SR-06-24-2014-8A - 104-092City of City Council Report
Santa Monica'
City Council Meeting: June 24, 2014
Agenda Item: 8'4
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Subject: Proposed City Council Initiative That Would Empower Voters to Decide
Future of Santa Monica Airport and Meanwhile Preserve the City's Ability
to Manage The Airport and Mitigate Its Impacts While Airport's Future Is
Decided
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council direct preparation of the resolutions necessary
to place an initiative on the November ballot that would empower the voters to decide
the future of the Santa Monica Airport ( "Airport ") and in the meantime preserve the
City's authority to manage the Airport and mitigate its adverse impacts.
Executive Summary
At its meeting of May 13 2014, Council directed staff to formulate a proposed ballot
measure relating to the future of the Santa Monica Airport which could, if necessary,
provide voters with an alternative to the initiative measure presently proposed by
aviation interests. The content of that proposed measure is summarized in the City
Attorney's ballot title and summary, which are attached as Attachment 1. Basically, the
measure would require a vote of the people to close the Airport or to change the use of
the Airport land, and it would prohibit the City from imposing additional restrictions on
Airport tenants and users prior to such a vote. Thus, the measure would preserve the
status quo for the benefit of the aviation community and deprive the City Council of its
authority to, for instance, set leasing policy for the Airport and thereby address adverse
impacts of Airport operations on surrounding neighborhoods. Proponents of the
measure contend that it is necessary because, among other things, they assert that
closure of the Airport would inevitably lead to overdevelopment of the property that
would contribute to traffic congestion.
Council rejected this contention and directed staff to formulate a counter measure that
would address concerns about the future of the Airport and future use of the Airport land
but also preserve Council's ability to manage the Airport in order to protect neighbors
and other Santa Monica residents from adverse impacts of Airport operations to the
extent that the law allows.
1
This report recommends preparation of a measure that would give voters the right to
vote on Airport closure without depriving Council of its authority to act to protect
residents from adverse Airport, impacts or otherwise to properly manage the Airport.
Background
On June 30, 2015, the City's 1984 Settlement Agreement with the Federal Aviation
Administration ( "FAA ") will expire, as will all of the existing Airport leases. In addition,
the City's grant agreements with the FAA will expire either this year (as the City
contends) or in 2023 (as the FAA contends). These contractual agreements have
limited the City's options as to operation of the Airport and use of the Airport land for
many years. The City believes that their expiration will yield new opportunities for use
of the Airport land. The federal government disputes that, claiming that the City must
operate the Airport in perpetuity because of obligations flowing from the Instrument of
Transfer, which returned control of the Airport to the City after the federal government's
war -time lease expired.
The City has begun the process of identifying options for the future of the Airport and
the future use of the Airport land. In 2010, the City began the Airport Visioning Process.
It was lengthy and all- inclusive. Hundreds of residents, neighbors, members of the
aviation community and experts participated, sharing their thoughts about possible
alternatives ranging from closure to maintenance of the status quo.
On April 30 2013, Council considered the report on the Visioning Process and
conducted a large public hearing on the Airport's future. At the conclusion of the
hearing, individual Council members expressed their views about closing all or part of
the Airport if impacts could not be severely diminished. And, Council directed staff to
continue to explore with the FAA any alternatives for reducing adverse Airport impacts.
Staff did so. The FAA representatives were respectful and willing to consider the City's
concerns, but they communicated the agency's continuing opposition to City - imposed
restrictions on Airport operations.
0
Last September, a catastrophic crash at the Airport killed four people, including a well -
known community member and his son. This sad event increased community demands
to explore all possibilities for closing all or part of the Airport or somehow drastically
reducing its impacts and enhancing safety. Many residents organized to advocate for
closure of the Airport and reuse of the Airport land as a large, regional park
Faced with these demands from the community, the City filed a quiet title action and
other claims in federal court to ascertain its rights, as Airport proprietor and land owner.
The District Court dismissed the suit on procedural grounds; the City appealed, and that
case is pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.
On March 25 2014, Council conducted a well- attended public hearing on the future of
the Santa Monica Airport. Staff made various recommendations including actions
intended to reduce adverse Airport impacts through changes in leasing policy and the
exercise of the City's zoning authority. Dozens of members of the public spoke in
support of these recommendations and against them. After hearing from staff and the
public, and discussing the matter, Council directed staff to take several actions. These
included, but were not limited to, completing contingency planning for the Airport's
future, working on a conceptual plan based on possible future low- intensity use, and
formulating proposed leasing guidelines and recommendations for zoning designations
that would better protect Airport neighbors from adverse impacts. An amendment to the
main motion, which was incorporated into the direction, specifically required staff to
evaluate options relating to fuel sales at the Airport that could reduce air pollution and
its adverse effects.
