SR-400-002 (17)
e
L/tl/J ' CJ 02--
~
e
CA:RMM:LL:JH:llo003
CIty Council MeetIng 7-23-85
Santa MonIca, CalIfornIa
<l(-B
JUl 2 3 ISIS
STAFF REPORT
TO:
Mayor and City CouncIl
FROM:
CIty Attorney
SUBJECT:
Ordinance AmendIng the DIstrIctIng Map
to Change the Zoning of SIX Parcels In the
1100 Block of FranklIn Street and Centlnela
Avenue from R-1A to R-l
INTRODUCTION
At its meetIng on July 9, 1985, the City CouncIl
dIrected the CIty Attorney to prepare an ordInance amendIng
the distrIcting map to change the zoning of SIX parcels In the
1100 block of both FranklIn Street and Centinela Avenue from
R-IA (off-street parkIng) to R-l (one famIly resldentIall. In
response to thIS dIrectIon, the accompanying ordInance has
been prepared and IS presented for City CouncIl conSIderatIon.
MunICIpal Code Section 9103 adopts a DistrIctlng Map
WhICh sets forth the zonIng claSSIfIcatIons for all parcels In
the City. The proposed ordInance amends the DistrIctlng Map
to reflect a change In the zonlng of SIX parcels currently
desIgnated R-IA to R-l.
CEQA
The CIty Attorney concurs wIth the determinatIon of the
Planning CommISSIon that the proposed ordInance is exempt from
?-J3
JUl 2 3 '9~
1
e
-
the CalIfornIa Env1ronmental QualIty Act (CEQA) on several
grounds.
The proposed ordInance would amend certaIn zonIng
desIgnat10ns to conform to the eXIstIng land uses on the
affected parcels. This proposed action is specIfIcally exempt
from CEQA pursuant to CIty of Santa MonIca CEQ.A GUIdelInes,
Article VIrI, SectIon S(e)(13).
The proposed ord1nance IS also lImited in its
applicatIon. It prohIbits one of two currently permItted uses
of the affected parcels. ThIS change effectIvely reduces the
maXImum Intensity of permItted uses WIthout permItting any new
or different uses of the land. ThIS class of actiVity is
exempt from CEQA because It WIll not result In any
intensIf1cation or change in perm1tted land uses that w1ll
result 1n any foreseeable environmental 1mpacts. See CIty of
Santa Mon1ca CEQA GUIdelInes, Article VIII, SectIon 5fe)(12J.
It has been argued by opponents of the proposed
ordinance
that the above two classes of exemption are
inapplicable
parcels may
GUIdelines,
considered
because the cumulative Impact of rezoning the
be signIficant. See City of Santa Monica CEOA
ArtIcle VIII, Sect10n 4(b). ThIS argument was
and rejected by the Planning CommISSion based upon
the
will
ImplICIt fIndIng that no cumulatively SignifIcant Impacts
occur. Th1S conclusion is a reasonable finding of fact
which is adequately supported by the record which shows that
no new or intenSIfIed uses of the affected parcels w1ll Occur.
This conclUSion IS further supported by the fact that the
2
e
-
rezon1ng of separate parcels on dIfferent streets wIll not
result 1n any cumulatIve Impacts from ~successlve proJects of
the same type 1n the same place." S~e C1ty of Santa MonIca
CEQA GUIdelInes, ArtIcle VIr} SectIon 4(b).
It has also been asserted that the City should prepare
an EIR on the proposed rezonIng on the basIs of substant1a)
publIC controversy WhICh has resulted 1n thIS case. However,
effectIve January 1, 1985} CEQA was amended to explIcItly
reJect thIS ratIonale for compellIng an EIR. See PublIC
Resources Code SectIon 21082.2ra).
It IS therefore the opin1on of the CIty Attorney that
the adoptIon of the proposed ordInance IS exempt from CEQA
pursuant to the specifIc classes of exemptIon noted above.
The proposed actIon IS also exempt from CEQA on the
independent grounds that It can be seen WIth reasonable
certa1nty that the rezon1ng of these parcels could not
possIbly have a slgnlficant effect on the enVIronment. See
Citv of Santa Monlca CEOA GUIdellnes, Article III, SectIon 1.
For purposes of CEQA a "sIgnifIcant effect on the envIronment"
shall be lImited to "substantIal or potentIally substantIal,
adverse changes In physIcal condItIons ,; Publlr
Resources Code SectIon 21151.
The record In thIS case does not Include any eVIdence of
sIgn1flcant envIronmental effects which wlll result from the
rezonIng of these parcels. Thus, thp General Rule Exemptlon
IS applIcable and thIS deCISIon WIll not be reversed by a
court 1n lIeu of eV1dence In the record of possIble
3
.
e
slgnIflcant environmental effects.
PubllC Resources Code
SectIon 21177(a).
RECOMMENDATION
It IS respectfully recommended that the accompanYlng
ordlnance be Introduced for first readIng.
PREPARED BY: Robert M Myers) CIty Attorney
Laurle LIeberman, Deputy CIty Attorney
Jonathan Horne, Deputy City Attorney
4