Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project
Presentation to
City Council
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
2 Agenda
1. Review Results from Phase 3a
2. Discuss Economic Ideas
3. Provide Direction on Next Steps, Phase 3b
Purpose of Tonight’s meeting
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
3 Agenda
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.
Recommended Actions
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
4 Agenda
1. Identifying elements to
include in Phase 3b
2. Time to understand
financing tools
3. Day 1 planning and
Preferred Scenario
Why now?
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
5 Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project:
There really is only one question…
Should the Preferred Scenario include any uses
requiring a future ballot measure under Measure LC or
not? If so, should any housing be included?
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
6 Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project:
Three Potential Pathways
● Direct staff to explore:
○ Option 1: Only uses that do not require a vote
○ Option 2: Uses that would require a vote but not housing ○ Option 3: Uses that would require a vote including housing Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
7 Project Overview
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
8 The Airport Site Total Area: 191.6 Acres
AREAS
Park Area 8 ac
Buildings 39 ac
Airport, Roads, Parking 142 ac
SMC 3 ac
TOTAL 192 ac
AREAS
Park Area 8 ac
Buildings 39 ac
Airport, Roads, Parking 142 ac
SMC 3 ac
TOTAL 192 ac
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
9 Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project Timeline
The CEQA process is AFTER this scope of work >>>
DESIGN PHASES
ENGAGEMENT PHASES
PHASE 1:
Charting the
Course
PHASE 2:
Discovering
the Place &
Setting the
Stage
PHASE 3B:
Defining the
Future of
Place:
Preferred
Scenario
PHASE 3A:
Defining the
Future of
Place: 3
Scenarios
PHASE 4:
The Path
Ahead
PHASE 5:
Preferred
Scenario Plan
Vision Book ● Project Kick-off ● Alignment ● Document Review ● Future Needs & Desires ● Existing Conditions
Analysis ● Opportunities &
Constraints ● Guiding Principles
Draft ● Layers Survey ● Three Scenarios ● CoMap Tool ● Preferred Scenario ● Preliminary Phasing ● Funding Analysis ● Final Vision Book to be used for
future phases of
work ● Implementation
Plan
We’re here
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
10 Community Engagement Summary
87 Public
meetings
(17 in Phase 3a
alone)
20 Small Group
Discussions, +370
Participants
Project Website
+50,000 total views
10 Pop-up
Events
Virtual Education
Sessions
+6,500 total views
4 Online Surveys
+12,100 responses
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
11 Guiding
Principles
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
12 VES 4
Phase 3a Community Engagement
Design
Layers
Draft
Scenarios
Phase 2
Engagement
Summary
Survey 3A
collects community
preferences and
priorities on layers
Pop-up
Events
5/17
Community
Event 3
Survey 3B
collects community
feedback on
scenarios
B&C
Meetings
City
Council
(July 8th)
Design Layers & Scenarios We’re
here!
Council
Direction
Phase 2
Next steps & Guiding
principles
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
13 Project Layers Study
Evaluating parts of a master plan
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
C
A
Proposed Road
Proposed Pedestrian & Bike Paths (Primary)
Proposed Pedestrian & Bike Paths (Secondary)
Proposed Primary Gateway
Proposed Secondary Gateway
Layer 1: Connectivity and Mobility
Community members expressed interest in limited vehicular connectivity through the site and a pedestrian/bike mobility network that meanders through the site with several
gateways into the site at strategic locations.
D
B
Preferred Option
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
C D
A B
Layer 2: Water and Topography
Community members expressed interest in a site that features visible and usable water. Overall, water systems that are connected and traversing the entire site were most popular. Options that featured more distributed and nuanced topography were more popular than centralized schemes.
Preferred
Option
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Layer 3: Ecology & Passive Uses
Community members were most interested in integrating ecology and passive uses with other uses on site. Options that expressed a more fluid/natural organization of these uses were preferred over more rigidly designed places.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Layer 4: Active Park Uses
Community members communicated preferences for a site that balances active park and recreation uses with other kinds of uses. They generally preferred options that scattered these uses around the site or organized them around a connected loop.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Layer 5: Housing
*Housing development would require a vote
pursuant to Measure LC
Community members were divided on whether or not they would like to see housing on the future site. While options that showed no housing or the smallest amount of housing demonstrated interest over options that showed more, the survey questions showed a split for the support highlighting that housing remains a deeply polarizing issue within the community.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Layer 6: Revenue Generation
Park program, rewild &
leasable park program
Recreation on the runway
Adaptive reuse
Park/recreation space
Revenue generating uses
Community members expressed interest in a balanced approach to revenue generation on site that maintained some existing facilities for adaptive reuse while integrating new development areas along site edges and corners. Overall, community members preferred a future site with lower overall costs, requiring less on-site revenue generation, as compared to a site with high overall costs and high revenue generation needs.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
21 Create Scenarios
Test fits using compiled layers
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Scenario Framework
The Three Scenarios are intentionally
different from one another to identify
tradeoffs and find areas of consensus
The Preferred Scenario will not be one of
these scenarios but a hybrid of the parts
and pieces that have community support,
Council direction, achieve project goals,
feasibility, and a realistic implementation
pathway
CoMap allowed respondents to pinpoint
the specific areas that they supported or
found challenging and used the scenarios
as tools for conversation
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Scenario 1: Reuse, Restoration and Resilience
AREAS
Park Area 132 ac.
Buildings 35 ac.
Deveopment Area 0 ac.
Airport, Roads, Parking 22 ac.
SMC 3 ac.
