SR-9-B (2)
/
, ~ . qs
tf~tJ- ~() g .
JUN 2. 3 '98'
CA:RMM:SSS
Councll Meeting 6-23-81 Santa Monica, CalifornIa
SPECIAL STAFF REPORT ON THE AIRPORT
To: Mayor and City CouncIl
From: City Attorney
Subject: Report on plans for AIrport Development
I. INTRODUCTION.
Requested by the City CouncIl on May 5. 1981, this report
concerns ways to plan future development of the property on WhlCh
the municipal aIrport IS located. It contains a history of the
development of the airport property, a discussion of legal
Issues, and alternative ways of implementing the planned, phased
development of the site.
It is assumed that the City Council's prImary goal IS to
put the aIrport property to its hlghest and best use, including
maximum revenue to the CIty, overall communIty benefit, and
env ironmental protection. If continued airport use IS determIned
to be Incompatible with this goal, the CIty must remove legal
obstacles to aIrport closure and institute plannIng and
enviJ:onmental lmpact processes.
If the City des1res to or must maintain an aIrport, it
should develop the property in planned phases. It should
evaluate alternatIve land uses compatible with aviatIon
actIvltles, and reg ula te airport nOIse and unsafe traffic In
order to protect the enV1ronment and avoId liabllity. pending
leg al disputes with lessees should be resolved wIthout delay, in
order to secure rnaXlmum development flexibilIty and. continous
98
'JUN 2 3 1981
. .
.
revenue. Fixed-base aviatlon operatlons should be loca ted to
allow maXlmum development of alternative uses elsewhere on the
property. They should provlde necessary aVlatlon services and
genecate maXlmum revenue conslstent wlth envlronmental
protectlon.
The preparation of a "speclflc plan" is recommended for the
phased development of the airport property, as authorlzed by
Government Code Sectlon 65450 et seg. All interested segments of
the community, includlng airport nelghbors, aviatlon lnterests,
commercial and resldential developers. and the FAA, should be
invited to part1cipate in the preparatlon of the plan. The
Airport and Planning Commissions should review the plan and
transmit lt to the City Councll for approval. City staff, wlth
the aid of necessary technlcal consultants, should analyze the
plan for conslstency wlth the Clty'S General Plan. for
environmental impact, and for alrport noise and land use
compatlbll1ty. Approprlate development agreements, zoning
changes. and other regulatlons would follow approval of the plan.
It lS also recommended that negotiations begln Wl th
existing fixed base operators for the settlement of all
li tigation and the transfer of alrport operations from the South
slde of the runway to the North side, thereby allowlng
non-aviation development to proceed on the South slde.
II. HISTORY OF AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT.
The property known as Clover Field has been used as an
au:port for apProximately 60 years. The type and intensity of
this aVlation use has changed several times. The caUl: se of the
2
. .
property's history has been affected by varIOUS factors. Among
these are the presence of the Douglas Aircraft Company, the
growth of the sur round lng neIghborhood into its suburban
character, the role of the UnIted States Government, changes in
aviation growth and technology. and the CIty'S need to generate
revenue and provIde serVIces withln economic Ilmi tatlons. For
convenience, we have analyzed the development history of the
airport in stages:
l'he Early Years (1920-1940) . The City acqu1res Clover Field
with bonds authorized for publIC park purposes. Douglas becomes
an aVIation pioneer. The neighborhood grows around Douglas.
World War II (1941-1946) . The Unl.ted States leases the
airport and uses It for milItary purposes. The runway is
Improved; the Cl ty agrees to maIntain an airport for the lIfe of
the lmprovements.
Pos t-War ExpansIon (1946-59). The United States transfers
the airport back to the Clty. ReSIdentIal growth expands. The
CIty enters Into leases and grant agreements, antiCIpating a rise
in aVIatIon actIVIty. An Airport Master Plan for an expanded
faciE ty 1S developed.
Aviation Development and Jet NOIse (1960-1974). The CIty
enters Into more grants agreements and leases. The airport is
one of the busiest ln the country. The executive Jet is
developed, leading to nOIse complaints, and neighbors sue for
property damage from noise. The United states claIms to preempt
regulation of alrcraft, and warns agaInst closure.
3
r . .
NOIse Regulation and the Loss of Douglas (1975-80).
Doug las moves from Santa Monica; Its property is developed as a
busIness park. The City bans Jets and adopts othec nOIse
regulations; a 1awsult IS brought by aviatIon interests. TraffIc
at the airport lessens. The "qUIet jet" IS developed. The nOlse
level is lowered; a second sUlt IS filed.
The Current Controversy (I980-present). The City's ability
to tax and s pe nd funds IS hmi ted. An economIC study of
alternative uses is made. Monthly tenanCIes are terminated. A
moratorium on development pendIng an overhaul of the CIty'S plans
IS enacted.
A more detailed diSCUSSIon of events In each stage follows.
A. THE EARLY YEARS.
l. Clover Field (In fact a barley field) was used as an
air-field In the early 1920's. The property was leased by the
CI ty from the Stanton family.
