ATTACHMENT A – PHASE 3A DETAIL
This document, Attachment A to the July 8, 2025 Staff Report to City Council, provides a comprehensive summary of the community engagement, survey results, and design exploration conducted during Phase 3A of the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project.
Building upon the foundational input gathered in Phases 1 and 2, Phase 3A focused on testing and refining specific land-use concepts, referred to as “Layers”, through a citywide survey and the creation of three scenarios.
Each Layer explores a key component of the future park, including connectivity and mobility, water and topography, ecology and passive uses, active park uses, housing, and revenue generation. The Layers approach allowed the project team to gather focused input on complex and sometimes competing priorities, while surfacing themes of community consensus and divergence. The survey received nearly 5,000 responses, including strong participation from youth and historically underrepresented demographic groups.
This Attachment outlines the community feedback for each Layer, presents a summary of the three integrated design scenarios informed by those results, and describes the tools and events used to gather public input including the May 17, 2025 community event, the CoMap digital engagement platform, and meetings with various Boards, Commissions, and Taskforces.
The detail provided in this document is essential for understanding the breadth of community perspectives, the rationale behind the proposed scenarios, and what issues needed to be considered as decision points and ultimately direction for the Preferred Scenario in Phase 3b this Fall.
Layers Survey Results and Usage
The Layers Survey marked a key step in planning for the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project. Feedback highlighted strong support for prioritizing open space, passive recreation, and ecological restoration while also raising concerns about traffic, environmental impacts, overdevelopment, and the inclusion of housing. Demographic analysis of survey responses showed broad participation across age groups and geographic areas, see below. There were 4,984 responses (1,866 complete and 3,118 partial) to the Phase 3a Layers Survey and saw increased participation from all the underrepresented demographic categories from the engagement in Phases 1 and 2. The Top 10 self-reported zip codes were from Santa Monica or adjacent West Los Angeles neighborhoods.
Continued collaboration with a Santa Monica High School Senior, who conducted outreach at several schools in Santa Monica including tabling at the high school, helped promote awareness of the project and its engagement process with an increase in the 24 and younger demographic.
As mentioned above we saw increased participation from all underrepresented demographic groups from the previous two surveys.
Layer 1 – Connectivity and Mobility
The majority of respondents favored limiting vehicular traffic through the site and emphasized a desire for safe, accessible pedestrian and bike paths that meander naturally through the park with Option B scoring highest for overall ranking, followed by Option A, then C, and finally D. Of the four options:
• Option A proposed a fully car-free site prioritizing green space and safety, with some critique on the layout’s rigidity and lack of access points.
• Option B offered a more organic path layout with limited vehicular access and was appreciated as a balanced solution, drawing comparisons to Central Park.
• Option C featured a pedestrian loop and a transit hub, receiving mixed feedback, while some valued the connectivity, others objected to the amount of road infrastructure.
• Option D, which maximized road access, was strongly opposed for undermining the vision of a “Great Park,” with concerns about safety, pollution, and fragmentation of park space.
Overall, the feedback strongly indicated a community preference for prioritizing pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly design with minimal vehicle intrusion, and for preserving the integrity and accessibility of future open space.
Layer 2 – Water and Topography
Community members expressed a strong desire for visible, traversable, and ecologically integrated water systems, as well as more distributed and varied topography across the site with Option C scoring highest for overall ranking, followed by Option B, then D, and finally A. Of the four options:
• Option A, which minimized visible water features and
prioritized simplicity and conservation, was seen as
practical but uninspiring.
• Option B received praise for balancing functionality and aesthetics, incorporating interactive elements like
splash pads while maintaining space for recreation.
• Option C was the most favored for its natural, meandering water features, ecological benefits, and engaging topography, though some raised concerns about water usage and accessibility.
• Option D, featuring a large central lake and elevated topography, was criticized for excessive water use, high maintenance, and redundancy given the site's proximity to the ocean.
Overall, the community favored designs that integrate water thoughtfully and naturally into the landscape, providing ecological, aesthetic, and recreational value without compromising practicality or sustainability.
Layer 3 – Ecology and Passive Uses
Participants expressed overall support for designs that emphasized immersive natural environments, biodiversity, and opportunities for low-impact public use. There was also recognition of the importance of balancing passive uses with active recreation and ensuring long-term sustainability and feasibility. For this layer Option B scored highest for overall ranking, followed by Option C, then D, and finally A. Of the four options:
• Option A was favored for preserving open space and
integration of nature but was criticized for inadequate sports facilities.
• Option B received praise for its organic, braided design and balance, though concerns were raised about
maintenance and safety.
• Option C stood out for dedicating the highest percentage of the site to ecological/passive uses, offering diverse environments, yet was seen as too compartmentalized and impractical for local climate conditions. • Option D was lauded as the most ecologically driven, with integrated forest areas and strong alignment with guiding principles, but many felt it sacrificed too much recreational space and could be costly and difficult to maintain.
Overall, community feedback reflected strong support for making ecology and passive uses a defining aspect of the new park, while acknowledging the importance of balancing those goals with practical implementation, recreation needs, and equitable access for all Santa Monicans.
Layer 4 - Active Park Uses
Survey respondents expressed a desire for a park that supports diverse active recreation opportunities while maintaining a strong sense of natural identity and ecological balance.
Many respondents emphasized the need for high-quality, inclusive facilities while others stressed the importance of not letting active uses dominate the open space or fragment the site’s character. The feedback reflected a broad consensus around the idea of “balance”: a park that is vibrant and functional but not overbuilt or overly programmed.
For this layer Option B scored highest for overall ranking, followed by Option A, then C, and finally D. Of the four options:
• Option A was noted for being cost-effective and
preserving space for other uses, but was widely
criticized for its grid-like, uninspired layout that lacked ecological integration.
