S.M. Airport: All Park or Affordable Housing?

The 192-acre Santa Monica Airport is scheduled to close in 2028. The city's

contract firm, Sasaki Design Consultants, has proposed three possible airport

development scenarios: virtually all park, or a combination of park,

commercial and housing. Surveys indicate that most residents support a park.

Missing from the discussion has been the housing perspective and state

requirements.

The Housing Commission at its June meeting sponsored a presentation on the

airport, which included an Q & A and public comment. Richard Hilton

served on the Commission for 12 years, has worked in housing for 40 years,

is a 13-year member of the National Assn. of Housing and Redevelopment

Officials and was employed by the city and worked in park management in

1965. Following is an expansion of his meeting input.

Many of our Santa Monica residents favor Airport Scenario #1- all park and

no housing, with the existing structures used for the park or for commercial

purposes. With no after-hour residential, however, the potential for homeless

encampments, crime and security costs will be significant. Those residents

most likely to support all parkland are homeowners, who would incur the

costs of a bond measure or special tax to pay for the park.

In 2029 the state Housing Element/Regional Housing Needs Assessment will

impose additional new affordable housing for Santa Monica and any less

housing at the Airport will be a violation and require the development

elsewhere, such as our R1 Single Family Downtown, Pico and Ocean Park

neighborhoods. However, because of parcel size and financing factors, our

R1 would accommodate mostly condo and market-rent development, not

nonprofit affordable housing. Our Transit Zone areas also lack the Airport's

land subsidy and we would be unable to meet our state affordability

requirements.

Scenario #2 includes 32 acres of housing/commercial; the 2,000-seat

amphitheatre will create parking challenges, noise and will sit empty except

for concerts. The commercial development is limited.Option #3 is the best Airport replacement proposal because it includes greater

municipal revenue, in consideration of the city's ongoing budget constraints.

Described as a complete residential neighborhood with the city's largest new

park, the 48 acres of housing will include additional real estate

commercial/retail to help finance the affordable housing, park maintenance

and city infrastructure. My suggestion is that option #3 include 12 acres of

sports fields instead of 21 acres and that for the recreational lake to be

meaningful the lake should be increased from 10 acres to at least 19 acres.

Option #3's park area, like Scenarios #1 and #2, will consist of two-thirds of

the Airport's 192 acres, but is the only option that would comply with the

state Surplus Land Act/Housing Element affordability requirements and local

Measure LC, the city's 2014 Airport parks designation.

Finally, government Surplus Land is subject to state housing requirements

that will supercede any local initiative or resident preference for all parkland.

In 2028/2029 when the Airport is closed and Sacramento's Housing and

Community Development analyzes our available land versus affordable

development, any significantly less affordable housing could result in a type

of repeat "Builders Remedy" outcome.

Richard Hilton

July 9, 2025