SR-11-A (7)
.
ff~ti -a>g ~t!7/
.
II-A
,",~s"
AP;HED;LJS:mh
CIty CouncIl Meeting 4/8/86
Santa Monica~California
TO:
Mayor and CIty \'ouncil
FROM:
CIty Staff
SUBJECT;
CertIficatIon of the Initial Study and NegatIve
DeclaratIon for the Annexation of a 34 Acre Parcel of
the Santa Monica Alroort
Introduction
Th1. s report request s that the Ci ty CounCIl cer t i fy the lnt t ia 1
Study and Negative Declaration for AnnexatIon to the City of
Santa Mon i ca of a 34 acre pa rce 1 of the Santa Moni ca Al rport
currently within the corporate boundary of the City of Los
Angeles,
Back?round
The City CouncIl dIrected staff at Its meeting of January 28.
lQ86. to file an application for annexatIon with the Local Agency
Formation CommIssion.
The applIcation to annex 34 acres in the
northeast portIon of Santrt MonIca Airport was filed on February
24. 1986.
Part of the applIcation process IS completIon of an InItial study
of the effect~ of annexatIon. pursuant to the reqUIrements of the
CalifornIa EnVIronmental QualIty Act.
An InItial Study was
prepared and made available for public review and comment for the
statutory perIod of 30 days WhICh began February 14 ~ 1986 and
ended March 17~ 1986. No public comments were received.
- 1 -
II-~
All. .. e I,"
.
.
The study examIned the potP-ntial Impacts of moving a section of
the eastern boundary line of the City of Santa Monica which was
orIgInally alIgned to conform wlth what IS now a vacated portion
of CentInela Avenue. The eXIstIng boundary lIne traverses a 300
foot sectIon of the AIrport runway. two taxiways and an aIrcraft
tiedown area. The new boundary would be alIgned WIth Bundy DrIve
and narallel the A1TPort's eastern nronertv line,
... .. .. .. J
The study found that no signifIcant Impacts are antIcipated as a
result of the annexation project on earth: aIr. water, noise,
light and glare: shadows.
transportatIon/cIrculation and
risk of
upset.
land
use,
aesthetICS.
Services such
as
fIre. Dol ice and sewa2e have always been DrovIded bv the City of
4- .. _ J ..... ., ~
Santa Monica for the entire airport.
The study also noted that annexation would faCIlItate development
of the property. Although future development would possibly
cause a number of impacts. dependIng on the type and scope of the
proposed project. any speCIfIc development plan would need to
undergo a separate environmental review as requIred by the
CalIfornIa Environmental QualIty Act.
EnVIronmental reVIew of the annexatIon proposal IS completed once
the CIty CouncIl certIfies the NegatIve Declaration (EIR 810).
The Initial Study and NegatIve DeclaratIon conSIst of the
foIl owi ng document s:
"Santa Monica AIrport Initl.al Study for
AnnexatIon". January 1986; the Determination dated February 10.
1986 and the NegatIve Declaratlon. February 12. 1986.
- 2 -
.
.
After certIfIcatIon by the City Councll~ the envIronmental
documents w11l be forwarded to the Local Agency FormatIon
Commlssion to complete the application process. LAFCQ then has 30
days to determine whether the appl1catlon is complete and
acceptable for fIling or 1.ncomplete. Upon a determlnation of
completeness. a Certificate of F1ling w1ll be issued and a
Commission hearIng on the appl1catlon scheduled within 90 days of
the certlf1.cate date. CSect1.on 56826, Cortese/Knox Local
Government Reorganization Act of 1985).
LAFCO staff has lndlcated that the appl1catlon will not be deemed
complete untIl a Property Tax Transfer Resolutlon has been
adopted by both the at fected C1 ties Los Angeles and Santa
Monica.
The Resolution 1.5 currently under preparat1.on by the
COmmlSS1.0n.
At the Commlssion hearln!, LAFCO will adopt a resolut1.on
approvlng the proposed annexat10n and WIll deSIgnate the City of
Santa MonIca as the Conducting Authority. The City Council, as
the conductIng authorIty. can order the change of organizat1.on.
FollOWIng completlon of the annexation,
will be issued for development of that
area known as the "reserved parcel."
a request for proposals
portion of the annexed
Bud~etarv/F~sGal Imp~ct
No budgetary or fiscal impact results from thlS item.
- 3 -
.
.
