Judge hears arguments in Pacific Airshow settlement case

An Orange County Superior Court judge heard arguments Monday afternoon over whether the city of Huntington Beach should be forced to release its complete multimillion-dollar settlement document with Pacific Airshow operator Code Four.

Judge Jonathan Fish presided over proceedings at the Central Justice Center in Santa Ana that lasted about an hour. Gregory Pleasants argued for the plaintiff, Gina Clayton-Tarvin. Savannah Skelton represented the defendants, the city of Huntington Beach and City Atty. Michael Gates, who was also present but did not speak.

Fish will rule in the coming days or weeks, though either side could appeal. He asked for the settlement itself to be put into the court records, under seal, and both sides agreed.

Clayton-Tarvin, a longtime member of the Ocean View School District Board of Trustees, sued last June after Gates refused to release the full settlement, valued at up to about $7 million. Instead, following her California Public Records Act request, he provided an executive summary with financial details.

The settlement stems from the cancellation of the final day of the Pacific Airshow in 2021, due to the oil spill off the coast of Surf City.

Gates has said he didn’t release the full settlement because it could compromise the city’s success in litigation against the oil spill polluters — though any such litigation has yet to be officially filed. Critics have argued that the lack of full transparency raises concerns about the relationship between Gates and the conservative City Council majority with Code Four chief executive Kevin Elliott.

The U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds fly over the Huntington Beach Pier during the Pacific Airshow in 2021.

(File Photo)

“What I’m concerned with as a resident and a taxpayer is this: It’s not the money that they just paid, it’s the money that they will encumber into the future,” Clayton-Tarvin said following the hearing. “My tax dollars could go into infinity and beyond into this private corporation. As a taxpayer, I should be able to go to my government and say, ‘Hey, maybe you should go out to [a request for proposals] ... Maybe this isn’t a good deal for the public.’ I’m worried that there is an evergreen clause in that settlement.”

Skelton argued in court the city was in a difficult position, where release of the full settlement could undercut its own position in what she called “pending and future litigation.”

She also argued that Gates was within his legal rights to use his discretion to decide whether to release the full settlement, though Pleasants disagreed.

“At the time it was drafted and signed, there was never a thought that this would be disclosed publicly,” Skelton said in court. “These terms are sensitive ... the settlement terms document provides all important terms to the petitioner. We’re not trying to pull any tricks.”

Pleasants said the settlement agreement’s release serves the public interest. He pointed to a California Coastal Commission letter sent to city officials in February that alleges the air show privatized public land and waters in Huntington Beach without a needed coastal development permit. In the letter, Coastal Commission staff also ask for the public release of the full settlement with Code Four.

Skelton countered that the letter was irrelevant to the CPRA request and didn’t exist when it was made.

Pleasants also disagreed with Skelton’s claim that pending litigation would be hurt by the settlement’s release.

“There is no other litigation,” he said. “It’s outrageous to come in here and say that there is ... the city of Huntington Beach is no longer a party.”