Yaplee //
10-09-23 at 03:36 PM // Deborah // We voted for LC years ago and expect that if SMO closes the land
can only be used for parkland unless voted upon by the residents of Santa Monica.
10-09-23 at 03:58 PM // Tom Lynch // The disruption to our lives and real estate value are impacted
greatly by any activity from the Santa Monica Airport. The noise levels, pollution, and disturbance of
jets/planes flying over our homes needs to stop immediately. The airport is enjoyed only by a few
while causing the above mentioned damage to many.
10-09-23 at 04:22 PM // Christine Lynch // Keep your agreements
10-09-23 at 04:39 PM // ARTHUR BARROW //
10-09-23 at 05:13 PM // Danielle Litak // I ask that you keep with original plans to makes this a public
space for all to enjoy and to not entertain an airport.
10-09-23 at 05:14 PM // Frederick Pringle //
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Kenneth Kirschbaum //
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Elizabeth Oakes // Developer-aligned "nonpartisan" groups will undermine the
will of the citizens. Close the airport as planned and create the park voted in by Santa Monica
residents. Keep your promises.
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Gavin Scott //
10-09-23 at 05:30 PM // Andrea Ware // The land needs to be ALL park!
10-09-23 at 05:35 PM // Dawn Bailey //
10-09-23 at 06:09 PM // Nicola Scott // We do not want the city-wide vote to turn Santa Monica airport
into a park to be overturned.
10-09-23 at 06:36 PM // Francine Duran //
10-09-23 at 06:53 PM // David Kimball //
10-09-23 at 07:16 PM // Kathy Knight // Please support an open, democratic process in our city
government.
10-09-23 at 08:59 PM // Stephen Molstad // This is outrageous. Don't do it! The staff proposing this
should be fired.
===============
-------------------------------
Ben Wang
Mobile: 310-663-9264
-------------------------------
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Public Comments Submitted for:
Santa Monica City Council Meeting
Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 5:30PM
Item 7A. Study Session
Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
300+
Authors and signatories of the attached petition
respectfully request you take the following actions:
We, the undersigned, urge the Santa Monica City Council to reject
the proposed lottery process that would guide the future of SMO.
We demand that the Council and Staff preserve and honor:
1. the original 1926 citywide vote to purchase the land for a public park,
2. the definitive 2014 citywide vote that established Charter Amendment LC, and
3. reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
To do otherwise would demonstrate contempt for repeated and
clear-cut election outcomes of democratic processes in the City
of Santa Monica.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Supporters of Measure LC and
Local Residents of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice, and Mar Vista
October 5, 2023
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, California 90401
E-mail: council.mailbox@santamonica.gov
PETITION
We, the undersigned, urge the Santa Monica City Council to reject the proposed lottery process that
would guide the future of SMO.
We demand that the Council and Staff preserve and honor: (1) the original 1926 citywide vote to purchase
the land for a public park, (2) the definitive 2014 citywide vote that established Charter Amendment LC,
and (3) reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
To do otherwise would demonstrate contempt for repeated and clear-cut election outcomes of democratic
processes in the City of Santa Monica.
Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council Members:
We urge you to reject the Staff’s Lottery-Selected Panel Outreach Process (“Lottery”) proposal scheduled to be
studied by the City Council on October 10, 2023. You should reject the Lottery and the attempt to undermine
the original expressed intent of residents in 1926, the City Charter Amendment LC in 2014, and the City
Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026. Each of these votes passed by wide margins. The Lottery would
substitute an untested, non-democratic process using residents (likely unfamiliar with the complex issues
surrounding the present Airport) selected by Staff’s vague “stratification” factors to make decisions based on
information largely provided by that same Staff. The elected City Council is pledged to facilitate processes that are
consistent with the 1926 public park purchase, the Charter Amendment LC, and the City Council SMO Closure
Resolution.
A. 1926 Park Bond
Residents authorized the ordinance (5568 for, and 2056 against) the purchase of a tract of land “for the
purposes of a public park”. The ordinance clearly and repeatedly states the use to be a public park. There was
no mention of an airport or any other use. Even so, the Airport presently occupies the land today, far past the end
of World War 2, and far past Douglas Aircraft’s move from Santa Monica to Long Beach in the mid-1970’s.(See
Exhibit 1.)
B. Charter Amendment LC
In 2014, Measure LC was passed by more than 15,000 voters (60% to 40%) which amended the City Charter to:
“prohibit new development of Airport land, except for parks, public open spaces and public recreational
facilities,until the voters approve limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land.”(See
Exhibit 2.)
In spite of almost $1 million spent to defeat Measure LC locally (with large sums spent by deep-pocketed national
aviation lobby organizations), Measure LC was endorsed by hundreds of local organizations, neighborhood
Page 1 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
groups, community leaders, elected officials, and individuals from our local community with an average donation
of only $200, totaling $100,000 (see https://itsourland.org/endorsements).(See Exhibit 3.)
Following the 2014 election and Measure LC passage, the Santa Monica City Charter was amended to read:
“If all or part of the Airport land is permanently closed to aviation use, no new development of that
land shall be allowed until the voters have approved limits on the uses and development that
may occur on the land. However, this section shall not prohibit the City Council from approving
the following on Airport land that has been permanently closed to aviation use: the development
of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and
replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses.”(See Exhibit 4.)
In summary, Measure LC provides that:
1. the City Council holds full authority to close the airport,
2. new development is prohibited on the land unless voters approve it, and
3. only parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of
existing cultural, arts and education uses are allowed.
The present Staff proposal seeks to replace the voters’ clearly expressed will with an un-democratic process
which: 1) is not transparent, 2) lacks accountability, 3) usurps the expressed will of the residents, 4) and ignores
the role and expertise of the Airport Commission and its mandate to advise the City Council on all matters
regarding the Airport.
C. City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026
In 2017, the SMO Consent Decree was signed to legally allow for airport closure at the end of 2028. The City
Council then unanimously adopted (7-0) SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which stated:
“The City Council directs the City Manager, City Attorney and their staffs to take all actions
necessary and proper to ensure that SMO will cease to operate as an airport and shall be closed
to all aeronautical use forever effective as of midnight on December 31, 2028.”(See Exhibit 5.)
Resolution 11026 instructs City Staff to take all actions to ensure the airport is closed forever at the end of 2028.
D. The Proposed Lottery Undermines the Charter Amendment and the Closure Resolution
The “democratic lottery”, also known as sortition, is a method of selecting individuals for decision-making
processes or public office through random chance, similar to how a lottery selects winners. Democratic lotteries
are recognized to have significant challenges and shortcomings:
1.Competence and Qualifications: Randomly selected individuals result in participants who lack the expertise
or qualifications needed to meet their responsibilities, leading to decisions that are uninformed or ineffective.
2.No Accountability: Elected representatives can be held accountable through elections, whereas participants
chosen by lottery lack accountability to the public. Participants are not directly responsible for their decisions
and recommendations.
3.Lack of Proper Incentives: Elected officials have reputational and other incentives to perform and make
decisions to secure re-election and serve the interests of Santa Monica, whereas lottery-selected individual
motivations will be unclear.
4.Bias and Manipulation: The process of selecting the pool of eligible participants and the methods used for
random selection are subject to bias and manipulation. Personal agendas, conformance to group norms, and
undue influence by Staff are major risk factors (as it selects the “relevant” information presented to individuals
unfamiliar with the history of controversies surrounding the Airport).
Page 2 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
5.Small Sample Size: The number of participants selected by lotteries may be relatively small, which limit the
diversity of perspectives and result in unrepresentative decisions and outcomes.
6.Participation and Voluntariness: Lottery-selected individuals may volunteer for their positions, leading to
potential disinterest or lack of engagement, compared to self-selected participation.
7.Complex Issues and Inputs: Information, issues, and decisions may be highly complex and require
specialized knowledge or background to assess and recognize information inputs that may be incomplete,
inaccurate, uncertain, or deceptive.
8.Lack of Mandate: Lottery-selected individuals may not have a mandate from the public, making it challenging
for them to make tough decisions, especially in controversial matters.
9.Stability and Continuity: Changes or turnover of lottery-selected individuals could lead to instability,
discontinuity, and difficulties in decision making, planning, and implementation.
10.Representation Concerns: Sortition does not guarantee equal representation for marginalized or
underrepresented groups.
Democratic lotteries are not democratic elections, and random does not mean unbiased. As a result
lottery-selected panels are not necessarily fair and impartial, and they can easily be led astray with incomplete,
biased, or deceptive information inputs.As City Staff says in its report, lotteries are “not common in North
America” so its use would essentially be an experiment on one of the most significant planning projects
in Santa Monica’s history. Staff also says in its report that it “recommends a cautious approach.” A
process that is untested, is by definition not cautious. (See Exhibit 6.)
The proposed Lottery partially shifts the authority of City Council and responsibilities of City Staff to a random
lottery process that could potentially advocate for activities that do not “ensure” airport closure, or that
advocate for “prohibited” development that is inconsistent with Charter Amendment LC and the Closure
Resolution. The Lottery process lacks accountability and a clear direction and is founded on the principles of
randomness and uncertainty, rather than direction and vision.
The Lottery creates potential off-ramps from Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution. The City
should not be facilitating it, much less funding it. If Special Interests want to propose initiatives that are counter to
Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution, then they can put something before the voters, however the
City Staff should not be doing or initiating the initial groundwork. The City should only be facilitating processes
that are consistent with the clear direction and vision of Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution,
which have been consistently supported by the electorate and through broad public input.
We strongly and respectfully request you take the following actions:
1. Reject the proposed Lottery process that would guide the future of SMO.
2. Preserve and honor the Citywide votes in 2014 and 1926 in favor of a park.
3. Reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
Please continue to ensure the full closing of SMO at the end of December 2028 (62 months), review the existing
body of work and visioning already done over the years, and continue with a park planning process that is
transparent and consistent with Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution.
Please honor the residents and the democratic process.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
The undersigned Supporters of Measure LC and Local Residents of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice,
and Mar Vista
Page 3 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Exhibit 1.
1926 City of Santa Monica Ordinance No. 339
Page 4 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Exhibit 2.
The 2014 Santa Monica Ballot
Page 5 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Exhibit 3.
2014 Measure LC Endorsements
(See https://itsourland.org/endorsements to clearly view the extensive list)
Exhibit 4.
2014 Charter Amendment LC
Page 6 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Exhibit 5.
City Council SMO Closure Resolution
Page 7 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Exhibit 6.
City Council Report January 24, 2023
Public Process to Determine the Future of the Santa Monica Airport
Page 8 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
1
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-05-23 at 05:50 AM Alan Levenson Read the petition and stop this unnecessary and costly process now.
10-06-23 at 01:40 PM Charles Blum Please honor the will of the people and their vote with measure LC. Don't
succumb to big money financial developer special interests and insult the
intelligence of those who elective you and trust you will govern with integrity and
ethics. We will never have another opportunity to have a park -- EVER. Please
let's protect our future generations so they have a party to appreciate as open
land becomes absent from all surrounding regions.
10-06-23 at 04:21 PM Tanya Troglin
10-06-23 at 04:45 PM Elizabeth Van Denburgh
10-06-23 at 05:08 PM David Klass The proposed lottery is an attempted end run around SMO closure. Special
interests are influencing staff and Council to overturn repeatedly established will
of residents.
10-06-23 at 07:32 PM David Goddard The sortition is the most ridiculous idea proposed by staff so far.
10-06-23 at 07:55 PM Christine Hardin We have already spoken through Measure LC and Measure LC was passed by
the voters of Santa Monica.
10-06-23 at 09:55 PM Joseph Hardin Please no more Saturday closed door scamming the voters of Santa Monica
funded primarily by out of town, mostly out of state aviation interests! The private
jet class that has no interest in the health, safety or welfare of the overwhelming
majority of Santa Monica residents, especially young children and the elderly, not
to mention the residents south and east of SMO. These people bear the brunt of
the pollution and noise from SMO, due to the prevailing wind, and yet have no
voice (vote) in the matter. We, the residents of Santa Monica, still store and sell
leaded aviation fuel knowing that it is very unhealthy for people, especially
children and the elderly. Why do we do this? So that a few aviation enthusiasts
can live out their fantasies with no regard for the thousands of residents and
wildlife that surround SMO.
It's time for the Santa Monica City Council to put public interest first and honor
Measure LC.
Thanks for your hard work. Please make it count by doing something good for
everyone, a Great Park for the people of Santa Monica and our neighbors.
10-06-23 at 10:41 PM Quynh Nguyen Even though I deeply oppose the lottery focus group if it is meant to bypass a
broader vote, I am open to a minority of airport land being used for low-income
and affordable housing within mixed-use complexes to fund turning the rest of
the land into parks. Respect democracy by putting your plans to a citywide vote!
10-07-23 at 01:09 AM John C Smith I also oppose the use of that SHAM group “healthy Democracy.”
10-07-23 at 02:04 AM Joseph Schmitz As a former Airport Commissioner (8 years), Retired USAF Pilot (7,000 hours),
Safety Consultant for the FAA, and Research Methods Professor - I find the
Staff's proposal antidemocratic, deceptive, and an abominable usurpation of
voters' expressed wishes and residents' rights.
Staff decisions, recommendations to City Councilmembers, and falsehoods (to
residents and to City Councilmembers) have demonstrably kept SMO open past
2015. At great costs to the City, and greater costs to the health and welfare of
residents nearby our Airport.
Please know that as of March 2023, only 12 Santa Monica residents base their
airplanes at SMO.
10-07-23 at 02:56 AM Joan Schmitz Please do not go forward with the despicable proposal to silence Santa Monica
residents and voters.
10-07-23 at 06:02 AM River Huston
10-07-23 at 07:17 AM Allyson Dworkin
10-07-23 at 07:21 AM Susan Vandebunt
10-07-23 at 07:33 AM Robert Brown
10-07-23 at 07:39 AM Dirk W van de Bunt
10-07-23 at 07:42 AM Charles Gibson
10-07-23 at 08:01 AM Elizabeth Lerer
10-07-23 at 08:04 AM Diane Sabatini
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
2
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 08:19 AM Lisa Sandbank This lottery is a deconstruction of the existing, voter-approved measure
LC—authored by city council—which the residents fought for and won despite
the millions spent to defeat it by nation-wide aviation organizations and their
infamous power lawyers.
A lottery committee gives City Staff the private power to influence committee
members at their discretion and undermine the intentions voted by City Counsel
SMO Closure Resolution.
10-07-23 at 08:39 AM Victor Fresco
10-07-23 at 08:45 AM Sean Meehan The question is too skewed toward development and omits mention of green
space.
10-07-23 at 09:47 AM Karen Comegys-Wortz The residents want a park! We elected you to do the right thing and abide by our
wishes!
10-07-23 at 10:13 AM Constance Stewart
10-07-23 at 10:43 AM William Schoene Under NO circumstances should SMO land become anything not in adherence to
the park and/or recreational mandate of Measure LC!
10-07-23 at 10:50 AM Jack Drutz
10-07-23 at 11:59 AM Asa Greenberg
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM Gregg Chadwick
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM Flavia Baptista
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM Chris Waller The residents have already voted to close the airport and use the land as a park.
Please honor the votes cast, and do not add development to that already
conjested area.
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM Jeffrey Felz
10-07-23 at 12:03 PM Andrea hricko
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM Alvin Crown
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM Benjamin Shore Stop avoiding what your residents want - they want a park no other use.
10-07-23 at 12:07 PM Jennifer Honor Measure LC. No development on the land without a vote of the people.
Close the ariport and make it a park as agreed upon.
10-07-23 at 12:07 PM Jacqueline McDonald do your job!
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM Se Jong Ding
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM Jeffrey Rosenfeld
10-07-23 at 12:12 PM Gerard Raether
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM David Konell
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM Andrea Maitra
10-07-23 at 12:14 PM Richard Drapkin Your JOB, is to support the will of the people, as in "democracy." LC made that
clear. Do your jobs
10-07-23 at 12:17 PM ammar lughod The airport is poisoning the air we breath and are kids are getting sick. The joise
pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do thr right thing and close the airport
10-07-23 at 12:20 PM Roberto Schaefer
10-07-23 at 12:22 PM David Abramis My email to the SM City Councel RE Item 3D:
Dear City Council Members:
I am a long-time resident and home-owner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm
writing you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not
lease the fuel tanks.
I thought this was already settled, but apparently not.
Again, please.
Thank you,
David Abramis
10-07-23 at 12:24 PM Tamra Raven Stop housing at the airport! Enough!
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
3
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 12:24 PM Weber Get rid of the airport; it's traumatic to residents due to the insane amount of noise
and constant overhead planes. I visited my brohter who lives in the flight path, in
his 2 million dollar home, and I was driven mad by the planes. This is an
abomination, and you couldn't pay me to live in that area. Be honest and serve
the people affected.
10-07-23 at 12:25 PM Iris Souza Dear City Council Members:
I am a long-time resident and home-owner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm
writing you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not
lease the fuel tanks.
I thought this was already settled, but apparently not.
Again, please.
Thank you,
Iris Souza
10-07-23 at 12:26 PM David Ginsburg
10-07-23 at 12:27 PM Tamra Raven Stop housing at the airport! Enough!
10-07-23 at 12:28 PM Patricia Braun
10-07-23 at 12:29 PM Jason McClaren
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM Karen Croner
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM Susan Hartley
10-07-23 at 12:31 PM theo swerissen We want a park.
10-07-23 at 12:32 PM Victor davich The fish stinks from the head
10-07-23 at 12:33 PM John C Smith Reject the lottery AND that sham group the Council wanted to run the show. And
shame on the city for suggesting such a clear, biased proposal.
10-07-23 at 12:33 PM William Sadler Please don’t re-litigate an issue this city already overwhelmingly decided.
Elections have consequences
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM Annie Sabroux
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM Paola Levenson We ask you to please consider the neighbors around the airport! We were
promised a park!
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM Margot mcleay We already voted on this issue
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM Will Pirkey
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM Devon Pothier
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM Sandra Casillas I live two blocks east of the airport. To say I want it closed as of yesterday would
be an understatement. When I moved in my home in 1994, I knew, of course,
that the airport was here. But I didn’t know that you could fly jets in and out of it.
Since you have shortened the runway, the jet problem is mostly resolved,
however, the traffic in and out is still quite loud. I live in Los Angeles, so I don’t
have a vote, but I am deeply affected by the airport, given where I live. You must
close the airport in 2024 just like your election results told you to do. If I recall
correctly, you can’t do anything other than put a great park there, unless you put
it to the vote of the city AGAIN. How many times you going to ask the same
question hoping for a different answer? Close the damn airport, put a park there
and fulfill the edict of the voters
10-07-23 at 12:37 PM carrie davies
10-07-23 at 12:42 PM Nurit Pereh We are just behind the airport. Frankly, I don't mind the small planes. But the
jets are a latecomer to the airport and need to be eliminated altogether.
Helicopter flight training should go to an airport that's not so close to residential
neighborhoods. The noise and air pollution levels are simply too high and too
risky. The parks, playground, restaurants, soccer field, museum, art studios and
offices, theater - all those are so lovely for residents and visitors and should be
expanded. Please do not re-lease to aviation businesses.
10-07-23 at 12:48 PM Ingrid Mueller Progressive, green City??!?
SMO's immediate Venice neighbors [!!!] can't endure noise and air pollution
without increasing mental dangers...and confusions about SM city council's
weakening SMO Park Support.
Please check history and create a better future.
10-07-23 at 12:49 PM Yvonne Guy
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
4
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM Betsy Katz
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM Jessica Tracy
10-07-23 at 12:58 PM Michael Jerrett Why are you so responsive to business interests at the airport and so
unresponsive to the legitimate concerns of residents who don’t want the noise,
air pollution, and risks to our water supply - show some leadership for a change
and close the storage tanks and deny the lease to Atlantic Aviation and evict the
company.
10-07-23 at 01:08 PM Joy Abbott Please allow those of us committed to carrying out the parameters of Measure
LC to be involved in the 'visioning' process. We've worked hard for our
neighborhood. I'm especially concerned those of us living in Sunset Park area
adjacent to the airport will not have our proper representation as we will be the
most impacted by any re-use development of the that space.
10-07-23 at 01:08 PM Ed Arias
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM Jason Knapp
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM Chutney li
10-07-23 at 01:12 PM Alison Buell The community has voted on this “Great Park” already. This is a shabby way of
doing an end run around the voters.
10-07-23 at 01:18 PM Eileen Tunick Voter homeowner/residents overwhelmingly support airport to park transition.
Our votes will count.
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM igor meglic
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM Brenda Goodman
10-07-23 at 01:31 PM Stephen Hewitt
10-07-23 at 01:42 PM Jamie Dunham
10-07-23 at 01:48 PM Joseph Lutz Close the airport and build a park.
10-07-23 at 01:50 PM Kevin Kinigstein
10-07-23 at 01:50 PM Andrea Lieberman I just want to ensure that a park that was voted on is what is put in there, not
housing, and not businesses, that will entail more noise and traffic. We are
seriously deficient in park spaces for our city, and we live extremely close to the
airport, closer than most people in Santa Monica, and have been highly effected
by the noise and air pollution for decades.
10-07-23 at 01:55 PM Gary Glickman We have been asking for your representation for many years. Are you
abandoning us?
10-07-23 at 01:59 PM barbara whitney I support this petition, as well as open space, rather than commercial
development at the airport property. I also think it is irresponsible, in case of civic
emergency, to negate the use of the airport for small aircraft.
10-07-23 at 02:02 PM Randall Klarin
10-07-23 at 02:09 PM Jordan Ellis
10-07-23 at 02:10 PM William Josephs
10-07-23 at 02:12 PM Mara Thompson
10-07-23 at 02:20 PM Suanne Ware-Diaz Honor the decision of your constituency and neighbors. What the Westside lacks
us common green area that enhances life and community. With the large
developments already underway throughout the area and the continued
allowance of one family McMansions, green area is needed more than ever.
10-07-23 at 02:29 PM Luis Diaz No Airport
10-07-23 at 02:29 PM Luis Diaz No Airport
10-07-23 at 02:40 PM Alex Gardos Close the airport please!
10-07-23 at 02:55 PM Hal Bogotch A.Great. Park. (Close SMO 4ever.)
10-07-23 at 03:16 PM Chris Toussaint
10-07-23 at 03:18 PM Ann Bowman Approving and implementing the lottery process will be violative of the Santa
Monica City Charter Boards and Commissions provisions regarding the powers
and REQUIRED duties of these appointive bodies. Approving the lottery process
is therefore illegal and opens the City up to legal challenge.
10-07-23 at 03:23 PM ALAN KERNER A few years ago, i participated in a process to close the SM airport. The City
Council Now it appears that the City Council is proposing to re-engage this
process. I have been enduring noise and pollution from the airport, looking
forward to the closure in 2028. Please don’t play games here and do not pass
this resolution.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
5
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 03:24 PM Jilla sardashti Wake up and respond to the citizens’wishes regarding the future of SMO.
Enough of corporate greed over the health and safety of the communities
surrounding the airport! We’ve spoken but our very legitimate demands fall on
deaf ears over and over again!
10-07-23 at 03:26 PM Karen Comegys-Wortz List to the residents NOT the developers
10-07-23 at 03:26 PM Anita. Byrd
10-07-23 at 03:28 PM Tracy Orloff Please honor the votes and wishes of City taxpayers. We want park space at the
airport - (and, are in dire need of it with amount of housing development here
now). We want an end to jet company contracting which puts the people who
live here and quality of our air at risk. Please represent us as you’ve promised to
do.
10-07-23 at 03:30 PM David Krauss
10-07-23 at 03:50 PM Maureen Jacobson This is shameful.
10-07-23 at 03:55 PM Justin Braun
10-07-23 at 03:58 PM Mia Levenson
10-07-23 at 04:28 PM Philip Baily
10-07-23 at 04:42 PM Mary Duprey It's clear that we want a public park on that space, as was initially intended and
confirmed by recent voters. Please honor that decision and get on with
discussing what we would like in our park. Thank you.
10-07-23 at 04:51 PM Rebecca Nelson
10-07-23 at 04:54 PM Stephen Unger Be true to your promise/obligation to close the airport and replace it with a public
park.
10-07-23 at 05:20 PM Adrian Harewood
10-07-23 at 06:03 PM John Campisi
10-07-23 at 06:17 PM Jason McClaren
10-07-23 at 06:37 PM Donna Rosescu
10-07-23 at 06:38 PM William Arbenz
10-07-23 at 06:59 PM Roy Rico Please honor the will of the people.
10-07-23 at 07:48 PM Will von Bernuth
10-07-23 at 07:48 PM Kelly Hsiao
10-07-23 at 08:48 PM Will Guston
10-07-23 at 09:03 PM SULINH Lafontaine
10-07-23 at 09:29 PM Elin Katz I support the closure of Santa Monica Airport and the establishment of a public
park in it's place.
10-07-23 at 09:35 PM Megan FitzGerald
10-07-23 at 09:41 PM Jeanne Laurie Honor the residents and the election results, not cowtow to the developers.
10-07-23 at 10:28 PM hal lindes
10-07-23 at 10:51 PM Elizabeth Estrup
10-07-23 at 11:51 PM Jan Simonovic
10-08-23 at 06:00 AM Tim Whalen
10-08-23 at 07:38 AM Kurt Gary
10-08-23 at 07:42 AM Sarah Braff Park now!
10-08-23 at 07:49 AM Allison Greene Honor the original LC vote.
10-08-23 at 08:26 AM Susan Kirch
10-08-23 at 09:02 AM Phyllis Chavez
10-08-23 at 09:12 AM Dorinne Tye The people have spoken. The FAA & aviation benefactors should NEVER be
granted option to override the majority. You cannot ignore constitutional
processes and protections without undoing the intent of our country's founding
principals and future.
Stop the insanity of aviation abuses & pollution. This harms our productivity,
health, viability, constitution and future.
10-08-23 at 09:21 AM Miki Barnes
10-08-23 at 09:23 AM Mathew Millen Use Measure GS funds to build 3000 units of low income housing between
Wilshire and San Vicente blvd AFFH
10-08-23 at 09:34 AM Peter Spelman
10-08-23 at 09:37 AM Larry Graber
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
6
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-08-23 at 09:45 AM Jon Casazza
10-08-23 at 09:58 AM Kenny Fields We knew when the City Council caved and made a behind closed doors deal to
extend the life of the airport until 2028 and delay the park that measure LC laid
out, that there would be attempts to not follow the PUBLIC WILL and turn the
airport into lots of other things. Well, here we are and this "democratic lottery
process" is the first shot across the bow of the great park that the residents of
this city overwhelmingly approved with LC. We knew it was coming. Ask anyone
who lives in Santa Monica whether they thought that the Council would do what
the residents wanted or if they would cave to business interests and they would
tell you that they were very skeptical that the Council would follow the WILL OF
THE RESIDENTS. Well placed skepticism for sure.
10-08-23 at 10:00 AM Amanda McConnell We live in sunset park, just south of the airport. We support the park and updated
traffic flow / control measures.
10-08-23 at 10:03 AM hep ingham Don't let the crooked elements defeat the will of the majority!!!
10-08-23 at 10:12 AM Jen Murray
10-08-23 at 10:53 AM Sharon Rubin How many times are we going to have to fight the same Battle?
Does the City have NO Institutional Memory! We have filled the Chamber so
many times
that I have lost count!.It is the residents that elect you to represent us.
Please consider our needs! I already , weekly have to wipe off my deck and
outside furniture because of the black toxic particles that fall on my property
daily!
Thank you for your consideration of the residents needs for clean air!
10-08-23 at 11:05 AM Max Greene
10-08-23 at 11:05 AM John Greenwood
10-08-23 at 11:23 AM Kirsten Campisi
10-08-23 at 12:03 PM Clare Thomas A random selection of citizens may not lead to a group sufficiently educated
about the issues, available to commit the time to get up to speed on the issues,
and ultimately easily swayed by those that want to make an end-run around the
results of LC as expressed by the voters of Santa Monica
10-08-23 at 12:36 PM Natalie Greenberg Please stop the airport immediately. It is both a danger and nuisance to our
families and community
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM Luana Rubin
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM Jill Rosen Put people over politics, quality of life over monetary gain.
10-08-23 at 12:39 PM Leslie Seki
10-08-23 at 12:42 PM Brian Kelly
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM Haily Jovich The voters decided SMO would be a park.
The conversation is finished.
Santa Monica City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager must stop
undermining the democratic process by inserting outside interests and lobbyists
that are seeking to destroy Santa Monica. The City is choosing to distribute
drugs and drug paraphernalia rather than build a park for residents. The City has
shuttered libraries and turned our City over to lawless criminals.
Santa Monica residents need to speak up for themselves and stand up for safe
streets, economic prosperity, and education.
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM Alessio Burgio
10-08-23 at 12:46 PM Natalie McAdams Can't believe we are even considering revisiting this again. Will this never end
and SM truly become the green city it likes to hold itself up as.
10-08-23 at 12:49 PM Lauren wallenstein
10-08-23 at 12:50 PM Jacquie Jordan Seriously ?!?
10-08-23 at 12:52 PM Zina Josephs
10-08-23 at 12:57 PM Matthew Muranaka
10-08-23 at 12:58 PM Toby Berlin Stop this madness
10-08-23 at 01:00 PM Patrick Ney Reject Lottery
10-08-23 at 01:07 PM Jonny Pray
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
7
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-08-23 at 01:10 PM Grady Hall Truly great cities have truly exceptional public spaces. The airport has long
outlived its usefulness, and is only used by a very small percentage of the public
-- while polluting surrounding neighborhoods with jet exhaust. That's a big part of
why the community voted overwhelmingly to transform it into a park that could be
enjoyed in many ways by those in the surrounding neighborhood and city. It was
never the intention to transform the airport into another airport (!), or to enable
developers to build massive buildings that are out-of-character with every other
structure in Santa Monica. We need a park. We voted for it. We voted people
out who were against it. Current city leaders should do the right thing and
transform the airport into the crown jewel of Santa Monica's public spaces,
increasing the quality of life for countless residents. With the pandemic and
post-pandemic changes now keeping people at home and working remotely, we
must add more community spaces and activities if we are to be a modern,
healthy, and thriving community.
10-08-23 at 01:14 PM Frans Klinkenberg
10-08-23 at 01:16 PM ammar lughod The airport is poisoning the air we breath and are kids are getting sick. The joise
pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do thr right thing and close the airport
10-08-23 at 01:17 PM Vic NoRMAN Stop your underhanded tactics and cozy relation with the aviation industry.
Remember you are public servants. which means at some point you will ask us
to re-elect you.
10-08-23 at 01:18 PM Bonnie smith
10-08-23 at 01:20 PM Marta Vago
10-08-23 at 01:24 PM Donna Urban
10-08-23 at 01:25 PM Stephen Mark I served on the city Airport Commission for 8 years. I love the idea of preserving
some sense of the history of Santa Monica Airport and I appreciate we have a
housing shortage. Nevertheless it's clear to me that a process has already
occurred confirming the people's desire to have a park on this land. With a global
need for ever more greenery, that feels like the best aesthetic and functional use
of the airport property. I see no reason to confuse matters by instigating yet
another open ended process for deciding what to do here. The decision has
been made. The only question is its implementation.
10-08-23 at 01:28 PM Patrick Davenport
10-08-23 at 01:33 PM John Humble
10-08-23 at 01:34 PM Joey Reynolds
10-08-23 at 01:40 PM MICHAEL OSMENT Please follow the Measure LC. Stop outside interest trying to stop the new Grand
Park
10-08-23 at 01:41 PM Flynn Osment Please help me grow up with a new park and not a dirty airport. I am 9 years old.
10-08-23 at 01:42 PM Ava Osment Please help me, I need a new park near me to play sports! I am 11 years old
10-08-23 at 01:43 PM Lara Osment
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM Nora Foran
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM Lucia Klass
10-08-23 at 01:52 PM Fae Horowitz
10-08-23 at 01:54 PM Jonathan Stein This is a direct and cynical attack on the expressed will of the residents
masquerading staff opinions for public opinion under a sophistical and expensive
mask. Utterly detestable.
10-08-23 at 01:58 PM Patrick Reardon
10-08-23 at 02:05 PM Lauren de la Fuente Please respect the original desire of the LC voters and stop with the political
agenda to do an end run of what we voted for.
10-08-23 at 02:09 PM Melanie Merians All my family and neighbors respectfully request that you REJECT this shameful
lottery!
10-08-23 at 02:10 PM Ellen Mark
10-08-23 at 02:18 PM Jay Abramowitz The people have voted! You're acting like the Wisconsin legislature, trying to
ignore our votes. Leave it alone.
10-08-23 at 02:22 PM James Wilson Enough. It is time to let the airport land go for better use for the residents of
Santa Monica.
10-08-23 at 02:24 PM Louis Bon
10-08-23 at 02:34 PM Karen Blechman Please honor Measure LC. Do not attempt to subvert that decision with a lottery
or any other misguided effort.
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM Lealani Ranch Dawes
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
8
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM Richard Moore
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM Patrick De Feo
10-08-23 at 02:44 PM Erin Ferro
10-08-23 at 02:46 PM Jan Simonovic Santa Monica Airport should be a PARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10-08-23 at 02:59 PM John Greene Close the Airport / make it a Park as agreed too. In the meanwhile STOP selling
leaded jet fuel!
10-08-23 at 03:00 PM Leona marolo Please keep our city beautiful and for the people not big business.
10-08-23 at 03:07 PM Eric Garner
10-08-23 at 03:09 PM Adam Simon Stop trying to avoid the clear will of the people you represent.
10-08-23 at 03:14 PM H. Martin The secret answer is revealed here•in: thou shalt build a great park & close the
disgusting, polluting airport irrevocably & permanently.
10-08-23 at 03:19 PM Laura Lacamara Close the airport; build a great park.
10-08-23 at 03:20 PM Brian Stecher I understand the desire to be objective but this approach trades ignorance for
subjectivity, not wise.
10-08-23 at 03:29 PM Cynthia
10-08-23 at 03:34 PM Laura Kaiser
10-08-23 at 03:57 PM Olivia Kelly
10-08-23 at 04:00 PM Beverly Haas
10-08-23 at 04:02 PM Ilene Weingard
10-08-23 at 04:05 PM Kristina Hagman
10-08-23 at 04:47 PM Alice Ellis Do not waste our money on a lottery. We already voted in 2014 to close the
airport and build the park. Get to work on the park - do the job you were elected
to do.
10-08-23 at 05:00 PM Alex Novakovich
10-08-23 at 05:26 PM Scott Weiss
10-08-23 at 05:27 PM Scott Weiss
10-08-23 at 05:45 PM Ofer Grossman
10-08-23 at 05:53 PM Mimi Wheeler
10-08-23 at 06:01 PM Marla Eby
10-08-23 at 06:18 PM Michael katz The People spoke plainly and clearly when they voted overwhelmingly in favor of
LC. Stop the Fuel Farm danger to Santa Monica’s aquifer.
10-08-23 at 06:22 PM Lorri Benson This issue has been voted on. Please honor the wishes of those who elected
you, and stop trying to find a way to NOT shut down the airport. The people of
Santa Monica, especially those most affected by the airport in Sunset Park and
Ocean Park, have made it clear that we want a well-thought out park and
recreational area to benefit the local taxpayers. Most of the owners of the small
jets and commuter planes don't even live in Santa Monica. We who live here
want to stop breathing dangerous fumes and lead, and don't want to live with the
potential of small plane crashes over our roofs. Not to mention the sound
pollution, which we've heard as late as 11pm sometimes. There is no reason to
bring up this topic again and again. We want the airport gone by 2028, as our last
vote indicated. No lottery panels, no more discussion, no more stalling. Thank
you.
10-08-23 at 06:25 PM Simona Garon Please stop this lottery process
10-08-23 at 06:26 PM Patty
10-08-23 at 06:26 PM Nicola Goode Listen to constituents whose voices and votes have repeatedly and
unequivocally settled the issue of SMO closure! Act accordingly SM City Council,
reject the Proposed Lottery!
10-08-23 at 06:28 PM Katharine Dreyfuss
10-08-23 at 06:36 PM Min Shi
10-08-23 at 06:38 PM Makoto Kato
10-08-23 at 07:31 PM Joan Wilder The panel should only be permitted to make recommendations that do not
require any changes to Measure LC.
10-08-23 at 07:41 PM Matt Schlegel
10-08-23 at 07:57 PM Michael Jerrett
10-08-23 at 08:15 PM Jennifer Josephs Jets have to go--Time to get rid of Polluting Fuel tank storage
10-08-23 at 08:31 PM Nancy Owens
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
9
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-08-23 at 08:34 PM John Ventura
10-08-23 at 08:36 PM Denise Gerber
10-08-23 at 10:00 PM Jan-Peter Flack We want and need a park. Which is why the City of Santa Monica bought the
land in the 1st place.
10-08-23 at 10:11 PM Steven T Benson This needs to be a park
10-08-23 at 10:20 PM Dawn Joyal No changes to Measure LC
10-08-23 at 10:29 PM Howard Wolfe
10-08-23 at 10:49 PM Mazi Lombard
10-08-23 at 11:07 PM Mindi Shank One person one vote. It’s democracy. Here in Santa Monica, and everywhere
else in the world. It takes ALL of us and EVERY single voice matters! Respect
the vote! We voted.
10-08-23 at 11:39 PM Carol Joffe 90405
10-08-23 at 11:55 PM Cathy Hillman
10-09-23 at 12:17 AM carol joffe This is your responsibility to our community, and no one else's, to insure that the
residents can breathe and move and enjoy the best quality of life and health.
Don't pass it on to others. It's not their job.
10-09-23 at 12:27 AM Stacey Abrams-ShericK The matter was settled with Measure LC… The City wants a park.
10-09-23 at 12:29 AM Ose Dalldorf
10-09-23 at 12:29 AM Robert Sherick The City already voted on this with Measure LC.
10-09-23 at 12:30 AM Jack Sherick
10-09-23 at 02:02 AM Fariba Weiss
10-09-23 at 04:43 AM Ursula Fox
10-09-23 at 05:25 AM Marla Eby
10-09-23 at 05:37 AM Elaine Miller
10-09-23 at 05:56 AM John Reynolds WE VOTED FOR PARKS AND ANY
votes to undue the 60/40 decision
10-09-23 at 05:58 AM Suzanne joffe Put in a park, like you promised. You are snakes at heart.
10-09-23 at 06:31 AM Karla Klarin We want and need a PARK!
10-09-23 at 06:33 AM Dorothy Chapman
10-09-23 at 06:39 AM Larry Arreola, Carol Arreola Lottery System? PULEESE. We need real stake holders to be part of the
process, not names picked out if a hat
10-09-23 at 07:04 AM Tracey Hennessey I’ve lived here all of my life. In the last 10 years I’ve seen change that makes this
city nearly unrecognizable for the worst. Please stop giving city land to
developers. The city of Santa Monica obviously can’t handle what’s on their plate
now with homeless and crime out of control.
10-09-23 at 07:28 AM Val Davidson CLOSE THE AIRPORT AS PROMISED. A great new park was the plan! Green
open space is important to the community. LC was voted on.
10-09-23 at 08:10 AM Ashley Simonsen
10-09-23 at 08:11 AM Ann Lewis We voted on this topic on Measure LC. Please accept this vote from 2014 rather
than try to change what the future of the SM Airport will be. As published by the
City of SM, "New development is prohibited on Airport land permanently closed
to aviation use unless voters approve limits on the uses and development that
may occur on the land." Thank you.
10-09-23 at 08:14 AM Sarah Lewis Citizens have already expressed their position on this issue by public vote.
Respect their decisions.
10-09-23 at 08:15 AM Chuck Mason 3480 Maplewood Ave
10-09-23 at 08:38 AM Stephanie Tainsky Please, not again. We already went through this. WE WANT PARKS!!!!!
10-09-23 at 08:42 AM Eddy Winston
10-09-23 at 08:45 AM Steven Brady
10-09-23 at 09:09 AM John Reynolds
10-09-23 at 09:27 AM Tregg Rustad Let's build a park, and only a park!
10-09-23 at 09:49 AM Dennis WIlder Stick with LC as you should.
10-09-23 at 09:50 AM bea nemlaha Residents most directly affected should take the lead. Random selection
irrational.
10-09-23 at 09:52 AM Chuck Hoover
10-09-23 at 10:16 AM daniel funk i reject the lottery process for the santa monica airport.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
10
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-09-23 at 10:22 AM Lisa Detamore Please stop this nonsense. We already voted.
10-09-23 at 10:34 AM Shawn Barry we decided long ago to make this a PARK - we the people of Santa Monica do
not appreciate these back door meetings
10-09-23 at 10:40 AM Brian Barry
10-09-23 at 10:44 AM Emily Dawe
10-09-23 at 10:53 AM Ronette Barry WE VOTED ON THIS, PROMISED, PARK DEVELOPMENT. I knew this was
going to happen. So sick of the bate and switch. How can you look in the mirror.
Let me know when the city council meeting is?
10-09-23 at 10:56 AM Barry Friesen
10-09-23 at 11:16 AM mark ford
10-09-23 at 11:32 AM Mark Abdou
10-09-23 at 11:36 AM Joy Abbott Support Measure LC ! Council needs to pull on their big girl and boy pants and
do the 'visioning' work to commit to open parks rather than have it led housing
development concerns.
10-09-23 at 11:53 AM Susan Jain
10-09-23 at 12:17 PM Dorothy Cramer The people spoke/voted on this issue! It is your duty to follow their choice!
10-09-23 at 12:55 PM lois banner I have lived in Santa Monica for 40 years. Please, please allow it to remain the
beautiful residential community 8it has always been.
10-09-23 at 01:14 PM Sarah Bryce This is pure corruption by BIG REAL ESTATE and the neighborhood of Sunset
Park will not stand for it
10-09-23 at 01:27 PM Ellen Hannan
10-09-23 at 01:44 PM Margaret Hannan I am so sick of you selling out our city to real estate tycoons. I lived in a house
under the airport for over 40 years! I still live in a Santa Monica rent controlled
apartment. If you want to stay employed as a member of our city council get your
A in gear and vote the way we Santa Monicans want you to!!!!
10-09-23 at 01:55 PM Mark Schubb
10-09-23 at 02:06 PM Kenneth Abbott
10-09-23 at 02:25 PM Patrick Seeholzer
10-09-23 at 02:27 PM Patrick Seeholzer
10-09-23 at 02:32 PM Lynn Robb
10-09-23 at 03:17 PM Darlene Yaplee
10-09-23 at 03:36 PM Deborah We voted for LC years ago and expect that if SMO closes the land can only be
used for parkland unless voted upon by the residents of Santa Monica.
10-09-23 at 03:58 PM Tom Lynch The disruption to our lives and real estate value are impacted greatly by any
activity from the Santa Monica Airport. The noise levels, pollution, and
disturbance of jets/planes flying over our homes needs to stop immediately. The
airport is enjoyed only by a few while causing the above mentioned damage to
many.
10-09-23 at 04:22 PM Christine Lynch Keep your agreements
10-09-23 at 04:39 PM ARTHUR BARROW
10-09-23 at 05:13 PM Danielle Litak I ask that you keep with original plans to makes this a public space for all to
enjoy and to not entertain an airport.
10-09-23 at 05:14 PM Frederick Pringle
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM Kenneth Kirschbaum
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM Elizabeth Oakes Developer-aligned "nonpartisan" groups will undermine the will of the citizens.
Close the airport as planned and create the park voted in by Santa Monica
residents. Keep your promises.
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM Gavin Scott
10-09-23 at 05:30 PM Andrea Ware The land needs to be ALL park!
