SR-800-008i ~ ~ ' r' ~?
~o~' Y~g
GITY OF S~I~;Tt~ :v~O~:ICA INFORIv1ATIJ~
71-C-33
~
~
~
~
DATE: May 20, 1°71
TO: 'I'Iie Honorable City Counc~i __~~_~ -_ , y.
~ _, _
~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ' _
FRO?vI: Cicy A~ar.age-r ~ ~~3--` ~y ,.~ . ~ _ -- ->
~F"*.'r f '~~1 ~ I ~i Y. ~ ~ t _ ' ~S
~ L s_ ~ ~C -, ~ ~ - ' '' ~_ ' .
SUB?EGT: Supplementzi Airnort Study ~ ~ - ~C-^ - _- - ; -
Trl' ili ?.1L ,"s i, - . ~- _- . : _ - , -
~I:Il~Y ~~ ; ~:!~ '~ S~ '1 Hi .E ; - -. -.
C.'fY F~ls'.::Fstb161~ ICE - ~
I ar_-1 fortvardir_Q here~vith a supalem~nt~i`i"eYOr`~~on the develonmer.t
_of the Airport prepare~ by Ecailo~l_cs Research ~ssociafes, lfir.
C~r,s Daris, ~.~±o has represent,ed the iirm ~v~th respect to both
studics, tviil be leati~zr_~ thc countr;T June 1 ior ar extensi~re ass:gn-
I71erit \4r_Cii W111 TY:Cdri t2'_c.? si~21' i.Y'_'v.~ ~c.i.2 rie :Nil~ [)P_ Liri~y*alia~J12 iG
d;scuss th~ : eport 4+'1f~1 li ~rr_~ers c~ the Conncll. Accordanuly, it
is ~ug~es~ed thai trz G~t3r Council set a study s~ssion ~ometifre
dur~i~g ti~e Fveex of 14av Z5 d~.~riab t,~h~ch t~=e .-eport ~an be discussed
with Mr. Da~;.s.
; ~~,~~~~ ~~~ ~~
~ T ~_~
~ ~ ..~--- . ~ ~.'~ r,! =- - -- ~~ ~.~~ ~ ~~` ~
'_P~RRY SCOTT, Ci±y ~.4anager j,w.`; U J1?^~
Ti-fI5 ~IL~~~ R :
PS: j 7t~T~R~~.J : G 'i'riVL .
CI'iY f;i`~ItK~S~OF= ~~
cc: C~tyr G!erK - ~, ~~~~ `•~`~ .
A:r~crt ConZm,ssaor. '" . °-.'
:~ : ~t ' -, _
.. " ~! ` • . ^~ ~ , _ i.'t ~ ~ i
v~
r~ ; `,y--`l, ~ ~ ` e ~ y`~,.i ' _ ~ „~-i
. , ~ i . ~ ~ ~~
L " ~' V ' r `-~ ~ V . ~
_ ~.' ,~L+ni" `1~~~'7~'' ..C
. '`~~ '' .
4 V ~
/ v ~
~ r~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^~ ~^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'
~
'
'
'
'
1
1
~
'
~
~
'
'
,
~
~
'
1
~
~
I
~
Economics Research Associates
Los Angeles, Cal~fomia
Washington. D C
ANA~YS15 OF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
ALTERNATIVES - SANTA MONIGp AIRPORT PROPERTY
REPORT Il
Prepared for
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
1~Iay 25, 197I
~
~
~
~
'
'
~
,
'
'
~
'
~
,
~
~
~
~
i
TABLE OF CO\TEVT'S
Section Pa~e
I II~TRODUCTIOI~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I- 1
Scope And Method pf Approach. ..... ... I- 1
II SU~4NFARY A~D GOVCLLSIO\S. . . . . . . . . . II- 1
7]evelopment Z~'ith A Continced A_rport .... II- i
i~•larke*_ Support For Re*_ail Development .... II- i
Santa Monica i14a11 Survey . . . . . . . . . . . II- 2
Full De~-elopment Program. . . . . . . . . . . II- 3
Sumxnary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II- =~
III DEVELOP~EITT POTEITIALS CO~i5I5TEiVT
tihrITH CO\TINtiED AIRPORT OPERAI'IO~iS ... ZII- 1
Airport Acreage Rec}uired . . . . . . . . . . . III- 1
Heiaht Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III- 1
A De~-elopment Program . . . . . . . . . . . . III- Z
IV IbiARKE'T SLPPORT FOR RETAIL~ DEVELOP~
ME~IT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 1
Trade Area Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iti- 1
1~Iarke± Suppor* Fac±ors . . . . . . . . . . . . iti - 5
Size And PhasLng Oz Developmen± ..... .. IV- 9
t1n Impor±an± Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1 2
V SAIVTA M01ICr~ MALI~ SCRVEY . . . . . . . . . V- 1
VI LANI] L SE ~~IX FQR FULL DEVELOPME?~ T
A1ID EC~?~TOMIC A'~D FI\AICIAL EVALL:ATION
OF ALTER\TATIV'ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI- 1
~Vith Gontinued airport Operations. . . . . . . VI- 1
Full Development l~rogram. . . . . . . . . . . VI- 1
Flnancial Implications Of Developmen± Programs
For The Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI- 7
ii
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
,
~
~
L.IST OF FIGtiRES
1Tumber Pa~e
1 SLBJECT PROPERTY A\D SLRROL~VDII~G AREA I- 2
2 A~i\Ur'1L CITY OF SAiVT~ IviOI~ICA REVEi~TUE
FR0114 SatiTA MO:~ICA AIRPORT PROPER'I'Y
ALTERIATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II- 7
3 AIRPORT PARCELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III- 3
4 HEIGHT LI1~iITATIOI~S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III- ~
5 TRaDE AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 2
e StiRVEY FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z'- 3
iii
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
j
~
~
i
~
~
~
LIST OF TAELES
:;umber Pa~e
1 DEVEI~OPMEi~'I PR~GRAM FOR THE SAI~2'A
MO~IICA AIRPORT PROPERTY, 1980-1991 ... II- 5
2 TOTAL I~TET CITY REVEIIUE AITICIPATED
FRQM DEVELpPIv1E\T' PROGRAI~4 k'QR THE
SANTA MONICA AIRPORT PROPERTX, 198a-
1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II- 6
3 ELEVATIOI~T A\D HEIGi-3T RESTRICTIOti OF
SAVTA MOI~ICA AIRPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . IIT- 5
4 PARCELS SOL:TH 04 AIRPORT AVE1i;E .... III- 6
5 OFFICE BLILDI~IG DEVELOPME\T PROGRAM
ti1+`ITH GO\TTII~UED AIRPORT OPERATION5,
1980-1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III- 8
6 TRADE .AREA POPliLATIO\ TRE1D5, 19b0-
1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TV - 3
7 PRQJECTED POPLLATI01 AND FAMILIES IN
TRADE AREA OF SANTA Ib401~TICA AIRPORT,
19~0-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- =~
8 DISTRIBUTIO\ OE RETAIL EXPEIDITURES II~
LOS ANGELES COL:~TY, 1909. . . . . . . . . . IV~ 6
9 DEPAI2TMEti7 STORE DEI~4A1~'D IN THE
TRADE AREA, 1970-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 7
10 Iv1AJOR COMPETI\G DEPARTME'_~T S70RES
IN TRADE AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV- 8
lI POSSIBLE DISTRIBUTIO\ OF COMMERCIAL
SPACE AT PROPOSED REGI~IAL SHOPPII~G
CEI~TE~t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV~10
iv
~
i
i
~
i
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
i
L.IST OF Tr~BLES
(Contanuedl
~Tumbe r Pa~e
12 EXAI~IPLES OF LEASABLE SQL:ARE FEET PER
ACRE I\ SELECTED REGIOI~rAL SHOPPII~~G
CE\7ERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11
13 SCHEDi;LE pF SA~IT~, M011ICA MALL AREA
SL'Rti EF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 2
14 SUtiIMARY OF SA?~TA 1biO1CICA MALL StiRVEY
RESL"~LTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V- 4
15 SUMMARY OF DEVELOPME?`T PROGRAM
T~VITH Cd\TII~LEB AIRPORT OPERATIOI`S. .. VI- 2
16 DEVELOPMEI~T FROGRAM FOR THE SANTA
MOI~ICr; AIRPOR'r PROPERTY, 1980-1991 ... VI- ~
17 LEASE REVE~IL"E ANTIGIPATED FROI~4
DEVELOPME\ T PROGRAM, 1980-1 991 ...,, ti I- ~
18 PROPERTY 'I'AX REV~~IUE AI~TICIPATED
F'RQi~2 DEVELOPMEVT PROGRAI~;f, 1980-1991 . VI- 6
19 TOTAL ~iET CITY REtiEVLE A~iTICIPATED
FROM DEti ELOPME\ T PROGRAM FOR THE
SA1TA MOVICA AIRPORT PROPERTY, 1980-
1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI- 8
v
~
~
Section I
I L~ITRODL CTION
~ In January 1971, Economics Research Associates published a report
~ entitled ''Analysis oi !Airport and Alternative L~se~ for the Santa Monica
Airport Property". The sub~ect property's location is iltustrated in
Figure l. ?,£ter discussi~n of the repo.t, the City~ Council decided to
~ obtain additional informatLOn on tti:o specific alternatives concernmg the
future use of this land. One al±ernative considers the partLal development
of the property with contFnued operation of the airport as a general aviat~on
~ facility, z~hile ihe other considers cessation of flight operations and full
development of the entire airport property «~ith a mix of highest and best
land uses, In evaluatino these optioas, ERA relLed upon market support
~ factors generated in the previous studg, together i~-ith the data contained
in this report.
~ SC~PE A\TD :~4ETHOD ~F APPRO?iCH
~ In examaning the alternaEives, ERA directed its efforts along the
follozc-ing lines of inquirp
1, Determine the recommended maximum a1lo~vable height contours
~ for each individual a~rport parcel as currentl}- defLned b}-
Federal Aviation Agency (F'AA) requzrements, Translate thas
~ into recommended maxtmum height of development or number
of stories on each parcel,
~ 2, Examine previous development data relative to the sub~ect
property and any modliications to these data artsing from
!imitations in access pattern requir~ments, development
~ character and size, or development timLng. From this
anformatLOn determine the mix of land uses which, while maxi-
mizing net City revenue, can potentially be det~eloped on the
~ sub~ect property consistent ~vrth continued airport opexations,
market support factors, and a2lowable height restrictions.
~ 3, Determine the potential market support for retail commercial
facilities at the parcel under scrutiny and recommend the size
and phaszng of such development.
1
I- 1
~
i
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
,
~
~
~
~
~
~
Sect~,on II
Si7:vIMARY A\D COI~GLUSIOI~S
4s part oi Phase II of the Economics ReGearch .4ssociateG efiort for
the City oi Santa I~fonica's airport progertp, tnLS stuay fu1!y evaluates the
development potentials consxstent ~r~th continued aLrpart operations. In
addition, analysis of the market support ior retail facilities leads to the
eize and phasing of tne development of a regional_ shopping center on the
property. A development pro~ram for the entire 215 acres is set forth
in this study and represents the highest and best use of the property,
consistent tc-~.th market support factors, «•hich optirnizes net City re~-enue.
DE~TFLOP1~4E1T Z'~ ITH A C0ITLVLED AIRPORT
After e~tensive dxscussions ~~~ith airport managers of Torrance,
tian Vuys, Oxnard, and Orange County airports, ERA has determined that
only tlze properey located south nf ~zrport Avenue at the Santa Monica
Airport has good potential for other than airport development, Height
restrictxons for the existing parcels, assuming continued axrport operations,
graphically ~llustrate that there are definite limitatLOns placed upon
developing the properties north of Airport Avenue and that most of the
properties south of this street ca~ be about 140 to 170 feet, or 12 to 1~
storxes, high,
Gonsastene «-ith the serie~ of lease expiration dates for the parcels
south of Airport A~enue, a development program is envisioned tirhich begins
in 1980, In addition to 8, 8 acres ior ltght indusirial use, b. 4 acres oi office
bu~lding development, or 250, 000 square feet of net leasahle area, are
programmed. Certainly, the present airport-related use of the 8. $ acres
is not incompatible ~~-rth the outlined office building development and, if the
present lessees are willing to match the land lease revenue obtainable fron~
using the land for light industr}', their remaining on the site «~auld not be
detrimental to the dec-elopmer_t program.
:~~fARKE1' SL PPORT FOR RET~IL DET~'ELOPI~;IEIVT
Analysis of the shopping patterns fox regional shopping centers leads
to the conclusion that tradrtionally> each of them has a trade area 15-zng ~irtthin
II- 1
~
~
~
~
~
a seven-mile radius around the de~elopment, Examining the sub~ect
property's trade area reveals that nearly 2, 4 mi?1LOn square feet of
departrnent store space can be supported, this wi11 rLSe to more than 2.
million square feet Ln 1975, nearly 3, 3 xnLllion square feet in 1980, and
slightly more than 4, 4 million squaxe feet in 1990. 1'resently there are
approx3mately 2, 7 million square feet of department store space in
the trade area.
