SR-13-B (2)
.
.
/3.B
~
JAN 2 7 1981
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
January 19, 1981
Mayor and Counc11 Members
William H. Jenn1ngs
SUBJECT:
Council Agenda Item for January 27, 1981
(Future of Alrport)
Questlons concernlng the future of the Santa Monlca A1rport have been
pending w1thout resolution for decades. Although these questlons have
been extensively debated by the public, the press, attorneys, and
1ndlvidual members of this and prior Councl1s, there seems to have been
a great reluctance on the part of the Council to take any stand on the
issue.
I do not believe that there 1S any benefit from ambiguity concernlng
the airport. It 1S time for the Council to face this issue, pub11Cly
and on the record.
As presently operated, the alrport generates net revenue to the City
of about $ltOOO per acre. Accordlng to the Wlll1ams-Kuebelbeck report,
maXlmum development of the alrport property could generate up to
$23,000 per acre But, if the airport were closed, the same report
shows that the property could generate up to 5150,000 per acre at
maximum lntensity, or easl1y $75,000 per acre lf developed in a
responslb1e manner.
The City has virtually no available space for addit10nal houslng and
\rJith potent1al ellmlnatlon of Federal and State funds (e.g., "bail out"
subventions, Community Development Block Grants, revenue sharlng, etc.)
138
JAN 2 7 1r81
.
.
To:
Mayor and City Council
-2-
January 19, 1981
and w1th the crisis 1n funding for such fundamental Clty serV1ces as
police and street repair, it 15 imperatlve that we move decislvely to
resolve the future of the airport, preferably by moving toward closure.
For these reasons, I request the Council to cons1der the follow1ng
actions:
1. Instruct the City Attorney to file declaratory relief actions
against the United States Government and any other long-term
lessees to ask the Court to decide whether the City lS precluded
by the alrport grants and leases from clos1ng the alrport.
2. Instruct the City Manager and Clty Attorney to serve approprlate
notices upon the month-to-month tenants at the alrport informing
them that they must vacate by one year, or some other reasonable
period, after the notice.
3. Request the Planning Commlssion, Airport Commission, Hous1ng
Commission, and Commission on Older Amerlcans to hold appropr1ate
hearings to SOllClt views from the public concern1ng the types
and m1X of uses to be developed on the property followlng
closure of the alrport and to make recommendations to the Council
based upon such hearings.
WHJ:cls
. t2A;~~~!z g ~. ,/'Tif/ .
v ~__~
5-K: USES IN M-L INDUSTRICT DIS<<TRICT: Presented for consideration
was an
adoption prohibiting
dental uses
9,
l194(CCS)
~UNICIPAL CODE RELATINI
HEIGHT IN
5-J: HEIGHT LI~IT IN 6-2 NEIGEBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT: Presented
~
for consideration was an ordinance for adoption reducingAheight limit
to two stories (30 feet) in the Ci2> };eighborhood ComMerc ial District ~
introduced December 9, 1980. Crn Reed ~oved to adopt Ordinance No.
l194(CCS) entitled: ItAN ORDINANCE OF rrHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA ~ONICA AMENDING CHAPTEfi 1 OF ARTICLE IX 8806B~ OF THE SANT~ ~ONICA
(reduc ing the height '.imi t to two stories d[30 feet l) \
MUNICIPAL CODE RELA~ING TO BUILDING HEIGHT(IN TEE C2 NEiGHBOR~OOD
:- -:..:::-.......:... .lr_ ~:"'__ ~..~ ':";~4~ ~ ':'..r 1.~-~-v ~ jr\lU II :5 v OJ-.l ~ ~ --{.J~'.; ~c:- L
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTllI~ reading by title only and waiving further
readln~ thereof. Second by ~PT YG. ~PT YG entered into the record
~~~f Dr. lHchael E. Glass~ r.:'.o lO~~6"~-"".- ,U",'V" ~ -~
t-ee t-,., ("0'_'",""i!!'"'.9~~':.~8 l~~pport of the two-story hei~ht limit.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
CV: Aff: YG Jer. Reed Rhoden Banbrick
Neg:: Scott
13-8.13-J,2l:nQfXX
--=-:- -. ----- - 1 - -'-"'
l3-K' SAN~A VONICA AIPPORT USES A~D LEASES.
" I
Presented at this time were the requests of Councilr.ernber JEnnin~s for dis(
discussion of actions rev,arding closing Santa Monica Airport, notices upon
\it
12
ti
.
