SR-9-A (38)PCD KG AS WW
F 1PLANISHAREICOUNCILISTRPTIMTAROW WPD
Cou~cil Mtg October 13, 1998
TO Mayor and City Council
FROM Crty Staff
G~T ~ 3 ~
Santa Monica, Califomra
SUBJECT Recommendat~on for the City Council ta Clarify th~ City's Palicy Regarding
Use of the Exposition Rail Right-of-Way in the City of Santa Monica
INTRQDUCTION
This report prov~des background mformation for a policy discussion concerning the use af
the Expos~tion Rail Right-of-Way The policy discussion js needed to establish the C~ty's
posit~on related to non-trar~sportation use of the right-of-way Add~taonal ~nformatian
related to how other ~urisdictions regulate use of the r~ght-af-way within their boundaries
has been added to this report since ~ts last dis#ribution
BACKGROUND
Increas~ng ~nqu~ries to City staff and two Conditional Use Permit (CUP) applications
regarding use of portions of the right-of-way, over extended periods of time, far non-
transportation purposes ha~e prompted staff to s~aluate the rEght-of-way There is
heightened i~terest in the right-o#-way, since it is o~e oi the few remaining #racts of open
space in the City The City has, m the past, appro~ed Temporary Use PermEts (TUP} for
use of the right-of-way for an initial six-month period, with one six-month extension For
the temporary use to rema~n, or for other non-transpo~tation uses to exist on the right-of-
way for an extended period of time, a CUP is required in acco~ciance with the Santa
Monica Mun~cipal Code However, appro~ing a CUP for a long-term non-trar~sporiat~on
1
~C~ ~3~
use could be m conflict w~th long-stand~n~ C~ty and Genera! Plan pal~cies Glear d~rect~on
from Council regardGng use of the right-of-way w~ll assist interested potent~al users, City
staff, and the property ov-mers, the Los Angeles County Metropofitan Transportation
Author~ty (MTA)
History of the R~qht-~of-Way
The ExpasEt~on rarl rig~t-o#-way exte~ds between Downtown Los Angeles and the City of
Santa Mon~ca, passing north of the Univers~ty of Southern Califomia and through portions
of C~Iver City and the Che~iot Hills and Rancho Park Distr~cts of Los Angeles before
entermg the Santa MoniCa C~ty lim~ts at Centinela Avenue Within the C~ty of Santa
Monica, the right-of-way follows a southwest alignment, pass~ng through what has
tradEtianally been the City's mdustrial district, between Olymp~c Boule~ard and Exposition
BoulevardlMichigan Avenue {eas# of 22nd Street) and between Olympic Baulevard and
Colorado Aver~ue (west of 22nd Street) HistorGCally owned and operated by the Southern
Pac~fic Railraad Company, the right-of-way provrded the transport af persons and freight
between the City of Santa Monrca and downtown ~os Angeles Passenger sernce along
the corr~dor was terminated in the late 1950s, w~th ~nfrequent freight traff~c cont~n~~r~g
through the 1980s. !n the early 19fi0s, no langer need~ng a d~rect connect~on to the
ciowntawn area, Southern Pacific sold the portion of the raght-of-way west of Seventeenth
Street to a ~ar~ety of pri~ate parties Currently, the Transportatior~ Department
Administrat~on and Yarc~ Facil~ty ~s the only City-owned portion of the farmer right-of-way
west af 17th Street
ln 1989, the C~ty purchased the Bergamont Station property usmg manies from the Los
2
Angeles Caunty Transportation Cornm~ssion forfuture transportation purposes At the t~me
of its purchase it was intended that this property would be ultimately used as a i~ght rail
sw~tching statian Su~sequently, the ExposEtion right-af-way was purchased from Southern
PacifEC m 1990 by the Los Ar~geles County Transportation Cammission {now the
Metropol~tan Transporta#ion Aufhor~ty or MTA) In 1994, the MTA reieased a study
outlin~ng se~era! altern~t~ves for reestabl~sh~ng trans,# serv~ce on the route, ~ncluding a
busway and an at-g~ade light-rail lme No preferred a~ternative for the ExpositEOn right-of-
way was adopted by the MTA and the alignment is not included m the Agency's currer~t 20-
year plan 1n recent months, however, the MTA has been studying the feasibility of a low-
cost, high-capacity, dedicated bus rvute that utilizes t~e right-of-way The results af tk~is
study are scheduled to be presented to the MTA Board in t~e fall
ANALYSIS
Since the early ~ 980s, when discussions of a new regional rail transportat~on system for
the Los Angeles area began, the City of Santa Monica has been a strong ad~ocate #or a
transit or fixed-ra~l connectian to the City Thrvug~out the 1990s, particularly after
formation of the MTA, the City worked aggress~~ely to include a rail co~nection to San#a
Monica in the Agency's ZO-year pian Despite these efforts, ather alignments were given
