Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Can we I'd like to call to order the uh June 4th meeting of the Santa Monica Planning Commission. Can we call the to Can we have the Pledge of Allegiance, please? I allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. There you go. Can we have a roll call? Commissioner Chako present. Commissioner Fresco here. Commissioner Landress here. Commissioner Hamilton here. And Sher Tolken here. Uh planning director's report. Good evening, chair and members of the commission. We've had quite a busy few weeks and more to come. I just need to make sure I put my glasses on so I can read this for you. I have them on screen. Okay, we have a few items coming up uh to um the planning commission for the June 18th meeting. We have the rand development agreement uh that will be coming along with I believe it's that time of the year for election of officers for the commission followed by a meeting in in July. July, we have the downtown economic recovery ordinance

that's coming to the commission along with the Pico Boulevard um cup architect architectural review board had a meeting earlier in the week. I actually attended and I had a chance to meet with the board. They were considering 1645th Street. Landmarks Commission had a meeting in May where they looked at 137 heart along with 226 Palisades and they have a meeting next week for 308 308 Alto. I think most of you have been paying attention to everything happening at the council meeting because it's been quite a bit. In May, um council took a letter of support action for SB79. They looked at an ordinance for establishing Third Street Prominade as an entertainment zone. In regards to the entertainment zone, we have a soft launch happening next week. Then the official launch starts with Pride weekend. Uh we had an ordinance amending the text of the city zoning ordinance for consistency with state housing legislation. Last week's council meeting was uh specifically focused on a budget study session. As you all know, we're in the midst of our budget adoption as we speak, and it was announced we have a new city manager, Oliver Chi, who is slated to start on um July 14, I believe. Uh next week, we do have a council meeting, several items on the agenda. We've got a digital display development agreement for 310 Arizona and 12023rd Street Prominade. It's a study session and we will be asking council to consider the two DAS and the possibility of staff working on a more comprehensive ordinance on digital signage. There is an EIGO to allow ADUs in conjunction with SB123 projects and a final map for Providence St. uh John's Health Center. There's quite a bit going on. Yes, sir. Um let's see. Mic is off. There we go.

Thank you. Um, I notice that you have the election of officers scheduled for June 18th. Is council doing appointments before then because otherwise we should push those to July 2nd when by when we would normally have a fully seated new commission. Yeah, I don't believe that they they maybe will have to check, but it's usually after the first of July. I think um the planning commission's rules of order actually say it's the last meeting before Yeah. like June 30th. I thought that was updated when they updated everybody. We'll check. Yeah. I mean, if if it's not, then it'll be the following meeting. Can we just if needed, can we note it and continue? Even I would note even if the council doesn't make an appointment, um you have to make you have to have the election of officers regardless. Yeah. But I think it's better to put it on July 2nd rather than June 18th because Not a problem. Well, we our practice is never to appoint a brand new commissioner as chair or No, but the person should be able to vote. Okay. Yeah. Um, and then are we going to did we already get the we got the displays float up? I think it may be may have been a meeting I missed. Is that right? Which item? The digital displays DA float up. Did that come Did we see that at a meeting I missed? No. No, you have not. We haven't seen it. So, are we going to see it at some point? Well, that the planning commission is required to make a recommendation on any development agreement this one because it was pursuant to um well, council gave direction for us to bring back information, you know, and it really feels like this is something quite new for the city. So, you know, this is a temperature reading of the council initially to like what what do you want to do with these, you know, and sort of to get some like like I said, just taking a temperature. So it felt appropriate to have council weigh in first before we come to the commission. Okay. I think it might be are these are street level digital

displays, right? They're not they're not like digital. They are not they are large format digital buildings on top of buildings. They are on buildings on the sides. So then it might be helpful to share in the context of the planning commission in the planning staff presentation. it might be helpful to share some of the outlines of the conversation we had when Hilton came to talk with us and had some very specific recommendations and we felt duty and lawbound to say no, but we also encourage them to have a conversation with the city. I I think we're happy to bring back um an item just an overview of the sign code generally. I think I've heard um couple of questions from commissioners about that. Um, we will be bringing the economic recovery ordinance to you on July the 2nd. At that meeting, I might suggest that we'll have the city attorney's office give an overview of the sign code um because it is um kind of complex. Yeah. Got it. Okay. Just because we talked about we had a whole evening about signage with Rocky Delgado representing Hilton. was and if council gives us direction to proceed with a comprehensive ordinance of some sort that will go through planning commission. Okay. Yeah. And then I just think it's lastly I just think I was I I attended the council meeting on May 13th and I I do think it would be helpful for us to have as information items just summaries of the I'm sure it's available to the public, but the summary of the final ordinance on the entertainment zone because there's still a lot of confusion about what was approved and what was not approved. And then many but not all of our recommendations were taken by council in the ZO. And so it also could be helpful just to get a um feedback on what what did what was and what wasn't and it was like 3:00 a.m. when they as you all recall when they

finally did it. I'm not even sure well yeah we have an information website we will we will send to the whole commission. Let me uh cover a few procedural elements for the audience. If you want to talk about an item before the commission, you have to submit a chip to the secretary. Please do it before the item comes up. And uh if you want to talk about something else just generally, it has to be something that we would be would come before us. So, it can't be just about anything that gets into your head. Um, I'd ask is any of the commissioners have anything they want to say? You have something? Um, I'll just say I attended a conference quickly um at uh in San Pedro that was put on as part of LA Fleet Week. Um, and there was a whole presentation about infrastructure security and cyber security uh ahead of mega events and the uh and LA28. Um, we nominally have in our remitt infrastructure. Um, but I just my takeaway from attending that is that we do need to be attentive and I I'm I'm sure that there are offices that are working on this, but even though we will not be a venue for the games um during the World Cup, all of these upcoming events, I do think it's really important for us to be um attentive to the security concerns around all of our infrastructure. in the city both

physical and digital and it was just a kind of an eye openening briefing. Um I have not received any public input chips. So we'll go on to the consent here. You have one. All right, Jerry. How did I guess? I put it at that I didn't submit. Okay. Thank you very very much uh Jerry Rubin. Um I um just first of all happy Pride month and thank you for all your good work. I attended a uh really positive event on the prominade today that the city staff put on. You should be very proud of it. There was over a hundred people there to talk about how we could rev things up economically and that's what we need is that kind of positivity and that unity. What particularly kind of made me feel good even though I know it's still in question was the city staff person that was up there at the beginning of that event today highlighting the civic auditorium as a great opportunity and so many people love that auditorium and what it could do And I know there's challenges, but these people know what they're doing. And I'm so glad the city has given them an opportunity to bring back that gem that'll really benefit our city. So, I just want to say keep up the good work and thank you all very much. Thanks,

Jerry. Uh, next thing is the um consent calendar. Uh, anybody want to pull any of the commissioners want to pull any items or have any adjustments to the items? Can we take a vote or Yeah, I did send a bunch of typos and tweaks to our friend Ethan this morning. Most of them were just typos. There were a couple of things that clarified language, but they were not substantive changes. Yeah, they're they're in the record now. They should be. Yeah. Somebody want to make a motion to I'll move the consent calendar. Second. All those in favor say I. I. All opposed. Passes 6. Okay. Then next is the study session update and discussion of the airport conversion project. Uh can we have a staff report? more than 10. Yeah, they they'll have two minutes since we have more than 10 speakers. Is that right? Or sorry, more than seven speakers. Yeah. Um since we have more than seven speakers, they will each get two minutes. Okay. But you'll have the staff report first. Yeah, let's have the staff report first. I wasn't sure. I'll come

back. Good evening. Thank you so much for having us again. My name is Amber Rashine. I'm a principal design and planning manager with public works in architecture services. Um, and we have a number of our uh project team members with us tonight as well. Uh, and this tonight is really an update as to where we are. Um we'll be talking about the layer survey results and the three scenarios and how the community and council uh commission can provide comments and things of that sort and to answer any of your questions and comments um as we go forward. So we'll get started. Uh we'll go you've you you've heard us speak before so we'll go quickly through the project overview. Uh really focus on that phase 3A engagement and the three scenarios and then what the next steps are. So this is the airport site just to remind everybody uh 190 almost 192 acres. Um we have uh the project is because the airport is closing right December 31st at midnight of 2028. Um, and it's a project that has been we are trying to get to that preferred scenario, right, which would be the basis of SQA. I know there's been some questions about SQA, but SQA is after this uh project and process. Uh, it's a five-phase project. We are at the end of 3A or almost at the end. We're getting close to the end of 3A. Uh, so you've been with us through phase 1 and two. We'll report on 3A tonight. 3B is in the fall. And then four and five um are sort of the culmination of the project. So phase one, we had a big community event. We had a lot of really great feedback. Uh the community came out really telling us what their hopes and dreams and sort of the the big aspirations for the project were. Um we came up with a list. There were 147 uses that got consolidated down to 94. Um, we had some, uh, you know,

most of these focused on, uh, passive recreation or active recreation. There were a number of things that talked about sort of that community hub. Um, housing was mentioned. Um, it was the second least liked because we asked people what their top 15 and bottom five were. Um, and it was in the top 50. So, housing is one that we'll spend a lot more time on tonight as we have a lot more information about that. Now, um, measure LC is always with us. Um, that's what that those asterisks are on there. And so, we continue to bring that forward as well. Um, and we'll talk more about that in depth. Uh, phase two was helping prioritize and refine. So, uh, from that list, what were, uh, the favorites, how does that lead into guiding principles? Um, we had another community workshop, another round of pop-up events. We've had some really great project interactions. Um, our project website at that time had over 42,000 hits, right? We've had multiple surveys that have reached two, three, four, and almost 5,000 people. So, we have a lot of community members that are really engaged with us, which we're really excited about. Uh, the conclusion or the culmination of phase two was with the guiding principles and that's what we went to council with in January uh, of this year. So, January 28th of uh, 2025. And the five principles are start with nature, inspire wonder, balance economics, amplify versatility, and celebrate place. Um, you'll probably hear me say way too many times tonight, go check out the website because there's a ton of resources on there. If you want to dig into what each of these guiding principles are, uh, they there's a thesis statement, there's uh, more detail, there's um, where it got pulled from from the different um, surveys and things like that. There's also a wide range of resources. um under the resources tab that go through all of a deep dive on the community engagement uh to date. So phase one, phase two um and the layer survey is up already as well.

And so what council told us to do uh on January 28th was to use these guiding principles as we started to draw. So phase one and two were really talking about words. Um and phase three is where we really start to draw. And you can see how that kind of works together. So everything that we heard in one and two comes forward. That's still very important. Um what we're learning in phase 3A, we also did a virtual education session that created the design layers, which we'll get into in just a second. Um and then we used all of that information to create the draft scenarios. Uh for those of you that were able to join us on m uh May 17th, that was our big community event where we revealed the three scenarios. And just a reminder that the three scenarios are not we are not asking folks to pick I like A or I like B or I like C. What we're asking is what parts and pieces of each resonate with you? What would you find support in? What do you like? What do you not like? Um and that's we'll get we'll get into how that that is sorting out through uh the COMAP survey that is out right now on the three scenarios. But first we'll walk you through each of those. But just a reminder that um council directed us to make sure that one option would not require a vote under measure LC uh and that one option at least studied some housing and there's not a lot of definition on what sum means and so that's why you see uh the scenarios the way that they are. Uh so we're obviously coming before uh boards and commissions. Um and then we're anticipating going to city council July 8th. Um so we'll get a little bit more information here on that. uh we will be at Junth. We just got that information today. So that's really exciting uh that we'll be able to table there. Uh the first layer survey closed April 27th. Um so hopefully some of you had a chance to take that as well. Uh survey three uh the the the co-ap which talks about the scenarios closes June