10-09-23 at 05:35 PM Dawn Bailey
10-09-23 at 06:09 PM Nicola Scott We do not want the city-wide vote to turn Santa Monica airport into a park to be
overturned.
10-09-23 at 06:36 PM Francine Duran
10-09-23 at 06:53 PM David Kimball
10-09-23 at 07:16 PM Kathy Knight Please support an open, democratic process in our city government.
10-09-23 at 08:59 PM Stephen Molstad This is outrageous. Don't do it! The staff proposing this should be fired.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Danielle Charney <shineshuge@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 9:26 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 7A. Airport -OPPOSE LOTTERY
EXTERNAL
I oppose hiring Healthy Democracy to be involved in
anything to do with the conversion of the airport
for more than obvious reasons.
The egos involved in people who think they can do anything because they
"want it" is dangerous.
This is a serious undertaking .. Healthy Democracy
is involved and associated with Abundant Housing and Leonora Camner
who are also involved with major $ funding from developers and a
serious lobbyist organization. they are responsible for having our
mandated housing numbers doubled.
VOTE NO ON HEALTHY DEMOCRACY ‐ they are anything but that ..and
Abundant Housing is anything but housing advocates. Keep them far
away
from everything involved in this town with housing.
NO ON THE LOTTERY..
Danielle Charney
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:John Fairweather <johnfairweather@earthlink.net>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 9:27 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la
Torre
Subject:John Fairweather - Re: Agenda Item 7A
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
I write this letter based on the assumption that you have received broad feedback, including from Airport2Park
(of which I am a board member), to remove the phrase “and development” from the framing question put to the panel,
and I trust that you see the wisdom of doing so. Therefore I want to point out one final issue, and suggest one final
adjustment, that I believe will put much of the controversy surrounding the panel process behind us, and so allow the
City to move forward with public support, rather than opposition. This letter represents my personal recommendations.
As this process has moved forward, Airport2Park has suggested, and staff, to their credit, has accepted and
incorporated two important requirements into the guidance for the design firms, now narrowed down to Sasaki. The
first is that there must be a “day‐1 build plan”, and the second that the firm plans should anticipate “incremental build”,
that is we build out the park one bit at a time, as and when the funding becomes available, not all at once. The day‐1
build is plan is simply the initial build increment. The consequence of this approach is that we do not have to find all the
funds up front, parts of the area can be allowed to go ‘wild’ until funding is available. Great parks may take decades to
complete.
With the removal of the words “and development”, we are still left with just one glaring inconsistency that
generates public suspicion and resistance. That is the original staff guidance described three possible approaches based
on differing areas used for development to generate funds: small, medium, and large. There was no explicit option that
will be presented to the panel that has zero development. Unsurprisingly, we see this same guidance echoed back in the
Sasaki response (see below), all images have some development.
This perceived need for some development funding is simply a relic from earlier thinking that did not
incorporate the concept of incremental build‐out. Of course if we do in fact build incrementally as funds become
available, then there is clearly a viable path than needs no development whatsoever to fund things.
So to correct this problem, and overcome public suspicion, I suggest that you simply instruct staff to mandate
that one of the three options presented to the panel (and prepared by the design firm) for consideration be a explicit
zero development option as implied by the striking of the words “and development”. This eliminates any inconsistency
in panel guidance, and truly allows the panel to consider all options without being misled by presented materials into
thinking a “no development” option is not a possible choice. It absolutely is, indeed it is the only option consistent with
measure LC and the public vote that led to it.
Please consider guiding staff to require an explicit no‐development, incremental build‐out option be part of the
output from the design firm and part of the options presented to the panel. Making this change explicit will do much to
allay public suspicion which is currently focussed on the panel process itself.
Sincerely,
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
John Fairweather
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Esther Hickman <estherheidi@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 9:32 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox
Subject:Agenda item 7.A - Discussion of the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Honorable Council Members,
1. Please reject the proposed contract with Healthy Democracy
2. Please oppose the proposed lottery system
3. Please continue to move forward with an open process that engages all residents and stakeholders
THANK you for your consideration!
‐‐
Esther Hickman
Pico Neighborhood Resident
310.600.7306
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:les gibbs <leswgibbs@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 9:37 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:No Lottery
EXTERNAL
Please do not implement a lottery for such an important decision!
Thanks..
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Caro Vilain <carovilain@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 9:42 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Support for item 7A
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council:
Please support the innovaƟve LoƩery Selected public engagement process proposed in Item 7A for the future of the
airport.
The LoƩery‐based process represents Santa Monica’s values that you support:
Inclusiveness and RepresentaƟon — it ensures parƟcipaƟon from people of all socio‐economic backgrounds, all
demographics.
CollaboraƟon — the panel listens to and works with the wide range of community groups.
Integrity — the process is research based, includes input from all stakeholders/individuals/groups, which leads to
thoughƞul and independent outcomes.
Sincerely,
Caro Vilain
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Ben <bcwang@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 9:56 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Santa Monica City Council Meeting - 10/10/23 - Item 7A. Discussion on the Lottery-Selected
Panel Process for the Airport
Attachments:SMO - Reject the Lottery Petition - Signatures and Comments 10-10-23.pdf
EXTERNAL
I did not get the automatic reply confirmation.
Please confirm that the email below will be in the public record.
Thank you.
Begin forwarded message:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023, 1:04 AM, Ben <bcwang@yahoo.com> wrote:
Public Comments Submitted for:
Santa Monica City Council Meeting
Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 5:30PM
Item 7A. Study Session
Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
300+
Authors and signatories submit the petition below
and attached as a PDF for easier readability.
===============
Supporters of Measure LC and
Local Residents of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice, and Mar Vista
October 5, 2023
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, California 90401
E-mail: council.mailbox@santamonica.gov
PETITION
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
We, the undersigned, urge the Santa Monica City Council to reject the proposed lottery process
that would guide the future of SMO.
We demand that the Council and Staff preserve and honor: (1) the original 1926 citywide vote to
purchase the land for a public park, (2) the definitive 2014 citywide vote that established Charter
Amendment LC, and (3) reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures
airport closure.
To do otherwise would demonstrate contempt for repeated and clear-cut election outcomes of
democratic processes in the City of Santa Monica.
Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council Members:
We urge you to reject the Staff’s Lottery-Selected Panel Outreach Process (“Lottery”) proposal scheduled
to be studied by the City Council on October 10, 2023. You should reject the Lottery and the attempt
to undermine the original expressed intent of residents in 1926, the City Charter Amendment LC in
2014, and the City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026. Each of these votes passed by wide
margins. The Lottery would substitute an untested, non-democratic process using residents (likely
unfamiliar with the complex issues surrounding the present Airport) selected by Staff’s vague
“stratification” factors to make decisions based on information largely provided by that same Staff. The
elected City Council is pledged to facilitate processes that are consistent with the 1926 public park
purchase, the Charter Amendment LC, and the City Council SMO Closure Resolution.
A. 1926 Park Bond
Residents authorized the ordinance (5568 for, and 2056 against) the purchase of a tract of land “for the
purposes of a public park”. The ordinance clearly and repeatedly states the use to be a public park.
There was no mention of an airport or any other use. Even so, the Airport presently occupies the land
today, far past the end of World War 2, and far past Douglas Aircraft’s move from Santa Monica to Long
Beach in the mid-1970’s. (See Exhibit 1.)
B. Charter Amendment LC
In 2014, Measure LC was passed by more than 15,000 voters (60% to 40%) which amended the City
Charter to:
“prohibit new development of Airport land, except for parks, public open spaces and public
recreational facilities, until the voters approve limits on the uses and development that may occur
on the land.” (See Exhibit 2.)
In spite of almost $1 million spent to defeat Measure LC locally (with large sums spent by deep-pocketed
national aviation lobby organizations), Measure LC was endorsed by hundreds of local organizations,
neighborhood groups, community leaders, elected officials, and individuals from our local community with
an average donation of only $200, totaling $100,000 (see https://itsourland.org/endorsements). (See
Exhibit 3.)
Following the 2014 election and Measure LC passage, the Santa Monica City Charter was amended to
read:
“If all or part of the Airport land is permanently closed to aviation use, no new
development of that land shall be allowed until the voters have approved limits on the
uses and development that may occur on the land. However, this section shall not
prohibit the City Council from approving the following on Airport land that has been
permanently closed to aviation use: the development of parks, public open spaces, and
public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural,
arts and education uses.” (See Exhibit 4.)
In summary, Measure LC provides that:
1. the City Council holds full authority to close the airport,
2. new development is prohibited on the land unless voters approve it, and
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
3
3. only parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and
replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses are allowed.
The present Staff proposal seeks to replace the voters’ clearly expressed will with an un-democratic
process which: 1) is not transparent, 2) lacks accountability, 3) usurps the expressed will of the residents,
4) and ignores the role and expertise of the Airport Commission and its mandate to advise the City
Council on all matters regarding the Airport.
C. City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026
In 2017, the SMO Consent Decree was signed to legally allow for airport closure at the end of 2028. The
City Council then unanimously adopted (7-0) SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which stated:
“The City Council directs the City Manager, City Attorney and their staffs to take all
actions necessary and proper to ensure that SMO will cease to operate as an airport and
shall be closed to all aeronautical use forever effective as of midnight on December 31,
2028.” (See Exhibit 5.)
Resolution 11026 instructs City Staff to take all actions to ensure the airport is closed forever at the end of
2028.
D. The Proposed Lottery Undermines the Charter Amendment and the Closure Resolution
The “democratic lottery”, also known as sortition, is a method of selecting individuals for decision-making
processes or public office through random chance, similar to how a lottery selects winners. Democratic
lotteries are recognized to have significant challenges and shortcomings:
1. Competence and Qualifications: Randomly selected individuals result in participants who lack
the expertise or qualifications needed to meet their responsibilities, leading to decisions that are
uninformed or ineffective.
2. No Accountability: Elected representatives can be held accountable through elections, whereas
participants chosen by lottery lack accountability to the public. Participants are not directly
responsible for their decisions and recommendations.
3. Lack of Proper Incentives: Elected officials have reputational and other incentives to perform
and make decisions to secure re-election and serve the interests of Santa Monica, whereas
lottery-selected individual motivations will be unclear.
4. Bias and Manipulation: The process of selecting the pool of eligible participants and the
methods used for random selection are subject to bias and manipulation. Personal agendas,
conformance to group norms, and undue influence by Staff are major risk factors (as it selects the
“relevant” information presented to individuals unfamiliar with the history of controversies
surrounding the Airport).
5. Small Sample Size: The number of participants selected by lotteries may be relatively small,
which limit the diversity of perspectives and result in unrepresentative decisions and outcomes.
6. Participation and Voluntariness: Lottery-selected individuals may volunteer for their positions,
leading to potential disinterest or lack of engagement, compared to self-selected participation.
7. Complex Issues and Inputs: Information, issues, and decisions may be highly complex and
require specialized knowledge or background to assess and recognize information inputs that
may be incomplete, inaccurate, uncertain, or deceptive.
8. Lack of Mandate: Lottery-selected individuals may not have a mandate from the public, making it
challenging for them to make tough decisions, especially in controversial matters.
9. Stability and Continuity: Changes or turnover of lottery-selected individuals could lead to
instability, discontinuity, and difficulties in decision making, planning, and implementation.
10. Representation Concerns: Sortition does not guarantee equal representation for marginalized
or underrepresented groups.
Democratic lotteries are not democratic elections, and random does not mean unbiased. As a result
lottery-selected panels are not necessarily fair and impartial, and they can easily be led astray with
incomplete, biased, or deceptive information inputs. As City Staff says in its report, lotteries are “not
common in North America” so its use would essentially be an experiment on one of the most
significant planning projects in Santa Monica’s history. Staff also says in its report that it
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
4
“recommends a cautious approach.” A process that is untested, is by definition not cautious.
(See Exhibit 6.)
The proposed Lottery partially shifts the authority of City Council and responsibilities of City Staff to a
random lottery process that could potentially advocate for activities that do not “ensure” airport
closure, or that advocate for “prohibited” development that is inconsistent with Charter
Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution. The Lottery process lacks accountability and a clear
direction and is founded on the principles of randomness and uncertainty, rather than direction and vision.
The Lottery creates potential off-ramps from Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution.
The City should not be facilitating it, much less funding it. If Special Interests want to propose initiatives
that are counter to Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution, then they can put something
before the voters, however the City Staff should not be doing or initiating the initial groundwork. The City
should only be facilitating processes that are consistent with the clear direction and vision of Charter
Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution, which have been consistently supported by the electorate
and through broad public input.
We strongly and respectfully request you take the following actions:
1. Reject the proposed Lottery process that would guide the future of SMO.
2. Preserve and honor the Citywide votes in 2014 and 1926 in favor of a park.
3. Reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
Please continue to ensure the full closing of SMO at the end of December 2028 (62 months), review the
existing body of work and visioning already done over the years, and continue with a park planning
process that is transparent and consistent with Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution.
Please honor the residents and the democratic process.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
The undersigned Supporters of Measure LC and Local Residents of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles,
Venice, and Mar Vista
Exhibit 1.
1926 City of Santa Monica Ordinance No. 339
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Exhibit 2.
The 2014 Santa Monica Ballot
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Exhibit 3.
2014 Measure LC Endorsements
(See https://itsourland.org/endorsements to clearly view the extensive list)
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
5
Exhibit 5.
City Council SMO Closure Resolution
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Exhibit 6.
City Council Report January 24, 2023
Public Process to Determine the Future of the Santa Monica Airport
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Signed (with additional comments),
10-05-23 at 05:50 AM // Alan Levenson // Read the petition and stop this unnecessary
and costly process now.
10-06-23 at 01:40 PM // Charles Blum // Please honor the will of the people and their
vote with measure LC. Don't succumb to big money financial developer special interests
and insult the intelligence of those who elective you and trust you will govern with
integrity and ethics. We will never have another opportunity to have a park --
EVER. Please let's protect our future generations so they have a party to appreciate as
open land becomes absent from all surrounding regions.
10-06-23 at 04:21 PM // Tanya Troglin //
10-06-23 at 04:45 PM // Elizabeth Van Denburgh //
10-06-23 at 05:08 PM // David Klass // The proposed lottery is an attempted end run
around SMO closure. Special interests are influencing staff and Council to overturn
repeatedly established will of residents.
10-06-23 at 07:32 PM // David Goddard // The sortition is the most ridiculous idea
proposed by staff so far.
10-06-23 at 07:55 PM // Christine Hardin // We have already spoken through Measure
LC and Measure LC was passed by the voters of Santa Monica.
10-06-23 at 09:55 PM // Joseph Hardin // "Please no more Saturday closed door
scamming the voters of Santa Monica funded primarily by out of town, mostly out of
state aviation interests! The private jet class that has no interest in the health, safety or
welfare of the overwhelming majority of Santa Monica residents, especially young
children and the elderly, not to mention the residents south and east of SMO. These
people bear the brunt of the pollution and noise from SMO, due to the prevailing wind,
and yet have no voice (vote) in the matter. We, the residents of Santa Monica, still store
and sell leaded aviation fuel knowing that it is very unhealthy for people, especially
children and the elderly. Why do we do this? So that a few aviation enthusiasts can live
out their fantasies with no regard for the thousands of residents and wildlife that
surround SMO. It's time for the Santa Monica City Council to put public interest first and
honor Measure LC. Thanks for your hard work. Please make it count by doing something
good for everyone, a Great Park for the people of Santa Monica and our neighbors."
10-06-23 at 10:41 PM // Quynh Nguyen // Even though I deeply oppose the lottery focus
group if it is meant to bypass a broader vote, I am open to a minority of airport land
being used for low-income and affordable housing within mixed-use complexes to fund
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
6
turning the rest of the land into parks. Respect democracy by putting your plans to a
citywide vote!
10-07-23 at 01:09 AM // John C Smith // I also oppose the use of that SHAM group
“healthy Democracy.”
10-07-23 at 02:04 AM // Joseph Schmitz // "As a former Airport Commissioner (8 years),
Retired USAF Pilot (7,000 hours), Safety Consultant for the FAA, and Research
Methods Professor - I find the Staff's proposal antidemocratic, deceptive, and an
abominable usurpation of voters' expressed wishes and residents' rights. Staff
decisions, recommendations to City Councilmembers, and falsehoods (to residents and
to City Councilmembers) have demonstrably kept SMO open past 2015. At great costs
to the City, and greater costs to the health and welfare of residents nearby our Airport.
Please know that as of March 2023, only 12 Santa Monica residents base their airplanes
at SMO. "
10-07-23 at 02:56 AM // Joan Schmitz // Please do not go forward with the despicable
proposal to silence Santa Monica residents and voters.
10-07-23 at 06:02 AM // River Huston //
10-07-23 at 07:17 AM // Allyson Dworkin //
10-07-23 at 07:21 AM // Susan Vandebunt //
10-07-23 at 07:33 AM // Robert Brown //
10-07-23 at 07:39 AM // Dirk W van de Bunt //
10-07-23 at 07:42 AM // Charles Gibson //
10-07-23 at 08:01 AM // Elizabeth Lerer //
10-07-23 at 08:04 AM // Diane Sabatini //
10-07-23 at 08:19 AM // Lisa Sandbank // "This lottery is a deconstruction of the existing,
voter-approved measure LC—authored by city council—which the residents fought for
and won despite the millions spent to defeat it by nation-wide aviation organizations and
their infamous power lawyers. A lottery committee gives City Staff the private power to
influence committee members at their discretion and undermine the intentions voted by
City Counsel SMO Closure Resolution. "
10-07-23 at 08:39 AM // Victor Fresco //
10-07-23 at 08:45 AM // Sean Meehan // The question is too skewed toward
development and omits mention of green space.
10-07-23 at 09:47 AM // Karen Comegys-Wortz // The residents want a park! We
elected you to do the right thing and abide by our wishes!
10-07-23 at 10:13 AM // Constance Stewart //
10-07-23 at 10:43 AM // William Schoene // Under NO circumstances should SMO land
become anything not in adherence to the park and/or recreational mandate of Measure
LC!
10-07-23 at 10:50 AM // Jack Drutz //
10-07-23 at 11:59 AM // Asa Greenberg //
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM // Gregg Chadwick //
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM // Flavia Baptista //
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM // Chris Waller // The residents have already voted to close the
airport and use the land as a park. Please honor the votes cast, and do not add
development to that already conjested area.
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM // Jeffrey Felz //
10-07-23 at 12:03 PM // Andrea hricko //
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM // Alvin Crown //
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM // Benjamin Shore // Stop avoiding what your residents want - they
want a park no other use.
10-07-23 at 12:07 PM // Jennifer // "Honor Measure LC. No development on the land
without a vote of the people. Close the ariport and make it a park as agreed upon."
10-07-23 at 12:07 PM // Jacqueline McDonald // do your job!
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM // Se Jong Ding //
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM // Jeffrey Rosenfeld //
10-07-23 at 12:12 PM // Gerard Raether //
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
7
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM // David Konell //
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM // Andrea Maitra //
10-07-23 at 12:14 PM // Richard Drapkin // Your JOB, is to support the will of the people,
as in "democracy." LC made that clear. Do your jobs
10-07-23 at 12:17 PM // ammar lughod // The airport is poisoning the air we breath and
are kids are getting sick. The joise pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do thr right
thing and close the airport
10-07-23 at 12:20 PM // Roberto Schaefer //
10-07-23 at 12:22 PM // David Abramis // "My email to the SM City Councel RE Item 3D:
Dear City Council Members: I am a long-time resident and home-owner of the City of
Santa Monica. I'm writing you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease
and do not lease the fuel tanks. I thought this was already settled, but apparently not.
Again, please. Thank you, David Abramis"
10-07-23 at 12:24 PM // Tamra Raven // Stop housing at the airport! Enough!
10-07-23 at 12:24 PM // Weber // Get rid of the airport; it's traumatic to residents due to
the insane amount of noise and constant overhead planes. I visited my brohter who lives
in the flight path, in his 2 million dollar home, and I was driven mad by the planes. This is
an abomination, and you couldn't pay me to live in that area. Be honest and serve the
people affected.
10-07-23 at 12:25 PM // Iris Souza // "Dear City Council Members: I am a long-time
resident and home-owner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm writing you today to ask you,
please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not lease the fuel tanks. I thought this was
already settled, but apparently not. Again, please. Thank you, Iris Souza"
10-07-23 at 12:26 PM // David Ginsburg //
10-07-23 at 12:27 PM // Tamra Raven // Stop housing at the airport! Enough!
10-07-23 at 12:28 PM // Patricia Braun //
10-07-23 at 12:29 PM // Jason McClaren //
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM // Karen Croner //
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM // Susan Hartley //
10-07-23 at 12:31 PM // theo swerissen // We want a park.
10-07-23 at 12:32 PM // Victor davich // The fish stinks from the head
10-07-23 at 12:33 PM // John C Smith // Reject the lottery AND that sham group the
Council wanted to run the show. And shame on the city for suggesting such a clear,
biased proposal.
10-07-23 at 12:33 PM // William Sadler // Please don’t re-litigate an issue this city
already overwhelmingly decided. Elections have consequences
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Annie Sabroux //
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Paola Levenson // We ask you to please consider the neighbors
around the airport! We were promised a park!
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Margot mcleay // We already voted on this issue
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Will Pirkey //
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Devon Pothier //
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Sandra Casillas // I live two blocks east of the airport. To say I
want it closed as of yesterday would be an understatement. When I moved in my home
in 1994, I knew, of course, that the airport was here. But I didn’t know that you could fly
jets in and out of it. Since you have shortened the runway, the jet problem is mostly
resolved, however, the traffic in and out is still quite loud. I live in Los Angeles, so I don’t
have a vote, but I am deeply affected by the airport, given where I live. You must close
the airport in 2024 just like your election results told you to do. If I recall correctly, you
can’t do anything other than put a great park there, unless you put it to the vote of the
city AGAIN. How many times you going to ask the same question hoping for a different
answer? Close the damn airport, put a park there and fulfill the edict of the voters
10-07-23 at 12:37 PM // carrie davies //
10-07-23 at 12:42 PM // Nurit Pereh // We are just behind the airport. Frankly, I don't
mind the small planes. But the jets are a latecomer to the airport and need to be
eliminated altogether. Helicopter flight training should go to an airport that's not so close
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
8
to residential neighborhoods. The noise and air pollution levels are simply too high and
too risky. The parks, playground, restaurants, soccer field, museum, art studios and
offices, theater - all those are so lovely for residents and visitors and should be
expanded. Please do not re-lease to aviation businesses.
10-07-23 at 12:48 PM // Ingrid Mueller // "Progressive, green City??!? SMO's immediate
Venice neighbors [!!!] can't endure noise and air pollution without increasing mental
dangers...and confusions about SM city council's weakening SMO Park Support. Please
check history and create a better future."
10-07-23 at 12:49 PM // Yvonne Guy //
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM // Betsy Katz //
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM // Jessica Tracy //
10-07-23 at 12:58 PM // Michael Jerrett // Why are you so responsive to business
interests at the airport and so unresponsive to the legitimate concerns of residents who
don’t want the noise, air pollution, and risks to our water supply - show some leadership
for a change and close the storage tanks and deny the lease to Atlantic Aviation and
evict the company.
10-07-23 at 01:08 PM // Joy Abbott // Please allow those of us committed to carrying out
the parameters of Measure LC to be involved in the 'visioning' process. We've worked
hard for our neighborhood. I'm especially concerned those of us living in Sunset Park
area adjacent to the airport will not have our proper representation as we will be the
most impacted by any re-use development of the that space.
10-07-23 at 01:08 PM // Ed Arias //
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM // Jason Knapp //
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM // Chutney li //
10-07-23 at 01:12 PM // Alison Buell // The community has voted on this “Great Park”
already. This is a shabby way of doing an end run around the voters.
10-07-23 at 01:18 PM // Eileen Tunick // Voter homeowner/residents overwhelmingly
support airport to park transition. Our votes will count.
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM // igor meglic //
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM // Brenda Goodman //
10-07-23 at 01:31 PM // Stephen Hewitt //
10-07-23 at 01:42 PM // Jamie Dunham //
10-07-23 at 01:48 PM // Joseph Lutz // Close the airport and build a park.
10-07-23 at 01:50 PM // Kevin Kinigstein //
10-07-23 at 01:50 PM // Andrea Lieberman // I just want to ensure that a park that was
voted on is what is put in there, not housing, and not businesses, that will entail more
noise and traffic. We are seriously deficient in park spaces for our city, and we live
extremely close to the airport, closer than most people in Santa Monica, and have been
highly effected by the noise and air pollution for decades.
10-07-23 at 01:55 PM // Gary Glickman // We have been asking for your representation
for many years. Are you abandoning us?
10-07-23 at 01:59 PM // barbara whitney // I support this petition, as well as open space,
rather than commercial development at the airport property. I also think it is
irresponsible, in case of civic emergency, to negate the use of the airport for small
aircraft.
10-07-23 at 02:02 PM // Randall Klarin //
10-07-23 at 02:09 PM // Jordan Ellis //
10-07-23 at 02:10 PM // William Josephs //
10-07-23 at 02:12 PM // Mara Thompson //
10-07-23 at 02:20 PM // Suanne Ware-Diaz // Honor the decision of your constituency
and neighbors. What the Westside lacks us common green area that enhances life and
community. With the large developments already underway throughout the area and the
continued allowance of one family McMansions, green area is needed more than ever.
10-07-23 at 02:29 PM // Luis Diaz // No Airport
10-07-23 at 02:29 PM // Luis Diaz // No Airport
10-07-23 at 02:40 PM // Alex Gardos // Close the airport please!
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
9
10-07-23 at 02:55 PM // Hal Bogotch // A.Great. Park. (Close SMO 4ever.)
10-07-23 at 03:16 PM // Chris Toussaint //
10-07-23 at 03:18 PM // Ann Bowman // Approving and implementing the lottery process
will be violative of the Santa Monica City Charter Boards and Commissions provisions
regarding the powers and REQUIRED duties of these appointive bodies. Approving the
lottery process is therefore illegal and opens the City up to legal challenge.
10-07-23 at 03:23 PM // ALAN KERNER // A few years ago, i participated in a process to
close the SM airport. The City Council Now it appears that the City Council is proposing
to re-engage this process. I have been enduring noise and pollution from the airport,
looking forward to the closure in 2028. Please don’t play games here and do not pass
this resolution.
10-07-23 at 03:24 PM // Jilla sardashti // Wake up and respond to the citizens’wishes
regarding the future of SMO. Enough of corporate greed over the health and safety of
the communities surrounding the airport! We’ve spoken but our very legitimate
demands fall on deaf ears over and over again!
10-07-23 at 03:26 PM // Karen Comegys-Wortz // List to the residents NOT the
developers
10-07-23 at 03:26 PM // Anita. Byrd //
10-07-23 at 03:28 PM // Tracy Orloff // Please honor the votes and wishes of City
taxpayers. We want park space at the airport - (and, are in dire need of it with amount of
housing development here now). We want an end to jet company contracting which puts
the people who live here and quality of our air at risk. Please represent us as you’ve
promised to do.
10-07-23 at 03:30 PM // David Krauss //
10-07-23 at 03:50 PM // Maureen Jacobson // This is shameful.
10-07-23 at 03:55 PM // Justin Braun //
10-07-23 at 03:58 PM // Mia Levenson //
10-07-23 at 04:28 PM // Philip Baily //
10-07-23 at 04:42 PM // Mary Duprey // It's clear that we want a public park on that
space, as was initially intended and confirmed by recent voters. Please honor that
decision and get on with discussing what we would like in our park. Thank you.
10-07-23 at 04:51 PM // Rebecca Nelson //
10-07-23 at 04:54 PM // Stephen Unger // Be true to your promise/obligation to close the
airport and replace it with a public park.
10-07-23 at 05:20 PM // Adrian Harewood //
10-07-23 at 06:03 PM // John Campisi //
10-07-23 at 06:17 PM // Jason McClaren //
10-07-23 at 06:37 PM // Donna Rosescu //
10-07-23 at 06:38 PM // William Arbenz //
10-07-23 at 06:59 PM // Roy Rico // Please honor the will of the people.
10-07-23 at 07:48 PM // Will von Bernuth //
10-07-23 at 07:48 PM // Kelly Hsiao //
10-07-23 at 08:48 PM // Will Guston //
10-07-23 at 09:03 PM // SULINH Lafontaine //
10-07-23 at 09:29 PM // Elin Katz // I support the closure of Santa Monica Airport and
the establishment of a public park in it's place.
10-07-23 at 09:35 PM // Megan FitzGerald //
10-07-23 at 09:41 PM // Jeanne Laurie // Honor the residents and the election results,
not cowtow to the developers.
10-07-23 at 10:28 PM // hal lindes //
10-07-23 at 10:51 PM // Elizabeth Estrup //
10-07-23 at 11:51 PM // Jan Simonovic //
10-08-23 at 06:00 AM // Tim Whalen //
10-08-23 at 07:38 AM // Kurt Gary //
10-08-23 at 07:42 AM // Sarah Braff // Park now!
10-08-23 at 07:49 AM // Allison Greene // Honor the original LC vote.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
10
10-08-23 at 08:26 AM // Susan Kirch //
10-08-23 at 09:02 AM // Phyllis Chavez //
10-08-23 at 09:12 AM // Dorinne Tye // "The people have spoken. The FAA & aviation
benefactors should NEVER be granted option to override the majority. You cannot
ignore constitutional processes and protections without undoing the intent of our
country's founding principals and future. Stop the insanity of aviation abuses & pollution.
This harms our productivity, health, viability, constitution and future. "
10-08-23 at 09:21 AM // Miki Barnes //
10-08-23 at 09:23 AM // Mathew Millen // Use Measure GS funds to build 3000 units of
low income housing between Wilshire and San Vicente blvd AFFH
10-08-23 at 09:34 AM // Peter Spelman //
10-08-23 at 09:37 AM // Larry Graber //
10-08-23 at 09:45 AM // Jon Casazza //
10-08-23 at 09:58 AM // Kenny Fields // We knew when the City Council caved and
made a behind closed doors deal to extend the life of the airport until 2028 and delay the
park that measure LC laid out, that there would be attempts to not follow the PUBLIC
WILL and turn the airport into lots of other things. Well, here we are and this "democratic
lottery process" is the first shot across the bow of the great park that the residents of this
city overwhelmingly approved with LC. We knew it was coming. Ask anyone who lives in
Santa Monica whether they thought that the Council would do what the residents wanted
or if they would cave to business interests and they would tell you that they were very
skeptical that the Council would follow the WILL OF THE RESIDENTS. Well placed
skepticism for sure.
10-08-23 at 10:00 AM // Amanda McConnell // We live in sunset park, just south of the
airport. We support the park and updated traffic flow / control measures.
10-08-23 at 10:03 AM // hep ingham // Don't let the crooked elements defeat the will of
the majority!!!
10-08-23 at 10:12 AM // Jen Murray //
10-08-23 at 10:53 AM // Sharon Rubin // "How many times are we going to have to fight
the same Battle? Does the City have NO Institutional Memory! We have filled the
Chamber so many times that I have lost count!.It is the residents that elect you to
represent us. Please consider our needs! I already , weekly have to wipe off my deck
and outside furniture because of the black toxic particles that fall on my property daily!
Thank you for your consideration of the residents needs for clean air!"
10-08-23 at 11:05 AM // Max Greene //
10-08-23 at 11:05 AM // John Greenwood //
10-08-23 at 11:23 AM // Kirsten Campisi //
10-08-23 at 12:03 PM // Clare Thomas // A random selection of citizens may not lead to
a group sufficiently educated about the issues, available to commit the time to get up to
speed on the issues, and ultimately easily swayed by those that want to make an end-
run around the results of LC as expressed by the voters of Santa Monica
10-08-23 at 12:36 PM // Natalie Greenberg // Please stop the airport immediately. It is
both a danger and nuisance to our families and community
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM // Luana Rubin //
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM // Jill Rosen // Put people over politics, quality of life over
monetary gain.
10-08-23 at 12:39 PM // Leslie Seki //
10-08-23 at 12:42 PM // Brian Kelly //
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM // Haily Jovich // "The voters decided SMO would be a park. The
conversation is finished. Santa Monica City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager
must stop undermining the democratic process by inserting outside interests and
lobbyists that are seeking to destroy Santa Monica. The City is choosing to distribute
drugs and drug paraphernalia rather than build a park for residents. The City has
shuttered libraries and turned our City over to lawless criminals. Santa Monica residents
need to speak up for themselves and stand up for safe streets, economic prosperity, and
education."
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
11
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM // Alessio Burgio //
10-08-23 at 12:46 PM // Natalie McAdams // Can't believe we are even considering
revisiting this again. Will this never end and SM truly become the green city it likes to
hold itself up as.
10-08-23 at 12:49 PM // Lauren wallenstein //
10-08-23 at 12:50 PM // Jacquie Jordan // Seriously ?!?
10-08-23 at 12:52 PM // Zina Josephs //
10-08-23 at 12:57 PM // Matthew Muranaka //
10-08-23 at 12:58 PM // Toby Berlin // Stop this madness
10-08-23 at 01:00 PM // Patrick Ney // Reject Lottery
10-08-23 at 01:07 PM // Jonny Pray //
10-08-23 at 01:10 PM // Grady Hall // Truly great cities have truly exceptional public
spaces. The airport has long outlived its usefulness, and is only used by a very small
percentage of the public -- while polluting surrounding neighborhoods with jet
exhaust. That's a big part of why the community voted overwhelmingly to transform it
into a park that could be enjoyed in many ways by those in the surrounding
neighborhood and city. It was never the intention to transform the airport into another
airport (!), or to enable developers to build massive buildings that are out-of-character
with every other structure in Santa Monica. We need a park. We voted for it. We voted
people out who were against it. Current city leaders should do the right thing and
transform the airport into the crown jewel of Santa Monica's public spaces, increasing
the quality of life for countless residents. With the pandemic and post-pandemic
changes now keeping people at home and working remotely, we must add more
community spaces and activities if we are to be a modern, healthy, and thriving
community.
10-08-23 at 01:14 PM // Frans Klinkenberg //
10-08-23 at 01:16 PM // ammar lughod // The airport is poisoning the air we breath and
are kids are getting sick. The joise pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do thr right
thing and close the airport
10-08-23 at 01:17 PM // Vic NoRMAN // Stop your underhanded tactics and cozy relation
with the aviation industry. Remember you are public servants. which means at some
point you will ask us to re-elect you.
10-08-23 at 01:18 PM // Bonnie smith //
10-08-23 at 01:20 PM // Marta Vago //
10-08-23 at 01:24 PM // Donna Urban //
10-08-23 at 01:25 PM // Stephen Mark // I served on the city Airport Commission for 8
years. I love the idea of preserving some sense of the history of Santa Monica Airport
and I appreciate we have a housing shortage. Nevertheless it's clear to me that a
process has already occurred confirming the people's desire to have a park on this land.
With a global need for ever more greenery, that feels like the best aesthetic and
functional use of the airport property. I see no reason to confuse matters by instigating
yet another open ended process for deciding what to do here. The decision has been
made. The only question is its implementation.
10-08-23 at 01:28 PM // Patrick Davenport //
10-08-23 at 01:33 PM // John Humble //
10-08-23 at 01:34 PM // Joey Reynolds //
10-08-23 at 01:40 PM // MICHAEL OSMENT // Please follow the Measure LC. Stop
outside interest trying to stop the new Grand Park
10-08-23 at 01:41 PM // Flynn Osment // Please help me grow up with a new park and
not a dirty airport. I am 9 years old.
10-08-23 at 01:42 PM // Ava Osment // Please help me, I need a new park near me to
play sports! I am 11 years old
10-08-23 at 01:43 PM // Lara Osment //
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM // Nora Foran //
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM // Lucia Klass //
10-08-23 at 01:52 PM // Fae Horowitz //
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
12
10-08-23 at 01:54 PM // Jonathan Stein // This is a direct and cynical attack on the
expressed will of the residents masquerading staff opinions for public opinion under a
sophistical and expensive mask. Utterly detestable.
10-08-23 at 01:58 PM // Patrick Reardon //
10-08-23 at 02:05 PM // Lauren de la Fuente // Please respect the original desire of the
LC voters and stop with the political agenda to do an end run of what we voted for.
10-08-23 at 02:09 PM // Melanie Merians // All my family and neighbors respectfully
request that you REJECT this shameful lottery!
10-08-23 at 02:10 PM // Ellen Mark //
10-08-23 at 02:18 PM // Jay Abramowitz // The people have voted! You're acting like the
Wisconsin legislature, trying to ignore our votes. Leave it alone.
10-08-23 at 02:22 PM // James Wilson // Enough. It is time to let the airport land go for
better use for the residents of Santa Monica.
10-08-23 at 02:24 PM // Louis Bon //
10-08-23 at 02:34 PM // Karen Blechman // Please honor Measure LC. Do not attempt to
subvert that decision with a lottery or any other misguided effort.
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Lealani Ranch Dawes //
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Richard Moore //
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Patrick De Feo //
10-08-23 at 02:44 PM // Erin Ferro //
10-08-23 at 02:46 PM // Jan Simonovic // Santa Monica Airport should be a
PARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10-08-23 at 02:59 PM // John Greene // Close the Airport / make it a Park as agreed too.
In the meanwhile STOP selling leaded jet fuel!
10-08-23 at 03:00 PM // Leona marolo // Please keep our city beautiful and for the
people not big business.
10-08-23 at 03:07 PM // Eric Garner //
10-08-23 at 03:09 PM // Adam Simon // Stop trying to avoid the clear will of the people
you represent.
10-08-23 at 03:14 PM // H. Martin // The secret answer is revealed here•in: thou shalt
build a great park & close the disgusting, polluting airport irrevocably & permanently.
10-08-23 at 03:19 PM // Laura Lacamara // Close the airport; build a great park.
10-08-23 at 03:20 PM // Brian Stecher // I understand the desire to be objective but this
approach trades ignorance for subjectivity, not wise.
10-08-23 at 03:29 PM // Cynthia //
10-08-23 at 03:34 PM // Laura Kaiser //
10-08-23 at 03:57 PM // Olivia Kelly //
10-08-23 at 04:00 PM // Beverly Haas //
10-08-23 at 04:02 PM // Ilene Weingard //
10-08-23 at 04:05 PM // Kristina Hagman //
10-08-23 at 04:47 PM // Alice Ellis // Do not waste our money on a lottery. We already
voted in 2014 to close the airport and build the park. Get to work on the park - do the job
you were elected to do.
10-08-23 at 05:00 PM // Alex Novakovich //
10-08-23 at 05:26 PM // Scott Weiss //
10-08-23 at 05:27 PM // Scott Weiss //
10-08-23 at 05:45 PM // Ofer Grossman //
10-08-23 at 05:53 PM // Mimi Wheeler //
10-08-23 at 06:01 PM // Marla Eby //
10-08-23 at 06:18 PM // Michael katz // The People spoke plainly and clearly when they
voted overwhelmingly in favor of LC. Stop the Fuel Farm danger to Santa Monica’s
aquifer.
10-08-23 at 06:22 PM // Lorri Benson // This issue has been voted on. Please honor the
wishes of those who elected you, and stop trying to find a way to NOT shut down the
airport. The people of Santa Monica, especially those most affected by the airport in
Sunset Park and Ocean Park, have made it clear that we want a well-thought out park
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
13
and recreational area to benefit the local taxpayers. Most of the owners of the small jets
and commuter planes don't even live in Santa Monica. We who live here want to stop
breathing dangerous fumes and lead, and don't want to live with the potential of small
plane crashes over our roofs. Not to mention the sound pollution, which we've heard as
late as 11pm sometimes. There is no reason to bring up this topic again and again. We
want the airport gone by 2028, as our last vote indicated. No lottery panels, no more
discussion, no more stalling. Thank you.
10-08-23 at 06:25 PM // Simona Garon // Please stop this lottery process
10-08-23 at 06:26 PM // Patty //
10-08-23 at 06:26 PM // Nicola Goode // Listen to constituents whose voices and votes
have repeatedly and unequivocally settled the issue of SMO closure! Act accordingly SM
City Council, reject the Proposed Lottery!
10-08-23 at 06:28 PM // Katharine Dreyfuss //
10-08-23 at 06:36 PM // Min Shi //
10-08-23 at 06:38 PM // Makoto Kato //
10-08-23 at 07:31 PM // Joan Wilder // The panel should only be permitted to make
recommendations that do not require any changes to Measure LC.
10-08-23 at 07:41 PM // Matt Schlegel //
10-08-23 at 07:57 PM // Michael Jerrett //
10-08-23 at 08:15 PM // Jennifer Josephs // Jets have to go--Time to get rid of Polluting
Fuel tank storage
10-08-23 at 08:31 PM // Nancy Owens //
10-08-23 at 08:34 PM // John Ventura //
10-08-23 at 08:36 PM // Denise Gerber //
10-08-23 at 10:00 PM // Jan-Peter Flack // We want and need a park. Which is why the
City of Santa Monica bought the land in the 1st place.
10-08-23 at 10:11 PM // Steven T Benson // This needs to be a park
10-08-23 at 10:20 PM // Dawn Joyal // No changes to Measure LC
10-08-23 at 10:29 PM // Howard Wolfe //
10-08-23 at 10:49 PM // Mazi Lombard //
10-08-23 at 11:07 PM // Mindi Shank // One person one vote. It’s democracy. Here in
Santa Monica, and everywhere else in the world. It takes ALL of us and EVERY single
voice matters! Respect the vote! We voted.
10-08-23 at 11:39 PM // Carol Joffe // 90405
10-08-23 at 11:55 PM // Cathy Hillman //
10-09-23 at 12:17 AM // carol joffe // This is your responsibility to our community, and no
one else's, to insure that the residents can breathe and move and enjoy the best quality
of life and health. Don't pass it on to others. It's not their job.
10-09-23 at 12:27 AM // Stacey Abrams-ShericK // The matter was settled with Measure
LC… The City wants a park.
10-09-23 at 12:29 AM // Ose Dalldorf //
10-09-23 at 12:29 AM // Robert Sherick // The City already voted on this with Measure
LC.
10-09-23 at 12:30 AM // Jack Sherick //
10-09-23 at 02:02 AM // Fariba Weiss //
10-09-23 at 04:43 AM // Ursula Fox //
10-09-23 at 05:25 AM // Marla Eby //
10-09-23 at 05:37 AM // Elaine Miller //
10-09-23 at 05:56 AM // John Reynolds // "WE VOTED FOR PARKS AND ANY
votes to undue the 60/40 decision "
10-09-23 at 05:58 AM // Suzanne joffe // Put in a park, like you promised. You are
snakes at heart.
10-09-23 at 06:31 AM // Karla Klarin // We want and need a PARK!
10-09-23 at 06:33 AM // Dorothy Chapman //
10-09-23 at 06:39 AM // Larry Arreola, Carol Arreola // Lottery System? PULEESE. We
need real stake holders to be part of the process, not names picked out if a hat
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
14
10-09-23 at 07:04 AM // Tracey Hennessey // I’ve lived here all of my life. In the last 10
years I’ve seen change that makes this city nearly unrecognizable for the worst. Please
stop giving city land to developers. The city of Santa Monica obviously can’t handle
what’s on their plate now with homeless and crime out of control.
10-09-23 at 07:28 AM // Val Davidson // CLOSE THE AIRPORT AS PROMISED. A great
new park was the plan! Green open space is important to the community. LC was voted
on.
10-09-23 at 08:10 AM // Ashley Simonsen //
10-09-23 at 08:11 AM // Ann Lewis // We voted on this topic on Measure LC. Please
accept this vote from 2014 rather than try to change what the future of the SM Airport will
be. As published by the City of SM, "New development is prohibited on Airport land
permanently closed to aviation use unless voters approve limits on the uses and
development that may occur on the land." Thank you.