Recommendatlons
City Staff respectfully recommends that the City Councll approve
the following findIngs:
1. The City Counell has rev1ewed the In1tlal Study and
Negative DeclaratIon
CEtA 810)
and finds that these
documents
adequately
review
and
analyze
potentIal
envi ronment a 1 et feet s of the proposed project. i nc I udl ng
effects on earth. air: water, nOlse. light and glare,
shadows,
r1sk
of
upset.
land
use:
transportation/circulation. and aesthetIcs.
2. The CIty CouncIl certIfIes the NegatIve DeclaratIon and
finds that envIronmental review for the project was
conducted
in
accordance
WIth
State
and
City
CEQA
guidelines.
that there was adeauate publIC reV1BW of the
. .
proposed Negat1ve Declarat1on.
and that there 15 no
substantIal
eVldence
that
the
project
may
have
a
slgnlfIcant envIronmental effect.
Prepared By:
Hank D1ttmar: Airport Director
LInda Sullivan, Senior Adm1nIstrative Analyst
- 4 -
.
.
SANT ^ MONICA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
INITIAL STUDY FOR ANNEXATION
Prepared for:
City of Santa Monlca
Office of Airport Director
Santa Monica Municipal Airport
3200 Airport Avenue
Santa Monica~ CA ~O,
Prepared by:
PRe Engineering
972 Town c\ Country Road
Orange, CA 92667
JANUAR Y 1986
No.
1.
II.
~o.
1
2
.
.
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
Title
tNTRODUCTlO~ AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION.
ENVIRONME!':TAL CONSIDERA TIONS . . . . .
UST OF FIGURES
TItle
VICINITY MAP . .
PROPOSED ANNEXATION - CITY OF SANTA MO~ICA. .
Page
l-I
11- I
Page
l-2
1-3
.
.
I.
INTRODUCTION AN D PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This document IS Intended to satisfy the provisions of the Caldorma Environmental
Quailty Act (CEQA) which requIres that an Imtlal Study (IS) be prepared to
dete'"mtne whether a proposed project may have a Significant eUect upon the
enVironment. The City's determmation IS prOVided on the fmal page of the
En'llronmental Checkhst Form. The Cny has found the proposed actIon would not
have a SIgnificant irnpact on the enVironment, thereby ehmmattng any need for
mJtigatIon measures. For this reason, the City Will prepare a Negative
DeclaratIOn.
The City of Santa Monica proposes to annex a 34 acre parcel In the northeast
corner of the Santa Monica MunICipal Airport currently within the corporate
boundary of the City of Los Angeles. ThIS 34 acre parcel is owned 10 fee by the
City of Santa \-\omca. As shown on FIgure 1, the parcel IS bound on the east by
Bundy DriVe, on the west by the centerhne of a vacated portion of Centmela
A venue, and on the north by the airport property lme. EXisttng uses on the
property mclude aircraft tiedown, a 30Q-foot portion of the aIrport runway and
portIons of two taxiways. City of Los Angeles zonmg for the 34 acres is smgle and
multIple fam1l1Y reSidential and commercial/parking whereas the community plan
for 'rest Los Angeles stipulates the area as reSidential If the airport were to be
closed. If the City of Santa Monka annexed the property, It would be zOf'led
M2 (Industria!), consIstent With the eXistIng zonmg of the aIrport property located
\l.'lthtn Santa Monica. PotentIal development. as SpecifIed by the master pla"'l,
1!"Jc1udes the construction of a perImeter road around the end of the run......a:,
reCOr"istructlon of the taxJways, replacement of taxnway hghts and repavmg of
aircraft tledown areas.
It IS ac!vantageous for the City of Santa Monica to annex thIS 34-acre parcel. In
utIlIZIng thiS land for airport development, permits, reViews, plan checks, etc. wdl
be reQUired from the CJty of Los Angeles. The procedures JnvolveC 10 obtammg
approvals could Involve substantial delays which would Impede the progress for
plans of airj)Ort redevelopment. Also, It would be more logIcal for the Cit}' of Los
Angeles boundary to be allgned With Bundy Drive which 15 an eXISUrtg street.
Conversely, the eXisting boundary traverses the runway, associated taxiway and
aircraft tIed own area. The ongmal boundary was ahgned to conform W lth
Centmela Avenue along thiS Section of airport property and has not eXisted for
years due to the airport Improvements constructed. The AJrport, area of
annexatJons and Cay boundaries are depicted on Figure 2.
