SR-07-08-2014-8A - 800-008-02City of City Council Report
Santa Monica'
City Council Meeting: July 8, 2014
Agenda Item: / t
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Subject: Proposed City Council Initiative That Would Amend The City Charter To
Explicitly Preserve the City's Authority To Manage Or Close The Santa
Monica Airport, Restrict Development At The Airport Unless And Until
Adoption And Implementation Of A Specific Plan For The Reuse Of Airport
Land, And Compete Directly With the Initiative Proposed By Aviation
Interests.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council direct preparation of the resolutions necessary
to place on the November ballot an initiative that would: (1) preserve the City Council's
authority to manage the Santa Monica Airport ( "Airport ") for however long it remains
open and its authority to close all or part of the Airport to aviation use, subject to
applicable legal restrictions; (2) prohibit or restrict new development at the Airport until
the City adopts and implements a specific plan governing reuse of the Airport land that
ensures compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods and uses; and (3) compete with
the Airport initiative proposed by aviation interests.
Executive Summary
This report implements Council's directions of June 24. 2014 regarding a City ballot
measure intended to compete with the initiative measure that has been circulated by the
aviation interests. Their measure would require voter approval to close the Airport,
even in par, and further would limit the Council's authority to manage Airport leaseholds
and otherwise to reduce adverse impacts for however long the Airport remains open.
Council previously directed preparation of a competing City Charter amendment to be
considered for placement on the November ballot, and staff reported back to Council on
possible content of the measure. On June 24th, Council directed staff to undertake
additional work. Council explained that it wants to strike the best possible balance
between allaying residents' concerns about the possibility of future over - development of
the Airport land and preserving Council's authority to meet changing needs and
circumstances. Council asked to be given alternative options to consider.
This staff report provides alternatives that would retain Council's existing authority as to
Airport management and closure, protect against future over development of the Airport
land while preserving flexibility as to future uses, and establish that the City's initiative is
intended to compete with and prevail over the aviation interests' initiative and that only
1
one of the two may be adopted. Information about the initiative process is also
included in this report.
Background
The history of the Airport controversy is described in the June 24th staff report and is
also summarized in the findings of the staffs proposed ballot measure, which is
attached.
Basically, the Airport is owned and operated by the City and is one of the oldest and
busiest General Aviation airfields in the country. It was acquired and constructed long
before the development of the residential neighborhoods that now surround it, long
before the development of jet aircraft, and long before the proliferation of business
travel by private, corporate jets -- developments which brought groundswells of
complaints about Airport noise, air pollution and safety risks and fostered waves of
litigation.
For decades, the City has operated the Airport pursuant to contractual agreements.
However, some or all of the agreements are expiring. Next year, the 1984 Settlement
Agreement with the federal government will expire by its own terms; and all Airport
leases will have expired. Additionally, federal grant conditions governing Airport
operation expire this year or in 2023. And, in the next few years, currently pending
litigation may resolve whether the post -World War II Instrument of Transfer obligates the
City to continue operating the Airport.
With contractual obligations expiring and legal control of the 227 acres currently used
for the Airport in dispute, the City has worked to minimize adverse impacts and to
envision the future of the Airport and the land it now occupies. Community members
have expressed their views about the Airport's future, and Airport neighbors have
increasingly demanded that the Airport be closed. Many City residents have proposed
rededicating the land to park or other community- serving usage.
2
Faced with uncertainty about the Airport's future, aviation interests have proposed and
circulated a ballot measure that would require voter approval to close the Airport and
that would preserve the status quo for Airport businesses unless and until voters
approve Airport closure. The measure has been touted as protecting residents against
over development of the Airport land. The actual, direct effect of the measure would be
to immediately deprive the Council of its authority to manage the Airport so as to
mitigate adverse impacts and to prevent the Council from exercising its authority to
close the Airport when that becomes legally possible. Therefore, although it is not yet
known whether the aviation interests' measure will qualify for the ballot, Council directed
preparation of a competing City initiative to countermand and override it.
At its June 24th meeting, Council considered staff's recommendation for preparation of a
competing measure that would: (a) empower the voters to decide whether the Airport
should be completely or partially closed and the land dedicated to another use; (b)
preserve the Council's authority to manage the Airport and mitigate its impacts while it
remains open; and (c) override the provisions of the aviation community's initiative.
After considering staff's recommendations and hearing public testimony, Council
directed staff to continue its work on the competing measure and shift the emphasis
away from closure and toward protection against future over - development. Council
expressed its desire to find the "sweet spot" between allaying residents' concerns about
over development and preserving Council's ability to promote public health, safety and
welfare amid changing circumstances and needs.
