City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 8, 2025
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 28
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Rick Valte, Public Works Director, Public Works, Architecture Services Subject: Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Preferred Scenarios Review
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding that the recommended actions herein do not constitute a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and are exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15262, 15306, and 15062;
2. Hold a study session to review and comment on the potential feasibility of the three planning scenarios and review community feedback from the engagement activities; and
3. Provide direction to staff on how to proceed with respect to Phase 3b, the development of a Preferred Scenario, and the community engagement activities.
Executive Summary
The Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project is a comprehensive, multi-phase initiative to reimagine the future use of 192 acres of public land following the scheduled closure of the Santa Monica Airport at midnight on December 31, 2028, centered on a Great Park. This project seeks to create a long-term vision for the site that reflects the community's aspirations while addressing legal, economic, environmental, and social considerations balanced with potential funding realities, feasibility, and potential impacts of the project, which will be evaluated in a subsequent program-level EIR after the Preferred Scenario is identified by City Council for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review, anticipated at the end of 2025. 2 of 28
Phase 3a, "Defining the Future of Place," focused on developing three conceptual scenarios based on input from previous phases, the Guiding Principles, adopted city policy, City Council direction, and extensive community engagement. Each scenario explores different approaches to balancing open space, active and passive recreation, housing, potential economic feasibility, and cultural priorities. They are meant to spark conversation and invite the community to comment on the parts and pieces that they like out of each scenario and not vote for one scenario overall. Attachment A outlines the process, summarizes public feedback, discusses the potential financial trade-offs, and dives more deeply into the benefits and constraints of each of the three scenarios so that this Staff Report can focus on the key questions for City Council consideration as the project moves into Phase 3b and the creation of a Preferred Scenario for CEQA environmental review (i.e. the “Proposed Project”). Attachment H discusses in-depth various funding mechanisms that could be considered for this project and what tradeoffs could be evaluated. City Council would still have the ability to propose and consider alternatives for the inclusion in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analysis.
Project Context and Goals
The City’s decision to close the airport stems from the 2017 City Council Resolution 11026 (Attachment C) and a Settlement Agreement entered as a Consent Decree with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The site’s transformation offers a once-in-alifetime opportunity to repurpose nearly 5% of the City’s land area. The project goal is to create a framework plan that integrates community input, centers long-term sustainability, explores financial feasibility and trade-offs while also addressing Santa Monica’s broader values of environmental quality, economic vitality, and social equity.
Phase 3a Highlights
• City Council Direction (January 2025): Council approved the Guiding Principles and directed staff to create three scenarios, ensuring one scenario required no vote pursuant to Measure LC and at least one with some housing. • Community Engagement: Staff engaged the public through workshops, surveys, online tools (CoMap), and targeted outreach—including meetings with Indigenous communities, youth, and underrepresented demographics. 3 of 28
• Layers Survey Approach: Participants ranked preferences across six (6) site design layers: Connectivity and Mobility, Water and Topography, Ecology and Passive Uses, Active Park Uses, Housing, and Revenue Generation. These preferences informed the three conceptual scenarios.
• Three Scenarios Developed: All three of the scenarios convert at least the runway and taxiway areas into parkland, dedicate more than two-thirds of the available site to active and passive recreation, and aspire to achieve financial self-sufficiency at a high level. Each has different components that may want to be considered for a new, hybrid, Preferred Scenario of Phase 3b. More detail for each scenario is provided in the Discussion section and Attachment A of this report.
o Scenario 1 – Reuse, Restoration and Resilience: Emphasizes ecological restoration and adaptive reuse with no new development beyond Measure LC allowances.
o Scenario 2 – Weaving Park and Community: Blends active/passive park uses with housing and revenue-generating uses in a park-centered framework. o Scenario 3 – Growing Park, Growing Community: Envisions a complete neighborhood model with expanded housing and commercial development to support a regional park.
• Community Feedback on the Scenarios: The three scenarios were revealed at a community event on May 17th and CoMap was used to gather feedback from folks who could not attend in person through June 22nd. CoMap resulted in thousands of community-generated comments that revealed strong preferences for preserving open space, minimizing development, and thoughtfully balancing desired park amenities with financially sustainable solutions that may or may not include housing.
Key Issues for Council Consideration
The key question before City Council is whether the Preferred Scenario should include any uses that could or would require future voter approval, pursuant to Measure LC, or not, and if so, should housing be considered at all, recognizing that the City has not yet identified sufficient funding for capital infrastructure, development of income supporting 4 of 28
uses, and ongoing maintenance and operations to achieve fiscal sustainability. While a park only approach aligns with much of the community feedback and provides a clear path to implementation, the funding sources for capital, operations, maintenance, and programming are significantly more limited. Broader uses, such as new cultural and/or event facilities, Public Private Partnerships, or housing, may offer greater long-term financial viability while also delivering lasting community benefits. Additionally, any land that would require sale or lease of longer than 15 years would trigger the Surplus Land Act (SLA), which mandates that surplus public land be prioritized for affordable housing unless specific exemptions apply. City Council direction is needed on whether to explore a more expansive Preferred Scenario that accounts for the trade-offs noted above or to proceed with a scenario that focuses development within the requirements of Measure LC with a reduced scope to align with available funding. Regulatory frameworks will also need to be updated based on any preferred scenario in the future.