In oeneral, at present in Lhe trade area, an oversupply of department
~ store space exists ~t-hich c~,•ill reach an equilibrLUm by 1975, by 1980
approximatelg~ 505, 000 square feet of additional department store space
can be supported.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
ERA's research indicates that there is sufficient market support
to warrant planning ior a ma~or regional shopping center on the Santa
Monica Airport property. The facts pre~ented in this report andicate that
the fLrst nhase of tht~ ~hoppLna center should be developed in 1980 ~c-ith
approximately ~35, 006 square ieet of leasable area, Market support further
indfcates that a second phase oi decelopment for thzs regxonal shoppin~
center, i~-hich ~~•ould include an addLtional 300, 000 square feet oi leasable
area, should be planned in the middle 1980s.
One s~gnifLCant qualification must be attached to the market support
factors generated ior retail facilittes on the subiect property. ERA
concludes that sufficient market support for the development of such a
regional shopping center wi11 not occur until 1980. Thxs, ho«~ever, does
not mean that the de~~eloper cannot succe~siully build and operate a regional
shopping center at the sub~ect propertc before this date. Analysis of
competitive ma~or denartment =tores in the trade area reveals that ~e~-era1
ha~-e sianificant disadvantages in parking, traffic problems, and LdentifLCation,
all oi tti•hich make many o: them vulnerable to competzt~,on frorZ a«~ell-planned
regional facility,
SA\T? MO~ICA MALL SUI2tiEY
Development o*" a regional shopp~n~ center at the parcel being
examined,as outlined in the development program presented in fhis study,
«-ould not be a17. net gain to the CiEy. I~hat ~s, some customers «-ho ~;~ill
shop at the center are currenfly shopping ~n 5anta MonLCa and ~~-ould,
ti~erefore, transfer their shopping habits rather than bring additional
income to the City Chrough the sales tax revenue and xnarket support for
II- 2
~
~
~ facilities. To quantifp this factor, ERA conducted an extensive survey of
customers on the Santa Monica ?~4a11 and at the nearby Sears store to
deterrriine their shopping patterns and their susceptxbility to being dra~•n
~ off by facilities developed at the alrport property, This survey consisted
of Z4 man hours of intervae~c~ang that produced 368 completed questianna*_res,
it is statistically signLiicaat and representative of the shopping patterns of
~ ihe Mall customers.
In general, zt can be said that the customers who patron~ze the
~ Santa A4onica h~iall are distinct~y diiferent from those ~x•ho frequent Sear~.
Most o~ those who shop at Che I~'~all come from Santa Monica (58.4 percentl
and mo~t of these (5h. 1 percent) come from the northt~~est segment oi the
~ Clty-, wnLCh is the farthest dr~~-ing distance from the ~ub~ect property,
Slightly over ha?f o# those shopping at the I~Zall (~~. 8 nercentJ, drive their
autos to shop,«~hile the remainder either walk or take pub~ ac transportation
~ and thereiore u•ould be highly unLkel,v to shift tneir shopping patterns to
ne~c~ retail iacilLt~.e~. The ?~4aJ._ shoAper is generally older than the customer
at Sears and has a median household income of S7, 400 c~mpared «-._th the
~ estimated Citv a~-erage of slightlti more than $11, 000. Since the :vlall is
the ma~or retail area of the City, this means that the higher income peop~e
of Santa Mon~ca tend to do most of their reta~l shoppin~ outside SanEa h'lonica
~ limits and therefore represent retail leakage out of the City,
The Sears' customers are prettg e~renly distributed throuahout the
~ City of Santa l,-fonYCa and elseu~here, and almost all (95. 0 percentl drive
their autom~btles #o the avea. They are younger than those who Ghop at
the I1ia11 and their ~ncome, c~-hile st~?1 ?ess ttian that of Sanfa A4onica as a
~ «,-ho?e, i~ one-thlyd higher than that of 1~1a11 customers. Finali}, if similar
facilaties t~•ere to be developed at the airport, the customers at Sears would
be much more susceptibie to bei-~~ drav~n off bp the ne~x~ facilities than their
~ counterparts shopping at the 1~4a11. In iact, usin~ the statistics generated
from the survey, it is calculated that the Mall merchants ~;-ould possibly
lose up to 10. 5 percent oi their b~~ sines= if a re~ional shoppin~ center ~~~ere
~ de~reloped on the subtect property~. The potentia! loss at Sears, if s:rr-ilar
fac1lities ~x-ere developed on the aLrport property, could be as much as
21, 0 percent.
~
Fi~LL DEVEL~PME~T PROGRAn~i
~ tl development program ior the Santa Monica ALrport property Ls
set forth tn this study and because of the schedule of lease expiration date,
~
~ II-- 3
~
~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Table 1
llEVELUYMENT FROC'RAM I'OR 1'll~ SANTi~ MONICA AFPcPORT PROI'F.12TY
1980-i9y~
(Acres Absorbed]
Ll se
Uffice Buildings
Hegional Shopping Center
Motor Hotel
Multiplc Residential
Condominium Residenhal
Total
Year
1980 1981 19~z 1983 t984 1985 1986 1987 1988 198y 1990 1991
4.0 4.0 6 6 6.6 10.0 13.0 17.6 Zz ~ z(~ 9 31 7 31.7 36.5
41 0 41.0 41. 0 41. 0 4i.0 41 0 G4 0 64. U 64. 0 64. 0 64. 0 64. 0
-- -- -- -- -- -- L.7 2.7 L.7 L.7 L.7 2.7
k. 4 8. 4 1 G. 8 1 G. 8 L5. L L5, l 33. 6 33 6 4Z. 0 42. 0 50. 4 50. 4
10.4 10.4 20. 8 L0. 8 31.2 3~, 2 41. G 42. 6 SL, 0 5l. 0 61.4 6~.4
63. 8 63. 8 85. Z 85. 2 107.4 110.4 159. 5 164. 1 187. 6 192. 4 210. 2 21 5. 0
Source• Fconomics Research Associates.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Tzhir L
I'(.)3 ~I, NF:I' C;I ['Y RR:Vi:Nfil' ANTfC'IS!A1'L:I) 3+ItUM
nrvrr,r~i'MF:N 3' L'1tU(,~iiAM 1~C1~1 I'HP; ti~Nl'A Mc~NIC:A ~1ilF'()Iti' 1!12U1!l1LlY
]yK0-199]
(k'hnuaandv~
~
- Vr
[lcin _ 19N0 Iyt41 198L.T 19H1 -1984 1985 1')H~ _19N! _ 198N 1y74) 1'd9U 1771
Ldnil I~enae It~~ve•m~r. '}: '355 N $ ~i`. y '}'~ '~4i. t 'h ~~5 i '~ GG2 5 $ 69L '1 $I,Utl/~ L `~1,140 S 'hI,7Hl i ol, 1:/ 0 'f~l, 1175 '/ ~yI,i7G ~.
Yrul~eriy I'nx Ki•v~nur 11L U llf~ 11 I°+9 7 1~9 ! '.07 4 L'H ? i711 H 371 4 41~'/ ~ 4i~: i 9~1i7 4 ~+19 M
H~Li•L H~om T~x Rrv~m~r! r -- " " -- -- -- 7E 7 !/ 7 /(i ! 7f~ 7 7(i 7 7h 7
ti~Lnc T.x Revrnur?/ 440 1 419 7. 47G 0 3H1 1 499 5 '.II1 i 74°. 0 751. U !';L U I';L ^ 7iL 0 75,: Il
C)thar SuLvenliu~~n3~ 30 F lU G 7.1 ~, l.l , 51 Y ;l ) 4G ', 4G + 53 I Si 7 i~i ~. 1~f ,.
Utherltevrnuee~/ i 0 t p L 0 _ fi II 9 0 7 U 1G n L~ i) IS 0 15 U t! 9 _ IP 9
S~6lul~1 $1,005 I '~I,f174 G $I,LU1 L '~~l,Ll} M1 '~I,~~~ i '~1,4(H 1i QL. i06 G 'y''., S'1'i ~/ ~;2,l~07 (~ y;_' (~9K : ¢~L NI( Il q'~f..'lUb '.
Lrnn M.~ll SaleH I'ax I,~~~s 1 5 7 I 5 7 _1? / I 1 7 I 5 7 1 i ! _f 1 7 _ I 7 7 _ 1 i 7 1 f ! I~ 7 _I ti!
I'ol,~.l $ '3'31 4 '~1, 000 5 '}~I. 17f1 5 ~~1 I'11 b $1, 5~)'i G '1~~1 4'i~+ I RJ,7.~7. 9 PL iH: L ~iL `;')i ~l 'y'.. (~ri4 ', '~~~, R11;. 1 y'~;.. ft9'. ~~
I 1 I4 ~~aed an 70 pnr~ank uccupancy nn~l y~LO avr.~•z~~+ ~.~~ly r~~nni rntn
L! ti7iop~~unp cr;ntrr ,nd nthcr ~ .er iel cleveLopnient
1/ F.elaa~nted at $54ti ~er muiuplr,jrr~xde~t~ nl ecrc
4/ Fyhu~rind et 51~~9 per ~nultipln ri~s~Ao.nt~~l ~crc
Sni+r~~e F,conom~c< Ftr.eesrch Aarucialee
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
cSaoa )
3,000 ~
2 ,500
FULL DEVELOPMENT
2,000
I ,500
[ ,000
GONTINUED AIRPORT
~ ~ i
500
2893
569
p. . ~ ~ ~ ~_ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 k966 f967 1988 1989 1990 1991
Source EconomicsResearchAssoaates yEAR
Figu re 2
ANNUAL CITY OF SANTA MONICA REVENUE
FR.OM SANTA MONTCA AIRPORT 1'ROPERTY ALTERNATNES
i
~
~ Section III
DEVELOPMENT POTEI~TIALS COI~SISTENT
~ WITH CO1~`TI1U~D AIRPORT OPERATI015
~ If the residents of the City of Sanfa Vionica decide that it zs in
their best interests fa continue airport operations at the sub~ect property,
the potential de~-elop~zent of ancillary parcels becomes ~mportant in pro-
~ ~~iding additional ixicome to the Ci*_y. This section discusses the possi-
bilitie~ of decelopment if the airport is continued. First, the analy-si~
determines the minimum acrea~e required for a ~iable airport and dis-
~ cusses the aeight restrictions for each ad~acent parcel. Absorption esti-
mates of ~arious uses are made,considering such factors as access,
zdentzfacation, and other reJ.ated maxket suppor~ characterzstxcs. Finally,
~ ERA proposes a de~elopment cvhich, consistent ~vith continued airport
operations, maximizes the retsrn to the Gitp of Santa :~lonica.
~ ?iIRpORT ACREr1GE REQL:IRED
~ InherenY in the decision to rerain an economically viable airport is
the reqniremen± for a minirzum amount of acreaQe around the field for
airport-related acticities such as airplane stora~e space, repair facil~ties,
~ and the like. ERA discussed v~,•ith the airport managers oi Torrance, Van
~Tuys, O~ard, and Orange County airports the amount of acreage which
would be needed for these kinds of uses,if the airport at Santa Monica is
~ to remain a successfully operating unit.
The conclusion of these discussions is that only the property
~ located south of Airport A~~enue, totaling slightl}- more than 17 acres, is
not required £or airport-related facilities and ~s thexefore good potent2al
property for other than airport development. Those flight facilities
~ currently on this property may be transferred in the future to thc parcels
located north of the run~vay which ~vill soon revert to the Czty.
~ HEIGHT RESTRICTIOI~S
~ De~-elopment of the parcels ancillary to the airport must be made
in recogni±lon of the Federal Ati-iation Agency height restrictions out-
~ lzned in their re~nlations, Part 77, Chapters 4 and ~. T'his subsection
~ III-1
~
'
,
translates these F'AA recommenda~icr_s into height limitations for each
~ of the existing airport parcels and was prepared wzth the assistance o£
the planning firm o# Adrian ZYilson Associates. Figure 3 illustrates the
Ieasehold properties of the airport as currently defined and renumbers
~ them for c~.arity. Fi~ure 4 applies the FAr1 regalations graphically to
th.e Santa l~lonica A~rport, shawing all of the height restrictions applicable
to tre sub~ect property. Table 3 identifies the various leasehold areas
~ near the airport cuith the lessee's name and average elevation for each
parcel. The recommended heig~t restrictions are translated ~o the ind~-
~ vidual areas indicating the recomrnended maximum height for develop-
ment on each of the parcels. The height restnctions for the var~ous
parcels araphically illustrate that there are definite height iimitations
~ placed upon developing most of the propertzes north of Airport Avenue.
Generally, a height of 100 feet cannot be exceeded. However, most of
the properiies south of Airport ?.venue can rise to a heigl-.t of about 140
, to 170 feet, or 12 to ].5 stories,
~ A DEti~ELOPRREI~T PROGRAI~1
The leasehold properfies located south oi Airport 9~-enue appear
~ in Table 4, ~vhich shows details oi the lease agreements. On tl~e average,
the 1~.2 acres south of Airport Avenue return to the City xevenue of
slightly more than $0. 0=~ a square foot. iVot~ng the series of lease expz-
~ ration dates, it is assumed in this analysis that de~relopment of these
parcels can begin in 1980.