• Option B was praised for achieving a perceived balance between nature and recreation and offering a favorable
circular layout, though some found it too structured and dominant in terms of active use.
• Option C appealed to those prioritizing field sports and clear zoning, but many found it too rigid and disconnected from natural elements. • Option D received strong support for addressing recreation facility shortages and concentrating uses efficiently, yet many felt it overwhelmed the space and detracted from the park’s potential to serve as a nature-focused community asset.
Community feedback on active park uses revealed a strong desire for inclusive, welldesigned recreation amenities that complement rather than dominate the broader park vision. Respondents consistently emphasized the need for equitable access, thoughtful design integration, and flexibility to meet both current and future recreational needs without compromising the site’s potential as a destination green space for all.
Layer 5 – Housing
This Layer proved to be the most contentious of the design layers explored in Survey 3A and varied when sorted by different demographic groups. While over half of respondents opposed any housing on several questions, noting that housing as a use would require a vote pursuant to Measure LC, several others suggested openness to include some housing to support broader city goals and/or generate revenue for park development. For several questions respondents were allowed to state that they did not want housing but also show that if there had to be housing what type of housing they might support.
Preferences leaned toward limiting housing within a limited conceptual footprint, with stronger support for options that consolidated it in specific areas rather than dispersing it throughout the site.
For this layer Option A scored highest for overall ranking, followed by Option B, then C, and finally D. This order was true for all three of the questions that ranked the plan options. Of the four options:
• Option A, which proposed no housing, was the most
supported in terms of preserving open space and not
requiring a vote pursuant to Measure LC. However, it
was criticized as financially unrealistic and lacking
acknowledgement of the ongoing housing crisis.
• Option B concentrated housing within the northeast
corner of the site with some of it being in Los Angeles, seen by some as a reasonable compromise that preserved most of the park while benefiting from transit access. Still, it raised concerns about shadows, traffic, and requiring another ballot measure pursuant to Measure LC. • Option C offered a distributed housing layout to foster community, potentially mixed-income options, and activating the park with residents. Nonetheless, it faced backlash from those adamantly opposed to any housing, and for perceived overdevelopment.
• Option D, which proposed the highest amount of housing, garnered support for its ambitious response to affordability needs and revenue generation but was the most strongly opposed overall due to fears that it could overwhelm park uses and betray the project’s original vision.
Ultimately, the community remains deeply
divided, grappling with tensions between
fulfilling housing needs and preserving a
large, open, nature-focused park and any
future housing would require voter approval
under Measure LC. Respondents showed
some support for affordable housing types,
including senior, workforce, and low-income
housing, provided they were part of a
balanced plan.
Layer 6 – Revenue Generation
Overall, respondents favored a balanced model that maintains the park’s ecological and recreational integrity while strategically incorporating revenue-generating activities. The community showed a clear preference for adaptive reuse of existing buildings, locating revenue uses along site edges to preserve open space and park character, and minimizing commercial intensity. A majority preferred a lower-cost park model that could reduce the need for extensive revenue-generating development, even if it meant slower or phased implementation. For this layer Option B scored highest for overall ranking, followed by Option C, then A, and finally D. Of the four options:
• Option A received support for minimizing commercial
development and emphasizing nature, biodiversity,
and adaptive reuse. Many respondents liked the idea
of relying on modest park-related revenues (like sports field permits and cafes) while gradually developing the park using existing lease income. However, critics felt this approach lacked financial realism and might result in a park that is under-programmed or too slow to develop. The continued presence of the runway was also widely disliked.
• Option B was viewed as striking a practical balance, placing revenue-generating uses at the site edges, integrating adaptive reuse, and keeping the park’s identity intact. Supporters favored small-scale amenities like cafes and rentals and appreciated the focus on preserving large areas for park and ecological uses.
Critics, however, questioned whether it could generate enough revenue to fund park needs and raised concerns about access equity.
• Option C emphasized broader distribution of revenue uses across the site, removal of the runway, and increased park space. Some valued its integrated approach and felt it could make the park financially viable without overpowering its recreational focus. But others worried that the plan over-allocated land to revenue uses, and that cutting roads and uses through the site could fragment the park and disrupt the visitor experience.
• Option D proposed the most robust revenue-generating model, aiming to fund full park implementation and provide surplus revenue for broader city needs. It appealed to those seeking faster development and long-term financial sustainability. However, it was also the most controversial as many saw it as too commercial, too dense, and too focused on non-park uses. The inclusion of housing as a revenue strategy drew strong opposition, with concerns about Measure LC, overdevelopment, and the potential privatization of public land.
Across all options, there was significant confusion about which uses could or would require a vote pursuant to Measure LC, particularly regarding commercial and residential components. Many respondents emphasized the importance of ensuring the park remain primarily public, natural, and equitable regardless of the revenue strategy. Lastly, whether or not any type of housing should be a part of the project remains a deeply divided issue.
For this survey, the team also created the Layers Survey Dashboard under the Resources tab of the website where community members can select different demographic characteristics and see how the results change for every layer and each question. The dashboard also includes 136 responses from the youth outreach activities in addition to the 4,984 for a total of 5,120 responses.
We also heard that there was an issue with the Spanish version of the Layers Survey and Unite Here Local 11 conducted their own survey to provide feedback. The survey gathered 142 responses regarding the future of the Santa Monica Airport site. 94% of respondents voted for a mix of housing and park space, with 4% voting for a park-only approach. Among those who voted for housing, 70% voted for building 3,000 or more units of affordable housing, and an additional 11% for between 1,000 and 2,999 units.
The results reflect the impact of the housing crisis on respondents: over half reported having to share rooms to afford rent, and more than half spend over an hour commuting at least once a week. Many reported housing instability in the past decade, including sleeping on couches, living in garages or cars, and knowing others who have experienced homelessness. The survey demonstrates support for large-scale affordable housing at the airport site, driven by lived experiences of overcrowding, long commutes, and housing insecurity.