Alternatively, such scenarios can be included in the Draft EIR’s analysis of CEQA alternatives.
Next Steps: Phase 3b and Beyond
Phase 3b is intended to produce a new, hybrid Preferred Scenario that incorporates the most supported elements from each concept. This could include:
• Refined conceptual design
• Illustrative materials and 3D renderings
• Rough order-of-magnitude capital and operation & maintenance cost estimates • Potential feasibility and fiscal impact analysis
• Revenue generation strategies
• Phasing and implementation planning
This Preferred Scenario is intended to serve as the foundational framework for potential financial feasibility analysis, future CEQA review (i.e. the Proposed Project analyzed in the EIR), specific planning, and City Council actions.
The City is at an important point in the process of understanding how this project should serve Santa Monica and the wider region for several hundred years. There is a 5 of 28
significant amount of land that can be used in a variety of ways leading to questions such as, what should be studied as part of the preferred scenario to create a long-term vision for the future of Santa Monica and the airport conversion project? Which ideas, uses, strategies should be included when a Preferred Scenario is created? At a time when the city is in a fragile financial position, with limited sources of identified capital funding and operational revenue, combined with extreme economic uncertainty, what level of financial impact is expected and how should self-sufficiency be explored? The big question before all of us is “What do we envision for this land and for Santa Monica for generations to come?”
Accomplished and Anticipated Project Timeline
The anticipated timeline for the Airport Conversion Project is noted below:
Item Date
City Council Contract Authorization December 19, 2023
Sasaki and Staff Project Kick-off March 2024
Phase 1: Charting the Course (3 months)
First Community Event May 19, 2024
Phase completed June 30, 2024
Phase 2: Discovering Place and Setting the Stage (5 months) Second Phase begins September 19, 2024
Second Community Event – Draft Guiding Principles December 7, 2024 The team presented to City Council for comment. January 28, 2025 Phase 3a: Defining the Future of Place (4 months)
Third Community Event – Three Scenarios (3a) May 17, 2025 The team presents to City Council for comment. July 8, 2025 Phase 3b: Defining the Future of Place (4 months)
Fourth Community Engagements – Preferred Scenario
(3b)
Fall 2025
The team presents to City Council for comment. Fall 2025 Phase 4: The Path Ahead (3 months)
The team presents final scenario to City Council as
the basis of the “Proposed Project” CEQA analysis
based on scope, funding, and feasibility.
Winter 2025/2026
Phase 5: Preferred Scenario Plan Vision Book (2 months) Kick-off for CEQA analysis (not part of current contract) 2026 6 of 28
Background
The City of Santa Monica (the “City”) has already approved the closure of the Santa Monica Airport at midnight on December 31, 2028, as authorized by a Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and by City Council Resolution No. 11026 (Attachment C). This closure allows the City to consider post-closure land-use scenarios to repurpose the 192-acre site into a project that can benefit Santa Monicans for generations to come. For more specifics on the closure process please see the Information Items posted on April 29, 2024 and June 23, 2025.
With the closure of the Santa Monica Airport by the end of 2028, the community has a rare opportunity to reimagine nearly 200 acres of public land for future generations. The City aims to create a vision that reflects its commitment to a vibrant, inclusive, sustainable, fiscally responsible, and equitable community. For a detailed explanation of the project goals and history please see Attachment D.
The City contracted with Sasaki to envision the future of the Santa Monica Airport utilizing a five-phase process to determine a “Framework Plan” to evaluate the potential feasibility of a Preferred Scenario for the Airport upon closure. For details about the Sasaki scope of work please see Attachment F. The process is currently at the end of Phase 3a, where staff and Sasaki, based on the project goals, community feedback gathered in Phases 1 and 2, the Guiding Principles, adopted city plans, and City Council 7 of 28
direction, have created three scenarios for community and City Council feedback. For details on the community engagement from Phases 1 and 2 please see Attachment G.
Details on the community engagement from Phase 3a can be found in Attachment A.
The Project is guided by a set of principles that articulate the community's aspirations and expectations for transforming the airport into a vibrant public space. These five (5) guiding principles: Start with Nature, Inspire Wonder, Balance Economics, Amplify Versatility, and Celebrate Place were developed through extensive community engagement, including surveys, workshops, and public events, as well as alignment with adopted City policies and City Council direction. Each principle comprises a thesis, description, and key goals, serving as a framework to evaluate design proposals, park features, amenities, programs, technical requirements, financial strategies, and implementation approaches. Together, they ensure that the project reflects Santa Monica's values, promoting sustainability, inclusivity, and a strong sense of place. For more on the Guiding Principles please see Attachment G.
