SR-8-B (70)~~ ~
JAN` ~ ff ~ ~3
LUTM:PPD:SF;PF
f:~ppd\shar~\ccxeport\laflatex
Council Meeting: December 14, 1993
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Cauncil
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: R~commendation to Approve the Initial Study and Negative
D~claration for the Low-Flow Stormwater Treatment
Facility; Amend the Zoning Ordinance Text for Residential.
Visitor Commercial Districts and to make Permanent
Interim Development Standards for Parcels Zoned RVC
Lacated on Pacif ic Coast Highway Between the Santa Manica
Pier an the South and the North City Limits; and Amend
the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program.
INTRODUCTION
This Text Amendment and Land Use Plan Amendment are required in
order to permit an expansion of the existing Moss Avenue sewage
pumping station to treat low-flow stormwater run-off and to provide
for the continued existence af the beach maintenance tacility
located adjacen~ ta the Pier. In addition, a.n January ~993, the
City Council adopted interim development standards far the RVC
zoned parcels located along Pacific Coast Highway between the Pier
and the no~th City limits. In order to minimize the number of
amendments to the RVC District of the Zoning ~rdinance, these
amendments have been combYned.
5taff is recommending that the City Council conduct a public
hear~ng on the matter, apprave the Initiai Study and Propased
Negatiue Declaratian far the low-flo~a stormwat~r treatment
1 ~AM t S 19~4
~~,, ~ ~ 1~43
S" ~
facility, adopt the propased text amendment to the RVC District,
and amend the Land Use Plan af the Local Coastal Program.
BACRGROUND
The proposed text amendment to permit outdoor public utilities and
maintenance service yards resulted from a proposal by the City of
Santa Monica's General Services Department to deve~op a low-flow
stormwater treatment facility at 1615-~625 Appian Way, which is
lacated in a Residential Visitar Commercial (RVC) District. The
proposed project consists of a state-of-the-art low-flow stormwater
treatment faczZity uti~ia~ng an innovatiue ozone disinfection
pracess. Low or dry weather stormwater flow from the Pico-Kenter
Storm Drain will be diverted inta an existing 18" diameter pipe
located beneath the Beach Promenade. The water will flow by
gravity to the intersection af Moss Avenue and Appian Way and be
combined with water from the Santa Monica Pier Starm Drain. Both
flows will be treated in a series af structures which will screen
the solid material such as leaves, paper, etc., filter smaller
particles, separate oil and water, disinfect the water using an
ozone process and then recycle the treated watez. At present, there
~s a sewage pumping s~ation and generator at this location.
Add~tionally, staff is recommending the text amend~nent to permit
the continuing aperatian of the City"s beach maintenance facility
located at 1540 The Promenade. Both the sewage pumping station and
the beach maintenance facili~y pre-date the standards adopted as
part of the 1988 Zaning Ordinance. SMMC Section 9.04,08.12
2
presently does not perm~t these uses in the RVC zoning district;
therefore, any modificatian ar expansion is se~erely limited. The
propased a~endment languag~ is presented in Attachment A.
The City Council, in January, 1993, adopted interim develapment
standards for the RVC zoned parcels located along Pacific Coast
Highway between the Santa Monica Pier on the south and the north
city limits. The ~roposed Text Amendment would also modify SMMC
Sect~.on 9.04.08.12 to make the interim standards permanent as part
~f the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed deveZopment standards are
conskstent wi~.h thase established by the City Cauncil in ,Tanuary,
1993. These standards oniy apply to RVC zaned parcels north af the
Pier along Pacific Coast Highway, which are currently occupied by
existing beach clubs and cansist of faur sites.
20NING TEXT AMENDMENT
The recommended Te~t Amendment would allow for the future placement
of the low-flow stormwater treatment facility at the Moss Avenue
pumping station location. The treatment facility is proposed on
City-owned ~and located at the terminus of th~ Pico-Kenter and
Santa Monica Pier storm drains thus enabling the facility to
capture 100% of the ~ow-flow drainage. Appravals or review will
accur from various State, County, regional and local agencies prior
ta the construction of the treatment facility. These agencies
include: 1) California Coastal Commission {permit approval); 2)
Caltrans (design approval); 3) Santa Monica Bay Restoratian Project
(design review); 4) Sauth Caast Air Quality Management District
3
(permit appraval); 5) Regional Water Quality Control Board (permit
approval); 6) Planning Commission (design review); 7}
Architectural Review Board {design review) and 8} City Council
(award of contracts).
The praposed Text Amendment would also permit the continued
operation of the beach maintenance facility at its present location
and allow far a possible expansion if deemed necessary at same
future dat~.
Finally, the suggested Text Amendment wauld make permanent
brdinance #1577, adopted by Council on March 23, 1993, which
established interim develapment standards for the RVC zan~d parce~s
an the Paci~ic Coast highway located between the Santa Monica Pier
to the sauth and the north c~ty limits.
The proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment language changes are
contained in Attach~ent B.
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
The amendment to the policy language of the Land Use Plan of the
Loca~ Coastal Program would permit outdoor public utilities in the
Santa Monica Pier subarea of the Local Coastal Zone. This amendment
to New Development Palicy #59 of the Land Use Pian is necessary to
allow f~r the low-flow stormwater treatment facility at its
proposed locatian on Appian Way.
4
The prflposed Land Use Plan text amendment is cantained in
Attachment C.
CEQA ANALYSI3
An Environmental Impaet Report was prepared and certified for the
City-wide Redistricting Project which ~xamined the environmental
impacts of the interim de~elopment standards for the RVC-zoned
parcels on Pacific Caast Highway between the Santa Monica Pier to
the south and the north city limits. Therefare, no additianal
environmental review for the permanent RVC standards is necessary
at this time.
An Initial Study has been prepared for the Low-Flow Stormwater
Treatment facility and a Proposed Negative Declaration is being
racommended subject to the adoption af the proposed Text Amendment
{Attachment A).
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission held a public meeting on these issues at
their meeting of Sep~ember 29, 1993. The Commission expressed great
interest in the stormwater treatment project, welcomed the
opportunity ta improve the quality of the beach waters and Santa
Monica Bay, and, in general, saw the faciZ~ty as a shawcase for
other coastal jurisdictions. However, the Cammission alsa
expressed concern far the design of the facility given its
proximity to the Santa Monica Pier and adjacent existing and
5
proposed residential uses. Therefore, in their mation ta approve
the Initial 5tudy and Proposed Negative Declaration for the Low-
flow treatment facility, the Commission included an additional
mitigatian measure to the Aesthetics Impacts section of the Initial
Study that requires project plans ta return to the Planning
Commissifln for design review.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The estima~ed eost of the prflposed treatment facility is
approximately $1.5 million which will be shared by the County and
City af Los Angeles and the City of Santa Monica, the apportianment
of which will be outiined in a cost sharing agreement between the
parties which will be executed prior to construction. It is
expected that the majority of funding wi~I be provided by outside
sources. Pdtential funding sources for operations and maintenance
could be from water/wastewater fund revenues and/or a multi-agency
cast sharing agreement similar to that utilized for funding the
capital cast of faciiity construction.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council apprave the Initial Study
and Negative Declaration and adapt the proposed Text Amendments
based ~pon the following f~ndzngs:
1. The proposed Text Amendmen~ is consistent in principle
with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses and
programs of the City's General Plan, specifically with
Policy Statements contained in the Canservation Element,
including Policies #9, #~l, #13, #14, and #15. These
6
policies call for City action to reclaim wastewater, to
provide adequate stormwater systems, and ta maintain and
protect the environmental quality of the beach.
2. The public health, sa~ety and general welfare requires
the adopt~on of the proposed Text Amendment to provide
for the improvement of ~he environmental quality of the
beach and to ensure that the Santa Monica Bay is
preserved.
3. The public h~alth, safety and genera~ weifare requir~s
the adoption of the proposed Text Amendment to establish
permanent development standards for those RVC zaned
parcels located on Pacific Coast Highway between the
5anta Monica Pier and the north city limits in that these
standards will protect existing view corridors and
preserve the scale of development that presently exists
alang the Pacific Coast Highway.
It is the recommendation of staff that the City Cauncil:
1. Approve the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for
the Low-Flow Stormwater Treatment Fac~lity (Attachment
A) ;
2. Adopt the Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance for
Residential Visitor Commercial Districts as contained in
Attachment B; and
3. Adopt the Reso~ution amending the Land Use Plan of the
Local Caastal Program as contained in Attachment C.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Acting Directar
Paul Foley, Associate Planner
Land Use and Transportation
Management Department
Attachments:
A. Draft Initial Study, Law-Flaw
S. Ord~nance Amending the Zoning
Commercia]. Districts
C. Resolution Amending the Land
Program
Stormwater Treatinent Facility
Ordinance Text for Residential
Use Plan of the Local Coastai
7
~
A TTACHMENT A
~
DRAFI' INTTIAL S1'iJDY
L~W-FLOW STORMWATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ~EPARTMENT
PROGRAM AND FDLICY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
FEBRUARY 1993
CITY OF SANTA MONICA IS No. 92-U1 EIR No. •
CITY PLANNING DIVI5ION
City Ha21, 1685 Main Street, 5anta Monica, California 90441-3295
DETERMINATION
Projec~ Title: Low-Flow Stormwater Treatment Facility
Praject Address: 1635-1625 Appian Way
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a
significant e~fect on the environment, and a
Negative Declaration wiil be prepared.
I find that although the praposed project could
have a significant effect on the envirflnment,
there will not be a significant e~fect in this
case because the mitigation measures described on
an attached sheet have been added ta the project.
A Negative De~laration will be prepared. X
I find the proposed project may have a significant
effect on the enviranment, and an Environmental
Impact Report is required.
~`~G~~ 3 ~scc/!/
Date~ Directar of Land Use and
Transpartation Management Dept.
EF4Flaw
04/D5/93
CITY ~F SANTA MONICA IS NO. 92-01
CITY PLANNING DIVZSI~N
City Hall, 1685 Mazn Street, Santa Manica, Ca~ifornia 90401-3295
PROP08ED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
An application far a NEGATIVE DECLARATION to carry out the fallowing
pro]ect: Low-Flaw 5tormwater Treat~ent Facility
on property located at 1615~1625 Appian Way
in the City of Santa Monica, California, having been filed by the General
Services Departmentf City of Santa Monica, on January 23, 1992, and [the
mitigation measures listad ~n the Initial Study having been incorporated
into the pro3ect, and] the application having been raviewed by the Land Use
and Transportation Management department. Therefora, the Department hereby
finds that:
2. The prapo~ed activity does constitute a project wiChin the
meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
amended.
2. The proposed activity is nat ~xempt from the provxsions of such
act by reason af being a ministerial, categorically exempt or
emergency activity. .
3. The proposed activity does not appear to have a substantiai
adverse Effect upon the environment.
4. Inasmuch as it can be seen with reasonable certainty that no
substantial adverse effect is involved, na proper purpose would
be served by the preparation of an Enviranmental Impact Report.
5. A Nagative Declaratio~ dacument is the praper, correct and
appropriate pracedure requi~ed to assure compliance with the
purpose and intent of the Califarnia Environmental Quality Act of
~970, as amended.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA IS N4. 92-01
CITY PLANN~NG DIVISION .
Ci~y Hall~ 1685 Main 5treet, Santa Monica~ Ca~ifornia 90401-3295
The Department, therefore, has determined that the proposed project does
nat have a significant effect on the envizonment and that an Environmental
Impact Repart is not required. Following the public review period, the
decisionmaking body is required to consider whether or not a Negative
Declaration continues to be appropriat~.