~recedence The C~ty has cont~nued to take measures to demons#rate support for and
commitment to using the right-of-way for transportation purposes Or~e such measure has
been to presenre the MTA-owned right-of-way withEn the City lim~ts through General Plar~
polic~es, ~onmg ~rdmance regulations, and the land use policy decisions of the Planning
Commission and City Council The recentky-approved Draft Open Space Element ar~d
1984 Land Use Element policies identify the future use af the right-of-way as
~
transporta#ian-related, poten#ially cambined with an apen spacelrecreation use suc~ as
bicycle and ~ogg~ng paths
Related City Pol~c~es and Ord~nances
The Land Use and GErcutat~on Elements of the Genera( Pian contaGr~ the fof fowing policies
related to the right-of-way
• Policy 1 11 3 Encourage the retention of the Southern Pac~fic Ra~lroad r~ght-of-
way as open s~ace Open space use of the r~ght-of-way shall also permit its use
for transportafion purposes
• Policy 3 3 16 Encourage fi~e- and twen#y-faot setbacks from #he streetfronk (~n
the Spec~al ~ffice D~str~~t~ and ihe Southem Pacif~c Railroad r~ght-of-wa~r ~n
order to allow for landscaping and useable public open space
• Pol~cy 4 1 8 R~ght-of-way ~or new al#ernative transpvrtation facilities shall be
reserved, iand uses sha11 be prohEbited that would preclude the tamely
development of transpartat~on fac~l~t+es where rrg~t-of way ~s reqwred
• Policy 4 5 3 The C~ty shoUld endorse the concept of rail rap~d trar~sit, e~#her
heavy ra~1 or light rail, serving the C~ty of Santa Monica and shall promote
locating a trans~t s#ation in the Downtown area The City should sekect the most
appropriate type of transit system and the mast appropriate route after the pubfic
review and consideration of the options available to the City
Policy 4 6 3 Ass~st in the implementatron of a new Class I b~cycle route and
pedestrian trail along the Southern Pacific Ra~lroad (MTA} right-of-way corridor
when and ~f the right-of-way is abandoned as a rail line
The Draft Open Space Element incluc4es the following policy related to the right-of-way
Poiicy 4 3 The corrGdor shou~d be la~dscaped and ~mpro~ed as useable open
space w~tho~t compromising potential transit use
The r~ght-of-way is located w~thm ths LMSD (Light Manufacturing Studio District), M1 (Light
Industrial District), and C5 ~Special OfFice District) Zon4ng Districts A CUP ~s required for
"any use of t~e right-of-way for ather than transportat~on purposes" ~n all three Districts
~
Status of Riqht-of-Way Uses
In the years since reguiar rarl apera#rons ceased, approxrmately 21 busrnesses ha~e
expanded thekr act~vities anto the portion of the right-of-way east of 17~' Street that remains
publically-owned These uses include
• employee parkmg
• access roadways
• small buildrrtgs and structures
• parkmg and storage of automobiles and del~~etylwork trucks
• display and storage of plants in con~unct~on w~th a commercial nursery
• construct~on stag~ng (storage of materials and equipment} and parking
~ storage of stone, rock, and lumber materials
~ vehicie fmpound
~ iandscapmg
• b~llboards
Status of MTA Leases
Of the 21 existing uses, 6 ha~e leases wath the MTA, 9 had Sou#~ern Pac~fic leases that
have bee~ continued by the MTA, 4 have MTA subleases, and 2 have no lease The
leases ~aryfrom a three-black-long segment feased to Hastrngs Plast~cto a s~x-car parking
area subleased to the Goodmar~ Center The two ~raperties that do not have a valid lease
are both used for parkmgNehicle storage The MTA ~as notified these two b~sinesses
that they ar~ using the properties illegally, but has not taken any further actior~ The CEty
is also pursumg enforcement action to remove the uses
The Southern Pacif~c ieases predate the CUP requirement, whic~ was established in 1984
in conJunction with adopt~on af the Land Use and Circulation Element Because tF~ese
lease ho€ders began using the rEgf~t-of-way pnar to #he CUP requkrement, fhey are
considered legal nor~-conforming uses All of the MTA leases were establ~s~ed after the
5
CUP requi~em~nt was established, howe~er, only one of those busmesses has ab#a~ned
a CUP from the C~ty of Santa Man~ca
MTA feases are issued on a month-to-month basis, w~th the lease being autamat~cally
rer~ewed if no iease ~iolat~ans ha~e occurred Compliance with focal municjpal codes ~s
a standard requirement of MTA leases, hower+er, the MTA places th~ responsibility of
comply~ng w~tl~ local codes on the lease holder and does not requrre proof of lacal
appro~als prior to issuing the lease Combining the cu~rent MTA leases and subleases,
a total of 9 uses ha~e not obtained requ~red C~ty permits to operate on the nght-of-way