2. In 1926, the CI ty Council passed Ocd~nance 339(CS),
declarIng the necessity of acquiring and improving Clover Fleld
for publIC park purposes. and submItted a ballot measure to the
voters which authorized the Issuance of $860,000 in bonds. The
measure passed by the necessary 2/3 vote. and the CIty acqUIred
ti tle to the land. The deed IS unrestrIcted, and the bonds were
retired in 1965.
3. In 1927. the State LegIslature passed a law declaring
that muniCIpal property acqUIred for park purposes could be used
as an airport.
4
. .
4. In 1928, the Douglas Company leased a part of Clover
Field from the City. It used the fIeld to test its "DC" serles
of planes, WhlCh were manufactured In Santa Monica.
5. Several Douglas employees purchased homes in the
nelghborhoods surroundIng the airport.
B. WORLD WAR II.
1. In 1941, the City leases 170 acres of aIrport property
to the United States Government for natIonal defense purposes.
2. DurIng World War II. the aIrport was used by the
mil i tary, as well as by defense contractors such as Douglas.
3. The Government Improved the airport by constructIng a
control tower, hangars, a serVIce road. fencing, and a concrete
runway and taxiway. The cost of these 1mprovements was
approxImately $795,000.
4. In 1944, the Government and the City entered into an
"AP-4" agreement. The Government constructed about $150,000 worth
of Improvements; the City agreed to operate the aIrport during
the useful life of the improvements. This agreement expired in
1964; In 1969 the FAA declared all AP-4 agreements inoperatIve.
The CIty also entered in to a separate grant agreement with the
UnIted States, wh1ch expIred in 1964.
5. In 1946, the UnIted States ~ssued a "right of re-entry, "
permittIng the aIrport to be open for publIC use.
6. In 1948, the UnIted States executed an "Instrument of
Transfer, " transferrIng its leasehold interest In the airport to
the CIty wIth the restrictIon that the Interest would revert back
to the united States if the CIty dId not maintain the airport for
5
-------- --------
. .
the use of the public during the useful life of the improvements.
Since the Government never had mare than a leasehold 1nterest in
the property, and Slnce this interest was just1fied solely by the
war emergency, the Instrument of Transfer should not constitute a
barrier to alternative development of the property by the City.
C. POST-WAR EXPANSION.
1. After World War II. res1dential development surround1ng
the airport 1ntensified, and the neighborhood became more
"suburban" in character. The Douglas Company cont1nued to
manufacture aircraft at the slte.
2. Econom1sts generally predicted heavy use by businesses
of prlvate aircraft for ord1nary bus1ness travel. The a1rport was
further improved pursuant to federal grant agreements. Long-term
leases w1th fixed-base a1rport operators were entered into by the
City.
3. The trend toward "suburbanization" resulted 1n the
closure of numerous airports in formerly rural areas. At the same
time, general aviation traffic 1ncreased, and Santa Monica became
one of the bUS1est airports 1n the country.
4. In 1957, the City adopted a Master plan, Wh1Ch
contemplated a Master Plan fOr the airport. In 1959. the
Pere1ra-Luckman Company prepared an A1rport Master Plan, which
featured a large term1nal bU1ldlng. The plan was approved by the
City council, but has never been lmplemented.
6
e .
D. AVIATION DEVELOPMENT AND JET NOISE.
l. The use of the airport continued to grow in the 1960's.
While business flying was less than expected. probably because of
the development of the BoeIng 707 and other commercial passenger
planes, recreatIonal flYIng grew steadIly.
2. In the mId-1960's, the CIty entered lnto leases wIth
Woody Duke ( Cloverleaf AviatIon) and Gunnell AVIation for
fixed-base operatIons. The Cloverleaf lease expIres In 1996; the
Gunnell lease expired in 1979, and has been continued on a
month-to-month basis.
3. In 1968, the Federal Government constructed a new
control tower, pursuant to a grant agreement. The agreement
contains an assurance by the CIty that the aIrport will be open
to the public, without dIscrIminatlon and on reasonable terms.
The grant assurances are of no effect after 1988.
4. The CIty also leased to the Government the land on which
the tower SItS. This lease IS renewable untIl 2015.
5. The 1960's not only saw a steady rIse in traffic at the
airport. but a dramatIc increase in aIrport noise. The ch ief
source of complaint was the LearJet, an early model of business
jet WhICh emitted a high. piercing whIne and caused nOIse upwards
of 110 decIbels. ResIdents of neIghborhoods underlying the flight
path flIed suit agaInst the CIty, alleging that the noise had
"taken" thelr property and constituted a nuisance.
6. The California Supreme Court held that persons affected
by nOIse from aIrcraft using municipal aIrports have a rIght to
sue for damages. Actual damage to Santa Monica neighbors was
7
. .
never established. because the sU1t was dismissed after the City
promised to ban jets and otherwise regulate a1rport noise.
7. In 1966, Bolt, Beranek, & Newman, acoust1cal
consultants, conducted a noise study of the a1rport and des1gned
a nOlse mon1toring system, which ult1mately was placed in
operation at the airport.