D~t~ : __ ~- 6 4 ~13
~~~~
DIRECTOR OF I,AND U5E AND
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT DEPT.
[Mitigation measures which have been incorporated into the praject are
listed in the Initial Study.]
EF5Flow
04/05/93
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTR~DDCTION
~
1.1 Purpose and Approach 3
1.2 Report Format 4
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Location 5
2.2 Existing Site Condit~.vns 5
2.3 Project Characterxstics 5
2.~4 Approval Required 6
2.5 Cumulative Projects Description 6
3.0 E%ISTING SETTINGr IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
3.1 Environrnental Setting S
3.2 Environmental Effects 8
4.0 REFERENCES 25
4.2 Departments and Persons Contacted 25
5.4 COMMENTS AND RESPONSEB 26
6.0 APPENDICES 30
7.~ EXHEBITS
Exhibit 1 -- Vicinity map
Exhibit 2-- Pro~eGt S~te and Survey
Exhibit 3-- 5ite Flan Map
Exhibit 4 -- Axonometric Rendering
Exhibit 5-- Noise Levels of Typical Construction Equipment
EXECt)'1'IVE SIIMMARY
This report evaluates the potential environmentaZ impacts
associated with the praposed Law-Flew Stormwater Treatment Facility
tv lae located on Appian Way across fram Moss Avenue. The pvrpose of
the report is to provide an objective, detailed eval.uation of the
issues identified in the City's Initial Study Checklist and to
recommend mitigation measures as appropriate,
The proposed project, known as the Low-F].ow Stormwater Treatment
Facility, is located on the east side of Appian Way across from
Moss Ave~ue an an irregularly shaped parcal of land that the City
owns and which presentZy contains a sanitary sewer pumping station
with a generator. The project would be built adjacent to the
sanitary sewer pumping station and generator and would cal~ for the
remova~ of a public stairway across the property. The stairway is
to be rebuilt during the deveiopment of a housinq project an the
adjacent parcei sauth of the project site. The propased project
requires a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to perm~t the use in the
RVC district; therefare, this enviranrnental analysis must also
evaluate the impacts of anpraving a text amendment.
The project proposes the canstruction of a state-of--the-art low-
flaw stormwater treatment faciZity utilizi.ng an innovative ozone
disinfection process. Low ar dry weather stormwater flow from the
Pica-IGenter 5torm Drain will be diverted into an existing 18"
diameter pipe ~ocated beneath the Promenade. The water will gravity
flow to the intersection af Mass Avenue and Appian Way and will be
combined with water from the Santa Mvnica Pier Storm Drain. Both
flows will be treated in a series of structures which Wi~~ screen
the solid material such as leaves, paper, etc., filter smaller
particles, separate the oil and water, disinfect the water using an
ozone process and then recyc~e the water.
The C~ty of Santa Monica Land Use and Transportation Management
Department/Program and Policy DeveZapment Division completed an
Initial Study Checklist and identif ied a number ~f issues to be
eva2uated in this document. Listed be~ow is a summary of key
findings described in this Initial Study report.
ISSUE KEY F~NDING$
Air The project wi].1 not have significant
adverse impacts on odors.
Water The project wi~l not have significant
adverse impact on water being discharged
into the ocean.
P~ant Life The project wi11 not have significant
impacts on plant life.
1
Noise The project wi11 not result in
significant adverse impacts to existing
noise levels over the long term. Shart
term increases in noise due to
construction wiil occur. Hawevar, these
increases can be mitigated to a leve~ of
insignificance.
Risk of Upset The project does not produce a
significant risk of explasion or
reieasing hazardous substances.
Human Health The project will not produce a
significant human health hazard.
Land Use The project represents a land use that is
not allowed by Zoning Ordinanc~ in its
propased location.Therefore, a Zoning
Ordinance text amendment must be approved
be~ore the facility may begin
construction.
Uti~ities The pro~ect will not adverse~y impact the
storm water drainage system.
Public Services The project will not significantly impact
public services.
Constructian Effects The project will produce shart term
impacts on the area during construction
which can be mitigated to a~evel of
insignificance.
Fiscal The project will have a fisca~ impact
upon the City consisting of the
construction and maintenance costs of the
facility.
Aestheties The project wil~ have advarse aesthetic
impacts which can be mitigated through
the design process to a le~eZ of
insignificance.
NeighborhaQd Effects The pro~ect will hane short term noise
and traffic impacts. These impacts are
considered insignificant.
The conclusion of this Initial Study is that no significant
environmental impacts will result from the proposed
project~therefare, a Negative Declaration shauld be issued and an
Environmental Impact Report not be required.
2
INTRODUCTION
~.1 PIIRPOSE AND APPROACH
This report supplements th~ City of Santa Monica Initial Study
Checklist Form for the proposed development of a Low-FIoW
Stormwater Treatment Facility located on Appian Way across from
Moss Avenue, and the appraval of a Zoninq Ordinance text amendment
to permit the proposed use.
According to Section Z5063 of the California Environme~tal Quality
Act Guidelines, the purposes af an Init~al Study are as follows:
o Provide the Lead Agency ~rith informatian to use as the
basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR ar Negative
Declaration.
o Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project
mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared,
thereby enablinq the praj~ct to qualify for a Negative
Declaration.
o Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if ane is required,
by;
1. facusing the EIR on the effects determined to be
significant;
2. identifying the effects determined not to be
signif icant;
3. expiaining the reasans for determining that
patentially significant effects would not be
signif icant .
o Facilitate environmental assessment ear~y in the design
of the prajeet.
o Provide documentation of the factual basis for the
finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not
have a significant effect on the enviranment.
o Eliminate unnecessary EIRs.
o Determine whether a previously prepared EIR cauld be used
with the project.
The conclusios~ of this Initial Study is that no significant
environmental effects will result from the propased pra3e~t and
Zoning Ordinance text amendment and, therefore, a Negative
Declaration can be ~ssued and no Environmental ~mpact Report will
3
be required.
A 45-day review period will be provided to allaw public review and
comment on the projeet. Responses to all comments on the
en~ironmental analysis received during the comment period will be
included in the Final Initial Study. Camments should be addressed
to:
Paul Foley
Associate Planner
Program and Policy Divisian
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
1685 Main Street
Sa~ta Manica, CA 904D1
For more information, please contact Pau~ Foley at (310) 458-8585.
A Public Hearing on the en~zronmental analys~s and the Text
Amendments will be he~d before the Planning Cammission at a time
and place that will be leqally noticed.
1.2 REPORT FORMAT
The Initial Study is organized in seven (7} sections. The first
twa sections, Executive Summary and Section 1.0, Introduction,
pravide a brief project description and summary of the
environmental findinqs and conclusions.
Section 2.0, Pra~ect Description, describes both the general
character of the area and the particulars of the project site, as
welZ as the project itseif.
Sect~bn 3.0, Environmental Assessment, contains an environmenta~
analysis and poss~ble environmenta~ impact mitigation ~easures.
Section 4.0, References, includes a list af preparers of the Study
and reference sources.
Section 5.0, Camments and Responses, will include letters
cammenting on the Draft Initial Study content and the Lead Agency's
responses to these comments.
Sectian 6.0 contains the Appendices which include the Ynitial Stttdy
Checklist Form and other reJ,evant data.
4
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTICN
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed Low-Flow Stormwater Treatment Facility project xs
located on the east side of Appian Way across fram Moss Avenue and
adjacent to the Santa Monica Pier bridge. The 51tE is owned by the
City of Santa Monica and is an irregularly shaped parcel af land
which currently contains a public stairway and a sanitary sewer
pumping station with an auxiiiary generator. The site is bo~nded on
the west side by Appian Way, on the north by the Pier bridge, an
the east by the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) transition ramp to
Ocean Avenue and on the south by a City-vwned parce~ on which a
24-unit housing project is gragosed. The vicinity of the groject is
shown on Exhibit 1. The project site is shown on Exhibit 2.
2.2 ESISTING SITE CONDYTIONS
The praject site is an irrequ~arly shaged parcel containinq 19,Q00
square feet. At present, the land is improved with a sanitary
sewer pumping statian with an auxiliary generator and a pub~ic
stairway. The remainder of the site consists of a small parking
area for pumping station maintenance workers and a slnped area with
several trees and occasional groundcaver.
The site location is s~tuated within an area zoned Residential-
Visitor Commercial (RVC) which is intended to allow a mixture of
residentia~ uses in the area while providing for the concentration
and expansi~n of caastal-related ~ndging, dining, recreation and
shopping needs of tourists and athers in the oceanfront area. The
permitted uses in the RVC district do not inc].ude a treatment plant
facility; therefore, a text am~ndment to the Zoning Drdinance is
required to permit the use.
2.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTZCS
The proposed project entails the remova~ of the public stairway and
the exeavatian of the sloped area an the site and the canstruction
of a law-flow stormwater treatment facilitg which utilizes an azone
disinfection process. The facility will include treatment
structures, anci~lary structures and office/respanse areas. The
treatment structures associated with ~his facility are units that
will hold water and include sand filters, caagulation basins,
contactor towers, p~mps, and irrigatian/wastewater reservoirs.
Anciliary structures ~nclude ozone generators, air compressors,
chemical starage, and trash bins which would bE in enclosed areas_
~ffice faci~ities would inc].ude the computer control (SCADA) room,
a sma11 wet laboratory, space for an operator to perform
administrative fu~ctions, ar~d tailet facilities. Finally, an area
would be reserved fox- thE staraqe of respanse equipment such as
respirators, gloves, partab~e ozone meters, flash~zghts,
5
neutralizers and absvrbents for oils and other materials that might
be spiiled in the storm urain system. As presently envisianed, the
facility may also include an exhibition building to prvvide
educational materials, exhibits, tours and demanstrations for the
public. On-site parking for operators/maintenance employees will
also be provided. The height of the structures on the site wil~
not exceed 20 Feet. Approximately 40~ of the parcel wi11 bE open
space.
Exhibits 3 shows the proposed site plan of the project. Exhibit 4
is an axonometric rendering of the project site. Tab1e 2-1 provzdes
a statistica~ surnmary af the project.
The City o~ Santa Monica expects that construction wi~l begin in
late 1993 or ear~y 1994 and take approximately ane year to
contplete .
2.4 APPROVALS REQIIIRED
The proposed project will require the approval af a Zoning Code
Text Amendment to allow for the development of the faciZity in the
RVC zone. The project will also require approva~s fram the
California Caastal Comma.ssion, South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The praposed project will require design appr~val from the Santa
Monica Architectural Review Board, City and County of Los Angeles,
and the California Department of Transpartation (CALTRANS).
2.5 CIIMULATIYE PROJEGT DESCRYPTION
The environmental assessment sections of the Initial Study
describe, where applicable, ad~erse potentia~, cumulative impacts
that may accur due to the combined effects of the prapos~d project
and other knawn projects. There are no such cumu].ative impacts
associated with this project.
fi
TABLE 2~1
STATISTIGAL SUMMARY
PROJECT NAME: Low-Flaw 5tormwater Treatment Facility
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Santa Monica-General Services Dept.
LOCATION:
1615 - 1625 ~ppian way
PR~POSAL: Demolitaon of public stairway and excavation
of sita.