The Three Scenarios
The three scenarios were created based on community feedback in Phases 1 and 2, the Guiding Principles, results from the Layers Survey in Phase 3a, adopted city policies, and City Council direction and are visual tools for discussion to continue to garner more feedback from the community on successes and opportunities for improvement related to interpretation of prior feedback. With Option B scoring the highest for four of the six layers, Option C scoring the highest for Water and Topo, and Option A for Housing, the scenarios sought to utilize these outcomes as defining characteristics within the scenarios and per City Council direction to study some housing.
Taking into consideration the ranked responses for each layer, the three scenarios are meant to explore trade-offs and feasibility as the project moves from individual layer preferences toward integrated design concepts. These scenarios are tools for conversation and not meant to be final solutions to pick from. Whatever the outcome, an incremental implementation coming out of this feasibility study will go through additional city boards, commissions, taskforces, and City Council to determine appropriate regulatory frameworks. Each scenario blends various community priorities and emphasizes different aspects of the overall vision, such as restoration, connectivity, or growth. The CoMap tool, launched with the three scenarios and discussed below, allowed community members to pinpoint the specific areas that they support or challenge so the team could get detailed feedback and see what has consensus in the community and what does not. All three of the presented scenarios preserved the runway and taxiway acreage at a minimum for open space, and all three had at least 2/3 of available parkland dedicated to park activities and each can consider different funding and financing sources to achieve financial sustainability (these sources are summarized in Attachment H and will be further analyzed as part of Phase 3b).
All three scenarios are accompanied by feasibility and implementation considerations.
We also note that these types of projects take time and that the first five years might look the same for any scenario as we prep the site, remediate as needed, and create funding mechanisms to implement the full vision incrementally.
Scenario 1: Reuse, Restoration and Resilience prioritizes ecological restoration, biodiversity, and adaptive reuse of existing infrastructure, and activation of the runway as incremental implementation of permanent uses are phased. It focuses on creating a lowimpact, resource-efficient park with no new development of any uses other than parks, open space, and public recreation pursuant to Measure LC. This scenario has fewer capital and operating revenue sources available for its funding strategy since it does not include real estate development on-site (See Attachment H). This scenario adds approximately 132 acres of park bringing the City’s number of park acres per 1,000 residents to 3.0 acres.
- Big Idea Statement: This design explores a network of parks and public spaces carved out of the runway, providing spaces for nature restoration, wellness, and community, in balance with recreational and infrastructure programs. - Aspirational Narrative: The Santa Monica Airport is adaptively reused, creating new spaces for nature, infrastructure, and community, to improve access to nature, increase resilience in the face of climate change, and provide needed recreational amenities. A large water reservoir is constructed on the former runway, with surrounding running loops and observation decks, and the earth excavated is used to create sculptural hills flanking the runway at the east and west ends of the site, providing an opportunity for viewing high points. The majority of the site is dedicated to park and public space uses, with restoration plans for reforestation, meadow and shrubland re-establishment, and green infrastructure. A community farm and garden contribute to local food access. Active recreation is introduced through a network of running and biking loops, keeping limited existing runway space for flexible programming, and a membership/leased sports and recreation facility. The design is focused on extracting and extending lines from the runway and historic land uses to guide future pathways, meadows, and programs, allowing the airport to evolve from a place dedicated to aviation infrastructure to one dedicated to nature and community use.
Financing/Implementation Considerations:
The following potential capital and operating sources and strategies could be applicable and considered as part of Scenario 1.
Potential Operating Revenue Sources and Strategies
• Public Funds
o General obligation bond that could allow an increase in ad valorem taxes to pay for park infrastructure (but requires a 2/3 voter approval) o Federal, State, and regional grants
• Value Capture
o Climate Resilience District (CRD)
o Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD)
o Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD)
o Sale of the portion of Airport land in Los Angeles (at highest and best use) • Philanthropy (this would require further analysis to estimate the potential) • Other Strategies
o Reducing costs by allocating areas to non-park uses (reservoir, municipal operations) that may entail expenditures to the city’s general fund or utility enterprise funds, necessitating additional bond revenue debt to finance large capital improvements, with concurrent rate payer impacts.
Potential Operating Revenue Sources and Strategies
• Value Capture
o Climate Resilience District (CRD)
o Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD)
• Earned Revenue
o Existing revenue from non-aeronautical leases (leases would be limited to 15 years)
o Earned revenue from park programs, e.g. paid parking, special events, food and beverage concessions, and sporting tournaments
• Philanthropy (this would require further analysis to estimate the potential) • Other Strategies
o Partnership with the State to manage and operate a portion of the parkland o Reducing costs by allocating areas to non-park uses (reservoir, municipal operations)
Additional information on each of these funding sources and considerations is available in Attachment H.
Points of Consideration for Scenario 1
1. Alignment with Measure LC and Community Vision
• Scenario 1 does not require a vote pursuant to Measure LC by proposing new development of only parks, open space, and recreational uses, there is no new housing or commercial development.
• This approach reflects one of the most strongly supported community desires from earlier phases: preserving the airport land as public open space. • The emphasis on biodiversity, nature access, and climate resilience directly responds to sustainability goals and Santa Monica’s broader environmental policy frameworks and plans.
2. Incremental, Phased Implementation
• The scenario envisions adaptive reuse and phased development rather than largescale transformation, allowing for a project with reduced scope tied to available funding. The timeline for this scenario could be much longer due to uncertain funding sources for capital projects.
• Reuse of existing infrastructure and the strategic use of the runway for recreational purposes (e.g., running loops, observation decks, flexible programming) provides early activation without large capital investments.