10-09-23 at 08:14 AM // Sarah Lewis // Citizens have already expressed their position on
this issue by public vote. Respect their decisions.
10-09-23 at 08:15 AM // Chuck Mason // 3480 Maplewood Ave
10-09-23 at 08:38 AM // Stephanie Tainsky // Please, not again. We already went
through this. WE WANT PARKS!!!!!
10-09-23 at 08:42 AM // Eddy Winston //
10-09-23 at 08:45 AM // Steven Brady //
10-09-23 at 09:09 AM // John Reynolds //
10-09-23 at 09:27 AM // Tregg Rustad // Let's build a park, and only a park!
10-09-23 at 09:49 AM // Dennis WIlder // Stick with LC as you should.
10-09-23 at 09:50 AM // bea nemlaha // Residents most directly affected should take the
lead. Random selection irrational.
10-09-23 at 09:52 AM // Chuck Hoover //
10-09-23 at 10:16 AM // daniel funk // i reject the lottery process for the santa monica
airport.
10-09-23 at 10:22 AM // Lisa Detamore // Please stop this nonsense. We already voted.
10-09-23 at 10:34 AM // Shawn Barry // we decided long ago to make this a PARK - we
the people of Santa Monica do not appreciate these back door meetings
10-09-23 at 10:40 AM // Brian Barry //
10-09-23 at 10:44 AM // Emily Dawe //
10-09-23 at 10:53 AM // Ronette Barry // WE VOTED ON THIS, PROMISED, PARK
DEVELOPMENT. I knew this was going to happen. So sick of the bate and switch. How
can you look in the mirror. Let me know when the city council meeting is?
10-09-23 at 10:56 AM // Barry Friesen //
10-09-23 at 11:16 AM // mark ford //
10-09-23 at 11:32 AM // Mark Abdou //
10-09-23 at 11:36 AM // Joy Abbott // Support Measure LC ! Council needs to pull on
their big girl and boy pants and do the 'visioning' work to commit to open parks rather
than have it led housing development concerns.
10-09-23 at 11:53 AM // Susan Jain //
10-09-23 at 12:17 PM // Dorothy Cramer // The people spoke/voted on this issue! It is
your duty to follow their choice!
10-09-23 at 12:55 PM // lois banner // I have lived in Santa Monica for 40 years. Please,
please allow it to remain the beautiful residential community 8it has always been.
10-09-23 at 01:14 PM // Sarah Bryce // This is pure corruption by BIG REAL ESTATE
and the neighborhood of Sunset Park will not stand for it
10-09-23 at 01:27 PM // Ellen Hannan //
10-09-23 at 01:44 PM // Margaret Hannan // I am so sick of you selling out our city to
real estate tycoons. I lived in a house under the airport for over 40 years! I still live in a
Santa Monica rent controlled apartment. If you want to stay employed as a member of
our city council get your A in gear and vote the way we Santa Monicans want you to!!!!
10-09-23 at 01:55 PM // Mark Schubb //
10-09-23 at 02:06 PM // Kenneth Abbott //
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
15
10-09-23 at 02:25 PM // Patrick Seeholzer //
10-09-23 at 02:27 PM // Patrick Seeholzer //
10-09-23 at 02:32 PM // Lynn Robb //
10-09-23 at 03:17 PM // Darlene Yaplee //
10-09-23 at 03:36 PM // Deborah // We voted for LC years ago and expect that if SMO
closes the land can only be used for parkland unless voted upon by the residents of
Santa Monica.
10-09-23 at 03:58 PM // Tom Lynch // The disruption to our lives and real estate value
are impacted greatly by any activity from the Santa Monica Airport. The noise levels,
pollution, and disturbance of jets/planes flying over our homes needs to stop
immediately. The airport is enjoyed only by a few while causing the above mentioned
damage to many.
10-09-23 at 04:22 PM // Christine Lynch // Keep your agreements
10-09-23 at 04:39 PM // ARTHUR BARROW //
10-09-23 at 05:13 PM // Danielle Litak // I ask that you keep with original plans to makes
this a public space for all to enjoy and to not entertain an airport.
10-09-23 at 05:14 PM // Frederick Pringle //
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Kenneth Kirschbaum //
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Elizabeth Oakes // Developer-aligned "nonpartisan" groups will
undermine the will of the citizens. Close the airport as planned and create the park voted
in by Santa Monica residents. Keep your promises.
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Gavin Scott //
10-09-23 at 05:30 PM // Andrea Ware // The land needs to be ALL park!
10-09-23 at 05:35 PM // Dawn Bailey //
10-09-23 at 06:09 PM // Nicola Scott // We do not want the city-wide vote to turn Santa
Monica airport into a park to be overturned.
10-09-23 at 06:36 PM // Francine Duran //
10-09-23 at 06:53 PM // David Kimball //
10-09-23 at 07:16 PM // Kathy Knight // Please support an open, democratic process in
our city government.
10-09-23 at 08:59 PM // Stephen Molstad // This is outrageous. Don't do it! The staff
proposing this should be fired.
===============
-------------------------------
Ben Wang
Mobile: 310-663-9264
-------------------------------
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Public Comments Submitted for:
Santa Monica City Council Meeting
Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 5:30PM
Item 7A. Study Session
Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
300+
Authors and signatories of the attached petition
respectfully request you take the following actions:
We, the undersigned, urge the Santa Monica City Council to reject
the proposed lottery process that would guide the future of SMO.
We demand that the Council and Staff preserve and honor:
1. the original 1926 citywide vote to purchase the land for a public park,
2. the definitive 2014 citywide vote that established Charter Amendment LC, and
3. reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
To do otherwise would demonstrate contempt for repeated and
clear-cut election outcomes of democratic processes in the City
of Santa Monica.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Supporters of Measure LC and
Local Residents of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice, and Mar Vista
October 5, 2023
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, California 90401
E-mail: council.mailbox@santamonica.gov
PETITION
We, the undersigned, urge the Santa Monica City Council to reject the proposed lottery process that
would guide the future of SMO.
We demand that the Council and Staff preserve and honor: (1) the original 1926 citywide vote to purchase
the land for a public park, (2) the definitive 2014 citywide vote that established Charter Amendment LC,
and (3) reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
To do otherwise would demonstrate contempt for repeated and clear-cut election outcomes of democratic
processes in the City of Santa Monica.
Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council Members:
We urge you to reject the Staff’s Lottery-Selected Panel Outreach Process (“Lottery”) proposal scheduled to be
studied by the City Council on October 10, 2023. You should reject the Lottery and the attempt to undermine
the original expressed intent of residents in 1926, the City Charter Amendment LC in 2014, and the City
Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026. Each of these votes passed by wide margins. The Lottery would
substitute an untested, non-democratic process using residents (likely unfamiliar with the complex issues
surrounding the present Airport) selected by Staff’s vague “stratification” factors to make decisions based on
information largely provided by that same Staff. The elected City Council is pledged to facilitate processes that are
consistent with the 1926 public park purchase, the Charter Amendment LC, and the City Council SMO Closure
Resolution.
A. 1926 Park Bond
Residents authorized the ordinance (5568 for, and 2056 against) the purchase of a tract of land “for the
purposes of a public park”. The ordinance clearly and repeatedly states the use to be a public park. There was
no mention of an airport or any other use. Even so, the Airport presently occupies the land today, far past the end
of World War 2, and far past Douglas Aircraft’s move from Santa Monica to Long Beach in the mid-1970’s.(See
Exhibit 1.)
B. Charter Amendment LC
In 2014, Measure LC was passed by more than 15,000 voters (60% to 40%) which amended the City Charter to:
“prohibit new development of Airport land, except for parks, public open spaces and public recreational
facilities,until the voters approve limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land.”(See
Exhibit 2.)
In spite of almost $1 million spent to defeat Measure LC locally (with large sums spent by deep-pocketed national
aviation lobby organizations), Measure LC was endorsed by hundreds of local organizations, neighborhood
Page 1 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
groups, community leaders, elected officials, and individuals from our local community with an average donation
of only $200, totaling $100,000 (see https://itsourland.org/endorsements).(See Exhibit 3.)
Following the 2014 election and Measure LC passage, the Santa Monica City Charter was amended to read:
“If all or part of the Airport land is permanently closed to aviation use, no new development of that
land shall be allowed until the voters have approved limits on the uses and development that
may occur on the land. However, this section shall not prohibit the City Council from approving
the following on Airport land that has been permanently closed to aviation use: the development
of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and
replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses.”(See Exhibit 4.)
In summary, Measure LC provides that:
1. the City Council holds full authority to close the airport,
2. new development is prohibited on the land unless voters approve it, and
3. only parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of
existing cultural, arts and education uses are allowed.
The present Staff proposal seeks to replace the voters’ clearly expressed will with an un-democratic process
which: 1) is not transparent, 2) lacks accountability, 3) usurps the expressed will of the residents, 4) and ignores
the role and expertise of the Airport Commission and its mandate to advise the City Council on all matters
regarding the Airport.
C. City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026
In 2017, the SMO Consent Decree was signed to legally allow for airport closure at the end of 2028. The City
Council then unanimously adopted (7-0) SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which stated:
“The City Council directs the City Manager, City Attorney and their staffs to take all actions
necessary and proper to ensure that SMO will cease to operate as an airport and shall be closed
to all aeronautical use forever effective as of midnight on December 31, 2028.”(See Exhibit 5.)
Resolution 11026 instructs City Staff to take all actions to ensure the airport is closed forever at the end of 2028.
D. The Proposed Lottery Undermines the Charter Amendment and the Closure Resolution
The “democratic lottery”, also known as sortition, is a method of selecting individuals for decision-making
processes or public office through random chance, similar to how a lottery selects winners. Democratic lotteries
are recognized to have significant challenges and shortcomings:
1.Competence and Qualifications: Randomly selected individuals result in participants who lack the expertise
or qualifications needed to meet their responsibilities, leading to decisions that are uninformed or ineffective.
2.No Accountability: Elected representatives can be held accountable through elections, whereas participants
chosen by lottery lack accountability to the public. Participants are not directly responsible for their decisions
and recommendations.
3.Lack of Proper Incentives: Elected officials have reputational and other incentives to perform and make
decisions to secure re-election and serve the interests of Santa Monica, whereas lottery-selected individual
motivations will be unclear.
4.Bias and Manipulation: The process of selecting the pool of eligible participants and the methods used for
random selection are subject to bias and manipulation. Personal agendas, conformance to group norms, and
undue influence by Staff are major risk factors (as it selects the “relevant” information presented to individuals
unfamiliar with the history of controversies surrounding the Airport).
Page 2 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
5.Small Sample Size: The number of participants selected by lotteries may be relatively small, which limit the
diversity of perspectives and result in unrepresentative decisions and outcomes.
6.Participation and Voluntariness: Lottery-selected individuals may volunteer for their positions, leading to
potential disinterest or lack of engagement, compared to self-selected participation.
7.Complex Issues and Inputs: Information, issues, and decisions may be highly complex and require
specialized knowledge or background to assess and recognize information inputs that may be incomplete,
inaccurate, uncertain, or deceptive.
8.Lack of Mandate: Lottery-selected individuals may not have a mandate from the public, making it challenging
for them to make tough decisions, especially in controversial matters.
9.Stability and Continuity: Changes or turnover of lottery-selected individuals could lead to instability,
discontinuity, and difficulties in decision making, planning, and implementation.
10.Representation Concerns: Sortition does not guarantee equal representation for marginalized or
underrepresented groups.
Democratic lotteries are not democratic elections, and random does not mean unbiased. As a result
lottery-selected panels are not necessarily fair and impartial, and they can easily be led astray with incomplete,
biased, or deceptive information inputs.As City Staff says in its report, lotteries are “not common in North
America” so its use would essentially be an experiment on one of the most significant planning projects
in Santa Monica’s history. Staff also says in its report that it “recommends a cautious approach.” A
process that is untested, is by definition not cautious. (See Exhibit 6.)
The proposed Lottery partially shifts the authority of City Council and responsibilities of City Staff to a random
lottery process that could potentially advocate for activities that do not “ensure” airport closure, or that
advocate for “prohibited” development that is inconsistent with Charter Amendment LC and the Closure
Resolution. The Lottery process lacks accountability and a clear direction and is founded on the principles of
randomness and uncertainty, rather than direction and vision.
The Lottery creates potential off-ramps from Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution. The City
should not be facilitating it, much less funding it. If Special Interests want to propose initiatives that are counter to
Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution, then they can put something before the voters, however the
City Staff should not be doing or initiating the initial groundwork. The City should only be facilitating processes
that are consistent with the clear direction and vision of Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution,
which have been consistently supported by the electorate and through broad public input.
We strongly and respectfully request you take the following actions:
1. Reject the proposed Lottery process that would guide the future of SMO.
2. Preserve and honor the Citywide votes in 2014 and 1926 in favor of a park.
3. Reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
Please continue to ensure the full closing of SMO at the end of December 2028 (62 months), review the existing
body of work and visioning already done over the years, and continue with a park planning process that is
transparent and consistent with Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution.
Please honor the residents and the democratic process.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
The undersigned Supporters of Measure LC and Local Residents of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice,
and Mar Vista
Page 3 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Exhibit 1.
1926 City of Santa Monica Ordinance No. 339
Page 4 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Exhibit 2.
The 2014 Santa Monica Ballot
Page 5 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Exhibit 3.
2014 Measure LC Endorsements
(See https://itsourland.org/endorsements to clearly view the extensive list)
Exhibit 4.
2014 Charter Amendment LC
Page 6 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Exhibit 5.
City Council SMO Closure Resolution
Page 7 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Exhibit 6.
City Council Report January 24, 2023
Public Process to Determine the Future of the Santa Monica Airport
Page 8 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
1
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-05-23 at 05:50 AM Alan Levenson Read the petition and stop this unnecessary and costly process now.
10-06-23 at 01:40 PM Charles Blum Please honor the will of the people and their vote with measure LC. Don't
succumb to big money financial developer special interests and insult the
intelligence of those who elective you and trust you will govern with integrity and
ethics. We will never have another opportunity to have a park -- EVER. Please
let's protect our future generations so they have a party to appreciate as open
land becomes absent from all surrounding regions.
10-06-23 at 04:21 PM Tanya Troglin
10-06-23 at 04:45 PM Elizabeth Van Denburgh
10-06-23 at 05:08 PM David Klass The proposed lottery is an attempted end run around SMO closure. Special
interests are influencing staff and Council to overturn repeatedly established will
of residents.
10-06-23 at 07:32 PM David Goddard The sortition is the most ridiculous idea proposed by staff so far.
10-06-23 at 07:55 PM Christine Hardin We have already spoken through Measure LC and Measure LC was passed by
the voters of Santa Monica.
10-06-23 at 09:55 PM Joseph Hardin Please no more Saturday closed door scamming the voters of Santa Monica
funded primarily by out of town, mostly out of state aviation interests! The private
jet class that has no interest in the health, safety or welfare of the overwhelming
majority of Santa Monica residents, especially young children and the elderly, not
to mention the residents south and east of SMO. These people bear the brunt of
the pollution and noise from SMO, due to the prevailing wind, and yet have no
voice (vote) in the matter. We, the residents of Santa Monica, still store and sell
leaded aviation fuel knowing that it is very unhealthy for people, especially
children and the elderly. Why do we do this? So that a few aviation enthusiasts
can live out their fantasies with no regard for the thousands of residents and
wildlife that surround SMO.
It's time for the Santa Monica City Council to put public interest first and honor
Measure LC.
Thanks for your hard work. Please make it count by doing something good for
everyone, a Great Park for the people of Santa Monica and our neighbors.
10-06-23 at 10:41 PM Quynh Nguyen Even though I deeply oppose the lottery focus group if it is meant to bypass a
broader vote, I am open to a minority of airport land being used for low-income
and affordable housing within mixed-use complexes to fund turning the rest of
the land into parks. Respect democracy by putting your plans to a citywide vote!
10-07-23 at 01:09 AM John C Smith I also oppose the use of that SHAM group “healthy Democracy.”
10-07-23 at 02:04 AM Joseph Schmitz As a former Airport Commissioner (8 years), Retired USAF Pilot (7,000 hours),
Safety Consultant for the FAA, and Research Methods Professor - I find the
Staff's proposal antidemocratic, deceptive, and an abominable usurpation of
voters' expressed wishes and residents' rights.
Staff decisions, recommendations to City Councilmembers, and falsehoods (to
residents and to City Councilmembers) have demonstrably kept SMO open past
2015. At great costs to the City, and greater costs to the health and welfare of
residents nearby our Airport.
Please know that as of March 2023, only 12 Santa Monica residents base their
airplanes at SMO.
10-07-23 at 02:56 AM Joan Schmitz Please do not go forward with the despicable proposal to silence Santa Monica
residents and voters.
10-07-23 at 06:02 AM River Huston
10-07-23 at 07:17 AM Allyson Dworkin
10-07-23 at 07:21 AM Susan Vandebunt
10-07-23 at 07:33 AM Robert Brown
10-07-23 at 07:39 AM Dirk W van de Bunt
10-07-23 at 07:42 AM Charles Gibson
10-07-23 at 08:01 AM Elizabeth Lerer
10-07-23 at 08:04 AM Diane Sabatini
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
2
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 08:19 AM Lisa Sandbank This lottery is a deconstruction of the existing, voter-approved measure
LC—authored by city council—which the residents fought for and won despite
the millions spent to defeat it by nation-wide aviation organizations and their
infamous power lawyers.
A lottery committee gives City Staff the private power to influence committee
members at their discretion and undermine the intentions voted by City Counsel
SMO Closure Resolution.
10-07-23 at 08:39 AM Victor Fresco
10-07-23 at 08:45 AM Sean Meehan The question is too skewed toward development and omits mention of green
space.
10-07-23 at 09:47 AM Karen Comegys-Wortz The residents want a park! We elected you to do the right thing and abide by our
wishes!
10-07-23 at 10:13 AM Constance Stewart
10-07-23 at 10:43 AM William Schoene Under NO circumstances should SMO land become anything not in adherence to
the park and/or recreational mandate of Measure LC!
10-07-23 at 10:50 AM Jack Drutz
10-07-23 at 11:59 AM Asa Greenberg
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM Gregg Chadwick
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM Flavia Baptista
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM Chris Waller The residents have already voted to close the airport and use the land as a park.
Please honor the votes cast, and do not add development to that already
conjested area.
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM Jeffrey Felz
10-07-23 at 12:03 PM Andrea hricko
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM Alvin Crown
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM Benjamin Shore Stop avoiding what your residents want - they want a park no other use.
10-07-23 at 12:07 PM Jennifer Honor Measure LC. No development on the land without a vote of the people.
Close the ariport and make it a park as agreed upon.
10-07-23 at 12:07 PM Jacqueline McDonald do your job!
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM Se Jong Ding
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM Jeffrey Rosenfeld
10-07-23 at 12:12 PM Gerard Raether
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM David Konell
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM Andrea Maitra
10-07-23 at 12:14 PM Richard Drapkin Your JOB, is to support the will of the people, as in "democracy." LC made that
clear. Do your jobs
10-07-23 at 12:17 PM ammar lughod The airport is poisoning the air we breath and are kids are getting sick. The joise
pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do thr right thing and close the airport
10-07-23 at 12:20 PM Roberto Schaefer
10-07-23 at 12:22 PM David Abramis My email to the SM City Councel RE Item 3D:
Dear City Council Members:
I am a long-time resident and home-owner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm
writing you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not
lease the fuel tanks.
I thought this was already settled, but apparently not.
Again, please.
Thank you,
David Abramis
10-07-23 at 12:24 PM Tamra Raven Stop housing at the airport! Enough!
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
3
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 12:24 PM Weber Get rid of the airport; it's traumatic to residents due to the insane amount of noise
and constant overhead planes. I visited my brohter who lives in the flight path, in
his 2 million dollar home, and I was driven mad by the planes. This is an
abomination, and you couldn't pay me to live in that area. Be honest and serve
the people affected.
10-07-23 at 12:25 PM Iris Souza Dear City Council Members:
I am a long-time resident and home-owner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm
writing you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not
lease the fuel tanks.
I thought this was already settled, but apparently not.
Again, please.
Thank you,
Iris Souza
10-07-23 at 12:26 PM David Ginsburg
10-07-23 at 12:27 PM Tamra Raven Stop housing at the airport! Enough!
10-07-23 at 12:28 PM Patricia Braun
10-07-23 at 12:29 PM Jason McClaren
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM Karen Croner
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM Susan Hartley
10-07-23 at 12:31 PM theo swerissen We want a park.
10-07-23 at 12:32 PM Victor davich The fish stinks from the head
10-07-23 at 12:33 PM John C Smith Reject the lottery AND that sham group the Council wanted to run the show. And
shame on the city for suggesting such a clear, biased proposal.
10-07-23 at 12:33 PM William Sadler Please don’t re-litigate an issue this city already overwhelmingly decided.
Elections have consequences
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM Annie Sabroux
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM Paola Levenson We ask you to please consider the neighbors around the airport! We were
promised a park!
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM Margot mcleay We already voted on this issue
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM Will Pirkey
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM Devon Pothier
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM Sandra Casillas I live two blocks east of the airport. To say I want it closed as of yesterday would
be an understatement. When I moved in my home in 1994, I knew, of course,
that the airport was here. But I didn’t know that you could fly jets in and out of it.
Since you have shortened the runway, the jet problem is mostly resolved,
however, the traffic in and out is still quite loud. I live in Los Angeles, so I don’t
have a vote, but I am deeply affected by the airport, given where I live. You must
close the airport in 2024 just like your election results told you to do. If I recall
correctly, you can’t do anything other than put a great park there, unless you put
it to the vote of the city AGAIN. How many times you going to ask the same
question hoping for a different answer? Close the damn airport, put a park there
and fulfill the edict of the voters
10-07-23 at 12:37 PM carrie davies
10-07-23 at 12:42 PM Nurit Pereh We are just behind the airport. Frankly, I don't mind the small planes. But the
jets are a latecomer to the airport and need to be eliminated altogether.
Helicopter flight training should go to an airport that's not so close to residential
neighborhoods. The noise and air pollution levels are simply too high and too
risky. The parks, playground, restaurants, soccer field, museum, art studios and
offices, theater - all those are so lovely for residents and visitors and should be
expanded. Please do not re-lease to aviation businesses.
10-07-23 at 12:48 PM Ingrid Mueller Progressive, green City??!?
SMO's immediate Venice neighbors [!!!] can't endure noise and air pollution
without increasing mental dangers...and confusions about SM city council's
weakening SMO Park Support.
Please check history and create a better future.
10-07-23 at 12:49 PM Yvonne Guy
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
4
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM Betsy Katz
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM Jessica Tracy
10-07-23 at 12:58 PM Michael Jerrett Why are you so responsive to business interests at the airport and so
unresponsive to the legitimate concerns of residents who don’t want the noise,
air pollution, and risks to our water supply - show some leadership for a change
and close the storage tanks and deny the lease to Atlantic Aviation and evict the
company.
10-07-23 at 01:08 PM Joy Abbott Please allow those of us committed to carrying out the parameters of Measure
LC to be involved in the 'visioning' process. We've worked hard for our
neighborhood. I'm especially concerned those of us living in Sunset Park area
adjacent to the airport will not have our proper representation as we will be the
most impacted by any re-use development of the that space.
10-07-23 at 01:08 PM Ed Arias
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM Jason Knapp
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM Chutney li
10-07-23 at 01:12 PM Alison Buell The community has voted on this “Great Park” already. This is a shabby way of
doing an end run around the voters.
10-07-23 at 01:18 PM Eileen Tunick Voter homeowner/residents overwhelmingly support airport to park transition.
Our votes will count.
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM igor meglic
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM Brenda Goodman
10-07-23 at 01:31 PM Stephen Hewitt
10-07-23 at 01:42 PM Jamie Dunham
10-07-23 at 01:48 PM Joseph Lutz Close the airport and build a park.
10-07-23 at 01:50 PM Kevin Kinigstein
10-07-23 at 01:50 PM Andrea Lieberman I just want to ensure that a park that was voted on is what is put in there, not
housing, and not businesses, that will entail more noise and traffic. We are
seriously deficient in park spaces for our city, and we live extremely close to the
airport, closer than most people in Santa Monica, and have been highly effected
by the noise and air pollution for decades.
10-07-23 at 01:55 PM Gary Glickman We have been asking for your representation for many years. Are you
abandoning us?
10-07-23 at 01:59 PM barbara whitney I support this petition, as well as open space, rather than commercial
development at the airport property. I also think it is irresponsible, in case of civic
emergency, to negate the use of the airport for small aircraft.
10-07-23 at 02:02 PM Randall Klarin
10-07-23 at 02:09 PM Jordan Ellis
10-07-23 at 02:10 PM William Josephs
10-07-23 at 02:12 PM Mara Thompson
10-07-23 at 02:20 PM Suanne Ware-Diaz Honor the decision of your constituency and neighbors. What the Westside lacks
us common green area that enhances life and community. With the large
developments already underway throughout the area and the continued
allowance of one family McMansions, green area is needed more than ever.
10-07-23 at 02:29 PM Luis Diaz No Airport
10-07-23 at 02:29 PM Luis Diaz No Airport
10-07-23 at 02:40 PM Alex Gardos Close the airport please!
10-07-23 at 02:55 PM Hal Bogotch A.Great. Park. (Close SMO 4ever.)
10-07-23 at 03:16 PM Chris Toussaint
10-07-23 at 03:18 PM Ann Bowman Approving and implementing the lottery process will be violative of the Santa
Monica City Charter Boards and Commissions provisions regarding the powers
and REQUIRED duties of these appointive bodies. Approving the lottery process
is therefore illegal and opens the City up to legal challenge.
10-07-23 at 03:23 PM ALAN KERNER A few years ago, i participated in a process to close the SM airport. The City
Council Now it appears that the City Council is proposing to re-engage this
process. I have been enduring noise and pollution from the airport, looking
forward to the closure in 2028. Please don’t play games here and do not pass
this resolution.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
5
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 03:24 PM Jilla sardashti Wake up and respond to the citizens’wishes regarding the future of SMO.
Enough of corporate greed over the health and safety of the communities
surrounding the airport! We’ve spoken but our very legitimate demands fall on
deaf ears over and over again!
10-07-23 at 03:26 PM Karen Comegys-Wortz List to the residents NOT the developers
10-07-23 at 03:26 PM Anita. Byrd
10-07-23 at 03:28 PM Tracy Orloff Please honor the votes and wishes of City taxpayers. We want park space at the
airport - (and, are in dire need of it with amount of housing development here
now). We want an end to jet company contracting which puts the people who
live here and quality of our air at risk. Please represent us as you’ve promised to
do.
10-07-23 at 03:30 PM David Krauss
10-07-23 at 03:50 PM Maureen Jacobson This is shameful.
10-07-23 at 03:55 PM Justin Braun
10-07-23 at 03:58 PM Mia Levenson
10-07-23 at 04:28 PM Philip Baily
10-07-23 at 04:42 PM Mary Duprey It's clear that we want a public park on that space, as was initially intended and
confirmed by recent voters. Please honor that decision and get on with
discussing what we would like in our park. Thank you.
10-07-23 at 04:51 PM Rebecca Nelson
10-07-23 at 04:54 PM Stephen Unger Be true to your promise/obligation to close the airport and replace it with a public
park.
10-07-23 at 05:20 PM Adrian Harewood
10-07-23 at 06:03 PM John Campisi
10-07-23 at 06:17 PM Jason McClaren
10-07-23 at 06:37 PM Donna Rosescu
10-07-23 at 06:38 PM William Arbenz
10-07-23 at 06:59 PM Roy Rico Please honor the will of the people.
10-07-23 at 07:48 PM Will von Bernuth
10-07-23 at 07:48 PM Kelly Hsiao
10-07-23 at 08:48 PM Will Guston
10-07-23 at 09:03 PM SULINH Lafontaine
10-07-23 at 09:29 PM Elin Katz I support the closure of Santa Monica Airport and the establishment of a public
park in it's place.
10-07-23 at 09:35 PM Megan FitzGerald
10-07-23 at 09:41 PM Jeanne Laurie Honor the residents and the election results, not cowtow to the developers.
10-07-23 at 10:28 PM hal lindes
10-07-23 at 10:51 PM Elizabeth Estrup
10-07-23 at 11:51 PM Jan Simonovic
10-08-23 at 06:00 AM Tim Whalen
10-08-23 at 07:38 AM Kurt Gary
10-08-23 at 07:42 AM Sarah Braff Park now!
10-08-23 at 07:49 AM Allison Greene Honor the original LC vote.
10-08-23 at 08:26 AM Susan Kirch
10-08-23 at 09:02 AM Phyllis Chavez
10-08-23 at 09:12 AM Dorinne Tye The people have spoken. The FAA & aviation benefactors should NEVER be
granted option to override the majority. You cannot ignore constitutional
processes and protections without undoing the intent of our country's founding
principals and future.
Stop the insanity of aviation abuses & pollution. This harms our productivity,
health, viability, constitution and future.
10-08-23 at 09:21 AM Miki Barnes
10-08-23 at 09:23 AM Mathew Millen Use Measure GS funds to build 3000 units of low income housing between
Wilshire and San Vicente blvd AFFH
10-08-23 at 09:34 AM Peter Spelman
10-08-23 at 09:37 AM Larry Graber
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
6
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-08-23 at 09:45 AM Jon Casazza
10-08-23 at 09:58 AM Kenny Fields We knew when the City Council caved and made a behind closed doors deal to
extend the life of the airport until 2028 and delay the park that measure LC laid
out, that there would be attempts to not follow the PUBLIC WILL and turn the
airport into lots of other things. Well, here we are and this "democratic lottery
process" is the first shot across the bow of the great park that the residents of
this city overwhelmingly approved with LC. We knew it was coming. Ask anyone
who lives in Santa Monica whether they thought that the Council would do what
the residents wanted or if they would cave to business interests and they would
tell you that they were very skeptical that the Council would follow the WILL OF
THE RESIDENTS. Well placed skepticism for sure.
10-08-23 at 10:00 AM Amanda McConnell We live in sunset park, just south of the airport. We support the park and updated
traffic flow / control measures.
10-08-23 at 10:03 AM hep ingham Don't let the crooked elements defeat the will of the majority!!!
10-08-23 at 10:12 AM Jen Murray
10-08-23 at 10:53 AM Sharon Rubin How many times are we going to have to fight the same Battle?
Does the City have NO Institutional Memory! We have filled the Chamber so
many times
that I have lost count!.It is the residents that elect you to represent us.
Please consider our needs! I already , weekly have to wipe off my deck and
outside furniture because of the black toxic particles that fall on my property
daily!
Thank you for your consideration of the residents needs for clean air!
10-08-23 at 11:05 AM Max Greene
10-08-23 at 11:05 AM John Greenwood
10-08-23 at 11:23 AM Kirsten Campisi
10-08-23 at 12:03 PM Clare Thomas A random selection of citizens may not lead to a group sufficiently educated
about the issues, available to commit the time to get up to speed on the issues,
and ultimately easily swayed by those that want to make an end-run around the
results of LC as expressed by the voters of Santa Monica
10-08-23 at 12:36 PM Natalie Greenberg Please stop the airport immediately. It is both a danger and nuisance to our
families and community
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM Luana Rubin
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM Jill Rosen Put people over politics, quality of life over monetary gain.
10-08-23 at 12:39 PM Leslie Seki
10-08-23 at 12:42 PM Brian Kelly
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM Haily Jovich The voters decided SMO would be a park.
The conversation is finished.
Santa Monica City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager must stop
undermining the democratic process by inserting outside interests and lobbyists
that are seeking to destroy Santa Monica. The City is choosing to distribute
drugs and drug paraphernalia rather than build a park for residents. The City has
shuttered libraries and turned our City over to lawless criminals.
Santa Monica residents need to speak up for themselves and stand up for safe
streets, economic prosperity, and education.
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM Alessio Burgio
10-08-23 at 12:46 PM Natalie McAdams Can't believe we are even considering revisiting this again. Will this never end
and SM truly become the green city it likes to hold itself up as.
10-08-23 at 12:49 PM Lauren wallenstein
10-08-23 at 12:50 PM Jacquie Jordan Seriously ?!?
10-08-23 at 12:52 PM Zina Josephs
10-08-23 at 12:57 PM Matthew Muranaka
10-08-23 at 12:58 PM Toby Berlin Stop this madness
10-08-23 at 01:00 PM Patrick Ney Reject Lottery
10-08-23 at 01:07 PM Jonny Pray
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
7
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-08-23 at 01:10 PM Grady Hall Truly great cities have truly exceptional public spaces. The airport has long
outlived its usefulness, and is only used by a very small percentage of the public
-- while polluting surrounding neighborhoods with jet exhaust. That's a big part of
why the community voted overwhelmingly to transform it into a park that could be
enjoyed in many ways by those in the surrounding neighborhood and city. It was
never the intention to transform the airport into another airport (!), or to enable
developers to build massive buildings that are out-of-character with every other
structure in Santa Monica. We need a park. We voted for it. We voted people
out who were against it. Current city leaders should do the right thing and
transform the airport into the crown jewel of Santa Monica's public spaces,
increasing the quality of life for countless residents. With the pandemic and
post-pandemic changes now keeping people at home and working remotely, we
must add more community spaces and activities if we are to be a modern,
healthy, and thriving community.
10-08-23 at 01:14 PM Frans Klinkenberg
10-08-23 at 01:16 PM ammar lughod The airport is poisoning the air we breath and are kids are getting sick. The joise
pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do thr right thing and close the airport
10-08-23 at 01:17 PM Vic NoRMAN Stop your underhanded tactics and cozy relation with the aviation industry.
Remember you are public servants. which means at some point you will ask us
to re-elect you.
10-08-23 at 01:18 PM Bonnie smith
10-08-23 at 01:20 PM Marta Vago
10-08-23 at 01:24 PM Donna Urban
10-08-23 at 01:25 PM Stephen Mark I served on the city Airport Commission for 8 years. I love the idea of preserving
some sense of the history of Santa Monica Airport and I appreciate we have a
housing shortage. Nevertheless it's clear to me that a process has already
occurred confirming the people's desire to have a park on this land. With a global
need for ever more greenery, that feels like the best aesthetic and functional use
of the airport property. I see no reason to confuse matters by instigating yet
another open ended process for deciding what to do here. The decision has
been made. The only question is its implementation.
10-08-23 at 01:28 PM Patrick Davenport
10-08-23 at 01:33 PM John Humble
10-08-23 at 01:34 PM Joey Reynolds
10-08-23 at 01:40 PM MICHAEL OSMENT Please follow the Measure LC. Stop outside interest trying to stop the new Grand
Park
10-08-23 at 01:41 PM Flynn Osment Please help me grow up with a new park and not a dirty airport. I am 9 years old.
10-08-23 at 01:42 PM Ava Osment Please help me, I need a new park near me to play sports! I am 11 years old
10-08-23 at 01:43 PM Lara Osment
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM Nora Foran
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM Lucia Klass
10-08-23 at 01:52 PM Fae Horowitz
10-08-23 at 01:54 PM Jonathan Stein This is a direct and cynical attack on the expressed will of the residents
masquerading staff opinions for public opinion under a sophistical and expensive
mask. Utterly detestable.
10-08-23 at 01:58 PM Patrick Reardon
10-08-23 at 02:05 PM Lauren de la Fuente Please respect the original desire of the LC voters and stop with the political
agenda to do an end run of what we voted for.
10-08-23 at 02:09 PM Melanie Merians All my family and neighbors respectfully request that you REJECT this shameful
lottery!
10-08-23 at 02:10 PM Ellen Mark
10-08-23 at 02:18 PM Jay Abramowitz The people have voted! You're acting like the Wisconsin legislature, trying to
ignore our votes. Leave it alone.
10-08-23 at 02:22 PM James Wilson Enough. It is time to let the airport land go for better use for the residents of
Santa Monica.
10-08-23 at 02:24 PM Louis Bon
10-08-23 at 02:34 PM Karen Blechman Please honor Measure LC. Do not attempt to subvert that decision with a lottery
or any other misguided effort.
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM Lealani Ranch Dawes
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
8
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM Richard Moore
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM Patrick De Feo
10-08-23 at 02:44 PM Erin Ferro
10-08-23 at 02:46 PM Jan Simonovic Santa Monica Airport should be a PARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10-08-23 at 02:59 PM John Greene Close the Airport / make it a Park as agreed too. In the meanwhile STOP selling
leaded jet fuel!
10-08-23 at 03:00 PM Leona marolo Please keep our city beautiful and for the people not big business.
10-08-23 at 03:07 PM Eric Garner
10-08-23 at 03:09 PM Adam Simon Stop trying to avoid the clear will of the people you represent.
10-08-23 at 03:14 PM H. Martin The secret answer is revealed here•in: thou shalt build a great park & close the
disgusting, polluting airport irrevocably & permanently.
10-08-23 at 03:19 PM Laura Lacamara Close the airport; build a great park.
10-08-23 at 03:20 PM Brian Stecher I understand the desire to be objective but this approach trades ignorance for
subjectivity, not wise.
10-08-23 at 03:29 PM Cynthia
10-08-23 at 03:34 PM Laura Kaiser
10-08-23 at 03:57 PM Olivia Kelly
10-08-23 at 04:00 PM Beverly Haas
10-08-23 at 04:02 PM Ilene Weingard
10-08-23 at 04:05 PM Kristina Hagman
10-08-23 at 04:47 PM Alice Ellis Do not waste our money on a lottery. We already voted in 2014 to close the
airport and build the park. Get to work on the park - do the job you were elected
to do.
10-08-23 at 05:00 PM Alex Novakovich
10-08-23 at 05:26 PM Scott Weiss
10-08-23 at 05:27 PM Scott Weiss
10-08-23 at 05:45 PM Ofer Grossman
10-08-23 at 05:53 PM Mimi Wheeler
10-08-23 at 06:01 PM Marla Eby
10-08-23 at 06:18 PM Michael katz The People spoke plainly and clearly when they voted overwhelmingly in favor of
LC. Stop the Fuel Farm danger to Santa Monica’s aquifer.
10-08-23 at 06:22 PM Lorri Benson This issue has been voted on. Please honor the wishes of those who elected
you, and stop trying to find a way to NOT shut down the airport. The people of
Santa Monica, especially those most affected by the airport in Sunset Park and
Ocean Park, have made it clear that we want a well-thought out park and
recreational area to benefit the local taxpayers. Most of the owners of the small
jets and commuter planes don't even live in Santa Monica. We who live here
want to stop breathing dangerous fumes and lead, and don't want to live with the
potential of small plane crashes over our roofs. Not to mention the sound
pollution, which we've heard as late as 11pm sometimes. There is no reason to
bring up this topic again and again. We want the airport gone by 2028, as our last
vote indicated. No lottery panels, no more discussion, no more stalling. Thank
you.
10-08-23 at 06:25 PM Simona Garon Please stop this lottery process
10-08-23 at 06:26 PM Patty
10-08-23 at 06:26 PM Nicola Goode Listen to constituents whose voices and votes have repeatedly and
unequivocally settled the issue of SMO closure! Act accordingly SM City Council,
reject the Proposed Lottery!
10-08-23 at 06:28 PM Katharine Dreyfuss
10-08-23 at 06:36 PM Min Shi
10-08-23 at 06:38 PM Makoto Kato
10-08-23 at 07:31 PM Joan Wilder The panel should only be permitted to make recommendations that do not
require any changes to Measure LC.
10-08-23 at 07:41 PM Matt Schlegel
10-08-23 at 07:57 PM Michael Jerrett
10-08-23 at 08:15 PM Jennifer Josephs Jets have to go--Time to get rid of Polluting Fuel tank storage
10-08-23 at 08:31 PM Nancy Owens
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
9
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-08-23 at 08:34 PM John Ventura
10-08-23 at 08:36 PM Denise Gerber
10-08-23 at 10:00 PM Jan-Peter Flack We want and need a park. Which is why the City of Santa Monica bought the
land in the 1st place.
10-08-23 at 10:11 PM Steven T Benson This needs to be a park
10-08-23 at 10:20 PM Dawn Joyal No changes to Measure LC
10-08-23 at 10:29 PM Howard Wolfe
10-08-23 at 10:49 PM Mazi Lombard
10-08-23 at 11:07 PM Mindi Shank One person one vote. It’s democracy. Here in Santa Monica, and everywhere
else in the world. It takes ALL of us and EVERY single voice matters! Respect
the vote! We voted.
10-08-23 at 11:39 PM Carol Joffe 90405
10-08-23 at 11:55 PM Cathy Hillman
10-09-23 at 12:17 AM carol joffe This is your responsibility to our community, and no one else's, to insure that the
residents can breathe and move and enjoy the best quality of life and health.
Don't pass it on to others. It's not their job.
10-09-23 at 12:27 AM Stacey Abrams-ShericK The matter was settled with Measure LC… The City wants a park.
10-09-23 at 12:29 AM Ose Dalldorf
10-09-23 at 12:29 AM Robert Sherick The City already voted on this with Measure LC.
10-09-23 at 12:30 AM Jack Sherick
10-09-23 at 02:02 AM Fariba Weiss
10-09-23 at 04:43 AM Ursula Fox
10-09-23 at 05:25 AM Marla Eby
10-09-23 at 05:37 AM Elaine Miller
10-09-23 at 05:56 AM John Reynolds WE VOTED FOR PARKS AND ANY
votes to undue the 60/40 decision
10-09-23 at 05:58 AM Suzanne joffe Put in a park, like you promised. You are snakes at heart.
10-09-23 at 06:31 AM Karla Klarin We want and need a PARK!
10-09-23 at 06:33 AM Dorothy Chapman
10-09-23 at 06:39 AM Larry Arreola, Carol Arreola Lottery System? PULEESE. We need real stake holders to be part of the
process, not names picked out if a hat
10-09-23 at 07:04 AM Tracey Hennessey I’ve lived here all of my life. In the last 10 years I’ve seen change that makes this
city nearly unrecognizable for the worst. Please stop giving city land to
developers. The city of Santa Monica obviously can’t handle what’s on their plate
now with homeless and crime out of control.
10-09-23 at 07:28 AM Val Davidson CLOSE THE AIRPORT AS PROMISED. A great new park was the plan! Green
open space is important to the community. LC was voted on.
10-09-23 at 08:10 AM Ashley Simonsen
10-09-23 at 08:11 AM Ann Lewis We voted on this topic on Measure LC. Please accept this vote from 2014 rather
than try to change what the future of the SM Airport will be. As published by the
City of SM, "New development is prohibited on Airport land permanently closed
to aviation use unless voters approve limits on the uses and development that
may occur on the land." Thank you.
10-09-23 at 08:14 AM Sarah Lewis Citizens have already expressed their position on this issue by public vote.
Respect their decisions.
10-09-23 at 08:15 AM Chuck Mason 3480 Maplewood Ave
10-09-23 at 08:38 AM Stephanie Tainsky Please, not again. We already went through this. WE WANT PARKS!!!!!
10-09-23 at 08:42 AM Eddy Winston
10-09-23 at 08:45 AM Steven Brady
10-09-23 at 09:09 AM John Reynolds
10-09-23 at 09:27 AM Tregg Rustad Let's build a park, and only a park!
10-09-23 at 09:49 AM Dennis WIlder Stick with LC as you should.
10-09-23 at 09:50 AM bea nemlaha Residents most directly affected should take the lead. Random selection
irrational.
10-09-23 at 09:52 AM Chuck Hoover
10-09-23 at 10:16 AM daniel funk i reject the lottery process for the santa monica airport.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
10
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-09-23 at 10:22 AM Lisa Detamore Please stop this nonsense. We already voted.