Construction of low-f low stormwater tx-eatinent
facility
PARCEL AREA: 19,000 square feet (D.44 acres)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Rancho San Vicente Y Santa Monica
Moss Tract Lots 13,14,15,16,17 18 and 19
EXISTING GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATI~N: ~ceanfront District
EX~STTNG ZONING: Residential Visito~ Commercial (RVC)
EXISTING LAND USE: Sanitary sewer pumping station with generator.
PROJECT
CHARACTER~STICS: Building/Structure Height: 2D'
Building/Structure Area: 8,700 square feet
open Space: 5,800 square feet
Floor Area Ratio: 0.60
7
3.Q ESISTING SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This section of the Initial Study has been organized to describe
the existing environment, the impacts ot the proposed project and
any ide~tifiable adverse impacts by Initial Study Checklist
categary.
The existing environmental conditions are taken from the 1992
Master Enviramm~etal Assessment which is her~by incorporated inta
this document by reference. The following subsections identify
potential environmental effects invoiving each of the issues
checked "Xes" or "Maybe" on the Initial Study Checklist {See
Appendix A for the completad Initial Study Checklist). The issues
are identified in the following discussions by their checkZist
number and are addressed in the same order that they appear on the
checklist.
3.1 ENYIRONMENTAL SETTING
The propased prQject is located an the east side of Appian Way
acrass from Moss Avenue and is baunded by the Pacif ic Coast Highway
(PCH) transit~on ramp to ~cean Avenue on the east, the Santa Monica
Pier br~dge to the north, a city-awned parcel where 24 units of
mixed-income housing are proposed on the south and Appian Way on
the west. The surrounding uses in the area are generally visitor-
serving cammercial businesses inc~uding retail, food and various
beach related concessions that attend to the needs of tourists and
other visitors ta the beach and Pier. These land uses are located
across Appian Way fr~m the project site where a public parking }.ot
xs also located.
Appian Way is cansidered a Local street for street classificatifln
purposes and carries appraximately 1,000 vehicles per day. It is a
two-lane street with no on-street parking that pro~ides horizontal
access to the various public parking lots and other faci~ities
along the beach in the vicinity of the Pier. There is no traffic
signalization along Appian Way. Moss Avenue is a twa-lane street
that is oniy one b].dck in length between Appian Way and the
Promenade.
3.2 ENVIRONM~NTAL EFFECTS
The Program and Policy Develapment Division of the City of Santa
Manica completed an Initial Study Checklist form which identi.fied
the following areas of potential concern invalving the proposed
pro~ect:
1. Air The project may produce
objectionable odors in the
area.
8
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Water The project wYl~ dzscharge
treated stormwater into the
ocean.
Plant Life The project will involve the
removal of trees in the sloped
area.
Noise The project wi~l temporarily
increase noise levels in the
area during construction and
may minimaily increase noise
levels during vperation of the
treatment system.
Risk of Upset The project wil~ involve the
periodic removal of oil and
other hazardous materials from
the treatment area. In
addition, hazardous materials
to be used in the treatment
pracess wi 11 be stored on s ite .
Human Health The project may create hazards
to human health duri.ng the
transfer of haaardous materials
ta and from the site.
Land Use The project is planned in an
area that is gresently zoned
Residential Visitor Commercial
{RVC) which is intended to
allow any existing haus3ng and
to provide for coastal related
facilities which would serve
visitors to thE beach and Pier
area. The treatment facility
is r~ot presently a permitted
use in the District.
Uti].ities The proj ect wi11 entail changes
to the stormwater drainage
system and deli~ery ~f treated
water to existing irrigation
and groundwater recharge
systems.
Public 5erv~.ces
The project may require
additional operatianal and
maintenanc~ services.
The project will temporarily
impact the area duri~g
10. Construct~on Effects
9
construction.
11. Fiscal The praject will have a minimal
fiscal impact ~pon the City.
12. Aesthetics The project will require the
removal af trees; viewsheds
fro~ the Paci~ic Coast Highway
may be impacted during
constructian and after
completion of the project.
13. Neighborhood Effects
The project may impact the
proposed housing project
planned for the adjacent parcel
to the south.
Following each discussion of environmental issues are recammended
mitigation measures which could reduce ~ach patentially significant
negative impact to a level of insignificance.
3.2.1 AIR {CHECKLIST CATEGORY 2)
ISSIIES: Will the project result in coasiderable air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air quality ar in the creation of
objectionable odors?
RESPDNSE: These items are checked t'Maybe".
IMPACTB: Air quality imgacts are both short and Iong term. Short-
term adverse air quality impacts result from excavation, demolitian
and canstructian activities. Hea~y-duty equip~ent emissians are
difficult to quantify because of day-to-day variation in
construction activity ~ith ~ikewise differences in equipment being
used. Sinee the measuring of equipment emissians is a function af
the type of equipment and the length of operation, Tab1e 3-1 and 3-
2 are included to shaw typical construction equipment emissian
factors. Potential construction equipment emissions are not
cansidered as significant adverse impacts s~nce they occur aver
the short-term only.
The primary short-term adverse impacts to air qua~ity derive fzom
earth moving and demo~ition activit~es. Construction activities for
larger development projects are estimated by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to add 1.2 tans of fugitive dust per acre
of soil disturbed per month of activity. If water or other solid
stabilizers are used to control d~st as required by the SCAQMD Ru1e
403, emissions can be reduced by half.
A ane-month grading period followed by a 52 w~ek construction
period for the propflsed project an the 0.45 acre site should yield
10
approximately 3.51 ton~ of particulate emissions (17.8 lbs. per
day). This is considered a relatively sma~l amount compared to the
particulate emissions currently being released throughout the Sauth
Coast basin. Furthermore, these emissions ara compased of inert
silicates rather than the more harmful complex organic materials
released by combustio~ sourcas. The dust generated b~ these
ac~ivities is nat a seriaus health problem but a local nuisance
issue that can be significantly reduced by watering the area prior
to and during grading.
The long-term adverse impacts on air quality are aiso considered to
be insignificant. The major emission from the operatian of the
facility would be azone in the off-gas generated during the
treatment process. The intended facility would include an ozone
destruct unit whieh would reduce concentrations to approximately
0.1 to 0.3 PPM ozone in the gas phase. The federal and 5tate ozone
standards are 0.12 and 0. a9 PPM respective].y. In fact, the expected
ozone emissians are eguivalent, on a daily basis, to one autamobile
trip to and from the fac~lity by the averaqe Sauthern California
commuter.
Objectional odors from the off-gas in the treatment pracess will be
treated with a chemical such as carbitrol which absorbs and
cambusts organic vapors. ozvne will alsa be used to treat the gas
for odors. In the event of an upset ar accident, odorous gas will
be vented to the sanitary sewer.
The primary source af ~missions in the City are motor vehicies,
However, the number of ~ehicular trips generated on a weekly basis
by the proposed praject total less than ten. They include daily
visits by the plant operator and a weekly visit by a refuse truck
to remove the trash co~lected by the debra:s screening devices.
These trips are not expected to accur during the AM ar PM peak
commuting periods. In the event that the facility becomes open to
the public for demonstrations or tours, in all likelihood these
visits will accur as an extension of a trip ta the beach or Pier
area and wau~d not constitute project specific vehicle trips.
Clearly, the vehicie emissions generated by the proposed project
are insignificant.
The electrical pawer requirements of the praposed facility are
expected to amount ta approximate~y 600 kw per day (5 kw per lb. of
ozone praduced with a daily ozone requirement of 100 lbs.). The
qeneratian Qf this electrical energy through the combustion of
fossil fuels will result in additianal off-site emissians. These
emissions are presented, as estimated, in Table 3-3.
I1
TABLE 3-3
EMISSIONS GENERATED BY ELECTRICAL OSAGE
POLLUTANT
PROJECT-GENERATE~ EMISSI~NS
(LBS. PER DAY)
Carbar~ Monoxide 0.12
Nitragen Oxides ~.69
5ulfur Oxides 4.~7
Particulates 0.02
Reactive Organic Gasas d,01
Electrical usage rates and eniission factors were obtained from the
Air Quality Handbaok by Lhe SCAQMD, Appendix G, Apr~.I, 1987.
Since the Sauth Coast hir basin receives 6227 tons of Carban
Monaxide, iflo2 tons of Reactive Drganics and 959 tons of Nitrogen
Oxides daily, the cantributions of this project to the regional air
pollutian e~nissions are minimal.
Mitiqation Measures
Tmplementation af the following mitigation measure will reduce the
adverse a~r quality impacts Qf the praposed project to a level of
insignificance:
o During the periad of construction, regular application of
water pursuant to 5outh Coast Air Quality Management
District Ru1e 403 will reduce fugitive dust emissions by
approximately fifty percent {50~), thereby ensuring that
potential fugitive dust emission impact will be
maintained at an insignificant level.
o The project sha~1 be so designed as to filtar, divert or
otherwise reduce any objectionable odors to an acceptable
level.
3.2.2 WATER (CHECKLIST CATEGORY 3)
ISSUE: Will the projact r~s~lt in a discharge ir~to surface
waters, or in any alterat~on of surface water quality,
including but not ~imited to temperatura, dissQlved
axygen or turbidity?
RESPONSE: This item is checked "Yes".
I1~IPACTS: After disinfection, the stormwater w3.11 be monitored or
12
tested to assess the level of treatment. Depending an
the quality of the treated water, it may be either
reclaimed and used for purposes such as freeway landscape
irrigation, ground water recharge, flushing sanitary
sewers, or release to the ocean. If the stormwater can be
treated to conform to Title ~XII standards, it can be
recycled to irrigate freeway landscaping and tor
graundwater recharge. Shauld the treated water not meet
Title XXXI standards, it may be used to flush the
sanitary sewers that transports sewage for treatment at
the Hyperion Sewage Treatment facility in P~aya del Rey.
Finaliy, the water may be released inta the ocean after
treatment - water that is af f ar better quality than is
presently released into Santa Manica Bay. Since the
proposed project will improve the quality of the
stormwater currently re~eased into the Bay, there are na
adverse environmental impacts to water quality r~lated to
this project.
Mitiqatioa Measures
No mitigation measures are necessary.
3.2.3 PLANT LIFE (CATEGORY 4)
ISSUE: Wi11 the praposai result in a change in the diversity of
species or number of any sp~cies of plants or result in
a barrier to the normal replenishment of exi5ting
species?
RESPONSE: The items are checked "Yes".
IMPACTB: The project wil~ require the removal af twenty trees from
the project site. These trees are not a unique, rare or
endangered species of plant and ~he landscaping of the
project site can accommodate a like number of identical,
similar or alternative trees and other plantings.
Mitiqation Measures
Imp~ementat~an of the followa.ng mitigatian measures will reduce the
adverse impacts on plant life to a level of insignificance:
v A landscaping plan for the project site will be required
which calls for the replacement any trees that are
removed with a like nur~ber of identical, similar or
alternative trees.
3.2.4 NOISE (CATEGORY 8)
ISSUE: Will the praject result in considerable increases in
existir-g noise le~els?
13
RESPONSE: The item is checked "Maybe".
IMPACTS: There are both short and long-term noise impacts that may
be anticipated with the proposed projec~. During the
excavation, demolitian and constructian phases of the
project, short-term noise levels may nccur which may be
disturbing to employees and visitors in the immediate
vicinity of the prajeet site.
During the excavation and demolition phases, locally high no~se
~evels can be attributed to backhoes, tractors, grading trucks, and
jackhammers.
Locally high construction naise levels will be attributable to the
operation of construction hammers, cranes, compr~ssors and
generators, pneumatic wrenches and drills, etc.
