Plans to transform Santa Monica Airport into a public park and civic destination met a wall of skepticism during a virtual meeting of the Santa Monica Democratic Club this week, with members questioning the city’s inclusion of housing in two of its three redevelopment scenarios and raising alarms about public trust, emergency access, and political risk.
City Principal Design & Planning Manager, Amber Richane, outlined the trio of proposed site concepts, which range from a fully park-focused reuse of the 192-acre airport to a hybrid model that includes up to 48 acres of new residential and commercial development. Richane told attendees the city is seeking feedback through the end of the year and has not chosen a preferred direction. She emphasized that all scenarios are conceptual and meant to encourage public input before a final recommendation is made in 2026.
Still, that assurance did little to quiet concerns from Democratic Club members, many of whom voiced frustration over what they saw as a drift away from Measure LC, the 2014 voter-approved initiative that prohibits future use of the land for anything but parks or recreational facilities unless voters give explicit permission.
Alan Levenson, who said he had campaigned in support of Measure LC, warned that any attempt to introduce housing onto the site risks undermining the original promise made to residents. “As much as we need housing, we need a park, and we need a sustainable place in our city, in all our planet and we don't have another opportunity. And this is it,” he said.
Sylvie Rokab expressed worry that floating the idea of housing could derail the entire effort. “I’m a little concerned that housing is being brought in so early in the process, when the public clearly voted in favor of Measure LC,” she said. “And I worry that this [might] turn into political football. If it goes to a vote and fails, do we lose the rest of the park too? That’s what I’m afraid of.”
Richane responded that while any inclusion of housing would require voter approval, the city is not leaning in any one direction. She added that all three scenarios could be adapted depending on feedback, funding, and eventual Council direction. “We are not moving forward with a preferred alternative yet,” she said. “All three concepts are being considered equally, and they reflect a broad spectrum of ideas gathered from various surveys and outreach events.”
Matt Goldenberg raised a concern about whether the city had accounted for the airport’s previous use as an emergency helicopter landing zone, particularly during wildfires. “If helicopters can’t land, what’s the backup plan?” he asked. Richane said helicopters would be able to land on large grass or turf fields planned in each scenario and that the city believed there would be no loss of access. However, she acknowledged that Cal Fire had not yet been formally consulted in the planning process.
Richane also addressed questions about when the airport would officially close and how confident the city was that the closure would proceed as planned. She said the city expects full control of the site in 2028 and that she is “90 to 95 percent confident” the transition will occur. “We have a signed and binding agreement with the FAA,” she said. “That gives us strong standing.”
Some attendees expressed concern that including housing could trigger a divisive citywide vote, risking a defeat that could delay or permanently alter the vision of a large-scale urban park. Others questioned why more indigenous voices had not been incorporated into the design process. Rokab asked whether the Tongva or Gabrielino-Tongva peoples had been consulted. Richane said engagement with Native community members had begun and that a recent survey included higher levels of Native participation than earlier efforts.
Richane also discussed how state laws such as the Surplus Land Act might interact with Measure LC. She explained that if the city were to lease or sell land for over 15 years, the state law could take precedence and require certain portions of land to be made available for affordable housing. That scenario, she said, could only arise if the city moves in a direction that includes long-term development leases. “If we want to do that, we need voter approval,” she said.
The meeting closed with repeated calls for the city to prioritize ecological restoration, climate resilience, and public health outcomes in the final plan. Several attendees said the airport site represented Santa Monica’s last chance to reclaim a major piece of land for noncommercial public use and warned against compromising that opportunity.
A public survey on the three scenarios is open through the end of 2025 at smacproject.com. City officials said the results of that outreach, combined with future Council input, will shape the eventual plan that goes forward for environmental review in 2026.