22nd. So those are some dates to remember. We'll go through it again at the end just to remind you. Uh and we are going to 10 different boards and commissions. um and task force meetings uh in May and June. And so a lot of people will be seeing a lot of us. Um so if you're you're you know watching from home or other and not able to engage tonight, there are additional times to come as well or if you hear something tonight and you want to follow up with questions, you can certainly go about it at any of those meetings as well. Uh sustainability and VAP, the dates are moving and I don't have those just yet. Uh so the phase three uh we did a virtual education session doing a deep dive into what those site design layers were, how to do that, what did that mean, right? Master planning is very complex and so trying to break it down into digestible bites so that the community could provide us feedback and we'll go through that tonight. Uh that survey had almost 5,000 people take it. Um almost 2,000 complete and over 3,000 partial responses. Uh we continue to see across all of our surveys that the top 10 zip codes that respond are Santa Monica zip codes or our adjacent zip codes because there's been a lot of concern about having outside entities you know try and skew the results or things like that and we're not seeing that. We continue to to monitor that and we are not seeing that happen which is really great. Uh so really the people in our community and um our surrounding uh community members uh are the ones that are really directing and responding which is really wonderful. Um we continue to so we did better with youth right we started at zero for anyone under the age of 24 in phase one and so we worked really hard in phase two and in three to increase the participation from an under 24 group and while it's 200 people it started at zero. So this is a lot better. Um still not demographically, you know, representative of that curve, but we are making um strides in that direction. So

that's really great. We got to work on that 25 to 30 forward. Next, uh for our racial uh profile and demographics, we saw increases in our um American Indian, Asian, uh black, Hispano, or Latino, Middle Eastern, and Native Hawaiian groups. They all increased from um the last survey that went out. And so we've done a lot of work around that as well. and we can talk about that um as well. So the layers survey uh what we asked folks to do was we created six site design layers. So connectivity and mobility, water and topography, um passive recreation, active recreation, housing and revenue generating. We created a kind of spectrum. So A all of the A's were always the least intense of that layer and D was always the most intense of that layer. And the intent was uh to find out where on this spectrum people were on any of these given layers. Uh right, did we find that more people liked the least intense of things or the most intense across any category? And on purpose there are four of them knowing that we were getting to three scenarios. So you couldn't necessarily path, right? If you choose all of the D's, that doesn't actually work. Um and you know, so it really needed to be a mix of things and that's where the design team came in. Uh we also asked folks to rank choice vote instead of just saying I like this one and that's it. Um and what that did was we came up with a scoring matrix. I know it's a little small but it's in that bottom lefthand corner. So if you voted for something and said it was my my favorite a number one uh it got four points and then if it was your number two it got three points number three got two and your number four got one if you follow that logic. And so what that did is on any given option, uh, we were able to say what the score was. And in many instances, B was higher than A, even if A had more number ones

or D had the most number fours, but then, you know, so it it kind of moved them around, which was the the goal, so that we could really start to dig into where we could find um you usable information for these scenarios. So I'm not going to read all of these. There were a lot of questions in this survey. So, thank you very much to everyone that took this survey. It was not an easy survey, but we were trying to convey all of the things that we're considering so that there was a basis of information going forward. And so, in connectivity and mobility, you can see A has no new crossing points for cars. It really respects the runway. Um, and then all the way up to D that has a lot of access points for cars still has a bunch more pedestrian and bike spaces than what's there today. But it's very different, right? So B was the preferred option. And we're just showing the overall uh ranking of how it came out. Oh, shoot. Uh A actually is a five, not a six. So it's 5165, not 6165. So that's why A is below B because B was 5387. I apologize for that. I changed it on the slide, but it must have not made it into the master. So apologies on that one. Um there were there were many questions on each of these. There were four to six questions per each layer. So all we're reporting out is the overall. So B was the most liked or ranked highest or scored highest I should say. Option A, then C, and then D. Um we also uh had folks comment on each of the options. And so from all of that feedback, that's what you'll see on the on the right hand side or the text where we were seeing consensus or if there was a division or or anything like that. And so prioritizing pedestrian and cyclist friendly designs and min minimizing vehicular intrusions was something that really came through across all of the um responses that we got. Water and topography um right how do we treat water? Is it something that

is solely infrastructure that we hide underground? Is it something that we celebrate and make big topography moves with? Because if you're digging out areas for water then you can use that topography somewhere and things in between. Um C was the preferred option in this layer and you can see how that sorts out. Uh really being thoughtful about how we bring and integrate water into the site and what topography can bring for an interesting experience um in the um in the in the park areas. Um really leaning into that ecological benefits as well. And we'll see that a lot more in the next um layer as well. Uh layer three, ecology and passive uses. uh B was the favorite on this one and this one again very heavy on the ecology where you see in the guiding principles right starting with nature that's been a theme from phase one phase two and it continues in phase three um that there's a really important balance that we need to strike between those kind of practical elements as well as getting people to get connected back into nature um and those passive uses uh active park uses is uh B again. So B in general, right? Four of the six layers, B was the preferred option. Uh water being one of them and then um housing being another that was different. Uh but B was really, you know, do these are these things organized around a center piece? Is that the runway? Is it not? Right? This is where you start to see how those layers get um melded together. uh the active uh right the the the tension here is what is the right balance between active and passive uses right those connections back to nature but also fulfilling some of those um active um exercise and recreation needs of the city and can we be flexible and meet both for current needs as well as future ones. So that

was kind of the big theme here housing. So, housing, this is the first time we had talked about housing at all in any meaningful capacity in this project. Um, measure LC, right? This is a use that definitely will require a ballot measure if it's included. And since council said exum, right, we don't know what sum means. And so, this really helped us explore at least by location, right? So, this does not talk about how many units. This does not talk about what typologies or what affordable levels or any of that. This is just do we support housing in any capacity in any location one three or a lot. Right? Again that A to D. And what we saw on this one was that it went right in a row, right? A B C D. I think it was the only one that actually does that. Um about where housing could be uh or might be entertained, I should say. Uh there were questions about if you supported housing what or you can say I don't support housing but if there had to be housing then what would you say and this again um there's a PDF on the website currently under resources that goes into detail about all of these questions. Um but housing remains a deeply divisive issue and I I don't think you know judging from the comments that we got tonight um before the meeting right this should not come as a surprise to anyone that this is really something that our community is uh struggling with um that we have measure LC that is very clear um we have folks that have um that come out very strongly for park and park only and then we also have folks who are saying park plus housing and everything in between and so this is is something that we're going to spend a lot of time focusing on on how do we get to good information on this so that council can make good choices. Um we did put a little bit in about the questions and you can it really

highlights what that balance is. Right? In question 32, uh 47% of respondents said no housing. Right? So that's slightly less than half. But then on 33, 34, and 35, slightly more than half said I do not support housing. And so it really is that kind of 50/50 of what we're seeing in 3A. Um one phases one and two were pretty clear. Um and but now that we've opened the door to a conversation, we can see that there's some more nuance in here and that's where we'll continue to explore. Uh revenue generating B was the preferred option as well. If you remember on this one, um if you look at the pie charts in the bottom right, where that dashed green line is is showing the recreation, but there's different characters or quality of that recreation, right? If the dark green to gray because we're reusing the runway, um and all pink where we're reusing all of the adaptive reuse. B is where we start to introduce areas that might have new buildings or new construction for revenue generating things. Um those run the gamut of a lot of different ideas. Um C is a little bit more, but you start to see that now we're not reusing the runway anymore. So that green pie is really green uh or all green. And then in D, you see a lot more yellow, a lot less of the pink and the green, but the the the percentage of area that is open to recreation space is about the same in all of them. It's just the character of that is very different. And so this one was a BC A D. Um, and this one was a struggle for folks as well because measure measure LC is right. There's some uses that could or would require a a new ballot measure pursuant to the rules of LC. And we we at the January 28th meeting um the city attorney's office wrote a really great memo about how are we understanding LC at this time and we continue to refine that and get more and more information. So we took all of that information and basically right as I mentioned uh option B scored the highest

and four the six. Uh we saw increased participation. Uh there were some problems with the Spanish translation for this survey and so we have taken steps to uh remedy that in COMAP. Um and so hopefully that will will will prove itself better in in this next version. But we do acknowledge that that was tricky. So all of this information uh came to the three scenarios, right? That's the big culmination of this uh phase 3A. Uh all three scenarios are intentionally very different from each other. It is not meant I'll just keep reiterating because we keep getting questions on it. This is not meant to say I like A or I like B or I like C. It's I like the the way that A does the connectivity and mobility. I like the way that B has meandering water. I like the way that or I should say one, two, three. Sorry. I that I like that scenario two has meandering water. And I like that um scenario three has um big event spaces or things like that or I or I I don't like these things, right? I want more of this or less of that. Um, and so Comap, which I'll show you pictures of at the end, um, is how people can give us very specific responses by dropping a pin on a map, works on your phone and, um, your computer, and it has a wholly English link and a wholly Spanish link. And so we're hoping that many in the community will um tell us what they think about the parts and pieces of each of these scenarios so that when we go to council in July, we'll be able to say here's where we see support or consensus, here's where we don't um and here are the parts and pieces that we would recommend moving forward. Council, you tell us your opinion, right? They it's their time to give feedback and things as well. So we took um the layers and this is sort of a a a broad overview to say in each scenario what did we bring forward? What do you see? Um D was an option that um in a lot of instances was not the

favorite. And so we pulled back from D in almost all of these um where you see anything with D there. It's it doesn't even go as far as that. Um and then you see three very different ways of doing circulation patterns and things like that. And then how do you mix other things in? Um and so that's what the the scenarios do. So again, just a reminder, this is what we have today. It is 80% impervious. So it is really great that we're talking about doing anything here. We can start to rewing ecosystem and not just all concrete and asphalt. So option one really respects that runway. Um and that's why you see that more rectang everything in this option is a bit more rectangular. We are honoring the place right that celebrate place guiding principle of the airport having a big history for Santa Monica. And so honoring that runway reinforcing that runway but opening this up to humans and folks and our community members. Right now you can't get anywhere near this thing, right? You can't cross it even on a bike or or walking. Um and so opening this up so that community members can enjoy this space. Now uh the east end is a rewing zone, community gardens, nursery type things. Um h west end west end. Just kidding. The west end the that side, the left side. You're right. The west end, my bad. Um is that reing area and so can we start to connect with nature in that area? Um this option also um requires that we are keeping all of the existing revenue that uh the buildings that generate revenue. So that adaptive reuse. Um the airport non-avviation leases currently generate about 6 to7 million of net revenue. Right? So there's a higher revenue but then there's costs. So we've got six to7 millionish. Um so we keep all of those buildings knowing that we want to keep

that revenue. It also assumes that that revenue does stay um at the park. That's something that we continue to advocate for. Uh in the middle there, you see the runway reusage as well as a big blue um reservoir. Right? This is something that working with our water resources department and others that this can be infrastructure as uh recreation, but it is infrastructure first in this case, which means that it is um it uses a decent amount of land. Someone else is paying to construct it, right? water resources and others, right? Water funds um would construct, operate and maintain it, but it is a recreational piece that people could enjoy and walk around and those sorts of things. Um and then on the east end on the right hand side, uh that is a sports complex of type. Um where if you saw I think the last time we were here, we were talking about the letters of interest. Uh so is this a public private partnership where somebody else is paying to build this operate and maintain it because it the city then gets to use it some of the time. Um and we still get those fields and things but we don't have to pay for it. Right. And this is um sort of the crux of this uh option is that without uh additional revenue generating sources um and within with a no vote option we can only do open space recreation uh public recreation facilities and parks which is great. Um but we need to find how to make uh revenue out of those recreation pieces. And so a public private partnership for recreation is one way that we could explore to do that. And again, when you're looking at this scenario, if you like that idea, you can say, I like this thing, or you can say, you know, I don't want this big reservoir in the middle, or I really love the reing down here, or whatever it is, or get into the amphitheater, right? All those sorts of things. And so, scenario one is really about reusing. Um, it is about restoration, uh, right?

Bringing nature back in and resilience. That reservoir is also something that we work with our um operations of emergency management on as to what is needed in this community so that we continue to um deal with any of those um large natural disaster events um that may come our way. Uh so that's sort of the the basics of scenario one. Uh we also gave some basic idea on capital uh stack information right so you can see that on the right hand side for um upfront costs as well as operating and maintenance um and how those stacks might differ so you can see between scenario one two and three. Um we also give you a basic site area pie chart. Um we'll have a lot more information when we go to council about these things. Um but this was uh at least to get people thinking and as you can imagine financing is very tricky. It is very nuanced and so there's a lot more um depth that goes into this but we're trying to at least introduce the concepts right with all of this project. We start started very broad in phase one and we continue to narrow in and hone in and provide more and more information as we work with the community council boards commissions and task forces. So number two is uh weaving park and community. So this one assumes that if we needed to amend measure LC for recreation type uses or recreation supporting type uses, what does that get us? What does that look like? So on one hand, we've heard a lot of people say, well, I love the curves on this one, but I hate all these other things. And that's why you can tell us that right on COM app. You can say exactly that. Uh but what this one does is still that that west end is a lot greener, but this one is more of an event space or a cultural center. Um space that is able to be rented out with those beautiful views of the ocean. Um that becomes a revenue generating piece

for this area. Uh the water, as you can see, is a lot more meandering. Uh in the center there is a large amphitheater. Uh this is something that we've been in contact with a lot of different uh park operators. Um and in many instances they hold large events a couple times a year and that then pays for all of the free programming for the rest of the year. So is that something we want to entertain or not? Right? That's also something we've gotten a lot of feedback on is no, it's too big. I hate that. And that's great, right? But that's we have to put these things out so that we can get the feedback from the community on them. Um, that's what you see in the middle there. Uh, then on the east end, now I'm gonna keep thinking about that on on the east end. Uh, where you see a smaller body of water. This is again using water as infrastructure right underneath the the sort of in that LA 17 acres, there'd be a water treatment type plant, but then you can build things on top of it that are park, recreation, um, more nature balanced, um, reing, those sorts of things. and there is a smaller reservoir that is part of that system. So, it's a different way of treating water where now you get to use the water a little bit in a different way. It's not the same as one, but we can still use some of those water dollars. Uh, in this one, you also see um because of that big concert venue or amphitheater, um there's a transit hub, there's potentially a we put a hotel in here. If you're having a destination and people want to stay over, do we want to allow that or not? Uh it's reusing many of the buildings that you see in blue, but it's also introducing new buildings for revenue generation. Some of them could be housing. Some of them could be, you know, we're going to take down some of those tea hangers that are not real great buildings, right? They're just sheet metal that's kind of covered. Uh it would be very hard to turn them into something else. So, let's take those away and build a building that people would want to lease, right? Those types

of things are what we're exploring in this option. Uh what else is big? Oh, and then the courts that you see, the blue and the green kind of in the middle to the left third uh just west of the amphitheater. Some of those are a payto-play, right? Do we bring in a smaller operator because we'll have generated some capital on this but maybe not enough so that we can have some free courts and fields, but then there's also some that um we would be working with an operator on on those. And so again, these are the types of questions that we're asking people to think about and provide us feedback on. Uh you can see in this capital stack, right, there's more onsite uh revenue generation opportunities. So that blue is bigger. Um where you see the pink and the green are smaller proportions than what in scenario one it was. Um you can see in the site area pie chart, it's still very similar between one and two as to what is open recreation. there's just a big difference in that leasable or feebased park programs versus not. And then scenario three. So this one um again that west end is uh focusing on the event spaces and things. This one has a lot more connection points. Um it has a lot more revenue generating opportunities because that gets us a lot more free things right in theory. So, you don't see any of the payto-play um parks and courts here. Um this one happens to have the aquatic center in it. Um again, that doesn't mean that none of the others wouldn't have an aquatic center or we wouldn't want one. It's just we want people to tell us, yes, this is the thing that I want, but I want you know these other things in one and two as well. Um you see a big body of water here and this is more water is recreation, right? So, again, there still plays a role in resiliency. Uh but this is you could have swan boats on it or stand up paddle boards or kayaks, right? There's you're using that

