SANTA MONICA CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM (NON-PRIVILEGED)
TO: Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Councilmembers, and City Manager FROM: City Attorney’s Office
RE: Compass Rose Landmark Designation Appeal
DATE: November 11, 2024
I. OVERVIEW
On September 9, 2019, the Landmarks Commission designated the Compass Rose as a City Landmark. On September 19, 2019, Appellant Ben Wang (Appellant) timely filed an appeal. After numerous continuances, the public hearing for this matter was set for October 22, 2024.
On the day of the hearing, Appellant submitted additional written correspondence with respect to the appeal. In that correspondence, Appellant noted that he was actually in favor of the Landmark Designation for the Compass Rose. However, Appellant confirmed that he would not withdraw his appeal and also invoked a number of legal issues that, although not relevant to or dispositive of the issues on appeal, the City Attorney’s Office would like to clarify for both the Appellant and City Council to ensure a clear record on this appeal. As stated on the record on October 22, 2024, the appeal was pulled from the agenda and was ultimately scheduled on the next available Council date of November 11, 2024, to allow for this response. Recently, the Appellant has submitted additional requests, which are also not relevant to or dispositive of the issues on this appeal but are nonetheless noted below.
As noted in the October 22, 2024, Staff Report, the very limited issue presented to the Council on appeal is whether the Compass Rose meets one or more of the criteria for a City Landmark as set forth in Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9.56.100(A), which the Appellant is not disputing.
II. APPELLANT’S IDENTIFIED ISSUES
In an email dated, October 22, 2024, Appellant made the following requests:
A. Correct Government Records (Wrong Parcel Number)
Appellant’s Request: The applicant identified the landmark to be on Parcel Number 4272- 026-902, and this is currently how it appears in government records. The correct Parcel Number should be 4272-016-903 and 4272-015-900.
Appellant alleges that the application identified the Compass Rose Landmark to be on the incorrect Parcel Number. This issue has no bearing on the appeal or the Landmark designation. The Statement of Official Action (STOA) does not require nor does it identify any parcel number for the proposed landmark. To the extent any City records reflect this incorrect Parcel Number, they can be updated accordingly. //
//
B. Confirm if the Landmark Designation Has Any Impact on the Schedule of Resolution 11026 and the SM Airport Conversion Project
Appellant’s Request: Please “ensure that SMO will cease to operate as an airport and shall be closed to all aeronautical use forever effective as of midnight on December 31, 2028” per Resolution 11026 or identify any potential schedule impacts. Please identify any potential schedule impacts or confirm the Airport Conversion Project will not be delayed by this landmark designation.
Resolution 11026 signed February 28, 2017, notes that Council desires that the City take all actions necessary to comply with the Consent Decree, so that the Santa Monica Airport will close effective as of midnight on December 31, 2028. The Airport Conversion Project follows the directives in the Resolution.
The Landmark designation of the Compass Rose will not affect the Resolution or the potential closure of the airport pursuant to the Consent Decree. Staff has addressed this concern in the Council appeal staff report, noting:
“Staff’s review of the Consent Decree finds that there is no basis in the Consent Decree or in its incorporated grant assurances that limit the City’s ability to designate the Compass Rose as a landmark since such designation does not affect the safe or efficient operation of the Airport as an aviation facility. Neither the Consent Decree nor Charter Section 640 is relevant to the City’s landmarks process as it relates to the Compass Rose.” The Airport Conversion Project has no bearing on whether the Compass Rose meets the findings to be a designated Landmark. The Airport Conversion Project is already underway and proceeding independent of Council’s consideration of the Landmark designation appeal hearing.
C. Clarify if the Compass Rose can Potentially be Relocated Appellant’s Request: The Landmark Commission found the Compass Rose has been relocated over time and the “current location is not necessarily historic.” Can it be moved or re-painted if necessary to align with future park plans? For example, could it be moved to where the Museum of Flying is if it was determined to be the best location for it? Yes, the Compass Rose can be relocated. Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.56.140, the Landmarks Commission can issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for any proposed alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation or demolition, in whole or in part, of or to a Landmark or Landmark Parcel, so long as it meets the enumerated criteria. The City has a history of granting Certificates of Appropriateness to allow proposed relocations of historic resources where the request meets the enumerated criteria. These include, but are not limited to, 1333 and 1337 Ocean Avenue (Gehry Project), 2520 Second Street (Shotgun House), and 2501 Second Street.
As indicated in the draft Council STOA, Section III, the location of the Compass Rose near or adjacent to the airfield, runway, taxiway, or other associated feature is listed as one of four character-defining features. This means if the Council concurs that the location is a character-defining feature, the Landmarks Commission, when deciding on a Certificate of Appropriateness for any proposed relocation of the Compass Rose, would consider its proximity near or adjacent to the former location of the airfield, runway, taxiway, or other associated feature.
D. Obtain Written Approval for the City’s Legal Use of the Trademarked Symbol
Appellant’s Request: Ninety-Nines, Inc., a Delaware Corporation located in Oklahoma, is the legal owner and licensor of the trademark. The Los Angeles 99s is only a chapter of the Southwest Section of the Ninety-Nines® International Organization of Woman Pilots® and is likely a licensee of the trademark. To ensure proper use of the symbol and to avoid litigation the City if encouraged to obtain written approval from the trademark owner.
This issue did not arise in any prior public hearings for the Compass Rose and has no bearing on the Landmark status of the Compass Rose. Further, the City is unaware of any alleged trademark infringement claims with respect to the Compass Rose, which has been in its current form since the late 1980s. Nonetheless, the City will engage with the applicant (the 99s) to ensure proper use of any trademarks.
E. Public Access & Funding Opportunities
Appellant’s Request: Help make the landmark accessible to the public as soon as possible and direct the City to explore grants from the National Park Service Historic Preservation Funds to protect the land and to support the future Great Park.
This request is not relevant to Council’s consideration of whether the Compass Rose meets the findings to be a designated Landmark. Exploring funding opportunities will take place separately as part of the Airport Conversion Project.
III. ADDITIONAL REQUESTS
On October 27, 2024, after the initial hearing had been scheduled, the Appellant contacted the City with the following additional requests:
(a) Add “Near or Within a Park or Recreation Area” to the character defining features. (b) Add “ordinal directions” to the Compass Rose for consistency with the NinetyNine's trademarked 16-point Compass Rose to address visual inconsistency. (c) Clarify as to whether the Compass Rose is functional or decorative? As above, these requests are not relevant to Council’s consideration of whether the Compass Rose meets the findings to be a designated Landmark and should not be considered by the Council as relevant in this appeal.
IV. CONCLUSION
As noted above, the Appellant has stated support for the Landmark designation of the Compass Rose. The Appellant’s recent questions have no bearing on Council’s consideration of the appeal and whether the Compass Rose meets the findings to be a designated Landmark. We hope this Supplemental Staff Report clarifies issues for Council, and please do not hesitate to contact our office if you have any additional questions or concerns.