Discussion
As Council discussed at the meeting of June 24th, the proposed measure must meet
several goals. First, the measure must be formulated to successfully compete for voter
approval. Thus, the Council's proposed measure must both appeal to voters and be
3
drafted to ensure that it would override the aviation interests' initiative if both receive a
majority of the votes cast
As to voter appeal, the aviation community's initiative offers City residents the right to
vote on Airport closure and on proposed changes to the use of Airport land. And, the
measure has been promoted as necessary in order to avert over - development of the
Airport land.
To compete effectively, the City's measure must reassure voters that the Airport land
will not be over - developed. At its June 24th meeting, Council noted that, for many
community members, future use of the Airport land is a greater concern than Airport
closure. (This is so because many community members simply assume that the Airport
should and will be closed; but they fear that, once it closes, land value and development
pressure will drive over - development.) Thus, Council directed staff to provide
alternatives that would reassure voters that the Airport land will not be over - developed if
and when the Airport is closed.
Such reassurance can be provided both in the findings of the City's measure and in its
substantive provisions. Members of the community have questioned the validity of the
statements made in the preamble to the aviation community's measure and urged that
they are purposefully misleading. Accordingly, staff recommends that the City's
measure contain findings accurately describing the Airport, its history, the present
controversy, and the purpose of the City's proposed measure. Recommended findings
are included on Attachment A, which is a draft of staff's proposed measure. They
include (further) assurances of the Council's commitment to avoid over - development of
the Airport land.
As to the substantive provisions of the City's measure, staff recommends prohibiting
new development at the Airport until after the adoption of a specific plan formulated to
ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and protect residents' quality of life. Until
that time, new development could be prohibited or strictly limited. Staff recommends
the following language to defer development of the Airport land until after adoption of a
specific plan
"If and when all or part of the Airport land is permanently closed
to aviation use, no new development of that land shall be
allowed unless and until a Specific Plan for its use is formulated
and adopted by the City Council, in accordance with applicable
law and through an inclusive public process, to ensure
compatibility with surrounding uses and the protection of
residents' quality of life."
This approach would be consistent with the City's existing land -use law and policy. The
Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan (LUCE) lists the Airport and
Airport Business Park as a district, acknowledges the legal issues, and envisions that a
specific plan will be formulated "at the appropriate time." Section 2.6, page 61. Since
the LUCE already provides for the formulation and adoption of a specific plan, the City's
proposed Charter amendment could: (1) emphasize that the specific plan must be
adopted to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses; and (2) strictly limit the amount
and/or type of development that may occur prior to adoption and implementation of the
specific plan that protects local quality of life.
Basic limitations on interim development could be specified in the measure itself or the
measure could require Council to adopt interim limitations. Assuming Council wishes to
specify basic limits in the measure in order to reassure residents, there are various
alternatives. To list a few, if the Airport were closed but a plan not yet adopted, the
measure could: (1) prohibit any new development at the Airport; (2) prohibit
development exceeding specified standards or zoning designations; or (3) allow for the
maintenance and replacement of existing structures only. Moreover, the language
could state that existing arts and educational uses should be protected.
Staff recommends language substantially as follows to limit interim uses
"Until the adoption of a Specific Plan for the future use of the
Airport land, the prohibition contained in this section shall not
preclude the City Council from acting in accordance with
applicable law to approve the following on Airport land that has
been permanently closed to aviation use: the development of
parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; the
maintenance and replacement to their present size of existing
permanent structures; and the continuation of existing cultural,
arts and education uses."
Staff notes that in considering what, if any, development the measure should allow prior
to adoption of a specific plan, Council should bear in mind that City land -use initiatives
are subject to CEQA requirements. And, the time available for fulfilling those
requirements is limited.
The City has already complied with CEQA as to requiring preparation of a specific plan.
The LUCE imposes that requirement, and the certified LUCE EIR is adequate. The
proposed exception to the prohibition against development until after approval of a
specific plan, which would allow for possible interim approval of parks, public open
spaces and public recreational facilities, does not, in itself, constitute a CEQA project.