8. As the community controversy grew, the FAA. claim1ng
that 1 t had the sole r1ght to regulate the noise of aircraft 1n
fllght and that the C1ty was obl1gated to operate the aIrport for
the benefit of the public, warned the CIty aga1nst nOIse
regulation and attempted closure.
E. NOISE REGULATION AND THE LOSS OF DOUGLAS.
1. In 1974, the Douglas Company's lease with the CIty
expired. and it beg a n to leave Santa Monica and shift its
operations elsewhere.
2. About 1978. the land located north of the aIrport (part
Douglas. part City) was developed by the Barclay-Curc1 Company as
a buslness park, devoted primarIly to office use.
3. In 1975, the C1ty adopted the NOIse Element of its
General Plan. ThIS Element found the maJor noise problem in the
City to be that assoclated w1th the freeway and other hIghway
trafflc. The nOIse problem at the aIrport was given scant
reference.
4. Between 1975 and 1977. the City developed a
comprehens 1ve set of noise regulat1ons. The maJor regulatIons
were:
8
-- ------
. .
a. A total ban on jet aircraft.
b. A curfew on night departures.
c. A ban on pattern flIght trainIng (touch & go's)
on weekends.
d. A ban on hellcopter tralnIng.
e. A lImIt on the noise of a single aIrcraft flyover
of 100 SENEL (Single Event Noise Exposure LlmItation).
5. The local airport assocIatlon. later joined by nat10nal
aVIatIon lnterests, filed sUIt in federal court to enJoIn the
enforcement of the City's regulatIons. Plaintiffs contended the
CIty'S right to regulate was preempted by the authority of the
FAA over natIonal airspace, that the regulations interfered wlth
Interstate commerce, and that the Jet ban was not rationally
related to nOIse control.
6. In August, 1979, United States DistrIct Judge IrvIng
Hill upheld all the City's laws against federal preemptlon
claims. He also ruled that none of the laws, except the Jet ban.
Impermlsslbly Interfered wIth interstate commerce. Judge Hill
struck down the jet ban on the additional grounds that some newer
models of "qulet jets" made less nOIse than some propellor
alrcraft, and therefore the Jet ban lacked a rational basIs.
7. In September, 1979, the City Council lowered the SENEL
Ilml t from 100 to 8 5 . This ordinance was attacked by Gunnell and
the natIonal aVIatIon interests on grounds that it burdened
interstate commerce, that it was a "dIsguised Jet ban", and that
no EIR was prepared. Judge HIll Issued a preliminary injunctlon
agaInst enforcement of the ordinance; the case is awaiting tr 1 al .
9
--------- ----------
. .
8. Since the 100 SENEL lImit was repealed when the 85 SENEL
was adopted, there IS no nOIse l1mi t ln force at the aIrport.
Regula tlons ImplementIng the CIty'S nOIse ordinance were prepared
and presented to the AIrport CommISSIon; they have yet to be
adopted pend1.ng further developments in the litigatIon. These
regulat1.ons provide for exclUSIon of nOlsy types of aircraft, and
establish a formula for estImating aircraft noise under certain
condItions.
F. THE CURRENT CONTROVERSY.
1. In 1978, the voters of the State passed proposItion 13,
which drastIcally reduced the abil i ty of the CI ty to raise tax
revenue. In 1979. the voters enacted the Gann InitIative, WhICh
liml ts the amount of tax money WhlCh can be spent by cities.
2. In 1980, the WIlllams-Kuebelbeck Company prepared a
report which showed revenue estImates from aviatIon and mIxed
development at the airport. The report fo und the revenue from
mixed commercIal, industr 1.al, park and residentlal use to be
several million dollars greater than that which could be realIzed
from developIng the property as a general aVIation airport.
3. In February, 1981. the CIty CounCIl notIfied all tenants
WIth month-to-month tenancies to vacate the airport by February,
1982.
4. The City CounCIl d1.rected staff to prepare a request for
proposals for development of about 20 acres of vacant CIty-owned
land located to the north of the runway and west of the bUSIness
pa r k. The RFP's have not been soliCIted, in llght of the current
10
---------------- --------
. .
City Council policy to consider the airport property as a whole
before authorlzlng extensive development of any parcel.
5. The CIty also refused to approve the transfer of Woody
Duke's stock In Cloverleaf AVIation to CalIfornia Aviation.
Cloverleaf has filed sUIt; negotIatIons are In progress.
6. The CIty has also commenced an actIon agalnst WIngs
Wes t, a month-to-month lessee WhICh vacated the aIrport oWIng
back rent. Wings West had prev~ously been denied permIssion to
operate a commuter aIrline between Santa Monica and Mammoth.
(ThIS Issue IS also raIsed by Gunnell in its suit; Gunnell was
denIed permission to operate a commuter service to and from
Mex ico.)
