𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗞 𝗢𝗥 𝗛𝗢𝗨𝗦𝗜𝗡𝗚? Santa Monica Council Backs Great Park Plan Following Civic Rally Outside City Hall

SANTA MONICA, CA — On Tuesday, July 8, 2025, the Santa Monica City Council voted 6–1 to pursue a park-focused future for the city’s 191-acre airport land, siding with a broad coalition of residents, youth, and civic leaders who had gathered just hours earlier outside City Hall in support of preserving the site for public use. Earlier in the day, the Great Park Coalition hosted a large and spirited rally on the steps of City Hall. The event featured live music, children’s art displays, face painting, and speeches from elected officials and longtime advocates. Community members dressed in green and blue, held signs reading “Let’s Build a Great Park,” and called on city leaders to protect the soon-to-be-closed airport land from future development. Three former Santa Monica mayors—Pam O’Connor, Phil Brock, and Michael Feinstein—joined the rally, each urging the council to embrace the opportunity to turn the land into a lasting green space. O’Connor described the movement as “the largest and broadest coalition around an issue” she had witnessed in four decades of city service. Brock emphasized the importance of remedying Santa Monica’s shortage of field space and fostering community connections: “We don’t want more concrete—we want trees, grass, and places to gather.” Feinstein framed the decision as a generational environmental and social justice issue, urging the council to “rebalance density with open space.” Two current councilmembers—Dan Hall and Ellis Raskin—also spoke at the rally, publicly affirming their support for a Measure LC–compliant park plan. “I’m a renter, and this park is going to be my backyard,” Hall told the crowd. “I support housing—but not here.” Raskin added, “We need to invest in the environment. I’m proud to vote for a park at the airport.” The rally drew support from youth sports teams including the Santa Monica All Stars softball league and AYSO Region 20, whose members and families voiced the urgent need for additional recreational facilities. The event was organized with support from Airport2Park, Greenpeace USA, and other local organizations. Inside Council Chambers, over 140 speakers signed up to address the Council, and more than 1,000 written comments were submitted ahead of the vote. The Council ultimately chose Scenario 1, a plan emphasizing open space, ecological restoration, recreational fields, and adaptive reuse of existing structures—without introducing any new housing. The decision aligned with Measure LC, a voter-approved 2014 law requiring a public vote for any non-park development on airport land. A competing motion by Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya to study a mixed-use scenario that included housing was narrowly defeated, 3–4. Councilmember Jesse Zwick, the lone dissenting vote against the park-only plan, described the exclusion of housing as a missed opportunity to address Santa Monica’s affordability crisis, arguing that public land should be part of the city’s housing solution. Mayor Lana Negrete supported the park vision but cautioned against moving forward without a fully developed fiscal and environmental strategy. “If we rush this without a clear, financially sound, and publicly accountable plan,” she said, “we risk creating another vacant promise.” Meanwhile, a recent voter survey conducted by Goodwin Simon Strategic Research and commissioned by UNITE HERE! Local 11 added complexity to the day’s events. The data showed that 65% of Santa Monica voters support at least some housing on the airport site, with 67% favoring housing for essential workers. However, only 28% supported using the land exclusively for parks, highlighting a broader public divide. Despite the data, Tuesday’s council vote marked a significant step toward the creation of a Great Park. As Santa Monica now begins a multi-year planning process, supporters of the park-only vision framed the outcome as a victory for open space, environmental equity, and the generations to come. “This land doesn’t need to be developed,” one speaker told the crowd. “It needs to be defended.”