Santa Monica is approaching a historic turning point as community leaders, activists and elected officials begin weighing the future of the Santa Monica Airport, a 227-acre site slated for aviation closure in 2028.

At a meeting of the Santa Monica Democratic Club held last Wednesday, the group launched an ad hoc committee dedicated to studying potential uses for the land and drafting a formal position ahead of critical decisions by the City Council. After decades of political battles over the airport, the new debate hinges on a difficult question: Should the site become a massive urban park or help ease the city’s affordable housing crisis or attempt to do both?

“The airport land provides us with a chance to leave a legacy for generations to come,” said Frank Gruber, speaking on behalf of the Santa Monica Airport2Park Foundation. “A legacy like those that have been passed down to us, a legacy of optimism, of public and civic generosity and inclusion that is part of who we are as Santa Monicans.”

Gruber, a longtime planning commissioner and activist, urged club members to support transforming the entire open portion of the airport into a “Great Park,” warning that any attempt to divide the land or introduce housing could fragment public support and risk prolonging aviation use. Citing the 2014 Measure LC ballot measure, which restricted post-airport development to parks, open space and recreational uses without a public vote, Gruber said that honoring the spirit of LC was critical to maintaining the community’s trust.

“We respect the motivations of those proposing housing at the airport site,” he said, adding, “Santa Monica needs more housing, but Santa Monica is now getting more housing. More people will mean the need for more parks, especially for people who do not live in single family homes with backyards.”

The Airport2Park group framed its argument as one of environmental justice, pointing to Santa Monica’s low parkland-to-population ratio compared with other cities and warning that once the land is redeveloped, the chance to build a major new park would be lost forever.

Yet advocates for a different vision are mobilizing. A coalition called Cloverfield Commons, represented at the meeting by community organizer Vivian Rothstein and Santa Monica Forward co-chair Bradley Ewing, presented a competing plan that would divide the site equally between parkland and affordable housing. Under their proposal, about half of the available land would be devoted to low and moderate income housing, while the rest would become green space open to all residents.

“We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to utilize the land that belongs to us for the benefit of the future of our city,” Rothstein said. “I know that organized sports are important, but if you look at Clover Park, it is the passive uses that are really busy and the big sports fields that are empty most of the week.”

Rothstein, a Sunset Park resident, argued that the beach should be considered part of the city’s open space inventory and said Santa Monica must confront its acute lack of affordable housing with bold action. She described a transformed Sunset Park neighborhood where workers such as firefighters, teachers and city employees could no longer afford to live.

Bradley Ewing emphasized that Santa Monica was already struggling to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment obligations under state law. “Santa Monica is looking at probably another 9,000 to 10,000 units that we have to plan for,” he said, warning that if the city does not plan proactively, it risks losing control to state enforcement mechanisms.

The Cloverfield Commons proposal, which envisions modest-scale buildings and an income mix ranging from very low to moderate households, also ties housing development to ongoing park maintenance. Rothstein said allowing a nonprofit land trust to lease city-owned land could generate revenue to fund the park without depending solely on philanthropic donations.

However, environmental attorney David Pettit, a member of the city’s Sustainability Commission, warned that any major changes to Measure LC or plans to introduce housing would face serious legal hurdles. Speaking as an individual, Pettit said the city’s forthcoming Environmental Impact Report would need to thoroughly evaluate every alternative, including full park conversion and housing, or face likely litigation.

“There is no requirement that the city pick the environmentally best alternative,” Pettit said. “But if they do not analyze all reasonable alternatives, they are going to lose in court and we will have to do this all over again.”

Pettit also cautioned that selling or leasing land for housing might trigger the Surplus Land Act, introducing a competitive bidding process that could undermine local control over what eventually gets built.

Throughout the meeting, several speakers emphasized the high political stakes involved. Gruber, referencing the aviation industry's failed 2014 ballot effort, said that opening Measure LC to amendment before airport closure would likely embolden opponents seeking to preserve aviation use.

“There was a great victory to limit Measure D to 40 percent of the vote,” he said. “But consider, with a base of 40 percent who voted to keep the airport, aviation only needs another 10 percent to win.”

The club’s Airport Committee will meet several times over the coming months before drafting its final recommendation for the full membership to vote on. Meanwhile, Santa Monica residents are left grappling with a choice that will shape the city's environmental, economic and social landscape for generations.

As Gruber put it, the airport land represents a rare and fleeting chance. “Once built on, it would never become available again for public use,” he said. “Cut down in size, it will be impossible for a park there to serve both social and environmental needs.”