7. The ope ratIng perml t of another tenant, Br iles
Eellcopter, was recently revoked for faIlure to comply with FAA
safety regulations. The FAA has revoked BrIles' maIntenance and
operatlng pe rm its, pendIng a hearIng. Br lIes has been given a
thIrty day notice to qU1t the property, WhICh is July 15, 198!.
8. On April 22, 1981, the newly elected Ci ty Council
imposed a moratorIum on commercIal and resldential development in
the City, pendIng a complete reVIew of the City's planning and
zonIng laws. Among the reasons underlYIng the moratorium are
flndlngs of a serious hous lng sho r tage . a loss of industr Ial
base, and commercIal development that 1nadequately addresses
overall commun1ty needs. In th1s light, the Counc1l directed the
City Attorney to prepare thIS report.
9. On Apr i1 23, 1981, the united States Court of Appeals
upheld Judge Hill's rulIng 1 naIl respects. The Court held that
11
--------
. . .
the C~ ty had the r~ght to liIut serv~ce at the airport ~n order
to protect ltS environment and avo~d l~ab~l~ty for damage to
persons affected by airport noise.
III. LEGAL CONSTRAINTS.
The airport ~s part of the FAA's Nat~onal Av~at~on System
Plan. It ~s designated as a general aviation reliever a~rport.
and provides serv~ces and fac~l~t~es for a var~ety of aVlation
uses. Development of the property for non-aviat~on uses is
constra~ned by various laws and contractual obligatlons.
A. FEDERAL LAWS AND POLICIES.
1. The Unlted States, through the FAA, has consistently
mainta~ned that the C~ty ~s prohiblted from clos~ng the airport.
It regards the airport as a vital part of the Nat~onal Aviat~on
System plan. and a key rel~ever alrport wlthin the network of
smaller a~rports d1verting general aviat10n trafflc from Los
Angeles International A1rport (LAX) . FAA offlCials have sent
several letters to thlS effect to the City over the past 10
years, the most recent being a letter from the FAA'S Reg10nal
Counsel in February. 1981.
2. There are no statutes or regulations proh~bit1ng the
closure of an airport by 1tS proprietor. The fact that an alrport
1S part of the National AVlat10n System plan does not prevent its
closure. The FAA's pos1tlon 1S predicated on the "sponsor's
assurances" glven by the Clty ln acceptlng grants for airport
lmprovement, and on leases between the Clty and the United States
in which the Clty leased a portion of the airport in exchange for
12
-----
. .
the constructlon of various improvements, including the
FAA-operated control tower.
3. The Alrport and A~rway Development Act of 1970, 49
U.S.C. S 1718, and its predecessor, the Federal Alrport Act of
1946, requlres an alrport operator who recelves federal funds to
aSSure the FAA that the a~rport "will be available for public use
on falr and reasonable terms and wlthout unJust dlscrlm1nation."
This assurance is embodled in the outstandlng grant agreements
be tween the united States and the Clty~ lt IS effectlve during
the life of the lmprovements or until July 23, 1988 (20 years
from the executlon of the latest grant agreement). While no court
has decided the preclse questlon whether an attempted airport
closure may be enJolned for fallure to make the alrport avallable
for publ1c use. courts have enforced the "unjust dlscriminatlon"
clause of the statute agalnst airport owners.
4. On March 31, 1965. the City leased part of the land on
which the auport IS located to the FAA for the operatlon of an
alr traffic control tower. The lease 1S renewable by the FAA for
successive one-year periods beglnning July 1, 1965 and
terminat1ng June 30. 2015. Thus far the lease has been renewed
annually. The FAA has constructed an air traff1c control tower on
the leased land, at a cost of $386,931, and has operated the
tower at federal expense.
5. The lease agreement does not spec1flcally prov1de that
the C1ty will operate an airport dur ing the ent1re lease term.
However, the lease does provide that 1n consideration for the
FAA's operatlon of the to we r , the Ci ty will lease land on wh ich
13
-------- -- ---------- ----------- - - ------
. .
the tower 1S located, w1II provide necessary access and r ights-
of-way, and w1Il provide operat1onal control of lightlng deemed
necessary by the FAA. The Clty lS also responsIble for the
contlnued functlonlng of all equlpment wh ich the FAA deems
necessary for a1r trafflc control, to avo Id impairing the FAA's
ability to control a1r traffic, and to hold the FAA harmless for
the operation of the tower. A r1der incorporated in the lease
recites that the C1ty will agree that the tower will be operated
1n accordance with certain cond1t1ons 1n cons1derat10n of "the
operat1on of an a1r traff1c control tower at the Santa Mon1ca
Airport by the Un1ted States Government. 11
. . .
6. The FAA has never stated the extent of service necessary
to dlscharge the C1ty'S obligatIons under the grants and leases,
al though 1t has been requested to do so on several occasions.
There are no statutes. reg ula tions, or cases govern1ng thIS
pOlnt. The FAA has told thlS office that "customary serv1ces"
must be prov1ded. At a minimum, the C1ty must maIntaIn serv1ces
necessary to enable aircraft using the a1rport to enter and leave
safel y, 1ncludlng fuel and malntenance facllIt1es, but is under
nO Obligation to permit fllght schools, a1rcraft sales, and other
aviatIon bUSInesses WhICh might make the property "commerc1ally
viable" as an airport.