.
notices upon tenants and hearin~s to solicit public views concernin~
airport uses; and the request of Councilrnember Scott for discussion
airport leases.
of Wings West and Cloverleaf Aviation (Duke) leases at S~MKa
Councilmember Scott introduced discussion
- apparently we have
been s<<x threatened and apparently been sued about the Business of
whether or not Mr. Duke is entitled to transfer more than a 40% owner
ship interest in that leasehold to some party who h uL ..vL a-.
was not a shareholder at the time the lease was ~~aX executed.
. ..the lease document prohibits such transfer but more importantly
Section 105 of the contract No. 1689 l!~ (7)the nen speculation
provision says "developer acknowledges that the qualifications
and identify ty of developer are of particular concern to city
and dev. further recognizes that it is because of such Qualifications
and identity that the city is ent~rin~ into this a~reement with the
deve. Tl We made the agreement because of r-.!r. Duke and his experience
and have no obligtation to acceed to any such transfer - arm-waivin~
is baloney. The other claim that keeps gettin~ made is that the
city has some requirement to complete a particular master plan at
the airport and failure'to do so we tave breached the lease.
Nonsensical. The si~ple fact Is that the onlv airport improvements
that arc rcoruied to be cOMoletd bv that contract are the i~provements
reauired of~r. Duke.
The only contractual bo obligation is on hi~.
We did res€rve a right~ which is ~ot an obllgtation~ to develop
that airport as the city sees fit. That's seems pretty clear.
13
.
.
References to the Pier? and Luckman plan are simply ir. the contract -
as a matter of fact, I remember the ne~otiations since I negotiated
the contract - h is nothing more than the recittation of lc~al facts
that are a matter of public record and post absolutelv no obligtation
on the City. What it boils down to is that I think we have long
since been derelict in failing to pursue Mr. Duke for breach of the
lease and we should correct that oversight iIT~ediately.
The final
claim is that the contractspecifically permits Mr. Duke to enga~e in
a scheduled passenger airline service. That is also nonsense.
Contract states "rent airplanes to others with or without pilots,
charter airplanes, and ca!'ry passengers friehg freight carp;o and mailll
. I can testify that there was absolutely no discussion of carrying
passengers a except on charter flights.
Whateverthe argu~ent, another
portion of that same section says "subject however to all appropriate
laws and ordinancesll. We had an ordinance then and now that nrohibits
scheduled airline service in the absence of a specific agree~ent and
permit issued by the City Council and I have not heard that we had
even considered or had a request for approval of such service.
One obligation M~XXI~~~XX is imcosed on the City is to maintain a
general aviation airport for the terN of the lease and that obligtation
extends through most of 1996. Comoliar.c8 wit~ this provision means
only that we maintain that which le~ally qualifies as a general
aviation airport. Duke has been in default and breach of this lase
following about 90 da~!s after its execution. We have, if I a~ to
believe the staff, been muzzled witr- threats of suit, threats to
llj
.
.
institute scheduled cOIT~uter airliene service from SM airport tlear
across the US. It seeMS high ti~e to resolve and I
Cm Scott moved that the City Attornev be instructed to notiry
Duke, Contract No. l689~-CCC)
the leaseholder (
that the city is pursu3n~ the breach of contract and that he has
the contract time nrovided to cure and that failure to do so
will result and the City Attorney is instructed to pursue termination
of the lease as provided in the lease.
Second by em Reed.
Jennings asked and Shane said we notified Cloverleaf that they
were in default, notice was not pursued, at that time Cloverleafe
had filed but not served a lawsuit against us alleging some ei~ht
different counts and dama~es, served today, so we do have an existing
notice and not sure ~:e \':ould have to file a new one or not.
The lease provides a 30 day cure period. McClain said in addition
we did serve them with a three day payor quite notice because of
failure to pay back rent, that was naid and they are not in default
in that regard at this time. Jennings said as lawsuit pending an
has been served ask Council to li~it corr.ments - this is nor~anlly
discuSSEd in Closed Session - pleasE dire deal directly with
contract.
Scott discussed the waI7~MX that the int€nt of the motion is that
we now assert all of the breaches thet can be d identified and
give the ~~~Q~XaKX operator the opportunity to cure as provided
15
.
.
under the contract and that failure to cure will result in termination.