waterfront as a revenue generator for restaurants, for um amphitheater spaces. Um and when we have these um larger amounts of revenue generating um spaces that we can then do other things like adventure playgrounds where you unless we're charging people to go to an adventure playground, which doesn't sound like a lot of fun. um right that but you can you can do those things. Um but as we increase our revenue generating potential, we get more things that are free um as as sort of a a balance that we're asking people to hold. Uh what else? This one does have a transit center, but it's on the uh Bundy side as opposed to kind of in the middle. Um and that you see uh fields, courts, and and and and all those sorts of things here, too. And so there's the three are not meant again I'll just say it again they are not meant to pick one two or three. Those are not the questions that we're asking city council. It's going to be about the parts and pieces of what should move forward into a new hybrid preferred scenario as part of 3B which will be in the fall. So again that capital stack and operational stack. Um obviously these things all cost more money as you add more things. That's a real thing. there's um there's a lot of infrastructure costs and horizontal costs because the airport right now does not have a lot of infrastructure um across it right on the north side and the south side there are some um so incorporating those things and then you see in the site pie chart as well um so big takeaways uh in all three of these scenarios at least twothirds of the space is open space recreation or passive those sorts of things um in all three scenarios the runway and the taxiways at a minimum are protected and some of them protect significantly more um and that buildings are kept to those north and south zones or on existing

asphalt um or concrete hardscape. And so all three of them have different strengths. They have different challenges and we're hoping that the community will um give us additional feedback on all of those as well. So we had a big uh workshop on May 17th. We had a number of people show up which was really great. Uh we offered bus tours inside the fence line which was they I think every single bus was packed so that was really wonderful um so that we could actually get people out and see what we're talking about and so that was an unique experience. I we we got some very positive feedback on that. Um we also helped small group discussions so that if people wanted to dig in on a topic and provide very targeted comments they had that opportunity as well. And then in that lower area, so um they we had the boards around the sides of those the courtyard and people could use sticky dots and post-it notes and things like that and give us feedback uh with a number of the uh team members from Sasaki and the the city team um answering questions. And so it was uh it it was from noon to 5 and we I don't know if we have the estimate yet on how many people were there, but we had a number of people show up and it rained at the beginning and we were all like, "Oh." So, even in the rain, people showed up, which was really great. So, uh I'm almost done. I'm almost at the end. Um so, on our website, this is what you'll see right now. Uh if you want to download the three scenarios, if you go to the learn and engage tab, uh all the PDFs are there. You can spend as much time as you want with them. Um and please do. And then, uh in that kind of lower left, lower lower third of the left, uh that COMAP survey. So, the orange button is in English. The white button is in Spanish. Um, and COMA MAP closes on June 22nd. This is what COMAP looks like. So, if you've ever used Google Maps or almost any of the mapping software, right, you pick up a pin, you can drop

it in a very specific location, you can zoom in really, really far on this um uh tool or with this tool and provide very specific feedback and pinpoint what you're talking about. Give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down if it's something you like or dislike. and there's room for comment as well. Uh and so we're we're hoping that uh by the time that this closes we get a lot of feedback from the community so we can start to see where we have um strong consensus and where we do not and there's areas that we need to understand more. So what's going to happen I mentioned this a little bit but we'll dig in a little bit more. Uh the community event was in May. Uh we are going to boards and commissions in May and June and then city council in July where uh our intent or hope is that they will give us their feedback on the three scenarios and the parts and pieces that they want to see moved forward and that that preferred scenario will be uh created and then we'll have a whole another round of community engagement in the fall of 25 around what that preferred scenario is. Um, as we continue to drill in to that preferred scenario, we'll have a lot more information on specific revenue and um, price of things, right? Each of these, we're getting more and more information, but it's not that we can say, well, this one costs 100 million and that one is 700 million and the other one is something else. Uh, we're not there yet, but with that preferred scenario, we'll have all that information. Uh, so next steps, the big ones are COMAP until June 22nd, council will be July 8th. Um hopefully you'll be able to come see us at Junth. Um and if there are other questions and comments, thank you for your time and we're here to answer them. I'd like to go to the public input. We've got quite a few chits. So if I call three or four names, will you get up

and get ready to get to the podium? Barry Levy Joanne Leslie, Zena Joseph, and Elizabeth Van Denberg. You have two minutes, please. Hello. Thank you all. I'm Barry Levy. I worked in Santa Monica for 40 years and I live very close to the airport on the other side of Sentinel. I'm in one of those communities that's going to be affected by the air. what happens with the airport. And I want to urge you to plan to convert the airport into a large community with residences as well as play spaces and outdoor green spaces. Uh so that it would have a large park and community centers, a well-used safe environment for not only people in our area, but for also for the new residents in this new community that has what community needs. Uh more than half the respondents to the surveys that Amber's been talking about responded that they support housing in this area. There is a big ground swelling of support for expanding the availability of affordable housing in our community. We have a desperate need for it. The housing we're talking about can be environmentally sustainable not only with green spaces but also and recycling of water but because of the reduced use of cars to reduce pollution. I know that you know that 70,000 people who work in in Santa Monica are commuting in and out of our city every day. That's a source of pollution. If we have housing for people who work in Santa Monica, we can cut that pollution significantly. Uh we're also losing our valued teachers, healthcare providers, public safety workers because there isn't a place for them to live here in Santa Monica. And they're the core of our economy. the hotel workers and the restaurant workers, police officers, firefighters, friends of mine who have worked in Santa Monica for years who are driving hours

to get to and from work every day. They want to live here and they can't. Um, the low market h rate housing on this land is financially sustainable. Their rental income can offset maintenance costs and there's public funding to build affordable housing. No public funding is available for parks. and Santa Monica also must include housing in the EIR for the surplus land act, the housing accountability act. If we don't include housing, the ex park will be extremely expensive and the process of developing it will be extremely slow. Thank you so much. I have a question. Did you cite a number of units that you had in mind? 3,000. and and from your lips to God's ears. But why do you think there it will reduce car traffic in Santa Monica if we have uh that many commuters who are now taking public transportation in an from the from this airport to work sites in Santa Monica which is possible especially with a transportation hub right nearby then we can reduce the numbers of cars on that freeway in and out of Santa Monica every day. I guess my I don't want to be confrontational at all because I I sympathize with you, but um my experience is that low-income tenants particularly do need cars because they also I mean in my experience too is they often have jobs that take them around the city rather than one fixed location. So that's possible and it would be good to study that. I do believe that people who are working in teaching in the schools, working in the hospitals, working in the local hotels and restaurants, they can take public transportation to work from this location. Thank you. Thank you. Next, please. Thank you very much. I'm the Reverend Joanne Lesley. Um, and I've lived in my home in Sunset Park in um, zip code 90405 for almost 30 years.

Um, I enjoy living in a community that's vibrant, ethnically diverse, resilient, and where the residents span all ages and range from lower income families, some of them in subsidized housing. I have renters right across the alley from me to singly single family homeowners such as myself. And unlike a lot of my um Sunset Park neighbors, I am very much in favor of building housing, especially market below market housing at um the site of the Santa Monica airport. Um as was just said, we want Santa Monica to be a place where the people who work here can live here. the people in our hospitals, the people who are teaching in our schools, the people who are working in our hotels. And right now, we need a lot more affordable housing in order for a significant number of these people to be able to live here. Uh I've I've heard it said many times, I'm in favor of affordable housing, but there are better locations than the airport. Well, I think we need to build on all of the locations that can feasibly be used in Santa Monica. And I was recently at uh visiting a friend at Village Green and it just reminded me how beautifully open green spaces and residences can come together. Um, I'd just like to use my last few minutes to say that I got something today from the friends of Sunset Park that purports to be information about what's included in the three scenarios, but it says things that I haven't heard said. So,

um, I was hoping to get some patient about that. Let me know if there's anything in there that's not factual. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. Thank you to Amber and the other staff that have been doing all these presentations. They can probably do them in their sleep by now. Uh, the Great Park Coalition is advocating for an LC compliant park, presenting the actual survey results to council, a timeline for gradually developing a park, and avoiding any ballot measure before airport closure that would allow national aviation organizations to frighten voters into keeping the airport open. Speaking only as a Sunset Park resident, since 1972, residents are dying of cancer from the jet pollution. like Jerry's brother Marty recently and others from lead poisoning from leaded aviation fuel that the prop planes use. Before David Martin retired as planning director, we asked him whether the airport land would be needed for housing in the seventh housing cycle. He said no that there were other places in this city to build housing. I know that people who work here need affordable housing. Many people who live in Santa Monica don't work in Santa Monica. So, there's no guarantee that housing at the airport would reduce commuting commuter traffic. Uh, I recently got an email from a community corporation. $69,000 minimum salary for a studio apartment. I don't know how many hotel workers earn $69,000 for the Cloverfield Commons. Who will pay for the infrastructure, the streets, the sidewalks, the street lights, the electricity, the water, the sewer? 3,000 units would increase Sunset Park population by nearly 50%. We're already getting Gson's, an eight-story apartment building on Pico and Uclid, a

sevenstory apartment on Ocean Park and 32nd. Regarding um regarding revenue generation, there is financing available to gradually develop a park. There are other places in Santa Monica building housing, but no other place to build a large park, which we will need as the population grows. I urge you to support an LC compliant park. Thank you very much. Good evening. My name is Elizabeth Vandenberg and I am a resident of the city for 45 years. I am also the chair of Wilmont, but I am only speaking for myself tonight, but I am surrounded by renters. I'm very excited about it always in zip code 90403. Good evening, Chair Tolken and planning commissioner members. I I'm here today to share a vision, one that builds community, promotes health, and makes full use of the city's future gym, the great park. Imagine a racket sports center that welcomes everyone. It could have 10 tennis courts, all striped for pickle ball, which would yield 40 pickle ball courts for the fastest growing racket sport in the US. Five dedicated pickle ball courts striped for paddle tennis. One padell court played in a glass box. It is easier than tennis, but balls can be played off the side and back walls, and it is fascinating to watch the angles play out. Four outdoor ping pong tables and three three-wall handball courts to draw in kids and people who are lifelong kids. This is just not this is just isn't just a set of sports facilities. It's a multigenerational playground for movement, connection, and fun. At its center, an open air roam for players and families to gather, talk, stretch, or relax, and a community shed, not just for racket rentals and ball sales, but for managing reservations,

instruction, tournaments, ladders, and offering healthy snacks. It's where the community will come together, where you're a serious athlete, a curious beginner, a spectator to the new sport of Pedell, or a parent watching your kids fall in love with the sport. This is more than recreation. its smart inclusive city planning. The center will increase outside time via playing, learning, or watching raet sports. Reduce screen time, improve public health, and offer lowcost lifelong sport options. It's flexible, scalable, and equitable. One investment. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The next uh four people, Jerry Rubin, Anne Bowman, Christina Navaro, Christina Santiago. Uh thank you, Jerry Rubin, member of the urban forest task force, but I'm speaking for myself, but uh want to thank uh Amber. I think it was a great process. Also want to thank uh Peter James for coming to our urban forest task force meeting on uh May 28th. Uh where all of our members easily endorse the nature first ballot compliant no housing scenario. Central Park doesn't have any housing in the park. How did their planning people in city council meeting? Because they must have got a lot of people that wanted it, but it's there nearby. By the time we uh get around to this, our bus fleet will be all electric. We're going to need plenty more recreational fields and soccer fields like the one we just dedicated at fourth and Pico. We're going to have a lot more needs for the young people and get them involved in nature. they could

help create this park. There could be union jobs to help create the park as well. So, all I can say is I'm a big fan of housing, but we can't risk a ballot initiative because I've talked to some people that are already to go and spend a lot of money. They only need 10% more of the vote and then we all lose. It's not a matter of being scared of what the voters say. is being smart. We can't do that. There's plenty of places to build housing, but there's only one place for our great city to have a great park. And I'll bet you the Central Park people were talking like that, too. Thank you, Jerry. I just wanted to remind you that Central Park does not include housing, but that site used to have thousands of housing units before Central Park was built. Well, we have plenty of places near transit areas and everything and a lot of the people I apologize but the nimies that don't want housing there. You have a lot of allies here that'll work together to make sure we do get plenty of affordable housing in places that are there. But let's not risk this right now. Support the Great Park Coalition. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Anne Bowman. I'm a recreation parks commissioner. Um, but I'm speaking just for myself tonight. I did want to set the record straight on something um, Miss Levy said um, about the survey results because I've been paying attention to it because I want to listen very closely to what the public's trying to tell us. Um, over half of respondents do not support housing. Um, option A was picked. Uh people are still saying they don't want housing. And I want to say very

sincerely to all of our Unite Here workers, to the very lovely people advancing Cloverfield Commons, and to staff because I know some of you are very pro-ousing. People are voting that way not because they are jerks or nimbies or anything or because they're unwelcoming. It's because folks, this is the only chance we have to build a 192 acre park. And a lot of people don't want to hear it, but this is going to be a park that's going to be here for 200 years. And if you study about parks and the economic effects they have, they will bring so much revenue to our city and new businesses and new housing around them and through our city, more even than filling the land with finite uses would, more than filling the land with privatizing uses. So, I really want to encourage you all to as I mean, how many planning commissions get to plan a giant park? Um, I hope you'll ask staff about models for both financing the build and financing the maintenance that aren't just revenue generating or let's look at not market rate housing, revenue generation opportunities. Sunny Wang has some incredible ideas about underground water infrastructure. Gets us water to recharge our aquafer for all of the new residents we'll be welcoming to the city and we might even have enough water to sell it. So, there's so many other ways that we can weave it all together. Now, radical idea from me, parks and affordable housing bond on the November 2028 ballot. And let's get some affordable housing in the city but not in the park. Thanks. Good evening everybody. My name is Christina. I'm a worker in the city of Santa Monica for the last 40 years and I'm also lucky enough to live in the

city of Santa Monica. My kids get to go to the local public schools, but a lot of my co-workers don't have that opportunity. They spend hours traveling every day and I believe we all deserve to call home the place that we work for. Uh, and we have what almost 200 acres, which it is a lot. There is room for housing. I urge you to please consider housing in this planning for the park. It is doable. We can make it happen. Thank you for your time. Good evening. My name is Christina Navaro and I am resident for Santa Monica and uh and I resident for Santa Monica and and I believe this the the best place to live and that's why we need considerate housing below market rates and for other community and families in Santa Monica and I know this uh this comm community from Santa Monica. I know each corner this the the Santa Monica and I know the community need affordable housing. We need a affordable housing. Why? Because many people retire and not pay the rent. And I want to each community come to tell you how the people is telling you why is very important to the housing. It's very important to to consider a right to put park and park and affordable housing. Thank you very much. Let me uh call the next four people. Uh,