7. The Un1ted States Court of Appeals dec1sion In Santa
Mon1ca A1rport Association v. C1ty of Santa Mon1ca holds that the
C1ty may determine the level of service at 1tS airport which 1t
reasonably deems necessary to protect the environment and avoid
!lab1l1ty for aIrport nOlse exposure, so long as it acts 1n a
14
-------- --- ----------- -~- - -------
. .
non-dIscrimInatory manner and does not dIrectly burden Interstate
commerce. The point at wh IC h nOIse regulatIons impermIssIbly
burden commerce, ln the context of the CIty'S reductlon of the
SENEL from lOa to 85. is at issue In NatIonal Buslness Aircraft
Association v. Clty of Santa Monica, now pend ing In United States
DIstr lCt Court.
8. Federal AviatIon RegulatIons Part 77 lImits the heIght
of cons tr uctlon adjoIn lng aIrports. The City must notify the FAA
of any proposed constructIon wlthln 10.000 feet of the runway.
The FAA will then determIne If the proposed constructIon would
constl tute a hazard to air traffIc, based on a formula contaIned
in the regulatIons. The closer to the runway, the lower the
heIght lImIt.
9. The FAA has no noise standards for munlcipa1 airports.
It does provide, as a condltIon of future alrport development or
nOIse abatement grants, that a CIty must submit a nOIse exposure
map for the approval of the FAA. ThIS map contaIns noise exposure
contours for areas adjacent to the a~rport, based on 24-hour
average nOIse exposure levels rated by a system called "Ldn". The
FAA also provIdes grants for "AIrport NOIse Control and Land Use
Campa tibil i ty" (ANCLUC) studIes, WhICh lead to the preparation of
nOIse exposure maps and the recommendatIon of nOIse abatement
measures.
15
- - ---- --- ----- -- ------- ----------
. .
B. STATE LAWS AND POLICIES.
1. The State of CalIfornIa has granted the CIty a permit to
operate the AIrport. The grantIng of thIS permit does not
preclude the abandonment of the aIrport. However, the State
Attorney General issued an Opinion in 1975 that the CIty could
not, because of the federal grants and leases, unIlaterally close
the aIrport.
2. The State imposes nOIse limitatIons on aIrports. Areas
underlYIng an aIrport flIght path must have a "Community NOIse
EquIvalence Level" (CNEL) ratIng of 70~ this level must be
red uced to 65 by January l, 1986. CNEL is a 24-hour average
ratIng of nOlse exposure~ nIght-tIme noise events are weighted at
10 times the level of day-time events. The area underlYIng the
Santa Monica flight path had a CNEL ratIng of approxlmately 65
when the jet ban and 100 SENEL were in effect.
3. Public UtIlItIes Code Sectlon 21659 prohibits the
constructIon of a structure or the growth of natural growth
WIthin one mile of the boundary of any airport which constitutes
a hazard to navigatIon as defIned in Federal Aviatlon Regulations
Part 77.
4. The CalIfornIa Env~ronmental Quality Act requires that
an Environmental Impact Report be prepared fOr projects of local
government wh ich may have a SIgnIficant impact on the
environment. ThIS would Include a sIgnIfIcant change ln aIrport
operatIons, planning and zonIng changes, and maJor development
activitIes at the aIrport.
16
. .
5. The State Plann1ng Law requires all cities to have a
general plan containing several mandatory elements. The City is
1n the process of rev1s1ng 1ts general plan and, 1n particular,
its hous Ing element. The State PlannIng Law perm1ts cItIes to
approve specif1c plans for particular sites. Specific plans must
be cons1stent w1th the general plan, and must provlde for the
systemat1c 1mplementat1on of general plan elements Includ1ng
regulations, cond 1 t1ons, programs. and proposed legislation
regard1ng: locat1on and regulat10n of bUlld1ngs and land uses.
locat1on and standards for transportatIon facIl1ties, standards
for populat1on density and provls1ons for water supply and waste
dIsposal, and provisions for open-space. Implementation of a
specif1c plan for the airport property would, 1n addit1on,
require re-evaluat1on of the CIty'S nOIse element.
C. CITY LAWS AND CONTRACTS.
1. The City has title to 215 acres of a1rport property.
The deeds to the various parcels are unrestricted. However. a
port1on of the property was acqu1red w1th bond revenue author1zed
in the 1926 election. which permitted acquisit10n and improvement
of the land for "publIC park purposes". Further, a lease by the
CIty to Cloverleaf AVlatlon contalns a promise by the City to
operate a general aviat10n aIrport until 1996. Several other
parcels of airport property are occup1ed by tenants w1th leases
for specIfIC terms or month-to-month tenanC1es.