Rhoden asked for two answers - one, our position relevant to our
ability to refusE transfer and our exposure thereby for refusin~
to do that, and if in fact the case of Richard~on applies to that,
because we are dealin~ with a corporation rather than individiuals
who are related to the ~or~er ~ayor; ar-d whetter or not in fact
the City has any obliFtations because nyunderstanding was the opposite
of which Scott has stated as far as our resDoDsibility to comply with
improvements outlined in Perrraro report. I would like to understand
if under terms of this lea~e we have any obli~tations to perform
that and if by takir.g this action to impose that condition on a lessee
are exposin~ ourselves to the likelihood of beinF forced to comply
as well. Jennings
C~ Jennin~s moved to that this natter be tabled for discussion durin~
Closed Session. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Jennings said we shouldn't give away our theories.
It's been
discussed in execce utive session before. Scott said no objection
to closed session to discuss, however objection to continuin~ the
~atter.
Stark willir.~ to read the relevant lease orovisions and su~~est
that any interpretation or possibility of them bein~ uD~eld be
discussed in Closes Session. The provision as to the Per~aro Luckman
plan is contained in a recital to the lease section 1.01 reads
as follows"
II
16
"
.
.
The lease does not contain further reference nor covenants to the
P/Luckman plan. The second question as to prohibition on development.
The relevant clause was correctly paraph~rased by Clause.
Rhoden said the question was on applicability of Richardson decision
re corporate transfer of stock. Shane said the Richardson decision
is debatable and best be discussed in Closed Session and does not
directly concern the lease.
MPT YG called the question to Scott's
motion and indicate to the public that further discussion of the
OOMX issues will take place in Closed Session. Second by em Jennings.
and vote or. the
MPT yr. moved to clOSE debate i~MX~KXI the question to the ~alnXX Cm
Scott's motion. Second by em Jennin~s. The motion was approved by the
follO'r'Jing vote:
CV: Aff, YO, Jen, Reed, Scott, Bambrick
Negative: Rhoden
N.6:gXXXX1BfK:KiIHX
MR'XXX~X~0:~2H4
Cm Scott's ~otion was approved by the following vote:
CV: Aff: YO Jen Reed Scott Bambrick
Abstain: Rhoden
CfnX
C~ Scott an asertion has been ~ade that if the City doesn1t take
so~e actions - ttat I think are not in best interests of the City -
that conmuter SErvice is ~oin~ to be instituted - which I suspect
all of us would agree 1s kind of bad. What bothers r.e 1s Wings West
is on that airport and conductin~ a scheduled passen~er ooeration
that is not authorized. they are on a month to month lease. why
put up with this no~se.
17
.
.
Rights extend only for 30 days.
em Scott moved that Wings West (Contract No. ) be
cure or
served a notice to/quit 30 days from the date of their next rent
payment if the scheduled commuter passenger service is continued.
Second by Cm Reed
Rhoden - I understandin~ the prior city attorney had IdX issued temporary
operating permit to WW. if true3 does it limit our ability ob servX~e
a notice to quit.
Scott said attorney has no authority to issue a pernit and even if he
did it is only for 30 days
Shane - formther City Attorney did not issue a perMit. He descirted
was is required for scheduled service to co~mence......ending in
must be approved by City Council. They were notified.... there
was an a~7eement between forbher City ATtorney and their attorney
that in essence we would not press claim for default if they would
apply for permit and pursue the application.
That has since
been suspeotled.
The motion was approved by the following vote"
CV' AfC: YG Jen Reed Rhoden Scott
N€~. BaMbrick
Cm 0ennir.~s moved to ir.X~~~~ that Council instruct the City Attorr.Ev
to file a declaratorv relief action a~ainst the United States GoverDrent
and anv other lonF t€r~ lessees at the Airoort to ask the court to
18
.
.
decide whether the City isprecluded by theairport ~rants and leases
from closin~ the airport. the motion failed for lack of a second.
Cm Jennin~s moved that Council instruct the City Manager and City
Attorney to serve appropriate notices upon the month to month tenants
at the airport lnformin~ them that they must vacate by one year
after such notice. Second by MPT YG.
Jennin~s said Airport Commission has already voted three to one
and one pro-airport r.ot there, to support this motion and asked
City Council to give this notice that they must vacate within one
year. The one year peiod has been arbitrarily chosen; should not be
punitive, need reasonable period of tine ~o relocate. anything shorter
would b probably be unreasonable. Shane requested clarification, at Airport
Commfn they were reauested to ir.dicate whether it applied to those peopel
whos leases expired during the aile year period and wonder whether motin
applies to that.