~ Thexr development means that airport operations ~~ill continue as
at present and access to the developed land ~Uill be from Bundy Drive at
Airport Avenue. Dzscussions ti~~ith persons responsible for leasing of
' space in hzgh-r~se office buildings in the area ~ndicate that, while the
property ~.s near the Santa ~.Zonica and San Diego £ree~vays, it will lack
good identification and excellent access patterns.
~ The abo~~e £actors and area market support figures generated in
the previous ERA report, indicate annual absorptxon of the property south
~ of Airport Avenue for the first tnree years to be 17, 560 square feet,
rzsing to 20, Q00 square feet in 1933 and 25, 000 square feet after 1g87.
The development pro~ram outlined here anticipates building four t«~o-story
, lo~v-rise of[ice buildings, each containing approximately 2~, 000 square
feet of net leasable area. Plans call for a tower of possibJ.y l2 stories
surroar.ded by the lo«~-rise buildings. Such a development woulc3 begin in
~
,
III- 2
~
~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
_r
`~1
TRAN3ITIONAL SURFACES INTERSECi THE ~ ~
HORIZONTAL SURFACE PROPERTY THAT IS~ r rf
WITNIN THIS AREA IS GOVERNED !Y THF I
7 7 SLOPE TO TNE CLEAR ZONE ~ 1~
_~~'~ .~~- ~ ~
~- ..~~ .~-- --~-~ L
~~` ~ 4 ~
~ ~ 2 ~ ~
~ ~ • --~
~ -' + I
L~--=~
~- 9-r ~
Nore• SANTA MONICA AIRPORT
AVERAGE ELEVATION OF EACH INDIVIDUAL dASIC AREA PLAN
AREA NUMaERED AROVE ARE GIVEN ON
ELEVATION AND HEIGHT RESTRICTION
CHAR7S ADRIAN WlLSON ASSOCIATES L~/G~JG~
/~ rv ~r ~ I ` 13
~ ~f ~ -f1' 19 I 14
.~ ~~ ~
~
r ~
~~
1 r
/ ~
`~r ~
Figure 3
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CONICAL SURFACE i0 1 SLO~E AND
A RADIUS OF t,00p FT AROUHD THE
AIR~ORT REFEREkCE ~OINT
NORIZONTAL SURFACE ~sa Ft Aeov~
TNE ESTA6LISNED AIR~ORT EIEVATION.
NADIUS IS 5,~ FT AROND THE
AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT
TRANSITIONAL SURFACES ~
7:i SlOPE
'~"'~~ ~ ~ '~ APPROACH AND pEPARTURE SURFACES~
~ , O~tc1 \~20•1 SLOPE 2250 FT AT THE OUTSiDE EDGE.
: 1 5,000 fT. RUNWAY ESTABLISHED AIRPORT
~ ELEVATION IS 175 FT. A6~~E SEA LEVEL.
. L
~
/ .
ISOMETRIC INFORMATION TAKEN FROM
FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY ADRIAN WILSON ASSOCIATES ~~~
FEDERAL AVIATION REGIJLATIONS
~AIlT 77, tHA~TERS ~ AND 5, FIGURES 7 AND t
Figure 4
~
'
~
'
'
~
~
,
~
,
,
~
~
,
,
~
~
~
'
Tab3.e 3
ELEVATIOVv AI~;D HEIGHT RESTRICTION OF
SANT.A MONIGA 1~1IRPOR7
(Feet)
Area Average Height
~umber Area Use Elevatzon Restr2ctxon
1 L~cDonnell Douglas 160 43
2 McDonnell Douglas 160 57
3 McDonnell Dougias 147 70
~ McDonnell Douglas 14Q 149
5 nZcDonnell Douglas 137 80
6 McDonnell Douglas 137 66
7 McDonnell Douglas 133 84
8 Housing 1 ZO 97
9 Housing 115 88
10 Cloverleaf AviaYion I10 79
11 Cloverleaf Aviation 123 66
1 Z Cloverleaf Aviat~on 125 9Z
13 Lease A Plane 122 95
14 Individual T. Hangers IZZ 95
15 Briles Helicopter 122 95
16 Army Reserve Traming Center 120 i40
17 Bell Air Service i20 140
18 Paci£~.c Airmotive, Inc. 125 92
1 9 Pac~fic Airmotive, inc. 1 ZS 89
20 Pacific Airmotive, Inc. 130 112
2I Gunnei Aviation i 27 147
22 Gunnel Av~.ation 1 Z6 148
23 Kettler Aviation 1 Z8 I71
Z4 Tndividual T. Hangers I35 58
25 Hughes Tool Co. 145 58
26 Lear-S~eglex 147 66
27 Public T;e Down 240 106
Z8 Public Tie Down 14Q 1 D6
Z9 Jon Handy 137 166
30 l~aval & Marine Trazning Genter I40 163
31 Lear-Siegler 153 164
32 Basm Builders I50 I24
Source: Adrian ~ti'ilson Associates.
III- 5
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~I i ~ i ~
'I'~il~l c 4
I'AltC,EI,S SO1.11'H UN' AIR}?OR'I' AVL'Nii~
I~a.iti~~
I'~i,rcel Sc~u~i,rc: Annual l,e•,t5~~ }tevcnuc I~:xpiral.ion
N~ax's'il,~e:r • I..esSee I'cet~ ~ Ovc~rall 1'err Scix,trr. [~c~nL lltt.~
I~3 iJ, S, C;overnincnt (nrin}r rc~5c~rvir) f~ i, OL i
i 48, ~21 ~ 1 -- 1y78
4 5p, ;c)p
7 Caunn.e]J f~vi.it~.c~n 44, 643
4, 986
$0. 098
1~379
7A f,, L5l
'~'-' S C;unrir~ll Avi.iLlcin 4£3, 853
4, 97'7
U. U~0
l~7~
~ ~~ (>, ~~~
l l C;unnell Avi~.tLCin f~2, k p5 5, 58~ 0, 0~)p ly7y
12 Kr.i.l.ler 5 3, L7~3 L, 6E~4 0, 050 1y79
-- rity pi S:7.Ilt8. MUT11C£1 9c1, 5y5 -- -- --
LOB 14, E~i{, ~~ -- -..
20A Von Ila.ndy l6, 877 i, 000 0. 17$ iy82
~ ~i l.J. 5. C.iovernnicnt (navy rc5crvc) L I., 048
I7
75, 46G ~ __ 1~81
21 Le±ar Sieglrr 5~, 427 G, 000 0, 1()3 1y7L
Tutai 6h0, 863 ~27, 21$ $D, 041
Acr~v 15, Z
1/ K.ounrlcrcl t:o nr~<tre51. square f.out,
Sourcc, CiLy of Sa.nt.a Mrnitc..L a.tZCl ~:c:onon>>.cti Rcsc~rch /15~~cia.t.c r5.
,
,
~ 1980 and complete absorption of the 250, 000 square feet of net ieasable
area wonld be achieved in 1991. This developr:~ent program is outlined
in Table 5 toge±her ~•ith estimated land lease re~enue and property tax
~ re~-enue ger.erated during fche period 1980-i991. Such development would
take approx~n~ately six acres and could occu~}- the pxoperty south of
Airport ~~-en~e from the present airport administrat~oii bulldzng east to
, Bund}- Dri~re, The remaining $. 8 acres south of Airport Ac=enue would be
develoaed as li~ht industrial property and should return substantially more
±o the C~ty than the $0. 0~ to $0. 10 per square foot presently being realized.
, Certa~nl} the present aarport-related use o£ the 8. 8 acres is not incom-
patible ~vith the previously- ou~lined office bailding developmeat and, if the
present Iessees are willing to match the land lease revenue obtainable as
' light in3ustrial propert~, their remaimng on the sate ~vould not be detri-
mental to the developrnent program.
~
~
~
,
~
,
'
~
1
1
~
ITI- 7
,
1
~
,
,
~
,
'
'
~
~
'
'
'
,
1
~
'
,
'
Table 5
OFFIGE BL.'ILbIATG 17EVELOPMEI~T7 PROGRAM
K~I'I'H GONTTNUED ATRPORT OPERATIOI~'S
~980-1991
Annual Land
Absorption Lease Property
Year (square feet~ Revenuel~ Tax?/
1980 17, 500 $69, Z50 $ 5, 400
198I 17,500 69,Z50 7,700
~982 17,5oe 69,a5o io,ooo
2983 20, 000 69, Z50 12, 300
I 984 20, 000 69, Z50 27, 700
1985 20, 000 69, 250 27, 700
~ g86 20, 000 64, 250 27, 700
1987 25, 000 69, 250 27, 700
I98S 25, 000 69, 250 27, ~00
1989 25,000 69.250 27,700
1990 25,000 69,z50 27,700
1991 17,500 69,250 27,700
Total 250, 000
1/ At $0. 25 per sguare foot per year.
2/ Assumes 51.23 Crty tax rate.
Source: Economics Research Associates.
III-8
,
~
~ Section IV
ti1ARKEI~ SUPFORT FO1Z RE'~AIL D~VELOPx~.iE;1T
1
The ievel of market supporY fnr re*ail iacili*ies r~•hich could
' po*_entially be de~-eloped at *_he Sarta Morsca Airport is analyzed by con-
siderir_~ *_~x;o factors. F~rst, ~eithin a defined trade area the present and
fc±ure bu~in~ po«~er oi the res:der.*_s is measnred by ±he grot~-th in pop~.:la-
, tion, household ~ncome levels, and expendi±ure patterns. Secondlp, bp
con*.ras*_ir.c ±he compet~tive supply of retail facili*_ies in ±he area ~c~ith *he
buyxrg po~~rer available there, the actequacy o£ facili*ies 3s determined,
~
TRADE AREr1 STATISTICS
~ In Southern Cal~iornia, there are more than 50 regional shopping
certers. Analysas oi *he buying pat*erns in these centers leads ±o the
, co~cl«sion *_hat, traclitionally, each of them serc-es a*_rade area lying
~;-itnin appxoxima*e1y a seven-mile radiks around the developmer,t. Tnus,
Figure 5 depicts a seeen-mile trade area ior proposed retail development
~ on the San*a 1~4onica Airport property. Table o lists the cornmuni*_ies in
the trade area wit~~ ±heir respecti~e 1900 and 1°70 population le~-els. This
table i:~dicates that the trade area popula*_:on has gro~cn from nearly~
' ~~5, 000 ~n 19b0 to more t.har. 07~, DDO in 197U or an :ncrease of abou±
90, 000. Tnis is ar. aeerage anaual compounded rate oi gro~~th of l. 5 per-
' cent, a rnodest rate of p~pulation increase. The avera~e ra*_e of gro~~-th
oi populatzor Ln the trade area is an'*_~.cipa±ed to decline iroxr~. the pas± 10
years' groFC-th of 1.~ percen_t annually to ].. 3 percent ~n the decade of *he
, i Os and 1. 1 percent in the decade oi ±he 1980s.
Table 7 sho~rs the pro~,ectecl popclation and number of tamilies in
~ the trade area irom 1970 through 1990. Population in the trade area ~s
anticipated to *otal nearly. i70, 000 by 1980 and more than 850, 000 by 1990,
A~~erage household size is expecfed to declir.e from 2. i an 1970 to 2. 5 by
, 1990. The to*al r.urnber of ianzilies in ~he trade area is projected to ~ro~a
irom 250, ~00 in 1970 "to 343, 400 by 1490, or an average annual ra*_e of
ffro~~Eh of I. 6 percent.
~ Based on ehe FH~ housing aualysis and in~ormation irom California
income ±ax re*_urns, a ~i~ide disparity exists :vithin *_he *_rade area in house-
~ hold zncome, Ho~a'ever, median family ~.ncome is esfima*_ed for the trade
' Iti~ -1
1
'
'
1
'
'
'
'
'
~
'
1
'
'
'
1
'
1
1
'
'
'f L .~wow•
~
~ -
~ _ _ - w - ' ~ ~ `
~f x
-~
~.e,:'Y r A •r
n~ S.~Y..~sMn V H
A 1
~ N y~
~ .
I
-~
'~
. _
` 'M.O N 1 ~C A -
~ J
- ~,r°w.o
~ ~
4
~ ` ~ xoll
ywood ~ g "~'~ .~
`°`
~
~
~- ~1 E! ~1.=~1 Yi I'°
_ ~ /.
•
~-`J
~ _' ~
•.i g -
7
P
~~4
(
H~fh
~
r~a
~nm
Santa Mo
~~~~
o~~
;-
v~
~ ~~,~n. _.
H -
~y
~ ,
~
d. =
~ ~~ :
~ r•
~ I `~J
CniIO&~
s= .
~
• SUBJECT 51TE ~~ _ _ I
~
.
TRADE AREA ~ se~ao
~ ~ Hawthorne
' I
~ ~ I
~
W~• ~J ~' 7~Wndale
'
!
~ ^~`~
Mmhe tten Beach - ~ ~ " ,m..t
a
I ` _
-
~,~.
`
'
~ j
fi~
.~
°a°~
I gB~ ~ w a w
~ w.