To date, staff have presented the project at 87 different public meetings (17 of which occurred in Phase 3a alone) and held three in-person community events that an estimated 800 community members attended. There have been more than 12,100 survey responses, over 6,500 views of the Virtual Education Sessions, and 50,000+ visitors to the project website. All materials for in-person events were presented in both Spanish and English and live interpretation was available at all three community events 8 of 28
for attendees that felt more comfortable communicating in Spanish. At each phase, the team assesses how effectively the engagement efforts reach a demographically representative sample of our community, identifies what has worked, and makes improvements as the phases progress.
Even with robust community engagement, staff acknowledge that the feedback is not demographically representative as it has skewed older and whiter than the average Santa Monica population. However, Phase 3a did increase the participation from the City’s most diverse zip code (90404), youth, and indigenous community showing a more representative mix of the city’s demographics. The team has also created a Layers Survey Dashboard for folks who want to understand how different demographics responded. For more information on this topic and key deliverables please visit the “Resources” tab of the project website
www.smacproject.com. It includes comprehensive
site investigation reports and educational materials,
visual content and case studies for the project,
community workshop and engagement reports, the
guiding principles, and the three scenarios created
and considered during Phase 3a.
Discussion
The transformation of the Santa Monica Airport into
a vibrant, community-centered, accessible project
represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to
reshape nearly 200 acres of public land into a
legacy for future generations over the next hundred
years. Rooted in the values of sustainability, equity,
and inclusivity, this visionary process aspires to
create a fiscally responsible project focused on a
great park that reflects the diverse voices and
dreams of the Santa Monica community. This
9 of 28
project endeavors to honor the City’s rich history, embrace its dynamic present, and inspire a resilient, culturally rich, and connected future for all who live, work, learn, and play in Santa Monica.
The work of Phase 3a is built upon a continued foundation of community engagement, the Guiding Principles, City Council direction from Phases 1 and 2, and potential financial feasibility to discern and create three scenarios that reflect a wide range of master plan ideas and their feasibility. At the January 28, 2025, meeting the City Council discussed a variety of concerns for the project team to consider as the scenarios were developed. These included, but are not limited to:
• Show a range of economically and potentially feasible alternatives (including legal feasibility), including a “no project” alternative as required in any future Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
• Deepening outreach to more segments of the Santa Monica population that is more consistent with the demographics of the city
• Engaging with Native people and Native tribes in meaningful ways • Consider at least one option that includes housing
• Ensure at least one option does not require a vote pursuant to Measure LC • Show ideas for phased implementation
• Only show scenarios that are financially self-sufficient • Explore a wide variety of funding options including a letter of interest campaign to identify potential partners in capital, maintenance, and operations • Work with the State’s Housing and Community Development (HCD) to understand the implications of the Surplus Lands Act (SLA) • Consider consequential life cycle and greenhouse gas reductions when considering environmentalism for the project
• Use ranked choice for community feedback on the three scenarios • Explore the value of mixing recreational space with commercial and housing for safety, security, surveillance as well as financial aspects • Consider operational strategies for the built-out project 10 of 28
Building on the community feedback gathered in Phases 1 and 2 and City Council direction from January 2025, the project team launched Phase 3a with the goal of developing three conceptual scenarios that integrated a broad range of priorities and feasibility considerations. This phase was also an opportunity to show the community how their earlier input directly shaped the evolution of the project’s design.
To make the master planning process more accessible
and inclusive, the team introduced six key site design
layers: Connectivity and Mobility, Water and Topography, Ecology and Passive Uses, Active Park Uses, Housing,
and Revenue Generation. These layers helped to break
down complex trade-offs into more understandable pieces and created a framework for public input. Each layer was presented with four conceptual approaches, ranging from least to most intensive, to help participants evaluate potential uses, weigh trade-offs, and indicate preference through a ranked choice format. This approach generated nuanced, targeted feedback and highlighted where consensus or divergence existed.
11 of 28
Importantly, the use of design layers also allowed the team to introduce the topic of housing, which had not been explored in detail in earlier phases. While housing ranked as the second least-liked use in Survey 2a, its inclusion in Phase 3a allowed the community responding to the survey to begin considering if any general locations, size, or conditions might be appropriate.