10-09-23 at 10:34 AM Shawn Barry we decided long ago to make this a PARK - we the people of Santa Monica do
not appreciate these back door meetings
10-09-23 at 10:40 AM Brian Barry
10-09-23 at 10:44 AM Emily Dawe
10-09-23 at 10:53 AM Ronette Barry WE VOTED ON THIS, PROMISED, PARK DEVELOPMENT. I knew this was
going to happen. So sick of the bate and switch. How can you look in the mirror.
Let me know when the city council meeting is?
10-09-23 at 10:56 AM Barry Friesen
10-09-23 at 11:16 AM mark ford
10-09-23 at 11:32 AM Mark Abdou
10-09-23 at 11:36 AM Joy Abbott Support Measure LC ! Council needs to pull on their big girl and boy pants and
do the 'visioning' work to commit to open parks rather than have it led housing
development concerns.
10-09-23 at 11:53 AM Susan Jain
10-09-23 at 12:17 PM Dorothy Cramer The people spoke/voted on this issue! It is your duty to follow their choice!
10-09-23 at 12:55 PM lois banner I have lived in Santa Monica for 40 years. Please, please allow it to remain the
beautiful residential community 8it has always been.
10-09-23 at 01:14 PM Sarah Bryce This is pure corruption by BIG REAL ESTATE and the neighborhood of Sunset
Park will not stand for it
10-09-23 at 01:27 PM Ellen Hannan
10-09-23 at 01:44 PM Margaret Hannan I am so sick of you selling out our city to real estate tycoons. I lived in a house
under the airport for over 40 years! I still live in a Santa Monica rent controlled
apartment. If you want to stay employed as a member of our city council get your
A in gear and vote the way we Santa Monicans want you to!!!!
10-09-23 at 01:55 PM Mark Schubb
10-09-23 at 02:06 PM Kenneth Abbott
10-09-23 at 02:25 PM Patrick Seeholzer
10-09-23 at 02:27 PM Patrick Seeholzer
10-09-23 at 02:32 PM Lynn Robb
10-09-23 at 03:17 PM Darlene Yaplee
10-09-23 at 03:36 PM Deborah We voted for LC years ago and expect that if SMO closes the land can only be
used for parkland unless voted upon by the residents of Santa Monica.
10-09-23 at 03:58 PM Tom Lynch The disruption to our lives and real estate value are impacted greatly by any
activity from the Santa Monica Airport. The noise levels, pollution, and
disturbance of jets/planes flying over our homes needs to stop immediately. The
airport is enjoyed only by a few while causing the above mentioned damage to
many.
10-09-23 at 04:22 PM Christine Lynch Keep your agreements
10-09-23 at 04:39 PM ARTHUR BARROW
10-09-23 at 05:13 PM Danielle Litak I ask that you keep with original plans to makes this a public space for all to
enjoy and to not entertain an airport.
10-09-23 at 05:14 PM Frederick Pringle
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM Kenneth Kirschbaum
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM Elizabeth Oakes Developer-aligned "nonpartisan" groups will undermine the will of the citizens.
Close the airport as planned and create the park voted in by Santa Monica
residents. Keep your promises.
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM Gavin Scott
10-09-23 at 05:30 PM Andrea Ware The land needs to be ALL park!
10-09-23 at 05:35 PM Dawn Bailey
10-09-23 at 06:09 PM Nicola Scott We do not want the city-wide vote to turn Santa Monica airport into a park to be
overturned.
10-09-23 at 06:36 PM Francine Duran
10-09-23 at 06:53 PM David Kimball
10-09-23 at 07:16 PM Kathy Knight Please support an open, democratic process in our city government.
10-09-23 at 08:59 PM Stephen Molstad This is outrageous. Don't do it! The staff proposing this should be fired.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:andrew@agledhill.com
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 10:00 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 7A - the answer you get depends on the question you ask.
EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis, Councilmembers,
Much of the documentation submitted to you appears to have been written in a parallel universe where Measure LC
never became part of the City Charter.
That is not the universe in which we live.
I’d like to suggest a simple reframing of the proposed lottery question, if you choose to pursue that process:
Following residents’ overwhelming support for Measure LC, enshrined in the City Charter, how should the diverse
needs of our community inform the future use of the Airport land?
Thank you for your time and attention.
Andrew Gledhill
Ocean Park
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Kabir Chopra <kabirchopra@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 10:24 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la
Torre; David White
Subject:(10/10/23) Item 7A - Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor, Pro Tem, and Councilmembers,
I have lived in Santa Monica for 20 years and write to express my support for the democratically selected panel
proposed for the Airport Conversion project (Item 7a on today's Council Agenda). This process seems very different
from typical government outreach, and I especially like the way it engages actual residents to voice their perspectives
directly to the City Council (and not through staff). It also seems to offer engaged residents a way to get a deep
understanding of the trade‐offs for the Airport Conversion project instead of only getting a half‐hour presentation from
staff and then having to formulate a slapdash opinion. This seems so much better.
I hope that you approve this process so we can get down to business on the Airport Conversion process as soon as
possible.
Sincerely,
Kabir Chopra
WilMont Resident
SMMUSD Parent x2
Santa Monica Fanatic
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Deborah Dinsmore <mgsplace100@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:09 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 7-A on tonight's agenda
EXTERNAL
Please, no lottery.
Deborah Dinsmore
Santa Monica, CA
Never again is now. Vera Sharav
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:zinajosephs@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:19 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:City Council 10/10/23 - agenda item 7-A - Future of Santa Monica Airport
EXTERNAL
Future of Santa Monica Airport – 300+ petition signatures & comments:
Petition: REQUEST TO REJECT THE “LOTTERY PROCESS” FOR SANTA MONICA AIRPORT –
https://smofuture.weebly.com/reject-the-lottery.html
PETITION
We, the undersigned, urge the Santa Monica City Council to reject the proposed lottery process that would guide
the future of SMO.
We demand that the Council and Staff preserve and honor:
(1) the original 1926 citywide vote to purchase the land for a public park,
(2) the definitive 2014 citywide vote that established Charter Amendment LC, and
(3) reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
To do otherwise would demonstrate contempt for repeated and clear-cut election outcomes of democratic
processes in the City of Santa Monica.
“Democratic lotteries” are not democratic elections, and “random selection” does not necessarily mean “unbiased.”
Lottery‐selected panels can also be led astray with incomplete, biased, or deceptive information inputs.
10-05-23 at 05:50 AM // Alan Levenson // Read the petition and stop this unnecessary and costly process now.
10-06-23 at 01:40 PM // Charles Blum // Please honor the will of the people and their vote with measure
LC. Don't succumb to big money financial developer special interests and insult the intelligence of those who
elect you and trust you will govern with integrity and ethics. We will never have another opportunity to have a
park -- EVER. Please let's protect our future generations so they have a park to appreciate, as open land
becomes absent from all surrounding regions.
10-06-23 at 04:21 PM // Tanya Troglin //
10-06-23 at 04:45 PM // Elizabeth Van Denburgh //
10-06-23 at 05:08 PM // David Klass // The proposed lottery is an attempted end run around SMO
closure. Special interests are influencing staff and Council to overturn repeatedly established will of residents.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
10-06-23 at 07:32 PM // David Goddard // The sortition is the most ridiculous idea proposed by staff so far.
10-06-23 at 07:55 PM // Christine Hardin // We have already spoken through Measure LC and Measure LC was
passed by the voters of Santa Monica.
10-06-23 at 09:55 PM // Joseph Hardin // "Please no more Saturday closed door scamming the voters of Santa
Monica, funded primarily by out-of-town, mostly out-of-state aviation interests! The private jet class that has no
interest in the health, safety or welfare of the overwhelming majority of Santa Monica residents, especially young
children and the elderly, not to mention the residents south and east of SMO. These people bear the brunt of the
pollution and noise from SMO, due to the prevailing wind, and yet have no voice (vote) in the matter. We, the
residents of Santa Monica, still store and sell leaded aviation fuel knowing that it is very unhealthy for people,
especially children and the elderly. Why do we do this? So that a few aviation enthusiasts can live out their
fantasies with no regard for the thousands of residents and wildlife that surround SMO. It's time for the Santa
Monica City Council to put public interest first and honor Measure LC. Thanks for your hard work. Please make it
count by doing something good for everyone, a Great Park for the people of Santa Monica and our neighbors."
10-06-23 at 10:41 PM // Quynh Nguyen // Even though I deeply oppose the lottery focus group if it is meant to
bypass a broader vote, I am open to a minority of airport land being used for low-income and affordable housing
within mixed-use complexes to fund turning the rest of the land into parks. Respect democracy by putting your
plans to a citywide vote!
10-07-23 at 01:09 AM // John C Smith // I also oppose the use of that SHAM group “healthy Democracy.”
10-07-23 at 02:04 AM // Joseph Schmitz // "As a former Airport Commissioner (8 years), Retired USAF Pilot
(7,000 hours), Safety Consultant for the FAA, and Research Methods Professor - I find the Staff's proposal
antidemocratic, deceptive, and an abominable usurpation of voters' expressed wishes and residents' rights. Staff
decisions, recommendations to City Councilmembers, and falsehoods (to residents and to City Councilmembers)
have demonstrably kept SMO open past 2015. At great costs to the City, and greater costs to the health and
welfare of residents nearby our Airport. Please know that as of March 2023, only 12 Santa Monica residents
base their airplanes at SMO. "
10-07-23 at 02:56 AM // Joan Schmitz // Please do not go forward with the despicable proposal to silence Santa
Monica residents and voters.
10-07-23 at 06:02 AM // River Huston //
10-07-23 at 07:17 AM // Allyson Dworkin //
10-07-23 at 07:21 AM // Susan Vandebunt //
10-07-23 at 07:33 AM // Robert Brown //
10-07-23 at 07:39 AM // Dirk W van de Bunt //
10-07-23 at 07:42 AM // Charles Gibson //
10-07-23 at 08:01 AM // Elizabeth Lerer //
10-07-23 at 08:04 AM // Diane Sabatini //
10-07-23 at 08:19 AM // Lisa Sandbank // "This lottery is a deconstruction of the existing, voter-approved
measure LC—authored by City Council—which the residents fought for and won despite the millions spent to
defeat it by nation-wide aviation organizations and their infamous power lawyers. A lottery committee gives City
Staff the private power to influence committee members at their discretion and undermine the intentions voted by
City Counsel SMO Closure Resolution. "
10-07-23 at 08:39 AM // Victor Fresco //
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
3
10-07-23 at 08:45 AM // Sean Meehan // The framing question is too skewed toward development and omits
mention of green space.
10-07-23 at 09:47 AM // Karen Comegys-Wortz // The residents want a park! We elected you to do the right thing
and abide by our wishes!
10-07-23 at 10:13 AM // Constance Stewart //
10-07-23 at 10:43 AM // William Schoene // Under NO circumstances should SMO land become anything not in
adherence to the park and/or recreational mandate of Measure LC!
10-07-23 at 10:50 AM // Jack Drutz //
10-07-23 at 11:59 AM // Asa Greenberg //
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM // Gregg Chadwick //
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM // Flavia Baptista //
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM // Chris Waller // The residents have already voted to close the airport and use the land as
a park. Please honor the votes cast, and do not add development to that already congested area.
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM // Jeffrey Felz //
10-07-23 at 12:03 PM // Andrea Hricko //
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM // Alvin Crown //
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM // Benjamin Shore // Stop avoiding what your residents want - they want a park -- no other
use.
10-07-23 at 12:07 PM // Jennifer // "Honor Measure LC. No development on the land without a vote of the people.
Close the airport and make it a park as agreed upon."
10-07-23 at 12:07 PM // Jacqueline McDonald // do your job!
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM // Se Jong Ding //
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM // Jeffrey Rosenfeld //
10-07-23 at 12:12 PM // Gerard Raether //
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM // David Konell //
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM // Andrea Maitra //
10-07-23 at 12:14 PM // Richard Drapkin // Your JOB, is to support the will of the people, as in "democracy." LC
made that clear. Do your jobs.
10-07-23 at 12:17 PM // ammar lughod // The airport is poisoning the air we breathe and our kids are getting sick.
The noise pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do the right thing and close the airport
10-07-23 at 12:20 PM // Roberto Schaefer //
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
4
10-07-23 at 12:22 PM // David Abramis // "My email to the SM City Council RE Item 3D: Dear City Council
Members: I am a long-time resident and home-owner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm writing you today to ask
you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not lease the fuel tanks. I thought this was already settled, but
apparently not. Again, please. Thank you, David Abramis"
10-07-23 at 12:24 PM // Tamra Raven // Stop housing at the airport! Enough!
10-07-23 at 12:24 PM // Weber // Get rid of the airport; it's traumatic to residents due to the insane amount of
noise and constant overhead planes. I visited my brother who lives in the flight path, in his $2 million home, and I
was driven mad by the planes. This is an abomination, and you couldn't pay me to live in that area. Be honest and
serve the people affected.
10-07-23 at 12:25 PM // Iris Souza // "Dear City Council Members: I am a long-time resident and home-owner of
the City of Santa Monica. I'm writing you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not
lease the fuel tanks. I thought this was already settled, but apparently not. Again, please. Thank you, Iris Souza"
10-07-23 at 12:26 PM // David Ginsburg //
10-07-23 at 12:27 PM // Tamra Raven // Stop housing at the airport! Enough!
10-07-23 at 12:28 PM // Patricia Braun //
10-07-23 at 12:29 PM // Jason McClaren //
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM // Karen Croner //
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM // Susan Hartley //
10-07-23 at 12:31 PM // theo swerissen // We want a park.
10-07-23 at 12:32 PM // Victor davich // The fish stinks from the head
10-07-23 at 12:33 PM // John C Smith // Reject the lottery AND that sham group the Council wanted to run the
show. And shame on the city for suggesting such a clear, biased proposal.
10-07-23 at 12:33 PM // William Sadler // Please don’t re-litigate an issue this city
already overwhelmingly decided. Elections have consequences.
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Annie Sabroux //
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Paola Levenson // We ask you to please consider the neighbors around the airport! We
were promised a park!
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Margot mcleay // We already voted on this issue
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Will Pirkey //
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Devon Pothier //
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Sandra Casillas // I live two blocks east of the airport. To say I want it closed as of
yesterday would be an understatement. When I moved in my home in 1994, I knew, of course, that the airport
was here. But I didn’t know that you could fly jets in and out of it. Since you have shortened the runway, the jet
problem is mostly resolved, however, the traffic in and out is still quite loud. I live in Los Angeles, so I don’t have a
vote, but I am deeply affected by the airport, given where I live. You must close the airport in 2028 just like your
election results told you to do. If I recall correctly, you can’t do anything other than put a great park there, unless
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
5
you put it to the vote of the city AGAIN. How many times you going to ask the same question hoping for a
different answer? Close the damn airport, put a park there, and fulfill the edict of the voters.
10-07-23 at 12:37 PM // carrie davies //
10-07-23 at 12:42 PM // Nurit Pereh // We are just behind the airport. Frankly, I don't mind the small planes. But
the jets are a latecomer to the airport and need to be eliminated altogether. Helicopter flight training should go to
an airport that's not so close to residential neighborhoods. The noise and air pollution levels are simply too high
and too risky. The parks, playground, restaurants, soccer field, museum, art studios and offices, theater - all
those are so lovely for residents and visitors and should be expanded. Please do not re-lease to aviation
businesses.
10-07-23 at 12:48 PM // Ingrid Mueller // "Progressive, green City??!? SMO's immediate Venice neighbors [!!!]
can't endure noise and air pollution without increasing mental dangers...and confusions about SM city council's
weakening SMO Park Support. Please check history and create a better future."
10-07-23 at 12:49 PM // Yvonne Guy //
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM // Betsy Katz //
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM // Jessica Tracy //
10-07-23 at 12:58 PM // Michael Jerrett // Why are you so responsive to business interests at the airport and so
unresponsive to the legitimate concerns of residents who don’t want the noise, air pollution, and risks to our water
supply - show some leadership for a change and close the storage tanks and deny the lease to Atlantic Aviation
and evict the company.
10-07-23 at 01:08 PM // Joy Abbott // Please allow those of us committed to carrying out the parameters of
Measure LC to be involved in the 'visioning' process. We've worked hard for our neighborhood. I'm especially
concerned those of us living in Sunset Park area adjacent to the airport will not have our proper representation as
we will be the most impacted by any re-use development of the that space.
10-07-23 at 01:08 PM // Ed Arias //
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM // Jason Knapp //
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM // Chutney li //
10-07-23 at 01:12 PM // Alison Buell // The community has voted on this “Great Park” already. This is a shabby
way of doing an end run around the voters.
10-07-23 at 01:18 PM // Eileen Tunick // Voter homeowner/residents overwhelmingly support airport to park
transition. Our votes will count.
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM // igor meglic //
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM // Brenda Goodman //
10-07-23 at 01:31 PM // Stephen Hewitt //
10-07-23 at 01:42 PM // Jamie Dunham //
10-07-23 at 01:48 PM // Joseph Lutz // Close the airport and build a park.
10-07-23 at 01:50 PM // Kevin Kinigstein //
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
6
10-07-23 at 01:50 PM // Andrea Lieberman // I just want to ensure that a park that was voted on is what is put in
there, not housing, and not businesses, that will entail more noise and traffic. We are seriously deficient in park
spaces for our city, and we live extremely close to the airport, closer than most people in Santa Monica, and have
been highly affected by the noise and air pollution for decades.
10-07-23 at 01:55 PM // Gary Glickman // We have been asking for your representation for many years. Are you
abandoning us?
10-07-23 at 01:59 PM // barbara whitney // I support this petition, as well as open space, rather than commercial
development at the airport property. I also think it is irresponsible, in case of civic emergency, to negate the use
of the airport for small aircraft.
10-07-23 at 02:02 PM // Randall Klarin //
10-07-23 at 02:09 PM // Jordan Ellis //
10-07-23 at 02:10 PM // William Josephs //
10-07-23 at 02:12 PM // Mara Thompson //
10-07-23 at 02:20 PM // Suanne Ware-Diaz // Honor the decision of your constituency and neighbors. What the
Westside lacks is common green area that enhances life and community. With the large developments already
underway throughout the area and the continued allowance of one-family McMansions, green area is needed
more than ever.
10-07-23 at 02:29 PM // Luis Diaz // No Airport
10-07-23 at 02:40 PM // Alex Gardos // Close the airport please!
10-07-23 at 02:55 PM // Hal Bogotch // A.Great. Park. (Close SMO 4ever.)
10-07-23 at 03:16 PM // Chris Toussaint //
10-07-23 at 03:18 PM // Ann Bowman // Approving and implementing the lottery process will be violative of the
Santa Monica City Charter Boards and Commissions provisions regarding the powers and REQUIRED duties of
these appointive bodies. Approving the lottery process is therefore illegal and opens the City up to legal
challenge.
10-07-23 at 03:23 PM // ALAN KERNER // A few years ago, I participated in a process to close the SM airport.
Now it appears that the City Council is proposing to re-engage this process. I have been enduring noise and
pollution from the airport, looking forward to the closure in 2028. Please don’t play games here and do not pass
this resolution.
10-07-23 at 03:24 PM // Jilla sardashti // Wake up and respond to the citizens’ wishes regarding the future of
SMO. Enough of corporate greed over the health and safety of the communities surrounding the airport! We’ve
spoken, but our very legitimate demands fall on deaf ears over and over again!
10-07-23 at 03:26 PM // Karen Comegys-Wortz // Listen to the residents, NOT the developers.
10-07-23 at 03:26 PM // Anita. Byrd //
10-07-23 at 03:28 PM // Tracy Orloff // Please honor the votes and wishes of City taxpayers. We want park
space at the airport - (and, are in dire need of it with amount of housing development here now). We want an end
to jet company contracting which puts the people who live here and quality of our air at risk. Please represent us
as you’ve promised to do.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
7
10-07-23 at 03:30 PM // David Krauss //
10-07-23 at 03:50 PM // Maureen Jacobson // This is shameful.
10-07-23 at 03:55 PM // Justin Braun //
10-07-23 at 03:58 PM // Mia Levenson //
10-07-23 at 04:28 PM // Philip Baily //
10-07-23 at 04:42 PM // Mary Duprey // It's clear that we want a public park on that space, as was initially
intended and confirmed by recent voters. Please honor that decision and get on with discussing what we would
like in our park. Thank you.
10-07-23 at 04:51 PM // Rebecca Nelson //
10-07-23 at 04:54 PM // Stephen Unger // Be true to your promise/obligation to close the airport and replace it
with a public park.
10-07-23 at 05:20 PM // Adrian Harewood //
10-07-23 at 06:03 PM // John Campisi //
10-07-23 at 06:17 PM // Jason McClaren //
10-07-23 at 06:37 PM // Donna Rosescu //
10-07-23 at 06:38 PM // William Arbenz //
10-07-23 at 06:59 PM // Roy Rico // Please honor the will of the people.
10-07-23 at 07:48 PM // Will von Bernuth //
10-07-23 at 07:48 PM // Kelly Hsiao //
10-07-23 at 08:48 PM // Will Guston //
10-07-23 at 09:03 PM // SULINH Lafontaine //
10-07-23 at 09:29 PM // Elin Katz // I support the closure of Santa Monica Airport and the establishment of a
public park in its place.
10-07-23 at 09:35 PM // Megan FitzGerald //
10-07-23 at 09:41 PM // Jeanne Laurie // Honor the residents and the election results, not kowtow to the
developers.
10-07-23 at 10:28 PM // hal lindes //
10-07-23 at 10:51 PM // Elizabeth Estrup //
10-07-23 at 11:51 PM // Jan Simonovic //
10-08-23 at 06:00 AM // Tim Whalen //
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
8
10-08-23 at 07:38 AM // Kurt Gary //
10-08-23 at 07:42 AM // Sarah Braff // Park now!
10-08-23 at 07:49 AM // Allison Greene // Honor the original LC vote.
10-08-23 at 08:26 AM // Susan Kirch //
10-08-23 at 09:02 AM // Phyllis Chavez //
10-08-23 at 09:12 AM // Dorinne Tye // "The people have spoken. The FAA & aviation benefactors should
NEVER be granted option to override the majority. You cannot ignore constitutional processes and protections
without undoing the intent of our country's founding principles and future. Stop the insanity of aviation abuses &
pollution. This harms our productivity, health, viability, constitution and future."
10-08-23 at 09:21 AM // Miki Barnes //
10-08-23 at 09:23 AM // Mathew Millen // Use Measure GS funds to build 3000 units of low income housing
between Wilshire and San Vicente Blvd AFFH
10-08-23 at 09:34 AM // Peter Spelman //
10-08-23 at 09:37 AM // Larry Graber //
10-08-23 at 09:45 AM // Jon Casazza //
10-08-23 at 09:58 AM // Kenny Fields // We knew when the City Council caved and made a behind closed doors
deal to extend the life of the airport until 2028 and delay the park that measure LC laid out, that there would be
attempts to not follow the PUBLIC WILL and turn the airport into lots of other things. Well, here we are, and this
"democratic lottery process" is the first shot across the bow of the great park that the residents of this city
overwhelmingly approved with LC. We knew it was coming. Ask anyone who lives in Santa Monica whether they
thought that the Council would do what the residents wanted or if they would cave to business interests and they
would tell you that they were very skeptical that the Council would follow the WILL OF THE RESIDENTS. Well
placed skepticism for sure.
10-08-23 at 10:00 AM // Amanda McConnell // We live in Sunset Park, just south of the airport. We support the
park and updated traffic flow / control measures.
10-08-23 at 10:03 AM // hep ingham // Don't let the crooked elements defeat the will of the majority!!!
10-08-23 at 10:12 AM // Jen Murray //
10-08-23 at 10:53 AM // Sharon Rubin // "How many times are we going to have to fight the same Battle? Does
the City have NO Institutional Memory! We have filled the Chamber so many times that I have lost count! It is the
residents that elect you to represent us. Please consider our needs! I already, weekly, have to wipe off my deck
and outside furniture because of the black toxic particles that fall on my property daily! Thank you for your
consideration of the residents’ needs for clean air!"
10-08-23 at 11:05 AM // Max Greene //
10-08-23 at 11:05 AM // John Greenwood //
10-08-23 at 11:23 AM // Kirsten Campisi //
10-08-23 at 12:03 PM // Clare Thomas // A random selection of citizens may not lead to a group sufficiently
educated about the issues, available to commit the time to get up to speed on the issues, and ultimately easily
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
9
swayed by those that want to make an end-run around the results of LC as expressed by the voters of Santa
Monica.
10-08-23 at 12:36 PM // Natalie Greenberg // Please stop the airport immediately. It is both a danger and
nuisance to our families and community.
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM // Luana Rubin //
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM // Jill Rosen // Put people over politics, quality of life over monetary gain.
10-08-23 at 12:39 PM // Leslie Seki //
10-08-23 at 12:42 PM // Brian Kelly //
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM // Haily Jovich // "The voters decided SMO would be a park. The conversation is
finished. Santa Monica City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager must stop undermining the democratic
process by inserting outside interests and lobbyists that are seeking to destroy Santa Monica. The City is
choosing to distribute drugs and drug paraphernalia rather than build a park for residents. The City has shuttered
libraries and turned our City over to lawless criminals. Santa Monica residents need to speak up for themselves
and stand up for safe streets, economic prosperity, and education."
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM // Alessio Burgio //
10-08-23 at 12:46 PM // Natalie McAdams // Can't believe we are even considering revisiting this again. Will this
never end and SM truly become the green city it likes to hold itself up as.
10-08-23 at 12:49 PM // Lauren wallenstein //
10-08-23 at 12:50 PM // Jacquie Jordan // Seriously ?!?
10-08-23 at 12:52 PM // Zina Josephs //
10-08-23 at 12:57 PM // Matthew Muranaka //
10-08-23 at 12:58 PM // Toby Berlin // Stop this madness
10-08-23 at 01:00 PM // Patrick Ney // Reject Lottery
10-08-23 at 01:07 PM // Jonny Pray //
10-08-23 at 01:10 PM // Grady Hall // Truly great cities have truly exceptional public spaces. The airport has long
outlived its usefulness, and is only used by a very small percentage of the public -- while polluting surrounding
neighborhoods with jet exhaust. That's a big part of why the community voted overwhelmingly to transform it into
a park that could be enjoyed in many ways by those in the surrounding neighborhood and city. It was never the
intention to transform the airport into another airport (!), or to enable developers to build massive buildings that
are out-of-character with every other structure in Santa Monica. We need a park. We voted for it. We voted
people out who were against it. Current city leaders should do the right thing and transform the airport into the
crown jewel of Santa Monica's public spaces, increasing the quality of life for countless residents. With the
pandemic and post-pandemic changes now keeping people at home and working remotely, we must add more
community spaces and activities if we are to be a modern, healthy, and thriving community.
10-08-23 at 01:14 PM // Frans Klinkenberg //
10-08-23 at 01:16 PM // ammar lughod // The airport is poisoning the air we breathe and are kids are getting sick.
The noise pollution is terrible. The residents voted, so do the right thing and close the airport.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
10
10-08-23 at 01:17 PM // Vic NoRMAN // Stop your underhanded tactics and cozy relation with the aviation
industry. Remember you are public servants, which means at some point you will ask us to re-elect you.
10-08-23 at 01:18 PM // Bonnie smith //
10-08-23 at 01:20 PM // Marta Vago //
10-08-23 at 01:24 PM // Donna Urban //
10-08-23 at 01:25 PM // Stephen Mark // I served on the city Airport Commission for 8 years. I love the idea of
preserving some sense of the history of Santa Monica Airport and I appreciate we have a housing shortage.
Nevertheless it's clear to me that a process has already occurred confirming the people's desire to have a park on
this land. With a global need for ever more greenery, that feels like the best aesthetic and functional use of the
airport property. I see no reason to confuse matters by instigating yet another open ended process for deciding
what to do here. The decision has been made. The only question is its implementation.
10-08-23 at 01:28 PM // Patrick Davenport //
10-08-23 at 01:33 PM // John Humble //
10-08-23 at 01:34 PM // Joey Reynolds //
10-08-23 at 01:40 PM // MICHAEL OSMENT // Please follow the Measure LC. Stop outside interest trying to stop
the new Grand Park.
10-08-23 at 01:41 PM // Flynn Osment // Please help me grow up with a new park and not a dirty airport. I am 9
years old.
10-08-23 at 01:42 PM // Ava Osment // Please help me, I need a new park near me to play sports! I am 11 years
old.
10-08-23 at 01:43 PM // Lara Osment //
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM // Nora Foran //
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM // Lucia Klass //
10-08-23 at 01:52 PM // Fae Horowitz //
10-08-23 at 01:54 PM // Jonathan Stein // This is a direct and cynical attack on the expressed will of the residents
masquerading staff opinions for public opinion under a sophistical and expensive mask. Utterly detestable.
10-08-23 at 01:58 PM // Patrick Reardon //
10-08-23 at 02:05 PM // Lauren de la Fuente // Please respect the original desire of the LC voters and stop with
the political agenda to do an end run of what we voted for.
10-08-23 at 02:09 PM // Melanie Merians // All my family and neighbors respectfully request that you REJECT this
shameful lottery!
10-08-23 at 02:10 PM // Ellen Mark //
10-08-23 at 02:18 PM // Jay Abramowitz // The people have voted! You're acting like the Wisconsin legislature,
trying to ignore our votes. Leave it alone.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
11
10-08-23 at 02:22 PM // James Wilson // Enough. It is time to let the airport land go for better use for the residents
of Santa Monica.
10-08-23 at 02:24 PM // Louis Bon //
10-08-23 at 02:34 PM // Karen Blechman // Please honor Measure LC. Do not attempt to subvert that decision
with a lottery or any other misguided effort.
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Lealani Ranch Dawes //
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Richard Moore //
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Patrick De Feo //
10-08-23 at 02:44 PM // Erin Ferro //
10-08-23 at 02:46 PM // Jan Simonovic // Santa Monica Airport should be a PARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10-08-23 at 02:59 PM // John Greene // Close the Airport / make it a Park as agreed too. In the meanwhile STOP
selling leaded jet fuel!
10-08-23 at 03:00 PM // Leona marolo // Please keep our city beautiful and for the people not big business.
10-08-23 at 03:07 PM // Eric Garner //
10-08-23 at 03:09 PM // Adam Simon // Stop trying to avoid the clear will of the people you represent.
10-08-23 at 03:14 PM // H. Martin // The secret answer is revealed here•in: thou shalt
build a great park & close the disgusting, polluting airport irrevocably & permanently.
10-08-23 at 03:19 PM // Laura Lacamara // Close the airport; build a great park.
10-08-23 at 03:20 PM // Brian Stecher // I understand the desire to be objective but this approach trades
ignorance for subjectivity, not wise.
10-08-23 at 03:29 PM // Cynthia //
10-08-23 at 03:34 PM // Laura Kaiser //
10-08-23 at 03:57 PM // Olivia Kelly //
10-08-23 at 04:00 PM // Beverly Haas //
10-08-23 at 04:02 PM // Ilene Weingard //
10-08-23 at 04:05 PM // Kristina Hagman //
10-08-23 at 04:47 PM // Alice Ellis // Do not waste our money on a lottery. We already voted in 2014 to close the
airport and build the park. Get to work on the park - do the job you were elected to do.
10-08-23 at 05:00 PM // Alex Novakovich //
10-08-23 at 05:26 PM // Scott Weiss //
10-08-23 at 05:45 PM // Ofer Grossman //
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
12
10-08-23 at 05:53 PM // Mimi Wheeler //
10-08-23 at 06:01 PM // Marla Eby //
10-08-23 at 06:18 PM // Michael katz // The People spoke plainly and clearly when they voted overwhelmingly in
favor of LC. Stop the Fuel Farm danger to Santa Monica’s aquifer.
10-08-23 at 06:22 PM // Lorri Benson // This issue has been voted on. Please honor the wishes of those who
elected you, and stop trying to find a way to NOT shut down the airport. The people of Santa Monica, especially
those most affected by the airport in Sunset Park and Ocean Park, have made it clear that we want a well-thought
out park and recreational area to benefit the local taxpayers. Most of the owners of the small jets and commuter
planes don't even live in Santa Monica. We who live here want to stop breathing dangerous fumes and lead, and
don't want to live with the potential of small plane crashes over our roofs. Not to mention the sound pollution,
which we've heard as late as 11pm sometimes. There is no reason to bring up this topic again and again. We
want the airport gone by 2028, as our last vote indicated. No lottery panels, no more discussion, no more
stalling. Thank you.
10-08-23 at 06:25 PM // Simona Garon // Please stop this lottery process
10-08-23 at 06:26 PM // Patty //
10-08-23 at 06:26 PM // Nicola Goode // Listen to constituents whose voices and votes have repeatedly and
unequivocally settled the issue of SMO closure! Act accordingly SM City Council, reject the Proposed Lottery!
10-08-23 at 06:28 PM // Katharine Dreyfuss //
10-08-23 at 06:36 PM // Min Shi //
10-08-23 at 06:38 PM // Makoto Kato //
10-08-23 at 07:31 PM // Joan Wilder // The panel should only be permitted to make recommendations that do not
require any changes to Measure LC.
10-08-23 at 07:41 PM // Matt Schlegel //
10-08-23 at 07:57 PM // Michael Jerrett //
10-08-23 at 08:15 PM // Jennifer Josephs // Jets have to go--Time to get rid of Polluting Fuel tank storage.
10-08-23 at 08:31 PM // Nancy Owens //
10-08-23 at 08:34 PM // John Ventura //
10-08-23 at 08:36 PM // Denise Gerber //
10-08-23 at 10:00 PM // Jan-Peter Flack // We want and need a park. Which is why the City of Santa Monica
bought the land in the 1st place.
10-08-23 at 10:11 PM // Steven T Benson // This needs to be a park
10-08-23 at 10:20 PM // Dawn Joyal // No changes to Measure LC
10-08-23 at 10:29 PM // Howard Wolfe //
10-08-23 at 10:49 PM // Mazi Lombard //
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
13
10-08-23 at 11:07 PM // Mindi Shank // One person one vote. It’s democracy. Here in Santa Monica, and
everywhere else in the world. It takes ALL of us and EVERY single voice matters! Respect the vote! We voted.
10-08-23 at 11:39 PM // Carol Joffe // 90405
10-08-23 at 11:55 PM // Cathy Hillman //
10-09-23 at 12:17 AM // carol joffe // This is your responsibility to our community, and no one else's, to insure
that the residents can breathe and move and enjoy the best quality of life and health. Don't pass it on to
others. It's not their job.
10-09-23 at 12:27 AM // Stacey Abrams-Sherick // The matter was settled with Measure LC… The City wants a
park.
10-09-23 at 12:29 AM // Ose Dalldorf //
10-09-23 at 12:29 AM // Robert Sherick // The City already voted on this with Measure LC.
10-09-23 at 12:30 AM // Jack Sherick //
10-09-23 at 02:02 AM // Fariba Weiss //
10-09-23 at 04:43 AM // Ursula Fox //
10-09-23 at 05:25 AM // Marla Eby //
10-09-23 at 05:37 AM // Elaine Miller //
10-09-23 at 05:58 AM // Suzanne joffe // Put in a park, like you promised. You are snakes at heart.
10-09-23 at 06:31 AM // Karla Klarin // We want and need a PARK!
10-09-23 at 06:33 AM // Dorothy Chapman //
10-09-23 at 06:39 AM // Larry Arreola, Carol Arreola // Lottery System? PULEESE. We need real stake
holders to be part of the process, not names picked out if a hat.
10-09-23 at 07:04 AM // Tracey Hennessey // I’ve lived here all of my life. In the last 10 years I’ve seen change
that makes this city nearly unrecognizable for the worst. Please stop giving city land to developers. The city of
Santa Monica obviously can’t handle what’s on their plate now with homeless and crime out of control.
10-09-23 at 07:28 AM // Val Davidson // CLOSE THE AIRPORT AS PROMISED. A great new park was the
plan! Green open space is important to the community. LC was voted on.
10-09-23 at 08:10 AM // Ashley Simonsen //
10-09-23 at 08:11 AM // Ann Lewis // We voted on this topic on Measure LC. Please accept this vote from 2014
rather than try to change what the future of the SM Airport will be. As published by the City of SM, "New
development is prohibited on Airport land permanently closed to aviation use unless voters approve limits on the
uses and development that may occur on the land." Thank you.
10-09-23 at 08:14 AM // Sarah Lewis // Citizens have already expressed their position on this issue by public vote.
Respect their decisions.
10-09-23 at 08:15 AM // Chuck Mason // 3480 Maplewood Ave
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
14
10-09-23 at 08:38 AM // Stephanie Tainsky // Please, not again. We already went through this. WE WANT
PARKS!!!!!
10-09-23 at 08:42 AM // Eddy Winston //
10-09-23 at 08:45 AM // Steven Brady //
10-09-23 at 09:09 AM // John Reynolds //
10-09-23 at 09:27 AM // Tregg Rustad // Let's build a park, and only a park!
10-09-23 at 09:49 AM // Dennis WIlder // Stick with LC as you should.
10-09-23 at 09:50 AM // bea nemlaha // Residents most directly affected should take the lead. Random selection
irrational.
10-09-23 at 09:52 AM // Chuck Hoover //
10-09-23 at 10:16 AM // daniel funk // i reject the lottery process for the santa monica airport.
10-09-23 at 10:22 AM // Lisa Detamore // Please stop this nonsense. We already voted.
10-09-23 at 10:34 AM // Shawn Barry // we decided long ago to make this a PARK - we the people of Santa
Monica do not appreciate these back door meetings.
10-09-23 at 10:40 AM // Brian Barry //
10-09-23 at 10:44 AM // Emily Dawe //
10-09-23 at 10:53 AM // Ronette Barry // WE VOTED ON THIS, PROMISED, PARK DEVELOPMENT. I knew this
was going to happen. So sick of the bait and switch. How can you look in the mirror? Let me know when the city
council meeting is?
10-09-23 at 10:56 AM // Barry Friesen //
10-09-23 at 11:16 AM // mark ford //
10-09-23 at 11:32 AM // Mark Abdou //
10-09-23 at 11:36 AM // Joy Abbott // Support Measure LC! Council needs to pull on their big girl and boy pants
and do the 'visioning' work to commit to open parks rather than have it led by housing development concerns.
10-09-23 at 11:53 AM // Susan Jain //
10-09-23 at 12:17 PM // Dorothy Cramer // The people spoke/voted on this issue! It is your duty to follow their
choice!
10-09-23 at 12:55 PM // lois banner // I have lived in Santa Monica for 40 years. Please, please allow it to remain
the beautiful residential community it has always been.
10-09-23 at 01:14 PM // Sarah Bryce // This is pure corruption by BIG REAL ESTATE and the neighborhood of
Sunset Park will not stand for it.
10-09-23 at 01:27 PM // Ellen Hannan //
10-09-23 at 01:44 PM // Margaret Hannan // I am so sick of you selling out our city to real estate tycoons. I lived in
a house under the airport for over 40 years! I still live in a Santa Monica rent controlled apartment. If you want to
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
15
stay employed as a member of our city council get your A in gear and vote the way we Santa Monicans want you
to!!!!
10-09-23 at 01:55 PM // Mark Schubb //
10-09-23 at 02:06 PM // Kenneth Abbott //
10-09-23 at 02:25 PM // Patrick Seeholzer //
10-09-23 at 02:32 PM // Lynn Robb //
10-09-23 at 03:17 PM // Darlene Yaplee //
10-09-23 at 03:36 PM // Deborah // We voted for LC years ago and expect that if SMO closes the land can only
be used for parkland unless voted upon by the residents of Santa Monica.
10-09-23 at 03:58 PM // Tom Lynch // The disruption to our lives and real estate value are impacted greatly by
any activity from the Santa Monica Airport. The noise levels, pollution, and disturbance of jets/planes flying over
our homes needs to stop immediately. The airport is enjoyed only by a few while causing the above mentioned
damage to many.
10-09-23 at 04:22 PM // Christine Lynch // Keep your agreements
10-09-23 at 04:39 PM // ARTHUR BARROW //
10-09-23 at 05:13 PM // Danielle Litak // I ask that you keep with original plans to makes this a public space for all
to enjoy and to not entertain an airport.
10-09-23 at 05:14 PM // Frederick Pringle //
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Kenneth Kirschbaum //
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Elizabeth Oakes // Developer-aligned "nonpartisan" groups will undermine the will of the
citizens. Close the airport as planned and create the park voted in by Santa Monica residents. Keep your
promises.
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Gavin Scott //
10-09-23 at 05:30 PM // Andrea Ware // The land needs to be ALL park!
10-09-23 at 05:35 PM // Dawn Bailey //
10-09-23 at 06:09 PM // Nicola Scott // We do not want the city-wide vote to turn Santa Monica airport into a park
to be overturned.
10-09-23 at 06:36 PM // Francine Duran //
10-09-23 at 06:53 PM // David Kimball //
10-09-23 at 07:16 PM // Kathy Knight // Please support an open, democratic process in our city government.
10-09-23 at 08:59 PM // Stephen Molstad // This is outrageous. Don't do it! The staff proposing this should be
fired.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Alan Levenson <alan@alanlevenson.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:33 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Levenson Alan
Subject:ITEM 7a - Lottery Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Council and others,
ANOTHER VISIONING OVER THE FUTURE OF SANTA MONICA AIRPORT IS NOT NEEDED.
WHAT IS NEEDED IS TO BEGIN WORK ON VISIONING AND PLANNING THE PARK WE VOTED FOR.
A CITY SPONSORED AND PAID FOR RANDOM PROCESS THAT LARGELY IGNORES PAST HISTORY AND HAS AN EMPHASIS
ON HOUSING AND COULD INCLUDE AN AIRPORT IS BULLSHIT.
WELL OVER 300 PEOPLE AND GROWING SIGNED THE PETITION TO REJECT THE LOTTERY. NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS HAVE
WRITTEN LETTERS OF PROTEST.
WHO WANTS THIS PROCESS BESIDES THE STAFF, THOSE WHO STAND TO PROFIT, AND MAYBE THE COUNCIL?
WHERE ARE THE SUPPORTERS OF THIS PROCESS BEYOND THOSE LOOKING TO BUILD HOMES ON PARKLAND AND THOSE
WHO WANT AN AIRPORT IN SOME FORM?
The residents were clear when they passed measure LC and defected measure D; we want a park. A park for everyone to
enjoy for us and future generaƟons to come.
LC was clear. We did not want housing or commercial development on the land. LC could have passed just as easily if it
said we want to close the airport and build the great park bought in 1926. I believe it was Gleam Davis and Marsh
Moutrie, former city aƩorney, who added the unnecessary line about a vote. Now that voƟng clause is being used to
change the outcome of LC as if we voted to have another vote. This aƩempt may not be illegal, but it is manipulaƟve and
disrespecƞul of the democraƟc process. Arrogance is not a virtue.
It appears the current council may be willing to silence residents, acƟvists, and neighborhood groups and put their faith
in a random group of folks willing to put in a limited amount of Ɵme. Let’s hope not.
This is a waste of money. A waste of Ɵme. A travesty of the DemocraƟc process.
DIRECT THE STAFF TO GET TO WORK PLANNING THE PARK.
STOP TALKING ABOUT THE NEED FOR HOUSING AS IF THE PARKLAND IS THE ONLY PLACE TO PUT IT.
STOP PROCLAIMING THERE IS NO MONEY FOR THE PARK WHEN THERE IS $15 MILLION OF LEASE MONEY PER YEAR
AVAILABLE FROM THE SMO LEASES ONCE THE AIRPORT CLOSES.