Typical levels generated by constructian equipment at 50 feet from
the noise source range fram 68 dBA for compressors and saws to 1fl5
dBA for pile drivers (see Exhibit 5).
The construction nois~ levels are expected to be confined to the
immediate area around the source equipment and would be unlikely to
cause any significant, long-term adverse impact on land uses in the
~urrounding area. The excavation, demolition and canstructi.on
noise levels may temporarily create a nuisance for persans in the
immediate vicinity; however, this is not considered to be a
significant impact. There are no noise sensitive land uses such as
schools, hospitals, nursing homes, etc. in the immediate area.
Potential long-term noise impacts would be associated with the
operation af the facility. The primary noise saurces from the
treatment process will be pumps, air compressors, ozone generators
and the trash rack (screen). The pumps and trash rack will be
enclosed in a building and will be engineered t~ eliminate
additions to the ambient noise leval. The air compressars and ozone
generators will also be enclosed to protect them fram corrosion in
the marine environment and to, likewise, eliminate additians to the
ambient naise levels. The design o~ the facility will be such that
the plant vperatian w~ll conform to all city noise ordinances.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation af the follow~ng mitigatian measures will reduce the
adverse no~se impacts to a level af insignificance:
o All construction equipment, fixed ar mobile, shauld lae
equipped with naise reduction equipment {e.g. ~nuff~ers)
and be properly opErating.
o The use of auger-piling rather than pile driving is
recommended to reduce canstruction noise.
14
o Statianary equipment shou~d be placed such that emitted
noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.
o All buildings or ~tructures which contain noise
generating equipment shall be acoustical3y insulated to
reduce noise emissions ta a level af insignificance.
o The prajeet shall be designed ta confarm to aIl
applicable noise ordinances af the City of Santa Monica
3.2.5 RISR OF IIPSET (CATEGORY 11)
ISSUE: Will the proposa~ involve a risk pf explasian or the
release of hazardous substances in the event of an
accident or upset conditions?
RESPONSE: The item is checked "Yes".
IMPACTS: The stormwater treatment process will utilize hydragen
peroxide and chlorine. The hydrogen peroxide will be
used in the ozane generation process and the chlarine
wiZ~ be used for weekly disinfection af the reclamation
lines used for irrigation or groundwater recharge.
The hydrogen peroxide will be delivered to the project site twice
weekly in a 50~ solution. No special handling requirements are
necessary for hydrogen peraxide in this cancentration. No more than
50 gallons of the hydrogen peroxide will b~ stored at the site at
any one time. Further, the hydrogen peroxide will be stored in a
stainless steel tank placed in a concrete vault of su~ficient size
to contain a spill of the entire 50 gallons. In the case of an
accidental release, neutralizers will be stored on site.
The chlarine that will be utilized wil~ come in a dry tablet farm
that wi3.~. be stored in containers not to exceed 100 lbs. with no
more than 200 lbs. stored at any one time. The dry chlorine that
is to be used in conjunctian with this project is camparable to
that which is necessary to maintain a public sw~mming pool.
Any hazardous substances that are collected as part af the
treatment process will be removed periodically ~n small quantiti.es.
A~1 hazardous materials handling will be done sa in accordance with
any appZicable pracedures that are approved by the City's Hazardaus
Materials Response team.
Mitigation Messures
Implementation of the fallowing mi.tigation measures will reduce the
risk of upset to insignificant levels:
o A11 hazardaus materials handling at the project site will
be done so in accordance with procedures approved by the
15
City of Santa Monica~s Hazardous Materials Response team.
o Al~ hydrogen peroxide utiliaed at the praject site wi11
be delivered at a 50~ solution or less and no more than
50 gallons will be stored at any one time. The stainless
stee~ tank in which the hydragen peroxide wil~ be stored
will be placed in a concrete vault capable of containing
a spill of the entire tank.
o The chlorine to used in
reclamation lines wi~l be in
in waterproof containers with
less. No more than 200 ~bs.
any ane time.
3,2.6 HUMAN HEALTH (CATEGORY 12)
the disinfection of the
dry tablet farm and stored
a capacity of 100 lbs. ar
shall be stvred an site at
ISSIIE: Will the proposal result in the creation of any
healthhazard ar potential health hazard or expose people
to potentia~ health hazards?
RESPONSE: The items were checked "Maybe".
IMPACTS: The stormwat~r treatmertt process will utilize hydragen
peraxide and chlorine. The hydrogen peroxide will be
used in the ozone generation process and the chiorine
will be used for weekly disinfection af the reclamation
lines used for irrigation or grvundwater recharge.
Tha hydrogen peroxide will be delivered to the project site tw~ce
weekly in a 50~ solution. No special handling requirements are
necessary far hydrogen peroxide in this cancentration. Na more than
50 gallons of the hydragen peraxide wil~ be stored at the site at
any one time. Further, the hydrogen peroxide will be stored in a
stainless steel tank placed in a concrete vault of sufficient size
to contain a spill of the entire 50 gaZlons. Tn the case,of an
accidental release, neutralzzers will be stored on site.
The chlorine that will be utilized will come in a dry tablet form
that will be stared in containers not to exceed 1Q0 ibs, with na
more than 200 lbs. stored at any ane time. The dry chlarine that
is to be used in conjunction with this project is camparable to
that which is necessary to ma~ntain a public swimming poo~.
Any hazardous substances that are colZected as part of the
tr~atment pracess wilJ. be removed periodically in small quantities.
A~~ hazardous materials handiing will be done so in accordance with
any applicable pracedures that are approved by the City's Hazardous
Materials Response team.
16
Mitiqation Measures
Imp~ementation of the follawing mitigatian measures will ~educe the
risk of upset to insignificant ievels:
a A~~ hazardous materials handling at the project site will
be done so in accordance with pracedures approved by thE
City af Santa Monica's Hazardous Materials Response team.
o All hydragen peroxide utilized at the project site will
be delivered at a 50~ solutian or less and no more than
50 gallons will be stored at any one time. The stainless
steel tank in which the hydrogen peroxide will be stored
will be placed in a concrete vault capable of containing
a sgill of the entire tank,
o The ch~orine to used in the disinfection of the
reclamation lines will be in dry tablat form and stored
in waterpraaf cantainers with a capacity af ].00 lbs, or
~ess. Na more than 200 lbs. shall be stored an site at
any one time.
3.2.7 LAND IISE (CATEGORY 14}
ISSIIE: Will the proposal resu~t in a considerable alteration of
the present or planned iand use of an area?
RESPDNSE: The item is checked "Ye5".
IMPACTB: The proposed location Qf the project is presently zoned
Residential Visitar Co~mercial (RVC) which is intended ta
permit hausing and to provide for coasta~ related
facil~ties which would serve visitors ta the beach and
Pier area. Permitted uses include arts and craft shops,
entertainment and cultural uses, gift and souvenir shops,
museu~ns, marine oriented uses such as aquariums,
neighborhaod qrocery stares, visitor-serving retail uses,
single-fami~y and multi-family dwellings, night c].~bs
within hote~s,pulalic parks and playgraunds, restaurants
and snack shops. Conditionally permitted uses include
bed an breakfast facilities, child day care centers,
eating and drinking establishments that serve alcoholic
beverages, hotels and motels, general o~fice uses except
on the ground floor street front, and shelter5 for the
homeless. The proposed low-flow starmwater treatment
facility is not a permitted use nor a canditiona~ly
permitted use within th~s zone and a zoning ardinance
text amendment would be necessary.
17
Mitigation ~easure
~mplementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce the
advexse impact on ~and use in the area to a level of
insignificance:
o A zoning ordinance text amendment must be received in
order for the proposed project to be lacated within a
Residential Visitor Commercial (RVC) zoning district.
3.2.8 IITILITIES (CATEGORY 18)
XSSIIE: Will the proposal resu~t in a need for a new system, or
major altarations ta the stormwater drainage system?
RESPON$E: The item is checked "Yes".
YMPACT3: The praposed pro~ect itself is a new system that is being
added to the existing stormwater drainage system within
the City. Tt will also necessitate a major alt~ration to
the existing stormwater drainage system that will
transfer fihe low-flaw run-off to the treatment faci].ity.
Another delivery system will also be needed to recycle
the treated water for landscape irrigation or groundwater
recharge.
The low-flow run-off will be deliver~d by gravity from the
Fico-Iienter Canyon storm drain through an existinq 18" pipe which
will require an approximately 20' extension to reach the project
site. The treatment faci].ity wil~ process the storanwater and
de~iver a filtered and disinfected water product for either
irrigation vf pub~ic landscaping or for graundwater recharge.
Separate systems for these Li5~5 presently exist, howe~er,
reclamation ~ines from the treatment facility to the irrigation and
graundwater recharge systems wi].1 be necessary.
Mitiqation Measures
Implementation of the follow~ng mitigation measures will reduce the
adverse impacts on the public utility systems to a level af
insignificance:
o The proposed pra3ect, itself a new element ~n the
drainage system, w~.l~ requxre a short extension of
appraximately 20' ta the existing 18" drainage pipe,
a The installat~on of reclamat~on lines of approximate~y
20D feet to the exi5ting irrigation and qraundwater
recharge systems will be n~cessary to recycle the treated
starmwater.
1$
3,2.9 PIIBLIC SERVICES (CATEGORY 19)
ISSIIE: Will the proposed pro~ect have a considerable effect
upon, or result in the need for a new or altered
governmental services in the area of the maintenance of
public facilities, including roads?
RESpONSE: The item is checked "Maybe".
IMPAGTS: The proposed project is a new pub~icly-owned facility
which will require maintenance. Zt is expected that a
single operatar/maintenance person will be necessary on
a daily basis. Periadically, ather persons wil~ be
required to off-load waste that is collected at the
faci~ity and to deliver chemicals and other supplies that
are utilized during the treatment process. Althaugh this
facility will require maintenance, it is not expected to
have a sign~.ficant adverse impact on existing maintenance
services in the City.
Mitigation Measures
There are no mitigation measures requirad as no significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
3.2.10 CONSTRIICTION EFFECTS (CATEGORY 20y
IsSIIE: Will the proposed project have considerab}.e
construction-period impacts due ta the scape or location
of construction aetivities?
RESPONSE: The item is cheCked "Maybe".
IMPACTS: The prapased project will resu~t in short-term impacts to
air quality, noise and traffic circulatian during the
constructzon of the facility; however, these impacts are
not cansidered signif~cant.
Short-term air quality impacts result from excavation, demalition
and canstruction acti~rities. Heavy-duty equipment emissions are
difficult to quantify because of day-ta-day variation in
construction activity with likewise differences in equipme~t being
used. Since the measuring af equipmen~ emissions is a function of
the type of equipment and the leng~h af operation, Tables 3-1 and
3-2 on pages 10 and 11 shaw typ~cal construction eq~ipment emission
factvrs. Potential con~tx-uction equipment emissian~ are not
considered as significant adverse impacts since they occur ove~
the short-term anly.
The primary short-term impacts to air quality deri~e from earth
moving and demolition activities. Construct~on activities for
larger development projects are estimated by the Environmental
19
Protection Agency (EPA) to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre
of soil disturbed per month of activity. If water or other solid
stabilizers are used to control dust as required by the SGAQMD Rule
403, emissions can be reduced by half.