The elect10n Wh1Ch author1zed the issuance of bonds for the
acquisition of the aIrport property states that the bond proceeds
are to be used for the acquIsItlon and improvement of a Rpubl1C
17
--- -------~---- - -------- ----------------
. .
park." The bonds were retired in 1965. The deed to the Clover
FIeld property is unrestr 1cted. Nonetheless, it 1S a general
prInc1ple of municipal law that land acquIred pursuant to a vote
of the people may not be used for a purpose other than that
spec i f i ed in the ballot measure wIthout a Slm11ar vote. If this
principle were appl1ed to the aIrport property, the land acqUIred
wIth bond proceeds could not be used for purposes other than park
purposes without a vote. However, there IS authority indIcatIng
that a vote authorizIng acqulsltlon of property through bonded
indebtedness. but not specifically dedIcatIng particular land to
particular uses. does not irrevocably fix the uses to which such
land may be put.
2. The AIrport property 1S currently zoned M-2
(industr lal) . ThIS zonIng excludes residentIal uses. Therefore,
to devote a portion of aIrport property to resIdential use would
require a zonlng change.
3. As wlll be indicated In the followlng sect10n of this
report, the primary planning alternative for the airport property
is the preparatlon of a speCIfIC plan under Government Code
SectIon 65450. In the course of preparIng such a plan. the
necessity of revisIng several elements of the General Plan, such
as the NOIse Element and the Transportation Element, may become
apparent.
4. In addl tlon to the leases w1th the Federal Government
for tower and runway Improvements. the City has leases covering
most of the parcels of aIrport property. The locations of these
parcels are shown on the attached lease map.
18
----------
. . .
5. The City has given notice to all month-to-month tenants
to vacate the property no later than March 30, 1982. These
~nclude:
a. Lear-siegler (parlnng lot).
b. All tenants at the Airport Admlnistration Bu~lding
except the FAA distr~ct offlce.
c. Kettler Av~ation (FBO).
d. Gunnell Aviation (FBO) .
e. Bell A~r Service (Gunnell) (FBO) .
f. Wings West (FBO).
g. Pacific Airmotive (FBO) .
h. Br ~les Wlng & Hel~copter (FSO) .
6. The fo1low~ng leases will expire before June 30, 1982:
a. Douglas Museum (ground lease) ; explres July 31. 198!.
b. Krueger Av~at~on (FBO) ; explres November 14. 1981.
c. Woody Duke Building ( FBO) ; explres February 28. 1982.
d. Oas~s Petroleum (fueling area); explres March 31, 1982.
e. Bl-Phase Energy (ground lease); expires
December 31, 198!.
f. FAA D~strict Offlce; exp~res June 30, 1982.
7. Lear-Slegler has ground leases on two parcels of
property to the south of the runway. These expire on November 30,
1983 and June 30, 1991.
8. Cloverleaf Aviation, which lS 60% owned by Woody Duke
and 40% owned by Cal~forn~a Aviation (Bob Carangl), has a lease
for a fixed base operation south of the runway whlch expires on
March 1, 1996. ThlS lease contalns a promlse by the Cl ty to
19
------ ----- - ------------
- .
operate a general aviatIon a~rport. The CIty and Cloverleaf are
In lItigatIon over the CIty'S refusal to appr ove the transfer of
the remaInIng Cloverleaf stock from Duke to Carangi and over the
alleged faIlure of the CIty to develop the airport property.
9. Gunnell. wings West, and Cloverleaf have on occasion
expressed an Intention to operate a commuter airline from the
aIrport. The City has refused to allow such service wIthout an
operations pe rm i t and a special contract. (See Santa MonIca
MuniClpal Code Se c t io ns 10102 and 10138.) The ab1l1ty of the
City to prohIbIt or regulate scheduled serVIce IS an issue In the
Gunnell litigation.
10. In addi tion to the lItigatIon wIth Cloverleaf and
Gunnell AVIatIon (a plaIntiff In AIrport II) , the CIty IS suing
Wings tvest (unlawful detaIner SUlt for back rent). Further, the
CIty has not~fied BrIles HelIcopter that Its operat~ng perm~t ~s
revoked for violation of FAA safety regulatIons, and that it must
leave the aIrport on July 15, 1981.
II. As was previously stated, the right of the Clty to
regulate nOIse at Its a~rport and to enact Its curfew, pattern
tr alnlng limltat~on. helIcopter traInIng ban, and nOIse lImit,
were upheld. However. In adopting the 85 SENEL ordInance, the
Ci ty Council repealed the 100 SENEL lImit. SInce the 85 SENEL has
been prelImInarIly enJoined In NBAA v. CIty, there is no current
noise limit at the airport. In recent weeks, several old-model
Learjets have used the airport, to the cons1derable annoyance of
the surround~ng communIty. These planes emit noises cons1derably
In excess of 100 dB, and should be excluded.
20
- .
IV. ALTERNATIVES.
In light of the evidence that revenue from mIxed
commercIal, residential, and park use at the airport property
would far exceed that WhlCh could be real~zed from aviation uses,
the s tr ong communIty concern over aV1atlon nOlse and safety. and
the diminished utillty of the airport as an lndustrlal base SInce
the departure of the Douglas Company, lnterest has been expressed
in closing the airport as soon as possible and that the land be
devoted to its hlghest and best uses. However. because of the
federal grants and leases and the long-term lease wlth Cloverleaf
Aviation, this cannot be accompllshed without lengthy IItigatlon
or the consent of the other partIes.