The survey effort, which reached nearly 5,000 participants, showed improved demographic representation, particularly among youth and residents from underrepresented Santa Monica zip codes. This Staff Report includes a high-level summary of the engagement, please see Attachment A for the detailed report of the community engagement of Phase 3a. Results reflected strong support for open space, 12 of 28
ecological restoration, and pedestrian-first design, with Option B emerging as the preferred approach in four of the six layers. Housing was the most contentious issue, with Option A, no housing, scoring the highest and many respondents firmly opposed to any new development requiring a ballot measure pursuant to Measure LC, this perspective is reflected in Scenario 1. The portions of the survey that asked high level questions about types of housing showed a split result with many of them resulting in 46%, 47%, 51% or 53% against any housing. Staff continued to explore what “some housing” might mean in Scenarios 2 and 3.
These community insights became the foundation for three integrated land use scenarios. These three scenarios are not meant for the community or City Council to choose between but rather to provide feedback on the parts and pieces to be considered in the Preferred Scenario analyzed in the Draft EIR. This will not foreclose analysis of alternative scenarios in the Draft EIR. These are meant to generate conversation and show a wide range of possibilities and combinations:
Scenario 1: Reuse, Restoration and Resilience
13 of 28
Scenario 1 proposes a nature-forward transformation of the Santa Monica Airport site, prioritizing ecological restoration, adaptive reuse, and phased implementation without introducing any new housing or commercial development and does not require a vote pursuant to Measure LC. It envisions a park network rooted in biodiversity, community wellness, and climate resilience, with features such as a central reservoir, PPP for sports fields, and community gardens.
This scenario reflects strong community support for preserving the site as open space, but presents significant financial challenges. Without high-revenue land uses, funding would rely on limited on-site income from non-aeronautical sources, which is approximately $6-7M currently, external grants, and potential voter-approved measures like general obligation bonds or parcel taxes. These funding strategies carry uncertainty and require strong public and political support.
While this approach offers a clear ecological and civic identity, it may limit opportunities to address broader city needs such as housing or long-term revenue stability and could require General Fund subsidies to cover operational costs. Governance strategies like an enterprise fund or State partnerships are proposed to support long-term stewardship.
Scenario 1 offers a vision centered on nature, sustainability, and does not require a vote pursuant to Measure LC, but will require deliberate planning, phased investment, and creative financing to succeed without overburdening the City’s financial resources.
Scenario 2: Weaving Park and Community
14 of 28
Scenario 2 proposes a layered, integrated design that weaves together parks, culture, ecology, and neighborhood connections. Anchored by The Bend, a multi-use path and sculptural waterway, the design links diverse amenities including meadows, courts, playgrounds, and performance spaces. Exploring what “some housing” might mean along with commercial development are introduced only at the site’s edges, reinforcing a park-first vision while creating opportunities for equity, affordable housing, and local economic activation.
This scenario introduces a new governance model through a “Parks District” and uses an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) to fund construction and maintenance. Revenue would come from lease agreements, large events, sponsorships, and special-use amenities and not from housing or intensive commercial development. While voter approval would be required to expand park-serving commercial uses, the park’s character is preserved.
Scenario 2 offers a fiscally pragmatic and culturally rich vision that balances ecological restoration with community vitality. It carries moderate political and financial risks tied to implementation tools (EIFD, ballot measures), but offers a flexible and forward-looking strategy to build a distinctive, connected, and inclusive new public landscape. 15 of 28
Scenario 3: Growing Park, Growing Community
Scenario 3 envisions a bold new urban district, a “complete neighborhood” wrapped around a signature civic park. Anchored by a large recreational lake that doubles as emergency infrastructure, the design integrates extensive public amenities, adventure play, cultural venues, and housing. This scenario proposes the most development and densest land use of all three options, with housing and commercial elements serving as the primary financial engine for both park construction and long-term operations.
The plan relies on leasing or selling development parcels and capturing future tax revenues, which would flow into the City’s General Fund. A portion of this revenue would support the park, while the rest would benefit broader community services.
Affordable housing would be incorporated to address the Surplus Land Act, but the plan depends on successful voter approval of a ballot measure outlining development parameters pursuant to Measure LC.
While this scenario offers the greatest financial return and civic program potential, it also carries the highest legal, political, and infrastructure-related complexity. It maximizes urban integration and regional park status but may challenge community expectations around open space preservation and the original Measure LC vision. Success would 16 of 28
require strong market conditions, broad public support, and long-term governance capacity to realize its full potential.
Together, the three scenarios illustrate the range of possibilities for transforming the Santa Monica Airport site into a vibrant, inclusive, and sustainable civic asset. Each scenario reflects a different balance of ecology, recreation, housing, cultural programming, and financial strategies highlighting the trade-offs of different choices.
These scenarios are not final plans, they are conceptual frameworks designed to test ideas, reflect community feedback, and guide further analysis. As the project moves forward, direction from City Council on the preferred elements and which funding options should be studied will be critical in shaping the Preferred Scenario that aligns with both community values and long-term city goals and acknowledges that the Draft EIR will study other alternatives.