Source Economics Rzsearch Assoaates
Figure 5
TRADE AREA
i
1
1
'
~
,
~
r
~
'
'
~
'
~
'
'
'
'
~
Table 6
TRAD E AREA POPULATION TRENDS
196o-I970
Goinmunity 1960 1970 Increase
Santa Monica 83, Z49 88, 289 ~, 040
Ingle~uoodl ~ 21 , 100 29. 200 8, 100
Gulver City 32, 163 31 , 035 (1 , 128)
Be~~erly Hiils 30, 817 33, 416 2, ~99
Pacxfic Palisades 22, 934 27, 910 4. 971
Brentwood 22, 342 29, 180 6, 838
Bel Air 7, 193 8, 830 1, 637
Westwood 29, 78Z 39, 460 9, 678
Palms 46, 789 56, 020 9, 231
~'~'est Los Angeles 30, 9Z8 4Z, 960 12, 032
tib'estchester ~1, 141 56, 500 5, 359
I~4ar Vista 54, 029 63, 080 9. 051
Venice 38,3b5 41,560 3,195
Del Rey 23, 607 28, SI O 5, 203
Bald~vin Hills 23, 404 27, 160 3, 75b
~4Test ~~Llshirel ~ 20, 406 21 , 900 1, 500
ti~'ilshire Pico 46, 702 50, 920 4, 218
'FotaJ. ~84, 950 676, 230 91 , 280
I/ Includes only a portion of statistical area.
Source: Los Angeles Gity Department o# Planning,
Los Angeles Gounty Department of Planning,
and Economics Research Associates.
IV-3
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
I
~
1
~
i
i
Iable 7
PROJEGTED POPULATIO\ AI~D FAIviIL~IES
Il~ TRADE AREA OF SA\TA MO\ICP, AIRPORT
1970-1990
Annual Populatian Grol~th Rate
Per iod Ra±e
1900-19~0 l.~ec
1970-1980 1.3
1980-1 gA0 1. 1
Pra)ected Populafion
Year Amount
1970 676,230
1980 769,550
1990 858,510
Pro~ected Number Oi FamLlies
Year Household Size Families
1970 2.~ 250,~00
1980 2.6 290,000
1990 2, ~ 343, 400
Source ~conom~cs Research ~ssociates,
rti~ -=~
~
~
, area at S12, 080 annually. The increase in real :ncome ~aiYer inflationi
is pro_,ectec a*_ 1. ~ percen*_ per year ~;-it:~:n tne trade area. Household
ir.come in ±he area ~s cor.sequentl}• an*_~cipated to ~ro~,v from slightly more
I thar. 53. 0 b>11io~ in 1970 *o S-~. I billion in 1980 and nearly ~5~, o bili:on cy-
1490.
~ According to *he S*_ate Board of Eqt~alization and o*her reliable
sources, re*_ail sales ±otaled approximatel.y 47. 6 percent of adlusted ~ross
personal income .n 19n9 ior Los Argeles County. 'Iable 8 illustrates the
~ distribution oi *_hose retail expenditures in ±he carious ca*_egor~es ior Los
rln~eles County. Accordin~ ±o *he ta51e, *_otal retail exper.di*_ures ~n
Los .~.ngeles Cocr.±y arnounted to slightlv more *han S13. 1 billion. General
~ merchand:se and department store sales accounted fcr 1~. 1 percent ar_d
11. ~ percent of retail sales, resoect.cely~. In general, these are s:milar
to the ~tar_din~ patterns exhiUited in *ae sta*_e as a«~hole.
i
rS~RKE'I SLPPORT FAGTORS
~
~
~
~
An efiect_ve «-ay of ineasuring ±he marke± support for shopping
centers is to anal}- ze the supply and demand si*_ua*_~on Fn department s±ore
sales. i~s previously illustrated in Tab1e 8, departmen*_ store sales
account for approximately 1L ~ percen± oY all re±a_l sales. In addi*_ion,
rerail sales account :or approximafely 47. 0 percen*_ oi household income
:.a±ionally. For the years 1°70, 19 i 5, 1°80, and 1 990, Table 9 sho«~s
the household income prev~ously derived and ±he retail sal.es expected from
the trade area nouse~olds, Csin~ rhe 11. ~ percent Iigure, department
store sales in the trade area are *hen estima±ed, ±hey are anticipated to
gro~c~ from 51oi. 0 m~llzon in 1970 fo $308. 0 mzllion by 19q~.
~ Assnmine S70 in annual sales per square ioot ior depar±ment
stores, Table 9 also gi~-es the number of suppor±able square fee* oi depart-
men± store space. This indicates the trade area can presently suppor±
~ nearly 2.4 million square zeet oi departmen*_ store space, *his zs esaected
fo gro~~ to nearly 3. 3 million square feet in 19g0 and more than 4. ~'
~ millior by 1990. ~ti"~thin the trade area, the supply of compe*_ing ma~or
department stores ~s listed in Tal~le 10 indica*_ing the store, the location,
and ±he number of square fee*_ each con±ains. There are 17 mator depart-
~ ment stores in the ±rade area, rc-ith a to±al iloor space oi 2, 7 m;llzon
jauare feet. Reierrin~ back *_o Table 9, it can be seen *_hat there currer.*_ly
is an o~-ersupply of malor depar*mer.t store space oi approximately
~ 320, OOQ square feet. The figures also indicate that by I975 the market
~
Iti -5
~
~
~
~
'
~
~
~
~
~
'
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
,
Table 8
DISTRIBUTIOIv OF EtETAIL EXPEIVDITi'~RES
iAT LOS ANGELES COi;NTY
1969
Amount Percentage
Cate~ory (thousands) Of Total
Apparel $ 785, 2I1 6. D?%
General Z~erchandise 1, 844, 938 14. 1
Department Stores 1, 505, 203 11. 5
T,imited Pr1ce Variety 151, 211 1. 2
Other 188,524 I.4
Specialty 1, 088, 335 8, 3
Drugl~ 649,340 ~.0
Food? ~ 3, 403, 552 25, 9
Packagea L,iquor 424, 570 3. 2
Eating And Drinking Places 1, 175,763 9.0
Home Furnishings 559.522 4. 3
Bu~lding Materxals 527, 098 4, D
Iviotor Vehicle Dealers 1, 966, 346 15. 0
Service Stations?~ 254, 134 1. 9
Other Retail Stores 434, 861 3. 3
Total 51 3, I1 3, 670 l Od. 0°'0
1/ Ad~usted to ~nciude nontaxable items.
2/ ~xcludes sales of high-test gasoline.
Source: Economics Research Associates.
TV-6
~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
7'ahlc 9
D~PARTM:I~;~f'I' S'CUith; I)FMAND [N 'I'Hh: 'I'RAI.)A; /~REA
1y7U-1990
(7'housands)
House~hol c3 Incomc
ktcttiil SaIF~~.--2~
Dep~~rtment Store Stlr~;;~
Iy70 1~75 198p 19~0
$ 3, OL6, 040 ~;;, 476, ;7h $4, 147, 552 $5, 5£31 , 624
$1, 452, 499 $1, 668, 6F,0 $], yyU, g'L5 $L, 679, 180
$ I 67, 037 $191 , 900 $228, 945 $'i08, 1L16
~ Supportah[e I)c;pari.xricnt Storo Space~~
~ (square feet) L, 386 2, 74l 3, 271 4, 402
F;xisting Dcp~.~rtizlent Storc~ Space~~
(5quarc f'ect) 2, 7O5 L, 705 2, 705 2, 705
11dc1~tional l~c~p<~r~~Y~onr. sr.oro sT~~~:~: Rc;qu~rc~l
(square~ lect) -- -- 5GG 1., 697
Not~~ A11 c[o11~,r f~~ure5 repre:~enC l~)70 doll~try.
1 / 'I'ax~.ib].c and non-taxabl r;,
L/ AL 48 perccnE of total housE~hold incorric.
i/ AL 11, 5 pcrccnt of totat rcCatl sale~;.
4/ AL ~70 pc~r squ~irc. foot.
5/ ASSUmrs no ncw dep~.rt~7lc~nt. SLc~rc:. :;p~ac.c.
Sourcc L;conoinics Rcsc~~rch ll5sociatr:5
~
~
~
'
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
T abie 10
MAJOR COMPETING DEPARTMENT STOI2ES
IN TRADE AREA
Store
B r oadway
Sroadway
Broadway
Sroadway
Bullo ck s
Fedco
May Company
May Company
Penney's
Penney's
Penney's
Robin s on' s
Sears
Sears
tinimart
Ward` s
Wh~te Front
i~ocation
Crenshaw Center
Century Gity
Westchester
Miracle Mile
Westwood Village
I,a Cienega at Rodeo
Rancho Park
Miracle Mile
Inglewood
Santa Monica
Westchester
Beverly Hi13.s
Inglewood
Santa Monica
Studio Village
La Cienega
Jefferson
Total
Source: Economics Research Associates.
IV - 8
Square Feet
210,000
24d, 000
122, 000
155, 000
aaa, o00
133, Q00
250, 000
275, 000
76,000
45, 000
60, 000
236, 000
115, 000
208,000
ioa, o00
150, 000
110,000
2, 705, 000
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~.~<: ~~
I~+OSSIBLE D1S1'RII4[iTTON (JF COMM~ItCIAL Sl-'AGL
A I' Y1tOI'OSEA RF.rIONAL S110YF'iNG (:F.N'1'LR
F'ireE Yh.iv~
~
~
tiatek R evenue
Le,i~;xk~lc Arca ~ 1~'r.r Tat.~S
.., ~TYPe Of Space ~equ.~re_ir.et) Srpiarc 4'out Ithnu^.,.mdx)
Ueparl.mont titorc iti0,000 A 75 $LL,250
G~mvenacncc Sturea (~fl, 000 110 h, 500
8pccialty tifmpv 50,00~ 70 3,~~00
App~rel titorev 50.000 GS i,2.'i0
LLeetaur.~n1'.9 2!i,000 Kti _L.1L5
ToL~il ti35,U00 ~41,7t5
_....... tir.~:ond 1'haee.
...-
-_' .....'___
Salov 3L rvnnun
Leanabin Area Pcr 7'otal
~xaru Srr.C)
..~2.'-- S c Fnot ~
~'._- ~(l6ounan le)
175, ODU $ 3U $1 A, 000
L!:,ODU 11,F G 875
ao, nnn 75 4, 00f1
40, 01)11 !0 L, H00
L~, Ollli 90 ] , Hf10
300,000 $24,47+
... _.-.. , ~' u~.a!
., ...
..._....-
-_.. S.tiLcn Rcvrnac
Lesvabl~~ Area Ncr 1'o1.a1
(sgio ire fcc:l.~_ S unre Foot ~~(tF~ul~..ndr~
F29, 000 9~ AO $4U, 250
xs,oon ~7> 9~n75
90~ (100 ]5 (~, Sl)(1
9U,000 70 G.0~+0
45,006 90 3,97,5
Ri5,000 $6G,2UU
1 f Accun~iev lh.il. liy ll'~n ee.~ons pha.ae of .h~iPpin~!, r.c.riLi~r ~l~~vrlopmei~f, s,~l.o^ per v~~u,~re foiN. will hnvn i~~ci~eaberl fqi~ var~n~i. rrt~il c ~t~l;~+~'~r.y
Source Economics Rc~c.rch AaHOCidCre.
~
~
~
~
1
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
I
1
Table 12
EXAMPLES OF LEASA$LE 5QUARE FEET PER ACRE
II` SELECTED REGIO~AL SHOPPING CENTERS
Leasable Square Feet
Re~ional Center S9uareFeet Acres Per Acre
Esplanade 750, 000 50 15, 000
Topanga Plaza 932, 000 100 9, 3z0
South Say 718, 000 55 13, 006
Buena Park 1, 000, 000 80 12, 500
Anaheim 730, 000 53 13, 800
Fallbrook Square 1, 000, 000 SO 12, 500
La Habra Fashion Square 57I, 800 37 I5, 400
Sherman Oaks Fashlon Square ~84, 1$0 29 ~ 6, 700
De}. Amo 910, 000 80 11, 400
Eastland 600, 000 56 10, 700
Fashian Island 975, 000 73 I 3, 400
Average 13, 100
Source: Coldwell, Banker and Ccmpany and Economics Research
Associates.
IV-11
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Table 13
SCHEI~ULE; OF SAN'TA MONICA MAI,I, AR.P~A SURVEY
Locat
On Mall
At Wtilshirc At Arizona
Weekdays
W ednesday
11pri1 2$
Friday
Aprii 30
W eekend•
Sat~irday
May 1
3 40 ~, m. -4,40 p, m, 12 00 p, m, -2 00 p, m,
11:30 a.m.-12•30 p.m. 12 35 p,m.-1 35 p,m. 2•00 p,rn.-4 00 p.rn,
Z 3D p.ni,-3•'30 p,m.
10•50 p.m.-11 50 p,m, 12 00 p,m.-1•00 p,m. 1 00 p,m,-Z 00 p.m, 2 00 p,m,-3•00 p.m.
Total Man Hours 6
8
At Santa '1'ota]
Monua Aoulevarrl Searx Man IIours
6
A
8
8
8
24
Note Two intcrviewers at designated timeH.
Source. Economtics Research AssociaLes.