3. Funding Considerations
• This scenario has more limited potential to generate earned revenue than the other scenarios due to no on-site real estate development, limited leasable facilities, and no major commercial anchors to offset operations or capital costs. • Operating revenue would likely rely heavily on smaller scale earned income (existing leases, paid parking, memberships, permits) and other categories of sources.
• This scenario is anticipated to have the lowest capital construction cost among the three because it avoids high development costs tied to infrastructure-heavy land uses. It still anticipates major investments by non-General Fund sources (e.g. using the Water fund for the reservoir, a PPP for the sports fields and courts, etc.). • The combination of potential funding sources will require City and community commitments and tradeoffs to realize the scenario, which is true for all three scenarios.
4. Long-Term Stewardship and Governance
• The scenario contemplates potential partnerships (e.g., with the State) for park operations, which may reduce costs but require new governance models and longterm interagency coordination. • Establishing an enterprise fund for airport-related revenues could enhance transparency and allow ringfencing of funds, specifically the $6-7M of current net revenue from non-aeronautical leases, for this site but may require City Council action and new administrative processes.
• Proposition 26 restricts cost-recovery mechanisms, limiting opportunities for surplus-generating revenue from public amenities.
5. Equity and Access Considerations
• The scenario prioritizes ecological restoration and wellness but may be less responsive to active recreation demands, especially for underserved youth sports and court users.
• It proposes a community farm, orchard, and/or garden to address local food access, helping to center equity in the site’s design, though these elements alone may not meet all community needs.
Scenario 2: Weaving Park and Community aims to create strong physical and social connections between the park and surrounding neighborhoods through amplified pedestrian connections and minor vehicular network integration. This scenario emphasizes a mix of passive and active uses, distributed housing, and strategically placed revenue-generating elements. It seeks to balance ecological goals with access and equity while generating enough revenue to support enhanced park operations. This scenario adds 102 acres of park bringing the City’s number of park acres per 1,000 residents to 2.6 acres.
- Big Idea Statement: The park is carefully structured around a meandering water system and a multi-use path. Santa Monica Airport becomes a rich tapestry of cultural and ecological places through the sculptural introduction of water, topography, and circulation.
- Aspirational Narrative: This scenario envisions a park-centered design, with the majority of the site dedicated to park and public space uses, and key development zones for housing introduced north and south of the runway. The multi-use path organizes a series of cultural, recreational, and natural spaces - meadows, event lawns, free and membership-based sports complexes. The creek serves as the ecological organizing feature and works with park trails to create a sense of movement, stitching the north and south sides of the runway. Key new roads and trails connect to and through new neighborhood development zones in the south and north loops of the existing airport Lands. This scenario focuses on accentuated biodiversity and celebrates all the regional plant communities that can be responsibly curated on-site. The park includes both membership-based sports programs and free sports courts and fields, as well as unique activities, such as large imagination and nature-based playgrounds, a canopy walk, and an art market. Additional facilities that could be third-party operated include a large-scale outdoor performing arts venue, and an indigenous and native plant nursery and learning garden. The result is a richly layered ecological and cultural system that celebrates the distinctive landscape of the Santa Monica region.
Financing/Implementation Considerations:
The following potential capital and operating sources and strategies could be applicable and considered as part of Scenario 2.
Potential Operating Revenue Sources and Strategies
• Public Funds
o General obligation bond that could allow an increase in ad valorem taxes to pay for park infrastructure (but requires a 2/3 voter approval) o Federal, State, and regional grants
• Value Capture
o Climate Resilience District (CRD)
o Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD)
o Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD)
o Sale of a portion of the site for on-site real estate development o Sale of the portion of the site in Los Angeles (at highest and best use) • Philanthropy (this would require further analysis to estimate the potential) • Other Strategies
o Partnership with the State to manage and operate a portion of the parkland o Reducing costs by allocating areas to non-park uses (reservoir, municipal operations) that may entail expenditures to the city’s general fund or utility enterprise funds, necessitating additional bond revenue debt to finance large capital improvements, with concurrent rate payer impacts.
Potential Operating Revenue Sources and Strategies
• Value Capture
o Climate Resilience District (CRD)
o Ground lease(s) for on-site real estate development
o Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD)
• Earned Revenue
o Existing revenue from non-aeronautical leases (leases would not be limited to 15 years)
o Earned revenue from park programs, e.g. paid parking, special events, cultural festivals, food and beverage options, etc.
• Philanthropy (this would require further analysis to estimate the potential) • Other Strategies
o Partnership with the State to manage and operate a portion of the parkland o Reducing costs by allocating areas to non-park uses (reservoir, municipal operations)
Points of Consideration for Scenario 2
1. Integrated Land Use Strategy
• Scenario 2 represents a blended approach that seeks to integrate nature, community, and culture through a highly designed, interconnected park system. It balances active and passive recreation, ecological enhancement, and selective development, aiming to stitch together the site and surrounding neighborhoods physically and socially.
• The design is centered around a multi-use path and water feature that serves as both an organizing infrastructure and symbolic connector. It weaves together meadows, cultural destinations, ecological restoration, and recreational amenities across the north and south sides of the runway.
2. Balancing Open Space and Community Uses
• Unlike Scenario 1, this scenario includes distributed housing and strategic commercial areas, but these are at the edges of the central park experience. Nonpark development is limited to the north and south loops and the Bundy Dr. side of the former airport.
• Housing could be pursued only if supported by the community and would be subject to voter approval pursuant to Measure LC. If implemented, on-site housing development could generate capital funding if the City sells the developable area of land or operating revenue through a ground lease.
3. Enhanced Access, Equity, and Cultural Identity
• The scenario emphasizes inclusive access and a culturally rich public realm, with amenities such as free and paid sports courts, several plaza areas for events, large-scale playgrounds, and an art market.
