SR-11-A (2)
.
.
City Clerk:BJH:jj(jjref)
City Council: December 12, 1989
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City council
FROM: Clarice E. Johnsen, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Certification of Referendum Petition
Attached is the verification I received on December 8, 1989, from
the Registrar-Recorder regarding the validation of the petition
entitled: "Referendum Petition against Resolution No. 7917(CCS)
passed by the city Council of Santa Monica."
The petition contained 8,904 signatures, 7,924 of the signatures
qualified, 980 did not. The number of registered voters on file
with the Secretary of state as of November I, 1989, was 56,228.
The petition, therefore, contains signatures representing more
than 10 percent of the registered voters.
The petition contained the following instructions to the City
Council:
We, the undersigned, are duly registered and qualified voters of
the City of Santa Monica, County of Los Angeles, and are not less
than 10 percent of the registered voters of the City of santa
Monica. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 4051 and Santa Monica
City Charter Section 1404, we hereby protest the adoption of
Resolution No. 7917(CCS} adopted on October 10, 1989, which would
amend the General Plan of the City of Santa Monica and improperly
allow large scale development to occur on public land in and near
the Santa Monica Airport. We hereby request that Resolution No.
7917(CCS) be reconsidered and repealed by the Santa Monica City
Council, or be submitted to a vote of the people of Santa Monica
at the next regular election.
Upon qualification of a referendum Section 4055 provides "If the
legislative body does not entirely repeal the ordinance against
- 1 -
.
.
which the petition is filed, the legislative body shall submit
the ordinance to the voters, either at a regular municipal
election occurring not less than 88 days nor more than l03 days
after the order of the legislative body or at a special election
called for the purpose not less than 88 days after the order of
the legislative body. To avoid holding more than one special
election within any six months, the date for holding the special
election may be fixed later than 103 days, but at as early a date
as practicable after the expiration of the six months from the
last special election. When it is legally possible to hold a
special election under this chapter within six months prior to a
regular municipal election, the legislative body may submit the
proposed ordinance at the regular election instead of a special
election. The ordinance shall not become effective until a
majority of the voters voting on the ordinance vote in favor of
it. If the legislative body repeals the ordinance or submits the
ordinance to the voters and a majority of the voters voting on
the ordinance do not vote in favor of it, the ordinance shall not
again be enacted by the legislative body for a period of one year
after the date of its repeal by the legislative body or
disapproval by the voters. II
- 2 -
. .
REG ISTRAR- REeo RDER COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
5557 FERGUSON DRIVE - POBOX 30450. LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90030
CHARLES WEISSBURD
~~,~ ST~",~ ~ECCR'J::P.
December 8, 1989
Clarlce E. Johnsen, City
Clty of Santa Monica
1685 Maln Street
Santa Monica, Californla
Clerk
9040l-3295
Dear Ms. Johnsen:
Enclosed are 4,882 petltlon sectlons
petltlon agalnst Resolutlon No. 7917
slgnature verlficatlon on November 14.
pertainlng to a referendum
WhlCh was submitted for
The results of the slgnature verlflcatlon are as follows:
Number of signatures filed
8,904
Number of slgnatures verlfled
8,904
Number of slgnatures quallfled 7,924 (88.99%)
Number of slgnatures not quallfled 980 (11.01%)
Total
8,904
The total number of reglstered voters as last reported to Secretary
of State for the clty of Santa Monlca is 56,442.
Please call Allce
Leglslatlon Sectlon
lnformatlon.
Rlvers
at ( 213)
of the Electlon Coordlnatlon and
725-5813 if you need any addltlonal
Very truly yours,
C ,_ _l\ to -'-..~ ^__ ~
---.~ ~ _ .a-~ ~
CHARLES WEISSBURD
Reglstrar-Recorder
MT:D4:P/l
Enclosures
.
.
II-It
~ r-- .................. F"","":.-...a.
.
4
I
Eric Chen
2338 Pearl street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
January 23, 1990
City Council of the
City of Santa Mon~ca
1685 Ma~n Street
Santa Mon~ca, CA 90401
Re: Airport project
Ladies and Gentlemen:
My opposition to the airport project that you will once
again consider this evening is well-known. It stems from
numerous factors, includ~ng the adverse environmental (pr~marily
a~r qual~ty, sewage and traff~c) consequences of the project and
the illusion of its purported econom~c benef~ts. with respect to
the latter, we have repeatedly challenged the assumpt~ons on
which revenue streams were based, and I have recently corne across
information that will be useful to your consideration of this
issue.
As you recall, c~ty staff's pro forma f~nancial
proJect~ons assumed occupancy rates for the airport office space
of 95% after a one-year lease-up per~od (thus, only a 5% vacancy
rate). We have previously stated that this crItical assumption
~s unreallst~cally opt~mistic, and we now have defin~t~ve support
for our assertlon. Attached to this letter are abstracts from
recent reports published by a natIonal commercial real estate
leasing company and disseminated to its cl~ents to update them as
to westside commercial real estate conditions. The mater~als
~ndlcate historlcal WestSlde vacancy rates in the mid-teens
dur~ng a period of robust economic growth ~n Southern Californ~a.