There 15 a minor fiscal impact lnvolved. It has been estJma ted that the City of
Santa ~onlca currently pays 17,00C doUars annually 10 property taxes to the City
of Los Angeles. ThiS annual payment and subseQuent fJscal Impacts wll1 be
determined dunng the negotiatJons conducted WIth the City of Los Angeles.
The Local Agency FormatJon CommiSSIon (LAFCO), In coordmatlon With the City
of Santa MonIca, executes a petition for change of orga:ouzatlon. The petitiOn must
be accompanIed by evidence of compliance With CEQA. LAFCO was
I-I
.
FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP-
SCALE 1"-2000:-
.
.
NZ<(
wQ~
a:I-Z
::JCCO
Q~::e
LLZe(
Zt-
C:CZ
0<
WCf)
C/)LL
00
Q.>
~Ol-
a:-
c..O
.
.
contacted to determine their v Iev,'s on envIronmental Impacts from the proposed
project actIon. MIchl TakahashI from L-\FCO dId not beheve there woulc be any
SIgnIficant env lronmental consequences from the proposed annexation.
As shown on the Imtial Study ChecklIst form, there are a number of Items that may
be impacted dependmg on the type and scope of project development. The
annexation and subsequent zone change would facIlItate development of the
property. As described ear her in thIS section, thiS report has been submitted to
fulfIll the reqUlrements of the Callforma EnVIronmental QualIty Act (CEQA). The
Env IronmentaJ Checkhst Form presented on the foHowing page IS intended to focus
the envIronmental documentation upon relevant environmental Issues. The form
has been prepared by the CIty of Santa Momca and with an explanatton of the
checked answers prOVIded in the foJJo~'ing sectiOn. Smce there is not a specifIC
development plan at the present tIme, the explanatioT's are not detailed. ^ t the
tIme of a specifIC development plan, a future and separate envIronmental review
would be reqUIred.
1-4
~- o.
r:- ~\
J - ~\
. .- ~ - I
I~:::' ~_._ :;1
. -Jl... -
, .
.
.
.:..._~...,. xc.
c:~y CF SAX7A ~C~:Cri
:;;:7:.;~ s:-.,:='!
:;;'&7E: F::"E~
I . B';CKGR.JC~D
~a~e c: Prc?cne~t
C~ty of S~~ta P~~~ca
L.
Ac==ess ar.c Phone ~urnbe~ of ?~o;oner.t
C1ty of Santa Mor1~a -
Mon~~a. Cal~forn1a 90405
Sar.ta Mon1ca Mun~c~pal Al~rt - ~200 A~rPOrt Avenue - Sar.ta
~
,; ,
PrcJect Address
See above
~ame of Proposal, ~f a??l~cable
Anl'lexat1on
.; .
:~~t~al Study Pre~ared By
C~tv of Santa Monlca
II. E~::R:K~EX~AL I~PAC~S
??::i 5/54
(Exp:a~a~~ons c= a:l
a~~a=~ed s~ee~s.j
n~i'es n
and ~aybe" answe~s are
Yes
=:ar-:::..
W~ll ~he proposal result In:
a.
Vns~able eart~ cor.c~t~o~s or ~n
changes ~n geolog~c Ea~stru=tu=es?
Slgnl=lca~t d~sr~pt~ons. c.~sp:ace-
~er.ts, corn?act~on or over=overl~g
of the sOll?
c.
C~ange ~~ ~~pogra~hy of g~~~~d
su~=ace relle: :eatuIes?
c. ~he destruc~~cn, coverl~; or
~od~:~cat~on of any ~~~que geo-
log~cal or ?hys~cal fea~u=es?
e.
Any ~nc=ease In w~~d or wate=
eros~on 0: SO~:S, elthe= on or
off t.he s:.t:e?
C~ar,ges ~n de?Cslt.~on or erOSlon
of beach sa~ds, 0= c~anges l~
s~l~a:~o~, de?os~t.~on or e~05l0n
w~~=h ~ay moc~=~ ~~e =ed :: the
ccean or a~y zay 0= ~~:e~?
reg:t:~re=
--
-..
~a....be
.
"".-,
_'ow
x
x
x
x
x
y
-
':l .
_~ X"'"'__r"_:c:.~_,~._ ,--,1" ~e'-- e c..,.. ----e-..~..
- - - - -~ l:" ...,=-": ~ :---:-" --:f
~= ;ec.og~c hazar=s S~=~ as
ea=~h~~akes, :ar.csl~ces, ~ud-
51~ces, ground :a~l~=e, or
s.l~l.la= :-~azards?