• Ecological storytelling and biodiversity are embedded in the design, with curated plant communities and a potential Indigenous and native plant nursery/garden, and ziggurat spiral nature walk.
• By activating a range of passive, active, and cultural uses, the scenario supports park equity goals and offers diverse experiences for different user groups including a large amphitheater that could generate significant income for the scenario.
4. Funding Considerations
• On-site development can generate capital or operating revenue as part of the funding strategy.
• This scenario is likely to generate the property tax and sales tax revenue, which could either be captured by a financing mechanism (e.g. EIFD) as part of the funding strategy)
• It relies in part on a market-dependent approach: success hinges on the allowable uses and development program as well as future real estate conditions (including rents and sales prices, financing interest rates), which is currently challenged. • The combination of potential funding sources will require City and community commitments and tradeoffs to realize the scenario, which is true for all three scenarios.
5. Balancing Risks and Flexibility
• A ballot measure would be required to authorize park-serving commercial development (e.g., event venues, cafes, art markets) to secure ongoing operations funding. This introduces risk but also an opportunity to build a self-sustaining civic asset. A ballot measure could occur after the airport closes. • The plan allows flexibility to explore affordable housing and municipal utility infrastructure in ways that reduce costs to the park budget without compromising open space.
Scenario 3: Growing Park, Growing Community envisions the highest degree of transformation, including significant new development for housing and revenue generation, inclusive of necessary pedestrian and vehicular network upgrades. It seeks to fund a robust park program through increased on-site revenue sources and external funding. This scenario emphasizes density and integration but raises questions about park space preservation and long-term management. This scenario adds 114 acres of park bringing the City’s number of park acres per 1,000 residents to 2.8. - Big Idea Statement: Santa Monica Airport becomes the newest neighborhood of the City, with new residential blocks framing the largest city public park in Santa Monica. This new community and park are centered on a grand recreational lake and waterfront that serves as an emergency reservoir.
- Aspirational Narrative: This scenario explores maximizing the potential of the site for a park and a new residential development, creating a complete neighborhood. This design features a large-scale urban recreational lake that doubles as a park irrigation and emergency reservoir, adventure play areas, waterfront restaurants, and extensive free athletic, cultural, and public facilities.
Programs are organized by neighborhood ‘rooms’, suited to the immediate context with existing and proposed city blocks. Organic circulation patterns and neighborhood-scaled parklets and paseos, extend the core park into the urban fabric, seamlessly integrating the developed edges with the main park and maximizing porosity into the wider city fabric. With its robust financial strategy, this scenario enables grand park features, enhanced connectivity, more free programs and venues, making it a regional destination for recreation, culture, and new neighborhoods, growing the parklands together with the growing community.
Financing/Implementation Considerations:
The following potential capital and operating sources and strategies could be applicable and considered as part of Scenario 3.
Potential Operating Revenue Sources and Strategies
• Public Funds
o General obligation bond that could allow an increase in ad valorem taxes to pay for park infrastructure (but requires a 2/3 voter approval) o Federal, State, and regional grants
• Value Capture
o Climate Resilience District (CRD)
o Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD)
o Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD)
o Sale of a portion of the site for on-site real estate development o Sale of the portion of the site in Los Angeles (at highest and best use), • Philanthropy (this would require further analysis to estimate the potential) Potential Operating Revenue Sources and Strategies
• Value Capture
o Climate Resilience District (CRD)
o Ground lease(s) for on-site real estate development
o Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD)
• Earned Revenue
o Existing revenue from any remaining non-aeronautical leases (leases would not be limited to 15 years)
o Earned revenue from park programs, e.g. paid parking, special events, food and beverage options, sporting tournaments (cost recovery only as per Proposition 26 limitations), etc.
• Philanthropy (this would require further analysis to estimate the potential) • Other Strategies
o Partnership with the State to manage and operate a portion of the parkland Points of Consideration for Scenario 3
1. Maximum Site Transformation and Development
• Scenario 3 proposes the most ambitious and urban-forward vision for the Santa Monica Airport site of the three, blending a large central park with significant new housing and commercial development.
• It reframes the site as a new “complete neighborhood,” integrating development around a grand recreational lake that doubles as an emergency reservoir and irrigation source.
• Circulation systems for pedestrian, vehicular, and park connectivity are fully restructured, creating a porous and organically connected urban district around a central civic park.
2. Funding Considerations
• Compared to Scenarios 1 and 2, this scenario has the largest site area dedicated to real estate development, and therefore, potential capital and operating revenue generation through housing and commercial ground leases or land sales. • Based on the land area and assuming consistent density across scenarios, on-site development in this scenario is also likely to generate the greatest amount of potential property tax and sales tax revenue, which could either be captured by a financing mechanism (e.g. EIFD) as part of the funding strategy or generate new revenue to the City General Fund.
• It reflects a market-dependent approach: success hinges on the allowable uses and development program as well as future real estate conditions (including rents and sales prices, financing interest rates), which is currently challenged. • The combination of potential funding sources will require City and community commitments and tradeoffs to realize the scenario, which is true for all three scenarios.
3. Housing, Equity, and Legal Considerations
• Housing is included in this scenario, with a blend of market-rate and affordable units. The affordable portion is key to satisfying the Surplus Land Act (SLA) requirements.
• A ballot measure would be required to authorize development which introduces political risk and could become a focal point for public debate over growth, equity, and community identity.
• Significant infrastructure investment is needed for utilities and roads, adding to the upfront cost and planning complexity of this scenario.
4. Park as a Regional Civic Destination
• The central feature of a recreational lake surrounded by parklands, play areas, cultural facilities, and commercial amenities positions the site as a citywide and regional destination.