TOTAL 192 ac.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Scenario 2: Weaving Park and Community
AREAS
Park Area 102 ac.
Buildings 30 ac.
Deveopment Area 40 ac.
Airport, Roads, Parking 17 ac.
SMC 3 ac.
TOTAL 192 ac.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Scenario 3: Growing Park, Growing Community
AREAS
Park Area 114 ac.
Buildings 13 ac.
Deveopment Area 46 ac.
Airport, Roads, Parking 16 ac.
SMC 3 ac.
TOTAL 192 ac.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
CoMap Survey
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Active Park Uses
KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR THIS LAYER
1. Strong support for active amenities:
Many residents favor sports courts,
recreational fields, playgrounds, and
flexible spaces that promote familyfriendly and community-oriented activities.
2. Interest in leasable and free-use
options: Community members
appreciate a mix of publicly
accessible and leasable facilities to
support both everyday use and
organized programming.
3. Desire for balance with passive
space: Some residents prefer quieter,
nature-focused areas and express
concern about over-programming
and losing open, shaded green space.
4. Amphitheater and parking
concerns: A number of respondents
question the size of the amphitheater
and worry that parking infrastructure
may displace natural or recreational
areas. Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
APPROVE DISAPPROVE
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Summary of Results
Scenario 1
Scenario 1 was the
preferred option for
two layers as it
included no housing
and only adaptive
reuse for revenue
generation.
Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Scenario 2 was the
preferred option for
connectivity and
mobility, water and
topography, ecology
and passive uses,
and active park uses.
Scenario 3 was not
the preferred option
for any of the project
layers.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
DIVERSITY OF SECTORS:
• Recreation and athletics (such as surf parks, aquatics facilities, multi-sport complexes, racquet sports, and playgrounds), • Arts and culture (including amphitheaters, artist
villages, museums, and immersive storytelling experiences), • Housing and mixed-use development, • Environmental sustainability and ecological restoration (ranging from native plant centers and regenerative agriculture to biomimicry-based design), • Education and youth programming (including STEM hubs, adventure learning, and community schools), and • Mobility and innovation (e.g., electric aviation, carfree urbanism, and VR pilot training).
Letters of Interest (LOIs) received
Letter of Interest (LOI)
*Representing a wide range of ideas, ambitions and
financial models
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
30 Park Funding Approach
Understanding Capital and Operational
Costs of Parks
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
31 Current Airport Finances
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
32 HR&A is evaluating potential capital and operating funding sources and financing mechanisms to ultimately develop a funding strategy for the preferred scenario.
This analysis assumes that the City General Fund is not anticipated to be a source for new capital or operating revenue.
Capital Funding Strategy 1 How to pay for construction of the park? 2 Operating Funding Strategy
How to pay for park operating & maintenance costs?
3 Economic & Fiscal Benefit
What other economic and fiscal benefits should be accounted for? HR&A’s Role: Park Economics
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
33 $497
$65M
$161M
$40M
$142M
$68M
$26M
Costs to build parks (capital costs) vary depending
on context; design; required infrastructure; intensity
and type of use; and more.
*Note: Capital costs are adjusted to 2024 dollars.
Los Angeles State Historic Park
Brooklyn Bridge Park
Sarasota Bay Park
Wilmington Waterfront Park
Memorial Park Santa Monica
(Phase 1&2)
Scissortail Park
Shelby Farms
Los Angeles State Historic Park $0.8M
Park Capital Costs
Capital Costs
Park Total Capital Cost per Acre
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
34 Operators of urban parks need to plan for significant ongoing operating and maintenance costs, which vary
depending on activation and use.
Santa Monica’s Clover Park
Operating Costs
$32M
$14M
$148M
$4M
$14M
$7M
Brooklyn Bridge Park
Sarasota Bay Park
Central Park
Los Angeles State Historic Park
Santa Monica Public Landscape
Division
Scissortail Park
Limited to
landscaping &
irrigation at
parks only
Park Total
Park Operating Costs
Operating Cost per Acre
*Note: Operating costs are adjusted to 2024 dollars.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
35 Operating Cost Considerations
To operate and maintain a
park takes more than just
cutting the grass. To have a
space that community
members feel safe in and
want to use includes many
divisions and Departments
in the City such as:
Programming
and Activations
•Recreation and Arts
(RAD)
•Recreation •Cultural Affairs
Build, Operate,
Maintain
•Public Landscape
• Architecture
• Engineering
•Water Resources
•Resource Recovery
and Recycling (RRR)
Connectivity
• Department of
Transportation (SM
DoT)
•Mobility
Regulatory
Frameworks
•City Attorney
•Community Development •Planning
Public Safety
•Police Department
(SMPD)
• Fire Department
(SMFD)
•Office of Emergency
Management (OEM)
• Information Services
(ISD)
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
36 Tempelhofer Feld Berlin Key Precedent
● Airport Closure 2008
● Reopened as Tempelhofer Feld on May 8,
2010, immediately becoming a popular
public park with ~235,000 visitors over
opening weekend
● Large scale protests, like 2009, and
occupation attempts have highlighted
policing and public safety challenges
● Ongoing closures: Phased building &
landscape areas remain closed during
renovation through end of 2026.
● Public dialogue launched July 3, 2024, to
explore balanced future use including
potential peripheral development to help
finance park construction & operations.
● New Design Competition 2024-2025. ● The future strategy aims to balance heritage, sustainability, creative reuse, and
selective development—guided by public
input, legal safeguards, and financial
practicability.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
37 Capital or Considerations:
Operating
Revenue Source
Source
Imposes new
taxes or fees
Foregoes General
Fund Revenue
Approval Requirements
Public Funding
Requires 2/3 approval of No Yes
registered voters.