Lillian Hernandez, Roberto Ike. Uh, you read that, Roberto, Luffy Stevenson, and this just says Maria G. Good evening. My name is Lilana Hernandez and I've been working here at Santa in Santa Monica for over 12 years. I'm living in East Halibbook because it's the only place that I can afford right now. Every morning I wake up before 5 in the morning to get to work on time and every evening I miss dinner with my family because of traffic. My dream is to live in Santa Monica, to be close to work, and to give my family access to a safer neighborhood and overall better community. But without affordable housing, the dreams feels impossible. We can we can solve every problem overnight, but we can make decisions now that move us in the right direction. Please make affordable housing a priority in the at the airport side. Thank you. Come on. Sorry. Call my name. Hi, my name is Lup Stevenson. I've been working in Santa Monica for 38 years living in a lowinccome apartment and community corporation of Santa Monica. What? That's what I going to say. And my kids,

they've been growing up here and working here, but they can afford the um place to stay. So, they stay with me. And what I want to say, I supporting the lowinccome apartment at the airport because a lot of people lost the houses from the fires. Plus, the kids, they can't even afford it an apartment. I go to work and I use my bicycle. My bicycle is parked outside. I go around and my bicycle because I don't want to get the city polluted driving around in my cars if I can afford it using a bicycle. So for me is good to building a low-inccome apartments over there like I say because the park is going to be full the homeless. Like over here at the park you see homeless everywhere. You what you going to do when you park? you're going to bring a new homeless over there. So, if you want to park people, if you want to have a park, you're going to have homeless in your park. So, you decide if you want to do low-inccome apartments or a park. Thank you and have a good day. Good evening, PL uh planning commission u leaders. Uh my name is Roberto Masaros. Um, I've been working in the city as an organizer for the last 12, but I attended Santa Monica College. Um, and I graduated from Jefferson High School, which is an inner city school. So, Santa Monica College was like an experience for me, which which I um could tell you made a big difference coming from inner city school. Um, so I heard the report and one thing that really triggered me was and it's just probably my problem and and I do do the surrender prayer every morning which is God grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change the knowledge to know the difference between the ones I can and I

cannot. And um, you know the interesting part is that yeah people from the community are the ones that doing the survey. We we've been saying that for a long time that we it should be accessible to other people that also work in the community. So you may not find a zip code on that program. Um it it's uh it's interesting to understand that people were worried that other people not living in Telmon could like change the the result of the survey. Um I'm just it's just like it makes me wonder why all these things are so worried, you know. Um look man, I seen this city change since I was coming to school here. Um one thing that hasn't changed is the price of um affordable housing. So it someone said it's it's true. We got to make divide the line between affordable housing and below uh below market rate cuz you're right there are some house um housekeepers that may not be able to make the amount of money to rent that place that we're talking about. So that's what we're saying make it affordable for people like that. But we're also saying that there's people that work in school and they are like doing other things here like medical assistant make that money and maybe more. So let's get that straighten it out. There's enough space. You also talk about there are some you know places that we can the building and whatnot revenue all that stuff you can make it happen with housing with school around college all that stuff so um it's a tough decision that we have in front of us cuz you know you have a lot in front and you can make a lot of things there so let's not get fooled by it thank you buena nozz Monica corporation as a building for many many

family living with the kids. It's no studios or something. is uh apartment with one, two, three or four uh rooms with two or three bedrooms. So, it's only uh studios. Uh sorry. Oh my lord. So, uh I uh As The name of Santa Monica. plan. Gracias. Good evening. My uh my name is Maria Spinosa. I work at the Sunborg Hotel and I also live in a city of Santa Monica. And she also share in English. She lives in a affordable housing or community corporation building. Um, she said, "I'm also fortunate to live in Santa Monica. Living close to my job means I get to spend more time with my family instead of stuck in traffic." I was a coach. I know how important that is, guys. My kids go local public schools here and we can walk to the beach on the weekends.

It's a quality of life I wish more workers can have. Even playing raetball would be great for workers to do. Uh, most of my co-workers can afford can afford to live here. despite our labor helping make this a thriving community. Um they drive for hours each day just to get their to their jobs. That's not fair. We get it. It's not sustainable. We need more affordable housing in Santa Monica so people who can make this city run can also call it home and enjoy some raetball. Um please make sure affordable housing is part of any plan for the airport site. Thank you. I've got uh one more chick. Um, Ignasio Arutia and she gets one minute. She's a late. Yeah, it's the one minute. She has ahead. You have one minute. One minute. Do translation. Thank you. We'll see. Sorry, it's okay. It's

okay. It's okay. Okay, thank you. Sorry about that. Um, she wrote this herself. I really admire her. Uh my my name my my name is Ignasia. I work at the Hampton uh for 7 years. I don't live here. Um every day I travel 2 hours to get here to work. Um I always I always wonder in my way that this is that's some time that I can be spending with my kids. Uh but I understand that that's not possible. Um I want to be I I also would like to uh live close to where I work. Um I understand that living here in Santa Monica it's very expensive. Um, I don't I don't see the resources uh of how I can make that happen right now, but I do see an option that you guys have right now to not just consider having a green space, but also having affordable housing. So, when you make a decision, please consider people like myself. Uh, that that completes the public input can open up the commission to discussion. We have questions. We have questions. Can we start with questions? What? What? Could we start with questions before we go to discussion? Yeah. Yeah. I I just have a few questions. Literally just asked if we can start with questions. Are we Yeah, but I raised my hand. Whatever. Okay. Great. All right. Why don't we go down? Go ahead. Let's start with Pier. That's you. Good.

Um could you elaborate a little bit on in several of the options you talked about on-site capital stack generation? So just for clarity um does that mean long-term leases with private private investment for building structures uh on the so so which can then be which can then enable uh charging for the use of the facilities. Sure. Um so we are still um finalizing I would say the the different you know capital stocks and the way that we might go about this but that is one way um where either you are selling land or long-term lease or ground lease or there's a lot of different ways to do it. Um, we're also looking at increment uh, you know, enhanced infrastructure financing districts or climate resiliency districts or um, what's the other one called? Uh, tiff. It's a like a community I'm blanking on what it's called. Um, but there there's a couple different income districts and there's different ways to do that. And so some of them, yes, it could be that we either, you know, at this time I don't think the city wants to sell the land, right? we would lean more heavily towards those ground leases. Um I know surplus lands did not come up in the presentation, but that's things that concern us, right? If you have a lease that's over 15 years, then that's what triggers the surplus lands act. And so it's not as cut and dry to say, "Yeah, we would go do this because then it triggers other things." Um but we are working with HCD and others to understand what SLA would say and then we'll be able to better answer that as we continue to work with them. And so yes, that is absolutely one way that it could happen, but I would not say at this time we can say that's what we're anticipating yet. Um because we're still working through a lot of those nuances.

Understood. Um on some of the options, I think with the exception of the third scenario, you're showing existing or you're showing municipal uses. Mhm. Um could you elaborate on what those are and on whether the assumption is that if there are municipal uses that those are needs that would otherwise have to be met somewhere else on the city. Sure. And so there there's um there's a lot of things that go into that. I mean one if you have a 192 acre park if you have a 100 acre park if you have 158 like what whatever. Right. Right now we have about 132 acres of parkland in the city. Let's pretend we double that. We need people to maintain that, right? So at a at a minimum we are going to need more public landscape staff, storage for equipment, things of that sort. And so some of those municipal uses will be, you know, to maintain whatever the open space is that is here. Um there's also things like uh right part of Memorial Park and moving public landscape um as a temporary they need a permanent home right and so having a very very large park would probably necessitate that would make sense to have people near there so a lot of it is around the the care and maintenance of um the park there's also uh you know in working with our uh PD fire and OEM there are needs um for them right if we're going to have a large open space like this we need to have a security presence We probably need to increase our um there's a fire station that's there, but it's capacity. Um there's a lot of talk with PD about having a uh substation or another EOC, right? Those um emergency operations centers. Everything is headquartered here right now. So things like that where it's it's related to the park. It helps um operate and maintain and whether there's housing or not. But we're going to have a lot more community

members coming and so we need to keep them safe and maintain the area in a reasonable manner, right? You could see there's going to be more more trash and uh recycling and composting needs potentially or or there would be more than there are now. So, do we need to have facilities that are closer for that? So, it would touch a lot of different parts of the city. Um, and I wouldn't say that we know like this is what would move there, but those are the types of things that we would consider or anticipate that we would need out there to have, you know, 192 acres that is no longer just planes fly taking off and landing, but has a lot more usage. Um, which is exciting, but with that comes um, requirements. So, just a followup clarification on that. Uh, so in the third scenario that shows either no or very little municipal uses, is it fair to assume that those uses are still needed and would have to be paid for somewhere else? Oh, um, yeah, they could go in other places or they're part of a building or they're they're they're not just on their own, right? They may be part of something else. And so I I I think that so with more um with more stuff out at that uh at the airport location, there's more opportunity, but there's also more requirements as well. And so how that gets taken care of at onsite or is that distributed throughout we we would look holistically at city services to say where is the best place to have any of these things and then uh optimize for that. Understood. Thank you. Uh one last question. I know you mentioned that for the time being you're not assuming anything with regard to affordability but in the capital in the revenue generation bar charts that you've shown where there's housing is there some assumption that some portion of the housing would be affordable? Absolutely. I mean there's different ideas and

different ways of doing a stack, right? And two, because there was more revenue generation with that large um amphitheater, there's the potential to maybe have more a higher percentage of affordable housing because we have other ways of developing revenue so that we could then have uh more types of affordable housing. Um we as a city still have inclusionary zoning, right? There's a minimum I think it's 15%. Right? This is again if the city maintains this is our land, right? this is city-owned wholly um land. So if we were ever going to say we want those higher levels of affordability, right, we would be city land is the best way to do that because um you know in in other types of instances um developers are not necessarily going to be able to do that and so we have it's our land so we get to then make those thresholds. That answers all my questions, but I just wanted to compliment you all on the use of comap because I did check it out and it's very useful and very easy to use. Wonderful. Um, I first want to just compliment you so much on the work you've been doing. I I don't know how you've done it really. Um and um and also sort of I mean I don't know if housing was was posed to you in the very beginning or was just basically an LLC compliant project. Um but that's kind of a curveball. Yeah. Um and and I applaud your addressing it. Uh which brings up the question when you actually and I want to first say to everybody I want to see some housing at the park, but I also want to see a park. Um, I know the park is very very important to this community and I don't and I want a major portion of that property to be a park, but I also want to see affordable housing there. I think frankly 3,000 units is a little excessive. Um, but that's not up to us to decide. So, I do have questions. Uh, when when you actually go to the community and you pose housing as an option, how do you how do you depict

that? I mean, you talk about what maybe first-time home buyers or social housing or just say housing and let people free-for-all kind of go for what they think you mean. So, what we've done so far is this. This is a first step on housing. As I mentioned, we've not had any meaningful conversation. And so, what we started with was just location and how many locations without saying it would be town homes, it would be mid-rise, it would be high-rise. Like, we're we're not there yet, right? We are not to a density question. we're not to a typology question of are we supporting, you know, we're obviously mindful of um appendix B of the housing element about what those special needs groups are. And so one of the questions in the layer survey was here's our all of our special needs group. Which ones would you support or find support um if you supported housing here? Um and so we're starting to get a little bit at those things, but we are in no meaningful way yet. um depending on um how we're directed at the July 8th meeting then if housing moves forward then we would have additional conversations but for these first conversations it's really trying to test the waters to say do we find consensus anywhere or not and as you can see from the data like it's 47% 53% or 51 and 49 like it is a very very you know um tricky issue it's very divisive at this consensus is very elusive in Santa Monica if you haven't already figured that out. That is also true. Um um it looks like I mean you clearly to the extent you're talking about housing at all on the site it's on the edges which makes sense because it's near the infrastructure and and so the hookups what have you' be cheaper. Um I talked to somebody from the I can't remember the name of your the group the great park Santa Monica what yeah today and and something we discussed and I want to hear you and staff maybe about this discuss this as well you're going to do an EI at some point correct is that like

