Loading...
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)