A ane-mox~th grading period followed by a 52 week construction
periad for the proposed project on the Q.45 acre site shfluld yield
approxa,mately 3.51 tons of particulate emissians (17.8 lbs. per
day}. This is considered a relatively small amount compared to the
particulate emissions currently being released th~'oughout the So~th
Coast basin. Furthermare, these emissions are composed af inert
silicates rather than the more harmful complex organic materials
released by combustion saurces. The dust generated by these
activities is not a serious health problem but a local nuisance
issue that can be significantly redt~ced by watering the area prior
to and during grading.
During the excavation, demolition and construction phases of the
project, short-term noise levels may occur which may be disturbing
to employees and visitors in the immediate vicinity af the project
site.
During the excavation and demolition phases, locally high naise
levels can be attributed to backhoes, tractors, grading trucksF and
jackhammers.
During construction, locally high noise levels will be attributable
to th~ operation of construction hammers, cranes, compressors and
generators, pneumatic wxenches and drills, etc.
Typical leve~s generated by construction equipment at 5D feet from
the noise source range from 68 dBA for compressors and saws to 105
da for pile drivers (see Exhibit 5, pg. 13).
The construction noise levels are expected to be confined to the
immediate area around the source equipment and would be unlikely to
cause any significant, lang-term adverse impact on land uses in the
surrounding area. The excavation, de~olition and construction
noise levels may temporarily create a nuisance for persons in the
immediate vicinity_ There are no noise sensitive land uses such as
schools, hospita~s, nursa.ng homes, etc. in the immediate area.
It is anticipated that some traffic disruption will occur during
construction on Appian Way and the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH)
transition ramp to Ocean Avenue. Any d~sruptions on Appian Way
would not be significant since only 1~000 vehicles per day utilize
the street. Any disruptions that may occur on the Pacific Coast
Highway (PCH) transition ramp would affect approximately 6,000
~ehicles daily. This traffic valume is equivalent to that of a
feeder street which is almost always a residentia~ street kthich to
carries traffic between residential neighborhoods and the arterial
street network. Any disruption of traffic on thi~ transition ramp
20
by the temporary narrawing of the travel way during construction
would not be consider~~ significant provided that the proper
procedures in accordance w~th City requirements are followed.
3.2.11 FISCAL (CATEGORY 21}
I88IIE: Will the prvposal have a considerable fiscal effect on
the city?
RESPONSE: The item is checked "Maylhe".
IMPACT: The estimated cost of the praposed treatment facility is
approximate~y $~.25 million. This cost will be shared
by the Caunty and City af Los Angeles and the City of
Santa Monica, the apportionment of which will be outlined
in a cast sharing agreement between ths parties which
will be executed prior to the construction of the
facility. It is expeCted that the majority af funding
wi~i be provided by outside sources. The annual
maintenance and operation expenses have not been
determined since the type and frequency of maintenance is
dependent upon the fznal design. Potentiai funding
saurces for operations and maintenance cauld be from
water/wastewater fund revenues and/or a multi-agency cost
sharing agreement sim~.lar to that utilized for funding
the capita~ cost of fac~iity constructYOn.
The City of Santa Monica has al].ocated $ 687,981 in the F 1992-93
budget for the treatment facility.
Mitigation Measures
There are no mitigation measures required as no significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
3.2,12 AESTHETICS (CATEGDRY 24)
ISSIIE: Will the propased project result in the creation of an
aesthetically oftensive site open to pub].ic view, the
destruction of a stand of trees or have any substantial
negative aesthetic effect?
RESPONSE: The items were checked "Maybe"
IMPACTS: The proposed praject is located in the shadow of the
bridge which accesses the Santa Manica Pier and behind
and abpve the mixed-use retai~., restaurant and
residential structures at 16Q1 -~617 the Promenade. The
propased project is also ad~acent to the site of a
24-unit mixed income housing project proposed by the City
to be built at 1642 Ocean Avenue at Seaside Terrace.
21
Finally, the proposed treatment facility is ~ocated bel.ow
the Pacific Caast Highway (PCH) transition ramp, across
from a propased three-story, I2,500 square faot mixed-use
retail, restaurant and office project at 16~2 ocean
Avenue.
The proposed project will be visible by the public from al1 af
these Iocations. However, design and landscap~.ng considerations
can work to minimize t'~ese visual impacts. The design of the
treatment plant can be done in a manner that is sensitive to its
location both in terms of the shapes and heights of the structures
as well as their color and materials. Mature landscaping in the
form of trees and other plantings can work to screen the facility
fr~m public view and replace the trees that v~~.ll be removed as a
result of the project.
Mitiqation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measures wi~l reduce the
adverse aesthetic impacts to a level of insignificance:
o The design, lay-aut and landscaping scheme of the
proposed project shall wark to minimize the adverse
aesthetic inpacts. Such a scheme shall include but not be
limited to tne juxtaposition of structures, their calor
and materia~s, and the placement of trees and other
plantings. Where possible, the structures shall be placed
such that the he~ght of the individual structures shall
not exceed the height of the retaining wall along the
eastern boundary of the site.
o The design, lay-~ut and landscaping scheme of the
proposed pro~ect shall be subject ta design review by the
Planning Commission and review and approval by the
Architectural Review Baard af the City of Santa Monica.
3.2.13 NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS {CATEGORY 24)
ISSUES: W~.11 the proposal have cansiderable effects on the
project neighborhood?
RESPONSE: The item is checked "Maybe".
TMPACT: The proposed project will have the short-term air quality
and naise impacts on the adjacent neighborhood as
autlined in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.4. At present, there
are residential dwellir~g units on Seaside Terrace at
Appian Way (ane-half block di$tance) and across Appian
way fronting on the Prat~enade. There is also a 24-unlt
mixed income hausing praject planned for the adjacent
parcel south of the project site. The new residents
wau~ld experience these same short-term adverse impacts
22
should the project be built and accugi~d prior to
construction cf the treatment faci~ity.
Any long-term adverse impacts wouid be as a result of the aperation
af the treatment facility. These impacts wa~Id involve air quality
and noise. The Ionq-term adverse impacts on air quality are
considered to be insignificant. The major emission from the
operation of the facility would be ozone in the off-gas generated
dur~ng the treatment process. The intended facility would include
an ozane destruct unit which would reduce concentrations to
approximately 0.1 to a.3 PPM ozone in the gas phase. The fed~ral
and state ozone standards are 0.12 and 0.09 PPM respectively. In
fact, the expected ozone emissians are equivalent, on a daily
basis, to one autamobi~e trip to the facility and back driven by
the average Sauthern California cammuter.
Objectional odors from the off-gas in the treatm~nt process wi1l be
treated with a chemical such as carbitrol which absarbs and
combusts organic vapors. Ozone will also be used to treat the gas
for adors. In the event of an upset or accident, odoraus gas wi11
be ~ented to the sanitar~ sewer. The primary source af emis5ions
in the City are motor vehicles. However, the number of vehic~alar
trips generated on a weekly basis by the groposed project total
less than ten. Tlzey include daily visits by the plant operator and
a weekly visit by a refuse truck to remove the trash collected by
the debris screening devices. In the event that the faci~ity
bec~mes open to the p~:blic for demonstrations or taurs, in all
likelihood these visits will occur as an extension of a trip ta the
beach or Pier area arid would not constitute project specific
vehicle trips. The vehicle emissions generated by the proposed
prv~ect ax-e ins5.gnificant.
The primary noise sources from the treatment process will be pumps ~
air campressors, azone generatars and the trash rack {sCreen}. The
pumps and trash rack wiil be enclosed in a building and will be
engineered to eliminate additions ta the ambient noise le~e1. The
air compressors and ozone generators wi~l also be enclosed to
pratect them from carrosion Yn the marine environment and to,
likewzse, eiiminate additions to the ambient nais~ ~evels. The
des~gn of the facili.ty will be SUCh that the plant operation wiil
conform to a7.1 city noise ordinances.
Mitiqation Measures
Implemer~tation of the fallowing measures wi].1 reduce the adverse
impacts on the neighborhood to a level af insignificance:
a Regular application of water pursuant to South Coast Air
Qua~ity Management District Rule 403 will reduce fugitive
dust emissions by approximately fifty percent (50~),
thereby ensuring that potential fugiti~e dust emission
impacts will be maintained at ar~ insignificant level.
23
o The praj ect si:all be so designed as to f ilter, divert or
otherwise reduce any objectionable odors ta a to~erable
level.
o Al1 constructivn equipment, fixed or mobile, should be
equipped with noise reduction equipment (e.g. mufflers)
and be praperly operating.
o The use of auqer--piling rather than pile drivinq is
recommended tr reduce construction noise.
o Stationary equipment should be placed such that emitted
noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers.
o All buildings or structures which contain nflise
generating eq~aipment shall be acoustically insulated to
reduce noise emissions to a le~el of insignificance.
o The project shall be designed to confarm to al1
applicable noise ardinances of the City of Santa Monica.
24
4.0 REFERENCES
Master Enviranmenta~ Assessment, City of Santa Monica -- 1992
Land Use and Circulation Element, City of 5anta Man~ca -- 1984
zoning Ordinanae {as amended), City of Santa Monica
4.1 DEPARTMENTS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
City of Santa Monica
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
Pragram and Policy Development Division
Suzanne Frick, Planning Manager
Paul Foley, Associate Pianner
City of Santa Monica
General Services Department
Administrati~e Services Di~isian
Craig PeXkins, Director
Civil Engineering Dzvision
Tony Antich, City Engineer
Dave Britton, Civii ~ngineer
Gerry Greene, Civil Engineer Associate
Utilities Division
John Mundy, Utilities Manager
25
5.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
26
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINE55 AND 7RAIWSPORTATION AGENCY
D~PAR~MENT OF ~RANSPORTATION
DI5TRICT 7 T20 Sd SPRING ST
LOS ANGELES CA 90012 3506
T~D (213~ 62Q3550
~ ~
~~
~
August 6, Z993
~.
J _ ~~.
IGR/C~QA/ND
/~r lJ
~1'~
PE3'E WELSON, Gavernor
_p~=;
~
p~~~~ ~ City of Santa MQnica
Low F~.ow Storm Water
Treatment Faei~ity
- ViC. LA-1-35.2
SCH Na. 9304~025
Mr. Tony Antich
City Engineer
City of Santa Moni~a
1685 Main Street
Santa NioniCa, CA 90~01
Dear Mr. Antich:
This is ta acknowledg~ receipt of your August 2, ~993 response
I.etter regarding the abave mantioned project. Based on this
additional information receit~ed, we have the following comments;
We concur with the City that this project wi.].J. have a ntinim~
impact on the state transportation system. However, it is
understaod that the City will require Traffic Control. Plans as part
of the bidding documents for this projsct~ which will be submitted
to Caltrans' Permit Department for rsview and approval pr~.or to the
start of construction.
We also understand that there are no anticipated traffic lane
closures on stat~ facilit.ies. Truck traffic is al.lowed on stats
facilities unless otherwise stipulat~d by the City. We only
recommend that it be limitad to off-peak commute periods.
Any transport af heavy construction equipment which require the
~xse of oversize transport vehicles on State Highways wili require a
Caitrans transportation permit.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. if you have any
quastions regarding these com~uents, pleass call me at (213) 897-
1338.
SincerelY.
~.