General Obligation Bond (GO Capital Bond)
Federal, State, and Regional Capital NA No No
Grants
We do not anticipate philanthropy to be a significant source of capital or operating revenue.
Philanthropy Both
Earned Revenue
Operating NA No No
Revenue
Existing Airport Lease Revenue
Operating NA No No
Revenue
Income-Generating Programs
HR&A is assessing potential funding sources and financing mechanisms which could be combined to develop a feasible funding strategy.
Additional information is available in Attachment H of the Staff Report.
Funding Sources and Mechanisms
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
38 Capital or Considerations:
Operating
Revenue
Source
Source
Imposes new taxes
or fees
Foregoes
General Fund
Revenue
Approval Requirements
Real Estate & Value Capture
Requires a vote by local elected Yes No
officials.
Enhanced Infrastructure Capital
Financing District (EIFD)
Requires 2/3 approval of registered No Yes
voters.
Mello-Roos Community Both
Facilities District (CFD)
Depends on the
financing tool used.
Requires a vote by local elected Yes
officials.
Climate Resilience District Both
Requires 50% in favor on a public Yes No
ballot measure to allow uses other
than parks and recreation.
Operating
Revenue
Ground Lease
Requires 50% in favor on a public Yes No
ballot measure to allow uses other
than parks and recreation.
Land Sale Capital
HR&A is assessing potential funding sources and financing mechanisms which could be combined to develop a feasible funding strategy.
Additional information is available in Attachment H of the Staff Report.
Funding Sources and Mechanisms
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
39 To fund Santa Monica’s great park, there will be trade-offs and costs borne by the city and the community, with varying benefits. Potential Benefits Funding Strategy Approach
Potential Trade-offs • Forego some General Fund revenue • Allow uses other than parks and recreation • Impose new taxes or fees on
property owners • Require a public vote to approve • Prompt Surplus Land Act process (potential delays) • Extend timeline to secure funds and realize vision • Reduce park scope on site • Require LA County or LA City partnership • Ensure long-term financial stability for the
park • Generate new revenue to the General
Fund • Speed up project timeline • Provide more free programming at the park • Create a new neighborhood
at the park • Address City priorities and goals • Create new jobs and spending in the city • Generate upfront capital to begin park construction
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
40 Conclusions &
Recommendations
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
41 Planning for Day One and “One Day”
Day One
Access & Activate
Expand Activities
Encourage Regular Use
Transition to Park
Integrate Permanent
Features
One Day
Realize the Vision
Start with Nature Inspire Wonder Balance Economics Amplify Versatility Celebrate Place Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Next Steps after Today Agenda
What is coming in Phase 3b?
● Develop an initial preferred scenario
based on Council feedback tonight
● Vet scenario funding and feasibility
● Explore interim open space uses
● City Council Review in Fall of 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
43 Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project:
There really is only one question…
Should the Preferred Scenario include any uses
requiring a future ballot measure under Measure LC or
not? If so, should any housing be included?
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
44 Santa Monica Airport Conversion Project:
Three Potential Pathways
● Direct staff to explore:
○ Option 1: Only uses that do not require a vote
○ Option 2: Uses that would require a vote but not housing ○ Option 3: Uses that would require a vote including housing Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
45 Agenda Recommended Actions
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.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
46 Thank you!
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Scenario Park Area Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Scenario Park Area: Scenario 1
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Scenario Park Area: Scenario 2
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Scenario Park Area: Scenario 3
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
51 Measure LC Flowchart
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
Council from approving the following
on Airport land that has been
permanently closed to aviation use: the
development of parks, public open
spaces, and public recreational
facilities; and the maintenance and
replacement of existing cultural, arts
and education uses.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Question 8 (3038 out of 6173 answered)
Considering the potential future role of the airport site as a place for a variety of activities, which of these potential programs would you MOST LIKE TO SEE take shape on the Santa Monica Airport site? # of
Responses Rank Park Use
1 Multi-use paths (walking, cycling) 1,828
1,582 Gardens (e.g. botanical garden, pollinator/butterfly garden) 2 3 Urban Forest 1,512
4 Nature park/reserve 1,320
5 Arboretum 1,236
1,212 Grassy enclaves/knolls (e.g.
picnicking, yoga)
6 7 Cafe 1,204
8 Adventure playground 1,099
9 Wildlife habitat/ecological park 1,082
10 Dedicated biking trails 1,076
1,061 Multi-use fields (lacrosse, rugby, field
hockey, soccer, football, etc.)
11 12 Wildflower meadow 1,032
13 Constructed wetlands/ponds/lake 1,011
# of
Responses Rank Park Use
14 Aquatics center/public pools 945
15 Outdoor Amphitheater - Small 903
885 Unprogrammed/flexible fields (e.g.
frisbee, kite flying)
16 839 Nature-based flood
protection/stormwater gardens
17 18 Dedicated running/walking loop 837
796 Market (farmers’, local maker,
specialty goods)
19 20 Dog park 679
21 Food Hall/Food Truck Space 631
22 Community Garden 630
23 Outdoor movie screening space 625
605 Water feature (e.g. splash pad,
fountain, duck pond)
24 25 Family Friendly Beer Garden 600
26 Community Farm/Orchard 579
Could/would require a
vote pursuant to Measure LC
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Engagement Summary | Comment Cards
Could/would require a
vote pursuant to Measure LC
# of
Responses Rank Park Use
27 Basketball Courts 565
28 Tennis Courts 552
29 Pickleball Courts 550
537 Public pick-up games (e.g. bocce,
bean bag toss, table tennis, etc.)
