It was no quiet night in city council chambers on Tuesday evening, as the council conducted a study session on the much-anticipated, much-desired park space on the land that is currently the Santa Monica Airport.
A couple hundred residents rallied outside City Hall before the meeting began, and many stayed to express their passionate preferences during the meeting’s public comment period.
In 2014, residents approved Measure LC with 60% of the vote. The measure essentially allowed voters to specify that if the city closes Santa Monica Airport for aviation use, “no new development of that land shall be allowed until the voters have approved limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land,” except for “the development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts, and education uses.”
Any other uses would need to be passed by Santa Monica voters.
In other words, residents wanted to close the airport and build a great park. Through extensive negotiations with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the City of Santa Monica secured a settlement agreement, entered as a consent decree, to close the airport for aviation uses as of December 31, 2028.
City staff say the transformation of the airport would offer a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to repurpose 192 acres, or 5% of the city’s land area, into park and recreation space.
In January, the new city council approved a set of guiding principles and asked staff to return with three options for a park, with at least one not triggering a vote per Measure LC, and another that included at least some housing.
In the months that followed, city staff and outside consultants engaged the public in numerous ways, including “workshops, surveys, online tools (CoMap), and targeted outreach – including meetings with Indigenous communities, youth, and underrepresented demographics,” according to a staff report.
Nearly 5,000 responded to the survey, and over 800 participated in the workshops. Unfortunately, despite the greater effort at this stage to engage with underrepresented demographics, respondents aged 45 and older represented 64.4% of the total participants, and 66.5% were white. Still, there was success in reaching more participants in the 90404 zip code, the city’s most diverse.
The most contentious issue by far is whether some housing should be considered on-site. When asked various questions about whether housing should be considered or if so, what kind of housing, between 46% and 53% responded they were against any kind of housing at the park.
However, a new poll of Santa Monicans, released Monday by the hotel workers’ union, Unite HERE Local 11, dramatically counters that number. It found that “65% want at least some housing built on the site,” and that “46% support an even split between housing and open space.” Their survey also showed that “Only 28% support using the entire site exclusively for parks or open space.”
The three options presented to the council and public are:
Option One: Reuse, Restoration, and Resilience
Per the staff report, the first scenario proposes “a nature-forward transformation of the Santa Monica Airport site, prioritizing ecological restoration, adaptive reuse, and phased implementation without introducing any new housing or commercial development, and does not require a vote pursuant to Measure LC. It envisions a park network rooted in biodiversity, community wellness, and climate resilience, with features such as a central reservoir, public-private partnerships for sports fields, and community gardens.”
The advantages of Option One are that it enjoys broad public support and wouldn’t require any additional vote. However, it faces the greatest financial challenges without any revenue-producing property in the mix. Current revenue from non-aeronautical sources stands at only $6-7 million annually. External grants, as well as voter-approved measures like a parcel tax or general obligation bonds would have to fund the rest, and any politically generated revenue is always uncertain. Therefore, it will be a challenge to fund this park effort without straining the city’s budget resources.
Option Two: Weaving Park and Community
This scenario “proposes a layered, integrated design that weaves together parks, culture, ecology, and neighborhood connections. Anchored by The Bend, a multi-use path and sculptural waterway, the design links diverse amenities including meadows, courts, playgrounds, and performance spaces. Exploring what “some housing” might mean, along with commercial development, is introduced only at the site’s edges, reinforcing a park-first vision while creating opportunities for equity, affordable housing, and local economic activation,” the report states.
This version, while requiring voter approval for park-serving commercial uses, offers a more fiscally pragmatic way forward. It “introduces a new governance model through a ‘Parks District’ and uses an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) to fund construction and maintenance,” according to the report.
Option Three: Growing Park, Growing Community
The third scenario suggests “a bold new urban district, a ‘complete neighborhood’ wrapped around a signature civic park.” At its center is a large recreational lake that also functions as emergency infrastructure. The design includes extensive public amenities, adventure play areas, cultural venues, and housing. This scenario envisions the most development and the densest land use among all three options, with housing and commercial elements acting as the main financial drivers for both park construction and ongoing operations.
This plan is dependent on leasing or selling parcels for development to create consistent revenues to feed the city’s General Fund. Therefore, the revenue raised could fund both the park and other civic needs. But given the resistance to housing and other development by roughly half the city’s residents, this option comes with the greatest risk and uncertainty.
Both Options Two and Three would incorporate the State’s Surplus Land Act (SLA) into the process. The SLA requires that, before selling or leasing surplus public land for 15 years or more, agencies must prioritize affordable housing, open space, and school or park use. The city would need to notify specific public entities, such as affordable housing developers and local agencies, and allow them to purchase or lease the land. Additionally, if housing is developed, a portion of it must be affordable, with at least 25% of units, especially when sold to housing developers.
Even if a consensus is found on a preferred option, there is still much work to be done to study the financing options and combinations moving forward. Therefore, according to the staff report, consultants HR&A “will analyze the following considerations and trade-offs:
Feasibility – what are the implementation considerations and requirements that make this source feasible or not?”