WILFORD LTON
5enior T nsportation Pl~nner
IGR/CEQ~, Coordinator
Advance Planning Branch
~~A ~~,~~ C I T ~T O ~
'
~-
~ ~
Y y ~ ~ ~--~--~ {
~ .~`
f
~ ~
• '
-
~~ ir a. ~ -ti .~
y
'J fG ` d`?
h~~~
CAL~F~x~ ~.~
~FFIC~ ~~F ~1-;~ C" ~'• ~wG:'-ECR
1b~5 tii~,lti STR~~- ~i~-k-~.
P 0 BQ\ ~~C~!
S.~\ ;~. bl~ti;C- C z~'F vuau'-'_~L•
August 2, 1993
:~'~r. W~lfo~d Melton
State of Ca3.ifoynia
~epar~r~ent o~ ^'yar.sno~ta~wcr~
~istrzct ~
~enior Transpartatl~on P'anner
ridvance Planninq Branch
'20 S. Sprxna 5treet
`LO5 Angeies, C;i 90~12
~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~
~ t~ I~f ~ . y ~`r ~ ~
SUBJ£C~': ~ity c~ Santa Monica Low Flow Storr.twater Treatment
Fac~~~~y VIC-27-17.0 Pro~~c~ Revie~r Commentis
J~ar Mr . :~e3ton :
;z response tc you~ letter of cci;unent dated Apri' 22, ig33, on the
~ity's pr~posed Lo~: F~oY. S~ormwate~ Treatment Facillty, this is to
serve as a clarif~cat~an o~ the lssues zaised.
=. Inso~~r Gs ~~~~l~c t•.orks nr~~ects ar.~ p~iva~e cte~elapanents ~::
5anta Mcnica are ccncerr.~~, the cons~ruction of ~hzs $1.~
;,ti~i~~n ~lanL (inc~udin~ ~esiqr,j on the ~.~~ acre site ~s
reJ.at~veiy s~ail. ~s suc'r., any cunu~atzve znpact to the State
High~ay; Freewav syste:r~ ~*i=? ~e r,;inor.
The Cantrac4or wa~l aiso .~e encouraged tc utilize off-peak
Commute nours ~or transpor~ of any equipment requiring the use
of oversize transpcrt ven~cl~s o.^. th~ Freewavs or ather State
N~anway~. _ _
~. As a nor:nal course .._ ~:,e ~cns ~~ tic~ion process ~ iraffi~
Contr~l ?lans (~ncludir.~ ~roposed haul routes) will be
sub:~i ~te~ ~~ Ca~trans an~ ~::e ~i ~~_' s'Iraff~c Engzneei far
a~nrova~.
Since tre c~zs~ru~~~~v:'° s~.~= yC cc:~~~ne~~, ~.~~ere are no L~affic
iane ciosurAs ~r: s4ate ~}ahway ioutes oY C~ty Streets
antz~ipated.
~. The ~ro~ec4 ~~d sneczf~ca;zcns will stipulate that no truck
traf~~c ~s allowed cn Pac~~~c Coast Highwav.
~;
Page 2
August 2, I993
Mr. Melton
T: G~~ a:,;,rc; _nirc~ ~_.c ~._OT'OL'.^:l r2Vl~w GCCO~..~l~snea DV C.ai~idll5
on this pro~ec~. ana arn cp~tain that ~his 5tormwaterfTreatmer.t
Facility will provida a ~:~a~~r envz,:on:~enta~. benefit to the nublic
util~ziny aur State Beacne~ ~:~ ar:d ad~acer.t ~c che Santa Manica
Bay.
We look ~or-,~ard t~ ~:crk~ ra ~.at:~ Caltrans c~aselv durir~~ che
const~ tion of this ir:~o,:zan~ pra~ect. ~
~
~~ Very t l.y yours,
~` ~
1 -
~ • . = ,..
.D. Bri ton, P.E.,
'viI En ineer
ce: Anthony Antich, P.E., City Engineer
inTP51 ~Ds\LTR08C2. .nam
6.4 APPENDICES
f:\ppd~share~ppddoc~~stormzs
CITY OF SANTA MONICA IS No. ~Z-4! -
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
City Ha1Z, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, Ca~ifornia 90401-3295
INITIAL STUDY
AND
NEIGHBORHO~D IMPACT STATEMENT
DATE FILED 1-23-92
I.
BACRGROIIND
1. Name vf Appl.icant City of Santa Monica
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent
City of Santa Monica - General Services Department
Stanley Scholl - 458-8221
3. Project Address Moss Avanue/Appian Way
Name of Praposal, if applicable
Stormwater Drainage Treatment Facility
4. Initial Study Prepared by Paul Foley
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all answers are required on attached
sheets.)
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstab~e earth conditians or in
changes in geolagic substructures? X
b. Extensive disruptions, displace-
ments, compaction or overcovering
of soil? X
c. Extensive change a.n tapography of
graund surface relief features? ~
d. The destruction, covering ar
modification of any unique ~
geological or physical features?
- 1 -
CITY OF SANTA MONICA IS No. ~ 2`O!
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
City Hall{ 1585 Main Street~ Santa Manica~ California 90401-3295
Yes Maybe No
d. Substantial change in the amount
of surface water in any water
body? X
e. Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration a~ surface
water quality, including but
not lim~ted to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X
f. A~teration of the direction or
rate of fluw of ground waters? X
g. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct
addit~ons ar withdrawals, or
through interceptxon o~ an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? X
h. Cansiderable r~duction in the
amaunt of water otherwise ava11-
able for public water supplies? X
i. Exposure of people or property
to water related hazards such
as fiaoding or tidal waves? X
4. Plant Life. Wi~l the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species
or number of any species of p~ants
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, and aquatic plants)? X
b. Reduction of the numbars af any
unique, rare or endangered
species of plants? X
c. Introduction of new species af
plants into an area, or resuit in
a barrier to the norma2 replen-
ishment of existing species? X
- 3 -
CITY OF SA1~lTA MONICA I S No . ~ ~- U!
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, 5anta Monica, California 90401-3295
Yes Maybe Na
e. Considerable increase in wind or
water erosian of soils, either on
or off ~he site? X
f. Changes in deposition ar erosian
of beach sands, or changes in
siitation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the bed of the
ocean or any bay or inlet? X
g. Exposure of people ar property
to gealogic ha~ards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure, ar
similar hazards? X
2. Air. Will the proposai result in:
a. Consi3erable air emissions or
deterioration of ambiant air
quality? x
b. The creatian of abjectionable
odors? X
c. Substantia~ alteration of air
movement, moisture, or temperature,
ar any change in climate, either
locally or regionaZly? X
d. Expose the project residents to .
severe air pollution cflnditions? X
3. Water. will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the
course af direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters? X
ia. Extensive change5 in absorp-
tion rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? X
c. Alterations to the course or
f],ow of flaod waters? X
- 2 -
CITY OF BANTA 1YdONICA IS No. ~I~Z ~QI
CITY PLANNING DIVISIDN
City Hall, ~685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
Yes Maybe No
5. Animal LiFe, wilZ the proposaZ
result in:
a. Change ir. the diversity af
species, or number of any species
of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic orqanisms or
insacts}? x
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered
species af animal.s? X
c. Introduction of new species of
animals into an area, or result
in a barrier ta the migration
or movement of animals? X
d. Deterioration of existing fish
or wiidlife habitats? x
6. Enerqy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of considerable amount of
fue~s or energy? X
b. Considerable increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the deve~opment of
new sources of energy? X
7. Naturai Resources. Will the propo5al
resuJ.t in:
a. Considerable increase in the rate
af use of any natura~ resources? X
b. Considerable depletion of any
nonrenewab~e natural re~ource? X
8. Naise. Will the praposal result in:
a, Considerable increases in existing
noise ]~evels? x
b. Expasure af peaple to severe
noise levals? X
_ 4 _
CITY OF SANTA MONICA IS No. ~~~"Gf
CITY PLANNING DIVISION -
City Hall, 16$5 Main 5treet, Santa Monica, Califarnia 90401-3295
Yes Maybe No
9. Liqht aad Glare. Will the propasal
praduce considerable new light or g7.are
from street lights or other sources? X
10. Shadows. Will the proposal produc~
extensive s:~adows affecting
adjacent uses or property? X
11. Ri.sk of Qpset_ Wi11 the proposal
involve:
a. A risk ~f an explosion or the
release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to,
oil, past~cides, ehemicals or
radiation) in the event af an
accident or upset conditians? x
b. Possible interference W1tI] an
emergeney response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan? ~
12. Human Health. Wii~ the prapasal
result in:
a. Creation af any health~hazard
or potential health hazard
(excluding mental health)? X
b. Exposure of people to potential
health hazards? X
c. Considerable adverse impact on
health care ser~ices? X
13. Population. Wiil the propasa~
result in:
a. Considerable ehange in the distri-
bution, density, or growth rate of
the human populatian of an area? X
b. The relocation of any persons
because of the effects upon
housing, commerciaJ. or industria~
facilities? X
c. The re].ocation or dis~ocation
of employment or businesses? X
- 5 -
• CITY OF BANTA MONICA IS No. ~~ ~fl-
CITY PLANNIPIG DIVISION ~
City Hall, 1555 Main Street, Santa Monica, Califarni.a 90401-3295
Yes Maybe Na
14. Land IIse. Will the proposal result in:
a. A considerable alterat~on of the
present or planned land use of
an area? X
b. Demolition, relocation, or
remodeling of residential, com-
mercial or industrial buildings
or other f acil~ties? X
15. Housinq. Wi~.l the Propasal:
a. Create a considerable demand for
additional housing2 X
b. Have a considerable adverse impact
on the avai~able rental housing
in the community? X
16. Right of Way. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Redueed lot area? X
b. Reduced access? ~
c. Reduced vff-street parking? X
d. Creation of abrupt grade di~-
ferential between p~blic and
private property? ~
17. Transportation/Circulation. Will
the praposal result in:
a. Generation of considerable
additional vehicu~ar movement? X
b. Substantial effects on
existing parking faciZities, or
demand for new parking? X
c. Considerable adverse impact upan
existing bus transit systems? X
d. Alterations to present patterns
of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods by changes
to roadways? X
- 6 -
CITY OF SANTA MONICA IS No. ~~-p~
CITY PLANNING DIVTSION
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, Califoxnia 90401-3295
Yes Maybe No
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail
or air traffic? X
f. Considerable adverse impact on
traffic safety ta motorists,
bicyclists or pedest~ians? x
18. IItilities. Will the proposaJ.
result in a need for new systems,
or major alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Pawer ar natural gas? X
b. C~mmunications systems? X
c. Water? X
d. Sewer ar septic tanks? X
e. Storm water drainage? x
f. S~lid Waste and disposal? X
19, Public Services. Will the proposal
have a considerable effect upon, or
result in a need for new ar altered
governmental services in any of the
fo].lowing areas:
a. Fire protection? x
b. Police protection? X
c. Schaols, including
pre-schools or child care? X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e. Maint~nance of public facil-
ities, including raads? ~{
f. ~ther governmental services? ~
20. Construction Effects. Will the
proposal have cons~derable canstruc-
tion-period impacts due to the scope, ar
location of construction activities? x
- 7 -
. CYTY OF SA1+1TA MONICA IS No . ~ y'a t
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
City Hall, ~685 Main Street, Santa Manica, California 90401-3295
Yes Maybe No
21. Fiscal. WiI~ the proposal have a
considerable fiscal effect on the
City? X
22. Recreatiaa. Will the prQpasal result
in a considerable impact upon the
quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? X
23, Cul.tural Resources.
a. Will the propasal result in the
alteration of or the destruc-
tion of a prehistoric or his-
toric archeological site? ~
b. Will the praposal resuit in
adverse physical or aesthetic
effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure,
or object? X
c. Does the proposal have the
potential to cause a physical
change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? X
d. Will the propasal restriCt
existing religious or sacred
uses within the potential.
impact area? X
24. Aesthetica. Will the proposed
project resuit in:
a. The obstruction af any scenic
vista or view apen to the public? X
b. The creation of an aestheti-
cally offensi~e site open to
public view? K
c. The destruction of a stand of
trees, a rock outcropping or
other loca~ly recognizad desir-
able aesthetic natural feature? ~
d. Any substantial negative
aesthetic effect? X
_ g ..
