The Santa Monica City Council voted early Wednesday morning to direct staff to study a preferred scenario for the former airport site that would not require voter approval under Measure LC, effectively choosing to explore a park-only option without housing for the 192-acre property.
The vote came after more than four hours of public testimony and council debate over what should be studied for the site following the airport's possible closure on Dec. 31, 2028. The eventual decision came after a failed effort by a minority group to approve a plan with more housing and revenue generation on the property.
The failed motion, supported by Natalya Zernitskaya, Jesse Zwick and Barry Snell, would have included study of options requiring a public vote to maintain compliance with Measure LC and while the public comments were split between various vacations (including a small contingent who want the airport to remain), the majority view reflected a push by a coalition of groups that have rallied under the Great Parks coalition banner.
"We stand at the threshold of something rare: a once-in-generations chance to transform a space currently devoted to flight into a place that strengthens our bodies and minds, heals nature, and lets our spirits soar," said Hall. "A place that will inspire wonder in every child who runs barefoot through an open field, in every senior who walks beneath the canopy of native trees, in every artist who finds quiet beauty in the shape of the land, in every athlete who needs a space to play, in every renter who needs a backyard."
Council's decision Tuesday is far from the final say. Staff will take the direction from this week’s meeting and return to council in several months with more information at which time the directive for what will go on the site, whether that be housing, parks or other uses, may change.
“I just want that to be clear for everybody who's here saying for housing or for park that …, whether it's housing or Park may not be the case because we don't have any feasibility studies yet,” said Mayor Lana Negrete.
Zwick strongly opposed the successful motion, arguing the council was making choices without sufficient financial information.
"I feel like we're shopping for a car and someone said, I'm not going to tell you how much it costs, and I'm not going to tell you what your budget is, and I'm not going to tell you what the fuel mileage is either," Zwick said. "How do you want to make a decision?"
Zwick was the sole dissenting vote, expressing concerns about the process and advocating for including housing options in the study.
"I don't see why we can't study a park on all the space that's currently open and also study what a mix of revenue generating uses and housing would be on sites in the airport that currently have structures," Zwick said. "There's very little publicly owned land, and there's a very different process by which we can choose what happens on that land."
In rejecting Zwick’s position, the majority of the council said there has to be some narrowing of the field to start the process because every option can’t be studied and that changes and alterations will be possible when some initial work has produced more useful information.
The council's decision came after staff presented three conceptual scenarios developed through extensive community engagement. The scenarios ranged from a nature-focused approach with no new development to options including housing and commercial uses that would require voter approval to override Measure LC restrictions.
Council Member Barry Snell did support the final motion after expressing interest in exploring housing options, noting the community's need for recreational space.
"The need for recreational space in our community is huge," Snell said. "We don't have enough areas for activities with this particular initiative, so I strongly recommend that we take a look at what kind of recreational uses would be feasible."
Mayor Negrete also supported the motion while emphasizing the need for proper planning.
"I am saying yes to a park. I'm saying yes to a real plan on how we get there," Negrete said. "I'm asking us to direct staff to come back with the economic analysis, the phasing strategies and the financial path that ensures this land becomes what we want it to be."
The Santa Monica Airport spans 191.6 acres in Santa Monica, with an additional 17 acres technically located in Los Angeles. The airport's closure stems from a 2017 City Council resolution and settlement agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration following decades of community opposition to aircraft noise and safety concerns.
The current planning process began in May 2024 with consultant firm Sasaki leading a five-phase study to develop scenarios for the site's future use. Staff have conducted 87 public meetings and three major community events, gathering input from an estimated 800 community members with more than 12,100 survey responses.
The project team developed three scenarios based on community feedback and six design layers covering connectivity, water management, ecology, active park uses, housing and revenue generation. While community surveys showed preferences for nature-focused, lower-impact options, the housing component remained the most contentious issue.
Measure LC, passed by 60% of voters in 2014, restricts new development on airport land until voters approve specific uses. The measure currently allows only parks, public open spaces, public recreational facilities, and maintenance of existing cultural, arts and educational uses.
The council's decision to study a Measure LC-compliant option means the preferred scenario will focus on adaptive reuse of existing structures and park development without requiring another public vote. However, this approach presents significant financial challenges, as funding would rely primarily on existing airport lease revenue of approximately $6-7 million annually, grants and potentially voter-approved bonds.
Staff warned that a park-only approach could require General Fund subsidies for operational costs and increased security, custodial and programming needs for such a large space. They also said the City can’t afford to build a park if the Airport does close at the first available date.
“We don’t have the money as you know, on day 1 to open a park,” said interim City Manager Elaine Polacheck. “So I want to talk about what happens on day one because you’ve already alluded to the fact that you’re concerned this is going to lay fallow for many many years.”
In response, the council provided direction for interim uses of the site after closure, with members suggesting temporary recreational activities like skating parks, bicycle training areas and movie screenings to activate the space during the years-long development process.
Staff will return to council in fall 2025 with a refined preferred scenario including cost estimates, funding strategies and implementation phasing. The preferred scenario will then serve as the basis for environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act before any final decisions on the site's future.
*This story has been updated to correct a misattributed to Councilmember Caroline Torosis. The quote was from Councilmember Dan Hall.