Therefore, It IS the opinIon of this office that the best
way to accomplish the Clty CouncIl's goals IS to prepare a
speclflc plan for the alrport property wh~ch conslders both
long-term and interim uses. Thus. aVIat10n operations should be
concentrated in as small an area as feasIble, and regulated to
aba te nOIse and undesirable types of traffIc, wh~le producIng a
contlnuous revenue stream dur ing the time when the alrport
remains open. Interim non-aviation uses should be planned and
developed to produce revenue and be compatlble with the ultimate
use of the slte.
The eXlstence of the 5000 foot runway. and the necessity to
lImIt the helght of development adJacent to the runway, severely
lImIt the abllIty of the City to develop the property. Whlle the
runway eXIsts and the airport remaIns ln operation, non-avIatIon
development would be lim 1 ted to parcels on the North or South
21
---------------------- - - - - - -- - - ------------ - - - - - - - ----- - ---- ----
r . .
side of the runway, consistent with federal bUIlding regulations.
Further, some base of aVIation operations must be maIntained in
order to provide serVIce for those aircraft perm1tted to use and
to be based at the airport. Such facil i ties Include a fuelIng
station, maintenance facillt~es, and some space for aircraft
parklng.
It IS the opinion of this office that the CIty'S
oblIgatIons to malntaln an aIrport whIle developing the maXlmum
revenue and community beneflt potential may most effect~vely be
discharged by concentratIng aVIatIon activities on one sIde of
the runway and developing the other side accordlng to a specific
plan for the property. It appears that the North sIde of the
runway is better sui ted for such aVlation operations. This would
requIre negotlating with California Aviation for a transfer of
Its leasehold from the South to the North sIde. Thus, when the
remain1ng tenants on the south sIde are removed, that portlon of
the aIrport property could be developed. A specIfIc plan for the
property could be drafted. ln the following development phases:
1. Establlshment of a base of aviation operatIons on the
North side of the runway. This would be accompanied by
establIshment of llmltat~ons on particular types of aviation
actIvIties determIned to be incompatlble with the community (e.g.
flight schools, nIght and weekend operations, use by noisy types
of aIrcraft).
2. Development of the property on the South side of the
runway for non-avIation activitIes, such as commercial, park and
residential uses.
22
----------
. . .
3. Development of the rema1n1ng property on the North slde
of the runway for non-aviation act1vlt1es.
4. Development of the entlre a1rport property, Including
that currently occup1ed by the runway and tax Iway.
The alternatIves to phased development accord1ng to a
comprehensive. spec1fIc plan do not appear to be as pract1cal.
An attempt to effect Immed1ate closure of the a1rport would not
present a h1gh probab1llty of success, 1n light of the
outstandIng contractual comm1tments and the stance of the federal
government. Development of 1solated parcels of property w1thout a
comprehens1ve. long-range plann1ng process would be contrary to
sound planning pract1ce, and perhaps detrimental to the long-term
revenue and communlty benefit goals of the C1ty. L1m1tation of
aVIatlon actIvi tIes wi thout any planned development, does not
appear to promote the ultimate devotion of the property to its
highest and best use to any extent.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS.
It 1S respectfully recommended that the City Council:
l. Adopt the accompanYIng resolut1on, which states the
Clty'S po li c Y to effect closure of the a1rport as soon as
possible and which Init1ates the preparatIon of the phased
development of the a1rport property to 1tS hIghest and best uses,
according to a spec1fic plan prepared ~n accordance wIth
Government Code Sect10n 65450 et seg. The process should 1nclude
partIcipatIon by all lnterested segments of the community,
lncluding aIrport neighbors. aviation ~nterests, commercial and
residentIal developers, and the FAA.
23
-------------
f . .
2. Dicect the City Attocney to entec into negotiations
with Callfocnla AVlation foe settlement of pendlng 1i tlgation and
transfer of ltS base of opecatlons to a paccel on the North slde
of the cunway.
3. Direct the Clty Attocney to prepare noise cegulatlons
and othec llmitations on aviation activltles incompatible wlth
the pcotectlon of the enviconment, for submlssion to the Alrport
CommlSSlon and Clty Councll.
PREPARED BY: Robert M. Myecs, Clty Attocney
Stephen Shane Stack, Assistan t City Attorney
24
. . .
.
CA:RMM:SSS
CIty CouncIl Meeting 6/23/81
ResolutIon No. 6296
(City Council SerleS)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA DECLARING POLICY
CONCERNING THE USE OF THE SANTA MONICA
AIRPORT AND DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF
A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE PHASED DEVELOPMENT
OF THE PROPERTY.