SEND HEALTHY DEMOCRACY PACKING.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
PLAN THE PARK.
Thank you for your Ɵme and consideraƟon.
Alan
P.S. The peƟƟon, their names, and comments can be found here. Scroll down for names and comments:
hƩps://smofuture.weebly.com/reject‐the‐loƩery.html
Alan Levenson
www.alanlevenson.com
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Ben <bcwang@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:48 AM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Lana
Negrete; Caroline Torosis
Subject:SMCC Meeting - 10/10/23 - Item 7A. Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the
Airport -- UNTESTED and UNPROVEN
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor and City Council:
SMO should NOT be a LABORATORY for Healthy Democracy and their UNTESTED and
UNPROVEN process, especially with a pricetag in the MILLIONS of dollars. See the screenshot
below.
City Staff references an AirTable with data to support the Healthy Democracy in their Staff
Report. They point to “600 examples globally”. Please dig into it! The proposed Lottery is truly an
untested process with an inexperienced organization. Should it be used on SMO? No.
There are actually only 574 cases (not 600) in the OECD Database of Representative Deliberative
Processes and Institutions.
(a) How many of these 574 were implemented by Healthy Democracy? Only 11 of the 574 worldwide
(with one or none that are relevant). See the screenshot below of the 11.
(b) How many of these 574 had Panels that were included Citizens (as opposed to business,
academics, expert practitioners, or government representatives, etc.)? Only 40 of the 574
worldwide.
(c) How many of these of these 574 were in the USA? Only 20 of 574 worldwide.
So how much experience does Healthy Democracy have doing a project like SMO? Little to none.
None of their experiences are similar to the SMO project and most are CIRs (Citizen Initiative
Reviews for Ballot Measures 85, 92, 97, 90, 82, 73, 74, 205). SMO is not a ballot measure
question. That happened in 2014 with Measure LC, and we know the results already!
Petaluma was a 1st of its kind, and the results are not even fully completed and documented.
SMO would be a true million dollar test case, on one of the largest and most important projects in the
City’s history. This is not a cautious approach.
PLEASE use the City's precious time, money, and resources to FOCUS on closing the airport
effective midnight 12-31-2028 and then transitioning it to public parkland, consistent with Charter
Amendment LC and the City Council SMO Closure Resolution 11026.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
Thank you,
Ben
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
3
-------------------------------
Ben Wang
Mobile: 310-663-9264
-------------------------------
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Natalya Zernitskaya <nzernitskaya@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:48 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Caroline Torosis; David
White; Jesse Zwick; doug.sloan@santamonica.gov
Subject:10/10/23 City Council Agenda Item 7A
EXTERNAL
Re: Santa Monica City Council Agenda 10/10/2023 Item 7A
Dear Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tem Negrete, and City Councilmembers,
I urge you to keep an open mind with regard to your discussion on the proposal of a lottery-selected panel
process on the future of the airport.
While I completely understand hesitancy with this proposal, I would like to bring up several potential benefits to
our community as well as correct certain misconceptions regarding the proposal.
For your convenience, I have organized several of these points by bullet points below:
More people of different backgrounds will have the opportunity to provide input on what the future park
will look like after the airport is closed
o Measure LC restricts what we may do with the land at the airport after it closes and with the
exception of certain educational or arts-related uses, it can only be a park. Any other uses
would need to be approved by the voters at the ballot box
o By using a lottery rather than relying on who chooses to come to a public meeting, we will have
the opportunity for voices to be heard that we don’t generally get to hear from
o By providing stipends and other supportive resources (like childcare) to participants, it will
enable people who don’t normally have the capacity to participate to be part of the process such
as parents or guardians of young children
The process will unite professional expertise with members of the public so they can make well-
informed suggestions to the City Council including what the park should aim to include
o There are many different types of parks- those with playing fields, those with playgrounds, those
with lakes or pools & water-related activities, those with carousels, those with or without
concession stands, parks with off-leash areas for dogs, parks with walking paths, parks with
groves of fruit trees, parks with barbeques and picnic tables, parks with community gardens,
etc. - and combinations thereof
o With so much physical land, we need to approach the planning of what we want to see in a
manner that takes into account the needs and wants of all different kinds of people who are all
part of our community
o Members of the public will have the benefit of professionals in the different fields necessary to
consider what is feasible and what might take some more work or resources to accomplish
The participants’ recommendations are non-binding
o Similarly to many other types of advisory bodies of the City of Santa Monica, such as our
Housing Commission, our Recreation & Parks Commission, our Human Services Commission,
etc., the recommendations that will be made by the group of individuals will be provided to the
City Council on an advisory basis and the Council may choose which recommendations to
accept, to reject, and/or to amend.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
Thank you for your consideration of this unique public process. I look forward to hearing your discussion on
this item tonight.
Sincerely,
Natalya Zernitskaya
Natalya Zernitskaya (she/her)
nzernitskaya@gmail.com
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Eve Lopez <evelopez@pacbell.net>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 11:51 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana
Negrete
Subject:Item 7.A - Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
EXTERNAL
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed involvement of Healthy Democracy in using a
lottery-selected panel process to determine the future of the Santa Monica Airport. While I
wholeheartedly support the idea of engaging the community in such decisions, staff’s
recommendation is not only deeply flawed but also potentially detrimental to the very principles that
underpin our democratic system.
1. Brown Act: The Staff's recommendation, if adopted, raises grave concerns regarding a violation
of the Brown Act found in CA Government Code §54950. This Act explicitly forbids the delegation of
the public's right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not. By entrusting a
lottery-selected panel with the responsibility of making decisions on behalf of our community, we not
only risk undermining the core tenets of transparency and accountability enshrined in the Brown Act,
but we also risk shattering the trust that the public has placed in our city's decision-making process.
Delegating such a pivotal responsibility on one of the largest issues affecting Santa Monica,
especially to an entity with conspicuous ties to pro-housing and development advocates, is not only
improper but also threatens to erode the very foundation of our democratic principles.
2. Framing of the Question: The suggested framing of the question concerning the future of the
airport is deeply flawed. The essential prefatory question, "Should the airport remain as an operating
airport?" must take precedence. Only after answering this fundamental question can the City
proceed to explore how to optimize the airport's operations and address any concerns effectively.
Rushing headlong into alternatives without considering first exploring the resident's wishes of
retaining the airport's operation fails to serve the best interests of our community.
3. Transparency: Prior to making any decisions about the airport's future, the City should first
provide the public with a transparent summary of the impact of closing the airport, including the loss
of Federal protections currently attached to the airport. As a preliminary matter, to the extent
Measure LC survived the State’s changes in land use laws, the City must transparently disclosure
that Measure LC only applies if the airport closes and that a vote to close the airport cannot be made
until January 1, 2029. Furthermore, a transparent but concise analysis of the costs associated with
the airport's continued operation, as well as the costs and timeline of any proposed alternative uses of
the airport land should it close and the requisite funding sources to pay such costs, should be
presented to the public before any further discussion about the airport’s future is discussed. It is
absolutely imperative that residents have access to transparent information to make informed
decisions about whether the airport should close including the City publicly clarifying that a vote has
not and cannot yet occur about whether to close the airport. Anything less would be an affront to
transparency and the rights of our stakeholders.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
I implore the Council to decline adopting the recommendation and reevaluate the current approach to
ensure that the decision making process adheres to the fundamental principles of transparency,
accountability, and public engagement. Our community's future, as well as the future of the Santa
Monica Airport, is a matter of great importance, and it is essential that the process reflects the best
interests and wishes of the residents.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I hope that you will take these concerns into serious
consideration as you move forward with determining the future of the Santa Monica Airport.
Eve Lopez
Sunset Park
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Noma Boardmember <nomaboard@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, October 9, 2023 5:17 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Caroline Torosis; Phil
Brock
Cc:Clerk Mailbox; councilmtgitems; David White; Bruce Leddy; ncoleman1@verizon.net
Subject:ITEM 7A. /Council Mtg 10-10-23
EXTERNAL
To help protect yMicrosoft Office pautomatic downlopicture from the
Re: Item 7A. Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
Mayor Davis and Esteemed Council Members -
As you know, in 2014 Santa Monica voters overwhelmingly approved Measure LC which allows "the
development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities" on the airport land, and prohibits
new development without voter approval. The Executive Board of NOMA therefore urges Council to proceed
cautiously with any process that could circumvent the expressed will of voters. Friends of Sunset Park has
enumerated many potential problems with the proposed plan for a lottery-selected panel (LSP) coordinated by
Healthy Democracy. We support their concerns and have the following additional thoughts.
While an LSP is appealing in that it encourages participation by a wide cross-section of randomly selected
residents, the proposal in the Staff Report falls short of that ideal. If Council insists on this process, we
recommend the following changes:
1)REVISE THE FRAMING QUESTION - the framing question for the panel to consider must be neutral.
Currently, the suggested question in the Staff Report suggests the panel must find a "balance of land-uses and
development," (p10) which pre-supposes the inclusion of development at the airport, in direct contradiction to
Measure LC. We recommend striking that clause so the question remains neutral and open-ended, such as,
"How should the diverse needs of our community inform the future of the Airport land in a way that will
most effectively contribute to Santa Monica's long-term vitality?"
2)VET THE PANELISTS - the Staff Report describes the LSP function as, "analogous to a jury trial" (p9)
where impartial jurors are presented evidence and reach a conclusion. This is not an accurate comparison:
after random selection, jury members go through vois dire which removes people with vested interests in a
particular outcome, or other relevant experiences or biases that would predispose them to certain conclusions.
A process must be added so that potential panel members who have a conflict of interest or any potential
financial gain from a certain outcome in the airport plan are disqualified.
2)MAKE THE SCHEDULE WORK FOR MORE PEOPLE - In order for the LSP to be broadly representative of
Santa Monica residents, it needs to be structured so the maximum number of people will agree to enter the
lottery. The proposed schedule of full-day meetings, over three day weekends, for six weekends, eliminates
anyone who works regular hours, anyone who has children that need care on weekends, anyone who has a
job that includes weekends, etc. It leaves a narrow, unrepresentative pool of potential applicants. This could
be mitigated by making the meetings once a week, only in the evening or on weekends, only a few hours at a
time, holding them on Zoom... anything to make the meetings as easy as possible for a broader group
of people to say "Yes" to entering the lottery.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
3)HOLD SEATS FOR FOSP- The Staff Report mentions potentially holding two seats for residents of West LA
as they are likely to be impacted by airport changes. But Sunset Park residents will be far and away the most
impacted. A purely random lottery might result in a panel with no residents from Sunset Park, leaving the fate
of their neighborhood in the hands of non-residents. It is essential that some percentage of seats be reserved
for Sunset Park residents to ensure they have a voice at the table.
4)DEFINE "DIVERSITY" - The report states that Healthy Democracy will take the respondents who enter
the lottery and create a panel that "reflects the diversity of Santa Monica." (p7) But it doesn't define what the
criteria are for diversity: is it racial, economic, geographic, age, gender, renter/homeowner/business owner...?
Council should require a specific definition of "diversity" in this context so that the most relevant criteria are
being considered in forming a representative panel.
5)VET THE GATEKEEPERS - The panel will only be as unbiased in its assessment of the airport land options
as the people they hear from and the information they are given. Therefore, it is crucial that whoever
administers the panel be impartial. Friends of Sunset Park raises concerns about Healthy Democracy's
neutrality that should be carefully investigated. Further, the Staff Report mentions an Information Committee
(IC, p10) which will control what is presented to the panel, ostensibly to ensure unbiased information flow. But
it does not define who is on the IC and how they are chosen. This needs to be defined before going to
contract.
6)MAXIMIZE TRANSPARENCY - as with any City Commission that functions in an advisory capacity to City
Council, all meetings of the LSP should be open to the public via teleconference and recorded for the public's
benefit. This will allow public scrutiny of the information presented to the panel and help ensure its accuracy.
7)QUESTION THE COST - nearly $3 million for this process seems egregious, particularly compared to other
city projects run by Healthy Democracy. The cost needs to be justified, and if possible, the process opened to
other potential bidders. Given the fact that residents have already explicitly indicated their desire for a park at
the airport through Measure LC, one has to wonder whether this entire process, and the expense of running it,
makes any sense at all.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Bruce Leddy
Chair, NOMA
smnoma.org
NOMAboard@gmail.com
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Ben <bcwang@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 1:05 AM
To:Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis;
Oscar de la Torre
Cc:Clerk Mailbox
Subject:Santa Monica City Council Meeting - 10/10/23 - Item 7A. Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel
Process for the Airport
Attachments:SMO - Reject the Lottery Petition - Signatures and Comments 10-10-23.pdf
EXTERNAL
Public Comments Submitted for:
Santa Monica City Council Meeting
Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 5:30PM
Item 7A. Study Session
Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
300+
Authors and signatories submit the petition below
and attached as a PDF for easier readability.
===============
Supporters of Measure LC and
Local Residents of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice, and Mar Vista
October 5, 2023
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, California 90401
E-mail: council.mailbox@santamonica.gov
PETITION
We, the undersigned, urge the Santa Monica City Council to reject the proposed lottery process that would guide
the future of SMO.
We demand that the Council and Staff preserve and honor: (1) the original 1926 citywide vote to purchase the
land for a public park, (2) the definitive 2014 citywide vote that established Charter Amendment LC, and (3)
reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
To do otherwise would demonstrate contempt for repeated and clear-cut election outcomes of democratic
processes in the City of Santa Monica.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council Members:
We urge you to reject the Staff’s Lottery-Selected Panel Outreach Process (“Lottery”) proposal scheduled to be studied by
the City Council on October 10, 2023. You should reject the Lottery and the attempt to undermine the original
expressed intent of residents in 1926, the City Charter Amendment LC in 2014, and the City Council SMO Closure
Resolution No. 11026. Each of these votes passed by wide margins. The Lottery would substitute an untested, non-
democratic process using residents (likely unfamiliar with the complex issues surrounding the present Airport) selected by
Staff’s vague “stratification” factors to make decisions based on information largely provided by that same Staff. The
elected City Council is pledged to facilitate processes that are consistent with the 1926 public park purchase, the Charter
Amendment LC, and the City Council SMO Closure Resolution.
A. 1926 Park Bond
Residents authorized the ordinance (5568 for, and 2056 against) the purchase of a tract of land “for the purposes of a
public park”. The ordinance clearly and repeatedly states the use to be a public park. There was no mention of an airport
or any other use. Even so, the Airport presently occupies the land today, far past the end of World War 2, and far past
Douglas Aircraft’s move from Santa Monica to Long Beach in the mid-1970’s. (See Exhibit 1.)
B. Charter Amendment LC
In 2014, Measure LC was passed by more than 15,000 voters (60% to 40%) which amended the City Charter to:
“prohibit new development of Airport land, except for parks, public open spaces and public recreational facilities,
until the voters approve limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land.” (See Exhibit 2.)
In spite of almost $1 million spent to defeat Measure LC locally (with large sums spent by deep-pocketed national aviation
lobby organizations), Measure LC was endorsed by hundreds of local organizations, neighborhood groups, community
leaders, elected officials, and individuals from our local community with an average donation of only $200, totaling
$100,000 (see https://itsourland.org/endorsements). (See Exhibit 3.)
Following the 2014 election and Measure LC passage, the Santa Monica City Charter was amended to read:
“If all or part of the Airport land is permanently closed to aviation use, no new development of that land
shall be allowed until the voters have approved limits on the uses and development that may occur on
the land. However, this section shall not prohibit the City Council from approving the following on Airport
land that has been permanently closed to aviation use: the development of parks, public open spaces,
and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and
education uses.” (See Exhibit 4.)
In summary, Measure LC provides that:
1. the City Council holds full authority to close the airport,
2. new development is prohibited on the land unless voters approve it, and
3. only parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of
existing cultural, arts and education uses are allowed.
The present Staff proposal seeks to replace the voters’ clearly expressed will with an un-democratic process which: 1) is
not transparent, 2) lacks accountability, 3) usurps the expressed will of the residents, 4) and ignores the role and expertise
of the Airport Commission and its mandate to advise the City Council on all matters regarding the Airport.
C. City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026
In 2017, the SMO Consent Decree was signed to legally allow for airport closure at the end of 2028. The City Council
then unanimously adopted (7-0) SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which stated:
“The City Council directs the City Manager, City Attorney and their staffs to take all actions necessary and
proper to ensure that SMO will cease to operate as an airport and shall be closed to all aeronautical use
forever effective as of midnight on December 31, 2028.” (See Exhibit 5.)
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
3
Resolution 11026 instructs City Staff to take all actions to ensure the airport is closed forever at the end of 2028.
D. The Proposed Lottery Undermines the Charter Amendment and the Closure Resolution
The “democratic lottery”, also known as sortition, is a method of selecting individuals for decision-making processes or
public office through random chance, similar to how a lottery selects winners. Democratic lotteries are recognized to have
significant challenges and shortcomings:
1. Competence and Qualifications: Randomly selected individuals result in participants who lack the expertise or
qualifications needed to meet their responsibilities, leading to decisions that are uninformed or ineffective.
2. No Accountability: Elected representatives can be held accountable through elections, whereas participants
chosen by lottery lack accountability to the public. Participants are not directly responsible for their decisions and
recommendations.
3. Lack of Proper Incentives: Elected officials have reputational and other incentives to perform and make
decisions to secure re-election and serve the interests of Santa Monica, whereas lottery-selected individual
motivations will be unclear.
4. Bias and Manipulation: The process of selecting the pool of eligible participants and the methods used for
random selection are subject to bias and manipulation. Personal agendas, conformance to group norms, and
undue influence by Staff are major risk factors (as it selects the “relevant” information presented to individuals
unfamiliar with the history of controversies surrounding the Airport).
5. Small Sample Size: The number of participants selected by lotteries may be relatively small, which limit the
diversity of perspectives and result in unrepresentative decisions and outcomes.
6. Participation and Voluntariness: Lottery-selected individuals may volunteer for their positions, leading to
potential disinterest or lack of engagement, compared to self-selected participation.
7. Complex Issues and Inputs: Information, issues, and decisions may be highly complex and require specialized
knowledge or background to assess and recognize information inputs that may be incomplete, inaccurate,
uncertain, or deceptive.
8. Lack of Mandate: Lottery-selected individuals may not have a mandate from the public, making it challenging for
them to make tough decisions, especially in controversial matters.
9. Stability and Continuity: Changes or turnover of lottery-selected individuals could lead to instability,
discontinuity, and difficulties in decision making, planning, and implementation.
10. Representation Concerns: Sortition does not guarantee equal representation for marginalized or
underrepresented groups.
Democratic lotteries are not democratic elections, and random does not mean unbiased. As a result lottery-selected
panels are not necessarily fair and impartial, and they can easily be led astray with incomplete, biased, or deceptive
information inputs. As City Staff says in its report, lotteries are “not common in North America” so its use would
essentially be an experiment on one of the most significant planning projects in Santa Monica’s history. Staff
also says in its report that it “recommends a cautious approach.” A process that is untested, is by definition not
cautious. (See Exhibit 6.)
The proposed Lottery partially shifts the authority of City Council and responsibilities of City Staff to a random lottery
process that could potentially advocate for activities that do not “ensure” airport closure, or that advocate for
“prohibited” development that is inconsistent with Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution. The
Lottery process lacks accountability and a clear direction and is founded on the principles of randomness and uncertainty,
rather than direction and vision.
The Lottery creates potential off-ramps from Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution. The City should
not be facilitating it, much less funding it. If Special Interests want to propose initiatives that are counter to Charter
Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution, then they can put something before the voters, however the City Staff should
not be doing or initiating the initial groundwork. The City should only be facilitating processes that are consistent with the
clear direction and vision of Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution, which have been consistently supported
by the electorate and through broad public input.
We strongly and respectfully request you take the following actions:
1. Reject the proposed Lottery process that would guide the future of SMO.
2. Preserve and honor the Citywide votes in 2014 and 1926 in favor of a park.
3. Reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
4
Please continue to ensure the full closing of SMO at the end of December 2028 (62 months), review the existing body of
work and visioning already done over the years, and continue with a park planning process that is transparent and
consistent with Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution.
Please honor the residents and the democratic process.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
The undersigned Supporters of Measure LC and Local Residents of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice, and Mar
Vista
Exhibit 1.
1926 City of Santa Monica Ordinance No. 339
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Exhibit 2.
The 2014 Santa Monica Ballot
To help protect yMicrosoft Office pautomatic downlopicture from the
Exhibit 3.
2014 Measure LC Endorsements
(See https://itsourland.org/endorsements to clearly view the extensive list)
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Exhibit 5.
City Council SMO Closure Resolution
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Exhibit 6.
City Council Report January 24, 2023
Public Process to Determine the Future of the Santa Monica Airport
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Signed (with additional comments),
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
5
10-05-23 at 05:50 AM // Alan Levenson // Read the petition and stop this unnecessary and costly
process now.
10-06-23 at 01:40 PM // Charles Blum // Please honor the will of the people and their vote with measure
LC. Don't succumb to big money financial developer special interests and insult the intelligence of
those who elective you and trust you will govern with integrity and ethics. We will never have another
opportunity to have a park -- EVER. Please let's protect our future generations so they have a party to
appreciate as open land becomes absent from all surrounding regions.
10-06-23 at 04:21 PM // Tanya Troglin //
10-06-23 at 04:45 PM // Elizabeth Van Denburgh //
10-06-23 at 05:08 PM // David Klass // The proposed lottery is an attempted end run around SMO
closure. Special interests are influencing staff and Council to overturn repeatedly established will of
residents.
10-06-23 at 07:32 PM // David Goddard // The sortition is the most ridiculous idea proposed by staff so
far.
10-06-23 at 07:55 PM // Christine Hardin // We have already spoken through Measure LC and Measure
LC was passed by the voters of Santa Monica.
10-06-23 at 09:55 PM // Joseph Hardin // "Please no more Saturday closed door scamming the voters
of Santa Monica funded primarily by out of town, mostly out of state aviation interests! The private jet
class that has no interest in the health, safety or welfare of the overwhelming majority of Santa Monica
residents, especially young children and the elderly, not to mention the residents south and east of
SMO. These people bear the brunt of the pollution and noise from SMO, due to the prevailing wind,
and yet have no voice (vote) in the matter. We, the residents of Santa Monica, still store and sell
leaded aviation fuel knowing that it is very unhealthy for people, especially children and the elderly.
Why do we do this? So that a few aviation enthusiasts can live out their fantasies with no regard for the
thousands of residents and wildlife that surround SMO. It's time for the Santa Monica City Council to
put public interest first and honor Measure LC. Thanks for your hard work. Please make it count by
doing something good for everyone, a Great Park for the people of Santa Monica and our neighbors."
10-06-23 at 10:41 PM // Quynh Nguyen // Even though I deeply oppose the lottery focus group if it is
meant to bypass a broader vote, I am open to a minority of airport land being used for low-income and
affordable housing within mixed-use complexes to fund turning the rest of the land into parks. Respect
democracy by putting your plans to a citywide vote!
10-07-23 at 01:09 AM // John C Smith // I also oppose the use of that SHAM group “healthy
Democracy.”
10-07-23 at 02:04 AM // Joseph Schmitz // "As a former Airport Commissioner (8 years), Retired USAF
Pilot (7,000 hours), Safety Consultant for the FAA, and Research Methods Professor - I find the Staff's
proposal antidemocratic, deceptive, and an abominable usurpation of voters' expressed wishes and
residents' rights. Staff decisions, recommendations to City Councilmembers, and falsehoods (to
residents and to City Councilmembers) have demonstrably kept SMO open past 2015. At great costs
to the City, and greater costs to the health and welfare of residents nearby our Airport. Please know
that as of March 2023, only 12 Santa Monica residents base their airplanes at SMO. "
10-07-23 at 02:56 AM // Joan Schmitz // Please do not go forward with the despicable proposal to
silence Santa Monica residents and voters.
10-07-23 at 06:02 AM // River Huston //
10-07-23 at 07:17 AM // Allyson Dworkin //
10-07-23 at 07:21 AM // Susan Vandebunt //
10-07-23 at 07:33 AM // Robert Brown //
10-07-23 at 07:39 AM // Dirk W van de Bunt //
10-07-23 at 07:42 AM // Charles Gibson //
10-07-23 at 08:01 AM // Elizabeth Lerer //
10-07-23 at 08:04 AM // Diane Sabatini //
10-07-23 at 08:19 AM // Lisa Sandbank // "This lottery is a deconstruction of the existing, voter-
approved measure LC—authored by city council—which the residents fought for and won despite the
millions spent to defeat it by nation-wide aviation organizations and their infamous power lawyers. A
lottery committee gives City Staff the private power to influence committee members at their discretion
and undermine the intentions voted by City Counsel SMO Closure Resolution. "
10-07-23 at 08:39 AM // Victor Fresco //
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
6
10-07-23 at 08:45 AM // Sean Meehan // The question is too skewed toward development and omits
mention of green space.
10-07-23 at 09:47 AM // Karen Comegys-Wortz // The residents want a park! We elected you to do the
right thing and abide by our wishes!
10-07-23 at 10:13 AM // Constance Stewart //
10-07-23 at 10:43 AM // William Schoene // Under NO circumstances should SMO land become
anything not in adherence to the park and/or recreational mandate of Measure LC!
10-07-23 at 10:50 AM // Jack Drutz //
10-07-23 at 11:59 AM // Asa Greenberg //
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM // Gregg Chadwick //
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM // Flavia Baptista //
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM // Chris Waller // The residents have already voted to close the airport and use
the land as a park. Please honor the votes cast, and do not add development to that already conjested
area.
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM // Jeffrey Felz //
10-07-23 at 12:03 PM // Andrea hricko //
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM // Alvin Crown //
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM // Benjamin Shore // Stop avoiding what your residents want - they want a park
no other use.
10-07-23 at 12:07 PM // Jennifer // "Honor Measure LC. No development on the land without a vote of
the people. Close the ariport and make it a park as agreed upon."
10-07-23 at 12:07 PM // Jacqueline McDonald // do your job!
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM // Se Jong Ding //
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM // Jeffrey Rosenfeld //
10-07-23 at 12:12 PM // Gerard Raether //
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM // David Konell //
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM // Andrea Maitra //
10-07-23 at 12:14 PM // Richard Drapkin // Your JOB, is to support the will of the people, as in
"democracy." LC made that clear. Do your jobs
10-07-23 at 12:17 PM // ammar lughod // The airport is poisoning the air we breath and are kids are
getting sick. The joise pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do thr right thing and close the airport
10-07-23 at 12:20 PM // Roberto Schaefer //
10-07-23 at 12:22 PM // David Abramis // "My email to the SM City Councel RE Item 3D: Dear City
Council Members: I am a long-time resident and home-owner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm writing
you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not lease the fuel tanks. I thought
this was already settled, but apparently not. Again, please. Thank you, David Abramis"
10-07-23 at 12:24 PM // Tamra Raven // Stop housing at the airport! Enough!
10-07-23 at 12:24 PM // Weber // Get rid of the airport; it's traumatic to residents due to the insane
amount of noise and constant overhead planes. I visited my brohter who lives in the flight path, in his 2
million dollar home, and I was driven mad by the planes. This is an abomination, and you couldn't pay
me to live in that area. Be honest and serve the people affected.
10-07-23 at 12:25 PM // Iris Souza // "Dear City Council Members: I am a long-time resident and home-
owner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm writing you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic
lease and do not lease the fuel tanks. I thought this was already settled, but apparently not. Again,
please. Thank you, Iris Souza"
10-07-23 at 12:26 PM // David Ginsburg //
10-07-23 at 12:27 PM // Tamra Raven // Stop housing at the airport! Enough!
10-07-23 at 12:28 PM // Patricia Braun //
10-07-23 at 12:29 PM // Jason McClaren //
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM // Karen Croner //
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM // Susan Hartley //
10-07-23 at 12:31 PM // theo swerissen // We want a park.
10-07-23 at 12:32 PM // Victor davich // The fish stinks from the head
10-07-23 at 12:33 PM // John C Smith // Reject the lottery AND that sham group the Council wanted to
run the show. And shame on the city for suggesting such a clear, biased proposal.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
7
10-07-23 at 12:33 PM // William Sadler // Please don’t re-litigate an issue this city already
overwhelmingly decided. Elections have consequences
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Annie Sabroux //
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Paola Levenson // We ask you to please consider the neighbors around the
airport! We were promised a park!
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM // Margot mcleay // We already voted on this issue
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Will Pirkey //
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Devon Pothier //
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM // Sandra Casillas // I live two blocks east of the airport. To say I want it closed as
of yesterday would be an understatement. When I moved in my home in 1994, I knew, of course, that
the airport was here. But I didn’t know that you could fly jets in and out of it. Since you have shortened
the runway, the jet problem is mostly resolved, however, the traffic in and out is still quite loud. I live in
Los Angeles, so I don’t have a vote, but I am deeply affected by the airport, given where I live. You
must close the airport in 2024 just like your election results told you to do. If I recall correctly, you can’t
do anything other than put a great park there, unless you put it to the vote of the city AGAIN. How
many times you going to ask the same question hoping for a different answer? Close the damn airport,
put a park there and fulfill the edict of the voters
10-07-23 at 12:37 PM // carrie davies //
10-07-23 at 12:42 PM // Nurit Pereh // We are just behind the airport. Frankly, I don't mind the small
planes. But the jets are a latecomer to the airport and need to be eliminated altogether. Helicopter
flight training should go to an airport that's not so close to residential neighborhoods. The noise and air
pollution levels are simply too high and too risky. The parks, playground, restaurants, soccer field,
museum, art studios and offices, theater - all those are so lovely for residents and visitors and should
be expanded. Please do not re-lease to aviation businesses.
10-07-23 at 12:48 PM // Ingrid Mueller // "Progressive, green City??!? SMO's immediate Venice
neighbors [!!!] can't endure noise and air pollution without increasing mental dangers...and confusions
about SM city council's weakening SMO Park Support. Please check history and create a better future."
10-07-23 at 12:49 PM // Yvonne Guy //
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM // Betsy Katz //
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM // Jessica Tracy //
10-07-23 at 12:58 PM // Michael Jerrett // Why are you so responsive to business interests at the airport
and so unresponsive to the legitimate concerns of residents who don’t want the noise, air pollution, and
risks to our water supply - show some leadership for a change and close the storage tanks and deny
the lease to Atlantic Aviation and evict the company.
10-07-23 at 01:08 PM // Joy Abbott // Please allow those of us committed to carrying out the
parameters of Measure LC to be involved in the 'visioning' process. We've worked hard for our
neighborhood. I'm especially concerned those of us living in Sunset Park area adjacent to the airport
will not have our proper representation as we will be the most impacted by any re-use development of
the that space.
10-07-23 at 01:08 PM // Ed Arias //
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM // Jason Knapp //
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM // Chutney li //
10-07-23 at 01:12 PM // Alison Buell // The community has voted on this “Great Park” already. This is a
shabby way of doing an end run around the voters.
10-07-23 at 01:18 PM // Eileen Tunick // Voter homeowner/residents overwhelmingly support airport to
park transition. Our votes will count.
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM // igor meglic //
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM // Brenda Goodman //
10-07-23 at 01:31 PM // Stephen Hewitt //
10-07-23 at 01:42 PM // Jamie Dunham //
10-07-23 at 01:48 PM // Joseph Lutz // Close the airport and build a park.
10-07-23 at 01:50 PM // Kevin Kinigstein //
10-07-23 at 01:50 PM // Andrea Lieberman // I just want to ensure that a park that was voted on is what
is put in there, not housing, and not businesses, that will entail more noise and traffic. We are seriously
deficient in park spaces for our city, and we live extremely close to the airport, closer than most people
in Santa Monica, and have been highly effected by the noise and air pollution for decades.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
8
10-07-23 at 01:55 PM // Gary Glickman // We have been asking for your representation for many years.
Are you abandoning us?
10-07-23 at 01:59 PM // barbara whitney // I support this petition, as well as open space, rather than
commercial development at the airport property. I also think it is irresponsible, in case of civic
emergency, to negate the use of the airport for small aircraft.
10-07-23 at 02:02 PM // Randall Klarin //
10-07-23 at 02:09 PM // Jordan Ellis //
10-07-23 at 02:10 PM // William Josephs //
10-07-23 at 02:12 PM // Mara Thompson //
10-07-23 at 02:20 PM // Suanne Ware-Diaz // Honor the decision of your constituency and neighbors.
What the Westside lacks us common green area that enhances life and community. With the large
developments already underway throughout the area and the continued allowance of one family
McMansions, green area is needed more than ever.
10-07-23 at 02:29 PM // Luis Diaz // No Airport
10-07-23 at 02:29 PM // Luis Diaz // No Airport
10-07-23 at 02:40 PM // Alex Gardos // Close the airport please!
10-07-23 at 02:55 PM // Hal Bogotch // A.Great. Park. (Close SMO 4ever.)
10-07-23 at 03:16 PM // Chris Toussaint //
10-07-23 at 03:18 PM // Ann Bowman // Approving and implementing the lottery process will be
violative of the Santa Monica City Charter Boards and Commissions provisions regarding the powers
and REQUIRED duties of these appointive bodies. Approving the lottery process is therefore illegal
and opens the City up to legal challenge.
10-07-23 at 03:23 PM // ALAN KERNER // A few years ago, i participated in a process to close the SM
airport. The City Council Now it appears that the City Council is proposing to re-engage this process. I
have been enduring noise and pollution from the airport, looking forward to the closure in 2028. Please
don’t play games here and do not pass this resolution.
10-07-23 at 03:24 PM // Jilla sardashti // Wake up and respond to the citizens’wishes regarding the
future of SMO. Enough of corporate greed over the health and safety of the communities surrounding
the airport! We’ve spoken but our very legitimate demands fall on deaf ears over and over again!
10-07-23 at 03:26 PM // Karen Comegys-Wortz // List to the residents NOT the developers
10-07-23 at 03:26 PM // Anita. Byrd //
10-07-23 at 03:28 PM // Tracy Orloff // Please honor the votes and wishes of City taxpayers. We want
park space at the airport - (and, are in dire need of it with amount of housing development here
now). We want an end to jet company contracting which puts the people who live here and quality of
our air at risk. Please represent us as you’ve promised to do.
10-07-23 at 03:30 PM // David Krauss //
10-07-23 at 03:50 PM // Maureen Jacobson // This is shameful.
10-07-23 at 03:55 PM // Justin Braun //
10-07-23 at 03:58 PM // Mia Levenson //
10-07-23 at 04:28 PM // Philip Baily //
10-07-23 at 04:42 PM // Mary Duprey // It's clear that we want a public park on that space, as was
initially intended and confirmed by recent voters. Please honor that decision and get on with discussing
what we would like in our park. Thank you.
10-07-23 at 04:51 PM // Rebecca Nelson //
10-07-23 at 04:54 PM // Stephen Unger // Be true to your promise/obligation to close the airport and
replace it with a public park.
10-07-23 at 05:20 PM // Adrian Harewood //
10-07-23 at 06:03 PM // John Campisi //
10-07-23 at 06:17 PM // Jason McClaren //
10-07-23 at 06:37 PM // Donna Rosescu //
10-07-23 at 06:38 PM // William Arbenz //
10-07-23 at 06:59 PM // Roy Rico // Please honor the will of the people.
10-07-23 at 07:48 PM // Will von Bernuth //
10-07-23 at 07:48 PM // Kelly Hsiao //
10-07-23 at 08:48 PM // Will Guston //
10-07-23 at 09:03 PM // SULINH Lafontaine //
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
9
10-07-23 at 09:29 PM // Elin Katz // I support the closure of Santa Monica Airport and the
establishment of a public park in it's place.
10-07-23 at 09:35 PM // Megan FitzGerald //
10-07-23 at 09:41 PM // Jeanne Laurie // Honor the residents and the election results, not cowtow to
the developers.
10-07-23 at 10:28 PM // hal lindes //
10-07-23 at 10:51 PM // Elizabeth Estrup //
10-07-23 at 11:51 PM // Jan Simonovic //
10-08-23 at 06:00 AM // Tim Whalen //
10-08-23 at 07:38 AM // Kurt Gary //
10-08-23 at 07:42 AM // Sarah Braff // Park now!
10-08-23 at 07:49 AM // Allison Greene // Honor the original LC vote.
10-08-23 at 08:26 AM // Susan Kirch //
10-08-23 at 09:02 AM // Phyllis Chavez //
10-08-23 at 09:12 AM // Dorinne Tye // "The people have spoken. The FAA & aviation benefactors
should NEVER be granted option to override the majority. You cannot ignore constitutional processes
and protections without undoing the intent of our country's founding principals and future. Stop the
insanity of aviation abuses & pollution. This harms our productivity, health, viability, constitution and
future. "
10-08-23 at 09:21 AM // Miki Barnes //
10-08-23 at 09:23 AM // Mathew Millen // Use Measure GS funds to build 3000 units of low income
housing between Wilshire and San Vicente blvd AFFH
10-08-23 at 09:34 AM // Peter Spelman //
10-08-23 at 09:37 AM // Larry Graber //
10-08-23 at 09:45 AM // Jon Casazza //
10-08-23 at 09:58 AM // Kenny Fields // We knew when the City Council caved and made a behind
closed doors deal to extend the life of the airport until 2028 and delay the park that measure LC laid
out, that there would be attempts to not follow the PUBLIC WILL and turn the airport into lots of other
things. Well, here we are and this "democratic lottery process" is the first shot across the bow of the
great park that the residents of this city overwhelmingly approved with LC. We knew it was coming. Ask
anyone who lives in Santa Monica whether they thought that the Council would do what the residents
wanted or if they would cave to business interests and they would tell you that they were very skeptical
that the Council would follow the WILL OF THE RESIDENTS. Well placed skepticism for sure.
10-08-23 at 10:00 AM // Amanda McConnell // We live in sunset park, just south of the airport. We
support the park and updated traffic flow / control measures.
10-08-23 at 10:03 AM // hep ingham // Don't let the crooked elements defeat the will of the majority!!!
10-08-23 at 10:12 AM // Jen Murray //
10-08-23 at 10:53 AM // Sharon Rubin // "How many times are we going to have to fight the same
Battle? Does the City have NO Institutional Memory! We have filled the Chamber so many times that I
have lost count!.It is the residents that elect you to represent us. Please consider our needs! I already ,
weekly have to wipe off my deck and outside furniture because of the black toxic particles that fall on
my property daily! Thank you for your consideration of the residents needs for clean air!"
10-08-23 at 11:05 AM // Max Greene //
10-08-23 at 11:05 AM // John Greenwood //
10-08-23 at 11:23 AM // Kirsten Campisi //
10-08-23 at 12:03 PM // Clare Thomas // A random selection of citizens may not lead to a group
sufficiently educated about the issues, available to commit the time to get up to speed on the issues,
and ultimately easily swayed by those that want to make an end-run around the results of LC as
expressed by the voters of Santa Monica
10-08-23 at 12:36 PM // Natalie Greenberg // Please stop the airport immediately. It is both a danger
and nuisance to our families and community
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM // Luana Rubin //
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM // Jill Rosen // Put people over politics, quality of life over monetary gain.
10-08-23 at 12:39 PM // Leslie Seki //
10-08-23 at 12:42 PM // Brian Kelly //
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
10
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM // Haily Jovich // "The voters decided SMO would be a park. The conversation is
finished. Santa Monica City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager must stop undermining the
democratic process by inserting outside interests and lobbyists that are seeking to destroy Santa
Monica. The City is choosing to distribute drugs and drug paraphernalia rather than build a park for
residents. The City has shuttered libraries and turned our City over to lawless criminals. Santa Monica
residents need to speak up for themselves and stand up for safe streets, economic prosperity, and
education."
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM // Alessio Burgio //
10-08-23 at 12:46 PM // Natalie McAdams // Can't believe we are even considering revisiting this again.
Will this never end and SM truly become the green city it likes to hold itself up as.
10-08-23 at 12:49 PM // Lauren wallenstein //
10-08-23 at 12:50 PM // Jacquie Jordan // Seriously ?!?
10-08-23 at 12:52 PM // Zina Josephs //
10-08-23 at 12:57 PM // Matthew Muranaka //
10-08-23 at 12:58 PM // Toby Berlin // Stop this madness
10-08-23 at 01:00 PM // Patrick Ney // Reject Lottery
10-08-23 at 01:07 PM // Jonny Pray //
10-08-23 at 01:10 PM // Grady Hall // Truly great cities have truly exceptional public spaces. The
airport has long outlived its usefulness, and is only used by a very small percentage of the public --
while polluting surrounding neighborhoods with jet exhaust. That's a big part of why the community
voted overwhelmingly to transform it into a park that could be enjoyed in many ways by those in the
surrounding neighborhood and city. It was never the intention to transform the airport into another
airport (!), or to enable developers to build massive buildings that are out-of-character with every other
structure in Santa Monica. We need a park. We voted for it. We voted people out who were against
it. Current city leaders should do the right thing and transform the airport into the crown jewel of Santa
Monica's public spaces, increasing the quality of life for countless residents. With the pandemic and
post-pandemic changes now keeping people at home and working remotely, we must add more
community spaces and activities if we are to be a modern, healthy, and thriving community.
10-08-23 at 01:14 PM // Frans Klinkenberg //
10-08-23 at 01:16 PM // ammar lughod // The airport is poisoning the air we breath and are kids are
getting sick. The joise pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do thr right thing and close the airport
10-08-23 at 01:17 PM // Vic NoRMAN // Stop your underhanded tactics and cozy relation with the
aviation industry. Remember you are public servants. which means at some point you will ask us to re-
elect you.
10-08-23 at 01:18 PM // Bonnie smith //
10-08-23 at 01:20 PM // Marta Vago //
10-08-23 at 01:24 PM // Donna Urban //
10-08-23 at 01:25 PM // Stephen Mark // I served on the city Airport Commission for 8 years. I love the
idea of preserving some sense of the history of Santa Monica Airport and I appreciate we have a
housing shortage. Nevertheless it's clear to me that a process has already occurred confirming the
people's desire to have a park on this land. With a global need for ever more greenery, that feels like
the best aesthetic and functional use of the airport property. I see no reason to confuse matters by
instigating yet another open ended process for deciding what to do here. The decision has been made.
The only question is its implementation.
10-08-23 at 01:28 PM // Patrick Davenport //
10-08-23 at 01:33 PM // John Humble //
10-08-23 at 01:34 PM // Joey Reynolds //
10-08-23 at 01:40 PM // MICHAEL OSMENT // Please follow the Measure LC. Stop outside interest
trying to stop the new Grand Park
10-08-23 at 01:41 PM // Flynn Osment // Please help me grow up with a new park and not a dirty
airport. I am 9 years old.
10-08-23 at 01:42 PM // Ava Osment // Please help me, I need a new park near me to play sports! I am
11 years old
10-08-23 at 01:43 PM // Lara Osment //
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM // Nora Foran //
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM // Lucia Klass //
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
11
10-08-23 at 01:52 PM // Fae Horowitz //
10-08-23 at 01:54 PM // Jonathan Stein // This is a direct and cynical attack on the expressed will of the
residents masquerading staff opinions for public opinion under a sophistical and expensive mask.
Utterly detestable.
10-08-23 at 01:58 PM // Patrick Reardon //
10-08-23 at 02:05 PM // Lauren de la Fuente // Please respect the original desire of the LC voters and
stop with the political agenda to do an end run of what we voted for.
10-08-23 at 02:09 PM // Melanie Merians // All my family and neighbors respectfully request that you
REJECT this shameful lottery!
10-08-23 at 02:10 PM // Ellen Mark //
10-08-23 at 02:18 PM // Jay Abramowitz // The people have voted! You're acting like the Wisconsin
legislature, trying to ignore our votes. Leave it alone.