30 526 Flexible Lawns & Plazas for
Community Events
31 32 Sculpture Garden/Walk 507
33 Outdoor Amphitheater - Large 489
34 Restaurant 474
35 Adventure/Ropes Course 471
36 Recreation Center 466
37 Baseball/softball diamonds 455
38 Outdoor fitness equipment/circuit 453
39 Housing 442
# of
Responses Rank Park Use
418 Water-based activities (e.g. kayaking/SUP, fishing) 40 41 Youth Center 414
42 Senior Center 407
43 Nature educational center 403
44 Rock climbing wall 396
381 Educational interpretive walk with
signage
45 46 Daycare 369
47 Murals 324
48 Library 322
49 Art Galleries 314
313 50 Indoor sports venue
51 Community/Cultural center 312
52 Skate park 309
Question 8 (3038 out of 6173 answered)
Considering the potential future role of the airport site as a place for a variety of activities, which of these potential programs would you MOST LIKE TO SEE take shape on the Santa Monica Airport site? Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Engagement Summary | Comment Cards
# of
Responses Rank Park Use
308 Performance Center - Community
Theater
53 54 Chess 305
55 Ice rink 304
304 Interactive Installations (e.g. musical,
water, art)
56 57 Bird-watching & apparatus 296
58 Outdoor classroom 288
59 Bike pump track 284
273 Educational Institution (e.g. adult
learning center, community college)
60 61 Craft classroom 269
62 Cross-country course 260
63 Homeless service center 260
64 Commercial uses 254
# of
Responses Rank Park Use
248 Flexible space for traveling art shows/fairs
65 66 Outdoor Art Installations 248
67 Scenic overlook/viewing areas 237
68 Horseback riding area/stables 236
69 Wave/surf pool 234
70 Volleyball courts 233
71 Rentable pop-up food stall 227
72 Indoor event/concert venue 225
73 Airport historic interpretive walk 223
74 Futsal courts 222
75 Museum 216
76 Archery range 210
77 Interactive art themed playground 207
78 Event center 199
Question 8 (3038 out of 6173 answered)
Considering the potential future role of the airport site as a place for a variety of activities, which of these potential programs would you MOST LIKE TO SEE take shape on the Santa Monica Airport site? Could/would require a
vote pursuant to Measure LC
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Engagement Summary | Comment Cards
# of
Responses Rank Park Use
79 Local Artists’ Studio 184
80 Disc golf course 180
81 Golf course 173
170 82 Aerial sports (e.g. zipline, trapeze, etc.)
83 Model airplane flying space 159
84 Lawn bowling 138
85 Retail pavilion 133
86 Non-aviation transit center 130
87 Clean tech incubator space 128
88 Mental health center 124
89 Community health center/clinic 122
90 Internal park shuttle 105
91 Remote controlled toy vehicle space 77
# of
Responses Rank Park Use
92 Incubator for small businesses 74
93 Hospital/Clinic 68
94 Inclusive food incubator 61
Question 8 (3038 out of 6173 answered)
Considering the potential future role of the airport site as a place for a variety of activities, which of these potential programs would you MOST LIKE TO SEE take shape on the Santa Monica Airport site? Could/would require a
vote pursuant to Measure LC
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
1. Strong support for connectivity:
Broad enthusiasm for linking the site
to Clover Park, neighborhoods, and
regional trail systems.
2. Prioritize active mobility:
Community favors pedestrian and
bike paths over roads, opposing
vehicle infrastructure that fragments
park space or disrupts its natural feel.
3. Transit-oriented approach:
Backing for features like a transit hub
and strategic traffic solutions that
reduce car dependence.
4. Reduce surface parking:
Preference for improved aesthetics through parking consolidation (e.g., garages) or transit access instead of large surface lots. Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Mobility and Connectivity
APPROVE DISAPPROVE KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR THIS LAYER
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
APPROVE DISAPPROVE
Water and Topography
1. Natural aesthetics preferred:
Strong support for organic, flowing
water features over large,
engineered forms like rectangular
reservoirs.
2. Mixed views on size and space:
Some see large water features as
appealing or useful; others view
them as space-inefficient or
inappropriate given drought
conditions.
3. Interest in recreation: Many value
opportunities for swimming,
kayaking, and boating when
integrated thoughtfully.
4. Sustainability matters: Concerns
about water use and maintenance
drive support for eco-functional,
low-impact designs like wetlands
and green roofs.
KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR THIS LAYER
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
APPROVE DISAPPROVE
Ecology and Passive Uses
KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR THIS LAYER
1. Strong demand for naturefocused design: Broad support for rewilding, wildflower meadows,
urban forests, nature trails, and
regenerative landscapes throughout
the park.
2. Desire for distributed green
space: Community favors expansive
ecological areas integrated across
the site, rather than isolated
patches.
3. Mixed views on specific elements:
Some support lawns and overlooks
alongside natural habitats; others
raise concerns about features like
wetlands (e.g., mosquito risk).
4. Opposition to overdevelopment:
Concerns that commercial or
residential uses may undermine the
ecological and passive recreation
goals of the park.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
APPROVE DISAPPROVE
Housing
KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR THIS LAYER
1. Widespread opposition to housing
in the park: Many respondents
referencing Measures LC believe
housing violates the public mandate
for a park-focused site, with over 200
explicit "no housing" comments.