.~
2. A~r. W~:: t~e proposal res~lt ~~:
a. S~stan~l.al al.r em~ss~~ns or
de~erl.cratl.on of a~l.ent al.r
c;uall.ty?
b. The creatl.on of obJectl.onable
odors?
c. Alteratl.on of a~r rnovemen~,
mOl-sture, or temperature, or
any change l.n =l~~~te, el.ther
locally or regl.onally?
d. Expose the proJect res~cents
to severe a~r ?c~l~~l.on
concl.tl.ons?
3. Water. Wl.:l the proposal res~lt l.n:
a. Cha~ges l.n currents, or t~e course
of Cl.rectl.on of water movereents,
~~ el.t~er rnar~ne or fresh waters?
...
Sl.g~~f~cant c~anqe5 ~~ absorptl.on
rates, dra~nage patterns, or t~e
rate and amount of surface runoff?
c.
Alteratl.ons to t~e course or
flow of flood waters?
...
.. .
C~ange l.n the amount of surface
wa~er l.n any water body?
e.
D~scharge ~nto sur=ace wa~ers,
or l.n any al~eratl.on of surface
water quall.ty, l.ncluc1ng but no~
ll.m~ted to te~?era~ure, d1ss01vec
oxygen or turb~dl.ty?
~
- .
Alterat~or. of the d1rec~1c~ or
rate of flow of ground waters?
....
':: '
C~ange ~n the quant~ty of ground
waters, either through C1rect
addl.tl.or.s or w1thcrawals, or througr.
1nterCe?~10n of an a~~l.fer by cuts
or excavatl.ons?
-2-
. 4~.. ~ .:.;:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
.
.
"_":5
~. S~bsta~t~al =ec~c~~cn :~ t~e
amcu~~ c: ~ate= c~he~~se
aVa~:a~:e f~r ;'~l~c ~a~e=
s-..:Pt::1les?
~,
Exposure of pe=ple cr ?rope~ty
tC wa~e~ :elated ~azards s~c~
as flood~~; or t~dal waves?
4. Pla~t L~:e. W~ll ~he ?=o?osal result ~~:
a,
Change ~n t~e d~ve=s~~y of s?ec~es,
or n~~er cf any S?eCleS cf plants
(~nclud~ng trees, shr~sj grass,
crops, and aquat~c plants)?
b.
Reduct~on of t~e nurr~ers of a~y
ur.lcue, rare or endangered specles
of plants?
C.
I~troductlon of new specles of
plants lnto an area, or ~n a barr~er
to the normal replen~shment or
ex~st~ng spec~es?
~
k~~~al L~:e. W~ll the pro?csal result l~:
a. Cha~ge ~~ the c~ve=s~ty of specles,
or nur.ber 0: ar.y spec~es of an~ma2s
{b~r=s, :and anl~~ls lncluc~ng
reptlles, flSh a~d she:lflsh, nenthlc
organlsrrS 0: l~sects?
b. Reduct~on of the n~~ers of a~y
u~~que, rare or e~cangere~ s?ec~es
of anl..mals?
c.
In~roeuct~on of new spec~es of
an~mals ~nto an area, or ~es~:t ~n
a barr~er to t~e m~gra~~on cr
move~ent of an~mals?
c.
Dete~~orat~on of ex~st~ng f~sh or
w~ldllfe hab~tats?
6.
Wlll the proposal result ~n:
E~erg:. .
a.
~se of s~bstant~a2 arr.c~~t c! f~els
or energy?
b. S~bs~ant~al ~ncrease l~ cemand upon
ex~s~~n; so~rces of energy, or re-
qu~re t~e development of ;.e~ sources
cr e:1e:-g~'?
-3-
~ '2 :p=e
...
x
x
x
z
x
x
x
x
x
-L
e
e..-
--=:=:
7_ ~at~ra: Reso~~ce$~ ~~11 t~e F~~posa:
res~lt ~:l:
a.
I~c=ease ~~ the ra~e
r.atural resources?
,...-
v_
:,;,se of any
~. Substant1al deplet~on of a~y ~on-
renewable natural resour=e?
8. Noise. W~ll the proposal result in:
a. S~gn1f1cant ~ncreases ~n eX1st1ng
no~se levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe
n01se levels?
9, L1ght and Glare. W111 t~e proposal
~rocuce signif1cant new 11ght or glare
=rorr. street l1ghts or other sources?
10. Shadows. W11l the proposal produce
substantial shadows affect1ng ad-
Jacent uses or property?