Only one of the ex~sting uses (American Botanical, the rose nursery at Stewart Street) has
obtained a CUP {CUP93-OZ2) to permrt use of the right-of-way Th~s CUP was rssued
based on the n~rsery being cons~stent with and supporti~e of t~e landscaped character
desired for the Special Office DistrECt As a result, 9 difFe~ent uses are currently not rn
compliance w~th the CUP requiremer~t The City is praceed~ng with enfflrcement to er~sure
that businesses usrng tt~e ngnt-of-way are m corrforinance witn Zonmg 4rd~nance
requ~rements
Develapment S#andards for Riqht-of-Way ~n Other Jurisd~ckions
Staff contacted C~ty of Los Angeles and Cul~er Crty Pianrn~g departmen# staff to ~nquire
about development standards and regulations reiated to the Expos~tian R~ght-of-Way in
the respecti~e cities B~th the City of Los Angeles and the City of Cul~er City have created
a special zonEng clesignation for the r~g~t-of-way
Los Angeles has zoned the right-of-way as PF (Public Fac~lities) Permitted uses in this
6
zone are as follaws
"no buildings, str~ctures, or land shall be used ar erected except agnculture
uses, p~ablEC park~ng under treeway rrg~ts ot way, trre and polECe stations,
government buildings offices and servECe facilities with an appropnate CUP,
pubhc libraries, post offices, public health faci~Eties, public schools, a~nd ~oint
de~elopment public and pr~~ate uses ~ermitted in the most restrictive ad~om~ng
zane "
1n Culver C~#y #he right-of-way ~s zoned T-9 (Transportation) Perm~tted uses are the
operation and ma~ntenance of any transportation bus~ness includ~ng private rights-af-way,
easements, railroads, raFlways, pEpe lines, pole lines, conduits, bus ianes, ar airports, and
automo~ile park~ng, when de~eloped in accordance with t[~e pro~is~flns of the Zonmg
Code Proh~bited uses are the construction af dwellings, ad~~rtasing s~gns, and
commercial or mdustr~aE buildings
Issues Related to Manaqinq the Riqht-o#-Way
Preservation of the right-of-way for transportation purposes has been a long standing City
policy, e~en though it may take se~eral years before a transportation pro~ect, implemented
either by the MTA or the City, occurs MTA is currently evaluati~g the busway alternati~es
Workshops will take place in October ar~d adoption af the alternati~es ~s scheduled to
accur in No~ember The Board must make a decisian by December ~n order to retain
Federal fundmg for the pro~ect Tk~e design of a b~keway has no# been mitiated nor has
fundmg been procured It ~s difficult ta estimate when the right-of-way may be used for a
transportatEOn pra~ect unt~l after the MTA Board action
The City has consistently ad~ocated for the Exposit~on CorrEdor and protected its use for
transportation e~en though implementation of a trans~t alternative was m the future In
7
managing #he right-of-way the City has been concerned with #he follow~ng issues
• De~ekopkng a const~t~ency In se~erak o#her locatiar~s m Southern Cal~fornia
where property owners ha~e utilized publicly-owned r~ghts-of-way as an integral
part of the~r business (i e access, cons#ruc#ion of struc#ures, and use for
park~ng), reloca#ion of these ~ses has proven to be a}~ighly sens~t~~e arld
controversial jssue Busir~ess and property owners with interest in the right-of-
way may in fact oppose any aiternate use or try and delay implementation of
specif~c transporkat~on pro~ects If the prpcess of removing ~sers from the right-
of-way in the C~ty of Santa Monica becomes contro~ersial ar contentious, it could
be detr~men#al to the City's ability to achieve its long-term transat goals Funding
and rnteragency support could be ~eopard~zed ir~ the event of local oppos~tion
• Conststency with the General Plan Pro~ects located an the r~ght-of-way must be
consistent with the policies of the General Plan which specify that land uses
wF~ich would preclude the t~mefy development of the right-of-way far
transportat~on use sf~ould be prohibited Therefore, many p~-o~ects may not meet
these consistency requaremenfs
~ Coord~nat~on with the MTA Although m violation of City r~quirements, the MTA
has leased port~ons of the right-of-way ~n the C~ty of Santa Monica The right-of-
way is one of the largest remainmg undevelaped areas in the City and has the
potent~al of generatmg revenue for the MTA In additian, the r~ght-of-way is
located m close proxim~ty to several exist~ng fiim product~an facil~t~es, makmg it
s
convenient for location shoot~ng and construction ot outdoor sets Many of the
proposed right-of-way uses can be appro~ed by the City with a TUP, hawe~er it
appears some appl~cants would prefer use of the property for lang perEOds