• Public spaces are organized around neighborhood-scaled “rooms” and paseos, which extend park character into the surrounding urban form, making the park feel embedded in daily life for future residents and current community members. • The robust revenue model allows for more free, publicly accessible programs and venues, offering greater civic benefit if successfully implemented.
5. Fiscal Strategy and General Fund Benefits
• With the greatest number of potential funding sources, this scenario channels future revenue back into the City’s General Fund, which could be used broadly across community services as well as park maintenance, safety, cleanliness, etc. • Funding tools include development agreements, ground lease revenue, park impact fees, grants, and philanthropy—offering diversified options but contingent on a favorable market and timely approvals.
6. Potential Tradeoffs and Concerns
• While the park gains scale and amenities, some community members may see the level of development as incompatible with the original Measure LC intent or their vision of a very large open space park.
• The scenario raises questions about long-term park identity and whether it remains a civic anchor or becomes a central green within a privatized development pattern. • Complexity in implementation due to ballot approval, utility planning, horizontal infrastructure costs, phasing, and equity protections requires significant staff, consultant, and political capacity over many years.
In summary, the three scenarios offer distinct yet overlapping pathways for transforming the Santa Monica Airport site into a legacy place. Each reflects a unique balance of environmental priorities, community access, financial feasibility, and citywide needs, shaped by extensive public engagement and City Council direction. Together, these scenarios illustrate the breadth of possibilities and trade-offs ahead. As the City Council considers financial feasibility, community priorities, and alignment with long-term sustainability goals, and what parts and pieces of each should be considered for the creation of a Preferred Scenario in Phase 3b that is both visionary and achievable.
Phase 3a Community Event Summary
The team held a large, in-person, Community Event on May 17, 2025, at the Airport from noon to 5 p.m. where the three scenarios were revealed to the public with space to provide feedback. It is estimated that over 400 community members attended over the five hours, 158 folks boarded one of the seven bus tours that took participants inside the fence, and 12 small group discussions were offered providing multiple ways for community members to participate and provide feedback. All display boards and materials were presented in English and Spanish. This event was also accompanied by an online experience CoMap, in English and Spanish, for folks who were unable to attend the event in person, and it was open from May 17, 2025 through June 22, 2025. The event map and workbook questions are shown below.
The event results included: 12 small group discussions, 374 sticky note comments, and 75 completed workbooks. Participants responded to the three conceptual design scenarios and explored themes including open space, housing, transportation, revenue, and long-term land use priorities.
Small Group Discussions
The facilitated small group discussions revealed a strong preference for a park-first vision, with many calling for a central, nature-based park serving Santa Monica and the broader Westside. Environmental remediation and sustainability were recurring concerns, including calls for soil analysis and sustainable water management.
Participants expressed mixed views on housing: while some supported affordable or workforce housing, particularly at the park edges, many others opposed housing altogether, often referencing Measure LC or concerns about overdevelopment. Many also stressed transportation and access, advocating for transit solutions like shuttles and bike connectivity. Ideas for revenue generation included adaptive reuse of hangars, stormwater capture, and small-scale cultural events, with widespread caution toward large commercial projects like a 20,000-seat amphitheater. The need for transparent, community-led decision-making was a dominant theme.
Sticky Note Comments
The sticky note wall allowed participants to share quick reactions to each scenario.
Scenario 2 received the most engagement and the most positive feedback, praised for its organic and natural layout, though some expressed concern about overdevelopment and housing. Scenario 1 drew mixed sentiment, many criticized its large water feature and perceived lack of nature, while a few noted its recreational potential. Scenario 3 received the most negative feedback, with participants citing excessive development, minimal green space, and disagreement with the overall scale and layout. Across all three scenarios, housing was the most polarizing topic, generating strong support from those prioritizing affordability and essential workers, and strong opposition from others concerned about density and access to nature priorities.
Workbook Responses
Workbook data provided structured feedback across six design layers: mobility, water, ecology, recreation, housing, and revenue. Scenario 2 was the top choice for most categories related to natural features, including spending time in nature, water integration, and passive ecological uses. Scenario 1 performed best in categories related to housing location (none), safety, and revenue generation (only existing), though it received lower marks for connectivity and ecological quality. Scenario 3 consistently ranked the lowest across nearly all design categories. The workbook results mirrored the sticky note and discussion feedback in valuing open space, ecological health, and access, while revealing divided opinions on the inclusion and locations of housing.
Community Event 3A surfaced a wide range of perspectives but highlighted clear areas of alignment: participants strongly favored a future park that maximizes open space, prioritizes ecological restoration, and reflects community values of equity, sustainability, and accessibility. While opinions on housing and revenue generation varied, there was broad agreement on the importance of protecting the site from too much development, integrating history and culture, and maintaining a transparent, participatory planning process. The feedback from this event echoes what was heard in the Layers Survey and will help in refining the design scenarios for the Preferred Scenario in fiscally sustainable ways to reach self-sufficiency remains a primary goal.
Photos from the Community Event
CoMap Summary
The CoMap tool is an interactive platform designed to gather community feedback on the parts and pieces of each of the three scenarios. It allowed users to drop a pin on specific elements of the three proposed scenarios by selecting icons that represent approval (thumbs up) or areas needing improvement (thumbs down) across six (6) site design layers: connectivity and mobility, water and topography, ecology and passive uses, active park uses, housing, and revenue generation and using those icons to pinpoint the feedback . There was also an ‘other’ category included if participants just wanted to leave a general comment or pin.
By placing these icons on the scenario plans, participants can visually pinpoint their preferences and add comments to provide more detailed input. This tool helped the planning team understand what elements have consensus and which do not, which areas folks support and which areas they do not.
Images of the CoMap experience in English and Spanish environments CoMap was open for almost five weeks, opened May 17 and closed June 22 collecting 12,473 comments from 1,253 community members. Details will be shared on the project website under the “Resources” tab and at the presentation to City Council.