10-08-23 at 02:22 PM // James Wilson // Enough. It is time to let the airport land go for better use for
the residents of Santa Monica.
10-08-23 at 02:24 PM // Louis Bon //
10-08-23 at 02:34 PM // Karen Blechman // Please honor Measure LC. Do not attempt to subvert that
decision with a lottery or any other misguided effort.
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Lealani Ranch Dawes //
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Richard Moore //
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM // Patrick De Feo //
10-08-23 at 02:44 PM // Erin Ferro //
10-08-23 at 02:46 PM // Jan Simonovic // Santa Monica Airport should be a PARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10-08-23 at 02:59 PM // John Greene // Close the Airport / make it a Park as agreed too. In the
meanwhile STOP selling leaded jet fuel!
10-08-23 at 03:00 PM // Leona marolo // Please keep our city beautiful and for the people not big
business.
10-08-23 at 03:07 PM // Eric Garner //
10-08-23 at 03:09 PM // Adam Simon // Stop trying to avoid the clear will of the people you represent.
10-08-23 at 03:14 PM // H. Martin // The secret answer is revealed here•in: thou shalt build a great
park & close the disgusting, polluting airport irrevocably & permanently.
10-08-23 at 03:19 PM // Laura Lacamara // Close the airport; build a great park.
10-08-23 at 03:20 PM // Brian Stecher // I understand the desire to be objective but this approach
trades ignorance for subjectivity, not wise.
10-08-23 at 03:29 PM // Cynthia //
10-08-23 at 03:34 PM // Laura Kaiser //
10-08-23 at 03:57 PM // Olivia Kelly //
10-08-23 at 04:00 PM // Beverly Haas //
10-08-23 at 04:02 PM // Ilene Weingard //
10-08-23 at 04:05 PM // Kristina Hagman //
10-08-23 at 04:47 PM // Alice Ellis // Do not waste our money on a lottery. We already voted in 2014 to
close the airport and build the park. Get to work on the park - do the job you were elected to do.
10-08-23 at 05:00 PM // Alex Novakovich //
10-08-23 at 05:26 PM // Scott Weiss //
10-08-23 at 05:27 PM // Scott Weiss //
10-08-23 at 05:45 PM // Ofer Grossman //
10-08-23 at 05:53 PM // Mimi Wheeler //
10-08-23 at 06:01 PM // Marla Eby //
10-08-23 at 06:18 PM // Michael katz // The People spoke plainly and clearly when they voted
overwhelmingly in favor of LC. Stop the Fuel Farm danger to Santa Monica’s aquifer.
10-08-23 at 06:22 PM // Lorri Benson // This issue has been voted on. Please honor the wishes of
those who elected you, and stop trying to find a way to NOT shut down the airport. The people of Santa
Monica, especially those most affected by the airport in Sunset Park and Ocean Park, have made it
clear that we want a well-thought out park and recreational area to benefit the local taxpayers. Most of
the owners of the small jets and commuter planes don't even live in Santa Monica. We who live here
want to stop breathing dangerous fumes and lead, and don't want to live with the potential of small
plane crashes over our roofs. Not to mention the sound pollution, which we've heard as late as 11pm
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
12
sometimes. There is no reason to bring up this topic again and again. We want the airport gone by
2028, as our last vote indicated. No lottery panels, no more discussion, no more stalling. Thank you.
10-08-23 at 06:25 PM // Simona Garon // Please stop this lottery process
10-08-23 at 06:26 PM // Patty //
10-08-23 at 06:26 PM // Nicola Goode // Listen to constituents whose voices and votes have repeatedly
and unequivocally settled the issue of SMO closure! Act accordingly SM City Council, reject the
Proposed Lottery!
10-08-23 at 06:28 PM // Katharine Dreyfuss //
10-08-23 at 06:36 PM // Min Shi //
10-08-23 at 06:38 PM // Makoto Kato //
10-08-23 at 07:31 PM // Joan Wilder // The panel should only be permitted to make recommendations
that do not require any changes to Measure LC.
10-08-23 at 07:41 PM // Matt Schlegel //
10-08-23 at 07:57 PM // Michael Jerrett //
10-08-23 at 08:15 PM // Jennifer Josephs // Jets have to go--Time to get rid of Polluting Fuel tank
storage
10-08-23 at 08:31 PM // Nancy Owens //
10-08-23 at 08:34 PM // John Ventura //
10-08-23 at 08:36 PM // Denise Gerber //
10-08-23 at 10:00 PM // Jan-Peter Flack // We want and need a park. Which is why the City of Santa
Monica bought the land in the 1st place.
10-08-23 at 10:11 PM // Steven T Benson // This needs to be a park
10-08-23 at 10:20 PM // Dawn Joyal // No changes to Measure LC
10-08-23 at 10:29 PM // Howard Wolfe //
10-08-23 at 10:49 PM // Mazi Lombard //
10-08-23 at 11:07 PM // Mindi Shank // One person one vote. It’s democracy. Here in Santa Monica,
and everywhere else in the world. It takes ALL of us and EVERY single voice matters! Respect the
vote! We voted.
10-08-23 at 11:39 PM // Carol Joffe // 90405
10-08-23 at 11:55 PM // Cathy Hillman //
10-09-23 at 12:17 AM // carol joffe // This is your responsibility to our community, and no one else's, to
insure that the residents can breathe and move and enjoy the best quality of life and health. Don't pass
it on to others. It's not their job.
10-09-23 at 12:27 AM // Stacey Abrams-ShericK // The matter was settled with Measure LC… The City
wants a park.
10-09-23 at 12:29 AM // Ose Dalldorf //
10-09-23 at 12:29 AM // Robert Sherick // The City already voted on this with Measure LC.
10-09-23 at 12:30 AM // Jack Sherick //
10-09-23 at 02:02 AM // Fariba Weiss //
10-09-23 at 04:43 AM // Ursula Fox //
10-09-23 at 05:25 AM // Marla Eby //
10-09-23 at 05:37 AM // Elaine Miller //
10-09-23 at 05:56 AM // John Reynolds // "WE VOTED FOR PARKS AND ANY
votes to undue the 60/40 decision "
10-09-23 at 05:58 AM // Suzanne joffe // Put in a park, like you promised. You are snakes at heart.
10-09-23 at 06:31 AM // Karla Klarin // We want and need a PARK!
10-09-23 at 06:33 AM // Dorothy Chapman //
10-09-23 at 06:39 AM // Larry Arreola, Carol Arreola // Lottery System? PULEESE. We need real
stake holders to be part of the process, not names picked out if a hat
10-09-23 at 07:04 AM // Tracey Hennessey // I’ve lived here all of my life. In the last 10 years I’ve seen
change that makes this city nearly unrecognizable for the worst. Please stop giving city land to
developers. The city of Santa Monica obviously can’t handle what’s on their plate now with homeless
and crime out of control.
10-09-23 at 07:28 AM // Val Davidson // CLOSE THE AIRPORT AS PROMISED. A great new park was
the plan! Green open space is important to the community. LC was voted on.
10-09-23 at 08:10 AM // Ashley Simonsen //
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
13
10-09-23 at 08:11 AM // Ann Lewis // We voted on this topic on Measure LC. Please accept this vote
from 2014 rather than try to change what the future of the SM Airport will be. As published by the City of
SM, "New development is prohibited on Airport land permanently closed to aviation use unless voters
approve limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land." Thank you.
10-09-23 at 08:14 AM // Sarah Lewis // Citizens have already expressed their position on this issue by
public vote. Respect their decisions.
10-09-23 at 08:15 AM // Chuck Mason // 3480 Maplewood Ave
10-09-23 at 08:38 AM // Stephanie Tainsky // Please, not again. We already went through this. WE
WANT PARKS!!!!!
10-09-23 at 08:42 AM // Eddy Winston //
10-09-23 at 08:45 AM // Steven Brady //
10-09-23 at 09:09 AM // John Reynolds //
10-09-23 at 09:27 AM // Tregg Rustad // Let's build a park, and only a park!
10-09-23 at 09:49 AM // Dennis WIlder // Stick with LC as you should.
10-09-23 at 09:50 AM // bea nemlaha // Residents most directly affected should take the lead. Random
selection irrational.
10-09-23 at 09:52 AM // Chuck Hoover //
10-09-23 at 10:16 AM // daniel funk // i reject the lottery process for the santa monica airport.
10-09-23 at 10:22 AM // Lisa Detamore // Please stop this nonsense. We already voted.
10-09-23 at 10:34 AM // Shawn Barry // we decided long ago to make this a PARK - we the people of
Santa Monica do not appreciate these back door meetings
10-09-23 at 10:40 AM // Brian Barry //
10-09-23 at 10:44 AM // Emily Dawe //
10-09-23 at 10:53 AM // Ronette Barry // WE VOTED ON THIS, PROMISED, PARK DEVELOPMENT. I
knew this was going to happen. So sick of the bate and switch. How can you look in the mirror. Let me
know when the city council meeting is?
10-09-23 at 10:56 AM // Barry Friesen //
10-09-23 at 11:16 AM // mark ford //
10-09-23 at 11:32 AM // Mark Abdou //
10-09-23 at 11:36 AM // Joy Abbott // Support Measure LC ! Council needs to pull on their big girl and
boy pants and do the 'visioning' work to commit to open parks rather than have it led housing
development concerns.
10-09-23 at 11:53 AM // Susan Jain //
10-09-23 at 12:17 PM // Dorothy Cramer // The people spoke/voted on this issue! It is your duty to
follow their choice!
10-09-23 at 12:55 PM // lois banner // I have lived in Santa Monica for 40 years. Please, please allow it
to remain the beautiful residential community 8it has always been.
10-09-23 at 01:14 PM // Sarah Bryce // This is pure corruption by BIG REAL ESTATE and the
neighborhood of Sunset Park will not stand for it
10-09-23 at 01:27 PM // Ellen Hannan //
10-09-23 at 01:44 PM // Margaret Hannan // I am so sick of you selling out our city to real estate
tycoons. I lived in a house under the airport for over 40 years! I still live in a Santa Monica rent
controlled apartment. If you want to stay employed as a member of our city council get your A in gear
and vote the way we Santa Monicans want you to!!!!
10-09-23 at 01:55 PM // Mark Schubb //
10-09-23 at 02:06 PM // Kenneth Abbott //
10-09-23 at 02:25 PM // Patrick Seeholzer //
10-09-23 at 02:27 PM // Patrick Seeholzer //
10-09-23 at 02:32 PM // Lynn Robb //
10-09-23 at 03:17 PM // Darlene Yaplee //
10-09-23 at 03:36 PM // Deborah // We voted for LC years ago and expect that if SMO closes the land
can only be used for parkland unless voted upon by the residents of Santa Monica.
10-09-23 at 03:58 PM // Tom Lynch // The disruption to our lives and real estate value are impacted
greatly by any activity from the Santa Monica Airport. The noise levels, pollution, and disturbance of
jets/planes flying over our homes needs to stop immediately. The airport is enjoyed only by a few
while causing the above mentioned damage to many.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
14
10-09-23 at 04:22 PM // Christine Lynch // Keep your agreements
10-09-23 at 04:39 PM // ARTHUR BARROW //
10-09-23 at 05:13 PM // Danielle Litak // I ask that you keep with original plans to makes this a public
space for all to enjoy and to not entertain an airport.
10-09-23 at 05:14 PM // Frederick Pringle //
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Kenneth Kirschbaum //
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Elizabeth Oakes // Developer-aligned "nonpartisan" groups will undermine the
will of the citizens. Close the airport as planned and create the park voted in by Santa Monica
residents. Keep your promises.
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM // Gavin Scott //
10-09-23 at 05:30 PM // Andrea Ware // The land needs to be ALL park!
10-09-23 at 05:35 PM // Dawn Bailey //
10-09-23 at 06:09 PM // Nicola Scott // We do not want the city-wide vote to turn Santa Monica airport
into a park to be overturned.
10-09-23 at 06:36 PM // Francine Duran //
10-09-23 at 06:53 PM // David Kimball //
10-09-23 at 07:16 PM // Kathy Knight // Please support an open, democratic process in our city
government.
10-09-23 at 08:59 PM // Stephen Molstad // This is outrageous. Don't do it! The staff proposing this
should be fired.
===============
-------------------------------
Ben Wang
Mobile: 310-663-9264
-------------------------------
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Public Comments Submitted for:
Santa Monica City Council Meeting
Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 5:30PM
Item 7A. Study Session
Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
300+
Authors and signatories of the attached petition
respectfully request you take the following actions:
We, the undersigned, urge the Santa Monica City Council to reject
the proposed lottery process that would guide the future of SMO.
We demand that the Council and Staff preserve and honor:
1. the original 1926 citywide vote to purchase the land for a public park,
2. the definitive 2014 citywide vote that established Charter Amendment LC, and
3. reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
To do otherwise would demonstrate contempt for repeated and
clear-cut election outcomes of democratic processes in the City
of Santa Monica.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Supporters of Measure LC and
Local Residents of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice, and Mar Vista
October 5, 2023
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, California 90401
E-mail: council.mailbox@santamonica.gov
PETITION
We, the undersigned, urge the Santa Monica City Council to reject the proposed lottery process that
would guide the future of SMO.
We demand that the Council and Staff preserve and honor: (1) the original 1926 citywide vote to purchase
the land for a public park, (2) the definitive 2014 citywide vote that established Charter Amendment LC,
and (3) reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
To do otherwise would demonstrate contempt for repeated and clear-cut election outcomes of democratic
processes in the City of Santa Monica.
Dear Santa Monica Mayor and City Council Members:
We urge you to reject the Staff’s Lottery-Selected Panel Outreach Process (“Lottery”) proposal scheduled to be
studied by the City Council on October 10, 2023. You should reject the Lottery and the attempt to undermine
the original expressed intent of residents in 1926, the City Charter Amendment LC in 2014, and the City
Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026. Each of these votes passed by wide margins. The Lottery would
substitute an untested, non-democratic process using residents (likely unfamiliar with the complex issues
surrounding the present Airport) selected by Staff’s vague “stratification” factors to make decisions based on
information largely provided by that same Staff. The elected City Council is pledged to facilitate processes that are
consistent with the 1926 public park purchase, the Charter Amendment LC, and the City Council SMO Closure
Resolution.
A. 1926 Park Bond
Residents authorized the ordinance (5568 for, and 2056 against) the purchase of a tract of land “for the
purposes of a public park”. The ordinance clearly and repeatedly states the use to be a public park. There was
no mention of an airport or any other use. Even so, the Airport presently occupies the land today, far past the end
of World War 2, and far past Douglas Aircraft’s move from Santa Monica to Long Beach in the mid-1970’s.(See
Exhibit 1.)
B. Charter Amendment LC
In 2014, Measure LC was passed by more than 15,000 voters (60% to 40%) which amended the City Charter to:
“prohibit new development of Airport land, except for parks, public open spaces and public recreational
facilities,until the voters approve limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land.”(See
Exhibit 2.)
In spite of almost $1 million spent to defeat Measure LC locally (with large sums spent by deep-pocketed national
aviation lobby organizations), Measure LC was endorsed by hundreds of local organizations, neighborhood
Page 1 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
groups, community leaders, elected officials, and individuals from our local community with an average donation
of only $200, totaling $100,000 (see https://itsourland.org/endorsements).(See Exhibit 3.)
Following the 2014 election and Measure LC passage, the Santa Monica City Charter was amended to read:
“If all or part of the Airport land is permanently closed to aviation use, no new development of that
land shall be allowed until the voters have approved limits on the uses and development that
may occur on the land. However, this section shall not prohibit the City Council from approving
the following on Airport land that has been permanently closed to aviation use: the development
of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and
replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses.”(See Exhibit 4.)
In summary, Measure LC provides that:
1. the City Council holds full authority to close the airport,
2. new development is prohibited on the land unless voters approve it, and
3. only parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of
existing cultural, arts and education uses are allowed.
The present Staff proposal seeks to replace the voters’ clearly expressed will with an un-democratic process
which: 1) is not transparent, 2) lacks accountability, 3) usurps the expressed will of the residents, 4) and ignores
the role and expertise of the Airport Commission and its mandate to advise the City Council on all matters
regarding the Airport.
C. City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026
In 2017, the SMO Consent Decree was signed to legally allow for airport closure at the end of 2028. The City
Council then unanimously adopted (7-0) SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which stated:
“The City Council directs the City Manager, City Attorney and their staffs to take all actions
necessary and proper to ensure that SMO will cease to operate as an airport and shall be closed
to all aeronautical use forever effective as of midnight on December 31, 2028.”(See Exhibit 5.)
Resolution 11026 instructs City Staff to take all actions to ensure the airport is closed forever at the end of 2028.
D. The Proposed Lottery Undermines the Charter Amendment and the Closure Resolution
The “democratic lottery”, also known as sortition, is a method of selecting individuals for decision-making
processes or public office through random chance, similar to how a lottery selects winners. Democratic lotteries
are recognized to have significant challenges and shortcomings:
1.Competence and Qualifications: Randomly selected individuals result in participants who lack the expertise
or qualifications needed to meet their responsibilities, leading to decisions that are uninformed or ineffective.
2.No Accountability: Elected representatives can be held accountable through elections, whereas participants
chosen by lottery lack accountability to the public. Participants are not directly responsible for their decisions
and recommendations.
3.Lack of Proper Incentives: Elected officials have reputational and other incentives to perform and make
decisions to secure re-election and serve the interests of Santa Monica, whereas lottery-selected individual
motivations will be unclear.
4.Bias and Manipulation: The process of selecting the pool of eligible participants and the methods used for
random selection are subject to bias and manipulation. Personal agendas, conformance to group norms, and
undue influence by Staff are major risk factors (as it selects the “relevant” information presented to individuals
unfamiliar with the history of controversies surrounding the Airport).
Page 2 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
5.Small Sample Size: The number of participants selected by lotteries may be relatively small, which limit the
diversity of perspectives and result in unrepresentative decisions and outcomes.
6.Participation and Voluntariness: Lottery-selected individuals may volunteer for their positions, leading to
potential disinterest or lack of engagement, compared to self-selected participation.
7.Complex Issues and Inputs: Information, issues, and decisions may be highly complex and require
specialized knowledge or background to assess and recognize information inputs that may be incomplete,
inaccurate, uncertain, or deceptive.
8.Lack of Mandate: Lottery-selected individuals may not have a mandate from the public, making it challenging
for them to make tough decisions, especially in controversial matters.
9.Stability and Continuity: Changes or turnover of lottery-selected individuals could lead to instability,
discontinuity, and difficulties in decision making, planning, and implementation.
10.Representation Concerns: Sortition does not guarantee equal representation for marginalized or
underrepresented groups.
Democratic lotteries are not democratic elections, and random does not mean unbiased. As a result
lottery-selected panels are not necessarily fair and impartial, and they can easily be led astray with incomplete,
biased, or deceptive information inputs.As City Staff says in its report, lotteries are “not common in North
America” so its use would essentially be an experiment on one of the most significant planning projects
in Santa Monica’s history. Staff also says in its report that it “recommends a cautious approach.” A
process that is untested, is by definition not cautious. (See Exhibit 6.)
The proposed Lottery partially shifts the authority of City Council and responsibilities of City Staff to a random
lottery process that could potentially advocate for activities that do not “ensure” airport closure, or that
advocate for “prohibited” development that is inconsistent with Charter Amendment LC and the Closure
Resolution. The Lottery process lacks accountability and a clear direction and is founded on the principles of
randomness and uncertainty, rather than direction and vision.
The Lottery creates potential off-ramps from Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution. The City
should not be facilitating it, much less funding it. If Special Interests want to propose initiatives that are counter to
Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution, then they can put something before the voters, however the
City Staff should not be doing or initiating the initial groundwork. The City should only be facilitating processes
that are consistent with the clear direction and vision of Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution,
which have been consistently supported by the electorate and through broad public input.
We strongly and respectfully request you take the following actions:
1. Reject the proposed Lottery process that would guide the future of SMO.
2. Preserve and honor the Citywide votes in 2014 and 1926 in favor of a park.
3. Reaffirm City Council SMO Closure Resolution No. 11026 which ensures airport closure.
Please continue to ensure the full closing of SMO at the end of December 2028 (62 months), review the existing
body of work and visioning already done over the years, and continue with a park planning process that is
transparent and consistent with Charter Amendment LC and the Closure Resolution.
Please honor the residents and the democratic process.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
The undersigned Supporters of Measure LC and Local Residents of Santa Monica, West Los Angeles, Venice,
and Mar Vista
Page 3 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Exhibit 1.
1926 City of Santa Monica Ordinance No. 339
Page 4 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Exhibit 2.
The 2014 Santa Monica Ballot
Page 5 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Exhibit 3.
2014 Measure LC Endorsements
(See https://itsourland.org/endorsements to clearly view the extensive list)
Exhibit 4.
2014 Charter Amendment LC
Page 6 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Exhibit 5.
City Council SMO Closure Resolution
Page 7 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Exhibit 6.
City Council Report January 24, 2023
Public Process to Determine the Future of the Santa Monica Airport
Page 8 of 8
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
1
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-05-23 at 05:50 AM Alan Levenson Read the petition and stop this unnecessary and costly process now.
10-06-23 at 01:40 PM Charles Blum Please honor the will of the people and their vote with measure LC. Don't
succumb to big money financial developer special interests and insult the
intelligence of those who elective you and trust you will govern with integrity and
ethics. We will never have another opportunity to have a park -- EVER. Please
let's protect our future generations so they have a party to appreciate as open
land becomes absent from all surrounding regions.
10-06-23 at 04:21 PM Tanya Troglin
10-06-23 at 04:45 PM Elizabeth Van Denburgh
10-06-23 at 05:08 PM David Klass The proposed lottery is an attempted end run around SMO closure. Special
interests are influencing staff and Council to overturn repeatedly established will
of residents.
10-06-23 at 07:32 PM David Goddard The sortition is the most ridiculous idea proposed by staff so far.
10-06-23 at 07:55 PM Christine Hardin We have already spoken through Measure LC and Measure LC was passed by
the voters of Santa Monica.
10-06-23 at 09:55 PM Joseph Hardin Please no more Saturday closed door scamming the voters of Santa Monica
funded primarily by out of town, mostly out of state aviation interests! The private
jet class that has no interest in the health, safety or welfare of the overwhelming
majority of Santa Monica residents, especially young children and the elderly, not
to mention the residents south and east of SMO. These people bear the brunt of
the pollution and noise from SMO, due to the prevailing wind, and yet have no
voice (vote) in the matter. We, the residents of Santa Monica, still store and sell
leaded aviation fuel knowing that it is very unhealthy for people, especially
children and the elderly. Why do we do this? So that a few aviation enthusiasts
can live out their fantasies with no regard for the thousands of residents and
wildlife that surround SMO.
It's time for the Santa Monica City Council to put public interest first and honor
Measure LC.
Thanks for your hard work. Please make it count by doing something good for
everyone, a Great Park for the people of Santa Monica and our neighbors.
10-06-23 at 10:41 PM Quynh Nguyen Even though I deeply oppose the lottery focus group if it is meant to bypass a
broader vote, I am open to a minority of airport land being used for low-income
and affordable housing within mixed-use complexes to fund turning the rest of
the land into parks. Respect democracy by putting your plans to a citywide vote!
10-07-23 at 01:09 AM John C Smith I also oppose the use of that SHAM group “healthy Democracy.”
10-07-23 at 02:04 AM Joseph Schmitz As a former Airport Commissioner (8 years), Retired USAF Pilot (7,000 hours),
Safety Consultant for the FAA, and Research Methods Professor - I find the
Staff's proposal antidemocratic, deceptive, and an abominable usurpation of
voters' expressed wishes and residents' rights.
Staff decisions, recommendations to City Councilmembers, and falsehoods (to
residents and to City Councilmembers) have demonstrably kept SMO open past
2015. At great costs to the City, and greater costs to the health and welfare of
residents nearby our Airport.
Please know that as of March 2023, only 12 Santa Monica residents base their
airplanes at SMO.
10-07-23 at 02:56 AM Joan Schmitz Please do not go forward with the despicable proposal to silence Santa Monica
residents and voters.
10-07-23 at 06:02 AM River Huston
10-07-23 at 07:17 AM Allyson Dworkin
10-07-23 at 07:21 AM Susan Vandebunt
10-07-23 at 07:33 AM Robert Brown
10-07-23 at 07:39 AM Dirk W van de Bunt
10-07-23 at 07:42 AM Charles Gibson
10-07-23 at 08:01 AM Elizabeth Lerer
10-07-23 at 08:04 AM Diane Sabatini
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
2
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 08:19 AM Lisa Sandbank This lottery is a deconstruction of the existing, voter-approved measure
LC—authored by city council—which the residents fought for and won despite
the millions spent to defeat it by nation-wide aviation organizations and their
infamous power lawyers.
A lottery committee gives City Staff the private power to influence committee
members at their discretion and undermine the intentions voted by City Counsel
SMO Closure Resolution.
10-07-23 at 08:39 AM Victor Fresco
10-07-23 at 08:45 AM Sean Meehan The question is too skewed toward development and omits mention of green
space.
10-07-23 at 09:47 AM Karen Comegys-Wortz The residents want a park! We elected you to do the right thing and abide by our
wishes!
10-07-23 at 10:13 AM Constance Stewart
10-07-23 at 10:43 AM William Schoene Under NO circumstances should SMO land become anything not in adherence to
the park and/or recreational mandate of Measure LC!
10-07-23 at 10:50 AM Jack Drutz
10-07-23 at 11:59 AM Asa Greenberg
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM Gregg Chadwick
10-07-23 at 12:01 PM Flavia Baptista
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM Chris Waller The residents have already voted to close the airport and use the land as a park.
Please honor the votes cast, and do not add development to that already
conjested area.
10-07-23 at 12:02 PM Jeffrey Felz
10-07-23 at 12:03 PM Andrea hricko
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM Alvin Crown
10-07-23 at 12:05 PM Benjamin Shore Stop avoiding what your residents want - they want a park no other use.
10-07-23 at 12:07 PM Jennifer Honor Measure LC. No development on the land without a vote of the people.
Close the ariport and make it a park as agreed upon.
10-07-23 at 12:07 PM Jacqueline McDonald do your job!
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM Se Jong Ding
10-07-23 at 12:11 PM Jeffrey Rosenfeld
10-07-23 at 12:12 PM Gerard Raether
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM David Konell
10-07-23 at 12:13 PM Andrea Maitra
10-07-23 at 12:14 PM Richard Drapkin Your JOB, is to support the will of the people, as in "democracy." LC made that
clear. Do your jobs
10-07-23 at 12:17 PM ammar lughod The airport is poisoning the air we breath and are kids are getting sick. The joise
pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do thr right thing and close the airport
10-07-23 at 12:20 PM Roberto Schaefer
10-07-23 at 12:22 PM David Abramis My email to the SM City Councel RE Item 3D:
Dear City Council Members:
I am a long-time resident and home-owner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm
writing you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not
lease the fuel tanks.
I thought this was already settled, but apparently not.
Again, please.
Thank you,
David Abramis
10-07-23 at 12:24 PM Tamra Raven Stop housing at the airport! Enough!
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
3
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 12:24 PM Weber Get rid of the airport; it's traumatic to residents due to the insane amount of noise
and constant overhead planes. I visited my brohter who lives in the flight path, in
his 2 million dollar home, and I was driven mad by the planes. This is an
abomination, and you couldn't pay me to live in that area. Be honest and serve
the people affected.
10-07-23 at 12:25 PM Iris Souza Dear City Council Members:
I am a long-time resident and home-owner of the City of Santa Monica. I'm
writing you today to ask you, please do not renew the Atlantic lease and do not
lease the fuel tanks.
I thought this was already settled, but apparently not.
Again, please.
Thank you,
Iris Souza
10-07-23 at 12:26 PM David Ginsburg
10-07-23 at 12:27 PM Tamra Raven Stop housing at the airport! Enough!
10-07-23 at 12:28 PM Patricia Braun
10-07-23 at 12:29 PM Jason McClaren
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM Karen Croner
10-07-23 at 12:30 PM Susan Hartley
10-07-23 at 12:31 PM theo swerissen We want a park.
10-07-23 at 12:32 PM Victor davich The fish stinks from the head
10-07-23 at 12:33 PM John C Smith Reject the lottery AND that sham group the Council wanted to run the show. And
shame on the city for suggesting such a clear, biased proposal.
10-07-23 at 12:33 PM William Sadler Please don’t re-litigate an issue this city already overwhelmingly decided.
Elections have consequences
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM Annie Sabroux
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM Paola Levenson We ask you to please consider the neighbors around the airport! We were
promised a park!
10-07-23 at 12:35 PM Margot mcleay We already voted on this issue
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM Will Pirkey
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM Devon Pothier
10-07-23 at 12:36 PM Sandra Casillas I live two blocks east of the airport. To say I want it closed as of yesterday would
be an understatement. When I moved in my home in 1994, I knew, of course,
that the airport was here. But I didn’t know that you could fly jets in and out of it.
Since you have shortened the runway, the jet problem is mostly resolved,
however, the traffic in and out is still quite loud. I live in Los Angeles, so I don’t
have a vote, but I am deeply affected by the airport, given where I live. You must
close the airport in 2024 just like your election results told you to do. If I recall
correctly, you can’t do anything other than put a great park there, unless you put
it to the vote of the city AGAIN. How many times you going to ask the same
question hoping for a different answer? Close the damn airport, put a park there
and fulfill the edict of the voters
10-07-23 at 12:37 PM carrie davies
10-07-23 at 12:42 PM Nurit Pereh We are just behind the airport. Frankly, I don't mind the small planes. But the
jets are a latecomer to the airport and need to be eliminated altogether.
Helicopter flight training should go to an airport that's not so close to residential
neighborhoods. The noise and air pollution levels are simply too high and too
risky. The parks, playground, restaurants, soccer field, museum, art studios and
offices, theater - all those are so lovely for residents and visitors and should be
expanded. Please do not re-lease to aviation businesses.
10-07-23 at 12:48 PM Ingrid Mueller Progressive, green City??!?
SMO's immediate Venice neighbors [!!!] can't endure noise and air pollution
without increasing mental dangers...and confusions about SM city council's
weakening SMO Park Support.
Please check history and create a better future.
10-07-23 at 12:49 PM Yvonne Guy
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
4
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM Betsy Katz
10-07-23 at 12:52 PM Jessica Tracy
10-07-23 at 12:58 PM Michael Jerrett Why are you so responsive to business interests at the airport and so
unresponsive to the legitimate concerns of residents who don’t want the noise,
air pollution, and risks to our water supply - show some leadership for a change
and close the storage tanks and deny the lease to Atlantic Aviation and evict the
company.
10-07-23 at 01:08 PM Joy Abbott Please allow those of us committed to carrying out the parameters of Measure
LC to be involved in the 'visioning' process. We've worked hard for our
neighborhood. I'm especially concerned those of us living in Sunset Park area
adjacent to the airport will not have our proper representation as we will be the
most impacted by any re-use development of the that space.
10-07-23 at 01:08 PM Ed Arias
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM Jason Knapp
10-07-23 at 01:10 PM Chutney li
10-07-23 at 01:12 PM Alison Buell The community has voted on this “Great Park” already. This is a shabby way of
doing an end run around the voters.
10-07-23 at 01:18 PM Eileen Tunick Voter homeowner/residents overwhelmingly support airport to park transition.
Our votes will count.
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM igor meglic
10-07-23 at 01:23 PM Brenda Goodman
10-07-23 at 01:31 PM Stephen Hewitt
10-07-23 at 01:42 PM Jamie Dunham
10-07-23 at 01:48 PM Joseph Lutz Close the airport and build a park.
10-07-23 at 01:50 PM Kevin Kinigstein
10-07-23 at 01:50 PM Andrea Lieberman I just want to ensure that a park that was voted on is what is put in there, not
housing, and not businesses, that will entail more noise and traffic. We are
seriously deficient in park spaces for our city, and we live extremely close to the
airport, closer than most people in Santa Monica, and have been highly effected
by the noise and air pollution for decades.
10-07-23 at 01:55 PM Gary Glickman We have been asking for your representation for many years. Are you
abandoning us?
10-07-23 at 01:59 PM barbara whitney I support this petition, as well as open space, rather than commercial
development at the airport property. I also think it is irresponsible, in case of civic
emergency, to negate the use of the airport for small aircraft.
10-07-23 at 02:02 PM Randall Klarin
10-07-23 at 02:09 PM Jordan Ellis
10-07-23 at 02:10 PM William Josephs
10-07-23 at 02:12 PM Mara Thompson
10-07-23 at 02:20 PM Suanne Ware-Diaz Honor the decision of your constituency and neighbors. What the Westside lacks
us common green area that enhances life and community. With the large
developments already underway throughout the area and the continued
allowance of one family McMansions, green area is needed more than ever.
10-07-23 at 02:29 PM Luis Diaz No Airport
10-07-23 at 02:29 PM Luis Diaz No Airport
10-07-23 at 02:40 PM Alex Gardos Close the airport please!
10-07-23 at 02:55 PM Hal Bogotch A.Great. Park. (Close SMO 4ever.)
10-07-23 at 03:16 PM Chris Toussaint
10-07-23 at 03:18 PM Ann Bowman Approving and implementing the lottery process will be violative of the Santa
Monica City Charter Boards and Commissions provisions regarding the powers
and REQUIRED duties of these appointive bodies. Approving the lottery process
is therefore illegal and opens the City up to legal challenge.
10-07-23 at 03:23 PM ALAN KERNER A few years ago, i participated in a process to close the SM airport. The City
Council Now it appears that the City Council is proposing to re-engage this
process. I have been enduring noise and pollution from the airport, looking
forward to the closure in 2028. Please don’t play games here and do not pass
this resolution.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
5
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-07-23 at 03:24 PM Jilla sardashti Wake up and respond to the citizens’wishes regarding the future of SMO.
Enough of corporate greed over the health and safety of the communities
surrounding the airport! We’ve spoken but our very legitimate demands fall on
deaf ears over and over again!
10-07-23 at 03:26 PM Karen Comegys-Wortz List to the residents NOT the developers
10-07-23 at 03:26 PM Anita. Byrd
10-07-23 at 03:28 PM Tracy Orloff Please honor the votes and wishes of City taxpayers. We want park space at the
airport - (and, are in dire need of it with amount of housing development here
now). We want an end to jet company contracting which puts the people who
live here and quality of our air at risk. Please represent us as you’ve promised to
do.
10-07-23 at 03:30 PM David Krauss
10-07-23 at 03:50 PM Maureen Jacobson This is shameful.
10-07-23 at 03:55 PM Justin Braun
10-07-23 at 03:58 PM Mia Levenson
10-07-23 at 04:28 PM Philip Baily
10-07-23 at 04:42 PM Mary Duprey It's clear that we want a public park on that space, as was initially intended and
confirmed by recent voters. Please honor that decision and get on with
discussing what we would like in our park. Thank you.
10-07-23 at 04:51 PM Rebecca Nelson
10-07-23 at 04:54 PM Stephen Unger Be true to your promise/obligation to close the airport and replace it with a public
park.
10-07-23 at 05:20 PM Adrian Harewood
10-07-23 at 06:03 PM John Campisi
10-07-23 at 06:17 PM Jason McClaren
10-07-23 at 06:37 PM Donna Rosescu
10-07-23 at 06:38 PM William Arbenz
10-07-23 at 06:59 PM Roy Rico Please honor the will of the people.
10-07-23 at 07:48 PM Will von Bernuth
10-07-23 at 07:48 PM Kelly Hsiao
10-07-23 at 08:48 PM Will Guston
10-07-23 at 09:03 PM SULINH Lafontaine
10-07-23 at 09:29 PM Elin Katz I support the closure of Santa Monica Airport and the establishment of a public
park in it's place.
10-07-23 at 09:35 PM Megan FitzGerald
10-07-23 at 09:41 PM Jeanne Laurie Honor the residents and the election results, not cowtow to the developers.
10-07-23 at 10:28 PM hal lindes
10-07-23 at 10:51 PM Elizabeth Estrup
10-07-23 at 11:51 PM Jan Simonovic
10-08-23 at 06:00 AM Tim Whalen
10-08-23 at 07:38 AM Kurt Gary
10-08-23 at 07:42 AM Sarah Braff Park now!
10-08-23 at 07:49 AM Allison Greene Honor the original LC vote.
10-08-23 at 08:26 AM Susan Kirch
10-08-23 at 09:02 AM Phyllis Chavez
10-08-23 at 09:12 AM Dorinne Tye The people have spoken. The FAA & aviation benefactors should NEVER be
granted option to override the majority. You cannot ignore constitutional
processes and protections without undoing the intent of our country's founding
principals and future.
Stop the insanity of aviation abuses & pollution. This harms our productivity,
health, viability, constitution and future.
10-08-23 at 09:21 AM Miki Barnes
10-08-23 at 09:23 AM Mathew Millen Use Measure GS funds to build 3000 units of low income housing between
Wilshire and San Vicente blvd AFFH
10-08-23 at 09:34 AM Peter Spelman
10-08-23 at 09:37 AM Larry Graber
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
6
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-08-23 at 09:45 AM Jon Casazza
10-08-23 at 09:58 AM Kenny Fields We knew when the City Council caved and made a behind closed doors deal to
extend the life of the airport until 2028 and delay the park that measure LC laid
out, that there would be attempts to not follow the PUBLIC WILL and turn the
airport into lots of other things. Well, here we are and this "democratic lottery
process" is the first shot across the bow of the great park that the residents of
this city overwhelmingly approved with LC. We knew it was coming. Ask anyone
who lives in Santa Monica whether they thought that the Council would do what
the residents wanted or if they would cave to business interests and they would
tell you that they were very skeptical that the Council would follow the WILL OF
THE RESIDENTS. Well placed skepticism for sure.
10-08-23 at 10:00 AM Amanda McConnell We live in sunset park, just south of the airport. We support the park and updated
traffic flow / control measures.
10-08-23 at 10:03 AM hep ingham Don't let the crooked elements defeat the will of the majority!!!
10-08-23 at 10:12 AM Jen Murray
10-08-23 at 10:53 AM Sharon Rubin How many times are we going to have to fight the same Battle?
Does the City have NO Institutional Memory! We have filled the Chamber so
many times
that I have lost count!.It is the residents that elect you to represent us.
Please consider our needs! I already , weekly have to wipe off my deck and
outside furniture because of the black toxic particles that fall on my property
daily!
Thank you for your consideration of the residents needs for clean air!
10-08-23 at 11:05 AM Max Greene
10-08-23 at 11:05 AM John Greenwood
10-08-23 at 11:23 AM Kirsten Campisi
10-08-23 at 12:03 PM Clare Thomas A random selection of citizens may not lead to a group sufficiently educated
about the issues, available to commit the time to get up to speed on the issues,
and ultimately easily swayed by those that want to make an end-run around the
results of LC as expressed by the voters of Santa Monica
10-08-23 at 12:36 PM Natalie Greenberg Please stop the airport immediately. It is both a danger and nuisance to our
families and community
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM Luana Rubin
10-08-23 at 12:37 PM Jill Rosen Put people over politics, quality of life over monetary gain.
10-08-23 at 12:39 PM Leslie Seki
10-08-23 at 12:42 PM Brian Kelly
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM Haily Jovich The voters decided SMO would be a park.
The conversation is finished.
Santa Monica City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager must stop
undermining the democratic process by inserting outside interests and lobbyists
that are seeking to destroy Santa Monica. The City is choosing to distribute
drugs and drug paraphernalia rather than build a park for residents. The City has
shuttered libraries and turned our City over to lawless criminals.
Santa Monica residents need to speak up for themselves and stand up for safe
streets, economic prosperity, and education.
10-08-23 at 12:43 PM Alessio Burgio
10-08-23 at 12:46 PM Natalie McAdams Can't believe we are even considering revisiting this again. Will this never end
and SM truly become the green city it likes to hold itself up as.
10-08-23 at 12:49 PM Lauren wallenstein
10-08-23 at 12:50 PM Jacquie Jordan Seriously ?!?
10-08-23 at 12:52 PM Zina Josephs
10-08-23 at 12:57 PM Matthew Muranaka
10-08-23 at 12:58 PM Toby Berlin Stop this madness
10-08-23 at 01:00 PM Patrick Ney Reject Lottery
10-08-23 at 01:07 PM Jonny Pray
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
7
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-08-23 at 01:10 PM Grady Hall Truly great cities have truly exceptional public spaces. The airport has long
outlived its usefulness, and is only used by a very small percentage of the public
-- while polluting surrounding neighborhoods with jet exhaust. That's a big part of
why the community voted overwhelmingly to transform it into a park that could be
enjoyed in many ways by those in the surrounding neighborhood and city. It was
never the intention to transform the airport into another airport (!), or to enable
developers to build massive buildings that are out-of-character with every other
structure in Santa Monica. We need a park. We voted for it. We voted people
out who were against it. Current city leaders should do the right thing and
transform the airport into the crown jewel of Santa Monica's public spaces,
increasing the quality of life for countless residents. With the pandemic and
post-pandemic changes now keeping people at home and working remotely, we
must add more community spaces and activities if we are to be a modern,
healthy, and thriving community.
10-08-23 at 01:14 PM Frans Klinkenberg
10-08-23 at 01:16 PM ammar lughod The airport is poisoning the air we breath and are kids are getting sick. The joise
pollution is terrible. The residents voted so do thr right thing and close the airport
10-08-23 at 01:17 PM Vic NoRMAN Stop your underhanded tactics and cozy relation with the aviation industry.
Remember you are public servants. which means at some point you will ask us
to re-elect you.
10-08-23 at 01:18 PM Bonnie smith
10-08-23 at 01:20 PM Marta Vago
10-08-23 at 01:24 PM Donna Urban
10-08-23 at 01:25 PM Stephen Mark I served on the city Airport Commission for 8 years. I love the idea of preserving
some sense of the history of Santa Monica Airport and I appreciate we have a
housing shortage. Nevertheless it's clear to me that a process has already
occurred confirming the people's desire to have a park on this land. With a global
need for ever more greenery, that feels like the best aesthetic and functional use
of the airport property. I see no reason to confuse matters by instigating yet
another open ended process for deciding what to do here. The decision has
been made. The only question is its implementation.
10-08-23 at 01:28 PM Patrick Davenport
10-08-23 at 01:33 PM John Humble
10-08-23 at 01:34 PM Joey Reynolds
10-08-23 at 01:40 PM MICHAEL OSMENT Please follow the Measure LC. Stop outside interest trying to stop the new Grand
Park
10-08-23 at 01:41 PM Flynn Osment Please help me grow up with a new park and not a dirty airport. I am 9 years old.
10-08-23 at 01:42 PM Ava Osment Please help me, I need a new park near me to play sports! I am 11 years old
10-08-23 at 01:43 PM Lara Osment
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM Nora Foran
10-08-23 at 01:50 PM Lucia Klass
10-08-23 at 01:52 PM Fae Horowitz
10-08-23 at 01:54 PM Jonathan Stein This is a direct and cynical attack on the expressed will of the residents
masquerading staff opinions for public opinion under a sophistical and expensive
mask. Utterly detestable.
10-08-23 at 01:58 PM Patrick Reardon
10-08-23 at 02:05 PM Lauren de la Fuente Please respect the original desire of the LC voters and stop with the political
agenda to do an end run of what we voted for.
10-08-23 at 02:09 PM Melanie Merians All my family and neighbors respectfully request that you REJECT this shameful
lottery!
10-08-23 at 02:10 PM Ellen Mark
10-08-23 at 02:18 PM Jay Abramowitz The people have voted! You're acting like the Wisconsin legislature, trying to
ignore our votes. Leave it alone.
