Below is a letter we sent to the City Council this past week, in response to a proposal by Santa Monica for Renter’s Rights (SMRR) that would disrupt the public planning process for the Santa Monica Airport Conversion.
April 30, 2026
Dear Mayor Torosis, Councilmembers, City Manager Chi, and SMAC Project Team members:
We, the board of the Santa Monica Great Park Coalition (GPC), are responding to the letter SMRR Co-Chairs Denny Zane and Mike Soloff wrote asking you to include 3,000 units of housing as one of the alternatives studied in the EIR for the SMAC Project.
We urge you to ignore the request as untimely and, for many reasons, unwise.
As you know, the GPC believes that all 192 acres of airport land should be used only for a public park, recreation, open space, and related uses that under Measure LC do not require a public vote.
Given the significant unmet need for additional park acreage for our current population, and the growth we expect in Santa Monica’s future population, every square foot of park space to be added is an essential, critical resource.
Additionally, and regardless of one’s view of the future of the airport land, SMRR’s proposal, which mandates the study of 3,000 units of housing in the EIR as an alternative, is inappropriate and possibly impermissible given the constraints of Measure LC.
(1) The SMRR proposal is untimely.
The appropriate time for considering any proposal for alternatives to be studied in the EIR will not come until the SMAC Project process has reached the point of there being a Preferred Scenario that is detailed enough for Council to consider and direct the parameters of the EIR. By the schedule put forward by the City’s planners, that will not be until Phase 5 (Preferred Scenario Framework). We are now in Phase 3, working on only a conceptual “Framework”for the future plan, without details. Until there is a Preferred Scenario, it is premature to consider alternatives, because alternatives in an EIR always relate to the preferred project.
(2) Even if it were not untimely, the SMRR proposal is unwise and possibly impermissible.
CEQA review is fraught with legal issues and it would be a mistake to determine the parameters of the review without analysis of (i) what is needed, (ii) what will be helpful for your analysis, and (iii) what protects the City and the SMAC process from future litigation. There are complex legal issues that should be studied by the City Attorney before you make a decision and which can only be determined in reference to an established future Preferred Scenario.
As for the complexity, consider the advice we have received. Some lawyers have told us that studying housing could be viewed as required in the EIR. But other lawyers have said that housing cannot be included in the EIR because housing is now infeasible, since it would be illegal under the City Charter (Measure LC), and EIR alternatives must be feasible.
Additionally, we’ve been told that because housing would be a more intensive use than the project(a park), and because EIR alternatives must be less intensive than the Preferred Scenario, housing cannot be studied as an alternative.
(3) There are other reasons to ignore SMRR’s request.
Beyond breaking with proper procedures, disrupting the planning process and mandating the study of housing in this way risks being seen as a political decision, undermining confidence in the City’s ability to plan and deliver a Great Park.
It is no secret that interests that want to keep the airport operating have been sowing doubts that a Great Park is achievable. In fact, as we write this letter, aviation interests are going door-to-door lobbying residents to keep the airport open. At a time when public confidence is critical, introducing uncertainty around the planning process risks amplifying these doubts rather than resolving them.
So far, your planners have done an excellent job of “keeping the train on the track.” Many of us, having been involved in or having observed previous planning processes in Santa Monica, have been thrilled to see this process largely stay on schedule. The only hiccup came, understandably, when City Manager Chi arrived and needed to take some time to get up to speed and then, gratifyingly, he made the planning process a priority for him and his office.
The City’s focus has had an effect. Enthusiasm for and optimism about the City’s ability to plan the park and get it built, on a “day one and one day” basis, have been growing steadily. The draft “Framework” has been well-received, and we understand that thousands have completed the latest survey. Let’s not stop the momentum.
There are many other assertions in the SMRR letter that we could take issue with, but they are beyond the scope of this letter.
Bottom line, SMRR is asking that you break with and leapfrog over an ongoing, successful public process that has reaffirmed the community’s desire and need for the Great Park, while promoting a massively complex proposal that has gone through no public process at all.
For all the previously stated reasons, we urge you to take no action and let the SMAC process continue on its steady course. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Board of Directors
Santa Monica Great Park Coalition
John Fairweather
Zina Josephs
Frank Gruber
Cris Gutierrez
Joe Pertel
Ann Bowman
Patti Braun