~
~
~
~
~
~
'
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Table 14
SL:MMARY OF SANTA MONTGA
MALL SUR~'EY RESLiLTS
Sant a
Monica
Nlall Sears
Tota1 Responses 308 b0
Residents Of Santa Monica 58, 4~'0 ~3. 3~0
Area:
~Iorthuest ~o. 1~ 20.9°'0
I~ortheast 15, 0 19, 3
South~vest 1~, 0 26, 9
Sautheast 1Z, 8 20, 9
Transportation To Area
Auto ~5.8"Jo 9~.0°~c
~.~~ alk 27. 0 1. 7
Bus 15. 9 3. 3
Median Age 45 38
Over b0 21, 8?~0 8.4°`0
1~~1ed~an Household Income $i, 400 $10, 000
Z'L'ould Shop ~t Proposed Airporr
Reg~onal Center 54.2°e 68. 2?~
Reduce Spending At This Area 41. 34'~ 41, 5?`~
By Hoc~~ I~4uch 47. 0 73. D
Ga1_culated Loss 10. 5 20. 7
Source Economics Research Associates.
V-4
~
~
~ The shoppers were asked to indicate their means of transporfation
to the shopping area and here the dLVergence betc~~een the customer= at the
~fall and those at 5ear= is clear. Only 55. 8 nercent of tho~e shopping at
~ the ~fall drive to the area, ~;-hile 9~.0 percent drive to Sear~. Of those
shonping at the 1~1all, 27, 0 percent u~atk there and almost 16. 0 percent take
public transp~rtation,
~ Again, the discrepancy bett~ een the two markets is evident ivhen
median age and median household income are examined. The medtan a~e
~ o* those shopping at the ma1_1 is 45 year~ and at Sears 38, More importantly,
almost 22. 0 percent of those shopping at the I~Za11 are over 60 year= old,
whLle this segment accounts ior only 8.0 percent at Sears. I~4edian house-
~ hold income for those ~hoppino at the A4a1~ is $7, 400 annually, for those
shop~ing at Sears it is 510, 000. It is est~mated by Sales A4anagement and
the Internal Re~-enue Service that the median household income in the City
~ of Santa l~~onica is approximately 511, 300. A logical conctusion from these
statist~cs xs that Santa ItSonica residents in the upper income categories do
not shon in the City ior the bulk of their retail item=_,
~ Customers at Sears and the 11a11 t~~ere asked the question, "If a
regLOnal shopping center ~vere developed on the Santa ~.ionzca Airport
~ property ~c~ith shops simil_ar to the area in ~c-hich you are no«~ shoppin~,
titould pou shon at the proposed regional center`"' Of those who shop at
tihe n~1a11 area, 54. 2 percent indicated that they v.'o~.xld; b8. 2 percent at
~ Sears indicated that theg ~oould be willing to shop at this ne«~ center. They
~c-ere also asked ~,f thezr shonp~.ng at th~s center would reduce their spend~ng
at the Santa I~4onica ':tiall and at Sears, respectively. Of the 1~1a11's customers,
~ 41. 3 percent indicated that the=r expenditures «•ould be reduced ~i-hile 41, ~
percent of Sears' custamers ~ndicated that this would reduce their expendi-
tures at the do«~nto«~n Santa I~4on:ca Sears. ~1"hen asked ho~~~ much this
~ reduction miaht be, 14a11 patrans' median answer «as 47. 0 percent and
Sears' customers, 73, 0 percent, Calculations using Chese figures indicate
that, if a regional shopping center ~~-ere Yo be developed at the Santa Monica
~ l~irport property, the Santa b-lonica I~4a11 retail area would lose approxx-
mately 10, ~ percent of its sales and Ehe downtotian Sears would lcse nearly
21.0 percent.
~ In general, the customers who frequent the Santa Monica '<~4a11 and
those who patronize Sears are d~stinctly different, l2ost of those who shop
~ at the ~2a11 come fram Santa Monica and the ma~ority of these come from
the City's north~vest segment. Approximately half of those shopping at the
?~fall drive their automobzles ~c-hile the remaLnder either walk or take public
~
~
~T- 7
~
~
~
~ transportatlon. The Mall area shopper is generally older tran the customer
Gt Sears and has a median household ir.come well under the average for the
C~ty, pn the pther hand, Sears' customers are fairly evenly distributed
~ throughout the City of Santa Monica and almost all drive to the area. They
are younger than those «-ho shop at the ~4a11 and theLr income, ~~-hile still
?ess than that of Santa I~4onica resrdents as a u=hole, is one-third higher
~ tha;~ ~tall. customers, Finally, SearG' customers, if similar facilities «•ere
to be developed at the airport, are much more susceptible to being drawn
off into a ne~c de~-elopment than their counterparts Ghopping at the I~iali.
~
~
i
~
~
1
1
I
1
i
~
~
~
V"- G
~
~
~
, Section VI
LA~TD i.:SE MIX FOR FUIaI., DEVELOPME\T
' A1D ECONOMIC AI~D FINAI~CIAL EVALUt1TI01
OF ALTERI~ATIV~S
~ This section examines the two ma~or alternatives open to the Gity
of Santa A-lonica roncerning the Municipal Airport pro~erty. Firsf, the
~ de~elopment ~rogram with continued airport operations is analyzed as to
the level of annual income ~vhich it can be expected to bring to the City.
I~e~, the Santa Monica'_Vlall surve}~ conducted for this report is evaluated
~ to determine shopping patterns and potential losses if retail facilities are
developed at the airport. The section then sets Eorth a de~elopment pro-
gxam cvhich represents the highest and best use of the fsll 215 acres
~ o~vned by the Caty; the annaaJ. reuenues from land leases and property taxes
are then es+imated. Finally, the annual incomes to the City of Santa
tifonica Erom both de~~elopment alternatives are contrasted to provide the
~ basis for decisions.
~ WITH CO~TTII~UED AIRPORT OPERATIONS
Section III sets iorth a development pragram Iox the 15. 2 acres
~ south of Airport Avenue, assuming contanued airport operations. Table 15
summarizes these plans and totals the annual land lease revenue and
property tax revenue derived from the land. The 1~. 2 acres are pro~ected
~ to generate $126, 000 in 1980, which rises to slightly less than $200, 000
annually from 1984 into the future. Table 15 aJ,so adds this development
revenue to the airport operating profit, which is pro~ected in the previous
~ ERA report to rise from $334, 000 in 1980 to $369, 000 in 1985. Therefore,
the conclusion from the research ~s that developin~ the ancxllary parcels
south of Airport Avenue concurrent with eontinued airport operations leads
~ to a revenue stream to the City rising from $~60, 000 in 1980 to $569, 000
annually from 198~ forward.
~ FULL I?Eti'ELOP?viENT PROGRAM
~ This subsection sets forth a development program for the Santa
Monica Airport property. Because of the expiration dates of many of the
leases on the property, development is anticapated to begin sn 1980 and
~
Z'I-1
~
~
~r ~ ~r rrs w* wi w ~w ~ r~ +s ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ta~~i~ i ~
SLIMMARY OF DEVFLOFMENT' PitOC:ltAIv1
WITF~ CONTINU~";D AIRPORT OPF..RATIONS
(Thousands Of Dollar. s}
Item 1980 1981 198L 1983 1984 19$5
Land Lease Revenue
Office `~ h9. 25 ~, 69. 25 $ 69, 25 ~ fi9. 25 $ 69. 25 $ 69. 25
IndustriaL~ 47. 90 95. 80 950 80 95. SO 95. 8U 95. 80
~ Yroperty Taxes
r' Office 5.40 7.70 10.00 12.30 27.70 L7.70
~' z/
IndustriaL 3. 5 z 7. 04 7. 04 7. 04 7. 04 7. 04
Subtotal $1 L6. 07 $179. 79 $182. 09 $184. 39 $199. 79 $199• 79
Airport Operating Profit 334. 00 340.70 347. 50 354. 50 361. 60 3G9.00
Total $460.07 $520.49 $529.59 $538.89 $561.39 $568.79
1/ At $Q. 25 per :;quare tooi.
2/ Estimated at $800 an imprvved acre at current City tax rate.
Source: Fconomics Research Associates.
~
~
~ be completed in 1991. The absorption of each o# the uses is presented in
Table 16.
~ U s~n~ tne figures from the previous ERA report, the development
of high-rise office buiidings cons~stent with :narket support factors yields
*o the City the highest return per acre, $I8, 300, in annual land lease
~ revenue and property tax income. 7'he maximum number of office build-
~ngs is therefore pro~ected to be developed on the sub~ect property during
the de~•elopment period of 1980-1991 and th~s land use absorbs 36. 5 acres.
~ Another major land use zncluded in the de•~elopment program is a regional
shopping center, ~chose market support has been previously discussed.
In prope:t}- taxes and land lease revenue, the regional center returns to
~ tre C~ty- ~9, 800 an acre. Ho«~ever, this figure rises to $19, 900 an acre
tivhen the 1. 0 percent retail sales tax return to tne G~.t}r is included on a
~et gain basis. Sug~ested development of the first phase of the reg~onal
~ shopping center is therefore set for 1980 w~th 41 acres, expanding to b4
acres in l °86.
~ A motor hotel is pro~ected for development on the sub~ect property
in 1980 ~~~hen much of the market support is dra~vn from the surrounding
~ de~ elopment. The de~-elopment of approximately 300 rooms and ancillary
facilities tvill use 2, ti acres. It is estimated that the motor hotel ~vill
return to the C~ty approximately $15, 000 an acre zn property taxes and
' land lease re<<enue, augmented by the bed tax and retaal sales tax gener-
ated by the detrelopment.
i
~
~
~
~
~
i
1
The remaznzng acxeage as allotted to res~dentxa~ uses. Approxi-
mately~ ~0 acres are devoted to multiple-residential or garden-type
apartment units and 61 acres to townhouse condomimum residences.
Total acreage absorption for the de~'elopment program, representing the
hi~hest and best use of this property, ranges from slightl}' less than o4
acres in 1980 to 110 acres in 198~; b}= 1991 the f-sll 21~ acres is pro,]ected
to be absorbed.
Table 17 illustrates the lease revenue from each of these land
uses and sho~vs an annual lease revenue growing from nearly $430, 000
in 1980 to almost $1.5 million in i991. In a szmilar manner, Tab1e 18
illnstrates the property- tax revenue anticipated from the development
program. assuming the currenE City tax rate. Revenue grows from
$llc, 000 in 1980 to nearly- $~20, 000 in 1991.
VI-3
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Table 16
DFVFi,OPMENT PROGR.AM FOR THT.' 5A1~3TA MONICA AIRPORT F~ROPERTY
i9~a-1~91
(Acres)
Use
Year
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 IqBg 1q89 1990 1991
OfEicc Buildings 4, 0 4. 0 b, 6 b. 6 10. 0 13. 0 I7. 6 22, 2 26, q 31, 7 31, 7 36. 5
Reqiona], Shopping Genter 41. 0 41. 0 41, 0 41, 0 41, 0 41. 0 64. 0 64. 0 64, 0 64. 0 64, 0 64, 0
Motor Hotel __ __ __ __ __ __ Z, 7 2. 7 Z~ 7 Z~ 7 Z~ 7 Z~ 7
Multip},c Restidcntia] (rental) 8, 4 8, 4 16. 8 16. 8 25, 2 25, 2 33, 6 33, 6 42, 0 42, 0 50, 4 50, 4
Condominium Residential 10, 4 10, 4 20. 8 2Q. 8 31.. 2 31, 2 41, G 41, 6 52, 0 52, 0 61, 9 61. 4
Total b3, 8 b3. 8 85, 2 85, 2 107, 4 110, 4 159. 5 164, 1 187, 6 192, 4 210. 2 215, 0
Source• ~conomics Research Associates,
rr r w ~ ~ r r ~ i ~ ~ +~ ~ w ~r ~ +r~ ~ ~
r<<i~,r s7
i,F.ASR R1;VI~;NUh; AN'I'TC;11'A'1'~;ll FROM I~F.VT~:I.OPMI~;N'I' I'HO(.iRAM
lySG-1991
{Thuussr~rln~
Yonr
1`180 1')$7 19NL 19tf3 lyR1 I9N5 19RG 19H7 1qRR Fy$~) I~)~)4 ly')1
OI'I'ico fiinldin}~s ~; 40.0 $ 40 0 '.~' 66. L $ LL. t $1(10. 1 '~1 R0. 0 ~ 1N7.7 $ 7.45, 4 $ 301. ] '~ 3G0 R ~i 3G0. R $ 418. 5
Rc~;i~inal Fhuppin~CunLUr 312.5 l1L,5 i12.5 312.5 tIL 5 31L,5 i23.0 52i,11 5L3,0 ti25,0 5LS,U 523 p
Motur Hntel -- '- .... -- -- -- 3R.7 48.7 38. J ik.7 3R.7 3R.7
Multiplc R~a~dnntial (r~:nt.al,) 4I.6 47.6 qS.L 95 2 142.$ 141,8 19U.4 190.4 238.0 2i8.p 1.85,b 2H5.L
Condom~niumRosLdenfial i5.7 3ti.7 71.A 71.4 107.1 107 I 14L.8 14L.8 17R.5 17$
5 7.IA
k 210
$
~ . . .