2. Concerns about neighborhood
impacts: Key issues include traffic,
infrastructure strain, school capacity,
and loss of the site’s intended openspace character.
3. Recognition of the housing crisis:
Some support exists for deeply
affordable and workforce housing,
especially for teachers, healthcare
workers, and families.
4. Calls for nonprofit-led, familyoriented housing: Advocates emphasize permanently affordable
models with larger units, run by
mission-driven organizations rather
than market developers.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Revenue Generation
APPROVE DISAPPROVE KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR THIS LAYER
1. Support for adaptive reuse and
cultural venues: Many favor revenue
from community events, performances,
and repurposed structures like the
Barker Hangar, alongside usersupported recreation centers.
2. Opposition to housing and largescale commercial uses: Strong resistance to relying on residential or
commercial development as a primary
funding source, citing concerns about
parkland loss and mission drift.
3. Preference for modest, parkcompatible amenities: Residents support food venues, event spaces, and
limited user fees—so long as they
enhance, not overwhelm, the park
experience.
4. Interest in alternative funding
strategies: Suggestions include public
grants, bonds, or endowments,
reflecting a desire for revenue without
compromising open space or access. Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
61 Sustainability & Resilience Basis of Design
1. All scenarios include significant bodies of water that can be used for fire suppression
2. All scenarios seek ‘carbon positive’ park design
3. All scenarios prioritize low-water use planting strategies
4. All scenarios include native and adapted species, with a range of ecological design approaches.
5. All scenarios prioritize people-powered mobility
6. All scenarios seek net zero energy for the park
7. All scenarios seek net zero waste management for the park Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Project Layers Concept
Site design layers take a focused
look at each of the major systems
and uses that come together to
create a complete vision for the
future of the site.
The planning team has explored
different approaches to each of
these layers to understand potential
benefits, impacts, and trade-offs of
each potential direction.
Community input on the layers
served as the foundation for the
three test fit scenarios in Phase 3A.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
SITE
90405
90404
90402 90403
90401
90291
90025
90049
90064
90066
93 zip codes
represented
Question 1 (3450 out of 4984 answered)
Which zip code do you currently reside
within?
Top Ten Zip Codes
90405 - 1207 responses (34.9%)
90403 - 531 responses (15.3%)
90404 - 432 responses (12.5%)
90066 - 214 responses (6.2%)
90402 - 207 responses (6.0%)
90401 - 171 responses (4.9%)
90064 - 90 responses (2.6%)
90291 - 83 responses (2.4%)
90049 - 43 responses (1.2%)
90025 - 39 responses (1.1%)
- - Approximate curve
representing the 2020 Census
Question 3 (3458 out of 4984 answered)
Which is your age range?
Question 4 (3457 out of 4984 answered)
What describes your racial/ethnic identity? - - Approximate curve representing the 2020 Census
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Test Fit Scenarios: Combining Layers
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Scenario 1: Feasibility & Implementation
External Sources
Generated On-Site Sources
Public funding
External Sources
Revenue Generated On-Site
Public funding
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Scenario 2: Feasibility & Implementation
External Sources
Generated On-Site Sources
Public funding
External Sources
Revenue Generated On-Site
Public funding
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Scenario 3: Feasibility & Implementation
External Sources
Generated On-Site Sources
Public funding
External Sources
Revenue Generated On-Site
Public funding
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Workshop 3
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Workshop 3
215
event sign-ins
12 community
discussions
90405 61.3%
90404 8%
90066 8%
90402 8%
90403 5.3%
90064 4%
90291 2.6%
Community Event 3
Workbooks
Do you work
in Santa
Monica?
158
tour sign-ups
75 complete
workbooks
48 Online 27
In
person
Top Zip Codes of respondents
52% 29%
19%
No
Yes
Yes, and I own a business
What’s your
age range?
Under 18 years
18-24 years
25-34 years
35-44 years
45-64 years
65-84 years
85-99 years
6 | 8.2%
2 | 2.7%
1 | 1.3%
6 | 8.2%
28 | 38.3%
30 | 41.1%
0 | 0%
Under 45 years
20.1%
Over 45 years
79.9%
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Slide 69
3 @[email protected] @[email protected] transferring a comment from Amber on event sign ins - what do you think, "this is iwhere the participan clickers would have been really good. we have normally doubled this number as our anticipated folks. please report this consistently like the other events, which is the higher number I believe."
_Assigned to [email protected]_
Chris Hardy, 7/3/2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Active Park Uses
Question 4.1 Question 4.2 Question 4.3
Scenario 2 Scenario 2
44% 38%/38% 48%
Ecology and Passive Uses
Question 3.1 Question 3.2 Question 3.3
Scenario 2 Scenario 2 Scenario 2
58% 59% 62%
Revenue Generation
Question 6.1 Question 6.2 Question 6.3
Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Scenario 1
51% 53% 58%
Scenario 1/2
Water and Topography
Question 2.1 Question 2.2 Question 2.3
Scenario 2 Scenario 2 Scenario 2
59% 62% 63%
Housing
Question 5.1 Question 5.2 Question 5.3
Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Scenario 1
59% 57% 59%
Connectivity and Mobility
Question 1.1 Question 1.2 Question 1.3
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 2
46% 49% 51%
Summary of Workbook Results
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
44%
Scenario 1
49%
Scenario 2
7%
Scenario 3
Connectivity and Mobility
Question 1.1 Question 1.2 Question 1.3
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 2
46% 49% 51%
Connectivity and Mobility Workbook Results
Question 1.1
(61 responses)
Which scenario do
you like best for
moving through
the site without a
car?