:1. R1Sk 0: Upset. W~ll the proposal 1nvolve:
a. A r~sk of an explos1on or the
release of hazardous substances
(~nclud~ng, but not l1m1ted to,
011, pest1cides, chem1cals or
rad1at~on) 1n the event of an
acc1dent or upset conc1t~ons?
b. ?oss1ble 1nterference WiL' an
emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
12. Eurr.an Heal t...,. w111 tl'1e proposal
result 1n:
a. Creation of any health r~zard or
po~ent1al heal~, (exclud1ng mental
health}?
\-.
.., .
Exposure of people ~o pcte~~ial
heal ~h l'lazar.::.s?
13. Po?~la~~on. K111 L~e proposal resul~ 1n:
a.
Slgn1f~ca~t change in ~he distribution,
dens~~y, or growth ra~e 0: ~~e human
po?~lation of an area?
-4-
.~= - .:~
x
x
x
, -
-
x
x
x
x
x
x
Yo
x
.
.
~
- .
~he ~eloca~~on 0: any ?e~sons
~eca~se c: the e::ec~s upo~
houslng, commer=~al or 1ndus~=la:
~ac~l~t~es?
"..
.... .
The relocatlon or d~slocatlon
of e~?lo}~e~t or OUSlnesses?
14. Lane. Cse.
W~:1 the proposal resclt 1~:
a.
A substa~~~al alteratlon of ~~e
present or planned land use of
an area?
b. Demol~tlon, re1ocat~on, or remocel-
~ng of res~dent~al, comme=clal or
~ncustrlal bUlld~ngs or ot~er
:ac111tles?
15. Hous1ng.
W~ll the pro?Csa1:
a.
C=ea~e a slgnlflcant demand
addlt~or.al ho~slng?
"'....-
............
~. Have a Sl~~l:lcant lmpact on t~e
ava11able ~e~tal hou5~ng lr. the
comrnur.lty?
~5, C~11ltles. Wl:l the proposal res~lt
1~ a need for new systems, or s~5tan-
tlal altera~~cr.s to the fallowlnq
ut~l.ltl.es:
a,
Power or nat~ral gas?
b. Comr.Lunlcat~ons systems?
c. Kater?
....
....
Sewer or septlc tanks?
e.
Sto~ water dra~~age?
'"
- .
SallC waste a~c clsposal?
-.:--
Yes :-1a...~e
.
x
,"-
."f'-"
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
.
. _es ~=~-=e
li. R~g~~ __ way. ~~ll ~~e ?=opcsal
res"..llt ~:1:
a.
Rec~cec :~~~~/s~ce ~o~ a~ea?
b. Re=uced a=cess:
c. Red~ced of:-street ?ark~ng?
C. C=Eat~o~ of abru?t grade
c~==erent~al between ?ubl~c
and pr~vate pro?er~y?
18. Tra~sportatlcn/Circulat~on. w~ll
the proposal result in:
a. Generatlon of substantlal
addl~~onal veh~c~lar mcvement?
x
b. E::ects on eXlstlng parKlng
!ac~l~t~es, or der~~d fo~
new parklng?
x
,..
- .
Sunstantlal ~~?act upon ex~stlng
transportatlor. systems?
d. Alterat~o~s to present patterns
of circ~la~~on or movement of
people and/or g~ods?
y.
€. A~terations to wa~€rborne, rall
or alr tra::fJ.c?
x
f. Increase ln traffic hazards to
motor vehlcles, blCycllS~S or
pedestrlans?
~9. ?~llC Servlces. Wlll the proposal have
a s~gnl=J.cant effect upon, or result In a
need for new or altered governmental
servlces In any 0: t~e :ollowlng areas:
a.
F~re protec~~on?
~. ?ol~ce protect~on?
=. Schools?
d.
Parks or other recreational
facll:ltl.es?
e. Ma~ntenance of p~l~c faclllt~es,
~nc:uc~~g roads?
;
~ .
Ot~er gover~er.tal serV:lces?
,
-'0-
x
x
x
x
y.
x
-L
-L
>:
x
y.
x
.
.
20. r~s=a:. ~~:: ~~e pro?osa_ ~a.Je a
s~=sta~~:a: ~e;a~~ve :~sca: e:=ec~
O-~ t:le C~ ~:t:
.,.
.....
Rec=ea~~cn, ~~11 the ?:oposal
res~lt l~ a s~bs~an~~al ~~?ac~
~?O~ the gua:~~y or ~~a~t~~y o~
ex~s~~ng recrea~~cnal o?pcr~~~~t~es?