Furthermore, the accompanying text indicates that with the large
amount of new office space that Santa Monica WIll be putt~ng onto
the market over the next few years, "this [Santa Monica] market's
vacancy rate [will lncrease] to the high teens." In other words,
the 5% vacancy assumpt~on is demonstrably mlsleading 1n llght of
present professional proJections. And what will that vacancy
rate be when the economic cl~mate slows down, part~cularly ~n
l~ght of the dramat~cally weaker real estate milleu that has been
experienced over the past two quarters? It will likely be even
h~gher.
AS the attached Lnformatlon indicates, because Santa
Mon~ca will, over the next five years, supply more than 50% of
the level of new office space that the Westside market has
historically been able to absorb, it will be even more subject
than other areas to the Imminent downturn ~n the commerc~al real
.
.
~
.
CIty Council of Santa Monica
January 23, 1990
Page 2
estate markets. I trust you have seen the numerous articles In
such publications as The Los Angeles Times, The Wall street
Journal and Barron's about the recession now underway in real
estate. How can this Council belleve a set of Panglossian
assumptions that are critlcal to project supporters' arguments
regarding the revenues (particularLy when the guarenteed revenues
to the city wlll most llkely be d1m1nished in any reduced project
size proposal)?
I would also like to express my personal concern over the
unwarranted personal attacks on the integrity of Mayor Zane and
Friends of Sunset Park at the January 9 Council meetlng. At that
meeting, a certain councilmember admonished the Mayor for
attemptIng to start a dialogue with the leading neighborhood
opponents of the proJect about a reduced Slze compromise. This
councllmember implied that "backroom deals" were being struck and
demanded that the Mayor determine who the "Schwallie group"
represented.
Such a personal attack is completely inappropriate.
FrIends of Sunset Park is a neighborhood organization with more
than 250 dues-paYIng members (lncluding several that were
formerly directors of SPAN and left that organization). It
achIeved this membership level without the help of the NSC or any
other organization, without a formal membership drlve and has
done this over just the past three months (largely dur1ng the
quiet holiday season). Its active members have led the
opposition to the airport project since the begInnlng, and have
put before both the Planning Commission and the Council one of
the most extensive, reasoned and sophisticated critique of a
development project ever done. It fuf1lled the fundamental
tenets of participatory civic democracy by organizing the most
broad-based response to a project ever generated, not only wlthin
the immediately affected area of Sunset Park, but also WIthin the
entire City (as demonstrated by the opposition of every single
well-established nelghborhood organization to the project).
Furthermore, the implication that this organization was somehow
cutt1ng a "backroom deal" by simply hearing the Mayor's proposal
IS totally mIslead~ng. As the January 20 Metro section article
1n The Los Angeles Times makes clear, the Board of Directors of
Fr1ends of Sunset Park voted, in fact, not to endorse this
proposal. To make such d1sparag2ng remarks is an inexcusable
affront to both the members of FrIends of Sunset Park and its
Pres1dent. This remark is especially troubling in light of what
I observed as a SPAN Board member at a Board meet2ng prior to the
CouncIl's original vote on the project. At that meetIng, the
Board considered and, after extensive discussion and debate
prompted by our oppositlon, rejected a motion of the president of
SPAN to authorize thlS councllmember to negotiate an unspecified
deal with the developer.
.
.
..
I
City Council of Santa Mon~ca
January 23, 1990
Page 3
I also deplore the harassment of Mayor Zane. Even though
I have strongly disagreed with him on numerous occasions about
thlS project and have my own doubts and concerns about his
proposal (which I probably share with other counc11members), that
does not mean the Mayor should not be engaged in an outreach
effort with recogn1zed neighborhood groups and community members
to identify areas of common accord. If anything, this k1nd of
outreach should be encouraged, not discouraged.
Whatever valld concerns this particular councilmember may
have had could have been addressed ~n a more evenhanded,
constructlve fashion. I raise thlS ~ncident in the hope that the
Council w1l1 move forward 1n its cons1derat10n of the crucial
issues ralsed by the airport project in a properly focused,
skeptical and professional manner.
Respectfully Submitted,
~~
Eric Chen
encs.
,
.
.
Sarta \1anKa \~hlch Pbto'lcallv has had a s11al'
I.'arhet shaTe of the 1"\entOI"\, a"DsorO'lon arC new CO[1-
struct'o'1, \~ III have rr.o~[ of the rew prOtects and a
na\orllV oi :he addltlor,ai squa'e 'aotage O\e' "he ne,.t
:l\e "ears this sub'l1ar:"'et s base [meNo,": of -l B'1lI!ltOn
squ~re 'eer Will ;ncrease b\' 1 ..: mlll'or square 'eet dm-
InQ this marl.;.et s vacancy rate to the hIgh ,een:>
HISTORIC\L V-\C -\ '\'CY R.HES
IS
I ^
,0
~ -i
12
1 Q
8
'98~
19S}
19~6
1957
'SSS '989 ii",
]-d:c~:j[es '~e ran:;:es a~ ,-""h"CI \--a;:a.~C\
_ "2,'es .~a"'e ;ah:n ~:-vt::.. the last 5 '~eap"5-
HISTORIC~L .\BSORPTIO'\
2~
~ ] 6
:=i
1: 12
=- 0 ~
=./) 'U
04
(l
'9,~
bS5
~9,;:6
:957
;388
19891"1