These scenarios were shared with the public at the Phase 3a community event on May 17, 2025, and further evaluated using CoMap, an interactive tool that allowed participants to map their support or concerns spatially. Feedback from this process is being used to inform the development of a single Preferred Scenario in Phase 3b. It is recommended that Attachment A: Phase 3a Detail be reviewed in full. It contains the survey results, a detailed analysis of each design layer, and scenario narratives and potential funding strategies that are essential for understanding the trade-offs and community priorities that emerged in this phase.
Summary of Community Feedback
Across the Layers Survey, CoMap, and discussions at Boards and Commissions many community members consistently voiced a strong desire to prioritize open space, ecological restoration, and inclusive, accessible park uses. The Layers Survey provided quantitative insight into preferred design intensities, with most participants favoring lower-impact, nature-forward options across layers such as water, mobility, and active uses. CoMap captured thousands of place-specific comments, reflecting a deep concern about development, strong support for adaptive reuse, and thoughtful interest in how the park might fund itself without compromising its purpose. At Boards and 17 of 28
Commissions, members emphasized Measure LC importance, environmental sustainability, and the opportunity to create a truly regenerative, community-serving space. A few also raised questions about the exclusion of housing from the scenarios and expressing interest in thoughtfully exploring whether some amount of housing could contribute to community needs, economic disparities, or project feasibility. Together, these engagement efforts reveal broad alignment around a vision for a park that is welcoming, restorative, and financially sustainable, anchored in community values and long-term stewardship. See Attachment A for more detail on community feedback.
Issues for Consideration by City Council
These scenarios were presented to the community for feedback and now to City Council for consideration and direction on what should be included in a new, hybrid, preferred scenario; however, only a high-level analysis of financing options has been completed to identify potential financing structure. Once Council provides direction on a Preferred Scenario, staff will work with Sasaki and their sub-consultant, HR&A to analyze potential feasibility and fiscal impact analysis on the Preferred Scenario. It is anticipated that staff will come back in Fall of 2025 with more analysis on the Preferred Scenario. There are still several strategic issues staff are working through that will shape the Phase 3b Preferred Scenario related to Measure LC, the Surplus Lands Act (SLA), financial realities, and more, but there is one primary decision that is needed presently. Updates on some of these remaining issues follow with ideas for City Council to consider as they provide feedback to the project team on what should be explored when creating the Preferred Scenario in Phase 3b.
Measure LC Timing and Impact
Measure LC was passed in 2014 by 60% of voters in Santa Monica and is a Charter amendment to the Municipal Code (Section 640) stating “If all or part of the Airport land is permanently closed to aviation use, no new development of that land shall be allowed until the voters have approved limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land. However, this section shall not prohibit the City Council from approving the following on Airport land that has been permanently closed to aviation use: the 18 of 28
development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; and the maintenance and replacement of existing cultural, arts and education uses”.
The City Attorney’s Office wrote a memo about Measure LC, explaining how to understand its intent and implications for the January 28th City Council meeting staff report (Attachment G). As part of the engagement process of this project, staff have heard varying opinions on what voters intended back in 2014. Staff has heard that some voted for the closure of the Airport (especially when Measure D was a competing ballot measure at the same time), that some voted for closure and a park only, and that some voted for closure and a process to determine what the land should become.
Measure LC remains central to how this process is unfolding and has brought up a lot of questions. It is clear that the only new development currently allowed is for parks, open space, and/or public recreation facilities as well as the maintenance and replacement of arts, cultural, and education uses. The community engagement in Phases 1 and 2 shows a strong preference for active and passive recreation, to be sure, as well as restaurants/cafes, markets, amphitheaters, senior and/or youth centers, etc. However, inclusion of these types of uses would likely require a public vote pursuant to Measure LC unless reusing one of the structures on-site. Consequently, Measure LC is acting as a limit on the location and size of any of these types of uses, thus potentially limiting the revenue generating opportunities necessary to support the park without a public vote.
The debate over housing, however, remains the largest LC question for this project. It ranked 39th out of the top 50, was the second least liked use in Survey 2a, and any inclusion would require a vote pursuant to Measure LC. Phase 3a explored where and how many locations of housing might be acceptable, as well as what this use could mean for citywide goals and the project. There are a number of examples showing that certain types of housing could provide funding for a park through ground leases or land sales, typically at market rate, and that demonstrate successful parks are vibrant populated places surrounded by communities. However, it is unclear how well those examples relate to the current financial market. It will reduce the amount of land available for open space and raises the question of the implications of doing so. 19 of 28
There are two diverting pathways to consider.
