SR-07-22-2014-8D - 800-008-02To: Mayor and City Council
From: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Subject: Proposed City Initiative That Would Amend The City Charter To Assure
Voter Control Of The Airport Land, If And When The Airport Is Closed, But
Would Also Preserve The City Council's Current Authority To Manage Or
Close The Airport And That Would Directly Compete With the Initiative
Proposed By Aviation Interests
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution that would
place on the November 2014 ballot an initiative measure amending the City Charter to:
(1) expressly preserve the Council's authority as airport proprietor to both manage the
Santa Monica Airport ( "Airport ") for however long it remains open and close all or part of
the Airport to aviation use subject to applicable legal restrictions; (2) prohibit new, non -
recreational development of the Airport land until the voters approve parameters for how
the land will be used and those parameters are effectuated through an adopted specific
plan; and (3) compete with the initiative proposed by aviation interests.
Executive Summary
Aviation interests have proposed an initiative measure that would preserve the status
quo at the Airport. Concerned that this measure would effectively preclude efforts to
Council directed staff to
mitigate Airport impacts on neighbors and the environment,
prepare a competing measure for the November 2014 ballot.
In response to recommendations presented at the meeting of July__e, Council directed
staff to return with three specific alternatives for the City's competing measure. Council
directed that each should compete with the measure proposed by aviation interests; and
each should empower voters to decide how the Airport land would be used after any
future total or partial closure of the Airport, subject to applicable legal restrictions. As to
exactly how the voters would be empowered, Council requested preparation of three
different wordings: one that would clearly, directly, and concisely give voters the
authority to establish parameters for use of the land; a second that would require voter
approval for any development of the land other than parks, public open spaces, 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; and a third that would require voter approval of a specific plan. All three options
19
would compete with the aviation interests' proposed measure. This report and the
attachments fulfill that direction.
Staff's recommendation is that Council adopt the first option: a ballot measure that will
empower the voters to make an early decision on how they wish the Airport land is to be
used if all or part of the Airport is closed. Under that option, the voters' direction would
frame the development of a specific plan for use of the Airport at such time as the
Airport may be completely or partially closed. Any new development would be
and
prohibited until after adoption of the specific plan, except that: parks, open sp approval
public recreational facilities could be developed (subject to applicable
procedures); existing buildings could be maintained or replaced to present size; and
current cultural, arts and educational uses could continue.
The report also discusses the other two options identified by Council. Staff does not
recommend them because they would deprive the City and future Councils of the
authority and flexibility to meet changing community needs. Thus, for instance, if a
specific plan were subject to voter approval, it could likely only be amended by the
voters. This process requirement would make it impossible for the City Council and City
to respond promptly to community needs.
Background
Aviation interests have proposed a ballot measure that would amend the City Charter to
require a vote of the people to close the Airport and would maintain the status quo at
the Airport until such a vote occurs. Their measure would protect national and local
aviation interests by severely limiting Council's ability to protect community health,
safety and welfare. Specifically, in the short run, their measure would immediately limit
Council's authority to establish leasing policies that would protect the environment and
Airport neighbors against adverse impacts of aviation activities. And, in the long run, it
would deprive the Council of the authority to decide to close all or part of the Airport
when legally possible. Accordingly, Council directed staff to prepare a competing
measure that would preserve Council's authority but also reassure residents that, if and
when the Airport is completely or partially closed, the land will not be overdeveloped.
Staff made recommendations as directed. And, on July 8, 2014, Council directed staff
to return with three options for the City's competing measure. concept would empower
the voters, through clear and simple ballot language, to app rove a c
of the Airport land that would frame the subsequent development of a specific plan.
2
And, until the specific plan was developed and approved, the measure would prohibit
new, non - recreational development. The second option would require voter approval
for anything other than 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.
The third option would require voter approval of a specific plan for reuse of the Airport
land.
Discussion
Staff recommends that Council approve the first option that
ove or disapprove ldf amewo k
meeting. This option would empower the voters to app
for how the Airport land would be developed roved, this f framework all
would aestablish and used
Airport is closed to aviation use. If app
of the
parameters for the subsequent formulation of a specifioped the City would nneed to
Airport land. If the proposed framework were not app o
present another to the voters before a specific plan
val was could effectuated oughuthe public
until voters Gave their approval and that approval
out the will of the voters, the
formulation and adoption of a specific plan carry o�
development that would be allowed on Airport land would be parks, public open spaces,
public recreational facilities, maintenance and replacement to their present size of
existing permanent structures, and the continuation of existing cultural, arts, and
education uses.
Staff recommends this option because it will best address concerns about possible over
development of the land. New development would enot
i be
lan allowed
be developed until
formulation and adoption of a specific plan. A
the voters approve a framework establishing p arameters for that specific plan.
This approach also affords the incalculable benefits of maintaining the flexibility of the
City's police powers. Thus, it would preserve the City Council's, the City's, and the
3
community's ability to promptly and efficiently address changing needs and embrace
future possibilities as they emerge in the years to come. Those needs and possibilities
ome cannot be foreseen at all. Moreover, they
Y
cannot be predicted with certainty, and s
will arise in multi- faceted contexts that cannot now be foretold. Thus,
tan future eloce
of the City and its residents can best be protected by
representative government's ability to protect the public's health, safety and welfare
through the legislative process and by ensuring sound management of the Airport so
long as it remains in use.
Alters a measure that
As to the second opt ion identified by Council, staff recommends against new development other than parks, p ublic open
would require voter approval for any
spaces, public recreational facilities, the replacement to their present size of existing
permanent structures; and the continuation of existing cultural arts and education uses.
This limitation would be inconsistent W ith the policy adupded e calls
future development, And, it
the formulation of a specific plan for the Airport to g
would be a significant constraint o the development future
nd and legislation.