the next phase once you decide once we decide what we're doing yes so basically at the end of this process is the end of this year um and what the intention is is that we'll have done the community uh engagement and work to find that preferred scenario. People will comment on it. Then we would have something that could be the basis, right? That project under the EIR. Um and so we expect in the fall that when we're considering what that preferred scenario is, we'll also be considering like what would we want to study in an EIR? And so the E would start, we expect in 26, right? And again, it's a project a do nothing option. And then there's alternatives that you have to study and we legally have to study a wide range of reasonable he suggested that and I'm not sure I agree but that basically the the major project you would be studying with the IR is a park park period and I don't say I agree or it's a good idea but that was I don't know that yet. Okay but that this may be an approach or it may not be if we don't like it and then an alternative project would be a park plus housing and you would study that. It could be, but it's, you know, and this is where like I'm going to look to our attorneys just to make sure I'm saying the right things, but um as we understand it, if you want to the EIR that you study needs to be sort of the most intense and your alternatives need to be less. So you couldn't say we're doing a park. Oh, good point. And then parkless housing, right? Because housing arguably is a more intense. So it's a diminishing impact. It has to be less. Now whether that right how much housing, where is it, right? If we're looking at a 20,000 seat amphitheater, that might be more than housing. We don't know, but we don't know what we're looking at yet. And so, we'll have to assess that in the fall, but we're very cognizant of when you're doing an EI, you your project has to be the most intense. Interesting. Right. And we don't want to get stuck in that peace meal either where we say, "Oh, we're only doing this." Okay? And then in 15 years, we go, "Just kidding. Now, we want to do this." Right? If if we if we don't know that, then we don't

know that. But if we do know that, we can't do that. So, it makes sense that the major project you would be studying if it all comes to this would be a park and housing. It very well could, but I it's really going to hinge on how council directs. Well, of course, it's not up to us. It's up to the city council, but that would be the most intense land use. So, that would be the EI. We think, but it could, as I mentioned, like that amphitheater might be more intense. I I don't know that answer right now. So, so let me just hop in. Um, I I think we just because I think you're asking about essentially what the project description is for purposes and maybe it's helpful to illuminate for like the purposes of the process that the next meeting coming up at council is not landing at a project description. I want to be super clear about that, right? This is all still s like very high down the road. This is very high level conceptual, you know, basic like fundamental questions. the project description that part is not happening until I should have known that that's a very detailed level and we are nowhere near that yet. Um but you would ultimately you would need to know the number of units you are thinking about to do the EI. Yes, but again we are that's we're not close. We are not there and and then finally um when are you expecting the HRA report? Um so they're doing a financial analysis for each of the three scenarios. So, what we've presented so far is sort of the the the basic shape of what we think. Um, by the time that we get to council, because obviously those financial analyses take a while. Um, by the time we get to council, we'll have a lot more information about here are the different levers that we can trigger or pull. What does that look like? It gets us what are the benefits of doing it one way versus the other so that council can then say, you know what, we hear all of this. We don't want you to think about that or we do want you to think about this or here's the basket of things that we want you to move forward with and give us more information on. Okay, just to remind you, and I've said this before and you may already know this, that if you do a tax increment financing district that maybe the business park and Sunset Park, 25% of that money can be used for affordable housing. There's a lot of way, right? It's also right, we

have to capture that increment and that we have to agree that any increment is not coming to the general fund. That is I understand the city, the city and the county both have to agree to that, which is a challenge given given today. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Hello. Hello. Um, a hundred years ago, we bought this land. And I always have to start there. Um, I just wanted to kind of point out that in 1926, right before the bond for this land passed, they tried to pass a bond to buy North Beach, the entire public beach in front of north of the pier. Uh, and that bond failed because it was just expensive land and people didn't want to pay for it and that's why we have private homes there today. Uh, when this bond went on the ballot, simultaneous to it, there was also a second bond question to buy a piece a 5acre parcel next to what we know of today as Douglas Park to expand that park. and it was just land for park and it failed on the same ballot. Uh right after this one passed there was a county effort to create a 900 acre park just north and I mean south and east of the airport adjoining it uh went nowhere. People didn't want to pay for this out of their pockets and those kinds of bonds didn't fail. The reason the airport bond passed uh more than twothirds majority in the vote, it was a huge landslide was because they were going to get all this fun stuff and they weren't going to have to pay for it out of their pockets. It was going to pay for itself. But the golf course cost twice as much as they thought it was going to cost. And because all the

locals wanted to be able to enjoy it affordably, it ended up taking in half the money they thought it would. So that was kind of a problem. And Douglas aircraft was so important to the people of Santa Monica because so many of them made their living there and weathered the Great Depression because of it. It wasn't just the Navy that they were willing to it was okay to give up the park for Douglas aircraft. it was of you know so when we think about parks and what people are actually willing to give up to get them I think we have to be really careful and when we think about what we're going to build and that gets me more into the specifics here now when we're talking about all of these natural layers uh reforestation and these water features and you know I think about returning land and respecting the land and the stewardship of the land. And I mean it was wild brush and that was the food of the indigenous peoples that got trampled by the cattle of the missions that made them starve and have to go live in the missions and ruined their culture or one of the things that ruined their culture. So when we say refor, I just find it troubling and I've brought that up before and it's really expensive to put in all those trees and water features and even if we can then sell the water that those are very luxurious things and I just want to you know I'm not it just seems really huge what we're planning when I think about you know when I read about what they were trying to do just to turn the barley field into a golf

course and it was a a huge effort. There were, you know, tons four tons of grass seed involved. I mean, it was like ridiculous. Anyway, so there's that. Um, so the main question I have Oh, yeah. I have another history question was I don't see the rotating beacon on any of your pictures. We have two designated landmarks on the airport. The uh compass rose and the rotating beacon. So please Oh, apologies about that. It is not going anywhere in any of the options over my dead body. Right. Yeah. No, we we we we know it is a designated entity and that we we we are not getting rid of it. Um we probably just, you know, drew over we we keep the airport admin building, I think, at all of them in some version thereof and it's right next to it. So we just use it in there but we can call it home. So the thing that I cannot figure out after spending quite a bit of time looking at the documents is what the relationship is between the information we got from the surveys and I can't remember what you call them but like what the relationship between this and this is because it seems like this is just the six layers with the four varieties and then people voted on them and they came up with, you know, the a the BA BBB scenario and then all the others, but that was the one that and then these three test things came out and they kind of weigh things and I can see the gradation in them. But wouldn't it be more helpful to the community to make one look more like the one that got the most votes like the one

in the middle? Ah, so we we have gotten that feedback and I don't I I'm sure there's a good reason, but I can't figure it out. Well, the I I mean the the basic reason is that we we were we never wanted people to say I like option A versus B versus C or one, two, three, right? Let me use the right ones here. So scenario one, two or three that the goal was not to say well this one is my favorite so go with that. It's the parts and pieces. So on purpose you see different pieces that you might like in across all three of them. So that as we start to visualize it and what does what do you see? What does this what what what does it look like? Did we get it right or wrong? Does do you like it better in this context or in that context? And so you see some pieces repeat in all three. You see some pieces that only show up in one. Um it's not meant to say, well, I I only like that thing, so now I like option three. It's meant to say, I like that thing and I want to see it along with all of these other things that I like. So it's to help you understand orders of magnitudes of the individual things. Although I did go to the trouble to note that there's one, two, three, four, five, six versions of this that never appear. Yeah, there's a whole lot of combinations that don't appear. Okay, so we only had three scenarios to come up with. So, you know, we are a little limited and it's why you see how do they merge together? Um how do they not what does what does that look like? Right? Again, if you have uh option D for passive uses and option D for active uses, well, that doesn't all fit, right? So, the reason these are test fit scenarios just for everybody's benefit is so that we can understand when we're saying we want all these things, how they actually fit on the site and then decide if we still want them or if we want them in different combinations. Yes. Okay, that

is really helpful. Okay. Okay. I have more questions, but uh so hold on. I actually that might have answered a lot of them. Sorry. It's okay. I write really big so it's on a lot of pages. Right. So, um I guess the last thing to be sure of because I was really impressed at with the survey results how close you got to our actual demographics in terms of the responses. That was pretty remarkable. We're we're working hard. So, but the Spanish-sp speakaking community was the had has the furthest to go to meet the goal. So, uh I look forward to hearing more from them. That's all. Thank you. Thanks. All right. Thank you very much. Um okay, just I don't have long questions. I'm still making my way through this and I've said a lot of what I've wanted to say in previous meetings. Um, let me just open by asking the follow-up questions to my email to Peter uh earlier this week. So, um, one was about, um, the sighting of the city yards and the waste management options relative to the possibility of potential housing um, on the the site to its north, right? And so my concern was and I participated in the comap so I you know I clicked and I marked it and

made the comment but my question is you know understanding that there is no master plan even though I wish there were one right I I do live in the real world um what steps are we taking so as not to foreclose the production of appealing housing options like not putting waste management, right? Bumping up against what might be housing in the future, right? So, that's I'll just start with that question. Okay. I mean, a lot of that's going to come out from the direction that we're given from council because you're right. Right. You don't want to put a transfer station, not that it would be a transfer station, but something that is loud early in the morning, right, with bins getting picked up and all the things that RR does for us, um, next to people who are still asleep. Right. That that Absolutely. Um, so when we get direction on how to move forward, those are the types of things we can then grapple with on a much more fine detail scale about where is the right place for that because we'll know is housing in or out. Is it only is it in one area because now we have more. But I'm saying housing I'm not saying housing. Sorry to interrupt. I'm not saying housing on the airport parcel. I'm saying housing on the parcel to its north. Oh, on the Boston property side. Exactly. Got it. So you might decide not to go with housing on a particular right you might or you might decide to go with housing on the eastern you know on the Sentinel side right it might be a different model so what are you doing on the edges of the site got it so that you do not foreclose on those op that they don't then come along and say well we can't put housing here because you've put a big transfer station right not that we're saying that not that you're saying that That's what I'm That's what I'm getting. Or or maybe I mean to flip it, right? Like maybe it's an opportunity to say we're going to put in we're going to put in a transfer station and we're going to

seal it. We're going to shield it acoustically and oh by the way, we're going to figure out a like a payment system so that it can serve whatever housing comes in to our north and they can help finance this, you know, this infrastructure because they're going to need it too. Yeah. But I think all the table of like what if if this is an area that we are going to have housing either on the Boston property site or on our airport uh land, right? All of those things have to come in, right? The infrastructure to support anything has to be considered. It's just right now we have a lot of mushiness and we really don't have a direction. So it's hard to say well this is what it is until we get that direction. So we will be able to study those things in a lot more detail for uh the preferred scenario in the fall. Um but there very good points and that we would not want to foreclose on anything. Um and as we start to understand more and more what our neighbor to the north is thinking right that may then be able to play into what's going on but right they are still working on their stuff as well as far as I understand. So but you may not have an answer from them before the fall. Yeah. Right. So the the question is how can you present this to council in a way that says we actually don't know what's happening right and and it may be that their plans I mean tariffs just doubled right so so the cost of construction is going up right they they any private developer may say look we don't know what we're doing in the next 5 years but maybe it's 10 years yeah yeah there's I mean we will do our best right it's no no one has a crystal ball and as we all know right we we plan for the best But more than 5 years out, it's really hard for anybody to say what they're going to do. And so we wouldn't want to foreclose on anything, but we also have to be realistic on well, we're going to need a thing, whatever it is. And so what is the best place with the information that we have? Okay. But I I think it's important to say we don't know what we don't know. And therefore the planning is going to be done in a way that's that

is open to the possibilities that in 5 years or 10 years or 15 years there are different uses north of that north of the site and that we're not we haven't by sticking something there that is really hard to move we haven't just disincentivized something that we want to see. Um and then the next thing I think that was in the email was this question about because looking at the three examples um we have heard when we did the safety element we heard about concerns about north south access through the city and obviously in your three models which I know are not they're models to think with not models to plan with I get that I will repeat it to anybody who asks about it but in in two of them there are north south roots in one of them there's there's nothing and we are we have a deficit of north south roots. So I'm just wondering you know um I I understood back from Peter that you know Lindsay is directly at the table in all of this but can you just tell us a little bit more about how OEM is part of this mix? Sure. So we do have a group of sort of internal um city that we we meet with because obviously like we rely heavily on our planning staff. rely heavily on our public safety staff um and and and our public you know our recreation and arts right there there there's a number of departments and divisions in the city that are integally um part of the team uh Lindsay in particular uh we've had a number of meetings with them to understand what do they currently use the airport for right largely it's storage right of um uh if there's a large natural disaster event so mass distributions things like that So large areas where people can drive, pick up a thing and go. Um, uh, we've had in in other conversations, people have asked about helicopter landing and like during the fire and largely it's helicopters that needed to be stored