1) Direct staff to not include any uses that would require another ballot measure pursuant to Measure LC in the Preferred Scenario.
a) Benefits:
i) Does not require another vote pursuant to Measure LC. ii) Upholds the decision to close the Airport on December 31, 2028. iii) Creates a short-term goal for the project that could be phased as funding is available
b) Concerns:
i) Does not explore a long-term, multi-dimensional vision for the project as part of this process, a subsequent process would be required at a later date if the community ever desired to do anything else.
ii) Only adaptive reuse of existing structures can occur. Many of the structures are very basic and may not be able to support uses and/or activities that the community wants or that are needed to generate revenue. iii) Makes assumptions related to the revenue generated at the Airport which would impact other general fund needs.
iv) Providing a safe environment for a piece of land this size presents some challenges. An increase in security, custodial, programming, and activations will be necessary, and that funding source would need to come from the airport lease revenue until other sources could be identified. v) Potential financial infeasibility in raising sufficient capital for redevelopment of 192 acres of land and no committed revenue sources identified. vi) Diversion of non-aviation revenues to park maintenance rather than general fund operations and covering indirect impacts, including more of the City’s operational resources.
2) Direct staff to include uses that could or would require another ballot measure in the Preferred Scenario. As this is a planning and feasibility study, including these types of uses would allow time to evaluate their feasibility before deciding whether they should be part of the proposed project studied under CEQA or not. This approach 20 of 28
preserves flexibility while giving the City the opportunity to determine the best path forward based on further analysis.
a) Benefits:
i) Upholds the decision to close the Airport on December 31, 2028 ii) Sets a clear, long-term vision for the project weighing multiple community priorities and City goals for when the Airport closes.
iii) Has more varied funding opportunities.
iv) Allows for more flexibility for the location of activities or uses as the ‘new development’ requirement of Measure LC could be modified. v) Any future ballot measure would be based on this plan and could be the basis of the General Plan, or Specific Plan updates so the community is informed. b) Concerns:
i) This project would cost more and thus require more capital, operation, maintenance, and programming funding sources.
ii) If a General Obligation (GO) bond is required there would need to be significant community support (two thirds or 2/3) to approve a ballot measure that would increase property taxes to pay debt service. iii) There would need to be enough community support to approve a ballot measure to expand allowable uses under Measure LC. This vote could be before or after closure.
(1) A 2028 ballot measure aligns with the anticipated completion of CEQA analysis and would enable the measure to reaffirm a communitysupported and environmentally reviewed plan. However, this pathway is before actual airport closure.
(2) A ballot measure in 2030 or later would ensure the airport has closed and enable the City to align with broader planning processes, such as the General Plan update and new RHNA requirements. This later timing could also provide the community with greater clarity and assurance. However, it carries the risk that, if the measure fails, the long-term vision for the site could be stalled or need to be reconsidered.
21 of 28
The question of whether to include uses that may require a future ballot measure under Measure LC, with the most conflicts around housing, represents the most consequential decision point in shaping the Preferred Scenario. It reflects not only the legal framework established by voters in 2014 but also the diverse perspectives and evolving priorities of today’s community.
Surplus Land Act (SLA)
In addition to the Measure LC questions, there are housing questions around the SLA.
The Updated Surplus Land Act (SLA) Guidelines 2024, published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), provide detailed regulations aimed at facilitating affordable housing development on surplus public land.
As part of the planning process, the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project is closely monitoring how the SLA may impact the project, particularly in understanding what obligations the City may have under the law and what exceptions or exemptions may apply. The guidelines outline procedures for surplus land designation, good faith negotiations, affordable housing requirements, and agency responsibilities, while also clarifying key definitions and conditions under which land may be exempt. This will be critical in shaping how the City approaches land use planning for the nearly 200-acre site post-airport closure.
As currently understood, any disposition of the airport property after closure (sale of land or any lease longer than 15 years) is required to go through the SLA process. If direction is provided to pursue housing, there are several mixed-use exemptions and Section 103 (c)(7)(C) notes the minimum number of residential units required is equal to 10 times the number of acres of the surplus land e.g. 192 acres = 1,920 residential units.
If direction is provided to pursue a park, there are exemptions for “special districts” which could include local/regional park districts or water utility districts for consideration moving forward in the project. Formation of a special district would be subject to the procedures of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Cal. Government Code sections 56000 et seq.), would require approval of the 22 of 28
Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and would reduce the City’s general fund share of property tax revenue for properties within the special district. Staff has not done any analysis yet to evaluate the net benefits of forming a special district and formation of the district will entail significant costs due to the analysis required to justify approval of a special district.
The primary concerns with SLA are that most Public Private Partnerships (PPP) interested in investing in capital improvements will want a term longer than 15 years, which would then trigger the SLA review process unless an exemption has been approved. Staff will continue to work with HCD on how this project might be reviewed in the future, potential exemptions, and what implications may be for the Preferred Scenario. Staff has also requested that HCD’s legal counsel weigh in on whether residential zoning is required before the City can dispose of property to any third party for revenue generating purposes as there is currently ambiguity in how the SLA can be interpreted. As of this writing, HCD has stated that they are continuing to review this question and will get back to staff at an undetermined future date.