That is because the exception does not authorize the undertaking of any such
development or use. Any future park or other recreational facility that might be
proposed will require separate approvals, after compliance with CEQA and applicable
other applicable laws. Finally, the continuation and replacement of existing uses and
structures, as well as the other provisions of the initiative measure, are exempt from
CEQA review as these activities do not have the potential for causing a significant effect
on the environment. See CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
As to ensuring that the City's measure would override the aviation interests' initiative,
the law provides guidance. In the case of competing measures, the California
Constitution establishes that "If provisions of two or more measures approved at the
same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall
prevail." Article II, section 10(b). The California Supreme Court has explained that this
0
rule applies to the measure as a whole and not to individual provisions within a
measure. So, if two ballot measures are clearly intended to be competing, and both are
approved by the voters, the courts cannot harmonize them by preserving one or more
specific provisions of the measure receiving fewer votes, even if that particular provision
does not conflict with a particular provision in the measure receiving more votes.
Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. FPPC, 51 Cal.3d 744 (1991). In contrast, if
two measures on the same ballot are intended to be complementary or supplementary,
the courts may preserve particular provisions in the measure receiving fewer votes,
which are not in conflict with particular language of the other measure. Yoshisato v.
Superior Court, 2 Cal.4th 978 (1992).
Council has expressed its intent to place a fully competing measure on the ballot so that
the voters may make an "all or nothing" choice between the two measures. And, both
the record and the language of the measure should and will reflect that intent. Thus, if
the City's measure and the aviation community's measure both pass, and the City
receives more votes, no provision of the other measure would become effective.
To ensure this result, staff recommends that the findings include information on the
Council's intent and the substantive provisions include the following language
"This measure is intended to compete with, prevail over, and
nullify all provisions of any other charter amendment placed on
the same ballot that relates to the Santa Monica Airport,
including the measure proposed by Lauren McCollum, Nikos
Kokotakis, and Flora Yin, who requested a ballot title and
summary on March 26, 2014 for a proposed initiative which
they stated would require voter approval before the City could
redevelop Airport land."
In addition to offering the voters a measure that will successfully compete with and
prevail over the aviation interests' measure, Council wishes to preserve, to the full
extent allowed by law, its authority to manage and to close, or partially close the Airport,
so that adverse impacts may be minimized. And, staff agrees that retention of this
►/
authority is essential to the community's welfare. This authority enables the Council to
act, consistent with applicable law and agreements, to protect Airport neighbors from
adverse impacts through leasing policy and, to a lesser extent, through regulatory
measures. And, it enables the Council to shield the City from liability for adverse
impacts to the full extent allowed by law. Requiring voter approval for changes in
leasing policy, as proposed in the aviation interests' initiative, would frustrate efforts to
protect Airport neighbors' health, safety and welfare and would thereby exacerbate the
City's liability risks. Thus, the aviation interests' measure would protect the benefits that
flow to aviation interests from the status quo at the Airport to the detriment of the
community.
As to closure, the federal government and aviation interests dispute Council's authority
to close all or part of the Airport. And, that dispute will likely eventually be resolved in
court. However, whatever the extent of Council's authority may be, it must be preserved
to give Council the broadest possible range of options for protecting community welfare.
Based on these considerations, staff recommends including the following express
language in the measure to achieve the goal of offering voters a measure that would
preserve Council's authority to protect their welfare:
"Subject only to limitations imposed by law, the City Council
shall have full authority, without voter approval, to regulate use
of the Santa Monica Airport, manage leaseholds, condition
leases and close all or part of the Airport."
Alternatives
At least in theory, there are many alternatives for the City's competing measure. If the
Council wishes to incorporate additional language to allay residents' concerns about
possible overdevelopment of the Airport land, the language requiring adoption of a
specific plan in advance of development could be buttressed with additional procedural
steps. For example, development could be prohibited or limited until after such a plan is
t:3
both adopted and implemented through the zoning process. Staff has no significant
legal concern about this alternative and merely notes that the zoning process can be
quite lengthy.
And, if Council wishes to provide additional assurance that the Airport land will not be
overdeveloped in the future, it could add to the competing measure language requiring
voter approval of a framework for the specific plan. Thus, at or near the time when
Council can legally decide on closure of all or part of the Airport, Council could place a
measure before the voters that would guide preparation of the specific plan for use of
the Airport land. Such a measure could, for instance, supply guidance as to the
principal land uses to be provided for in the plan.
In contrast, staff recommends against adding to the competing measure a requirement
for voter approval of the specific plan. The planning process necessarily involves a
thorough and painstaking identification, elucidation and balancing of competing
concerns. Once such a balance is finally struck, a simple yes or no vote on the entire
plan does not afford guidance as to revisions. To the contrary, a "no" vote might require
starting the entire process over, from its very beginning.