WHEREAS, the property on which the Santa Monica AIrport is
located is presently used prlmarlly for general aVIatIon
purposes; and
WHEREAS, the continued use of the property for a1rport
purposes causes adverse environmental lmpacts on and a danger to
the reSIdential neIghborhoods surrounding the alrport; and
WHEREAS, the contlnued use of the property for auport
purposes benefits only a small number of persons, and produces
far less revenue and other communi ty benefits than would
development of the property to other uses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has found that there 1S a need to
address a serious shortage of affordable housing ln the City. to
regulate commerc1al development in lIght of overall communIty
needs, and to attract Industry to the community; and
WHEREAS, the 215 acres of airport property provlde a unlque
opportun~ty for development that will be beneficlal to the
overall needs of the community; and
WHEREAS. development of the airport property should be
comprehensIvely planned in a manner that WIll involve all
. , . .
interested segments of the community and wlll account for both
long-term needs and the interim use of the property as an
airport1 and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65450 et seg. authorlzes
the City to adopt a speciflc plan for a part of the Clty,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1. It is the policy of the City of Santa Monica to
effect the closure of the Santa Monica Munlcipal Airport as soon
as possible and to devote the property on WhlCh it is located to
its highest and best use, conslstent with the needs of the C~ty
for a continuous base of revenue, for provision of opportunitles
for affordable hous lng, for parks and open space, and for an
env ironment consistent with the City's generally resldential
character.
Sectlon 2. It is the policy of the City of Santa Monica to
ho no r its contractual commitments. and in recognition of the
outstanding commitments of the C1ty to maintain a general
aviation airport, the Clty Council intends to plan both for the
long-term development of the airport property and for the lnterlm
operation of an airport consistent w1th the maximum promotion of
the City's ultimate goals.
Section 3. The City Manager, the Clty Attorney and the
Planning Director are d1rected to prepare, for submlsslon to the
Planning Commission , a Specific Plan for the development of the
property on WhlCh the Santa Monica Municlpal Airport is located,
- . .
. .
in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section
65450, et seq.
Section 4. All interested parts of the community, lncludlng
residents of surrounding neighborhoods, aviation lnterests, and
developers of residential, commercial, and industrial property,
shall be involved in the preparation of the Speclflc Plan.
Section 5. The views of the Federal Government,
part~cularly the Federal Aviation Administration, and of the
State of California, shall be sol1cited in connectlon with the
preparation of the Specific Plan.
Section 6. The planning and development of the property
shall proceed in phases, as follows:
I. The establishment of long-term goals for the use of the
entire property.
II . The establishment of a base of airport operations on
the North side of the runway, for such period as the Clty is
legally reqUired to operate an airport. ThlS base shall be
concentrated in as small an area as possible, and shall prOVide
services necessary to permlt safe aVlatlon operations during the
time the airport is operated as such. Reg ula tlons for the
exclusion of noisy aircraft and the elimlnation of unsafe and
undesirable types of aVlatlon activ~tles shall be developed. The
Airport Comm1ss1on shall hold a hearing on thiS phase prlor to
its submiss ion to the Planning Commission.
III. The development of the property on the South side of
the runway for mixed uses compatlble wlth the long-term goals,
lncluding but not hmi ted to commercial, hght industr 1al,
. .- . .
residential, and open space. P~iority for resldential development
shall be given to housing affo rdable by persons of low and
moderate income.
-;V. The development of the property adjacent to the base of
aviation operations for mixed uses compatible with aviation uses
and with the long-term goals.
v. The closure of the airport and the development of the
entire property consistent with the long-term goals.
Section 7. The City Attorney is directed to enter into
negotiatlons with Cloverleaf Aviation and California AV1ation,
and With such other lessees as he deems approprlate, 1n orde~ to
~esolve pending lit1gat1on and effectuate the purposes of th1S
Resolution.
Section 8. The City Clerk shall attest to the adoption of
this resolutlon, and thereafter 1 t shall be in full force and
effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
\) \, \ 1" j..r '"'t-'----
~ Lw~h\ .L
Robert M. Myers .)
Ci ty Attorney
. .~. - e
ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS 23rd DAY
OF June ., , 1981.
'-..
~
. ""_~'~ (~~~_.~J">; ~ ,"-, <""c
~1A YO~
I HEREBY CEHTIFY THAT THE FOREGOInG RESOL~TImL
IW. 6296 J HAS DULY ADOPTED BY THE CITY CO~.HJCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA r10NICA AT A REGULA:< ;\1EETIf:G THEf{EOF HELJ ON
. June 23 I 1981 BY THE FOLLOII H1G cau :JCI L VOTE:
AYES' COW1CT \ /1EriBI=RS' CQn~, Edi'iards, Jenungs, Press,
. ~...... . _I . Reed, Zane and ~laYQr Yannatta Goldi'iay
rJOES: COUNC I U~E!1:gERS : None
ABSENT: COmK 1 L"~EJ~3ERS: :Jone
ABSTAHi: CQU"!CI lJ~E~'DERS: :-lone
ATTEST:
I "
.-- { ~. :, '~. . //'1J /: U /\
~--<..-- }f,--"'-1.-: ./ / -~/ -~ ._-'....
CITY CLERK