while winds were changing. Um, they can land on, you know, parking lots or grass fields or other things. And so she's not really too concerned about that. Um, the mass distributions can be done on a a wide variety of things, right? It could be a parking lot. It could be a field. It could be lots of things. Um she did mention that having at least one access point north south would be helpful. Um because as um they saw with the Palisades fire that while we did not have air support necessarily, we weren't planes were not taking off from here and then dumping water per se. Um, but having places where people can come and rest or they can the the firefighters have somewhere to, you know, rest and recuperate before going back in and having areas where you can do things like that. But again, that's a large open area that could be a soccer field. It could be a parking lot. It could be a variety of things. And so she's very much involved. And what about the notion that we need more? I mean, you could cover it. You could do it central park style where it's bridge over it with open space. But what about the notion that we simply need more roads that go that that allow Santa Monicans in the event of some kind of an emergency to exit south right from the city. Yeah. And the the part that gets tricky though is it's exiting to airport A because once you get to the LA side, it's all single family homes. So unless we're buying a couple homes and eminent domaining them and putting a road in, which I don't think we should do. No, it's to airport out or to Sentinel and one airport out. Yeah. Um because even Stewart once you're in Los Angeles, it's doesn't even have curb and gutter, right? Once you get a block past, so it's not a road that you can really easily say for cars. Now, maybe you can put bikes or um walking paths, things like that. So, there's there's a way to to allow mobility, but it's not necessarily that cars can get continue to get south. They could get south from Ocean uh Ocean Park down. Go ahead. Well, I was just going to tee up for you

that we've also been studying the the National uh Boulevard. Oh, yeah. Uh entrance in exit. So, you'll see you'll see in a number of the schemes I don't have them up, but we'll bring them up. Um that right there is a good one and D or three. Yeah. Right. So, that there Oh, yeah. National Boulevard is an area that we've identified as a key access point. uh to and away from the airport site in uh two of the schemes you see uh shades of purple like this one in particular that's intended to be a transit hub. So um sort of a a gracious entrance to the park also a connection that takes you out of the airport site down national into greater Los Angeles or down Sentinel Bundy to Expo and possibly the metro. While you're up on this, while you have this up, I have other questions, but this goes to one of my questions. Um, the the triangle on the east side, right, by Sentinel and National. Um, I think that some of that is owned by the city of Los Angeles. That area. Yes. Okay. What options do we I mean this whole Yes. 17 acres. There has been some state level conversation about figuring out ways for cities to meet their housing needs outside their official boundaries. I think Senator Allen was actually working on something like that. Um, is there any I mean Sentinel and National like that's a really good place for housing, right? independent of LC. That's a really good place for housing independent of whether it's Santa Monica or LA because it's on two major uh streets in terms of access to access in and out. Is there a reason

that the the three models and again to think with not to plan with? Um why is there something about that particular land that makes it incompatible with housing? So it because it is in the city of Los Angeles, their zoning applies, right? Because it is municipally owned, it's owned by the city of Santa Monica. Generally, if we're using it for municipal uses, they let us. Right. Right. And so if we said all of a sudden we want to put housing there, well that's their zoning right now is single family homes. Right. So they would have to work through whatever their process is, right? they'd have to work with their residents and things to say, "Hey, we're going to put more housing on there, even even if it is single family or or higher. Um, right, it's their zoning that attaches, not ours." And so that's why you see in all three options that generally on that side, it's municipal uses, right? Ball fields, water um water um treatment, you know, facilities potentially um and and things like that. But it's not built on because it would have to be a municipal use as we understand. So I would suggest that really suggest this. Mhm. We're going through a whole effort that may lead us to putting a new ballot measure on the Santa Monica ballot. That's going to take a lot of effort, right? We might want to check and see what kind of effort would be involved at freeing up our options on that parcel too. And we are working with uh we're in contact with city11. We're in contact with city of LA planning and the westside planners. They're going through a big uh west I think it's called the westside plan. It's the westside community. The westside community plan. That's right. Yeah. And we're at this right. But I would urge us to do that because if you're going to come back to the council with a number of options, some of which are compliant with Right. you know, now we have a matrix. We have what's LC

compliant, what's city of LA compliant, what's state code right now, what are our options. I think it's really important to make those things particularly clear, especially if you're talking about moving, you know, housing options that are not bumping up against I mean, we had we heard from so many people who talk about wanting to take transit to work and um and bike and all the things and you stick housing more ultimately more more than about a quarter of a mile from a from a street that is going to drive some people to their cars no matter how much we want them to walk to a to a bus stop. So, I do think it's worth really spelling that out explicitly. Okay, just a few more. Um, these are few questions just um this is getting interesting. Uh, two notes. One, I think if you're checking zip codes just to observe and I believe that this has been a fair process, people can put in fake zip codes. So the real only the the real the real way to ver verify adjacency is to check the IP addresses. Yes. And I don't know if you're doing that. We are. You are. Okay. Great. Um I do think it would be helpful um to as we're moving forward. It is confusing in this public process and we've seen letters that two of the three thinking models are not LC compliant. Um I am struggling with this as a planning commissioner to be shown only one option that is LC compliant irrespective of how I might feel about the policy in a vacuum. We're always told we have to follow the law. Some of us when this comes when push comes to shove may feel that we're obligated to vote for what we can legally support and then give direction to say you know like hey council we think you ought to think differently about this but on a formal process it would be much better to have

more than one LC compliant option along with any other number of nonLC compliant options it just feels like we're being boxed in a little bit. So one one note right and this is where the lawyers in the room know like words matter. So there is no LC compliant option. There's no compliance in that. What else what Elsie says is that new development. So that's the first test. Um is can only be of parks, open space or public recreation. Right. Right. So that one's pretty easy. Right. Then it says you can maintain or replace existing arts, cultural and education. And that makes mostly sense. Right. where those those are in there. And then it says until voters approve uh limits on development. So it's not that something is or is not compliant, it's that does it require a vote or not. Right? So we're careful to say option one doesn't require That's my point. Okay. I I think we need to I think we need to have multiple options that do not require another public vote in order to I'm not saying don't put other in fact you may land on your favorite option might be something that does require a public vote but I think it's weird from where we sit to be shown only one option that doesn't require a public vote. It's like the EIR a little bit. um you have obviously more flexibility there, but I I think it would be I think it would be good so that we can see the parameters potentially if you want to make the argument that it's worth going back to to the ballot to see the parameters of what we could do without a vote and for people to say, you know what, we we want to do more. It's worth the investment of time to vote or not. But I I it just feels from a process standpoint a little bit weird. Lastly, um I just learned this this week. I had no idea that this thing exists. Apparently, as of last December, and

they're now into their second round of members, there is a Santa Monica Youth Advisory Board founded at Samo High. It has students, uh, juniors and seniors from who are all Santa Monica residents. Most of them go to Samo High. Some of them go to private schools, but live in Santa Monica. Um, I want to ask if you would I understand that they there was a presentation on the entertainment zone to them and that they had really uh intriguing feedback like they weren't all in favor of you know they they wanted to limit it. So, noting that less than 5% of the responses came from people under 25 or 24, um really want to encourage you to add that group to your hearing list over the summer and maybe figure out ways that we can increase the participation of those kids and their older siblings and friends. Absolutely. Um because they're the ones who have to live with this. Definitely. And it is one. So we um we've been working with a Santa Monica High senior. So she graduates in a couple of days. Um as part of the public uh project based learning pathway and so she's been with us since uh the end of October. Um and her job was basically reaching out to a lot of these groups. So there's a group at the library that she's been working with. She's reached out and done specific presentations to different schools in Santa Monica. um and she's I don't believe she's on that council, but she knows all of those um students and so she was um encouraging them as well to participate. We've not presented to them directly. Um, I believe she did a short presentation to them, but it was not city staff that presented. And so, we've been trying to get in there. And I would just I think it would be great to have a full road show for them, have them have them here

in this room, do a mass email out from SMMUSD or somehow and really like celebrate the youth engagement there because it could help. Absolutely. And SMMUSD has been a great partner with us. They they do relay all of our emails. are on our list of like sent to all of the principles of all of the schools. It shows up in Peach Jar. It shows up in a number of the newsletters. Um we also went to Santa Monica High and actually tabled over flex period and lunch one day. Um so we are we are continuing to work very hard on that but engaging them with a direct presentation we haven't done yet. Okay. Chasm has a good youth group as well too and we've been in contact. Did I have a quick followup to his question? Just I'm done. So, okay. Um, if you're going to do that, um, and I don't know how many workers in Santa Monica have kids in the schools but don't live here, I would really like to encourage you to include youth and children of workers who don't live here because they have a vested interest in living here. Sure. So, um, to the extent you can you can do that, please do. Maybe the organizer who's here tonight could help you with that. Did you hear what I said? to to include the the youth and the children of workers who can't afford to live here. We do also in COMAP um there's a specific buttons right that say do you uh work here? So, we did add that function for but from the kids that Sean's talking about, I think it'd be really good to get their input, right? And that's actually a great point because if you work here, but you don't live here, you're actually eligible to petition into the schools. And so to have a button that says my parent works in Santa Monica, like I don't live in Santa Monica, but my parent does or my relative does. That would that would be really helpful so that we know the relationship. Yeah. And and reach out. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Thank you. All right. Is it my turn? Um, thanks for a great presentation. Um, I have I have a couple just question, you know, kind of a lot of my questions were covered. Um, but I I'll start with an easy question. Um, where's all the water gonna come from for these uh all these scenarios? I think I saw a river in one. Is there so uh as part of our uh water resources team and and and and water infrastructure uh right we have the SWIP over here that's taking off and they're producing more water than they can use right now right and so that is where a lot of this is coming from in all of these scenarios there is water infrastructure to siphon off treat up to a level that is allowable um to be in contact with and so it's coming it's recycled water basically Okay. So, it's not coming from a natural aquifer. It's coming from whatever source we I know we have wells here in Santa Monica. So, we're going to basically pump water out of those wells and put it into the park. Not the wells. Um, it's other, how do you call it? Reclaimed water. Yeah, it's reclaimed water. So, it's not it's not from the well. It's not from the aquifer or any of that. It is non-pottable sources being treated to potable level. Okay. So, we're going to take runoff, treat it, and pump it into the park. That type of thing. Yes. Okay. Um because that's right. SWIP does that already. So we've proven the model basically. Okay. Who's Swift again? Oh, sorry. SWIP is the sustainable water infrastructure project that's under uh it's adjacent to Belmar in between Civic and and the courthouse. Sure. Right here. The the big hole that was I think it's that way. This way. Okay. Right. Because Main Street's there and so it's it's on the other side of the courthouse. But basically that's taking that runoff water currently and it treats it up to a drinkable standard. Even though by state level we're not allowed to deliver that I believe yet.

Um but the the plant is capable of doing that. Okay. So there's excess water. Okay. And is there infrastructure in place to bring that water to the airport? It either gets the trunk lines are very I believe they're in Bundy. So that's why you see that water infrastructure always on that east side. Got it. Okay. And in any of the scenarios, are you contemplating people actually swimming in that those lakes or is it just going to be Probably not. Not going to work. Probably not. I don't know. Okay. I would imagine that would be a question, but it sounds like you can get on the water, but maybe not in the water. In the water, my understanding. Kind of like the paddle boats at Echo in Echo Park type of thing. Okay. Um Okay, that's helpful. Um, I I did think a lot about that little 17 acre spur in in the city of Los Angeles and um, a lot of my questions were answered because it in in some ways it does seem to be a logical place to put housing. Um, my questions were about whether we would if if that was possible given, you know, with a zone change in the with from the city of Los Angeles, would we have any trouble using that revenue generated on that 17 acres for the park or would it belong to the city of LA? It's a very good question, right? for them, their residents, right? The residents of Los Angeles, the community members that that that live adjacent to um this great park are going to benefit. And so what what does that look like? Like it's why we also talk about are we setting up a park district? Is it a regional park district? Because that that uh west end is a lot of fill. Um it's all been kind of shaved off. Um it's uh you got 18 inches of concrete on top of it. That's what the runway is. uh give or take. And it's not I mean that

that northeast corner is probably the closest to native soil or you know un un messed with soil but it was shaved off a lot. It was much higher before. Yeah. Yeah. Cuz it was Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's still raised enough where more it was surprising how how high up you are at that point uh in Santa Monica. And that's if you look at the there's a site uh opportunities and constraints PDF that's on our resources uh tab and there's a whole viewshed analysis and they they've Sasaki and team have pinpointed like where the best views are and how high up and then when do you get all of the views and those sorts of things on there. So if you really want to geek out, check out that. All right, I'll I'll let let Commissioner Fresco be the one to really geek out on a lot of this. Um so going back to going into some of the questions just about in um the income and expense tables and bars absent the HRNA uh study that's coming out that is going to really do a deep dive into the the income and expense generated by the park. What was the basis for those the different bars that you showed in for each of the different scenarios? those guys. What? What? Yeah. What? I'm just curious about the methodology that you used um to determine the actual dollar value for like for example the on-site sources. So, these are by no mean that's why you just see $1 sign and $3 signs. These are not there's there's no way to say like, oh, this was $10 million or $4 million or $50 million or or whatever it is. It's all a percentage base of anticipated, right? because that's that's that's sort of the the big buckets. Um but the idea that in scenario one you are using existing revenues and then there's some earned

income from a public private partnership potentially but that's a lot smaller and so we're really relying on public funding which could be a general obligation bond or some of these these other things that we've talked about with a EFID or others. Um EIFD sorry I always get those two mixed up. Um and then those external sources would be philanthropy or um if we're looking at well even the grant funding is under the public funding and so we'd have to rely a lot more heavily on those sources because the on-site generated revenue would be lower. Right? So as a concept that's what we're showing. Okay. And the second one there's a lot more capacity for on-site revenue generating. So you see that blue being a lot bigger and that the percentage of the pink and the green a lot lower. And so it's not to say what a dollar value is, but as a concept of a capital stack or an operation stack, where is that money coming from? Is it on-site or are we relying on these other sources? And then same with three. Three costs more, but then your on-site generated can be a lot more as well. Okay. Or could be. Okay. So I guess you know looking at that logically, you know, my you know thinking about this kind of logically external sources and public funding is like is a fixed amount. it's coming from a third party. Um, and it would seem like those bars should be the same on all the different options. It would just mean that the blue the blue section should, you know, eb and flow with the intensification of land use. Um, okay. Well, there's different types of grants that we can go after, right? There's the 30 by30, that's Governor Nuomo's. There's Prop 4 funding, right? There are there are different types of sources of that public money depending on what you're doing. And there's probably a lot more for park and park infrastructure because of that sort of resilience and other um and right climate okay um goals and so we we think that that might be higher in those things. Okay. So you that's why so okay.