Cm Reed moved
J
Cm Reed moved an amendment to the motion to instruct the City Manager
and City attorney to serve appropriate notices upon the airport-related
month-to-month tenants south of Airport Avenue .. .blah blah the
rest of his motion
further that staff be directed to aFendaize a discussion of an
Request for Proposal at tr.c secor.d ~c€tin~ in Februarv for develop~ent
of tr.e parcels south of Airocrt ~venue which Darcels are now occupied
by airport related businesses so that the City Council ~av at said
~ ''1'
.
.
disucussion indicate the tyee of non-airport tenancies that woudl
would be acceptable , the length of said tenancies and any other
development reauirewents s thou~ht necessary to go into the RFP
Instead of a second,
Jennings who asked are who are those. Reed said there are some in
the main admin. buildin~ and a couple of others. W~XK~MNI<<XK~~HN
Knickerbocker
D. Dou~las Jr facility and museum I would exempt.
Cm Jennings
Following discussion, Cm Jennings included Councilmenber Reed1s
motion as a friendly amendment, provided we can also get a report
as to exactly who they are and then if we deicd decide, basedu upon
that list of who they are that we ought to also include some of
them.
MPTYG said she would withdraw her second if they do that. ClearEr
to do what they are doin~ based on financial.
During discussion,
MPT YG withdrew her second and em Reed seconded em Jennln~s motion.
~
Jennin~s talked about carvin~ ~~Reed said it would be intention to
only serve the one year notice on the airport related tenants given
Jenninvs argunents that they need 7cre ti~e to be noticed. It would
not be MY intention to forever grandfather in the nonairport related
tenants' no need to give year's nctice. I agree with Jennin~s that in
discussion developr.er.t plans for :his strip south of Airrort Avenue
we would of course consider tte wrole Darcel and how those other
tenants fit in.
S like Lear Sie~ler we couldnt throw out.
'),r) L\.u ;U.. 4- ~)
~
.
.
My reasons for submitting this are several. It wh should be noted that
prior to this time we have taken very slgnfiicant action against two
tenants both of whome I believe on the are on the other side of Airport
Ave and we may in fact by Scott's actions be terminatin~ those tenancies
and it seems to me at least I for one do not believe Council can
arbitrarily clsose airport given provisions in a couple of leases at
lease unetll the 1990's and I think it's silly to talk about doing
it. I believe that if we atteTpt rather to Maxlmuize our developmbnt
opportunityies around periphery of the airport we can shrink down the
airport related uses to somethlnv the community feels it can live with.
Scott - I like the rr.otion in ori~inal forn best but prepared to
support the alt~ernative.
Jennings - confused - south of airport ave? as opposed ~KXs~<<K to south
t
of airnort runway
Reed - yes, I said south of airport Ave - that strEet that runsa alor.g
there anc airport related uses on obht botr sides of t~c ave and
I aM leavin~ alcr:e those few uses that are adjacent to the runway
and north of airrort av€ and I aw focussin~ on the land south of aircort
Ave.
Scott - I can't sup~ort that - I dicn't understand that bit. I don't
think w€ have any choice if such action is taken but to includE each
and every aircort use.
~o -{l )
.
.
Jennin~s suggested vote on motion now and have a substitute ~otion
north of Airport Ave. There may be enough votes.
Shane requested clarification - Reed's motion concerning non airport
related uses, is it the intent of the motion to give such non airport
r€lated uses, assumin~ on a ITonth to month basis, a year's notice.
Reed - not intending to do anythin~ we with them at the present elm
time but only to give the one year notice to the airport related
uses and basically igr.orin~ the other uses. and Douglas museum.
I consider them to be non aprirt related.
MPT YG moved a substitute motion which was the ~I~ gist of Me. Jennings
original motion - should start with that first. I am not prepared to
indicate that some airport uses are ~oin~ to stay and others arent'
. I want to follow the direction of the Airport Commission and notify
al 1 holders of month to month leases.
Scott would you move approval of airport cowm1ss1on recommendation.
Scott said he would second if she did. Scott discussed le~al exposnce
about discriminiatory or selective and if any intention in pursuing
that we have no alternative but to include all uses.
~PT YG moved a substitute Motion to a~nrove th d t
L'~ .e reccmmen a ion
of the AirDort Con~iS5ion
z,J
~
=- :..~--...- '=-- ---"'-------~---- - ~~----- ~ --
~-"'"'""--""