The Question to City Council is: Should the Preferred Scenario include any uses requiring a future ballot measure under Measure LC or not? If so, should any housing be included?
This is probably the most significant question before City Council around this project currently and it is the most divisive in the community. In this moment of deliberation, the Council has the opportunity to set a direction that acknowledges past commitments and charts a thoughtful course for the future as a foundational framework for the project and the city.
Three potential pathways for identifying the Preferred Scenario:
• Exclude any uses requiring a vote: Faster implementation, potentially lower legal risk, but fewer amenities and revenue opportunities to pay for construction, operations, maintenance, and programming.
23 of 28
• Include uses that would require a vote but not housing: This could provide flexibility and clarification of uses that may be acceptable to the community but are not explicitly covered in Section 640 of the Municipal Code. This also has the potential to increase on-site revenue sources and attract more activation to the area.
• Include uses that would require a vote including housing: The primary challenge is balancing the need for open space as the City densifies vs. need for affordability, on-site activation, and funding sources for a large park.
Financial Analysis Overview
City Council direction was clear that all three scenarios should be self-sufficient, which can be achieved using a combination of different funding and financing sources. Parks are expensive to build and to operate and maintain long-term. The City’s financial subconsultant, HR&A Advisors Inc. (HR&A), has conducted a preliminary analysis of capital and operating revenue sources. HR&A will continue to analyze these sources to estimate potential capital and operating revenue, estimate operating expenses, and estimate the economic and fiscal impacts related to each of the three scenarios to support an evaluation of the potential economic trade-offs in addition to the design and planning perspectives (see Attachment H for an overview of funding sources). This analysis includes a high-level evaluation of financing options and potential financing structures for the City to consider. To prepare these strategies, HR&A is evaluating potential capital and operating revenue that could be generated from the following categories of sources:
• Public Funding: General Obligation (GO) bonds
• Value Capture: Enhanced Infrastructure Finance Districts (EIFD), Climate Resilience Districts (CRD), Community Facility Districts (CFD), ground leases for part of the site, and land sale.
• Earned Revenue (operating revenue only): Existing airport lease revenue and income-generating programs such as special events and venue rentals, paid parking, food and beverage concessions, and sporting tournaments. 24 of 28
Any future vision for the site will require a combination of these sources. To support the City’s evaluation and decision-making moving into phase 3b, HR&A will analyze the following considerations and trade-offs.
• Net revenue potential – how much revenue can the source generate, and does it meet the funding need?
• Fiscal benefit – what fiscal benefit does the funding unlock to generate economic and fiscal benefit to the city, such as jobs, sales tax revenue, and more? • Feasibility – what are the implementation considerations and requirements that make this source feasible or not?
Understanding that each funding source has tradeoffs, staff will continue to investigate the options to understand funding risk tolerance, preferred operational models, and the potential for public-private partnerships to advise how the Preferred Scenario is modeled and implemented. Once the Preferred Scenario is determined, HR&A will then update the funding strategy analysis to provide more detailed capital and operating revenue funding strategies for that scenario, which will require a commitment from the Council and community to be realized.
Letters of Interest (LOI) Summary
The Letters of Interest solicitation was posted to the city’s online procurement portal (OpenGov) on March 24, 2025. At the May 5, 2025, submission deadline, there were 69 applications submitted for consideration.
Respondents ranged from individual community members to large national firms.
Community groups, representatives from City commissions, non-profit organizations, and for-profit organizations provided LOIs. The ideas included active and passive recreation, arts, aviation, culture, education, housing, wellness and more. These LOIs show robust interest from the private sector in partnering with the City to develop community-serving amenities and illustrate how a variety of uses can produce revenue to pay for capital, operations, maintenance, and programming costs. The summary of LOI responses is included as Attachment B.
25 of 28
With the preliminary nature of the LOIs, no analysis has been done to determine whether these private sources could provide all the sufficient capital necessary to finance the scale of infrastructure that will be necessary to facilitate any development.
While none of these would move forward at this time without future Council direction, the LOIs are helpful to understand the potential areas of interest and what revenue generating uses might look like at the Airport site as the Council considers what types of uses should be considered for the Preferred Scenario. Attachment B has more detail on each of the LOIs received.
Next Steps
Guided by City Council direction from Phase 3a and informed by extensive community feedback on the three initial concept scenarios, Sasaki and City staff will develop a Preferred Concept Scenario that integrates the most compelling and City Council directed elements from each of the three initial concept alternatives into a cohesive, hybrid vision. This scenario will reflect both City Council direction and community input, balancing creativity, potential financial feasibility, and the long-term impact to guide the future transformation of the Santa Monica Airport site.