All right. I think one one of the um I've read I read this this study went through it a couple times and I had a hard time kind of meshing have everything kind of meshed together and I think a lot of it comes from this um what Commissioner Fresco brought up earlier which is it is it is hard to follow um all the different various scenarios that were voted upon and talked about and to follow how each of those made its way into each of the the three scenarios. And um because what I what I was able to kind of gather and this conversation's been helpful, but what what it seems to me is that the you know there there is there's controversy about housing and that's kind of a separate issue. But what I'm see what I'm hearing from the results and seeing in the results is that what what the respondents really want is a low uh kind of low inensity uh park um heavily weighted towards natural passive um uses which um leans heavily on the natural landscape. And um and I I I did not see that theme kind of run through all three of those options. There seemed to be it was in one option but not in two option not in the other two. Um, and so I I I think that it I I I think there needs to be some fine-tuning to make sure that at least two of the three options um adhere more closely to um more passive low inensified use. We we want and I it's clear too that we do want some fields and we do want some uh places for kids to you know play

baseball and soccer and things like that but um it doesn't a low intens low intensity land use at the park does not preclude housing either. You know you can have an area where you do have an greater intensity of housing that's supplementing the budget for the rest of the park. So I but I think that you know I just would like to see more dedication in the three options that were closer to what what I what the themes that I was seeing from the public. Okay. Um the other thing too and and I would say that you know I'm waiting for the H&R HRNA study to come out was this is the last thing I'll say each each of the three options the I way I kind of look at it is sort of like they're each a budget right and there's bits and pieces um there's different elements in each of the three options but basically what we have is you know income items that produce income and items that are expenses. We have you know income and expenses but each of the different scenarios has different mixes of each income and expense. And so it was hard to really understand okay to pick and choose from it. I think it would be really helpful is if the next time that this came before uh us with the benefit of the HRNA study is to have a breakdown of here are all the things that we can put in the park that are income generating and we can choose amphitheater and it could be all different types of housing affordable housing can be a part of that market rate housing forale housing rental housing um but all the different items that are income producing and then all the

different items that are expenses. So that could be the lake or it could be the for the you know all the different you know fields and things like that. That way we can at least put a dollar value on each of it and there should be like uh the the income minus expenses should be conceivably zero. So we know like in you know it's NOI of zero. It's a gonna, you know, because what we want is, I think what the public is asking for is that we want to make sure that any income generated by the park is used to offset these expenses. And so, um, it I think it will also clarify a lot of the questions around housing as well. Um, I think h housing is a complicated issue. I am for affordable housing at this on this site, but for the for it to be something that the public is willing to get behind, I think we need to be able to see that housing is a revenue generator that's going to support this park. Otherwise, otherwise voters are going to have to pay for it from property taxes or some for some other way. How's affordable housing going to be an income revenue generator? Well, it'd have to be an it have to be that's you know, I don't haven't heard seen that model very often. it it won't it won't generate a lot of income. It needs to be part of a housing plan and other housing needs to produce income. But but we've been talking about not doing income breakdowns and affordability levels at this stage of the game. So I'm not sure how that's all going to come together. We need we need all housing of all I I think we need housing for all income levels and affordable housing is going to be an important element of that. you you but that's getting into the discussion. Yeah. Uh that's all I have. Thank you so much. Thanks. Commissioner Hamilton has has pointed out some things that I wanted to ask. I I've drawn a lot of

schematic plans in my life. How much you know when you put down those housing did you evaluate because you're going to have to build a lot of market rate housing to build affordable housing and to pay for this park. So is that quantified in those plans? I would say the general ideas are what you see here, but the details is not um we're still working through exactly what to present to council and and what is the best way to Yeah. So that's where it's like we have a a good bit of information, right? Because we wanted to get these out so people can comment. Um, and then we can bring all of that to city council. Um, but it's why the the the financing piece is shown as kind of ideas or groups or bars um as a concept on how we do things um without having all of the detail, right? The the the full detail will certainly be in the fall with the preferred scenario because we'll have to do one instead of trying to do three. So, three are kind of done to a very high level and then as we move into that preferred scenario, we'll get more and more information. was a very good presentation, Amber. Great. Thank you. I actually want to ask a followup about that. I I think it's abs I mean, if you're talking about housing different housing models and different housing revenue models, um I think it has to go without saying that we are not putting any of this land up for sale to anyone ever, ever again. that is extremely important for the city's control of the property. But I also think it's extremely important because for years, I mean, this goes back, Leslie, you and I have been talking about this forever, what a land trust looks like, what um public housing

models in, say, Vienna look like, where we are actually starting to live out our commitments to different types of housing models and different types of home ownership that doesn't involve owning the underlying land, right? freeholds, land trusts, um giving people access to pay for the and that will bring the cost of home ownership down profoundly. Right? Again, I'm not getting into this question of what's going to take a vote, what's not going to take a vote, but to the extent that you're having this conversation. I think it's absolutely vital that whatever the housing mix is, it's rooted in the premise of making that housing accessible and preserving the city's ownership of the underlying land and resources. Yeah. Are you talking about long-term land leases? Yes. Land long-term land leases. the land trust model where you don't the price of the home, right? You're you're basically buying access to the improvement on the land and the price of that home appreciates at a fair rate. The the homeowner when they sell actually makes a little bit of money, but the appreciation is not so high. We're not assuming single family homes. No, you do this with duplexes. You do this with you do this with Right. like like the the I I I I think the village green model is really interesting. Never mind that it's right next to Kenneth Han State Park. So, we do need it's next to Kenneth Han State Park. So, we do still need that wide open space, but any of this conversation has to resume permanent city ownership and exploration of those all those wonderful housing models that we've been talking about and have never been able to play with. You know who built Village Green? What? You know who built um Village Green? Who built Village Green? Baldwin. The guy who Lucky Baldwin. Lucky Baldwin. But Baldwin Hills and Santa Anita racetrack. I was going to say is we have we explored the casino.

If anyone ever asked Well, SMDP did at uh where was Oh, no. I think it was at the Citic as their April Fool's uh paper. Yeah. Also, can we also at at a certain point get a better understanding of the surplus surplus lands act because you know the I think that is that's key, right? Yeah. And you know, because I think you mentioned earlier any ground lease longer than 15 years um wouldn't survive the SLA. And well, there there are a number of exemptions. So, we've been digging in pretty hard on that one. We've been working with city attorney office and uh planning who's dealt a lot more with SLA. Um and so uh as part of the staff report and what we're bringing before council, we'll have a lot more information. I don't think by any means HCD is going to be like here's your answer but um we are continuing to work with them to understand what how those exemptions apply right that regional or local park district is one of those ways of doing it there are a number of exemptions that might be possible okay and so we're we're we're trying to understand what what is possible because triggering that even for a recreational use that's over 15 years right that that becomes tricky so I say I love I love all the pretty pictures but I also know this is going to be a process that the lawyers and the accountants are going to ultimately drive. There's a lot of nuance. Thank you. I have actually limited myself to questions before, but I do have a couple of comments. And uh I just wanted to pick up on a comment and maybe make a counterargument to what Commissioner Andrew talked about with regard to the three scenarios and how many are devoted to to options that don't involve a vote. Mhm. Um I do think that at least the general approach you're taking right

now makes more sense to me that if we do undertake as a city a big undertaking of a vote on some non-p park uses that since it opens up a lot more options that those should be adequately studied and that should be added adequately studied. Oh, adequately studied. Yes. And so it would seem to me that that would make an argument that maybe we need a couple of scenarios that looks at them sufficiently. I I think the point that you made regarding the actual content of measure LC. Uh it seems to me that the spirit of it is that it's not ruling out other options, but it's really requiring that if other options are pursued that they be properly studied and that people are given a choice to vote on it. Yes. So it really seems to me that if you if you limit uh more than one option to park only uses, you wouldn't be sufficiently informing any future vote on non-p park uses. Thank you. Um, if there are no other comments, um, we'll close this study session and I've been asked to give a let's have a 10-minute break. Fair enough. Thank you very much for your time. There you go. I did.

Please. Leslie. Leslie. She know. She She heard me. [Music] Jerry. Okay. Hey, Jerry. We got She was uh since we have no uh items under nine or 10 um I'll turn to the public hearing just yeah chair uh chair would would any how would people feel about w I'm sorry Tony how would people feel about waving the staff report on cannabis okay I'm okay with that too we didn't have a discussion about that oh I we just said we were Sam just said we were on the airport. I just wanted to add one point and it's bad news. What? He closed it. Oh, he closed it. So I can't talk. I closed it. Yeah, I closed it before we left. That That'll teach me. Okay. So, I'm going to do this again. Um, in view of the total constraint of what is before us, I would like to move to wave the staff report. Um, yes, that is a motion. I second. Yeah. Okay. Do we need a vote? Question. Wave. You mean we don't get to see the staff report? It's You've read it. It's in

your packet. We just missed the PowerPoint. Still asked Tony questions. Very good. I'm okay with Okay. All those in favor of waving the staff report, say I I. All those opposed. Sorry about that. But we can stop. I don't have any public comment actually. Do we? No. Okay. Feinstein discussion. Having read it, I unless anybody objects, I would just move that we approve the text. It's literally what the council directed and everything everything beyond what the council directed is outside of our purview. They're going to handle it in a different section of the code. So, literally what we're voting on is 300 ft and a block between sites, um 600 ft from sensitive sites, and uh what what's the third one that I'm forgetting? Um the sorry, the city block 300 or a city and a city block. 300 or a city block. No more than one on a block. 600 from sensitive sites. I don't think we're being but there's comments that we could make that we might want to for Absolutely. So, do we want to rewrite it or do we want to vote and give direction? I would like I'm fine with voting on that, but I have comments I would very much like to make to that I would like to suggest to city council as a way of thinking about it. I agree with that and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with jumping into a hearing some discussion. Yeah, sure. I'll with I'll withdraw my motion. Um I think that may I Okay, may I since I'm yakking already. Um, this is not unlike the comments I brought up last time we talked about this, which

is that uh this is like a really important social equity kind of a program that the city council is going to look at that we're not allowed to make or look at. It's not in our purview, but since the staff report talked about it, we can talk about it. Um, and so I guess what I'm saying is there's two things that I want to think about or I would love for council to think about is why would we only help people who are trying to start small businesses and lift themselves up that way to start only cannabis businesses? Wouldn't somebody who wants to start a bakery want the same kinds of incentives if they were from a community that had, you know, suffered from higher rates of incarceration and higher rates of poverty because of racism and all of those things. You know, I think that this concept is a great concept for a much broader social justice program and that just like focusing on this one teeny little thing is it just seems sort of small-minded and silly. And so basically I, you know, would hope that we would think about it much more broadly. And then the other thing I wanted to note is on page seven uh there's uh about the eligibility criteria that they need to be have a documented cannabis arrest and household income below 80% of the AMI and residency in the city which they define in a really interesting broad way which I thought was cool. Um, and so I would suggest even if we're going to limit this in a cannabis way, maybe they would

consider that people would only need to meet two out of three of those requirements. So we would still be helping low AM AMI people who have a history of residency in the city could start businesses and or it could be somebody who had a conviction and was low AMI but maybe they lived in a different part of the city or you know things like that. So that at least in the context of this, if this is the only thing there's funding for and programs for that we could make it a little broader for a social equity a better social equity reach. So that's those are my ideas. Thank you, Commissioner Hamilton. No, I I don't have any I I have some reflections on on the document, but I don't have any um anything I would consider changing. I I what you say does resonate with me in a lot of ways. Um, I think that what's before us is the cannabis ordinance, but um, I I don't I I I bristled a little bit at the kind of the automatic association between the these two groups, the can, you know, cannabis and the people we're trying to help with this. I didn't like that kind of knee-jerk association necessarily. And and um, I I do think that I like the idea of broadening this. Obviously, the funding sources here um that would be used for these grants are specific to that. So, if there was something a funding source, you know, that would allow that to happen, I'd love us to tap into something like that. Um, but you know, I I I I think it also begs the question is why wouldn't we give why wouldn't the city be willing to give these types of benefits of

streamlined permitting um reducing fees to all small businesses for people? Yeah. Living here in Santa Monica. I think that's that seems reasonable. Um, and I'll leave it at that. situation. Yes, that is that. But I think there's what what was brought up was there's a fiscal situation there. But I actually think that um you know ultimately that thriving business is going to contribute far more and those dollars are going to stay in the city if they're residents. And um we we still have a lot of vacancy. Um not not on Montana, not on Ocean Park. Well, not as bad as parts of Wilshire and the Prominade. Yeah. And and and I'd love to see those spaces. If we can benefit one group here in Santa Monica in this kind of way, I'd love to have a conversation about expanding that to other people that live in Santa Monica who are o opening other businesses. Thank you. Um, I also want to support what Commissioner Fresco said. I think it's an excellent idea to broaden the potential support for small businesses, not just limited to Mariana. So, I think that's an excellent thought. um from reading the equity report and also from reading some of the community um comment letters that we received. I had a couple of questions regarding impacts of Mariana uses on surrounding neighborhoods. Uh, and I wanted to understand if any of these proposed changes

um would result in marijuana uses being treated substantially differently from the way alcohol uses are treated in the city. That's a great question and I think um you know as this uh the development of this program has evolved from the initial council direction and I think just even uh you know cannabis regulation in California that notion and perspective of like how is this different you know than than alcohol or you know any any other you know thing that that people consume uh you know and I think that's very much the approach here um you know and that's where uh council had that discussion as well, you know, why is this different, you know, and we shouldn't be super ownorous about it. So, um, you know, that's why there's not a kind of cap, right? And this distance requirement, I think, is more just about, um, you know, responding to some of the general community concerns. Um, but, you know, this is actually different than, um, alcohol, like a liquor store in the city, for example, that needs a cup. council was very very clear for this particular use they do not want any discretionary review um you know so it's it'd be a um essentially a permitted use that needs to meet certain standards so uh is there sufficient understanding or study of the level of impacts that such uses can have on neighborhoods yeah I mean it's um and I think I can allow the team maybe if they want to augment it um since they've done a lot of the research Arch, but um it is, you know, cannabis in California is a highly highly regulated um industry. Um you know, every everything that's sold, you know, has been traced from origin, you know, through sales. So, um I don't believe in our research, you know, we've seen a negative impact from these stores. We visited them in other cities.