1'oLa[ $455,$ $M135,8 $545.5 ~i545.S $GFr2.5 ~;fi9L.A $1,U8Z.G '~1,14(1.3 '~1,781,3 9~1,1;9.U $1,418.9 $~~`~76 6
6onrcr. I~„aononucs Rcsc.+rch Assoaiates.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Uac
TaE~le 18
PltpP~RTY TAX Rl?VrNUP: AN'1'ICIPA7'~ll rROM llF;VF;LO~'MI',N'I' }YltOGRAIvf
1980-19y!
('Phnusands)
Ycar
1980 1981 1982 198i ~489 1985 1qR6 1987 1988 lyA9 1q90 l991
Office lSmldin~;s $ 27.4 ~ 27.9 $ 45.8 $ 45,8 $ G8, 2 $ 89.0 $12U.7 $152, 3 ~,1R4, 1 ~L17. ~i $217.5 $250.0
F2,c~;ionalShoppingCcnter G3.3 G3.3 6i.9 63.3 G3,3 63.3 100.9 100.9 100,9 F00,~ 100.9 100,9
Motor Hokel -- -- -- -- -- -- l8. 0 1$. 0 1 R, 0 18.0 18. 0 18, 0
Multtple Residentiat (rental~ 1 G. 2 1 G. L 3'L.4 i2.4 48.6 4$. 6 64. R 64, A 81.0 81.0 97. 2 97. 2
Conclomin~um Residential 9. 1 4. 1 18, 2 18, 2 27. 3 Z7. 3 ih. 4 36. 4 45, 5 45. 5 53. 7 53. 7
Z•~~1~, $116. 0 Qi116. 0 ~;159, 7 $159.7 $207, 4 $228, 2 $340, 8 $372, 4 $4Lq, 5 $4h2. 4 $4R7. 3 $51q, S
Nolc A11 fi~ures rcpresent 197q dullars, Asaumex $1, 23 cily tax ralc.
5ource P:conumug Research Asao~ietea.
~
~
' The foregozng development program is based upon obtaxnable
absorption of the indicated uses through market support factors generated
in this study and ERA's previous report.
'
1
FI\TAICI~L IA-fPLICATIOI~S OF DEVEL~Pi1~IEI~TT
PROGRAMS FOR THy PROPERTY
Table 19 summar:zes the financial implications of the fu11 develop-
' ment program for the Santa 1~4onica Airport property. This table adds the
land lease re~ enae, property taxes, hotel room tax revenue, sales tax
ret~enues, and other re~renues to the City. As ~ho~~+n, it is estimated that
, the City of Santa .1Qomca in the first year of deve~.opment, 1980, ~vill re-
ceive ~1, 00~, 100 from the developrnent. This figure rises to $1, 4b8, 8fl0
in 198~ and at the end of the deve~opment period, 1991, annual City revenue
~ is estimated at $2, 900, 200.
Estimates from the Santa ~Lomca Chamber of Commerce indicate
~ that sales at the 5anta \Qonica Iviall are approximately $13. 0 million
annually, or S45 per square foot of net leasable axea. ti~i~h the trans-
ferrzng oi 10. ~ percent of VIaIl buslness to the re~ional shopping center,
' this is a double counting of $13, !00 in sales tax revenue to the City which
must be subtracted from the previously der~ved revenues to reach a net
Cit}~ re~enue figure. Therefore, ad~usted total net Cxt} re~~enue, as illus-
~ trated in Table 19, is estimated to be ~991, 000 in 19g0 and to increase to
$2, 893, 000 in 1991 . T]iscussions cvith the Citp Manager of Santa \~Ionica
indicate that the property taxes collected from either the full development
~ pro~ram of the property or the development of ancillary parcels ~~ith con-
tinued airport operafions would more than f-~nd any additional G~tp expenses
that might be inc~:rred. That is, development of the airport property will
~ in no wazr impose additional tax burdens apon ±he ~itizens of the City of
Santa ~Zonica, It is further estimated *hat no appreciable increases c~iJ.l
be required in fire and police protection because of development of the
~ sub~ect property.
~
~
~
~
~
Z"I-7
~ ~^i1 ^~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~^^~ ~ ~ ~ w~ ~ ~ ^^r ~ r r ~
7'able ly
1'O~''~[, lJ1~1' (:1'1'Y 1tF:V3?NT.JP' AN17'CL7'A'Plil) I~I{VA4 ])L:Vh:LOPMF;NT PR0~4RAM
TY7R'P411~, tiAN'S'A MONICA AIRF'ORI' NR,OPI~:IL1'Y
19S0-1q91
('1'hou5nndc)
Y car
Rcvn i980 IqN! 2NR2 1083 lgN4 1yA5 ]'?8G IyN7 1'?88 1~7R~~ 14~.i0 1991
i,,.ndLca~elt.evenuc $ AV>.}{ 9; qi'i R $ 545.; ~, 54ti 5 '~l GGL.'.; $ L)2 4 ~I,OR7..h ~~41,140.3 ~7,781 S $I,ii9 0 ~i1.4V8.9 $1,A7fi 6
Propr,rl.y I'ax Revenue 73G 0 ItG.O !57 i i59 ' 20',.4 L2R.2 140 N 57L.4 47~?,5 4h2 ~ 487 l 519.N
Ifutcl LLuom Ta,x Ri+vr.nur7 ~ -- -- " '- -- " 7G 7 76 7 l0.7 7L 7 7h 7 7G.7
6ales 1'ax lteve~iuc~~ 440, I 44').7. 47L U 1lii 1 4y8. + 507 i 752_ D 75Z. p 752, 0 !S2 0 7SG U 7ti1, p
Ollu•r tiubvent~ou~~ lU.L IO.G t1.2 L1.2 11.9 11.9 4L.5 A2.~i ti3 1 ~i3.1 6S.L Li.2
Ul.h~,.r Rao«~~ur~~ 1.0 3.0 6.q 6(1 y 0 9 O 1t.0 I7. p 1ti O 1'i D 17 9 17 y
Sahtnt.~l ~;1,UOi.1 $],qlA l.. 9~1,20A.L j;1,7,1'S.7 $1,40~ 4 ~c1,46X R ~{2.70G.L ~Ft, i75 9 y;G,GUl.L $7,L9g G $1..RIb U $2,y0(.2
S.cea M.~11 ti,qac I'.ix I.O4H 14.7 I i.7 13.7 3 i.7 1 3 7 13 7 3 i 7 1 i i 19, i I i 7 13. 7 } i 7
Putnl $ ')y1.4 $1.000 ti j~I,LYI).`i $1,199.6 ¢;1.49ti 6 '41.455 1 $2,297..9 RL,4N7.2 '~G.'.~93') $7,Lg4 5 ~2,ROL.3 '~L,89Z.5
1/ IIasr.d on 70 pr.rcenl or:auparrcy and $LD a,var-.Ke daily roum rate,
l./ tihopping center and uthrr c ~c.r .~al developmu•nt
3f Fct~rriafuc{ .at '~SG'~ per xnultiplo reRi~icnEiil ncrr,
4/ F.atim.do,d .d ~159 per mulhplc refiAdenE.isl acrr.
Suurce Lcur~umacE Rcse.irch Asvor:ialea.
. , ~ , d~D --~ g ,
• . ~ l ' Santa PZonica, Calif~rni3 January 1~, 1974
T~: Mayor and City Counci2
FROM: Airport Commission and Recreation a~d Parks Commission - meeting
in joint study sessions
SUB.TECT: Santa Monica Alunicipal pirport and Parks Development study.
INTRODUCTION:
This is a joint repore from tihe chairmen of the Cwo Commissions, namely:
1. Airpvrt Commission
2. Recreation and Parks Cominission
rel~Cive to the results of tt-~e 3oint study concerning above subject.
BACKGRQ~(3ND :
At the direction of the City Council, the above two cammissions have held
a public hearing and three lengthy st~dy sessions wherein ehe Airport
Cocrnnission's industriaZ park anc3 airport devel~pmenC recommendation's
{Plan "E") to the Counci2 were thoroughly aired an~ reviewed.
Qut of these study sessions evolved Plans "A" through "G". Following
considerable discussion, Plans "E'~, t'F", and "G" caere retained and the
above three p~ans are herewith submitted ~o Council for their review
and consideration. Schematic ~ra~,rings of Plans "E" and "F" are also
included.
In~luded, also, are copies of the minutes of the December 12, 1973
joint meeting which resulted in ~t:or.~itital of three plans,
ALTERNATE SOLUTIGNS:
None Recommended ~ ~
~rt ~~ ~ 6`:~.~•~ , ~ _.i
\i~~~ ~;-,~;__.~1
~ `..% ~: e a :a' .
i ~ _ , ,a
~k~IS i ~~~ F ~
RE71s~P-:^ 7t3 Ti~
CITY CL:. ,'S ~~y~;~
FCrF. F'i.''.'.~a.
RECOMMENDAT ION :
i. Ai~port Commission: PLAN "E"
2. Recreation and Parks Commission: PLAN 11F"
3. Dr. Moore's motion at December 12,
joint meeting: PLAN "G"
4. Joint meeting with the City Council and the two Commissions
to discuss their positior.s on the two plans.
Prepared by:
l. Chairman, Airport Commission, Herbert Roney
2. Chairman, Recreation and Parks Com~nission, Li.].ita Dzirkals
~anuary 14, 1974
Submitted by:
SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
AIRPORT COMMISSION and
and PARKS DE[~ELOPMENT STUDY
RECR~ATION and PARKS COMMISSION
PLAN "E"
I. Description
PF,AN "~" envisions the concept o£ retentior- and development
of tl~e Airport as a general avia~ion facili~y to meet the
needs of the Aviation pub~ic, and developme:t of the
entire north side of the Airport area (approximately I24
acres of land) into:
1) 30 to 38 acres into park area and --
2) The remaining area to be developed into an environ-
mentaZly and aestheticalZy at[ractive ir~dustrial park
facility, with airport taxiway access which would
attract nationally knoc.~^ firms of the Lear-Siegler
Cozporation calibre.
Of the 124-acre parcel, plcDonnel~-Douglas owns 68 acres
and the City owns 56 acres. It is highly possible
the above developm~nt could 'oe a joint-venture effort
between the City and DougZas Company, The City could
also have its 30 to 3$ acre park area at the airport`s
northwesterly end, cal:ich not only would help tb meet
the recreational and park needs af the community, but
~aould also serve as a green belt buffer zone ~etween
the industrial park and airport development and the
residential areas on tne narth side vf the airfield.
PLAN "E" (Description continu~d)
3} The sou~h side af the airfield Co be developed for
General Aviati~n and light industrial use--including
the construction of the multi-purpose terminal
center building, which would accotnmodate the Air
Terminal, City and Federal administration offices,
restaurant and hoteL facilities, and rentable
genera~ office space.
lanuary 14, 1974
SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL AIFtPORT
Submitted by:
AiRP~RT COMMISSION and
and PARKS DE[~ELOFMENT STUDY
PLAN "F"
I. Description
RECREATION and PARKS COI~]MISSION
1) The retention and developmeret of the airport as a compone~t
part of a recreationa~ complex at the airport 5ite.
2) Shortening the runway at the west end of the field by 900
feet to accomplish the two fold purpose of -- a) insuring
that airport operations remain compatible with the adjacent
reside~tial neighborhood and b) utilizing this reserve
space for public recreation needs. Lowering the grade of
this approximately ZS-acre area ~o that of Navy Street
would create a natural site far a park.
3} Developi~~g approximately 50 acres in ehe area northwest of
the runway for recreationa~./nark uses. This approximate
figure is used as recommendation that aZl City-owned Zands
be converted to recreationa?/park uses and is not to be
construed as suggesting a~ditional land ~urchases by the
City. It was the feelino of the Recreation and Parks
Commission that the area northwest af the x-zxnway would be
a more efficient and desirable location for park development
thar- the Airport properry currently under lease to Douglas.
Such a spatia2 rearrangement would have ta Lnvolve a
negotiated ~rade with the McDonnell-Dauglas Company of
certa`r~ City-owaed lands north of the runway for certai~
Douglas-owned parcels.
PLAN "F" (con'[d.)
4) The balance of the 124 acres on the north side of the
Airport that would be owned and controlled by Douglas could
be developed for commer~ial residential, or industrial use
or any combina~ion of these uses.
5} The south side of the airfi.eld to be deveioped for recreational
aviatior~ and light industrial use -~ including the construction
o~ the multi-purpose terminal center buildi~g, which would
accommodate the Air Terminal, City and Federal administration
offices, restaurant and hotel facilities, and rentable
general office space.
January 14, 1974
SANTA MONICA MUNICIFAL AIRPORT
and PARKS DEVE'LOPMENT STUDY
Submitted by:
AIRPORT COMMISSION and
RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION
PLAN '~G~~
1. Description
Plan "G" envisions:
1) The retention and development of the airport as a general
aviation facilfty to meet the needs of the aviation public.