Also, we received some feedback that native Spanish speakers were having some trouble with the Layers Survey, so for CoMap there was one link in English and one link in Spanish to address this concern.
Boards, Commissions (Cx), Taskforce Meeting Summaries
The team attended 17 public meetings in Phase 3a and has including summaries of the meetings in May and June about the Three Scenarios to provide an overview of the types of comments from each board, commission, or taskforce the team heard. • May 14 Disabilities Cx for the Three Scenarios; discussion focused on ensuring that accessibility and inclusivity are central to the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project from the earliest stages. Commissioners raised questions about the project timeline, the types of revenue-generating uses being considered, and how much those uses, such as housing or cultural facilities, might realistically contribute. There was strong support for community-serving elements like gardens and food spaces over housing, and calls for more clarity on financial models and reference projects.
Accessibility considerations included distributed parking, elevator alternatives, and digital inclusion, with an emphasis on designing for flexibility as standards evolve over time. The Commission encouraged a long-term, ambitious vision, describing the site as a “500-year park”, and highlighted the importance of integrating Clover Park and ensuring that every element of the future space is welcoming and usable for all. • May 19 VaP Advisory Board mentioned CoMap and the Three Scenarios • May 20 Airport Cx for the Three Scenarios; Commissioners and community members engaged in a thoughtful discussion about the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project and the draft scenarios presented in Phase 3A. A central concern was whether community feedback, particularly the low support for housing reflected in earlier surveys, was adequately represented in the current concepts.
Commissioners emphasized the importance of transparency and urged staff to clearly show where consensus exists, where it does not, and how public input has shaped the scenarios. There was appreciation for the CoMap tool as a more accessible method for collecting feedback, and a desire to ensure that City Council receives a clear, honest reflection of community priorities.
Commissioners and commenters also called for greater clarity around revenue generation, specifically the assumptions behind housing as a funding mechanism, and stressed the need to better communicate phasing, cost estimates, and the longterm vision for the site. Many emphasized that the scenarios should be understood as conceptual frameworks rather than fixed designs, and encouraged staff to make that distinction clear in the staff report and public-facing materials. Public comment highlighted a mix of skepticism, hope, and creativity, with calls for nature-based solutions, caution around overdevelopment, and thoughtful consideration of how the site might evolve over time. The Commission's feedback reinforced the need for a flexible, transparent, and community-rooted approach as the project moves toward defining a Preferred Scenario.
• May 28 Urban Forest Taskforce for the Three Scenarios had a packed agenda so the presentation was fairly short and the comments revolved around public open space, space for more trees, and a park first approach. • May 28 SM Democratic Club for the Three Scenarios; at this community forum the participants voiced a range of perspectives on the future of the airport site. Many expressed strong support for prioritizing open space, with some questioning the inclusion of housing given the site’s potential as a once-in-a-generation public park.
Others emphasized the need to ensure racial and economic equity—both in access to the future park and in who gets to shape its development. Concerns were raised about the long-term accountability of the project, especially through political transitions, and about the risk of losing community vision over time.
Several attendees questioned how the proposed scenarios align with Measure LC and whether the inclusion of housing would undermine the goal of maximizing open space. Others asked about the regulatory hurdles, such as CEQA and the Surplus Lands Act, and how financial sustainability could be achieved without sacrificing public benefit. The conversation reflected both enthusiasm for the opportunity and a strong desire for transparency, equity, and lasting community influence in shaping the site’s legacy.
• June 4 Planning Cx for the Three Scenarios; public commenters expressed strong interest in both affordable housing and significant park space as part of the Santa Monica Airport conversion. Many speakers, particularly Unite Here Local 11 workers and Community Corps residents, highlighted the urgent need for below-market housing to support essential workers who currently face long commutes. Others, especially from the Great Park coalition, advocated for a large public park, urging the City to avoid a ballot measure before the airport closes and to explore financing models not reliant on revenue generation.
Commissioners raised questions about how community input is reflected in the scenarios, the assumptions behind financial models, and the role of housing in funding park development. They called for clearer outreach to youth, better integration of scenario layers with survey data, and closer coordination with Los Angeles on planning. While there was broad support for exploring diverse scenarios, concerns were expressed about land sales, park bond history, and the need for more detailed economic and infrastructure analysis.
• June 5 Housing Cx for the Three Scenarios; members and community participants engaged in a robust discussion about the future of the Santa Monica Airport site, with a strong focus on the role of housing, long-term land use, environmental concerns, and financial feasibility. Questions were raised about how the Surplus Lands Act (SLA) and CEQA requirements shape the planning process, and whether housing, particularly affordable or community-led models, could or should be part of the site's future. While some participants expressed concerns about special interests overriding public input or the possibility of overdevelopment, others emphasized that Santa Monica’s primary challenge is not a general housing shortage, but a lack of deeply affordable and family-oriented units. Suggestions such as Community Land Trusts and reparative housing efforts (e.g., Right to Return) were discussed as potential compromises, while market-rate and luxury housing were broadly opposed.
There was also significant concern about the city’s ability to fund and maintain a major new park without long-term revenue strategies, prompting debate over whether housing or other uses could support that goal. Environmental considerations, including urban heat island effects, water reuse, biodiversity, and mental health benefits, were highlighted as reasons to prioritize open space and sustainable design over development. Participants called for distributed parking, accessible infrastructure, and design flexibility to ensure the site remains inclusive and future-focused. While views on housing varied widely, there was broad agreement on the need for transparent planning, financial clarity, and a commitment to preserving the airport land as a long-term public asset that reflects community values and environmental responsibility.
