Tuesday evening, the Santa Monica City Council voted to award a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Santa Monica Airport conversion to Sasaki Associates. The scope of work will include “A community outreach process, visioning services, and a concept design related to the future planning of the Airport land in anticipation of Airport closure.”

Amber Richane from the Public Works Department was on hand to present the steps in the park conversion process. “We always want to make sure Measure LC is in the forefront,” she said, referring to the 2014 local ballot measure approved by voters that calls for an airport-to-park conversion and restricts the land use to parks, open space, and recreational uses. “That is one thing that we wanted to make abundantly clear tonight,” she added. “The project is focused on one – closing the airport, and two –  around a great park.”

Sasaki’s Anna Cawrse, a landscape architect who will lead the park conversion process, was on hand to present her agency’s credentials. She said of the community engagement process the firm expects to follow, “For us, it’s not a phase. This is a holistic conversation that needs to be woven into the entire process.”

According to the staff report and as presented by Richane, the process will take place in five phases:

• “Phase 1: Charting the Course – Project Kick-off, Alignment, Document Review, Future Needs & Desires (3 months)
• Phase 2: Discovering the Place and Setting the Stage – Existing Conditions Analysis, Guiding Principles (5 months)
• Phase 3: Defining the Future of Place – Scenario Testing and Plans (8 months)
• Phase 4: The Path Ahead – Potential Implementation Planning (3 months)
• Phase 5: Preferred Scenario Plan Vision Book (2 months)
• Continuous Engagement & Community Outreach – utilizing Outreach Milestones throughout the Process as illustrated in the diagram below (21 months)”

To manage the project on the city side of the equation, staff recommended that a five-year position be created for a Principle Design and Planning Manager who would work with Sasaki from inside the city’s Architectural Services Division of Public Works.

Loren Bloch, a former Housing Commissioner, told the council that significant investment will be needed to create a robust park on the airport land, reminding them that it took $50 million to build the far more modest two acres of Tongva Park. Bloch also spoke in favor of some housing on the site, saying it would cut down on vehicle emissions if those who already work in Santa Monica moved into those units.

Natalya Zernitskaya, who finished fourth in the 2022 city council election in a crowded field, was also in tune with the great expense that will be required to convert and construct the park. “We should consider how it can be self-sustaining,” she said. “What uses can we put there that are both within Measure LC and potentially desired by the community that could bring in funds that could help pay for the park.”

Airport Commissioner Joe Pertel spoke against triggering any discussion of other uses of the airport land. “If you do that, you’ll be playing right into the hands of aviation,” he said. “They want us to have that ballot measure debate.”

Dozens of written comments were also emailed to the council, with almost all residents calling exclusively for a great park without additional development. The Airport Commission itself wrote that it favors moving forward with Sasaki, and favors the hiring of a Principle Design & Planning Manager as staff recommended. The commission, like most residents, also favors only the park and recreation uses identified in 2014’s Measure LC, as they point out anything built outside of LC’s parameters would require another vote of the people.

One resident reminded the council in writing that it was a park bond that was used to originally purchase the land in 1926.

Councilmember Gleam Davis asked Richane what she means when she says “Great Park,” because as Davis put it, “If you were to go around and ask a bunch of people in Santa Monica what does that mean, you’d get a lot of different answers.” Both she and Councilmember Jesse Zwick voiced concerns about members of the public feeling like they can’t share a broader view of opinions outside the Measure LC guidelines.

Zwick said he believes “We hear from everyone – as many people as we can – and we let them speak as freely as they can.”

Richane admitted that there are differences of opinion out there as to whether Measure LC applies to all 227 acres of airport land property or the 187 non-commercial acres. But she largely maintains that a great park as defined by Measure LC can only mean traditional park space, open space, and recreational facilities. “There’s always the guardrails of the guidelines,” she said.

Councilmember Caroline Torosis pointed out that the entire region will benefit from the park, and that we are, after all, surrounded on three sides by Los Angeles. “If we need to make this project work financially, it’s not just going to be funded by Santa Monica,” she said. “We’re going to have to get considerable subsidy – I believe – and so I think it’s important to bring stakeholders along for a process people feel included in.”

Five of six recommended actions by staff were adopted 6-0. Councilmember Oscar De La Torre was absent.

There was a sticking point regarding the public outreach point within the staff’s recommendations, as Davis moved that of the three options Sasaki will eventually come back with, at least one of them must fall within Measure LC guidelines and therefore not require an additional vote by the public. And while it sounded at first counter to her and Zwick’s previous concern that responding members of the public would not be allowed to recommend uses outside those outlined in Measure LC, Davis explained she didn’t want to spend a couple of million dollars on a community engagement process where the public speaks their minds and they are largely ignored. This way, the pure park uses option would at least be preserved on the table.

Her council colleagues largely seemed confused or thought it unnecessary, and so a substitute motion to move forward with the public engagement process as worded by staff was unanimously agreed to, including by Davis.

Photo by mixmotive on iStockphoto.com