10-08-23 at 02:22 PM James Wilson Enough. It is time to let the airport land go for better use for the residents of
Santa Monica.
10-08-23 at 02:24 PM Louis Bon
10-08-23 at 02:34 PM Karen Blechman Please honor Measure LC. Do not attempt to subvert that decision with a lottery
or any other misguided effort.
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM Lealani Ranch Dawes
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
8
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM Richard Moore
10-08-23 at 02:35 PM Patrick De Feo
10-08-23 at 02:44 PM Erin Ferro
10-08-23 at 02:46 PM Jan Simonovic Santa Monica Airport should be a PARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10-08-23 at 02:59 PM John Greene Close the Airport / make it a Park as agreed too. In the meanwhile STOP selling
leaded jet fuel!
10-08-23 at 03:00 PM Leona marolo Please keep our city beautiful and for the people not big business.
10-08-23 at 03:07 PM Eric Garner
10-08-23 at 03:09 PM Adam Simon Stop trying to avoid the clear will of the people you represent.
10-08-23 at 03:14 PM H. Martin The secret answer is revealed here•in: thou shalt build a great park & close the
disgusting, polluting airport irrevocably & permanently.
10-08-23 at 03:19 PM Laura Lacamara Close the airport; build a great park.
10-08-23 at 03:20 PM Brian Stecher I understand the desire to be objective but this approach trades ignorance for
subjectivity, not wise.
10-08-23 at 03:29 PM Cynthia
10-08-23 at 03:34 PM Laura Kaiser
10-08-23 at 03:57 PM Olivia Kelly
10-08-23 at 04:00 PM Beverly Haas
10-08-23 at 04:02 PM Ilene Weingard
10-08-23 at 04:05 PM Kristina Hagman
10-08-23 at 04:47 PM Alice Ellis Do not waste our money on a lottery. We already voted in 2014 to close the
airport and build the park. Get to work on the park - do the job you were elected
to do.
10-08-23 at 05:00 PM Alex Novakovich
10-08-23 at 05:26 PM Scott Weiss
10-08-23 at 05:27 PM Scott Weiss
10-08-23 at 05:45 PM Ofer Grossman
10-08-23 at 05:53 PM Mimi Wheeler
10-08-23 at 06:01 PM Marla Eby
10-08-23 at 06:18 PM Michael katz The People spoke plainly and clearly when they voted overwhelmingly in favor of
LC. Stop the Fuel Farm danger to Santa Monica’s aquifer.
10-08-23 at 06:22 PM Lorri Benson This issue has been voted on. Please honor the wishes of those who elected
you, and stop trying to find a way to NOT shut down the airport. The people of
Santa Monica, especially those most affected by the airport in Sunset Park and
Ocean Park, have made it clear that we want a well-thought out park and
recreational area to benefit the local taxpayers. Most of the owners of the small
jets and commuter planes don't even live in Santa Monica. We who live here
want to stop breathing dangerous fumes and lead, and don't want to live with the
potential of small plane crashes over our roofs. Not to mention the sound
pollution, which we've heard as late as 11pm sometimes. There is no reason to
bring up this topic again and again. We want the airport gone by 2028, as our last
vote indicated. No lottery panels, no more discussion, no more stalling. Thank
you.
10-08-23 at 06:25 PM Simona Garon Please stop this lottery process
10-08-23 at 06:26 PM Patty
10-08-23 at 06:26 PM Nicola Goode Listen to constituents whose voices and votes have repeatedly and
unequivocally settled the issue of SMO closure! Act accordingly SM City Council,
reject the Proposed Lottery!
10-08-23 at 06:28 PM Katharine Dreyfuss
10-08-23 at 06:36 PM Min Shi
10-08-23 at 06:38 PM Makoto Kato
10-08-23 at 07:31 PM Joan Wilder The panel should only be permitted to make recommendations that do not
require any changes to Measure LC.
10-08-23 at 07:41 PM Matt Schlegel
10-08-23 at 07:57 PM Michael Jerrett
10-08-23 at 08:15 PM Jennifer Josephs Jets have to go--Time to get rid of Polluting Fuel tank storage
10-08-23 at 08:31 PM Nancy Owens
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
9
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-08-23 at 08:34 PM John Ventura
10-08-23 at 08:36 PM Denise Gerber
10-08-23 at 10:00 PM Jan-Peter Flack We want and need a park. Which is why the City of Santa Monica bought the
land in the 1st place.
10-08-23 at 10:11 PM Steven T Benson This needs to be a park
10-08-23 at 10:20 PM Dawn Joyal No changes to Measure LC
10-08-23 at 10:29 PM Howard Wolfe
10-08-23 at 10:49 PM Mazi Lombard
10-08-23 at 11:07 PM Mindi Shank One person one vote. It’s democracy. Here in Santa Monica, and everywhere
else in the world. It takes ALL of us and EVERY single voice matters! Respect
the vote! We voted.
10-08-23 at 11:39 PM Carol Joffe 90405
10-08-23 at 11:55 PM Cathy Hillman
10-09-23 at 12:17 AM carol joffe This is your responsibility to our community, and no one else's, to insure that the
residents can breathe and move and enjoy the best quality of life and health.
Don't pass it on to others. It's not their job.
10-09-23 at 12:27 AM Stacey Abrams-ShericK The matter was settled with Measure LC… The City wants a park.
10-09-23 at 12:29 AM Ose Dalldorf
10-09-23 at 12:29 AM Robert Sherick The City already voted on this with Measure LC.
10-09-23 at 12:30 AM Jack Sherick
10-09-23 at 02:02 AM Fariba Weiss
10-09-23 at 04:43 AM Ursula Fox
10-09-23 at 05:25 AM Marla Eby
10-09-23 at 05:37 AM Elaine Miller
10-09-23 at 05:56 AM John Reynolds WE VOTED FOR PARKS AND ANY
votes to undue the 60/40 decision
10-09-23 at 05:58 AM Suzanne joffe Put in a park, like you promised. You are snakes at heart.
10-09-23 at 06:31 AM Karla Klarin We want and need a PARK!
10-09-23 at 06:33 AM Dorothy Chapman
10-09-23 at 06:39 AM Larry Arreola, Carol Arreola Lottery System? PULEESE. We need real stake holders to be part of the
process, not names picked out if a hat
10-09-23 at 07:04 AM Tracey Hennessey I’ve lived here all of my life. In the last 10 years I’ve seen change that makes this
city nearly unrecognizable for the worst. Please stop giving city land to
developers. The city of Santa Monica obviously can’t handle what’s on their plate
now with homeless and crime out of control.
10-09-23 at 07:28 AM Val Davidson CLOSE THE AIRPORT AS PROMISED. A great new park was the plan! Green
open space is important to the community. LC was voted on.
10-09-23 at 08:10 AM Ashley Simonsen
10-09-23 at 08:11 AM Ann Lewis We voted on this topic on Measure LC. Please accept this vote from 2014 rather
than try to change what the future of the SM Airport will be. As published by the
City of SM, "New development is prohibited on Airport land permanently closed
to aviation use unless voters approve limits on the uses and development that
may occur on the land." Thank you.
10-09-23 at 08:14 AM Sarah Lewis Citizens have already expressed their position on this issue by public vote.
Respect their decisions.
10-09-23 at 08:15 AM Chuck Mason 3480 Maplewood Ave
10-09-23 at 08:38 AM Stephanie Tainsky Please, not again. We already went through this. WE WANT PARKS!!!!!
10-09-23 at 08:42 AM Eddy Winston
10-09-23 at 08:45 AM Steven Brady
10-09-23 at 09:09 AM John Reynolds
10-09-23 at 09:27 AM Tregg Rustad Let's build a park, and only a park!
10-09-23 at 09:49 AM Dennis WIlder Stick with LC as you should.
10-09-23 at 09:50 AM bea nemlaha Residents most directly affected should take the lead. Random selection
irrational.
10-09-23 at 09:52 AM Chuck Hoover
10-09-23 at 10:16 AM daniel funk i reject the lottery process for the santa monica airport.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
Signatories
10
Timestamp Name (Optional) Additional Comments to the City Council:
10-09-23 at 10:22 AM Lisa Detamore Please stop this nonsense. We already voted.
10-09-23 at 10:34 AM Shawn Barry we decided long ago to make this a PARK - we the people of Santa Monica do
not appreciate these back door meetings
10-09-23 at 10:40 AM Brian Barry
10-09-23 at 10:44 AM Emily Dawe
10-09-23 at 10:53 AM Ronette Barry WE VOTED ON THIS, PROMISED, PARK DEVELOPMENT. I knew this was
going to happen. So sick of the bate and switch. How can you look in the mirror.
Let me know when the city council meeting is?
10-09-23 at 10:56 AM Barry Friesen
10-09-23 at 11:16 AM mark ford
10-09-23 at 11:32 AM Mark Abdou
10-09-23 at 11:36 AM Joy Abbott Support Measure LC ! Council needs to pull on their big girl and boy pants and
do the 'visioning' work to commit to open parks rather than have it led housing
development concerns.
10-09-23 at 11:53 AM Susan Jain
10-09-23 at 12:17 PM Dorothy Cramer The people spoke/voted on this issue! It is your duty to follow their choice!
10-09-23 at 12:55 PM lois banner I have lived in Santa Monica for 40 years. Please, please allow it to remain the
beautiful residential community 8it has always been.
10-09-23 at 01:14 PM Sarah Bryce This is pure corruption by BIG REAL ESTATE and the neighborhood of Sunset
Park will not stand for it
10-09-23 at 01:27 PM Ellen Hannan
10-09-23 at 01:44 PM Margaret Hannan I am so sick of you selling out our city to real estate tycoons. I lived in a house
under the airport for over 40 years! I still live in a Santa Monica rent controlled
apartment. If you want to stay employed as a member of our city council get your
A in gear and vote the way we Santa Monicans want you to!!!!
10-09-23 at 01:55 PM Mark Schubb
10-09-23 at 02:06 PM Kenneth Abbott
10-09-23 at 02:25 PM Patrick Seeholzer
10-09-23 at 02:27 PM Patrick Seeholzer
10-09-23 at 02:32 PM Lynn Robb
10-09-23 at 03:17 PM Darlene Yaplee
10-09-23 at 03:36 PM Deborah We voted for LC years ago and expect that if SMO closes the land can only be
used for parkland unless voted upon by the residents of Santa Monica.
10-09-23 at 03:58 PM Tom Lynch The disruption to our lives and real estate value are impacted greatly by any
activity from the Santa Monica Airport. The noise levels, pollution, and
disturbance of jets/planes flying over our homes needs to stop immediately. The
airport is enjoyed only by a few while causing the above mentioned damage to
many.
10-09-23 at 04:22 PM Christine Lynch Keep your agreements
10-09-23 at 04:39 PM ARTHUR BARROW
10-09-23 at 05:13 PM Danielle Litak I ask that you keep with original plans to makes this a public space for all to
enjoy and to not entertain an airport.
10-09-23 at 05:14 PM Frederick Pringle
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM Kenneth Kirschbaum
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM Elizabeth Oakes Developer-aligned "nonpartisan" groups will undermine the will of the citizens.
Close the airport as planned and create the park voted in by Santa Monica
residents. Keep your promises.
10-09-23 at 05:23 PM Gavin Scott
10-09-23 at 05:30 PM Andrea Ware The land needs to be ALL park!
10-09-23 at 05:35 PM Dawn Bailey
10-09-23 at 06:09 PM Nicola Scott We do not want the city-wide vote to turn Santa Monica airport into a park to be
overturned.
10-09-23 at 06:36 PM Francine Duran
10-09-23 at 06:53 PM David Kimball
10-09-23 at 07:16 PM Kathy Knight Please support an open, democratic process in our city government.
10-09-23 at 08:59 PM Stephen Molstad This is outrageous. Don't do it! The staff proposing this should be fired.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:stayfree7 <stayfree7@protonmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 12:00 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra
Subject:⛔oppose 7-A: seeks to bypass anti-discrimination laws by involving a nonprofit (linked to the Urban
Growth Machine)
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
EXTERNAL
The Council may not allow this undemocratic “lottery” panel to be formed by a nonprofit organization with ties to
Leonora Camner who is the paid Executive Director of Abundant Housing LA, an organization which receives
funding from CA YIMBY and engages in legislative advocacy promoting forced urban density.
It is undemocratic to seek that a certain part of the community, specifically long-time activists well invested in the city
(disrespectfully referred to as “frequent fliers” by staff) be excluded from the process pertaining to the future of the
airport.
The law does not allow the government to engineer the composition of a panel by using criteria like race or income,
which is why the special interest groups advocating for forced urban density are promoting the “lottery” process to
be put in the hands of a nonprofit organization that can bypass the public process and handpick the individuals more
likely to support the outcome the nonprofit and pro-forced density special interest groups desire.
The staff who brought this idea before the Council should be questioned about any contact they had with Leonora
Camner or any representative of AHLA, CA YIMBY, Santa Monica Forward, SMRR or any other special interest
groups supporting forced urban density. It is a well-known fact that city staff, who for the most part do not reside in
Santa Monica, are more interested in serving the interests of the Urban Growth Machine than those of the residents
whose tax dollars pay into the staff’s salaries.
Referring to city activists as “frequent fliers” is insulting. Shame on City Manager White for allowing such wording.
Regards,
Olga Zurawska
UPDATE: Why Is California YIMBY Hiding
the Names of Big-Money Contributors?
In News by Patrick Range McDonaldApril 20, 2022
FacebookTwitterEmailShare
Update, November 22, 2022: In an interview with Current Affairs, California YIMBY staffer
Darrell Owens lied and misled when asked about the funding for California YIMBY. He also
told a whopper about AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein, describing
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
him as a “Beverly Hills billionaire” — AHF is the parent organization of Housing Is A Human
Right. More details at the bottom of the article.
California YIMBY, the land-use lobbying group for Big Tech, continues to hide behind its
nonprofit status and refuses to reveal exactly who contributes the big bucks to the
organization. California YIMBY CEO Brian Hanlon has never replied to Housing Is A Human
Right’s demand to name the lobbying group’s top 50 contributors, even though its pro-
gentrification agenda harms millions of Californians.
In October 2021, Housing Is A Human Right sent a letter to California YIMBY CEO Brian
Hanlon. We wrote: “Over the past several years, California YIMBY has been working to pass
and influence statewide land-use and housing legislation that negatively impacts the lives of
millions of middle- and working-class Californians.
“With so much at stake, we believe California YIMBY should be transparent about its funding
sources. We’re requesting that you release the names of your top fifty contributors and the
dollar amounts of each contribution for the years 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021.”
We never heard back from Hanlon and California YIMBY.
California YIMBY can hide contributors because of its status as a nonprofit, allowing the Big
Tech lobbying group to withhold that information from the public.
But we do know that Big Tech executives founded California YIMBY, installing Hanlon as the
chief executive officer. We also know that Big Tech executives have been major contributors
to California YIMBY and its political action committee, California YIMBY Victory Fund. Stripe
contributed $100,000 to the victory fund, and Arista Networks co-founder Kenneth Duda
shelled out two checks of $100,000 each. Those are just two examples.
Stripe co-founders Patrick and John Collison also sent a gigantic $1-million check to
California YIMBY, and Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman, tech investor Jared Friedman, and
Stripe executive Cristina Cordova also made contributions. Within its first year, California
YIMBY had raised $500,000 from “tech bigwigs,” reported The Real Deal in 2017.
In that article, Hanlon stated, “Virtually all of the money that we’ve raised has come from the
tech industry. I am certainly willing to accept money from developers, it’s just that I’ve gotten a
much better reception from tech leaders than from real estate people.”
Let’s repeat that: Hanlon is “certainly willing to accept money from developers.” Hmmmm.
That was more than four years ago when Hanlon said that. Housing Is A Human Right and
other housing justice activists suspect that Big Real Estate has since jumped on the California
YIMBY bandwagon. But no one knows to what extent because Hanlon and California YIMBY
won’t divulge its contributors.
Hanlon tries to frame YIMBYs as underdogs, but that’s laughable.
California YIMBY was founded and funded by Big Tech, one of the most powerful and wealthy
industries in the world. And California YIMBY most probably rakes in cash from Big Real
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
3
Estate, another heavyweight industry. On top of all that, California YIMBY has a direct
connection to power in Sacramento through its close and longtime relationship with State
Sen. Scott Wiener.
California YIMBY is hardly an underdog. Read our special report, “Inside Game: California
YIMBY, Scott Wiener, and Big Tech’s Troubling Housing Push.”
Instead, California YIMBY and other Corporate YIMBY groups are implementers for
Corporate America. It’s why we regularly use the term “Corporate YIMBYs.” It’s more
accurate.
The organization works feverishly to implement Big Real Estate and Big Tech’s pro-
gentrification, trickle-down, luxury-housing agenda by pushing statewide legislation. The
legislation always enriches Big Real Estate, but devastates middle- and working-class
neighborhoods.
California YIMBY must come clean about who finances its operations. Housing Is A Human
Right still demands that Brian Hanlon and California YIMBY publicly release the names and
amounts of its top 50 contributors. With millions of people negatively impacted by California
YIMBY’s legislative push, the public should know who’s running the show behind the scenes
at California YIMBY.
UPDATE: In a November 11, 2022, interview with Current Affairs, California YIMBY staffer
Darrell Owens lied and misled when asked about the funding for California YIMBY. He also
told a whopper about AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein, describing
him as a “Beverly Hills billionaire” — AHF is the parent organization of Housing Is A Human
Right. Such bold lies and deceit underscore that California YIMBY simply can’t be trusted.
Current Affairs asked Owens about Housing Is A Human Right’s call for California YIMBY to
name its top 50 contributors and if Big Tech and the real estate industry delivered cash to the
organization. Owens gave an astonishingly dishonest answer.
First, Owens tried to downplay Big Tech’s contributions to California YIMBY, saying “back in
the day, tech founders gave money to YIMBY groups, and by ‘giving money’ I mean
$100,000, and Stripe gave $100,000 to YIMBY groups.” That’s misleading and incorrect.
As we noted above, Stripe co-founders Patrick and John Collison handed over a
staggering $1-million contribution to California YIMBY and “tech bigwigs” contributed
$500,000.
For our “Inside Game” special report, we found that tech executives Nat Friedman, Patrick
Collison, Jared Friedman, and Kenneth Duda delivered massive sums to the California
YIMBY Victory Fund, according state filings.
Nat Friedman and Collison gave $10,000 each to the political action committee for a total of
$20,000. Jared Friedman delivered $20,000. Duda shelled out $200,000. Stripe gave
$100,000. There were also many smaller contributions from employees in the tech industry.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
4
As recently as 2022, Duda and Big Tech venture capitalist Ron Conway delivered $50,000
each to the California YIMBY Victory Fund.
Other Big Tech executives include Andrew Sutherland and Robert McGrew, who gave
$10,000 each to California YIMBY Victory Fund in 2021.
Big Tech, in other words, has contributed mightily to California YIMBY and continues to
deliver the big bucks.
In the Current Affairs interview, Owens also said that “real estate developers absolutely don’t
fund us. That’s not true.” Another misleading and inaccurate answer — and one that doesn’t
jibe with California YIMBY CEO Brian Hanlon, who told The Real Deal he wanted developer
money.
According to state filings, California YIMBY Victory Fund raked in a $2,000 contribution from
real estate developer James Frost and $5,000 from Dave Rand, an attorney with Armbuster
Goldsmith & Delvac, a prominent land-use firm that represents numerous developers.
And there are many smaller contributions to California YIMBY Victory Fund from real estate
industry players, including $500 from John Sayles of Ensemble Real Estate Investments and
$250 from Beverly Hills-based Zach Zalben of Black Equities.
These findings show why Housing Is A Human Right called for California YIMBY to name its
top 50 contributors. Since tech and real estate insiders are shelling out cash to California
YIMBY Victory Fund, they’re most likely handing over checks to California YIMBY.
Owens then went on to lie about AHF President Michael Weinstein and AHF’s housing work.
He called Weinstein a “Beverly Hills billionaire” and described AHF as “the biggest slumlord in
L.A.” Both are completely false.
Weinstein, who was born in Brooklyn and comes from a working-class family, has been an
HIV/AIDS activist going back to the 1980s when he co-founded AHF with very little funding. It
now operates in 45 countries and serves more than 1.6 million clients in places such as South
Africa, Mexico, India, and Ukraine.
Over the decades, AHF, the world’s largest HIV/AIDS medical-care nonprofit, has saved
millions of lives by providing free HIV drug treatment and prevention services. Weinstein is
not a billionaire — and he doesn’t live in Beverly Hills.
Maybe Owens mixed up Weinstein with California YIMBY’s contributors.
It’s interesting that Owens attacked Weinstein. Under his guidance, AHF led the charge to
repeal statewide rent control restrictions in California through Proposition 10, in 2018, and
Proposition 21, in 2020. California YIMBY refused to endorse both initiatives, essentially
standing with Big Real Estate, which spent nearly $200 million to kill Prop 10 and Prop 21.
In addition, as a response to the worsening homelessness crisis in Los Angeles, AHF
founded Healthy Housing Foundation. The nonprofit provides low-income and homeless
housing by renovating old hotels and turning them into affordable housing.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
5
In only four years, HHF has created more than 1,400 low-income units in the L.A. area — and
is in no way the biggest slumlord in L.A. It’s quite the opposite. By providing housing,
while hundreds of unhoused residents die in L.A.’s streets every year, AHF and HHF are
saving lives.
Owens outright lies show how low California YIMBY will stoop to hide and divert the truth from
the public about its connections to Big Tech and Big Real Estate. In fact, the interview is proof
that California YIMBY can’t be trusted for anything it says.
Housing Is A Human Right continues to call on California YIMBY to name its top 50
contributors.
Follow Housing Is A Human Right on Facebook and Twitter.
-- Stay free! --
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Cynthia Rose <Cynthia.Rose@SMSpoke.org>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 12:20 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Lana Negrete; Oscar
de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra
Cc:cris.gutierrez@samosafestreets.org; David White
Subject:Support: Agenda Item 7A, Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
Attachments:2023-10 CC Support Item 7A.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
Please see the attached letter from Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance supporting the
lottery‐based process that reaffirms Santa Monica’s values of democratic inclusion and full representation.
‐‐
Cynthia Rose & Cris Gutierrez
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
A community group dedicated
to biking and walking in Santa Monica.
Working to make the
City of Santa Monica a
more sustainable,
bikeable & walkable place to live, work and play.
October 10, 2023
Support: Agenda Item 7A, Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance strongly support the innovative
“Lottery- Selected” public engagement process proposed for the future of the airport, Item 7A before
you this evening. It is exciting to see that the Council is considering the lottery-based process, which
represents Santa Monica’s values of democratic inclusion and full representation. The lottery-selected
process ensures participation from people of all socio-economic backgrounds, all demographics,
including youth and sectors of our community members, whose voices have historically been overlooked
in policy choices.
Collaboration is essential for such a momentous undertaking as determining the future of the airport.
With a collaborative lottery-selected panel, listening to diverse stakeholders is built into the endeavor,
one committed to working with a wide range of community groups.
Integrity is invaluable. The lottery-selected process is research-based and draws on input from all
community stakeholders, individual community members as well as community groups, which leads to
thoughtful and independent outcomes. This lottery-selected process invites us to envision an inclusive
democratic community-planning process within the parameters of the LC Charter adoptions that
voters approved in 2014.
Please support this lottery-selected process so that future generations will benefit from and feel part of
an inclusive and democratic engagement process that will have created this long anticipated GREAT
PARK.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose
Director, Santa Monica Spoke Cris Gutierrez
Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Street Alliance Co-Chair, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance
SMSpoke.org
SaMoSafeStreets.org
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Karen Croner <kcroner@me.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 12:30 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 7A - October 10th
EXTERNAL
I am wriƟng to oppose the “loƩery selected panel process for the Airport.”
‐I believe the language does not follow the voter approved LC by including the word Development.
‐Further, I have great concerns about the funding of Healthy Democracy. I request that they disclose any and all funding
including funding backed by developers.
‐I further request that the council require staff to provide all communicaƟons with Healthy Democracy, Notes taken on
meeƟngs, calls etc. The residents require full transparency on the part of The Staff so we can understand how this
proposal even came about. It appears that the Staff is trying to negate the will of SM residents who voted on the future
of the airport. This is very serious.
Sincerely,
Karen Croner
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Melanie Winter <winter@theriverproject.org>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 12:37 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Agenda Item #7 - Lottery-selected panel process for the airport
EXTERNAL
Honorable Councilmembers ‐
Writing to encourage you to support implementation of the proposed lottery‐selected panel process for the future of
the Santa Monica Airport, and to commend staff for the thoroughly informative report.
The model proposed advances an inclusive, equitably representative, deliberative process that fosters a collaborative
approach to making community‐informed decisions about a complex issue.
This process fosters outcomes that councilmembers can feel confident will be broadly supported by their constituents
while also serving to build stronger relationships of trust among diverse communities of interest.
I urge you to approve the Staff recommendations, and make Santa Monica the model for future efforts across the
region.
Respectfully ‐
Melanie WInter
‐‐
Melanie Winter
Founder & Director, The River Project
TheRiverProject.org
WaterLA.org
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:lisa klingenberg <klingenberg.lisa@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 12:45 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:NO LOTTERY
EXTERNAL
It is my feeling that a loƩery is not a good idea in determining the fate of the civic center…I am a SM resident and want
to register my opinion on the maƩer as a NO LOTTERY vote.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Joe Schmitz <joe.schmitz.phd@outlook.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 2:31 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 7A; Please reject Staff's antidemocratic lottery scheme
Attachments:Malarky Midfield hard right turn.pptx; Unreported Reverse Thrust safety events.xlsx
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis and City Council Members,
Please note the claims that I make below and know that I can support them with conclusive
evidence.
As a former Airport Commissioner (8 years), USAF Pilot (7,000 hours), safety consultant who
trained FAA safety managers, and research methods professor ‐ I find Staff's lottery proposal
to be profoundly antidemocratic and deceptive. It usurps the voters' clear wishes and
residents' rights.
The stratified, random sample: 1) without identifying the stratification variables and, 2) with
just a 40‐person sample is pseudo‐scientific gibberish. It’s a Staff/Consultant ploy to get a
“convenience” sample of uninformed persons who would be unduly vulnerable to Staff and
Consultant influence. These decision makers would be “protected” from hugely relevant
information much like that I’ve outlined below.
Staff decisions, recommendations, and falsehoods (peddled to residents, the Airport
Commission, and City Councilmembers) have demonstrably kept SMO open well‐past 2015. At
great costs to the City and far greater costs to the health and welfare of residents living near
our Airport. The health burdens that SMO inflicts fall disproportionately upon infants &
children, the aged, and the infirm.
During my tenure as an Airport Commissioner, I’ve been appalled by airport‐related Staff
duplicity. Typically, Staff refuses to acknowledge and at times actively conceals: 1) systemic
unsafe operations, and 2) harm to residents from excessive noise, lead particles, and fine air
particulates.
As a 35‐year resident of Santa Monica, I’ve usually viewed City Staff as super‐competent,
dedicated, and helpful people. My experience in helping Santa Monica conceptualize,
develop, and field Santa Monica’s Public Electronic Network let me work with truly gifted
folks. It saddens me to write what follows.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
Two high‐stakes examples of staff malfeasance follow. (I can produce “receipts” that support
all claims).
1. Staff, primarily the Airport Manager, failed to report unsafe aircraft operations to the
FAA, City Council, Airport Commission, and Santa Monica residents.
∙ The 2001‐2017 Noise Event record (obtained via a third‐party records request)
shows six Emergency Thrust Reverser landings that registered more than 95dB at Noise
Monitor 1, located 1,500’ from the end of the runway. 95dB sounds like a jackhammer
at 50 feet.
o The attached ”Unreported Reverse Thrust Safety Events“ file documents these
noise events and the conditions under which the emergency stops
occurred. SMO Monitor 1 lies 1,500’ from the end of Runway 21.
o These events were dangerous “close calls” – at least one and perhaps more
jets nearly ran off the end of Runway 21 and crashed onto 23rd St. SMO lacked
any Runway Safety Areas (RSAs) until 2017when runway shortening was
completed. So residents who lived West of 23rd Street remained “sitting ducks”
without Runway Safety Areas and code enforcement.
§ The loudest (104.7dB) was twice as loud to the ear and ten times more
powerful than the 95dB noise limit.
§ Peter Donald, Airport Commission Chair, heard this jet’s reverse thrust
upon landing and asked the Airport Manager about it during our next
Airport Commission meeting. His reply minimized the event’s importance,
said that a landing couldn’t be a noise violation (true), and then stated
that the sound intensity wasn’t high enough to trigger Monitor 1 – a clear‐
cut falsehood.
§ Aviation safety experts know that atypical loud aircraft noise may serve
as markers for unsafe aviation operations – as the reverse thrust events
did.
§ The Airport Manager and a Deputy City Attorney have responsibility for
assessing Noise Code violations, levying fines, and applying the Noise Code.
∙ One mitigating factor: Because the City Council was under
intense pressure from residents who were fed‐up by trivial $500 fines
for NetJets – the 2001 Noise Code has several unenforceable
provisions that can easily be remedied.
∙ The Airport Manager does not report unsafe aviation practices or serious safety
violations to the Airport Commission, City Council, or (presumably) to the
FAA. Examples include:
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
3
o Hard right turns immediately after takeoff over rising terrain and dense
housing areas without any safe landing area in the event of engine failure go
unreported.
o The landing and takeoff of a Mexican H25B Jet – an aircraft type
that cannot comply with minimum FAA takeoff or landing runway‐length
requirements at our Airport.
§ The Airport Manager urged the pilot to limit fuel for takeoff but didn’t
take any further action. The pilot refueled and flew to Florida. The Airport
Manager should have asked the FAA tower to ground the airplane,
informed the FAA, the City Council, and the Airport Commission.
∙ Commissioner Bruce Malarky, (retired Army Pilot, Base Commander for a joint
military‐civilian airfield, and a Boing Aircraft engineer) and I repeatedly tried and failed
to persuade the Airport Manager to institute Aviation Safety Management System (SMS)
at SMO to enhance safety.
∙ During the past year, two fatal accidents killed three pilots and one teenager who
was foolishly allowed to land a flight school aircraft during his first orientation
flight. Both accidents will be deemed to be caused by “pilot error” in the NTSB final
accident report.
2. Staff falsely claimed that Santa Mónica’s Noise Code was among the strictest in the
U.S. with its escalating fine structure – a consequence of public outrage expressed during
the 2000 election,
∙ While technically true, the Noise Code was gutted in practice. When the City Noise
violations reported to the Airport Commission were compared to the master Noise
Monitor Event records of noise events that exceeded 95dB:
o Staff consistently failed to escalate fines, as specified in the 2001 Noise Code.
o Staff consistently misrepresented the Noise Code requirements to the
Airport Commission as numerous audio tapes demonstrate..
o Using Monitor Events records from 2001‐20017, NetJets violated the
Noise Code approximately 185 times. Typically, fines were not escalated.
∙ NetJets was fined $380,000 from 2001‐2017 If fines had escalated as the Noise
Code specified (even using the bogus 3‐year “sunset rule”), to comply with the Code as
the City Council intended and to deter NetJets, fines should have substantially exceeded
$1 million dollars.
Given that the facts presented here are: 1) accurate, 2) representative of ongoing Airport‐
related Staff actions, and 3) documented – the City Staff proposal described in Item 7A must
be rejected if Santa Monica is to be governed as a functioning democracy.
Respectfully,
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
4
Joseph Schmitz, PhD
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
•15:02 - Thick marine layer discussed by
Copter 744NC (audio).
•15:03 -N918AR (SR22) cleared to depart
Rwy 21 with early crosswind turn to
North.
•15:22 - Thick marine layer reported along
coast by Copter 4512G (audio).
•16:16 – N70EF (PA28) cleared to depart
Rwy 21 with early crosswind turn to
North.
VFR flights landing 21. Most flights departing
03 but some departing 21 with early right
crosswind turn.
Copter 744NC
Copter 4512G
N918AR
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the
DATE TIME TAIL #TYPE SEL COMPANY ACTION
12/16/2014 18:38 N270MC GLF3 104.7 HAYMON SPORTS LLC.BANNED - REVERSE THRUST
1/15/2015 1:07 N777UV FA50 98.4 SMRK LLC c/o KNIGHT GLOBAL LLC WAIVED - REVERSE THRUST
3/1/2015 3:30 N777UV FA50 97.8 SMRK LLC c/o KNIGHT GLOBAL LLC WAIVED - REVERSE THRUST
1/9/2016 7:08 SIS517 GLF4 98.2 SILVER AIR WAIVED - REVERSE THRUST
4/17/2016 0:49 N901QS C750 95.2 NET JETS AVIATION INC WAIVED - REVERSE THRUST
3/24/2017 7:29 N208BH LJ60 95.1 RSH CONSULTING LLC WAIVED - REVERSE THRUST
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90
1
Xavier Mota
From:stayfree7 <stayfree7@protonmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:10 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Denise Anderson-Warren; Douglas Sloan;
David White
Subject:Re: ⛔oppose 7-A: seeks to bypass anti-discrimination laws by involving a nonprofit (linked to the
Urban Growth Machine)
EXTERNAL
Why was my email submitted as written public comment at 11:59am not included in the written comments posted
under item 7-A on tonight's agenda available on the city website?
Please see the enclosed original email.
Olga Zurawska
-- Stay free! --
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 10th, 2023 at 8:59 PM, stayfree7 <stayfree7@protonmail.com> wrote:
The Council may not allow this undemocratic “lottery” panel to be formed by a nonprofit
organization with ties to Leonora Camner who is the paid Executive Director of Abundant Housing
LA, an organization which receives funding from CA YIMBY and engages in legislative advocacy
promoting forced urban density.
It is undemocratic to seek that a certain part of the community, specifically long-time activists well
invested in the city (disrespectfully referred to as “frequent fliers” by staff) be excluded from the
process pertaining to the future of the airport.
The law does not allow the government to engineer the composition of a panel by using criteria like
race or income, which is why the special interest groups advocating for forced urban density are
promoting the “lottery” process to be put in the hands of a nonprofit organization that can bypass the
public process and handpick the individuals more likely to support the outcome the nonprofit and
pro-forced density special interest groups desire.
The staff who brought this idea before the Council should be questioned about any contact they had
with Leonora Camner or any representative of AHLA, CA YIMBY, Santa Monica Forward, SMRR or
any other special interest groups supporting forced urban density. It is a well-known fact that city
staff, who for the most part do not reside in Santa Monica, are more interested in serving the
interests of the Urban Growth Machine than those of the residents whose tax dollars pay into the
staff’s salaries.
Referring to city activists as “frequent fliers” is insulting. Shame on City Manager White for allowing
such wording.
Regards,
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
Olga Zurawska
UPDATE: Why Is California YIMBY
Hiding the Names of Big-Money
Contributors?
In News by Patrick Range McDonaldApril 20, 2022
FacebookTwitterEmailShare
Update, November 22, 2022: In an interview with Current Affairs, California
YIMBY staffer Darrell Owens lied and misled when asked about the funding for
California YIMBY. He also told a whopper about AIDS Healthcare Foundation
President Michael Weinstein, describing him as a “Beverly Hills billionaire” —
AHF is the parent organization of Housing Is A Human Right. More details at the
bottom of the article.
California YIMBY, the land-use lobbying group for Big Tech, continues to hide
behind its nonprofit status and refuses to reveal exactly who contributes the big
bucks to the organization. California YIMBY CEO Brian Hanlon has never replied
to Housing Is A Human Right’s demand to name the lobbying group’s top 50
contributors, even though its pro-gentrification agenda harms millions of
Californians.
In October 2021, Housing Is A Human Right sent a letter to California YIMBY
CEO Brian Hanlon. We wrote: “Over the past several years, California YIMBY
has been working to pass and influence statewide land-use and housing
legislation that negatively impacts the lives of millions of middle- and working-
class Californians.
“With so much at stake, we believe California YIMBY should be transparent
about its funding sources. We’re requesting that you release the names of your
top fifty contributors and the dollar amounts of each contribution for the years
2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021.”
We never heard back from Hanlon and California YIMBY.
California YIMBY can hide contributors because of its status as a nonprofit,
allowing the Big Tech lobbying group to withhold that information from the public.
But we do know that Big Tech executives founded California YIMBY, installing
Hanlon as the chief executive officer. We also know that Big Tech executives
have been major contributors to California YIMBY and its political action
committee, California YIMBY Victory Fund. Stripe contributed $100,000 to the
victory fund, and Arista Networks co-founder Kenneth Duda shelled out two
checks of $100,000 each. Those are just two examples.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
3
Stripe co-founders Patrick and John Collison also sent a gigantic $1-million
check to California YIMBY, and Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman, tech investor
Jared Friedman, and Stripe executive Cristina Cordova also made contributions.
Within its first year, California YIMBY had raised $500,000 from “tech
bigwigs,” reported The Real Deal in 2017.
In that article, Hanlon stated, “Virtually all of the money that we’ve raised has
come from the tech industry. I am certainly willing to accept money from
developers, it’s just that I’ve gotten a much better reception from tech leaders
than from real estate people.”
Let’s repeat that: Hanlon is “certainly willing to accept money from developers.”
Hmmmm.
That was more than four years ago when Hanlon said that. Housing Is A Human
Right and other housing justice activists suspect that Big Real Estate has since
jumped on the California YIMBY bandwagon. But no one knows to what extent
because Hanlon and California YIMBY won’t divulge its contributors.
Hanlon tries to frame YIMBYs as underdogs, but that’s laughable.
California YIMBY was founded and funded by Big Tech, one of the most powerful
and wealthy industries in the world. And California YIMBY most probably rakes in
cash from Big Real Estate, another heavyweight industry. On top of all that,
California YIMBY has a direct connection to power in Sacramento through its
close and longtime relationship with State Sen. Scott Wiener.
California YIMBY is hardly an underdog. Read our special report, “Inside Game:
California YIMBY, Scott Wiener, and Big Tech’s Troubling Housing Push.”
Instead, California YIMBY and other Corporate YIMBY groups are implementers
for Corporate America. It’s why we regularly use the term “Corporate YIMBYs.”
It’s more accurate.
The organization works feverishly to implement Big Real Estate and Big Tech’s
pro-gentrification, trickle-down, luxury-housing agenda by pushing statewide
legislation. The legislation always enriches Big Real Estate, but devastates
middle- and working-class neighborhoods.
California YIMBY must come clean about who finances its operations. Housing Is
A Human Right still demands that Brian Hanlon and California YIMBY publicly
release the names and amounts of its top 50 contributors. With millions of people
negatively impacted by California YIMBY’s legislative push, the public should
know who’s running the show behind the scenes at California YIMBY.
UPDATE: In a November 11, 2022, interview with Current Affairs, California
YIMBY staffer Darrell Owens lied and misled when asked about the funding for
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
4
California YIMBY. He also told a whopper about AIDS Healthcare Foundation
President Michael Weinstein, describing him as a “Beverly Hills billionaire” —
AHF is the parent organization of Housing Is A Human Right. Such bold lies and
deceit underscore that California YIMBY simply can’t be trusted.
Current Affairs asked Owens about Housing Is A Human Right’s call for
California YIMBY to name its top 50 contributors and if Big Tech and the real
estate industry delivered cash to the organization. Owens gave an astonishingly
dishonest answer.
First, Owens tried to downplay Big Tech’s contributions to California YIMBY,
saying “back in the day, tech founders gave money to YIMBY groups, and by
‘giving money’ I mean $100,000, and Stripe gave $100,000 to YIMBY groups.”
That’s misleading and incorrect.
As we noted above, Stripe co-founders Patrick and John Collison handed over a
staggering $1-million contribution to California YIMBY and “tech bigwigs”
contributed $500,000.
For our “Inside Game” special report, we found that tech executives Nat
Friedman, Patrick Collison, Jared Friedman, and Kenneth Duda delivered
massive sums to the California YIMBY Victory Fund, according state filings.
Nat Friedman and Collison gave $10,000 each to the political action committee
for a total of $20,000. Jared Friedman delivered $20,000. Duda shelled out
$200,000. Stripe gave $100,000. There were also many smaller contributions
from employees in the tech industry.
As recently as 2022, Duda and Big Tech venture capitalist Ron Conway
delivered $50,000 each to the California YIMBY Victory Fund.
Other Big Tech executives include Andrew Sutherland and Robert McGrew, who
gave $10,000 each to California YIMBY Victory Fund in 2021.
Big Tech, in other words, has contributed mightily to California YIMBY and
continues to deliver the big bucks.
In the Current Affairs interview, Owens also said that “real estate developers
absolutely don’t fund us. That’s not true.” Another misleading and inaccurate
answer — and one that doesn’t jibe with California YIMBY CEO Brian Hanlon,
who told The Real Deal he wanted developer money.
According to state filings, California YIMBY Victory Fund raked in a $2,000
contribution from real estate developer James Frost and $5,000 from Dave Rand,
an attorney with Armbuster Goldsmith & Delvac, a prominent land-use firm that
represents numerous developers.
And there are many smaller contributions to California YIMBY Victory Fund from
real estate industry players, including $500 from John Sayles of Ensemble Real
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
5
Estate Investments and $250 from Beverly Hills-based Zach Zalben of Black
Equities.
These findings show why Housing Is A Human Right called for California YIMBY
to name its top 50 contributors. Since tech and real estate insiders are shelling
out cash to California YIMBY Victory Fund, they’re most likely handing over
checks to California YIMBY.
Owens then went on to lie about AHF President Michael Weinstein and AHF’s
housing work. He called Weinstein a “Beverly Hills billionaire” and described AHF
as “the biggest slumlord in L.A.” Both are completely false.
Weinstein, who was born in Brooklyn and comes from a working-class family,
has been an HIV/AIDS activist going back to the 1980s when he co-founded AHF
with very little funding. It now operates in 45 countries and serves more than 1.6
million clients in places such as South Africa, Mexico, India, and Ukraine.
Over the decades, AHF, the world’s largest HIV/AIDS medical-care nonprofit, has
saved millions of lives by providing free HIV drug treatment and prevention
services. Weinstein is not a billionaire — and he doesn’t live in Beverly Hills.
Maybe Owens mixed up Weinstein with California YIMBY’s contributors.
It’s interesting that Owens attacked Weinstein. Under his guidance, AHF led the
charge to repeal statewide rent control restrictions in California through
Proposition 10, in 2018, and Proposition 21, in 2020. California YIMBY refused to
endorse both initiatives, essentially standing with Big Real Estate, which spent
nearly $200 million to kill Prop 10 and Prop 21.
In addition, as a response to the worsening homelessness crisis in Los Angeles,
AHF founded Healthy Housing Foundation. The nonprofit provides low-income
and homeless housing by renovating old hotels and turning them into affordable
housing.
In only four years, HHF has created more than 1,400 low-income units in the L.A.
area — and is in no way the biggest slumlord in L.A. It’s quite the opposite. By
providing housing, while hundreds of unhoused residents die in L.A.’s streets
every year, AHF and HHF are saving lives.
Owens outright lies show how low California YIMBY will stoop to hide and divert
the truth from the public about its connections to Big Tech and Big Real Estate.
In fact, the interview is proof that California YIMBY can’t be trusted for anything it
says.
Housing Is A Human Right continues to call on California YIMBY to name its top
50 contributors.
Follow Housing Is A Human Right on Facebook and Twitter.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
6
-- Stay free! --
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Michael Feinstein <mfeinstein@feinstein.org>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:40 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Jesse Zwick; Caroline Torosis; Oscar de la
Torre; councilmtgitems
Cc:David White; Douglas Sloan; Rick Valte
Subject:City Council item 7 Study Session: Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport,
October 10, 2024
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Davis, City Councilmembers and City Staff
Greetings.