Likewise, action to
meet emerging needs through policy opment
Likewise, staff continues to recommend against amending the City Charter to require
voter approval of a specific plan for reuse of Airport land following closure of all or part
of the Airport. As explained on July 8, 2014, the process of developing a specific plan is
iterative. it necessarily involves a thorough, painstaking, and lengthy effort by the
community and staff to identify, elucidate and balance competing needs and concerns.
Without a vote on the parameters, the City would have to
to guess at the voters, rhea desires of simple yes or
voters. And, once such an unguided specific plan was put
no vote on the entire specific plan would afford no guidance as to revisions that might
be acceptable to the community.
And, even more important, if a specific plan is approved by the voters, any significant
amendment to that plan would almost certainly require voter approval. Generally
4
speaking, the California Constitution prohibits legislative amendments to initiative
measures. Article 2, Section 10; Qualified Patients Assn v. CitealouslAnaheim, lthe
Cal.Rotr.3d 89, 99 (2010). This prohibition is intended to I Y guard
electorate's initiative power "; indeed, "no other state .. carries the concept of initiatives
as 'written in stone to such lengths as California ". People v. Kelly, 47 Cal.4�" 1008,
1030 (2010) Thus, the California Constitution allows for legislative amendment to an
initiative statue only when the initiative itself permits amendment or repeal without voter
approval. Article 2, Section 10. However, a City measure allowing the Council to
modify a voter- approved specific plan for future use of Airport land would need to be
on the Council's
exceptionally carefully crafted with l for Council specific
imot modify placed
voter - approved
discretion. And, any such allowan Ce
plan, no matter how carefully crafted, could be unappealing to voters.
By contrast, the alternative which staff recommends would empower the voters to
identify the parameters that would guide development of the specific plan. Thus, the
voters could clearly express their views on the policies for use of the Airport land. And,
the myriad details of the specific plan could be subsequently
process.
formulated based on the
voters' guidance and through a full
Environmental Analysis "CEQA")
The City has already complied with the California Environmental Quality Act
That requirement is imposed by the
as to the requirement of preparing a specific plan.
culation Element ("LUCE"), which was itself the subject of the most
Land Use and Cir
t Report ("OR"). The proposed
extensive CEQA process, an Environmental Impac
measure would not constitute an amendment or alteration to the LUCE. Thus, as to the to
requirement of preparing a specific plan, the certified LUCE EIRr s adeq u t i self be t
CEQA requirements. And, of course, any specific plan that may
scrutinized under CEQA.
5
The narrow proposed exception to the prohibition against development until after voter
approval of a framework and adoption 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 because the exception does not authorize
implementation of any such development or use. Any particular park or recreational
facility that might be proposed will require separate approval, after compliance with
CEQA and other applicable laws. And, the continuation and replacement of existing
uses and structures, as well as the other provisions of the proposed measure, are
exempt from CEQA review because they do not have the potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment. See, for example, CEQA Guidelines Section
15061(b)(3).
Next Steps
Once Council has decided upon the content of the City's measure and adopted the
resolution necessary to add the measure to the November ballot, the City Clerk will
perform the actions necessary to add the measure to the November ballot. These
actions include, among other things, transmitting the Council's direction and request to
the County. Also, the City Attorney will prepare an impartial analysis, which will be
included in the official information provided to voters, along with arguments for and
against the measure.
0
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
The City Clerk estimates that the cost of placing this measure on the ballot would be
ill undertake the necessary actions to add the
$5,000. The County of Los Angeles w
measure to the ballot and will bill the City for those services. Funding is available in the
FY 2014 -15 Adopted Budget in account number 01212.555060 (Professional Services)
under the Elections Division of the Records & Election Services /City Clerk's
Department.
Prepared by: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Forwarded to Council:
Approved:
Gould
Ma ha Jo s Moutrie City Manager
City Attorne
Attachments: A. Resolution with Exhibit 1 Council
B. Three Alternatives Requested By
7
ATTACHMENT B
ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE FOR PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
640, Regulation, Management and Closure of Santa Monica Airport and Future Use
of Airport Land
imposed by law, the City A corm leaseholds, condition leases, leases,
Subject only to limitations imp manage approval.
regulate use of the Santa Monica Airport,
and permanently close all or part of the Airport to aviation use, without voter ap
ALTERNATIVE 1:
Airport land is permanently closed to aviation use, �o° approved a
If all or part of the 1 the voters have app
uide the content of a Specific Plan for the Airport land
development of that land shall be allowed until (rotection of residents' quality of life
framework of allowable tibil'dy with o gulunding uses and p
and ensure comp
and (2) that Specific Plan has been formulated and adopted in accordance with law an
through an inclusive public process.
Council shall not be prohibited from
Until the adoption of that Specific Plan, the City on Airport land that has been
the following arks, public open spaces, and
approving, in accordance with law, mene of p resent size of
lacement to their present
and
permanently closed to aviation use: the anc op cultural,
public recreational facilities; the maintenance and rep
existing permanent structures; and the continuation of existing
education uses.
ALTERNATIVE 2:
ermanently closed to aviation use, oval except the City
If all or part of the Airport land is p arks, public
approve the development of
ement to their
development ofinhaccorrdance shall
with law, may without voter ap
council, acting cultural,
open spaces, public recreational permanent structures, continuation of existing
present size of existing p
arts and education uses.
1
ALTERNATIVE 3:
If 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 have approved a Specific Plan for
use of the Airport land. Until the voters approve a Specific Plan for the future use of
Airport land, the City Council shall not be prohibited from approving, in accordance with
law, 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.
`a
Reference:
Resolution No. 10827
(CCS)