2) Development of 49 to 60 acres, preferably in the norChu-est
carner of the airport (including Parcel 15--lower area front-
ing or~ 23rd Str~et) and McDonnell-Douglas properties, ;nto a
park svith its attendant uses. This would involve a ne;otiated
trade with the McDonneli-~ouglas ~ompany of certain city-owned
lands for ce~tain DougZas-owned lands. It was the fee~ing
oF the Recreation Commission that development o~ the pirport
property (currently under lease to Dauglas) into a park would
not be as desirable a location as th~ ~re~ outlined above.
3) The ~alance cf the 124 acres (which would be owned and
controlled 'by Douglas) could then be developed for
commercial or industri~i vse.
4) The sourh side of the air~ield to be deveLoped for General
Aviation and light inuus~rial use--including the con-
s~ruction of the multiaUur~ose ~erminal center buiZding,
~ahich saould aecommodate tnp Air Terminal, City and
Federai administration cffices, restaurant and hotel
facilities, and rentabie general office space.
Special Meet~ng
- Recreation & P~rks ComTission and Axrport Cor.m~ission
tdednesda5 , Decemt~er 12, 1973 - 7:30 p.m.
The Airport and the RecreaCion & Parks Cor.mmissions met xn jaint session
on [,7ednes~ay, I]ece~ber ~2, 1973 in Roorn 216, CiCS~ Hall, Mr. Herbert E. Roney,
Chairnan, presiding.
Presen~: Airport Com:nission: Gore, Larned, Minter, Roney, Hoyt
Rec, ~~ Par'~s Cor?. : de la Puente, Dzirka~s, Dr. Maore, Reed,
5chwedes, Allen
Abssnt: PE~c, & Parks Com. : Johnson
AIsQ prese~±t: Mr, J. ~Tilliams, city r~~~~ger, Mrs. Donna 0. Swink, Council-
ty an;an
Thd Cha~r~nan ea~led ~he meeting to order and the Pledge of A1legiance was
g ive:~ .
The C~air:~an rnot~e~, seconded bt 1~Irs, ~iinter, "TO LIziIT EAC~I PEKSON TO FIVE
(5) ~fI~U-~ES SPEAKIt:G TI.•IE PER 7i~,DIVID~~~L DISCI?~SIU~." r1r. SchCeedes inter--
rupted the nisct~ssion mentioning an error in vote count ir. the records af
the Oc~oi~e~ 10t.~ n.ee~ing. Afte-r a brief de~ate rir. Sch~..~edes notyed "TO
~CC~'1'i iciE PiIi~U`~ES C3F ~tIE PREt'IUUS hiEETT\G ANLI ~'0 ChF.CK TIIE TAPES OF T~~AT
M~~'i±*~_ ~{;~~ ,~ CO~~~G~ VOTE COu~,i"; motion <<.as seconded by AIr, de la Puente
and ~}~ ssQCi iinanimeusi}*. Af~er the discussion on the earlier motion ~:hE trote
cour~' shaJaEU'
Airport Go_.~~issior : Apes: Larned; :~iinfer, Gore, Rone}r, Ha5 t
Ivoes: I~one
Rec .& r~r'~:~ Cc~m, : ~qes . AJ_7 en
i~oes: Dzir_~als, Dr. M~~,re, Schr.~edes, de la Puer:te,
Reeci
r1s. Dzir~als a~;i ~i~-, de 1a ~uen~e preseneed the ne~aly propased Plan ~'; a
genera~ di~^t_ssiare f~ilc=-.:ed af ~~Le t~e ne~•: Plai~ and Plan E. Dr, i~toore
in~~c~ds~aeC a ra~io:~, ~~~ond~d L-:~ Iir, Ha~t, "TO ACCEPT PLA_~: F AS IT IS
BA~~C~:~L`~ `~;,i:E i'C; i~ r':~~ii'~.'SFD ~iS Ti_~ P1:sI_~ PLt~1I 0% TI~IS v'OJY iC 7~c~E i;I`['i
COL:~~Gi?,." . Sc'~~~c~<__, ~rc~=ed ~~ a^.~_,~d r_h~ ~.~otioii "T~ TL"~?2v T~is BLL'L A?~La
Ti111~ E'i~T'~1i"-~i S~c^,. i T~~ ~ t"C'~ 't0 ~~1~ _^_C}ZOi S~i7Pii~° E)f ~"Ij° map) . T~~C 2Ti-G'T:C1PC~ i=•D~1Cii
died fcr i4~k cf a s~~_c5~d.
Vot~ ccunt ~~ : the original :noi-ioTt rl~rt.ed:
Airgorti Co~: ni s s9_on : ~`-~: es : H~~°'i
_"~oes: I,=~~•;.~~, Ror.e-p, Aiinter, ~orc-
Rec. & Parns Con., . E~~,-~s: I:e~d, ~Jz~~kui s, de la Puer.te
i`L~C'~: SC~?T:ECi~S, t~11[i1~ T'i~O~e
~i~,~ 1C?7 fdlj Pa,
. ~
Dr, rloore made a riotion, seconded by Mr. Allen, "THAT THE J43NT C0:~1AiISSIO:~S
PRESENT TO THE CITY CQUNCIL A COI~CEPTUAL PLA~ FOR THE DEVELOP?~1E~IT OF 49 TO
60 ACP.I;S OF I~Oi~I-AIRPORT RECREATTOi~AL L~AND I'REFEftA13L~' IN 1~E N08TFi WEST
CORN~R OF TH.E AIKPORT A~~D THE PICDO~ALD DOJGLAS COriPANY PROPERTY. TfiE OTHER
LAI~1D ILORTH OF THE RIJI~ttiTAY TO BE SHOItiT;~ AS I~ON SPECIFIC INDUSTRIAL Al~?D/OR
COAtI~1ERCIAL IJSE. THE SOUT!IEP,~'~ PART OF ~IE AIRPORT TO BE GENERAL AVIATION
At~D A~'IATIO:v RELATED DEG7ELOPMFNT." The vote shok~ed:
Airport Coc-unission: Ayes: Minter, Larned, Roney, Gare
Noes: Hagt
Rec. & Par~s Com, : ~A~~es: Allen, Pioore, Reed
IVoes: Dzirkals, de la Puente, Schwedes
rss. ~~Iinter then entered a motioi3, seconded by Mr. Gore, "TO EI~D Z'fiE MEETIPrG
NOW Al\D SEi~~ TC' 'THE GI'TF COUNCIL PLA~'~ E, F AhD DR, r44JRE' S MOTiON (Plan G)
AND THE ~OTI:dG RECORD. ALSO TO BE I1~CLUDET] DETAILED DEVELOP:•iEP1T AND PRO-
GRESS~O., CF '£HE PL.4'~IS; A REPORT TO BE COAfYILED BY THE TinTO CHAIRI~•iEN WITH
xH~ A~SISTA`.:CF G'F TH;~: DIRECTORS OF THE r'~IRPOt T A.T:D P.ECREATIO~ AItiD PARKS.
ALL PA}-~~ZS T~ ~i: F.E~'ERRED TO THE COU:~TCIL NO LATER T"t~AN THE END CF JA~'~UARY."
A di.scussicz~ fo1lo~:~ed; Chainnan called a brief recess a~ 9:30 p.m.
Meeting res~:red at 9:45; discussion continue~ ~nd culminatec3 with ~he
fol3c:eing zTote:
A~pori. Go~nmissian: Ayes: Minter, Gore, Larned, Roney, Hoyt
Noes: None
Rec. ~ Farks Co=r.: Ayes: A11en, Dr. Tloore, Reed, de la Puente, Bzirkals
1~Toes : Schr,,~edes
A motion wa~ made and ~u1y seconded to adjourn at 10:00 p.m.
g~a
Lilita Dzirkals
10-10-73 ~
There is a cansensus in principle between both Commissions that
the untilization of the additional Iands that will become availa~le at tne
airport site, in particular, but not excl~si~~ely, upon the expiration af the
McDonne~I-Douglas leases, snouLd serve aisa ta ~ee4 the unsatzs~~ed recreationa
needs ~f t~e residents of Santa Monica. The Cou~nissions disagree as to the
amour.t o£ acreaje to ~e alZotted for this purpose. The Recrearion & Parks
Ca~nissior reco~rends that the tota~ a~ount or the lands available in the
near future be ~eveloped into recreat~ona~ facilities, such as a golf caurse,
park and tennis courts.
The Airport CoIInrission would allot a relatively smaller percer.taQ~
o£ the lands even~ualLy availabie for recreation purposes and recor.~nends an
air-industriai park develoamen~ reaching beyond Douglas leased lands iato
Douglas owned lanas.
Regarding the airport per se, the majority of ~he Recreation &
Pazks Co~'nission endorses t~e ccntinued existance o~ a recreatior.al airport
as part of an entire recreation-co~patibie deve~op~ent cemFlex at the airport
site. The Recreation & Parks C~::L:~issica stxongl~ ODDD$eS additzonai
industxial airport develoo~ent at the aixport site en the grounds ~ha~ it
is of unprove~ ~nd duhious econo~~c beneLit and that suc~ development ~~oL1d
have ne~ative enz;ironmentai efrect cn the nei~~~~rir_g resideneia~ areas, U:hich,
in tuin, is nig~lv li'_~ely to result ir e~reetive ~it;aa~ion agair_s~ tre City
~y nei~n~orhecd resiCents. The Recrea~ion & Par~s Ccr.~~ission rece~e_^.ds the
pro~pt deti•e'_e~~ent ar_d L't;.'ilZa~1071 oi ~'.Ze Dcu~Ia~ leased lands, ~vaila~~e in
197~, b,: rende-rzn~ ~hese social'_y use~Ll as a bolf co+~rse or ~k. Th~ s caould
meet the ac~:te azd unsatistied neeas oi especially tne adult ar.d workirig popul=
tion of Santa r~onica.
It rec~~nized b~; both Co:~;nissiors that the utilization ef ~hes~ particu~ar 1~^~
for a recreationaL pL:rpose woL1d dis~el scme ~L t:~e bittern~ss G;.~ serve tc,
r°dt1CE? CG^~Ir31fl~S Y'YC^1 1'."Ii'.t^Cliate CO'CT:Li1~t~ YE'~2YCi~ 5~ti1.2 IlOlSE' i~'Vt?iS =~i7F'Ta~`f'~
~y the Airpcvt operatiors. The Cc^~~issioas c~sagree on the locarien cf this
recreat~~nal zane, Eaitn the ~irpert Ca,.._~issi on p~~cing it in tt~e ^orn?~,a~s~er i ~
corn2r of t:e air?ort sire and tae Recrention Co::-n=Ss:_on pro~~siag ~C ~or -*_he
entire area r_orth a~ *he runway. In doino this, the Recreat-~on Co ~_,~.z~s:_oz' s
C~T.1CZ~=^. 1S eSSE:T-itl~i~v :vl~}"i wtld~ lS ter~Pd 1I1 ~r:2 tlcde a5 1TiCr22,S1E?7 `~'7_
"happiness !~L'e~~T OI~ Lt12 co~:.murzty residents ="ati:12T t~Z~Il merely C]"22~3_:c; 2 bll~~
~one. r
The tti;o Ca: ni.ss~ons ti~ould a7 sn like "~ fori•:ard to the CAtv ~.^u*:cil
aC d later ~~Ce tneir sepazate reeam~:endatio:~s in a rcore detaiZea ~=;;r:ai.
Special Meeting '
Recreation & Parks Co~mision and Airnort Commission
Wednesday, October 10, 1473~- 7:00 p.me
The Airport and the Recreation & Parks Com~ission met in joint session
on Wednesdav, October 10, 1973, at the above na~ed ~lace, ~Ir. George
Thomas, Ci--airman, presiding.
Present; Airgor~ Comsnission: Goxe, Larned, Minter, Thomas, Ranev
Rec. & Parks Com, : de la Pe~ente, Dzir~als, Dr. Moore,~Reed,
Schwedes
Absent: Rec. & Parks Com. : Johnson and Alien '
Also prespnt: Nirs. Donna 0. Swinck, Cauncil Laison, Rosaria Perry,
Deputq City Attorney
The Chai.~an called the mee~ing ta order and Pledge of Allegiance was
given by :'~r, Roney.
Atter a brief discussion the chairrten tDzirkals - RecreatiQn ~ Parks
Cou~aission and Tho~as - Airport Com~ission) abreed to poll votes as two
saparate bodieso
Ms. Dzir~als rezd a prapared proposition for an alternate plan to be
presentec ~o the City Council ~or conside~ation (see attacn.ed). General
discussicn o~ the five di~ferent plans fo'~ws ctii~h Messrs Arr.e~* ar,d
Fitzgerald answering the cocraissioner's questions on "green aLeas",
leng~h of rui3~aay and the economic aspects.
Mr. Schwedes ~resented a critique re~2rding rhe furLre develap::~er~t of
Santa :i~nica :~i~niciral ~irport Iand and C~:e related five plar.s ~see
attache~). ~~.e co~issioners, lead b;r Mrs. I`Iinter, ex~resseu a vc;.v
af than~cs to the ~irectors ~or the weli prepared plans. Ler.g~hy 4is-
cussi~n re~ar~~n? tt~e safe len~th o~ the run~aa•r and o~~?er det~ils.
~`IS. B21T~i21S Si:~b2S~2~ ~~~~:fl~ ~L1e li.Q1ViCIL&1 CC^i115S10i7S Sllbi?:1L tli'.ei_T
own repo~C to tze Ci~z* Council su~stant-iated bj~ ~acts s.~d fig~a'es."