there~ay requir~ng a CUP Issuing a CUP to allow for the long-term and/or
permanent use of the right-of-way for uses other than transportation or open
space ~s, howe~er, mcons~stent w~#h the General Plan As a resuit, se~eral
recent CUP appl~cations F~ave been den~ed
Strateqies To Address Poss~ble General Plan and Zoninq Ordmance inconsistencies
Three strategy options regardmg the Ipng-term use of the right-of-way are presented to the
City Council for cons~derat~an These optGOns are as follows
1} Retain TUP process Continue with the current policy of preserving the right-
of-way far future transit uses Limit non-transportation use of the nght-of-way to
short-term uses that can be add~essed with a TUP This approach would be
consistent with the General Plan, the City's land use policies, and the I~ng-term
goals of the City ir~ terms of supportmg a trans~t system alang this route
2) Allow Durational CUPs Another approach for cerkam limited types of uses
that want to use the right-af-way for longer than one year could be through the
establishment of a durational CUP Minor ad~ustments to the Zornng Ordinance
would be needed to clar~fy the criteria for appro~ing a durational CUP Only
those uses that would not m any way preclude the future use af the right-of-way
far transportatian purposes, and therefore are cor~sistent w~th the General Plan,
9
and t~at are consEStent with the type and character of land use encouraged m the
applacable Zoning Districts would be permitted Exampies of appropriate uses
may mclude paant nurseries, landscaped open spaces adJacent to a building, and
limited storage of construction materials Examples of prohibited uses may
include parking, storage of ~ehicles, storage of large quantiti~s of construc#ion
ma#er~als, and permanent structures T1~e C~ty Council may also wfsh to
mvestigate ~ssumg a duratronal CUP that i~cluc~es a un~form expr~atron date for
ali nght-af-way uses By clearly limiting t~e duration of r~ght-of-way uses, the
potentiai for de~eloping a constituency tF~at has based #he ~iability of their
businesses on using #he right-of-way would be reduced, thus facil~tating removal
of the uses when a transit pra~ect is ready for impiementat~vn.
3) Establish New ZanEnq Desiqnation An approach which would be consistent
with the ckties of Los Angeles and Culver Gity would be to establish a new zon~ng
desrgnation for the right-of-way which wouid allow very Irmrt~d and temporary
uses to exist on the right-of-way unt~f such time as a transit pro~ect is ready fvr
~mplementatian
Cvnclusion
The right-of-way is a ~aluable resource to the C~ty in terms of pro~~ding an enhanced
transpartation connectGan between the City af Santa Monica, Culver City, and Downtown
Los Angeies Preserv~ng the right-of-way for future transpo~tation uses is in keeping wEth
establEShed City polrcEes ~os Angeies and Culver City h~~e also taken steps to preserve
and protect the right-of-way by giv~ng ~t a zonmg designat~on and specifically identifying
io
limited permitted uses In light of its ~alue for transportation purposes, the right-o# way
should be managed and mamtamed ~n a clear and equ~table fashion until a transportation
project is ready to be implemented A clear policy positEOn related ta use of the MTA right-
of-way wauld benefit property awners and City staff and enhance coordmation wit~ the
MTA
BUDGETlFISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report c~oes not ha~e any budget flr fiscal impact
RECOMMENDATION
It ~s recommended that the City Council establish a new zoning designation to protect #he
r~gf~t-of-way fortransportation purp~ses while allow~ng ~ery limited and temporary uses to
ex~st
Prepared by Suzanne Fr~ck, Directar
Karen Ginsberg, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Sen~or Planner
Walker Weils, Associate Planner
City Plann~ng D~vision
Planning and Community De~elapment Department
Attachment A Map of r~ght-of-way
~i
ATTACHMENT A
1~
~ ~
~~
~
~~. ~~~~
~~.._....~~~
~~~ ~~, _-_ ...
~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _-.::~
~- .~ ~
~ .. ~..~~ _..._-_,~F
- _ . .~~
~
~
~
~
,~- ° ~~
~
~ --- ----..._
~
~ '
~~
~~
~-
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
..~ --.~~
a 4 ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ _~
~ , , , ~~
~ ~ ' - ~ ~~
/~ ~ "-~"' , ~^'d` n p ~ ~ ~
~o ~ :.,~.~.. ~ ~~ ..
~ ~ ~~~~ . ~ ~:~
. ~ ~ . .~
~ J$ ~ .___ . _ Y~
~~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ _.~ . ~.~ - - ~
~ ~ ~~ ~ - ~
~ ~ ~~ ~
_ ...~. _ _ ~~ J ~ _ .... ~ __
~ _ ~ ~ - ~ ~__ ~ . i .. ~ - ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
: ~ ~ ~ ~~ - ~ ~
i _. , .-.~ d ~
~...r..~~~ - - ..~,^.... -.,..,....
~f