CITY OF SANTA MONICA IS No. ~~`p~
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
Yes Maybe No
25. ~eighbarhood ~ffects. Will the
proposal have considerable effects
on the project neighborhood? X
26. Mandatory Findinqs of sfgni~icanae.
a. Does th~ praject have the paten-
tial to degrade the quality of the
~nvironment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish ar wildlife
species, cause a fish ar wildlife
population to drop below seZf
sustainincr levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant ar animal commun-
ity, reduce the number ar restrict
the range of a rare or endangered
p~ant or ar~iraal or eliminate
important examples af the major
periods of California history or
pre-history? X
b. Does the project have the paten--
tial to achieve short-term, to
the disadvantage of lang-term,
env~ronmental gvals? X
c. Does the project have impacts
which are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? X
d. Does the project have environ-
mental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly
ar indiz'ectly? X
xII. DISCDBSION ~F ENVIRONMENTAL EVALIIATION
(See attachment)
I~T. DETERMINATIDN
(See attachment)
legal/efg
Ol/23/92
- 9 -
~
ATTACSMENT
Discussion af Enviram~~ntal Evaluation
Areas ahecked "No~~ --
1. Earth {a,b,c,d,e,f,g~. The project will not result in
unstable earth conditions or change any geologic substructures. The
project will not increase so~l erosion, will not affect beach sands
or the ocean bed nor will it expase persons to gealogic hazards,
2. Air ~c,d). The project will not alter aa.r movement, moisture,
temperature or cli~ate nor produce severe air pollution.
3. Water (a,b,c,d,f,q,b,i). The project wi~~ nat adverssly
affect surface or ground water in any matter.
4. Plant Life (b~. The project will not impact unique, rare or
endangared species af plants.
5. Aaimal Life {a,b,c,d). The project will not affect animal
life.
6. Energy (a,b). The project will not consume considerable
amounts of energy.
7. Natural Resources (a,b). Tha project wil~ not affect natural
resources.
8. Noise (b). The project will not expose people to se~ere noise
levels.
9. Liqht and Glare. The project will not emit considerable new
light or glare.
10. Shadows. The project will not produce extensive shadows.
11. Risk of IIpset (b}. The project wi~.l not interfere with
emergency response ar evacuation plans.
12. Human Heal~h (c). The project will not impact health care
servic~s. _
13. Population (a,b,c). The prajeet will not impact population,
~4. Land Us~ (b). The project dves not invalve the demolition or
remodeling af any buildings.
~.5. Housing {a,b). The project wi~l nat impact housi.ng.
i
].6. Riqht of Way (a,b,c,d). The project will not reduce lot area,
off-street parking, acc~ss or create abrupt grade differential
between pubiic and private property.
t7. Transportation/Circulation (a,b,c,d,e,f). The project will
not generate additional vehicular tnovement, additional demand on
public mass transportatian or parking nor will it affect traffic
patterns or safety far motorists, bicy~~ists ~r pedEStri.ans.
18. Otilities (a,b,c,d~e,f). The project will not require new or
major a~terations to sy~tems far electrical power, natural gas,
water, wastewater, svlid wasta disposal, communications or sewer.
19. Publia 8ervices (a,b,c,d,f). The project wi1.~ not have
cansiderable impact an police and fire protection, schools or parks
and recreational facilities or ather governmental services.
22. Recreation. Th~ project wi~.l have no impact on recreational
opportunities.
23. Cu].tural Resouraes {~,b,c,d). The project will have no impact
on cultural resaurces.
24. Aesthetics (a). The project will n~t affect pub~.ic views or
obstruct scenic vistas.
26. Mandatory Findinqs {a,b,c,d). The project will not degrade
the qua~ity of the en~ironment or affect fish, wiidlife, rare or
endangered plant iife or affect examples of history in California.
The proj~ct will not adversely impact long-term enviranxnental goals
or cause adverse effects to humans individe~ally ar cumulat~.veiy.
Areas checked "Yes" --
4. Plant Life (a,c) . The project will invalve the re~ova~ of
trees in the s~oped ~andscaped area sauth of the Pier.
14. Land IIse (a). The project is planned in an area presently
zoned Resideritial Visitar Comm~rciai (RVC} which is inte~ded to
preserve any existing housing and provide for coastal related
facilities which would ser~e vistors to the area.
Areas checked "Maybe" --
2. Air (a,b). The project may result in shart-term air emissions
impacts and may create objectionable odors in the area.
3. Water ie). Depending on the quality of the treated water, the
proaect may discharge treated stormwater into the acean.
8. Nais~ (ay, The project may considerab~y ir~crease the noise
level in the area.
11. Risk of IIpset (a). The project may utilize chlarine and
hydrogen peraxide in the treatment process.
12. Human Health (a,~~. The project may create human health
hazards when hazardous matez~als are periodically removed fram the
facility.
19. Public services (e). The treatment facility may xequire
additional operatinnal and maintenance services.
20. Constructioa Effeats. The praject may produce short-term
impacts during the construction period.
2i. Fiscal. The project may have fiscal impact upon the City.
24. Aesthetics (b,c,d}. The praject may create an aesthetica~ly
affensive site, producing a negative aesthetic impact.
25. Neiqhbcrhood Effects. The project may impact the housing
project proposed f~r the parcel adjacent to the treatment faci~ity.
~,o Exxr$rTs
~
~ e ° t ~ ~t ti
J
x .~{ .j /~ AJ / {
9'A+~~~` y ~ ~~ !~ ~~~ ~i ,~~ V \v S'1 1• 1! i) 31 ~ I I ! ~ C~ r~~ 41 rsti ~~~ ~~ r~l f ~'. J1
~ ; ~ ~~ fW~p~,k ~w } 4g, 3Q~i~' ~ ~ ~~ ~.
F'v V ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ }' ~ ' .
i ~j
~, ~y~~ ~° ~ ~t ~ F;,,, ~j ' ~ ~ ~
i~ ~ ~. ' .
~~L 7s a e ~ i~~..frr~n.,rrJV~f - ~Prarr~F~)o~, }~ ~ •
_ ~ ti 4raJ4+~/ ~jrrfS'~! )ti!
_ ~ ~ r-i~t : rLn•F. _ - ~ 1~G,\TY " R 'Ip .
a ~`~ a~. . ~ - _~ ~~,' u w~' yq so ~Py ry~ a e w yo ~n
CL ~ ~/ ` £rw.Iv~t•~.~/ ~,7 ~~ S.~ ' 1 ~ A }T
o Q~ %°~ • p.t~ +a -e~rr~i~ !+~~ 9 b S b ~ 1~ 11 ESl 13 I4 16 ~~ It IS
u l5 ~y ~:d ' S ~ , ~ ~ '' ,~ $
~, y..~ a~~ ~ ~ . - ' ~ - ° r ~ ~ _ ~r ~, 5
~ ~. ~ S~Vf' ~Nf ' ~`. ', ~ f ~
_ So ~ + aia: r ' ~' ~a ,~u ~b ~cn tiS~ 6d se' ao
/ ~ ~
~~ Q~ i ~~
~/ ,.~' ~' x OCEAN
~
~ ~~ /~ • R~ ~iv..!! CC ~ ~ h lIYC J
^- ao .i• ts w c uti r5 .% ~ ,2] `° w so so w eu s y~p
ai'~W'~ry ~~ ~?~ ~Py Jr33 _.~~ ~ - 7 ~ Z~ 4- ~_5 '~~~ /
M .i ~~y' a 9 a' S ~, ~~ f +
' ~ --,s .o ~~ ~;~' ~ , .,~_ 4B 3 >~~ ~/
/ . ~ ~ ~ ~~( ~ ~~~ ,,~ 20 " ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ,/ ~
~7~~„~ rr ,o //~~
~~ 28^ s~ ^~w -~~Z~i ' L ~ y~ ~
, ° ~, ~ ~i / ~
---~ ~ E ~8~ ~~
_~ Q "!5 I I 12 1 31 , 42 ^ ~
.. ~
~ sr., Q ~~« I'h ~ ~' w~ ^~ R E P /~
- - '" s APA~AN r~ '~ * «43 ,,~ ~,,~ So /~~"
C 1 j " J~ io r~' ~J~'; q = B~
~ ~~ ~~~~1 ~
1 .1~ f~ ~rw e ~»w N 7! a if .4 iy _
.1 > ^~
~i u `
~,
~=i
~;
I
I
I
sro.~.. ao~n srr ~
O~y ~ ~ri
~
i~
'i
~ i~
. ,
.,
V ~
N
I II
~ '"~ .
s ~`
! • ~+l~,r
it "
~ ~-t~ w
- - - - - «ae- w • - yv c, J . ~ ~ Y- `
~ ~e ~~8~} rr~~r ~
~ ~. ~ ~~~~R ~ ~
1
~
! _
~
'
acEAn~
LEGEND ~~ALE
~ Ex-s~&r -U~tl
~,~ a~/w~reR s~E~.roR ~ 0 54
~,5 CD,SCUUT~pN
5.7 SANq ~ILTRAYION
9 AIR f W4PPIMG
9
-.crMntto c~at~ora ~
10 DISINFECTfON ~
t 1 RESEFiV01R ET 25 ~
12 E%SIS{6NC Pi111P HOUSE ,{
13 E 1cl$TIMG GENEMTpR • ~
] ~
1 ~
pARK4+1C ~
,
~.
a~
~.o
~
~
~
~
~
.~..~,
~
1~
~
~~
' ~,~ ~ q
{.~~ Q~
~C~~ ~
~ ~~~
~~Cj - 1 i
~ _. _.
ACGE55 WWP--~
APPIAN
N~
~
dt
~
AVE
~
EXISTING
APAHTMENTS
~ PROP~SE~
Re~,vN~~vc wu~ ~FSIDEf~lTIAL
(Npw vaCnnrT)
~N A Y
ATTACHMENT N0. 2
W
~
~
C~
~
W
~--
W
^
..~.
C!7 ~
d
w
V ~
~
~t,
~
CJ
~
~~
w
3anta Monica Sto~m Water Treatmen~ P3.ant - Plan View.
~
r~~ f~~'~~-
~
~ o
~~
~ a
~- J
n
~
~
[
Z
a
/ ~
i~^ ~
~ ? 3~
f Y
t = ]~ r
qq < ~
z ~~~ ~ ~~~~~^40 S
~~}~, ~, ~=~~~d°'r~}{
~~ I~~-~
~'~ Z 6 ~1 f~i =d N
~~~n ~ ~ (tLoe~Lasd~~~
J e.nf163rmnfr_~3Of~t~lr'~
P
~
J
~. _
h v+
z z
~v
E~ifilB~i ~
~-iFsia3~t~d som~d L~wl {d9A1 at SO teat
b p 70 6 0 ~ I00 110
C
o~act (ro~leray
Front l
d
oa
~ra
Backhaes .