• June 9 Landmarks mentioned CoMap and the Three Scenarios • June 12 Rec and Parks Cx for the Three Scenarios; comments from commissioners focused on refining their formal recommendation to Council regarding the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project. Concerns centered on the inclusion of housing, particularly in Scenarios 2 and 3, given past survey results showing housing as one of the least preferred land uses. Several commissioners and speakers criticized the perceived disconnect between community feedback and the presented scenarios, questioned the calculation of open space, and raised issues related to CEQA, project costs, and transparency around the decision-making process.
The Commission discussed the importance of political strategy in shaping Council engagement and unanimously recommended that Council include a "no-vote" option moving forward, with one abstention. They also strongly opposed selling or privatizing any portion of the land. Suggestions included expanding public outreach and requesting examples of how similar parks have been financed elsewhere. • June 14 tabled at the Juneteenth Celebration at Virginia Ave Park for the Three Scenarios where approximately 20-30 community members stopped by and many of them had not heard about the project yet. All were encouraged to participate in the CoMap activity and asked questions about each scenario so they could then provide their comments online.
• June 16 Sustainability Cx for the Three Scenarios; a robust discussion and strong support for the creation of a regenerative park. Commissioners emphasized that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to advance the City’s sustainability goals through native vegetation, adaptive reuse of existing buildings, and design that supports long-term health, self-sufficiency, and climate resilience. The Commission voted to recommend that City Council reaffirm the park as a regenerative landscape that does not require a vote under Measure LC, and that all built and planted elements be focused on nature, recreation, and community health.
A majority of Commissioners also recommended that no housing be included in the future park, citing the site’s lack of transit access and the availability of more appropriate locations for housing elsewhere in the city. They expressed concern that introducing housing would both undermine sustainability goals and risk triggering a vote under Measure LC, potentially jeopardizing the entire project. One Commissioner voted against the no-housing recommendation, noting the need for more information and case studies before making a final determination. The Commission’s formal recommendation will be transmitted to City Council to be included as part of the record for the July 8th City Council meeting. • June 18 Landback and Reparations Taskforce for the Three Scenarios; Taskforce members and community participants raised thoughtful and pointed questions centered on equity, representation, and meaningful engagement in the Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project. A central concern was whether Indigenous and Black communities, particularly the Tongva people and long-displaced Black residents, would be genuinely centered in the planning and outcomes, or merely included as symbolic gestures. Participants emphasized the need for the project to deliver real reparative benefits, such as land return, affordable housing, and cultural space, rather than using terms like “land back” or “rewilding” in ways that diminish Indigenous stewardship or misrepresent the intent.
Frustration was also expressed around data fatigue, with community members noting a long history of surveys and input that rarely lead to tangible results. Calls were made for the City to act on past data rather than repeatedly asking historically excluded groups to “prove” their needs. Participants urged early and inclusive consultation with tribal communities, broader representation of Black and Indigenous professionals in design and development roles, and greater transparency around how community voices shape City Council decisions. Ideas such as free access for Indigenous people to future park facilities and exploration of meaningful partnerships (e.g., MOUs with tribal organizations) were proposed as steps toward more inclusive and reparative outcomes.
• June 23 Arts Cx for the Three Scenarios; commissioners discussed opportunities for integrating arts into the future of the space. Key topics included reaffirming that the former runway and taxiway would serve as open space, exploring non-revenuedependent models such as land trusts, and ensuring that Measure LC’s intent is upheld in planning discussions—particularly concerning housing. Commissioners emphasized the importance of including artists in the planning process and using the Arts Commission as a platform for creative collaboration. Public comment included a request from a Frieze representative for space to accommodate major cultural events or a permanent museum-quality venue. The Commission approved a letter to Council with minor revisions, reinforcing their ongoing role in shaping an arts-forward vision for the site.
• June 23 VaP Advisory Board for the Three Scenarios; members raised a wide range of questions and concerns, focusing heavily on themes of racial equity, accessibility, housing justice, and inclusive planning. A major point of discussion centered on the historic and ongoing exclusion of Black residents from homeownership opportunities in Santa Monica. Several attendees questioned why housing is not more prominently included in the draft scenarios, with some calling for as much as 50% of the site to be dedicated to housing, particularly affordable and reparative models, such as Right to Return and Community Land Trusts.
Participants expressed frustration that prior efforts, like Section 8 vouchers or small units, fail to meaningfully address the displacement experienced by Black families, especially those who once worked at the Douglas Aircraft facility but were barred from living nearby. The sentiment was clear: equitable access to land and housing should be central to any future vision for the site.
Others emphasized the need for more accessible and inclusive engagement tools, noting that the surveys have been too difficult for less tech-savvy community members. There were questions about the size and traffic impact of proposed uses, including the amphitheater, and a request for clear data on trip generation and traffic studies, particularly around streets like 23rd Street. Members appreciated the “parts and pieces” approach to scenario development, which allows for more specific feedback rather than forcing support for entire plans. Several also urged the City to present demographic breakdowns of survey respondents, pointing out that the perspectives of communities of color, especially those in zip codes like 90404, must be fully recognized in both analysis and Council deliberations. Finally, they asked how to most effectively make their voices heard by City Council, and thanked staff for their presence and transparency.
Community Engagement Review
The Layers Survey, the three conceptual scenarios, and the multiple avenues of community engagement, including CoMap, the online survey, in-person events, and presentations to Boards and Commissions, were all intentionally designed to make a complex planning process more accessible, transparent, and inclusive. Staff aimed to clearly illustrate the trade-offs involved in shaping a 192-acre park, invite meaningful public input on specific design elements and system-level decisions, and ensure that a diverse range of voices could be heard throughout the robust process. By breaking down the design process into understandable components and offering multiple ways to participate, the goal was not only to gather feedback, but to build shared understanding, surface values, and support City Council in making informed decisions about what should be included in a new hybrid Preferred Scenario in Phase 3b.