I am writing to encourage you in the strongest possible terms, to direct the City Attorney to draft framing
language that ties and limits the mission of the Lottery‐Selected Panel to the land use parameters established
by Santa Monica voters in the City Charter as a result of Measure LC.
https://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1380&MediaPosition=
&ID=6052&CssClass=
This is a matter of public trust. The Council is not above the people. There is no mandate for the City Council
to change those parameters without first going to the people.
The use of a lottery panel to provide cover for an end run around a voter‐approved portion of the City Charter
would be (i) disingenuous, (ii) an abuse of your positions as Councilmembers and (iii) effectively defraud Santa
Monica voters, who voted overwhelmingly (60.5%) for one thing and now via a process sleight‐of‐hand, would
see the City move down an official planning path to something potentially very different.
Is there a role for a lottery panel?
Yes. I think lottery panels are best utilized for issues like electoral and campaign finance reform, where you
don’t want politicians voting on the rules that affect them and I think the City already generally does a good
job in park planning under its current planning process.
But saying that, I am still open to the use of the lottery panel here, if and only if it is directed to specifically
explore the implementation of Measure LC. Otherwise, you should vote ‘no’ on this process.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
Under no circumstances should 40 people be empowered to make recommendations to substantially change
the will of the voters, just a few years after the will of the voters was taken via Measure LC. Such a process
would be a betrayal of the public trust.
Mike Feinstein
Ocean Park
.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:girltunes <girltunes@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:48 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana
Negrete
Cc:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 7A: Study Session Discussion on the Lottery-Selected Panel Process for the Airport
EXTERNAL
Mayor Davis and Councilmembers,
As a long‐time resident of Santa Monica myself, I stand 100% behind this letter written by another long‐time resident of
Santa Monica.
Sincerely,
Ferris Gluck
Mayor Davis and Councilmembers,
As a long‐time resident of Santa Monica and a participant in many community engagement planning activities
here, I feel compelled to share some concerns about the proposal to engage Healthy Democracy for the public
engagement process for Airport planning. These issues are on the table as items 1 and 3 of your study session.
Sticker‐shock ‐ The price tag of $3 million:
SM is in dire financial straits due to litigation payouts and pension liabilities.
Our libraries are not yet open.
Our historic preservation program is moribund due to the termination of City financial support.
Our iconic landmark Civic Auditorium is being offered for sale.
How can we afford this new expense?
Elimination of controversy:
Land use planning always involves controversy due to the complexity of the issues, trade‐offs and differing
views of stakeholders. It is not realistic to believe that the proposed new process, or any planning process, will
eliminate controversy. Simply establishing Healthy Democracy as the lead team has stoked controversy at the
outset, with neighborhood organizations believing that this team is not impartial.
Whatever process is established moving forward, transparency and public access needs to be embedded so
that every community voice and point of view can be heard. The outcome is likely to require voter support.
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Goals:
Outreach to constituencies and minority communities that have not been active in civic affairs is a worthy
objective, and offering stipends, reimbursements and translation services are great ideas to facilitate that
effort. This element should be retained in whatever process is established.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
However, there are some barriers in the existing proposal because the workshop structure of three‐day
meetings (Friday – Sunday) will eliminate many families with children from participating. Who will be available
to meet on such a schedule should be considered. Not mothers with young or school‐age children, or many
such fathers.
The Lottery System
The Healthy Democracy model is based upon jury selection. However, we know that juries sometimes convict
innocent people because of the biased information supplied to them by prosecutors. The burden therefore
shifts to the Information Committee and other information channels, which are very tightly controlled in this
process:
9. There is a strict process/content delineation over what and how the Panel receives information and
then delivers recommendations. (p. 10 staff report)
Are there indicators that this process leads to better outcomes than the many other community engagement
processes that have been managed by staff, with consultants used as technical support?
These are my personal observations, and I am not speaking on behalf of any organization.
Many thanks for your service to the City.
Sincerely,
Ruthann Lehrer
Oct. 9, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Soloff, Michael <Mike.Soloff@mto.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 4:30 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete;
christine.para@santamonica.gov; councilmtgitems
Subject:Mike Soloff comments on Item 7-A on Council Agenda for 10.10.23 Meeting.docx
Attachments:Mike Soloff comments on Item 7-A on Council Agenda for 10.10.23 Meeting.docx
EXTERNAL
Please find attached my personal comments on Item 7‐A on City Council’s 10.10.23 Agenda.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
October 10, 2023
To: Santa Monica City Council Re: Item 7-A:
Dear Councilmembers: As Mayor Davis and perhaps others of you know, on Friday September 29th I was struck by a vehicle while in the crosswalk across Ocean Avenue to Palisades Park that runs from the Northern
corner of Marguerita Avenue. Phase I of my recovery and rehabilitation was under the care of the
trauma team and the orthopedic surgery unit at UCLA Ronald Reagan hospital. I am now in Phase II, inpatient intensive rehabilitation. As a result of this, I have not had a chance to focus on this item until now. However, I believe this item—because it focuses on the future used on the Santa Monica Airport, is so important that I wanted to share a few purely individual thoughts with you. My
apologies for getting it to you so late in the day. First, I believe that using a statistically valid random selection process of the views of Santa Monica residents would be a useful additional tool. The “community engagement” processes used by the
City in the past have not seemed very effective in determining community views, both because of the limited pool of people who self-select to provide input, and because of the bias—implicitly or explicitly—of those taking input. For example, before City Council unceremoniously removed me from the Housing Commission rather than let me complete the final six months of my term because of a new rule that everyone understood disqualified no present Board or Commission member than
me, the Planning Department never brought presentations to anyone other than the Planning Commission, even when the item included important issues related to affordable housing (e.g., inclusionary zoning percentages) that fell squarely within the jurisdiction of the Housing Commission except when I insisted as Chairperson that the Housing Commission receive a
presentation and provide input. There was obvious bias in this approach, as the Planning Commission generally lacked expertise on affordable housing, and did not include—unlike the Housing Commission—either renters, disabled persons, formerly homeless individuals or recipients of Section 8. My feeling regarding the panels established to provide input for the 2021-2029 Housing Element—at least the one on which I served—was both stacked in favor of certain interests
(those who would make money depending on the outcome, and so are motivated and probably paid to participate) and focused on those items important to those same interests.
Second, as presented, I do not think that the panel process proposed provides a statistically valid
random selection process to determine the views of Santa Monicans regarding the airport.1 If the 40 person panel has to answer just a yes/no question, the margin of error surrounding the panel’s answer would be roughly plus or minus 15.5%, and might well not even be admitted as evidence in Court. If the views of some subgroup of our community mattered (e.g., those living close to the Airport versus those living much further away, those for whom this is an important issue versus those who do not,
etc.), the results for the much smaller subset of the panel in each group would never be admitted as
1 While I am not a statistics expert myself, I have spent a significant part of my legal career working
with my clients’ sampling experts, and cross-examining the sampling expert of my clients’ opponents, as to the validity of sampling results.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
evidence. Given that a much more complex question is being proposed, the risk that the panel’s answer is unrepresentative of the views of Santa Monicans in general is far greater.
Third, I think everyone knows from mass media coverage of polling that how questions are framed has a tremendous impact on the answers given. Here there is proposed a broad overarching question (which I have not tried to vet yet for answer bias). But more importantly, there is a whole process of
engagement proposed which could well bias the panel’s decision which is only described generally, but would have to be vetted in specifics in order to determine implicit or explicit bias of the operators themselves and the processes to be used.
Moreover, from my experience as a civil litigator, what information is provided to a jury and by
whom impacts the outcome greatly. Yet as of now we have no idea what information would be provided and by whom, and whether and whether and/or by whom the presenters of information will be cross-examined. Moreover, if “neutral experts” are used, my experience as a civil litigator is that there is no such thing. In every case I have my client engages a highly credentialed expert who says
one thing, and the other side engages a highly credentialed expert who says the opposite. Moreover, juries often favor one such expert over the other for reasons having nothing to do with the merits of their competing opinions (e.g., which is a better communicator, which one has more charisma, etc.). Therefore who is selected as the “neutral experts” and by whom is critical to the outcome. As staff
itself has analogized the proposed panel as similar to a jury trial, the pitfalls in the jury trial process in reaching a correct decision undoubtedly would manifest in the proposed panel process as well.
Fourth, if any version of a panel process is used, it must be made clear by Council up front that
this is simply one data point among many it will consider when taking action regarding the Airport, and not the presumptive solution. The only people with true democratic legitimacy in Santa Monica are the seven elected City Council members. Effectively turning 40 randomly selected people into the decision makers is not democratic.
In short, the concept of developing a more statistically valid community input is a good idea. The current proposal does not appear to me to meet statistical validity, and for more work needs to be done to determine if it can be turned into one in a cost effective way. Moreover, far more information about the details of the process to be used in this particular instance would be needed
to determine whether the process is biased. Finally, if any panel process is used, Council must
make clear that the result would not be the presumptive decision of Council. Rather, it would just be one data point among many that the Council would consider in deciding what to do at the airport.
Thank you for considering these views.
Sincerely yours, Mike Soloff (speaking solely as an individual)
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:T GROSSMAN <tina.grossman@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 5:28 PM
To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; Jesse
Zwick; Caroline Torosis; David White
Subject:Pls say No to lottery chosen airport panel - agenda item # unknown
EXTERNAL
Hello council and city manager:
Two points:
1. My family supports the comments of FOSP and North East Neighbors on the matter of the
airport park panel.
We live under the airport flight path and what happens at the airport matters greatly to us.
Randomly chosen people may not understand any of the nuances of the redevelopment.
"Staff should not be allowed to introduce 'co-governance' to Santa Monica, and the Council
should certainly not approve such a radical departure from our rules of governance without
clear, unambiguous, voter consent," Friend of Sunset Park wrote.
“'Democratic lotteries' are not democratic elections, and 'random' does not mean 'unbiased.
Lottery-selected panels can be led astray with incomplete, biased, or deceptive information
inputs."
https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News‐2023/October‐
2023/10_09_2023_Randomly_Chosen_Airport_Panel_Gets_Major_Pushback.html
2. Do not forget large areas of the airport land will be needed for very large staging areas in the
event of a major emergency. In a major disaster, the need for "large space" open land to assemble
large groups of people will be very important as this city grows. Think about the aftermath of a big
earthquake and tsunami, working with FEMA and other disaster responders.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:Gavin Scott <gavin.scott@verizon.net>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 8:06 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Lottery Selected panel process - Agenda Item 7
EXTERNAL
I object to the proposal for a “Lottery-selected panel process” to decide the future of Santa
Monica Airport for several reasons, the first being that we should not be spending three million
dollars asking if we should have a park after the airport closes when less than ten years ago we
had a city-wide vote which already made that decision – in favour of a park.
My second objection is the fact that the people living closest to the airport - the stakeholders -
won’t be allowed on these panels unless their name comes up in the lottery, which is manifestly
unfair.
Nor – objection number three - will families with young children be able to participate, because
the panels will take place over three day weekends, and what family with young kids can block
out a time like that? And yet families with young kids are exactly the people who need a park.
Objection number four is the fact that the process will be managed by an organisation called
“Healthy Democracy” one of whose leaders is already publicly committed to housing.
Objection number five is this whole idea of lottery-based selection panels and co-called “co-
governance”. It’s a major departure from traditional democracy that shouldn’t be made without
finding out if the people of Santa Monica actually want it. I for one certainly don’t.
So please, don’t try to unpick the decision the voters have already made, which is incorporated
in the city charter, that when the airport finally closes in 2028, it’s not paved over by developers
into a vast new block of housing and traffic-filled roads, but back into the green, tree-filled open
space it was when the city first bought it a hundred years ago, and consign the lottery panels to
oblivion.
Sincerely,
Gavin Scott
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
1
Xavier Mota
From:stayfree7 <stayfree7@protonmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:31 PM
To:Xavier Mota; Nikima Newsome; Clerk Mailbox; Clerk Mailbox
Cc:Lana Negrete; Phil Brock
Subject:why is my written comment NOT included under 7-A on agenda posted online?
EXTERNAL
Why is my written input re 7-A submitted at 11:59am (with confirmation of receipt at same time) not posted under
the item on the online mtg agenda?
Olga Zurawska
-- Stay free! --
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: stayfree7 <stayfree7@protonmail.com>
Date: On Wednesday, October 11th, 2023 at 12:09 AM
Subject: Re: oppose 7‐A: seeks to bypass anti‐discrimination laws by involving a nonprofit (linked to the Urban
Growth Machine)
To: councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov <councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>
CC: lana.negrete@santamonica.gov <lana.negrete@santamonica.gov>, phil.brock@santamonica.gov
<phil.brock@santamonica.gov>, oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov <oscar.delatorre@santamonica.gov>,
christine.parra@santamonica.gov <christine.parra@santamonica.gov>, denise.anderson‐warren@santamonica.gov
<denise.anderson‐warren@santamonica.gov>, douglas.sloan@santamonica.gov <douglas.sloan@santamonica.gov>,
david.white@santamonica.gov <david.white@santamonica.gov>
Why was my email submitted as written public comment at 11:59am not included in the written
comments posted under item 7-A on tonight's agenda available on the city website?
Please see the enclosed original email.
Olga Zurawska
-- Stay free! --
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 10th, 2023 at 8:59 PM, stayfree7 <stayfree7@protonmail.com> wrote:
The Council may not allow this undemocratic “lottery” panel to be formed by a
nonprofit organization with ties to Leonora Camner who is the paid Executive
Director of Abundant Housing LA, an organization which receives funding from CA
YIMBY and engages in legislative advocacy promoting forced urban density.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
2
It is undemocratic to seek that a certain part of the community, specifically long-time
activists well invested in the city (disrespectfully referred to as “frequent fliers” by
staff) be excluded from the process pertaining to the future of the airport.
The law does not allow the government to engineer the composition of a panel by
using criteria like race or income, which is why the special interest groups advocating
for forced urban density are promoting the “lottery” process to be put in the hands of
a nonprofit organization that can bypass the public process and handpick the
individuals more likely to support the outcome the nonprofit and pro-forced density
special interest groups desire.
The staff who brought this idea before the Council should be questioned about any
contact they had with Leonora Camner or any representative of AHLA, CA YIMBY,
Santa Monica Forward, SMRR or any other special interest groups supporting forced
urban density. It is a well-known fact that city staff, who for the most part do not
reside in Santa Monica, are more interested in serving the interests of the Urban
Growth Machine than those of the residents whose tax dollars pay into the staff’s
salaries.
Referring to city activists as “frequent fliers” is insulting. Shame on City Manager
White for allowing such wording.
Regards,
Olga Zurawska
UPDATE: Why Is California
YIMBY Hiding the Names of Big-
Money Contributors?
In News by Patrick Range McDonaldApril 20, 2022
FacebookTwitterEmailShare
Update, November 22, 2022: In an interview with Current Affairs,
California YIMBY staffer Darrell Owens lied and misled when asked
about the funding for California YIMBY. He also told a whopper
about AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein,
describing him as a “Beverly Hills billionaire” — AHF is the parent
organization of Housing Is A Human Right. More details at the
bottom of the article.
California YIMBY, the land-use lobbying group for Big Tech,
continues to hide behind its nonprofit status and refuses to reveal
exactly who contributes the big bucks to the organization. California
YIMBY CEO Brian Hanlon has never replied to Housing Is A Human
Right’s demand to name the lobbying group’s top 50 contributors,
even though its pro-gentrification agenda harms millions of
Californians.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
3
In October 2021, Housing Is A Human Right sent a letter to
California YIMBY CEO Brian Hanlon. We wrote: “Over the past
several years, California YIMBY has been working to pass and
influence statewide land-use and housing legislation that negatively
impacts the lives of millions of middle- and working-class
Californians.
“With so much at stake, we believe California YIMBY should be
transparent about its funding sources. We’re requesting that you
release the names of your top fifty contributors and the dollar
amounts of each contribution for the years 2018, 2019, 2020, and
2021.”
We never heard back from Hanlon and California YIMBY.
California YIMBY can hide contributors because of its status as a
nonprofit, allowing the Big Tech lobbying group to withhold that
information from the public.
But we do know that Big Tech executives founded California YIMBY,
installing Hanlon as the chief executive officer. We also know that
Big Tech executives have been major contributors to California
YIMBY and its political action committee, California YIMBY Victory
Fund. Stripe contributed $100,000 to the victory fund, and Arista
Networks co-founder Kenneth Duda shelled out two checks of
$100,000 each. Those are just two examples.
Stripe co-founders Patrick and John Collison also sent a gigantic $1-
million check to California YIMBY, and Yelp CEO Jeremy
Stoppelman, tech investor Jared Friedman, and Stripe executive
Cristina Cordova also made contributions. Within its first
year, California YIMBY had raised $500,000 from “tech
bigwigs,” reported The Real Deal in 2017.
In that article, Hanlon stated, “Virtually all of the money that we’ve
raised has come from the tech industry. I am certainly willing to
accept money from developers, it’s just that I’ve gotten a much
better reception from tech leaders than from real estate people.”
Let’s repeat that: Hanlon is “certainly willing to accept money from
developers.” Hmmmm.
That was more than four years ago when Hanlon said that. Housing
Is A Human Right and other housing justice activists suspect that Big
Real Estate has since jumped on the California YIMBY bandwagon.
But no one knows to what extent because Hanlon and California
YIMBY won’t divulge its contributors.
Hanlon tries to frame YIMBYs as underdogs, but that’s laughable.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
4
California YIMBY was founded and funded by Big Tech, one of the
most powerful and wealthy industries in the world. And California
YIMBY most probably rakes in cash from Big Real Estate, another
heavyweight industry. On top of all that, California YIMBY has a
direct connection to power in Sacramento through its close and
longtime relationship with State Sen. Scott Wiener.
California YIMBY is hardly an underdog. Read our special
report, “Inside Game: California YIMBY, Scott Wiener, and Big
Tech’s Troubling Housing Push.”
Instead, California YIMBY and other Corporate YIMBY groups are
implementers for Corporate America. It’s why we regularly use the
term “Corporate YIMBYs.” It’s more accurate.
The organization works feverishly to implement Big Real Estate and
Big Tech’s pro-gentrification, trickle-down, luxury-housing agenda by
pushing statewide legislation. The legislation always enriches Big
Real Estate, but devastates middle- and working-class
neighborhoods.
California YIMBY must come clean about who finances its
operations. Housing Is A Human Right still demands that Brian
Hanlon and California YIMBY publicly release the names and
amounts of its top 50 contributors. With millions of people negatively
impacted by California YIMBY’s legislative push, the public should
know who’s running the show behind the scenes at California
YIMBY.
UPDATE: In a November 11, 2022, interview with Current Affairs,
California YIMBY staffer Darrell Owens lied and misled when asked
about the funding for California YIMBY. He also told a whopper
about AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein,
describing him as a “Beverly Hills billionaire” — AHF is the parent
organization of Housing Is A Human Right. Such bold lies and deceit
underscore that California YIMBY simply can’t be trusted.
Current Affairs asked Owens about Housing Is A Human Right’s call
for California YIMBY to name its top 50 contributors and if Big Tech
and the real estate industry delivered cash to the organization.
Owens gave an astonishingly dishonest answer.
First, Owens tried to downplay Big Tech’s contributions to California
YIMBY, saying “back in the day, tech founders gave money to
YIMBY groups, and by ‘giving money’ I mean $100,000, and Stripe
gave $100,000 to YIMBY groups.” That’s misleading and incorrect.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
5
As we noted above, Stripe co-founders Patrick and John Collison
handed over a staggering $1-million contribution to California
YIMBY and “tech bigwigs” contributed $500,000.
For our “Inside Game” special report, we found that tech executives
Nat Friedman, Patrick Collison, Jared Friedman, and Kenneth Duda
delivered massive sums to the California YIMBY Victory Fund,
according state filings.
Nat Friedman and Collison gave $10,000 each to the political action
committee for a total of $20,000. Jared Friedman delivered $20,000.
Duda shelled out $200,000. Stripe gave $100,000. There were also
many smaller contributions from employees in the tech industry.
As recently as 2022, Duda and Big Tech venture capitalist Ron
Conway delivered $50,000 each to the California YIMBY Victory
Fund.
Other Big Tech executives include Andrew Sutherland and Robert
McGrew, who gave $10,000 each to California YIMBY Victory Fund
in 2021.
Big Tech, in other words, has contributed mightily to California
YIMBY and continues to deliver the big bucks.
In the Current Affairs interview, Owens also said that “real estate
developers absolutely don’t fund us. That’s not true.” Another
misleading and inaccurate answer — and one that doesn’t jibe with
California YIMBY CEO Brian Hanlon, who told The Real Deal he
wanted developer money.
According to state filings, California YIMBY Victory Fund raked in a
$2,000 contribution from real estate developer James Frost and
$5,000 from Dave Rand, an attorney with Armbuster Goldsmith &
Delvac, a prominent land-use firm that represents numerous
developers.
And there are many smaller contributions to California YIMBY
Victory Fund from real estate industry players, including $500 from
John Sayles of Ensemble Real Estate Investments and $250 from
Beverly Hills-based Zach Zalben of Black Equities.
These findings show why Housing Is A Human Right called for
California YIMBY to name its top 50 contributors. Since tech and real
estate insiders are shelling out cash to California YIMBY Victory
Fund, they’re most likely handing over checks to California YIMBY.
Owens then went on to lie about AHF President Michael Weinstein
and AHF’s housing work. He called Weinstein a “Beverly Hills
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
6
billionaire” and described AHF as “the biggest slumlord in L.A.” Both
are completely false.
Weinstein, who was born in Brooklyn and comes from a working-
class family, has been an HIV/AIDS activist going back to the 1980s
when he co-founded AHF with very little funding. It now operates in
45 countries and serves more than 1.6 million clients in places such
as South Africa, Mexico, India, and Ukraine.
Over the decades, AHF, the world’s largest HIV/AIDS medical-care
nonprofit, has saved millions of lives by providing free HIV drug
treatment and prevention services. Weinstein is not a billionaire —
and he doesn’t live in Beverly Hills.
Maybe Owens mixed up Weinstein with California YIMBY’s
contributors.
It’s interesting that Owens attacked Weinstein. Under his guidance,
AHF led the charge to repeal statewide rent control restrictions in
California through Proposition 10, in 2018, and Proposition 21, in
2020. California YIMBY refused to endorse both initiatives,
essentially standing with Big Real Estate, which spent nearly $200
million to kill Prop 10 and Prop 21.
In addition, as a response to the worsening homelessness crisis in
Los Angeles, AHF founded Healthy Housing Foundation. The
nonprofit provides low-income and homeless housing by renovating
old hotels and turning them into affordable housing.
In only four years, HHF has created more than 1,400 low-income
units in the L.A. area — and is in no way the biggest slumlord in L.A.
It’s quite the opposite. By providing housing, while hundreds of
unhoused residents die in L.A.’s streets every year, AHF and HHF
are saving lives.
Owens outright lies show how low California YIMBY will stoop to
hide and divert the truth from the public about its connections to Big
Tech and Big Real Estate. In fact, the interview is proof that
California YIMBY can’t be trusted for anything it says.
Housing Is A Human Right continues to call on California YIMBY to
name its top 50 contributors.
Follow Housing Is A Human Right on Facebook and Twitter.
-- Stay free! --
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
7
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
ITEM 7.A. October 10, 2023
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel Process at the Airport (90 mins))
City Council Study Session -Item 7a
October 10, 2023
Discussion on the Lottery-
Selected Panel Process for
the Airport
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel
Team RolesSANTA MONICA AIRPORTFROM FARMLAND TO AVIATION
AND MANUFACTURING CENTER
Airfield dedicated 1923 as
“Clover Field.”
Santa Monica buys airport
land through a park bond in
1926
Douglas Aircraft Company
was the largest employer in
Santa Monica’s history
However...
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel
Team RolesMEASURE LOCAL CONTROL (LC)2014 - MEASURE LC LIMITS LAND
USE AT SANTA MONICA AIRPORT
No new development until voters
have approved limits on uses
Provides exemptions for:
Parks and public open spaces
Recreational facilities
Maintenance/replacement of
existing cultural arts and education
uses
“Shall the City Charter be amended
to:
(1) Prohibit new development on
Airport land, except for parks,
public open spaces and public
recreational facilities, until the
voters approve limits on the uses
and development that may occur
ontheland;and
(2)Affirm the City Council’s authority
to manage the Airport and to close
allorpartofit”
60% yes, 40% no
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel
Team RolesSANTA MONICA AIRPORT TODAYCITY HAS LEGAL AUTHORITY TO
CLOSE AIRPORT
Consistent direction from Council to
close Airport over past several decades
Authorized for closure after December 31, 2028
Requires Council action
Written Notice to FAA
Environmental Review
Ordinance for closure
Budget established for planning process
to determine future use of land
History of local measures and
community preferences
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel
Team RolesTimeline Overview
1.January 2023 = Council authorization
2.February 2023 = RFQ released
3.March 2023 = RFQ closed (27 teams
responded, eight short-listed)
4.May 2023 = RFP released to short-list
5.June 2023 = RFP closed, five teams invited to
interviews in July
6.August 2023 =Notice of decision, goes to
Council 11/14/23
7.September 2023 = Info Item posted
WHAT HAS BEEN DONE TO DATE 7.A.e
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel
Team RolesCITY AND PROJECT TEAMS
Project Management
Alex Parry
Senior Design Manager
Amber Richane
Acting Chief Operations
Officer
Amelia
Feichtner
Capital Programs
Manager
Chris Dishlip
Assistant Director
City of Santa Monica Public Works
Sasaki (recommended)
Sasaki
Design+TechnicalTeam
(D+TT)
The
Roberts
Group,
HR&A
Arup
Atelier
10
Group
Delta
CARS
ESA
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel
7 TRADITIONAL OUTREACH CHALLENGESWhat has been done before:
Limited opportunities for participation,
based on life circumstances.
Takes longer than anticipated,
community participation wanes.
Staff interprets what was said and
reports out to City Council.
Community has been left feeling
disenfranchised, misrepresented,
and/or marginalized.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel
8 QUESTIONS FOR COUNCILTonight staff is asking:
•Review and comment on the democratic lottery
process as the primary public engagement
method for the Future of the Santa Monica Airport
project;
•Provide direction to staff about: the framing
question the Lottery Selected Panel would answer,
if approved, and whether the Lottery Selected
Panel should be comprised of Santa Monica
residents only or also include business owners
and/or people from the adjacent West Los
Angeles area; and
•Direct staff to prepare a sole source contract, as
an exception to the competitive bidding process
pursuant to Section 2.24.250 (b), for Healthy
Democracy to provide the services related to the
democratic lottery process and bring it back for
Council review in November.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel
Team RolesCITY AND PROJECT TEAMS
Process Managers
Linn Davis
Program Co-Director
Alex Renirie
Program Co-Director
Grace Taylor
Operations Director
Kacey Bull
Outreach & Comms
Director
Healthy Democracy (recommended)
Sasaki (recommended)
Sasaki
Design+TechnicalTeam
(D+TT)
The
Roberts
Group,
HR&A
Arup
Atelier
10
Group
Delta
Project Management
Alex Parry
Senior Design Manager
Amber Richane
Acting Chief Operations
Officer
Amelia
Feichtner
Capital Programs
Manager
Chris Dishlip
Assistant Director
City of Santa Monica Public Works
CARS
ESA
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel
Reimagining Civic Participation
SMO Airport Community Panel
10 October 2023
Alex Renirie, Program Co-Director
Linn Davis, Program Co-Director
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Who is Healthy Democracy?
We aim to empower new voices and represents
the community across our many diversities, using
democratic lotteries.
We design deliberative processes that prove a more
collaborative politics is possible.
We partner with governments, nonprofits, and others
to bring together Lottery-Selected Panels that
tackle our most difficult policy questions.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Healthy Democracy:
A History
We created one of the best known reforms in the field
of deliberative democracy – the Citizens’ Initiative
Review.
●Run since 2008 in 5 states & 2 other countries
●Became Oregon law in 2011
●Among the most studied deliberative processes
globally
Current focus: local government decision-making
processes.
Oregon Massachusetts
ColoradoArizonaCalifornia
FinlandSwitzerland
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
The Context
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
We participate in our democracy
at vastly different rates.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
https://news.gallup.com/poll/510254/postsecondary-education-linked-volunteerism-better-health.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndicationVolunteering by Educational Attainment
(% of US adults who reported volunteering in the past 12 months)
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Participation in Civic & Political Activities by Income
(% of US adults who took part in at least one civic/political activity
in the past 12 months)Source: Pew Research Center, 1 Sept. 2009, tinyurl.com/hdpresent6.7.A.e
Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
And we don’t see public
decision making as
something we can all do.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Many Current Processes
Devalue Our Humanity
Require Comfort with
Rigid Procedural
Norms
Assume
Subject Matter
Expertise
Are Debate-Oriented,
Not Collaboration-Oriented
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
And even for those of us
who do participate . . .
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Most of us will never be
deeply involved in the details
of any policy decision
that affects us.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
No surprise – all this
has consequences.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Source: Fred Lewsey, “Global dissatisfaction with democracy at a record high,” Centre for the Future of Democracy, Univ. of Cambridge, tinyurl.com/hdpresent10.Rising Dissatisfaction with Democracy in the US 7.A.e
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
But we’re optimistic about
solving problems locally.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Optimism that People Holding
Different Political Views Can Solve. . .Source: PRRI/The Atlantic, 2018 Civic Engagement SurveyNational
Problems
Local Problems
36%56%
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
A New Approach to Democracy
Lottery-Selected Panels
(a.k.a., Citizens’ Assembly, Citizens’ Jury)
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Where
our public
decision making
reflects our
diversity
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Where
everyone
participates in
in-depth
policymaking
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Where
expertise is
both valued &
questioned
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Where
our government is
a tool we all use
together
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
INCLUSIVITY
proactive recruitment +
accessibility-driven design
= new voices
PRINCIPLES
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
INCLUSIVITY
REPRESENTATION
broadly reflects
a community’s
many diversities
PRINCIPLES
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
INCLUSIVITY
REPRESENTATION
INTEGRITY
research-based design; transparent process; independent evaluation
PRINCIPLES
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
INCLUSIVITY
REPRESENTATION
INTEGRITY
COLLABORATION
structured, iterative process +
professional moderation
= respectful, evidence-driven
exchange
PRINCIPLES
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
INCLUSIVITY
REPRESENTATION
PRINCIPLES
INTEGRITY
COLLABORATION
EMPOWERMENT
panel has authority over
their process &
ability to influence policy
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
INCLUSIVITY
REPRESENTATION
PRINCIPLES
INTEGRITY
COLLABORATION
EMPOWERMENT
panel has authority over
their process &
ability to influence policy
COLLABORATION
structured, iterative process +
professional moderation
= respectful, evidence-driven
exchange
INCLUSIVITY
proactive recruitment +
accessibility-driven design
= new voices
research-based design; transparent process; independent evaluation
REPRESENTATION
broadly reflects
a community’s
many diversities
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Elements of a
Lottery-Selected Panel
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Democratic Lotteries
create a microcosm of the public
and reduce common barriers to
participation.
In-Depth Deliberation
changes decision-making itself –
through ample time, balanced
information, and support to find
common ground.
Once in a
lifetime
opportunity!
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Today, most public
processes are either . . .
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
The Democracy Pie
Open to
Anyone
Random
Invitation
Specific
Invitation
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
The Democracy Pie
Open to
Anyone
Lottery
Selection
Specific
Invitation
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Better metaphor: more Democracy Pies!
Open to
Anyone
Specific
Invitation
Lottery
Selection
e.g., surveys, hearings, voting e.g., stakeholder negotiations,
outreach to particular community
e.g., Lottery-Selected Panels
➕ Anyone! (in theory...)
➖ Same individuals, “thin”
participation, debate-oriented
➕ Can be targeted &
specialized to issue or impact
➖ Often same individuals,
often top-down orientation
➕ New & diverse folks,
in-depth deliberation,
Panelist-led
➖ Needs time & design
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Lottery-Selected Panels: An Overview
Invitation:
Random
addresses receive
invites.
Democratic
Lottery:
A representative
Panel is selected!
Information
Gathering:
Panelists conduct
extensive
research.
In-Depth
Deliberation:
Structured,
intensive
discussion.
Policy
Recommendations:
Report delivered to
policymakers.
15k–20k
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
An International Movement
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Around the world,
Lottery-Selected Panels
are being used for
issues that are . . .
●High-stakes
●Complex and contentious
●Prone to lose-lose outcomes
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
The
“Deliberative
Wave”
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Panels can address almost any policy question.Source: OECD Database of Representative Deliberative Processes and Institutions (2021).7.A.e
Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Recommendations are often adopted by public authorities.Source: OECD Database of Representative Deliberative Processes and Institutions (2021).7.A.e
Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Case Study
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Petaluma, CA (2022)
Topic: Future of a 55-acre fairgrounds property
Context: Probably the most contentious issue in the
city; seemingly everyone in the city is a stakeholder
Panelists: 36 (residents aged 16+); broadly
representative of Petaluma’s demographics
Work: ~12 total days of in-person work, over 2 months
Result: 3 reports presented to Council & Fair Board:
●Principles – values, criteria, and rationales
●Pathways – specific site use options
●Final Report – preferred Fairgrounds land use(s)
and rationales, and dissenting opinions
More info:
healthydemocracy.org/petaluma
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Petaluma Panel Charrette-Style Design Workshop
“It’s cool finally actually putting it (the vision) on paper,” said Jasmine
Diaz, a panelist on the project. “Thinking about how people actually
interact with spaces has been really helpful.” – Argus Courier, Oct. 2022
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Petaluma Panel Results
●A clear change in tone at Council meetings
-“This process helps make politics less vitriolic.”
—Panelist
●Respect from the public and elected officials
-“A new day for democracy!” —Councillor
-“We will never think of public consultation the same
way.” —City Manager
●Three cohesive visions for the site
○Detailed level of support for each element
○Visualizations through collaboration with local
architects and planners
●Clear planning recommendations: supermajority
recommendations and implementation options
●Policy impacts of the Panel’s recommendations
unfolding over the next 2+ years
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
96% of
Panelists …
100% of
Panelists …
92% of
Panelists …
How Democracy Should Work - Dr. Marjan Ehsassi
They feel a
growing sense of
community with
the other
Panelists.
They “have a say
on the Panel”.
Their input is
meaningful and
important in local
decision making.https://www.berggruen.org/ideas/articles/how-democracy-should-work-lesson-in-learning-building-cohesion-and-community/Strongly agree or agree…
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
SMO Community Panel
(Proposed)
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Lottery-
Selected
Panel
Broader Public
Stakeholder &
Informational
Presenters
Decision
Makers
SMO Community Panel Process
Design &
Technical Team
Information Cmte
Stakeholders
City Staff
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
SMO Community Panel – Project Timeline
Sept. 2024–Jan. 2025: Panel Work
(Learning & Principles)Jan.–Aug. 2024: Preparation
External CommunicationsDeliberative ProcessFeb.–May 2025: Panel Work
(Analysis & Scenario Development)
Development &
Refinement of
Scenarios Agreement
Seeking
Guiding Principles
Report
Alternative
Scenarios ReportPreferred
Scenario ReportPanelist Selection & CareIndep. EvaluationResearch Team
Formed Indep.
Research
Reports
DTT: Design & Technical Team
Observation & Panelist Surveys
Panelist
Selection Onboarding, Accessibility & One-on-One Panelist Care
Invitation
Mailing Selection Event
Process Onboarding
Post-Panel
Work
Responses Due
Existing
Conditions
Learning Phase
Updates &
AnalysisDesign
Concepts
Deep
Dive 3
Deep Dive
2
Deep
Dive 1
Info.
Presenters Policy
Context
Panel Promotion
Continued
Engagement
Feedback from
Stakeholders & Public
Selection Event &
Project Launch
Panel Gallery, Live Stream & Session Recaps
Report Learning Sessions
Additional Feedback
Loops
Panel Tour Days
Celebration!
Process Design
Panel Work
Other Inputs
Wknd 1 Wknd 2 Wknd 3 Wknd 4 Wknd 5 Wknd 6
Interactions with DTT
Information Cmte
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Sept. 2024–Jan. 2025: Panel Work
(Learning & Principles)Jan.–Aug. 2024: Preparation Feb.–May 2025: Panel Work
(Analysis & Scenario Development)
Panelist
Selection Onboarding, Accessibility & One-on-One Panelist Care
Invitation
Mailing Selection Event
Post-Panel
Work
Responses Due
18,000 invitations to
randomly selected
addresses
Panelist Selection & Care
Responses collected
and compiled by HD
Public lottery selection
event & project kickoff!
Afterward: selected
Panelists are notified
Reflective of Santa Monica in terms of:
❖ Age
❖ Educational Attainment
❖ Experience of a Disability
❖ Housing Status
❖ Location of Residence
❖ Primary Transportation
❖ Sexual Orientation
❖ Other factors (TBD)
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Panelist Care
Reducing Barriers to Participation
Financial: Panelists compensated to offset
financial burdens of participation
Direct Panelist support: one-on-one
process onboarding and ongoing support
Language access: Translation,
interpretation, and assistive technologies
High-quality moderation: Ensures
balanced participation
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Guiding
Principles
Report
Weekend 2 Weekend 3 Weekend 4 Weekend 5 Weekend 6
Deliberative Process
Highly detailed
process design
Preferred
Scenario
Report
Alternative
Scenarios
Report
Welcome: Orientation,
intros, and policy context
Weekend 1
Learning: Informational presenters
(selected by IC & Panel), site visits,
lived experience, and written material
Intensive deliberation: Ideas collected, then
iteratively developed and refined – this
happens first on principles, then on scenarios
Agreement Seeking:
Negotiation towards
1 preferred scenario
Information
Committee (IC):
Select
introductory
presenters for
Panel
Community
survey:
principles ideas
Panel-hosted
community
workshop
Reports presented to City Council:
Points of broader community involvement:
Community
survey: site use
ideas
Community feedback on
alternative scenarios
Stakeholder survey:
presenter nominations
Sept. 2024–Jan. 2025: Panel Work
(Learning & Principles)
Jan.–Aug. 2024:
Preparation Feb.–May 2025: Panel Work
(Analysis & Scenario Development)
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Deliberative Process
Unique Elements
Directed by Panelists, as much as
possible, and outputs never edited
Includes substantial hands-on design, in
direct collaboration with Design & Tech. Team
Invites weighing of complex tradeoffs
in service of the broader public good
Designed to lead to rough consensus
agreement, while respecting minority views
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Benefits to...
Policymakers:
❖Surfaces fresh perspectives & untapped ideas
❖Enhances mutual trust in governance
Stakeholders & Advocates:
❖Allows for collaboration with new individuals
❖Levels the playing field
The Public:
❖Fosters ownership over public decision making
❖Presents a model for collaborative, evidence-based
discourse
❖Increases access for historically marginalized groups
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
"You engaged us in the actual work of
democracy, and that has left an imprint.
I feel like this is community."
— José, 2020-21 Eugene Panelist
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
“It has been a huge commitment and it was a
big leap into another way of working
together. This process seems to move to
collaboration from competition and I think
that’s the only way we move forward.”
— Mayor Teresa Barrett, City of Petaluma
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
Alex Renirie
Program Co-Director
Linn Davis
Program Co-Director
healthydemocracy.org
info@healthydemocracy.org
(503) 841-6865 (office)
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected
11 LOTTERY SELECTED PANEL RECAPWhy This Process?
It removes many traditional barriers to
participation.
Representative sample of Santa Monica’s
population.
Staff is in a support role to the Panel, not the
other way round.
Many opportunities for the community to
provide feedback to the Panel, both in-
person and online, and to City Council.
This process is highly customizable to allow
Santa Monica to make it our own
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel
12 ANTICIPATED PROJECT TIMELINENext Steps:
1.TONIGHT -October 10, 2023 = Study Session
with Council
2.Winter 2023 = contract award for D+TT and
Healthy Democracy, based on feedback
from the October study session
3.Winter -Summer 2024 = Project kick-off
and community engagement
4.Summer 2024 = Panel is selected publicly
5.Fall 2024 = Panel’s first weekend
6.Early Summer 2025 = Panel’s last weekend
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel
13 ANTICIPATED PROCESS TIMELINE
Early Visioning
completed but conditions
have changed
Scenario Planning
(Airport)
Specific Plan
(Airport + Biz Park)Implementation
UNDERSTANDING
TRADEOFFS
Scenario Planning
Economic Feasibility
Remediation
Engagement
GUIDED
DEVELOPMENT
Zoning
Master Planning
Governance
Financing
Environmental
We are here 7.A.e
Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel
14 QUESTION #1 FOR COUNCILPlease confirm or revise the following framing question:
With the anticipated closure of the Santa Monica Airport
after 2028, there is an exciting and unique opportunity to
develop a vision for over 200 acres of public land to serve
generations to come. In all of its work, the City strives for a
community that is vibrant, safe, sustainable, resilient, mobile,
culturally rich, ethnically diverse, and equitable to serve the
needs of the entire community and to foster a thriving local
economy. Therefore, the project and this land, which was
originally purchased for a public park, must be in service of
this vision. With this background, how should the diverse
needs of our community inform the future of the Airport land
and the balance of land-uses and development, that will
most effectively contribute to Santa Monica’s long-term
vitality?
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel
15 QUESTION #2 FOR COUNCILCouncil to confirm if the Panel
should be comprised of:
a. Santa Monica residents only (unless displaced);
or
b. Include up to two non-resident Santa Monica
business owners as well; and/or
c. Include up to two people from the adjacent
West Los Angeles area.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel
16 RECAP OF QUESTIONS FOR COUNCILRecap of what staff is asking:
•Review and comment on the democratic lottery
process as the primary public engagement method
for the Future of the Santa Monica Airport project;
•Provide direction to staff about: the framing
question the Lottery Selected Panel would answer, if
approved, and whether the Lottery Selected Panel
should be comprised of Santa Monica residents only
or also include business owners and/or people from
the adjacent West Los Angeles area; and
•Direct staff to prepare a sole source contract, as an
exception to the competitive bidding process
pursuant to Section 2.24.250 (b), for Healthy
Democracy to provide the services related to the
democratic lottery process and bring it back for
Council review in November.
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel
Thank you.
http://www.santamonica.gov/future-of-santa-monica-airport-project
7.A.e
Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (6052 : Lottery-Selected Panel
17 OUTREACH OPPORTUNITIES OVERVIEWWinter –
Summer 2024
Panel is Seated
(Summer 2024)
First Weekend
(Fall 2024)
Second
Weekend (Fall
2024)
Third Weekend
(Winter 2025)
Fourth
Weekend
(Winter 2025)
Fifth Weekend
(Spring 2025)
Sixth Weekend
(Summer 2025)
Pol.is initiated to
broader
community
Review Pol.is
feedback
Panel hosted
community
workshop and 2nd
Pol.is
Review feedback
from Pol.is and
Council
Review feedback
from Community
Workshop and
Council
Staff & D+TT
lead outreach
in-person and
online
D+TT lead
community
workshops and
online tools
Process update
presentation to Boards & Commissions
Existing Conditions
presentation to Boards & Commissions
Guiding Principles
Report to Council
Alternative
Scenarios Report
to Boards, Commissions and Council
Recommended
Plan Report to
Boards, Commissions, and Council
Public Comment Opportunities
Staff & D+TT Outreach
Community Panel Feedback Loops
Community Panel Timeline 7.A.f
Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: Presentation Outreach Overview (6052 : Lottery-Selected