Question 1.2
(55 responses)
Which scenario do
you like best for
driving and
parking within the
site?
Question 1.3
(57 responses)
Which scenario do
you like best for
getting into the
site?
46%
Scenario 1
43%
Scenario 2
11%
Scenario 3
33%
Scenario 1
51%
Scenario 2
16%
Scenario 3
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Sticky Note Comments
At Community Event 3 participants had
the opportunity to leave comments for
scenarios 1, 2, and 3.
sticky note comments
118 Scenario 1
148 Scenario 2
108 Scenario 3
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
1,257
total responses
Do you work in
Santa Monica?
46%
Yes
20%
Yes, and
I own a
business
27%
No
7%
Blank
35%
90405 10%
90403
9%
90404
25%
Blank 16%
All Other
Zip Codes
4%
90402
1%
90401
Zip Code of
Respondents
Age Groups of Respondents
CoMap Respondent Takeaways
17,832
icons placed
12,473
comments
Survey Respondents (self-identified)
City of Santa Monica Residents (Census Data)
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
74 Planning
Design &
Construction
Phased
Implementation
Complete
Gotham Park (NYC) Brickline (St. Louis, MO) The Bay Park (Sarasota) Brooklyn Bridge Park (NYC) Waterfront Park (Seattle) The Lawn on D (Boston) Great Park (Irvine, CA) The High Line (NYC)
HR&A is an economic and real estate consultancy with more than four decades of experience contributing to the planning and development of more than 130 open spaces, parks, and park systems.
The Beltline (Atlanta)
Silver Lake Reservoir (LA) Taylor Yard (LA) Manresa Island (Norwalk, CT) HR&A’s Park Experience
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
75 Takeaway
Any scenario for the site could have a feasible funding strategy, but each option will have clear trade-offs and costs that are shared by the City and community.
We request Council direction on the following: • Should the preferred scenario include any uses other than parks and recreation (e.g. housing) that would require a vote based on Measure LC? • Should the City remove any funding sources from this analysis? Next steps:
HR&A, in collaboration with the City and Sasaki, will: • Estimate annual operating expenses of the preferred scenario • Assess the potential capital and operating revenue potential of each funding source to develop a funding strategy for the preferred scenario • Analyze economic and fiscal impacts of the scenarios to compare the potential benefits Discussion & Next Steps
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Conclusions - Layers Engagement
Developing a Basis of Design
● Interest in curved,
‘naturalistic,’ or ‘biophilic’
forms and circulation
● Interest and active recreation
● Housing was divided. While
no housing ranked highest
rank — when asked about
types of housing, results
ranged between 43% to 53%
against any housing. ● Broad support for showcasing
diverse local ecologies and
use of introduced water.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Conclusions - Scenarios Engagement
Developing a Basis of Design
● TBD
5 6
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Slide 77
5 @[email protected] After you populate the comap results, can you add your big takeaways here, like the previous slide? Chris Hardy, 7/1/2025
4 @[email protected] @[email protected] "Will need somethign that shows which parts of each scenario have support graphically. this can be here or in the CoMap section...but CC and the community need to see what was favored" _Assigned to [email protected]_
Chris Hardy, 7/3/2025
6 @[email protected] we need to list the pieces and parts that had the most consensus/ most support Chris Hardy, 7/3/2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Phasing will be critical
Developing a Basis of Design
● TBD
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Conclusions
There is a lot of passion in this
community, with strong advocates
for parks.
Housing creates the most debate
with affordable housing have the
most advocates.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Conclusions
There is broad support for
restoring nature, passive and
restoration ecology programs,
health and wellness programs,
and active recreation. There is
significant support for arts.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Conclusions
Any scenario for the site could have a
feasible funding strategy, but will
require combining funding sources and
financing mechanisms.
Each of these will have trade-offs and
costs that are shared by the City and
community.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Purpose of Today
Community Input
Share community
engagement
conclusions with
Council
Council Guidance
Provide direction on key
questions to establish a
basis of design for
moving forward
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Adjusting Course Moving Forward
Authentic community
engagement processes
adapt and evolve in
response to community
input and feedback.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
We aim to facilitate a
process that is true to
and transparent
about the complex
set of factors that go
into the work of
converting an airport
to future uses.
We have heard from
many in the
community that
some components
have been too
complex and too
difficult.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
We hear these
concerns and we
are prepared to
adjust course.
In our next phase of
engagement, asks and
activities will be:
● More straightforward +
plainspoken
● Less time consuming
● Simpler (methods of
contributing input)
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Next Steps after Today
What is coming in Phase 3b?
● Initial 2 Illustrative Sketches
● A short 6-8 Questions Online Survey
● Development of a Preferred Scenario Plan
● Community Workshop 4 & Survey:
Vetting the Preferred Scenario Plan
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Next Steps after Today
What is coming in Phase 3b?
July 2025 August 2025 September 2025 October 2025
Two Sketches
Preferred Scenario
Vetting Preferred Scenario
Community Event 4
City Leadership Mtgs
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
88 Questions for Council
Should the design team consider uses
that would require a ballot measure
after the closure of the airport in the
plan?
If so, should the design team consider
housing?
If we are considering housing, what
should housing do for the park?
7 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Slide 88
7 Discuss
Chris Hardy, 7/3/2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
89 Parks can be expensive to build and to
operate and maintain.
Funding Strategy Approach
Takeaway
Any scenario for the site could have a
feasible funding strategy, but each option
will have clear trade-offs and costs that
are shared by the City and community.