Um you know, there's security. They're very well-run. Um and there's no tolerance, you know, for for negative behavior. We actually already have two that are operating in the city. Um I don't believe we have heard any complaints, you know, from any of them. Um and actually a lot of support um from uh residents, you know, who appreciate having that that service in the city and and I presume that the spacing requirements that have been built into the proposal also helps ensure that they aren't concentrated, right? Which could cause maybe different impacts. That is correct. Yeah. And and it's just consistent with with state law um as well, the state requirements. Yeah. Um and just also so I understand and for the record, um none of this would affect um if if I understand right, uh use of marijuana in public spaces is not allowed. Correct. No. No. Yeah. So none of this affects that. Uh so in that sense, it's not necessarily causing public nuisance. Right. and and and to be clear, this ordinance is just allowing uh the the retail sales of it. Um I know there's interest there was interest from the council on like consumption lounges of the kind that I you know you see in like West Hollywood for example. That's not what this ordinance allows quite yet. You know, that's going to need um some additional development if that's something that's of interest. Yeah, understood. Um I also had some questions regarding the equity study. Um there's some fairly elaborate studies done on the demographics and the distribution of of um arrests. That's the data. And I one of the things I wanted to understand was um I'm assuming the dots showing arrests in Santa Monica don't necessarily mean

that the people arrested were Santa Monica residents. Is that correct? Sure. Um we have our um equity consultant here. David Kaufman is with SEI Consulting Group and he can um help answer some of those questions about the equity assessment. Okay. They they weren't necessarily residents. They just it denotes that the arrest occurred in that location. I see. So uh when we compare the location where arrests occurred to the and the the bipok uh characteristics of the person arrested comparing that to the demographic breakdown of the area around it doesn't necessarily have a relationship. It's no. Yeah. But the odds that those people were frequenting that area and using it as a place for uh possession or sales uh you know was there. So so maybe the most significant part of that data is the fact that an arrest occurred in that location and there were certain demographic characteristics in that location. Yeah. was pushing for I mean those arrests were occurring in those areas at that time and in other areas they weren't and that the people targeted seemed to be violent. Right. Um, the other question I had was, and I think there's a reference to it, but the fact that Santa Monica is a major destination attracting a lot of people from um, you know, as a tourist destination, that in and of itself is a factor that probably is influencing the data of arrests and occurrences of such. Yeah. And and that there was targeting, right, of folks in those areas, right? it doesn't fit the overall demographics of Santa Monica and so why were those folks getting targeted and over that

time period and kind of what does Santa Monica want to do to restore what was done to those folks? So, uh, I think the question, ultimate question I was trying to get at is, uh, in any equity program that you might end up recommending, um, I think several of the examples you showed talked about, uh, how you use, um, a definition of a disproport disproportionately impacted census, tract. Yeah. Right. And from looking at the data, it seemed to me that probably the most significant characteristic is that while you can see a correlation between the number of arrests and the demographics of the neighborhood and there seems to be more a larger volume in areas that have more diverse populations. It's a little harder to to establish a clear correlation with it. And so I'm trying to figure out if you have a a a program that's geared towards saying that this census tract versus the other census tract is is disproportionately impacted. How do you factor that into a program for equity purposes? I think what you're getting at is that in those census tracks, the people being arrested didn't necessarily have to live there. And I think that the people who frequent those census tracks might not live there but knew people there and right had a basis to be spending time there. Maybe it was just tourism, right? But I think the goal and for council is to decide, you know, residency folks who have convictions and the income levels. And so if they decide, as was brought up, maybe two out of the three, I think that would get around somewhat of what you're talking about about, okay, do we have, you know, 100% uh alignment with the people who were arrested and the census tracks that were impacted? No. But if you look at the data in the other jurisdictions and the

other programs that have occurred, right, they've gone through a similar path and they've taken the correlation of if those if most the arrests happen in this area and most people live in that area, you know, are bipok, the odds are that there was a reason those arrests were happening in those areas. But if you look at the breakdown of the census tracks, there are some census tracks that were not that diverse. They were not the most diverse and had probably the most number of arrests versus some that were more diverse and had less less arrests. Yeah. And then there are some examples of the other extreme, right? So when you say giving credit for somebody having been a resident, I presume it means not just anywhere in Santa Monica, but in some census strike that's being determined to be disproportionately impacted, right? Yeah. So which ones are and which ones are not seems to be a little gray. So I guess my main point is it seems that if you are going to have a program that that definition be made as transparent and clear as possible so that somebody who is in a census track that's deemed to be not disproportionately impacted doesn't feel that they were you know off by two percentage points and therefore we're not included. Yeah. And I I think the goal was to a make this uh as open as possible. Right. And to not make it so you had to exactly live in this particular census track. Uh Oakland, for example, went that route and a number of their businesses never opened because they kind of set it to very few folks. Um and I think that was part of the residency thought was to allow for that impact, right, of having live in the area but not necessarily um that you have to live in this specific, you know, census track. Um, it's also been many

years, right, since legalization and so folks have moved. There's been gentrification and so to try to give the opportunity to as many folks as possible. Um, especially with the cannabis industry not being in the strongest place. Uh, I think the goal is to try to get more, not less. At at the same time, just to be clear, not all census tracks in the city of Santa Monica would necessarily be treated as disproportionately impacted. Right. No question. Yeah. So, I'm I'm just suggesting that the way that distinction occurs is something that needs to be nuanced a bit more because I from looking at the at the data, it just seemed that that it wasn't as clear as where that distinction would be made. any kind of direction on for the council on that? [Music] So, um I think ultimately we're going with to the council with it on the equity side of it, right? And then on the zoning side of it, that's what we're discussing tonight. Well, I think my main point is that if you look at the color-coded list of census tracks where they're colorcoded based on percentage of of of educational attainment uh low income and um and uh race ethnic mix. And if you look at that and you look at it, look at the column that shows the number of arrests and the percentage of bipok arrests uh it isn't a very clear breakdown and you could say the top half of the chart is disproportionately affected and the bottom half is not right and so I think there needs to be a a clearer understanding of it what percentage

uh in ter where those percentage breakdowns are going to happen where you consider it disproportionately impacted and where it's not. And if I if I was in a census train that was left out, it's on the borderline, I would I would be concerned about it. Yeah. And so you're what I'm understanding is that you want to make it so that only certain census tracks are able to be applicable and so that would add an additional requirement on to who would be eligible. Well, I did. So residency isn't enough. It's got to be you got to live in this specific census track. Correct. You mean residency anywhere in Santa Monica potentially? Yeah. Right. Yeah. There were a variety of criteria, right? You didn't just have to have the residency, but Right. I I do think that just residency in Santa Monica would not have been sufficient. Yeah. And that's why we have the convictions and the income requirements. No, I mean residency anywhere in Santa Monica may not have been sufficient. Yeah. I jump in. Um, I just I I followed this process through and I I understand and appreciate the comments that Commissioner Fresco and and Commissioner Hamilton made, but um I think we need to understand that this is not coming out of no context that the the and and I appreciate your questions, although I'm not inclined to create more limitations and they're a little bit outside of our Bailey Wick. Anyway, we're we're really just the land use side here. But this has a history. I mean, the county went through this in great at, you know, in great detail. The argument here is that the war on drugs had a disproportionate impact on certain people. And the reason that and and people have had their lives literally ruined by convictions related to

cannabis use. And so the idea is to create an opportunity for repair for restoration that when cannabis is coming in in and being legalized and it's been a journey that the people who that to prevent it from being taken over by you know even more kind of faceless automated corporations that the people who were hurt most by uh enforcement against the use of cannabis should be the first to benefit from the from the um from from from being able to be in the cannabis sale business. Now, we can have a variety of opinions about cannabis. Um and certainly there's a lot of big business in the cannabis world. Um just look a county north of us at what Santa Barbara has gone through in terms of cannabis growth growing and and what a challenge that has been. Um, but I think given council's direction, I mean, I might have offered different direction, but council didn't really ask at this point or the period for asking is over. Um, uh, I think we've got to go with what we have. And I do um I if there are ways that we can in the zoning ordinance, you know, address some of these equity concerns, but it sounds like the strategy from staff is to really move them outside this um then I'm I'm kind of torn. I I'll I'll support I I will support direction that is expansive and inclusive. I would not support direction that would prevent people from opening. I I don't I I just think it's too much work for staff and and and if we're

going to have these rules, then May I make a suggestion that kind of um one of the things the staff report and the study suggest is that there could also be some parallel track that council is going to consider that we're not that would provide other kinds of restorative justice programs. And it seemed pretty clear from the demographics that uh Commissioner Chaka was talking about that in the communities that had the worst most disproportionate number of arrests and convictions, they also the ones that were the worst of the worst were the ones that also had a big dropout rate in high school. And so maybe that is something to just I mean council can see that too. I didn't but maybe a way to address that thought is just to point that out to them also so they think about that too if they think about other programs. How would you frame it like so incorporate the high school dropout rate or Well, just to take note that if there's uh if there are other uh equity programs that come out of this that are somehow funded by the resources that come up out of this that they focus on education in those same communities. Okay. I will defer to you to make that motion. I I don't know how I would phrase it. I do think that it's also important given that the report looked at arrests in Santa Monica to recognize that Santa Monica residents who were affected by the war on drugs probably were very often arrested outside of Santa Monica. They were arrested in a lot of places. Their lives in Santa Monica changed as a result. But

the I'm I'm less I think the map is interesting, but I I'm think it's really hard. I mean, we're talking about lives, not locations. Can we just move on? Yeah. So, okay. So, let's make a motion then. I'll move the the resolution number 250010 and to send a recommendation of the earlier comments I made about considering the broadening to uh uh small business starts of a variety of types not only cannabis that affect the same demographic. second. I Okay. But I think we were working on a motion. So I made the MO but because if it's one motion then it's I think it's Nina and me. Are you suggesting just for clarity are you suggesting that those who have been affected by the war on drugs should be provided support in starting small businesses beyond the cannabis store. Not that other small businesses should get relief irrespective of their found. That's fine. Yeah. Right. I mean, that was my point the first time we c talked about this. If I was convicted wrongly or rightly because of that and I was trying to like start a small business and turn my life around, is that really necessarily my first choice of business? What if I'm interested in fashion? Okay. So to to restate the motion which I think we are making it is that we're moving the staff report and adding a request of council that it consider uh supporting small business starts in other fields for those for those populations whom this yes resolution is intended to support. I have a cannabis story. Let's hear it.

[Laughter] It's not I just want to say I haven't had dinner and I'm hungry and I didn't smoke anything. It's sort of lighthearted. You know, I've just come off a cruise and believe it or not, an 85year-old couple on a cruise was busted for having weed in their cabin. Yeah. And turned over to the Italian authorities who are not as understanding as we are. Wow. 85. 85 years old. Yeah. Wow. Maybe that's why they're 85 years old. Yeah. So anyway, so Sean, are you saying we we'll take two two mo a motion for two different things. One is to approve approve the land use with the direction. Okay. And then the second one would be a motion to give a recommendation to council about other aspects of this. Well, we put it together just okay. A single motion which which is approving it with the request of council that it consider offering these business supports to targeted populations that want to start other businesses. Not just cannabis. Okay. Is that all one fell swoop? Can we do it in one fell swoop? Yeah, let's do it. Let's just do it. We're mo the motion from Commissioner Fresco and me is to uh recommend planning. It's pass resolution 25 0 sorry 011 not 010 011 with the request of council that it consider expanding the b the the the small business supports offered to this target population to include other businesses beyond just can cannabis other business types beyond just cannabis like donuts. Yeah. What if they want to make donuts regard and just to clarify for the record, that recommendation would not be included in the zoning ordinance. Correct. It's just a thought

we want them to ponder. Yeah. Okay. Great. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Chako. Hi, Commissioner Lambert. Yes. Commissioner Fresco, yes. Commissioner Landre, yes. Commissioner Hamilton, yes. And Cher Tolken, yes. Can we discuss it a little more? Yeah. I don't think we've really killed it till it's now uh since there are no resolutions, written communications or planning commission member discussions items, I adjourn the meeting at uh it's 9:08 p.m. could I just in the spirit sorry could we could we because because I mean Jerry comes to all of our meetings. Could we adjourn in memory of Marty Rubin, his brother? I don't know. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And offer our sympathies. This just happened. His brother, he had cancer.