Two days after Council gave this direction, on March 27, 2014, members of the aviation
community filed a proposed initiative measure. The proponents titled it: "Voter
Approval Required Before City Can Redevelop Airport Land ". The measure would
amend the City Charter to require voter approval to close or partially close the Airport or
to change the use of any of the land currently used for the Airport from a aviation -
related services to non - aviation purposes. The measure also provides that, unless the
3
voters have approved closure of the Airport and that decision has become "effective ",
the City shall continue to operate the Airport "in a manner that supports its aviation
purposes," and "shall not impose additional restrictions on providers of aviation support
services ... that inhibit the sale of fuel or the full use of aviation facilities."
The proposed measure also contains a provision on retroactivity. It purports to nullify
any City decision made after filing the Notice of Intent to Circulate, which would require
voter approval under the measure, unless and until the voters approve the decision.
Additionally, the measure contains a clause giving any interested person the right to go
to court to enforce the measure's provisions, a severance clause providing that if any
section of the initiative is struck down by a court, the remaining sections will remain in
effect, and a provision specifying that, if a competing measure is on the ballot, the
measure with the most votes will control as to conflicting provisions only.
Finally, the measure is accompanied by findings. They assert that the City has taken
actions to harm local aviation businesses, has undertaken costly litigation relating to the
Airport, and has disregarded the wishes of the entire community with respect to the
Airport. The findings also assert that the Airport is a low- density use, that the City has
approved high- density developments, and that staff has previously noted that, if the
Airport were closed, it might be redeveloped to greater density than the present Airport
use.
A ballot title and summary were prepared pursuant to requirements of state law and
were transmitted to the City Clerk ( "Clerk ") on April 2nd. A copy is attached.
Thereafter, proponents of the measure began circulating petitions, using paid signature
gatherers.
At its meeting of May 13, 2014, with the petitions circulating, Council discussed the
possibility of placing a competing measure on the ballot and directed staff to return with
a recommendation for such a measure. In the course of this discussion, Council
10
reiterated its commitment to low- density use of the Airport land, which had been part of
the direction given on March 25th.
The petitions were submitted to the Clerk on June 10, 2014. The Clerk has transmitted
the petitions to the County Registrar, and the verification process is ongoing.
Discussion
The Airport's future is presently unknown and will remain so at least until the City's legal
authority to control the use of its land is clarified by the courts — a process which will
likely take years. For now, the City remains obligated to operate the Airport in
conformity with the law and its contractual obligations. Council has decided that it is
essential during this time -- however, long it may be -- to do whatever can be done to
reduce adverse Airport impacts on residents and neighbors and to continue with
contingency planning for the Airport's future.
The measure proposed by the aviation community would attempt to limit the Council's
authority to achieve the first of these short -term goals. The measure purports to prohibit
any change in the use of land now used for "aviation services" without voter approval. It
also purports to require that voters approve the Airport closure and that the closure
decision become "effective" before Council could "impose additional restrictions on
providers of aviation support services to tenants and airport users that inhibit the sale of
fuel or the full use of aviation facilities." Thus, while the presently proposed measure
may well have appeal to voters because it would allow them to cast their vote on a
singularly important land use matter, it would also protect vested interests at the Santa
Monica Airport by shielding them against Council action.
The proposed initiative's express prohibition against regulating fuel sales is the clearest
example. At the meeting of March 25, 2014, staff reported on promising advances in
the area of aircraft fuel, which will alleviate air pollution. And, Council directed staff to
evaluate options for regulating fuel sales in order to control air pollution from aircraft
141
exhaust. Staff is fulfilling that directive and will return to Council later this summer.
However, the aviation community's initiative seeks to prohibit "additional restrictions on
providers of aviation support services ... that inhibit the sale of fuel" unless the voters
have approved the closure of the airport. So, if that measure passed and became
effective, Council could be deprived of its authority to address fuel sales through leasing
policies. A competing measure could preserve the Council's ability to negotiate leases
with aviation service providers that would, for instance, require the provision of
unleaded fuel.
Moreover, the prohibition against regulating fuel sales is not the only restriction that the
proposed measure attempts to impose upon the City. The measure could, for instance,
erode or eliminate the City's ability to reduce noise impacts. As reported on March 25tH
advances in aviation technology provide new possibilities for reducing noise. Light
aircraft technology may provide an option for much quieter flight training. And, even if it
does not, the City's testing has shown that noise impacts are reduced when training
aircraft are equipped with mufflers. However, the proposed initiative could prohibit
requiring the utilization of such technology at the Airport because such a requirement
might be characterized as an "additional restriction on providers of aviation support
services "that will inhibit ... the full use of aviation facilities." And, given the breadth of
the quoted language, any restriction on lessees' activities that the City attempts to put in
place to protect residents and neighbors might be challenged as an inhibition upon
aviation services.
Thus, it is clear that the proposed initiative goes much farther than giving the voters the
right to decide the Airport's future. It attempts to also deprive the Council of its power as
land owner to regulate the use of leaseholds and of its police power to protect the
health, safety and welfare of residents and neighbors unless and until the voters decide
to close the Airport and "such decision has become effective."