Santa Monica’s Virginia Ave. Park
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Why are we talking
about housing?
At the outset, project messaging conveyed the
following:
This project will establish a preferred scenario for the conversion of the Santa Monica Airport, centered on
a great park (consistent with Measure LC), after its
anticipated closure at the end of 2028.
While not mentioned or listed as an option in any engagement activities, “housing” and “affordable housing” were among the top write-ins at in-person events and on the online survey.
PROJECT KICK-OFF
PHASE 1
In response to community interest, the planning team began offering housing as options in engagement activities.
● Housing ranked #39 out of 94 potential future uses selected by survey-takers in online survey 2A.
● Housing was the top write-in response to the question: What should we be focusing on to better integrate the airport site and its future use into the City and neighborhoods?
● When asked to provide feedback to the draft Guiding Principles, a significant number of community members provided comments asking to see the inclusion of housing and affordable housing in all five draft principles. ● Housing was the 8th most selected card (out of 14) within the Community Hub category of the BalanceBuilder game.
PHASE 2
Direction from the City Council:
The future site needs to be
economically self-sustaining—from
being built to being operated and
maintained
OUR CHARGE
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Mobility and Connectivity - What elements had support?
● Connection to Clover Park
● Multi-use path connection to Stewart Avenue
● Vehicular Connection to Park at S Centinela Ave
● Central Plaza with Grand Stairs
● Surface Parking near Airport Park Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 ● Transit Hub
● Connection to Clover Park
● North /South Vehicular Connection to 31st Street
● Waterside Walkway (Winding Multi-use Path
● Garage Parking near Hill & Nature Landscape
● Transit Hub
● North /South Vehicular Connection to 31st Street
● North/South Vehicular Connection to 25th Street
● Waterfront Promenade
● Surface Parking near Museum of Flying
While this slide highlights elements that received support, we acknowledge that these same elements also faced disapproval and negative feedback from respondents.
7 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Slide 91
7 I think this is too much. It's hard to tell the difference between the Key Takeaways, and the Elements that Had Support.
The Elements that had support are perhaps details that don't need to be shared with Council, and are maybe more for the design team going forward?
Peter James, 7/7/2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Water and Topography - What elements had support?
● Municipal Reservoir*
● Urban Forest on Slopes (#3)
● Nature Trails (#1)
● Sloped Landscape (#6) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 ● Terraced Water Feature (#24)
● Wetland Forest (#13)
● Pond (#13)
● Water Treatment Plant with Green Roof*
● Hill Garden/Natural Park & Reserve (#4)
● Lake with Water Activities (#13)
● Boat Ramp & Kayak Launch (#40)
● Aquatic & Recreation Center with Swimming Pool (#14 & #36) ● Waterfront Nature Park (#4)
The numbers next to each use (#) reflect the ranking
from Phase 2A online survey potential future park uses. Uses with an asterisk (*) are currently not among the top ranked uses, but mentioned multiple times in the
comments, and/or deemed mandatory for this site.
While this slide highlights elements that received support, we acknowledge that these same elements also faced disapproval and negative feedback from respondents.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Ecology and Passive Uses - What elements had support?
● Rewild/Wildflower Meadow (#12)
● Community Farm/Garden (#22)
● Nature Trails (#1)
● Urban Forest on Slopes/Sloped Landscape (#3)
● Wild Garden (#2) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
● Sculpture Garden (#32)
● Airport Park*
● Small Nature Playground (#8)
● Hill Garden/Natural Park & Reserve (#4)
● Canopy Walk/Rewilding (#1)
● Grassy Enclaves/Knolls (#6)
● Wetland Forest (#13)
● Indigenous Nursery*
● Hill & Nature Landscape (#4)
● Nature Adventure Play (#8)
● Imagination Playground (#77)
● Neighborhood Park*
● Event Lawn (#31)
● Open Lawn/Play Zone (#16)
● Native Garden (#2)
● The Woods & Nature Preserve (#4)
● Canopy Walk (#3)
● Sculpture Garden (#32)
● Hills and Overlook (#67)
● Nature Center (#43)
● Tree Plaza (#1)
● Waterfront Nature Park (#4)
The numbers next to each use (#) reflect the ranking
from Phase 2A online survey potential future park uses. Uses with an asterisk (*) are currently not among the top ranked uses, but mentioned multiple times in the
comments, and/or deemed mandatory for this site.
While this slide highlights elements that received support, we acknowledge that these same elements also faced disapproval and negative feedback from respondents.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Active Park Uses - What elements had support?
● Rock Climbing Wall (#44)
● Leasable Sport Courts (#27-29)
● Leasable Recreational Fields (#11)
● Recreation Center (#36)
● Airport Park* Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
● Fitness Stations (#38)
● Small Nature Playgrounds (#8)
● Runway Recreation (bocce,
petanque, lawn bowling, gaming
tables) (#30)
● Free Recreational Fields (#11)
● Leasable Recreation Fields (#11)
● Leasable Recreation Center (#36)
● Imagination Playground (#77)
● Nature Adventure Play (#8)
● Airport Park Renovation/Sport Courts (#27-29)
● Event Landscape (Leasable Large Outdoor
Amphitheater & Free Lawn) (#33 & #31)
● Waterside Walkway (#1)
● Free Sport Courts (#27-29)
● Free Recreational Fields (#11)
● Aquatic & Recreation Center with
Swimming Pool (#14 & #36)
● Unprogrammed Flexible Field (#16)
● Outdoor Fitness Equipment & Skate Park
(#38 & #52)
● Renovated Airport Park Field (#11)
● Airport Park*
● Destination Adventure Playground (#8)
The numbers next to each use (#) reflect the ranking
from Phase 2A online survey potential future park uses. Uses with an asterisk (*) are currently not among the top ranked uses, but mentioned multiple times in the
comments, and/or deemed mandatory for this site.