Likewise, staff recommends against proposing a competing measure that would
narrowly specify what types of improvements would be allowed on the Airport land. For
instance, at least in theory, the measure could prohibit or require voter approval for,
among other things: any project on the Airport land exceeding a particular size or
height; any use other than a use or uses specified in the measure; development more
intense than a specified zoning density; development exceeding total presently
developed square footage at the Airport; or development more dense than surrounding
neighborhoods. However, as previously noted, this approach would require CEQA
analysis. And, most important, it would deprive the community of the planning process
and eliminate flexibility. Therefore, given the multitude of competing considerations, the
attendant complexity of the endeavor, and the constant evolution of circumstances and
9
community needs, staff strongly recommends following the course set in the LUCE and
utilizing the planning process to formulate a specific plan with safeguards to restrict
development until the plan is approved. That is the process which best elucidates and
balances competing considerations and protects flexibility for contingencies and
collateral consequences that cannot be foreseen.
Other potential alternatives involve adding to the list of types of improvements or
development that would be allowed in advance of adoption and implementation of a
specific plan for use of the Airport land. For example, theoretically, the City's measure
could allow for types of development that comport with City priorities, such as affordable
housing. However, this approach, which would also expand potential future uses of
Airport land through the ballot measure, would also require some level of environmental
review.
Procedural Issues
In conjunction with discussions of the aviation interests' measure, questions have arisen
about the effective date of its provisions. By its own terms, the measure would be
effective as of the date that it was first filed with the City Clerk, which was in May.
Community members have argued that the measure would, instead, become effective
when the measure was placed on the ballot, which would be at the end of July, if the
measure qualifies. Their argument is based on the general provision of the Elections
Code which fixes the effective date of ballot measures that do not contain retroactivity
provisions. That section establishes a general rule that ballot measures become
effective upon adoption unless the measure specifies otherwise. Because the aviation
interests' measure specifies a different effective date, the Elections Code provision does
not control.
Questions have also arisen as to whether, if the aviation interests' measure qualifies for
the ballot, Council has alternatives to placing that measure on the November ballot. For
instance, staff has been asked whether the Council could direct staff to study the
impacts of the measure and report back to Council. The Elections Code provides this
10
alternative for initiatives amending the municipal code so that Council can determine
whether or not to itself adopt the measure, rather than sending it to the voters.
However, the aviation community's measure would amend the City Charter, not the
municipal code. Therefore, the Council could not adopt the measure; and the Elections
Code consequently does not authorize a delay for a study to inform the Council's
decision.
Staff has also been asked whether the measure could be delayed to a later election.
Staff recommends against this option as legally risky given the staunch protection that
the courts afford to the initiative process.
Next Steps
Staff will return at the July 22 "d meeting with ballot language and the resolutions
necessary to place the City's competing measure on the ballot. The County Registrar
must complete its signature verification process by July 23`d. If the results of that
process are unknown on the 22 "d, Council may wish to continue its regular meeting and
reconvene the next evening to make its final decision about placing the measure on the
ballot.
11
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
No direct financial impacts would arise from the recommended action. Adding a
measure to the ballot would slightly increase election costs. Information about those
costs will be presented when the resolutions to place the measure on the ballot are
brought to Council.