Tractors
Scrapera, qrader~
P~vera
k ~
Truc
s
Con
t
i
cre
xera
e m
Corscret~ pumps
Cranes (mova.ble)
Czanea (derrick)
P
'~'~
tur~pa
Genarator
s
Cor~rtssara
Pneumatic ~-rex~che~
'"~~'
Jac.k-+~~nera and dtil].9
Pile dr3vers (pcak 2evelay
Yib
t
ra
ora
Saws
Source: ~Handbock ot Noise Carstrol," by G~rril Sarri~, I979.
~ - , _ _ _ . _ ~ . _ -
~
A TTA CHMENT 8
~
CA:f:atty~muni~laws~cab~rvc.ord
City Councii Meeting: 12/14/93 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NO. 1721
(City Ccuncil 8eriss)
AN ORDYNANGE OF THS CITY CDONCIL
OF THS CITY OF SANTA M~NiCA
AI~IIENDINQ~ $ANTA ~ONICA MDNICIPAL CODB SECTIONS
9.Q4.08.12.020, 9.04.08.12.060~ AND ADDINa BECTION
4.84.08.12.080 RELATED TO PERMITTED IISEB AND TO
DEVELOPMENT BTANDARDB I~ THT
FOR RESIDENTIAL-YZSITOR-COMMERGIAL DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, in August, 1988, the City Council adopted Ordinance
1452 (CCS) implementing the current Comprehensive Land Use and
Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, in January, 1993, the City Council adopted, by
ordinance~ interim development standards for the Residential
Visitor Commercial (RVC) zoned parcels located along the Paci~ic
Coast Highway between the Pisr and the northern City limits; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 1993, the City Council extended the
ordinance which established Interim Development Standards for the
Residential Visitor Commercial (RVC) zaned parcels located a~ong
the Pacific Coast Highway between the Pier and the northern City
limits; and
WHEREAS, the proposed standards are consistent with the
development standards for all other parcels ~n the vicinity; and
1
WHEREAS, on Septeml~er 29, 1993, the Planning Commission he3.d
a puhlic hearing, re~iewed and recammended approval of the propased
standards.
NOW, THEREFQRE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLL~WS:
SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.12.020
is amended ta read as follows:
9.04.08.12.020 Pe=m~tted IIses.
The following uses shall be permitted in
the RVC District, if conducted within an
enclased building, except where otherwise
permitted:
(a) Arts and crafts shops.
(b) Camera shops.
(c} Conventian and conferenca facilities.
~d) Entertainment and cultural uses.
(e) Gift or sauvenir shops.
(f) Libraries.
(g) Marine oriented uses such as
aquariums.
(h) Museums.
(i) Neighborhood grocery stores.
2
(j) Single-family dwellings p~aced on a
permanent foundation (includinq manufactured
housing).
(ky Multi-family dwellings.
(1) Night Clubs within hote~s.
(m) Retail uses that cater to the
visiting public.
(n) Public parks and playgraunds.
{o) Residential uses existing at the
time of adoption of this Chapter.
{p) Restaurants.
(q) Schoals.
(r) Skating rinks.
(s) Snack shops.
(t) Swim and hea~th clubs.
(u) outdoor public utilities and
maintenance service yards.
(v) The fallowing uses if conducted on
the Santa Monica Pier or alang The Promenade:
(1) Amusement and game arcades.
(2) Bait shops and fishing
supplies.
(3) Exhibitions and games.
(4) Fish markets.
3
(5} Marine service stations and
boat landings on the Pier only.
(b) Night c~ubs.
(7) Sport fishing.
(w) Accessory uses which are detarmined
by the Zoning Administratar to be necessary
and customarily associated with, and are
appropxiate, incidental, and subQrdinate to,
the principal permitted use.
(x) other uses determined by the Zoning
Admznistrator to he similar to those listed
above and which are consistent and not more
disruptive or disturbing than permitted uses.
SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section
9.04.08.12.050 is amended ta read as follows:
9.04.08.12.060 Property development
standards.
Al1 property in the RVC District shall
be deve~oped in accordance with the following
standards:
(a) Maximum Building Height and FAR.
Maximum building height, number of stories
and floor area ratio shall be d~termined as
follows:
4
(1~ Properties Maxi-
Bounded by Maxi- mum No. Maxi-
the Following mum of mum
Streets Height Stories FAR
Pier overlay:
a. Santa 34' 2 1.0
Monica Pier.
The Deauville
site to the
north, Seaside
Terrace to the
south, The
Promenade to
the west, and
Ocean Avenue
ta the east,
except parcels
fronting on
Ocean Avenue.
b. Parcels 30' 2 .5
fronting on
Ocean Avenue.
5
c. Replace- 40' 3 1.0
ment af Sinbad's
building only
on the Santa
Monica Pier.
d. Amuse- 85' for one Ferris Wheel;
ment rides 55' for one Roller Coaster;
an the Santa 45' for al~ ather amusement
Monica Pier. rides.
West side of 45' 3 2.0
~cean Avenue
from Pico
Boulevard to
Seaside Terrace
(Ocean Avenue
Fronting Parcels
Only).
East side of 45' 3 2.0
Ocean Avenue
to First Court
from Cvlorado
Avenue to
Califarnia Avenue.
6
Pico Boulevard 45' 3 2.0
to Vicente
Terraee from
west side of
ocean Avenue
ta The Frome-
nade.
For parcels 23~ 2 0.5
located along flat raof
the Pacific
Coast Highway 30'
between the pitched roof
Santa Monica
Pier and the
north city limits.
~2} As used in this Sectian, a
pitched roof is defined as a roof with at
least two sides having no less than ane faot
of vertical rise for every thr~e feet of
horizontal run. The walls of the building
may not exceed the maximum height required
f or a f lat roof .
7
(3j There shall be no limitation on
the number of stories of any hotel or parking
structure so long as the height does not
exceed the maximum number of feet permitted
in this Section. Maximum building height for
the pier platform shall be measured from the
pier platform rather than average natural
grade.
(b) Maximum Unit Density. For parce~s
lacated alang the Pacific Coast Hi.ghway
between the Santa Monica Pier and the north
city limits~ those parcels greater than 4,0~0
square feet, one dwellinq unit for each 1,500
square feet of parcel area is permitted. For
parcels Iess than 4,000 square feet, no
dwelling units shali be permitted except that
one dwe~Zing unit may be permitted if a
single family dw~lling existed on the parcel
on September 9, 1988. No more than one
dwelling unit shall be permitted on a parcel
40 ~eet vr less in width.
(c} Maximum Parcel Coverage. Seventy
(70) percent except that for parce].s located
along the Pacific Coast Highway between the
Santa Monica Pier and the narth city limits,
8
the maximum parcel coverage shalZ be 50
percent.
(d) Minimum Lat Size. Five thousand
(5,000) square feet. Each parcel sha~l
contain a minimum depth of 100 feet and a
minimum width of 50 feet~ except that parcels
existing on September 9, 1988 shall not be
subject to this requirement.
{e) Front Yard 5etback. Thirty-€ive
(35) feat a~ang the west side of Ocean Avenue
sauth of Colorado Avenue, 20 feet on the east
side of Ocean and 5 feet on all other streets
except that for parcels Iocated along the
Pacific Coast Hiqhway between the Santa
Monica Pier and the north city limits, the
front yard setback shall be 20 feet or as
shown on th~ Official Districting Map,
whichever is greater. At least 30~ of the
building elevation abqve 14 feet in height
shall provid~ an additional 5 foot average
setback from the minimum required front yard
setback.
(f) Rear Yard Setback. Fifteen (15~
feet, except that for parcels located aiong
the Pacific Caast Highway between the Santa
Monica Pier and the narth city limits, the
9
beach rear yard setback shall be 15 feet far
parcels 100 feet or less in depth, 55 feet
for parcels over 100 feet in depth.
(g~ Side Yard Setback. The side yard
setback shall be determined in accordance
with the following formula, except for Iots
of less than 5D feet in width for which the
side yard shall be 10~ o€ the parcel width
but not less than 4 feet:
5 + {stories x lot widthl
~~r
For parcels located along the Pacific
Coast Highway between the Santa Monica Pier
and the north city limits, at least 25$ of
the side elevation above 14 feet in height
shall provide an additianal 4 foot average
setback from the minimum side yard setback.
(h) Development Review. A Develapment
Review Permit is required for any development
of more than 15,000 square feet of floor area
in a11 areas af the District, and for any
development with ro~~tap parking.
(i) View Carridor. For parcels located
along the Pacific Coast Highway between the
l0
Santa Monica Pier and the north city limits,
any struct~re with 70 feet or more of
frontage parallel to Pacific Coast Highway
shall provide an unobstructed view coxridor
between Pacific Coast Highway and the Ocean.
The view carridar shall be a minimum of 20
continuaus feet in width measured from the
property line abutting and parallel to
Pacific Coast Highway and shall remain
unobstructed by any structure or portion
thereof.
(j) Parking. For parcels located along
the Pacific Caast Highway between the Santa
Monica Pier and the north city limits,
uncavered parking may be lacated in the front
half of the parcel and within the required
front yard setback.
SECTI~N 3. S~ction 9.04.08.12.Q80 is added to the Santa
Monica Municipal Code to read as €ollows:
Section 9.04,~8.12.080 Exemptions.
The following projects are exempt from
the provisions of Section 9.04.08.12.060:
(a) Any building or structure sited on a
Residential-Visitor Camm~rcial zan~d parcel
11
3ocated on the Pacific C~ast Highway nflrth of
the Pier for which a bui~di~g permit was
issued an or before April 23, 1993.
(b) Any building ar structure sited on
Residential-Visitar Commercial zoned parcels
other than those located on the Pacific Coast
Highway north of the Pier for which a
building permit was issued an or before the
effective date af this 4rdinance.
(c} Any project sited on a Residential-
Visitor Commercial zaned parcel located on
the Pacific Coast Highway north of the Pier
f~r which a vesting tentative map application
was filad and deemed complete on or before
April 23, 1993.
(d) Any project sited on Residentia~-
Visitor Commercial zoned parcels other than
those located an the Pacific Coast Highway
north of the Pi~r for which a vesting
tentative map application was filed and
deemed complete on or before the effective
date of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
ar appendic~s thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this
Ordinance, to the extent of such incansistencies and no further,
12
are hereby repealed or modified to that ext~nt necessary to
effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent
jurisdictian, such decision shall not effect the validity af the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby
declares that it would have passed this Ordinance~ and each and
every section, subsectian, sentence, clause, or phrase not
declared invalid ar unconstitutional without regard ta whether
any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared
invalid or uncanstitutional.
SECTION 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall
attest ta the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper
within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become
effective 3~ days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~'~ ' ~`~
-,, -- -_i, ,~~~
J05EPH TiAWRENCE
Ac~ing City Attorney
13
Adopted and approved ttus 25th day of January, 1994
.,
~~.
yror
I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordu~ance No 1721 {CCS) was duly and regulariy
inuoduced at a meeung of the City Council on the 25th day of January, 1994, that the said
Orduiance was thereafter duly adopted at a meeting of the City Council on the 25th day of
January. 1994 by the fo~lowing Counczl vote
Ayes Councilmembers Abdo, Genser. Greenberg, Holbrook. Rosenstein,
Vazquez
Noes Councilmembers None
Abstam Councilmembers None
Absent: Counciimembers• Olsen
ATTEST
~ " ~
,~~i~/./~'~ r ~
_/
City Clerk