While this slide highlights elements that received support, we acknowledge that these same elements also faced disapproval and negative feedback from respondents.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Slide 94
16 are these in any particular order? meaning...is the first one the one that had the most comments in support? or some other organization strategy? [email protected], 7/7/2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Housing - What elements had support?
● No housing is featured in Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 ● Housing in the eastern edge of the south zone (#39)
● Housing in the lower center section of the south zone (#39) ● Housing in the eastern of the north zone (#39)
● Housing in the eastern edge of the south zone (#39)
● Housing along the northern edge of the north zone (#39) ● Housing in the lower eastern portion of the south zone (#39) The numbers next to each use (#) reflect the ranking
from Phase 2A online survey potential future park uses. Uses with an asterisk (*) are currently not among the top ranked uses, but mentioned multiple times in the
comments, and/or deemed mandatory for this site.
While this slide highlights elements that received support, we acknowledge that these same elements also faced disapproval and negative feedback from respondents.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Revenue Generation - What elements had support?
● Barker Hanger/Performance (#53)
● Recreation Center (#36)
● Admin + Leasing Center*
● Leasable Sport Courts (#27-29)
● Leasable Recreational Fields (#11) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 ● Barker Hanger/Performance (#53)
● Dining/Beer Garden (#25)
● Hotel*
● Exhibition Flex Space (#49)
● Admin + Leasing Center*
● Barker Hanger/Performance (#53)
● Waterfront Restaurant & Cafe (#34)
● Aquatic & Recreation Center with
Swimming Pool (#14 & #36)
● Museum of Flying*
● Leasable Event Lawn (#31)
● Municipal Use (RRR, EPC, Swat Storage, Fire
Training, PLD, etc.)*
● Flexible Lawn with Informal Amphitheater (#15)
● Kiosks (Adaptive Reuse)*
● Event Landscape (Leasable Large
Outdoor Amphitheater & Free Lawn)
(#33)
● Housing in the lower center section of
the south zone (#39)
The numbers next to each use (#) reflect the ranking
from Phase 2A online survey potential future park uses. Uses with an asterisk (*) are currently not among the top ranked uses, but mentioned multiple times in the
comments, and/or deemed mandatory for this site.
While this slide highlights elements that received support, we acknowledge that these same elements also faced disapproval and negative feedback from respondents.
● Municipal Use (RRR, EOC, Swat Storage,
Fire Training, Compost, PLD, etc.)*
● Housing along the northern edge of the
north zone (#39)
8 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Slide 96
8 Maybe as a CoMap conclusion "what we learned" slide, we could synthesize all of the key takeaways into 5 bullet points? That might give the Council a higher level takeaway, and give the design team some flexibility to move around within the parameters:
1. Strong desire for nature and open space: Across topics, residents consistently favor naturalistic design, rewilded landscapes, and passive recreation expressing concern about overdevelopment, excessive hardscape, and loss of ecological integrity.
2. Balanced support for active uses and amenities: There is broad enthusiasm for family-friendly recreation—like sports courts, playgrounds, and boating—when integrated thoughtfully and without overwhelming the park’s open, tranquil character.
3. Clear preference for connectivity and sustainable mobility: Community members prioritize pedestrian and bike access, regional trail connections, and transit infrastructure over vehicle roads and surface parking.
4. Divided but vocal views on housing: While some support deeply affordable, nonprofit-led housing, the majority strongly oppose any housing on the site, citing voter intent, open space priorities, and concerns about traffic and infrastructure.
5. Revenue strategies should align with park values: There is support for cultural and community-focused revenue sources—like events, recreation centers, and cafes—but a clear rejection of revenue models that compromise access, add housing, or commercialize parkland.
Peter James, 7/7/2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
97 Current Airport Finances
Non-Aeronautical Aeronautical Total Airport
Revenues: $15.5M $3.2M $18.7M
Operating Expenses: $7.9M $5.3M $12.6M
Net Difference: $7.6M ($1.5M)* $6.1M
* The deficit is to eliminate the aeronautical surplus before closure at the end of 2028 Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
What We Learned
1. Strong desire for nature and open space:
Across topics, residents consistently favor
naturalistic design, rewilded landscapes, and
passive recreation, expressing concern about
overdevelopment, excessive hardscape, and
loss of ecological integrity.
2. Balanced support for active uses and
amenities: There is broad enthusiasm for
family-friendly recreation—like sports courts,
playgrounds, and boating—when integrated
thoughtfully and without overwhelming the
park’s open, tranquil character.
3. Clear preference for connectivity and
sustainable mobility: Community members
prioritize pedestrian and bike access, regional
trail connections, and transit infrastructure over
vehicle roads and surface parking.
4. Divided but vocal views on housing: While
some support deeply affordable, nonprofit-led
housing, the majority strongly oppose any
housing on the site, citing voter intent, open
space priorities, and concerns about traffic
and infrastructure.
5. Revenue strategies should align with park
values: There is support for cultural and
community-focused revenue sources—like
events, recreation centers, and cafes—but a
clear rejection of revenue models that
compromise access, add housing, or
commercialize parkland.
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025
Item 7-A
July 8, 2025