Prepared by: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Approved:
Forwarded to Council:
Mars f a Jon e loutrie Z Rod Gould
City Attorney City Manager
Attachments:
A. Proposed Charter Amendment
B. Alternative Language For Proposed Charter Amendment
12
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica owns and operates Santa Monica Airport ( "the Airport "),
and significant controversy exists about the Airport's future and the future use of the 227 acres
that comprise the Airport land;
WHEREAS, the Airport is one of the oldest general aviation airports in the country; dating back
to the 1920's, when the City acquired the Airport and Airport land and aviation was in its
infancy;
WHEREAS, over the decades since the City acquired the Airport, aviation, the City, and the
Airport's surroundings have all changed dramatically;
WHEREAS, when the City acquired the Airport, it was a simple landing strip surrounded by
agricultural fields;
WHEREAS, prior to and during World War II, the Airport became home to Douglas Aircraft,
and it became the City's major employer and the country's foremost aircraft manufacturer;
WHEREAS, during the war years, the City supported the war effort by leasing the Airport to the
federal government; Douglas employees worked 24 hours a day, seven days a week, producing
military aircraft; and the property around the airport was developed as housing for Douglas
Aircraft's tens of thousands of workers;
WHEREAS, homes in those residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Airport were built close to
the Airport's boundaries on three sides, with some only 300 feet from the runway ends;
WHEREAS, the end of the World War II brought significant changes: the lease to the federal
government ended, control of the Airport premises was returned to the City, Douglas Aircraft left
the City, and jet aircraft traffic came to the Airport;
WHEREAS, with Douglas Aircraft's departure and the advent of noisy jet aircraft, the
community's interests and the aviation community's interests diverged; and the relationship
between neighbors and the Airport became highly contentious;
WHEREAS, during the ensuing decades, Airport neighbors sued the City claiming that aircraft
noise had ruined their quality of life; airport tenants sued the City claiming that the City's
regulatory efforts had damaged their businesses; and the federal government sued the City
claiming that City regulations, intended to shield neighbors from adverse Airport impacts,
violated federal law;
WHEREAS, the controversies lasted for many years and were, eventually, temporarily resolved
through the adoption of 1984 Settlement Agreement between the City and the federal
government; it resolved all then - pending legal disputes and obligated the City to continue to
operate the Airport until 2015, when the settlement agreement will expire;
WHEREAS, in the last 25 years, as business jet, flight training, and other operations increased,
so did Airport neighbors' complaints about air pollution, noise, and safety risks;
WHEREAS, in recent years, with expiration of the 1984 Agreement and other contractual
obligations approaching, growing numbers of residents have demanded closure of all or part of
the Airport; and their demands increased when a terrible accident at the Airport claimed four
lives last year, including the lives of two well -known community members;
WHEREAS, the City has worked in various ways to address residents' concerns about adverse
Airport impacts, including through the adoption of policies and regulations and the
implementation of various voluntary programs, all intended to curtail noise and air pollution and
to enhance safety;
WHEREAS, the federal government and aviation community have strongly opposed the City's
regulatory efforts and litigation has ensued, calling into question the City's ability to protect its
residents and other Airport neighbors from adverse Airport impacts and to protect itself against
liability claims;
WHEREAS, in response to this dilemma, the City has undertaken a lengthy Airport visioning
process to identify the concerns of members of the local and aviation communities and to explore
all alternatives for the Airport's future, including alternatives other than the extremes of
maintaining the status quo, which is unacceptable to community members, and Airport closure,
which is unacceptable to the federal government and the aviation community;
WHEREAS, despite the City's substantial efforts to identify a range of alternatives, including
any possible compromises, the community remains intensely polarized, with many residents and
other Airport neighbors demanding that the Airport be entirely or partially closed and that the
land be rededicated to another use which would protect and promote public general health, safety
and welfare;
WHEREAS, with the 1984 Agreement about to expire and other federal obligations at or near
expiration, the controversy has escalated; and the City Council has indicated that, unless adverse
impacts are substantially reduced, the City will have no alternative as Airport proprietor and
responsible owner other than closing to aviation use either the entire Airport or a significant
portion of the Airport, which was transferred to the City by quitclaim deed after World War II;
WHEREAS, in response to the Council's indication of concern that it may have no choice other
than closing all or part of the Airport to protect the health, welfare and safety of residents and to
protect the City from liability claims, aviation interests have prepared and circulated an initiative
measure that is intended to protect the status quo and their interests;
WHEREAS, that initiative measure includes a preamble consisting of "findings" about the
Airport that many community members find incomplete, deceptive or simply untrue
WHEREAS, the substantive provisions of the measure proposed by aviation interests would
require voter approval to close the Airport, and also to change aviation uses at the Airport, or
even to impose additional restrictions Airport lessees who provide aviation services; thus the
measure would serve the aviation community's interest in preserving the status quo at the Airport
but would severely limit the City Council's ability to prudently manage and Airport and Airport
land;
WHEREAS, because it would circumscribe the City Council's authority to regulate uses of the
Airport property through lease provisions and other means and would deprive the Council of
whatever authority it has to close all or part of the Airport, the aviation interests' ballot measure
would deprive the City Council of its current ability to protect the health, safety and welfare of
residents;
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to take all possible steps to preserve its ability to protect the
community;
WHEREAS, whatever the future of the Airport, the City is committed to basing decisions about
the future use of the Airport land on complete and reliable information and on an inclusive public
planning process that considers and appropriately balances all competing interests;
WHEREAS, such a process would assess the costs and benefits attendant upon various uses of
the Airport land, including continuing the Airport use, reducing the amount of land devoted to
that use, or making a different use of all or part of the Airport land;
WHEREAS, as part of this process the City would assess the environmental and economic
impacts of these options and, based on the results of that assessment will develop a
recommended specific plan for the Airport land;
WHEREAS, in order to ensure community support for the plan and also to preserve its own
ability to protect residents health, safety and welfare, it is necessary for the Council to propose its
own, competing amendment to the City Charter, which, if adopted by more votes, would
override and nullify the measure proposed by aviation interests;
WHEREAS, the Council intends that its measure should strike a balance between preserving the
Council's authority to protect the community against harmful airport impacts but also assure the
community that the Airport will not be overdeveloped in the future;
WHEREAS, to accomplish these goals, the Council wishes to offer the voters a competing
measure that would require preparation of a specific plan for future use of the Airport land, if and
when the land is no longer devoted to aviation uses, and would specify that the plan must be
developed so as to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and preservation of residents'
qualify of life;
WHEREAS, because this initiative measure addresses the same subject matter as the initiative
measure that has been circulated by aviation interests, it is the Council's intention that if this
ballot measure receives more votes than the their initiative, this measure shall prevail and the
other shall be nullified in all respects, even if the aviation community's measure also receives a
majority affirmative vote.