Net revenue potential – how much revenue can the source generate, and does it meet the funding need?
Fiscal benefit – what fiscal benefit does the funding unlock to generate economic and fiscal benefit to the city, such as jobs, sales tax revenue, and more?
And given the various trade-offs, city staff will continue to study the options and variables, such as risk tolerance, operational models, and public-private partnerships, to inform how the preferred option is implemented.
Public Comment
Nearly 140 people signed up to provide public comment, with all but a handful speaking on the airport park. Several high school students came out in support of a great park, with one student speaking up for some housing to be included. He, along with others, made the point that many who are raised and educated in Santa Monica can’t afford to live here as adults.
Sylvia Aroth, a Venice resident and former board member of Venice Community Housing, said she is “taken aback” by Santa Monicans who favor “less housing.” She said, “Almost 200 acres is plenty of room for all of those things: housing, and park, and soccer field.”
Three African American women, Hajar St. Claire, Robbie Jones, and Adrena Seals, favor including affordable housing as part of an economic justice and landback effort to allow area Black residents to reclaim Santa Monica as their home. Seals went further, saying that some units need to be set aside as condominiums so that those residents can build generational wealth.
Several members of Unite HERE Local 11 spoke in favor of housing, most citing their long commutes into Santa Monica because of the city’s lack of affordability.
But Barry Rosenbaum, representing the Recreation and Parks Commission, spoke in favor of a Measure LC-compliant park option, citing the city survey and other feedback from residents that strongly favor a park-only option.
Also supporting a Measure LC-compliant park was Jon Katz, President of the Santa Monica Democratic Club. Katz reminded the council that the Democratic Club is a pro-housing organization, but stated, “Not all public land is equal. This site is isolated from schools, infrastructure, and services,” and added, “We believe the city should build deed-restricted affordable housing on better-suited public land near transit, jobs, and walkable neighborhoods where it’s faster and more feasible, without requiring a ballot measure.”
Several speakers also pleaded for the airport to remain open for aviation purposes.
Council Discussion
Councilmembers asked several questions about the process, and what decisions now permit them to do later. Can they choose one option now but pivot later with more information? (Yes). Mayor Pro Tem Caroline Torosis inquired as to when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should take place.
Councilmember Jesse Zwick expressed frustration with the lack of financial analysis for each option, comparing the decision he faced Tuesday night to choosing whether to buy a Prius, Hummer, or Ferrari without knowing his budget or the maintenance costs of each vehicle.
Mayor Lana Negrete tried to manage public expectations, stating that, short of feasibility studies, the decision the council made Tuesday night was aspirational, and that much work lay ahead.
Councilmember Ellis Raskin moved for the adoption of Option One, with a second from Torosis.
Speaking in support of the motion, Councilmember Dan Hall said we need housing and he supports building it, but “At the airport, I want a park and only a park. Every inch we take away from green space, recreation, [and] sports fields is an inch we won’t ever get back.”
“I do think we should at least explore, in this preferred scenario, some housing,” said Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya. She added, “Just to see what the feasibility would be, just to discover what environmental impacts there might potentially be, and what kind of mobility and ingress/egress and what might be needed to support that, because we might find out it’s not feasible. But I think we should always look at that.”
Councilmember Barry Snell asked the staff to be thorough with the feasibility study, and spoke to the huge need Santa Monica has for more recreation facilities.
Zwick countered, saying he’s opposed to the motion because of the moral obligation he feels to provide housing. He argued that the city should at least study the adaptive reuse of some of the commercial buildings at the airport, which are slated to remain on site. He also questioned the process, saying, “I don’t think it makes any sense whatsoever to study the most restrictive option, because then you have nowhere to go if it doesn’t work.”
Negrete weighed in, saying, “Dreaming without planning is extremely dangerous.” Her preference was to phase in the elements of a park, as she fears fencing off such a large area that may be misused or become a massive homeless encampment. She referred to the length of time the civic center has lain empty and doesn’t wish the same for a great park.
Responding to Zwick, Raskin argued the council can return later to study an option with some housing. He said, “Per CEQA, we have to study a reasonable range of alternatives,” adding, “What you want to strategically do with CEQA is make sure you are giving direction to people who are drafting the project to include design features and mitigation that is legally and economically feasible to address any environmental impacts, to the extent that they exist.”
Zernitskaya proposed a substitute motion to explore Option Three, which was seconded by Zwick.
Torosis pointed out that they must show the project to be legally and economically feasible, and argued that since any scenario that is not Measure LC-compliant would require a vote, it eliminates them from being legally feasible. She also stated that a Measure LC-compliant option would keep the city on track to close the airport.
The substitute motion failed, 4-3, with Snell joining Zernitskaya and Zwick. Hall, Negrete, Raskin, and Torosis voted no.
The original motion supporting Option One passed, 6-1, with Zwick voting no.