Motion received no second.
A recess ~aas called at 8:~i5 p.m. Meeting resumed at 9:('~0 p.m.
Ger.eral auestion under C~scusszon is khat do the two co~issi~~??s 2~r~~
upor,
A~ree Dis&~ree
1) Cance~tual Plan l.j
2) Airpoxt ~=-operties pre~ent oppor--
tunities ~or recreatior. at tiie ~l~
acres site as caell as air~ort. 2)
3) Plan "A" arid "B" rejected. 3)
4) The no~i-avi2tional recrr-_a~ion de-
velap;~ent sheul_d be nor='r. af rt~n-
way.
Genera3. aviat:.on ve_r_ sss re~ --~ t__
tional flying.
;~'eed for industrial del-e.~c~:~~.,t,
~v~~;~:ber of a~x'~s to be aF ~; i~,:i tc-,
nan-avia~ional rzcreat~~=~ use,
L:T'. ~".oor<< i.~traduc~'_t' ~.Z LIIOtL~71 ~~~Ce~i4 ~~~32t i.~ T~~ ct ~ t~'_' S~lt'iP]~~~.G~ L.-. :=i)T:_
4 E' S, i. : t G t[7 E' C i r~.T ~, O l:~' C]. 1.~~ ~`f 2' 4 C l~ :-' L ~' E: S : C: O I! C~ _ t il E ~!"~ ~_ C 7' t'• t ~~ . .. - _. .
i'~;Y ~:O~IE". 1Sr~i~i~ CU : '_I: ~=:?e"? ~~_"i GY • ~. _'_ OE. -.~ ~ ---- "'C. _t~.'_t'~ ~t~ J'r' ,~. ~ ..~ ~-- -`-
4:'_:!: ~~l<1C~[[.?-7 SS10+.1c L2 .Ci1T?~ '?f' €7=~. : _- ;Tt _ ~;t''_'C`i:~2~f_' L.1:=:, ..t:£ ~ 1~I't- _'.~•
No second. Ms. Dzirkals reiterated her opinion on the individual plans.
_ Vote on the original motion shows:
Ai.rport Ca~uission: Ayes: Larned, Minter, Gore, Roney, Thomas
Noes: None
Rec. & Parks Com. : Ayes: DzirkaIs, Dr. Moore
Koes: de ~a Puente, Reed, Schwedes
Director af Recreation & Parks avails the ~irport Director and himself
to su~piy the comi=iissioners with other concepts if necessary. Ms.
Dzirkais enters a motion "that aur Comnissian (Recreation & Parks)
submit to the Cit~ Council plans C, D, & E for consideration as we11 '
as an additional nlan prepared b~ the Rer_rea~ion & Parks Cozrmissicn
known as F." riotion is seconded by ~Irs. Reed and discussion fcllowed,
Vote shows:
Airpo~t Coa~nission: Ayes: Larnad, Minter, Goxe, Roney, Thamas
Noes: Nane
Aec. & Parks Com. : Ayes: Dzirkals, L`r. Moore
Noes: de ia Puente, Reec3, Schwedes
Dr. Moore, seconded by t1rs. Minter, made a motion to adjourn. Motion
did not pass. Discussion abou~ a ne~~ vlan resur~~ed. I~rs. Minter, secor.-
ded ~y ~tr. Larned, ra~e a motion to adjourn at 10:40 p.r~. bSotion passed
eighr ayes and tv~o noes (Reed ard SchweCes),
Meetiz~g a~jaurned at 1Q:40 p.m.
- Respect~ully submit~ed,
~'~Q~~~ ,W ~~_~'
Donald T. Arn~tt
Secretary .
~
.
n~~~oaT co.•~z~ss_o~ .-~~~u~~s o~ .~.c~La:~ ~~.~:~~c
,
~nd
:iltiL'i~5 of JOI\i 1=.i.;TISG or°. AI:??0? ut:c+ .~'t.~.C:~~SiiC:~ ~^-.".~ ?~:,,.;.~i CO:~.: :S~C`..
~~ptE:aber l2, 1973 ~;CO °.;L C~':.. ~~~~.'~~L C_:~y;,^-,~:5
_.._ A~r~ort Caa;~x~sian 4:~s c2ileZ ~n ses~;.o; ..,. ~i1e a~ove nr7cr ,._.._ , ~
~~ ~ :ce.
Co,--~z~s~aaers presenC; L~nn A. Gore, T.d. ... s^_.rr.ed, :;erbcrt ^o;e;-, ;_i~
George T~c~~s, C;~a~z~^~z
Co,-~~cs~oners a5sent; Ao::.s iiA:~:-er
~,~so ~~escr,t: C. V. si.tzgerai.c, As:~ort Ja.rec_or
?='C;liL!.3 . . ?TI2; s
1. ~r,e Co~:~ission ex?ressec: i~s a~_accrc ~~:.._, ~or Ceut:c-A: ..~_
Antiton~ D~tur~'~ ~.~eecy recevc ~, ~: c' c~__ectec t?~e „~ ^e-~
D:recCor Co ser.c '_r. D~turL .. l~tter re~.~rdx~„ .,~^c.
2. Dr. S.rartz, o~ '~.A.S.C. br~~ied tec e1-~~-?crt Ccr.~~zs~-_e^ or
h?s :ar.::'~ ~i~~i_r,c~ _•_o:.: to cer.c~c~ .,._ xa-cc~7i[1 ..~LG ~
On t:ZL' il~r'y~~r~ Lt.'~1~~C~:~!~'i~~ ~i~j~Ct.
3. ~z. ,;onn :~rench, rec~rcc ucnoo~ pr~nc~?c:l, sao:.~cc ~ ~.~:vc
.,~~ .u:~ ,'-.:.~r,~ ez „~..__. ,.o :ic. .`,_r~o. ~~~ va:.~c ~o ecuc.:.~_c^,
:,
and i~s value to tnc coT :~r.-x~y.
:~:C et3-`70~: CCTMT:.~.,:_G: . _.. ::l ~OxT:~ ..+_.-G~ .°.P~.. _.,.. '1.~,.~ ~.. _ _^C=^_. -
i.~C.^. ~~~iG ~' L.G7 ('.G_r'1:,_ G x9:! i0~ ~i.: !`C .~:;0 C: ~-~l~ ..i : Ol~_ ~ C_.., ~
...__~l ~~_.. CO.^..~._:~.x_ (i'_~CU:.:'_G:. C~. _ -•G ~_~,_i1;~ "'_ .._ ."
(r,~ "_..._J.7J~`. ~1~O~~G^=.i y^.Cii,_ ~.~, ~ .'<.:,. ~,C.Ci' , .,l~:l CC'-_` _.' '.'. .
~~_.__.. _~ , .. ;,~. _. . . _~ , ~'.~ ~...f ;('C; - _~, : , : d _.... CC~'. , ~+..
i .',oi~ _1_.. _._~:_. ": _ ~G.'t :.^SOLLt_C ~ Ci CC(. :~t,, .. ~ , .., ~ _ , ~~
'_ _" ' ']' ^,'`;r . , _, ;'.,___' C1.'~..~1:.,. - _'~ .)YC`~ C; ,_ _i; .~ . _. .
.... ~ _ _~O: _ _ _ Jf ~_` __ ~ ;~ a.iP..~ ~ .,..., a'_ ~___ __:~ __ -? _ . _,._
r~r~II:l~ ,_: )OL"=_ ~ ~. ~~.. :1~~ ~.:G CGi. ,_.~__:.Oi[, CCU~t~ _..._o_ _ ~ . ,..
~n :_. ... ._ . ,... ..~J~C i O: ~~:73:,. .._ ... "(~_.._ 7". iC~_i~!~. _, .. r:C .~
.- .~1. ~ ?',_,. ~^_L :OY .~i_G_. : L~^,y ~ C-...,.... ~J, ~ i~l~ .^.i 7•~;~ ~. .. ~_
~ ~
C'_~V COLRC1a Ctl: .'UC_a.
~. ~ 'c;,,au.r,eG at: "/•~•5 :'.:..
GITY OF SAl+tTA MONECA
INTER-D~AART~lE~#T M~MO
DATE• AuguSt 11, 1973
TO: Airpor~ Commission
FROM: Recreation and Parks Commissi.on
SUBJECT: Airport Resolution
Whereas, tY-e available par'~s and recrearion faci.li~ies
are overtaxed and da not fully meet the couur~unity's
needs fQr recreation, and,
Whereas, in connection with the expiration of the McDonnell
Douglas 1~ase at the airport, an opportunity tzas arisen
to expand the recreatic~nal facilities of the City,
TherefDre, the Recreation and Parks Conanission recommsnds
that the proper~y in question be developed as part of a
recreation~.1 complex that [~ot~.lci include, a~~nong other possi-
bilities, a golf course, tennis courts, park area and other
rscreational impro~;ements, and that the f~ture role of th~
airport be planned within such a recreational cor.lpZEx.
This Commission be2ieves that in order to accomplish these
recreation oriented goals substartial development at the
pzesent airport facil.ity should be discouraged u.r.til such
Cime as a mas~er plan is adopted.
The Com~nissi~n f~ur~her considers it advisable that the Cicy
enter into discussi~ns c~rith Mcponnell Dcugl.as regardino
theix future pl~ns for the Santia :.oni.ca si.te, and rt-~ae, in
due time, a recreation eriented master p~an b~ ~~vi~ec for
the en~ire a~rporL si~e, including the i~Icbonneil ~ouglas
properties.
Res~ectfully submit~~d,
t ~ ~ -i~4
~- j
~ ~~ f. C. Ft.~ ~ _ j ~ ~. ~-'v-w,.~,#, (, ~ '
Aonald T. Arnett, 5ecretary
DTA :13.
AiRFO:iT CO.n"iT~SION i: `uT::~i
nuouaC 8, i973, hedneaday 7:34 p, i ~ CiViC Au~IiQ:~i~:'.
^.h~ Air~ort Co~rnzssion was clixea xn sess~on ~,t c:ie above na^~~d tir,.c and r~.rcc.
Cc~rn~ssioner:, pres.nt; iinn A Gorc, Datis I',x:~ter, ricrb Zo,^.ey & Ce~-~e x:. - ,
Ciza~n~~~n
Co~~:~issio.ers absent; 4T. F,. L~r:~ed
Also ~reseat: ihe me:~bers o~ ~e?a.-tren~ ox ~,ecreat;.on ar.d ;ar~cs Cc- ~.
C. V. ritzoerald, r~ir~er~ D~recto:
in accorcc.r.ce wxth C~Cy Counci:'s ~irectio--~ tha~ ~ne k~r~ort Co~:,.. ~zon ~. _,
,`:ec:cr_:ion and P~rks Commxseion ~old a ~oint :acet'_n; on C,.e suo;ect o,` t: e i,..r-
rart 2n~~ ;.ts probicns, ~.n3 Lo pive the cce:~unity c.n o?~o.-tUnxty to ~_ ne`rck--
~~;.G R:~3Cing was held at the Civ~c Audito~iu:~ on ticdnesday, qu~use S;.a at
7 :3~ P,::.
;r'umerous persons spohe, inc~,uding x°p:es~lCa;.~ve~ o~
1) property o-:n°x's ~lcseczatxana o.E arezs svr.oundzn.~ the air~or~
2) Santa ;ionica Aa-rport A,saczatzan.
, 3) 5anta ; onica C~t~.711D:'i ox Com~erce
~ 4) ic~cral anU Statc Aviataoa oi~~.c~.,;,s
5) ~~CP'JCTS ox t'c:e Santa i;onica C~ty Co~ncil
1'OLLOni.Tl~ ~}l(: C1037.Ti~ Ox C[1C k7Ut5x..C I1~C:~:l~ ~C W.^.,3 CilL' Uf1~:lir,C:~S rn-1-
a~.~^J8 Oi i70~i1 C07~r11~.`~i1C179 C:•:C iU::~ner ;Oii1=-$~,~G'/ h1CCC1Tl:~3 4'CX? i1CCC?SC~' xR
0~.~ :~O' Zn^_ CGa~ail,,:lOil:: t0 ~:07^_Y1.~ ~tl~.e.`%3_ ~i:_ CO~~Leh £.1Y~~0:" pY9~~Ci"_1~:
c,•V°?~.C~' ^_Il: ~I'OtJle~i~•'~.f.[i :UOfii, ~_, .20r~G~.~iC AFlU GL:;,,...?x^ k"CCO~.~~1G3L?.O:] ~O ~•:`'
C^=.~ezi '%~~lcn weuid 3c xn tnc ~c~t irteres~~ o~ tce co;r~:~un~ty.
i~ccox'dxn~,ly, t~ie CCT:111S i~OIIv : CC~CGU~CG ~r,ot„cr ;oxnt mcct~_; ~~o: c~~^~-
c'r, a^-?t~r:acx 1l%, =973, ~_ 's:C~ ~.:~x. z~1 ~7r counc:l c;~a~~ec:~ at C+.C~ .-,:ii.
~:~c~i_n?, ro,oirnVc . _ ,.i:~5 ..c:,