NOW, THEREFORE,
Section 1. The following section shall be added to Article VI of the Santa Monica City Charter:
640. Regulation, Management and Closure of Santa Monica Airport and Future Use of
Airport Land.
Subject only to limitations imposed by law, the City Council shall have full authority, without
voter approval, to regulate use of the Santa Monica Airport, manage Airport leaseholds,
condition leases, and permanently close all or part of the Airport to aviation use.
If and when all or part of the Airport land is permanently closed to aviation use, no new
development of that land shall be allowed unless and until a Specific Plan for its use is
formulated and adopted by the City Council, in accordance with applicable law and through an
inclusive public process, to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and protection of
residents' quality of life.
Until the adoption of a Specific Plan for the future use of Airport land, the prohibition contained
in this section shall not preclude the City Council from acting in accordance with applicable law
to approve the following on Airport land that has been permanently closed to aviation use: the
development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; the maintenance and
replacement to their present size of existing permanent structures; and the continuation of
existing cultural, arts, and education uses.
Section 2. if any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this measure is for any
reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise legally invalid by a decision of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity and force of the remaining
portions of this measure. The City Council hereby declares that it would have placed this City
Charter amendment before the voters, and the voters declare that they would have adopted this
Charter Amendment and each portion thereof regardless of the fact that any portion may be
subsequently declared invalid.
Section 3. This measure is intended to compete with, prevail over, and nullify all provisions of
any other charter amendment placed on the same ballot that relates to the subject of the Santa
Monica Airport, including the measure by proponents Lauren McCollum, Nikos Kokotakis and
Flora Yin, who requested a ballot title and summary on March 26, 2014 for a proposed initiative
which they stated would require voter approval before the City could redevelop Airport land.
4
ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE FOR PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
640. Regulations, Management and Closure of Santa Monica Airport and Future Use
of Airport Land
Subject only to limitations imposed by law, the City Council shall have full authority, without
voter approval, to regulate use of the Santa Monica Airport, manage Airport leaseholds,
condition leases, and permanently close all or part of the Airport to aviation use.
If and when all or part of the Airport land is permanently closed to aviation use, no new
development of that land shall be allowed unless and until a Specific Plan for its use is
formulated and adopted by the City Council, in accordable with applicable law and through an
inclusive public process, to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and protection of
residents' quality of life.
[If and when all or part of the Airport land is permanently closed to aviation use, no new
development of that land shall be allowed unless and until a Specific Plan for its use is
formulated and adopted by the City Council and that plan is implemented through the zoning
process, in accordance with applicable law and through an inclusive public process, to ensure
compatibility with surrounding uses and protection of residents' quality of life.]
[If and when all or part of the Airport is permanently closed to aviation use, no new development
of that land shall be allowed unless and until: the voters approve a conceptual framework to
guide formulation of the Specific Plan, and the Specific Plan is formulated, adopted by the City
Council, and implemented through the zoning process, in accordance with applicable law and
through an inclusive public process, to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and protection
of residents' quality of life.]
Until the adoption of a Specific Plan for the future use of Airport land, the prohibition contained
in this section shall not preclude the City Council from acting in accordance with applicable law
to approve the following on Airport land that has been permanently closed to aviation use: the
development of parks, public open spaces, and public recreational facilities; the maintenance and
replacement to their present size of existing permanent structures; and the continuation of
existing cultural, arts, and education uses.