In parallel, the Recreation and Arts Department’s 2025 Community Recreation and Arts Needs Assessment, presented to the Recreation and Parks Commission in June, will inform the development of the Parks and Recreation Vision Plan. The assessment identifies current and projected needs for park acreage, program, and amenities including needed fields, courts, etc. to meet national averages as well as documents opportunities for new and expanded recreation and arts programming. These will help shape the Preferred Scenario, ensuring it is grounded in both citywide service needs, community input, and City Council direction.
If housing is included for study during 3b, additional outreach related to height, type, unit mix, etc. will need to occur. This scenario will be illustrated through a comprehensive set of materials, including site diagrams, cross-sections, 3D model views, precedent imagery, and perspective renderings, to clearly convey design features and technical considerations. These will address key areas such as circulation, mobility, parking, land 26 of 28
use, programming, grading, hydrology, ecology, planting strategies, infrastructure, site systems, and sustainability initiatives, including carbon sequestration opportunities. The Preferred Scenario will also explore capital costs, capital financing, and revenue generation opportunities, and outline anticipated phasing as well as operations and maintenance costs, supporting the city’s commitment to long-term economic sustainability. The team will also review how Measure LC is affected and outline potential strategies as necessary.
Included with the development of the preferred scenario, Sasaki and team will also provide a Revised Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Opinion of Probable Capital Cost.
This refined cost assessment will build on the Phase 3a estimates and incorporate updated projections for hardscape, softscape, structures, utility infrastructure contingency allocations, and cost escalation. Together, these efforts will support an actionable, visionary, and fiscally responsible roadmap for the transformation of the Santa Monica Airport and solicit community feedback and City Council direction on the Preferred Scenario before finalizing. It is anticipated that the commented upon Preferred Scenario, assuming deemed to be potentially financially feasible and self-sustaining, will become the basis of the “Proposed Project” in the CEQA / EIR process. However, the Draft EIR will still include consideration of alternatives, including the No Project scenario, which would assume compliance with existing regulations, including Measure LC (i.e. assumes “continuation of the existing plan, policy or operation into the future.”) Environmental Review
This study session of the three scenarios does not meet the definition of a “project” subject to CEQA as it will not “cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment”. Additionally, per Section 15378(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a “project” does not include administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Additionally, per Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, the recommendations are exempt from CEQA, because City Council’s actions only involve planning studies for the airport and identification of potential land use scenarios for analysis under CEQA, and do not involve the approval of any scenarios, nor limit the 27 of 28
scope of potential alternatives/mitigation measures. In addition, the recommendations provided herein are categorically exempt under Section 15306 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project involves basic data collection, research, consultation, exploration of financing possibilities, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to environmental resources.
Past Council Actions
Below are the previous dates that the Airport Conversion Project has been before City Council.
Meeting Date Description
02/28/2017
(Attachment C)
Staff Report from the meeting where City Council adopted Resolution No. 11026 to close the Airport, effective midnight on December 31, 2028.
01/24/2023
(Attachment D)
Staff Report from the meeting where City Council directed staff to begin working on the Future of the Santa Monica Airport. 10/10/2023
(Attachment E)
Meeting Minutes showing City Council direction to reject the Lottery Selected Panel.
12/19/2023
(Attachment F)
Staff Report showing City Council awarding the SP2641 RFP to Sasaki to envision three scenarios without reducing the scope of the uses that the scenarios study.
1/28/2025
(Attachment G)
Staff Report from the City Council meeting where City Council directed staff to use the approved Guiding Principles as the basis of the three scenarios during Phase 3a with one option that would not require a vote pursuant to Measure LC and one option that shows some housing.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of recommended actions in this report. Staff will return to Council if any specific fiscal and 28 of 28
budget actions are required in the future. The project budget for this project remains $2,070,000 as per the Sasaki agreement in account C1008280.689000.
Prepared By: Amber Richane, Principal Design and Planning Manager Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. AttachmentA_3aEngagementDetail
B. AttachmentB-LOIs
C. AttachmentC_February 28, 2017 - Agenda 8C- Implement the Consent Decree and Resolution 11026 (Web Link)
D. AttachmentD_January 24, 2023 - Agenda 7B - Public Process to Determine the Future of the Santa Monica Airport (Web Link)
E. AttachmentE_October 10, 2023 - Agenda 7A - Discussion on the LotterySelected Panel Process for the Airport (Web Link) F. AttachmentF_December 19, 2023 - Agenda 11A - Award Request for Proposal and Enter into Agreement with Sasaki Associates, Inc. (Web Link) G. AttachmentG_January 28, 2025 - Agenda 7A - Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project (SMACP) Guiding Principles (Web Link)
H. 6638_AttachmentH_HRA_Financials
I. Written Comments
J. Letter of Interest
K. Powerpoint Presentation