0
And, that would likely be years from now. Experience makes very clear that if the
question of whether to close the Airport were placed on the ballot, and the voters chose
closure, their decision would likely be immediately challenged in court. And, the
ensuing litigation would last for years as each side fully exhausted all possible appeals.
During all that time, the proposed initiative would purportedly prevent modifying lease
terms to minimize adverse impacts.
Therefore, staff recommends that Council consider a competing measure which would
give residents the right to decide the Airport's future but would also preserve the
Council's ability to manage the Airport and its impacts in the meanwhile. Such a
measure could include the requirement that voters approve closure of the Airport. In
this one regard it would be similar to the presently proposed initiative. However, it
would differ substantially in that it would not restrict the Council's authority while the
Airport remains open. Such a measure would preserve the Council's authority to
manage the Airport and control use of the Airport land while the Airport remains open.
Thus, Council would retain its current authority to minimize adverse impacts through
lease provisions.
A competing measure is also recommended to address the retroactivity provision of the
proposed measure. That provision specifies that "[a]ny City decision that would require
voter approval under this Charter Amendment and that is made on or after the date of
the filing with the City Clerk of the Notice of Intent to Circulate ... shall have no effect
until such decision receives voter approval ..." Thus the proposed measure purports to
lock in the status quo at the Airport as of the date the petitioners first filed with the City,
which was March 27, 2014. This was two days after Council gave staff directions for
the formulation of new leasing and land use policies, among other things. This
provision may not be enforceable. However, like the substantive provisions of the
measure, the retroactivity clause is clearly intended to preserve the status quo at the
Airport for the benefit of Airport businesses and Airport users, even to the point of
7
eliminating follow through on Council directions already given to staff. A competing
measure could include a provision to counter this retroactivity clause.
Thus, in summary, staff proposes to prepare a competing measure that would: (a)
empower the voters to decide whether the Airport should be completely or partially
closed and the City's land dedicated to another use; (b) preserve the Council's authority
as proprietor and governing body to manage the Airport and mitigate its impacts while
the Airport remains open; and (c) override the provisions of the proposed initiative that
would lock in the status quo at the Airport.
Alternatives
As an alternative, Council could determine that it is unnecessary or inadvisable to
sponsor a competing measure. The initiative proposed by Aviation interests may not
qualify for the ballot. However, whether it has qualified will not be known until mid or
late July at which point it might be difficult to prepare a competing measure and place it
on the November ballot. Or, the proposed initiative may qualify for the ballot but be
rejected by the voters. However, given the risks attendant upon possible passage of
the proposed measure and the possible detriment to the community, staff recommends
against this alternative.
Council also has alternatives as to the substance of a competing measure. For
instance, Council could direct staff to prepare a measure that would dictate a particular
future use of the Airport land if the Airport were closed. Or, a measure could establish
specific parameters or standards for possible future use of the land. However, staff
recommends against such alternatives in order to preserve the community's ability to
engage in a robust, thorough and inclusive community process for making crucial
decisions about the future use of the Airport land.
L
Next Steps
If Council directs staff to prepare a competing measure it will be brought to Council
within the next month, likely along with other ballot measures.
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 ballot measures are brought to Council.
Prepared by: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Approved:
Mar ha Jone; outrie
City {torney�,
Attachments:
A) Ballot and Title Summary
N
Forwarded to Council:
R. t-:)
Rod Gould
City Manager
ATTACHMENT A
BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY
PREPARED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
AN INITIATIVE MEASURE AMENDING THE CITY CHARTER TO REQUIRE
VOTER APPROVAL IN ORDER TO CLOSE ALL OR PART OF THE SANTA
MONICA AIRPORT, CHANGE USE OF THE AIRPORT LAND, OR IMPOSE
NEW RESTRICTIONS ON FUEL SALES OR USE OF AVIATION FACILITIES
This measure would add a new provision to the City Charter requiring voter approval of certain
decisions about the Santa Monica Municipal Airport. Voter approval would be required before a
City decision to close or partially close the airport could become effective. Voter approval would
also be required before any City decision could become effective to change the use of land,
which is now used for the airport or for related aviation services, to non - aviation uses. The
measure defines "voter approval" as a majority of those voting in a general municipal election
voting "yes" to approve the City decision.
Also, unless the voters approved closure of the airport, and until that decision became effective,
the measure would require the City to continue operating the airport in a manner that supported
its aviation purposes and would prohibit the City from imposing upon aviation services providers
new restrictions that would inhibit the sale of fuel or the "full use" of aviation facilities.
Additionally, the measure includes a retroactivity provision. It states that any City decision
about the airport that is made after the filing of the Notice of Intention to Circulate the initiative
petition (but before the election), and that would require voter approval under the measure,
would be ineffective unless approved by the voters.
Finally, the measure includes provisions that provide for enforcement and defense of the
measure, severance of any invalidated provisions, and the possibility of another measure on the
same subject and the same ballot.
\ \Csmfs ACity AttorneyWdminislrationWsersWiersha .Moutne\BALLOT TITLE AND SUMIARY,..A..x