22. C~l~~ral Reso~rces.
&.
W~ll ~~e proposal :esult In the
alterat~o~ of or t~e destruct.on
cf a ?rehlstorlc or h~s~or~c
arehaeologlcal s.te?
~.
Wlll the proposal result In
adverse physlcal or aestnetlc
effects to a prehlstorlc or
hlstorlC =ullelnq, st=uc~u:e,
or cl:jec~?
c.
~es ~ne proposal have t~e
?cte~tla: to cause a ?hys~cal
change wr.lch would affect
u~~~ue etnnlC cul~ural values?
...:l
- .
Wl:l t~e proposal restr~ct
eXlst~nq rellqlous or sacred
uses wlthln the potentlal
.:..:npact area?
..~
.~.
Aes~~etlCS. wlll ~he proposed
rroJect result In:
a. The ob.tr~ct~or. of any scenlC
vlsta or Vlew open ~o tne
?~llc:?
~. ~he c:eatlon of &r. aesthet.-
cally offenslve alte open ~o
pui:JllC Vlew?
c. ~he destr~ctlon of a 5~and of
~rees, a rock O~~cop?~ng or
other locally recognlzec des~r-
able aesthet~c ~a~~ral !eat~re?
c. ~~y substar.tlal neqatlve
aeSthetlc effect?
..
-,-
:~S
.I=. ==
.
,-~
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
.
.
:~. ~a~~a~==y F~~c~~gs c: S:;~~=:cance~
a. ~oes ~he pro:ec~ ~ave t~e ?cte~~~al
~~ ce~=ade the q~al~ty cf ~he e~v~:-
c~~ent, substant.al:y reduce the
hab~~a~ of a f1sh or ~11dl~fe spec~es.
cause a f~sh or w11dl~fe pop~lat1on
t~ drop below self susta1n1ng levels.
~hrea~en to el~1nate a plant or
a~~mal commun1ty, red~ce ~~e number
or restr1ct tbe ~ange of a rare or
encangered plant or anlmal or
el~m~nate 1mpor~ant examples of the
major per10ds of Ca11:orn1a h.stcry
or pre-h1story?
b. Does the project have the potentlal
to ach~eve short-te~1 to the dis-
advantage of long-term, env1ronmental
goals?
c. W.ll the proposal have siqr.1f1cant
e~fec~s on t~e proJect ne1qhbor-
hood?
d. ~oes the project have 1mpacts
wh1cn are ~ndlv1dually l1mitec,
b~~ cumulat1vely conslderable?
e. Does ~'e project have environ-
~ental effec~s whlcn will cause
substant1al adverse effects on
hnmJlln be1.ng's, e1ther d~rec-:ly
or J.ndireetly7
I!!. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
(See attachment)
~'.a =-:
~
x
x
x
x
x
:V. Oeterm~nat1on
On the baSIS of thIS Initial evaluation:
I fme that the proposed project COVLD NOT have a s~gnlflcant effect on the
enlHronment, and a NEGATIVE OECLARA no!\: ....lll be prepared. x
I fInd that although the proposed project could have a significant dfect or
the env Iron men t, there WIll not be a Slgntflcant effect in thiS case because
the rr-;tlgatlor> measures described on an attached sheet have been added to
the proJect. A NEG~ TIVE DECLARA TlON WILL BE PREPARED.
1 tind the proposed project MAY have a slgrl1ficant effect on the
envlf:>r.fTlent, a"1d an E"'VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 15 requIred.
Date
Signa ture
For
8
.
.
II.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERA nONS
ThJS chapter provJdes a !:>nef explanation of the "maybe" answers as checked on the
Environmental Checkhst Form. The proposed annexatlon, as a change In
government Jur lsdlctlon, wIll not result in any dIrect impacts on the physical
environment. Thus, the annexation project may result m secondary envlronmental
effects ~'hlch are the focus of the eflvlronmental discussion of thiS Imtial Study.
There are no speclfIC development plans identifIed at the present time for the
project area and el1vlronmentalimpacts are therefore not quantifiable. The Impact
categories identified as bemg impacted by the project, as well as others requInng
further explanation, are addressed In the followmg.
EA R TH
1 b, c:
Regardless of most development actlOns, some soil dIsplacement and
topographlcal change would occur to accommodate any substantial land
use change. ThiS actIon would need to conform With the clear zone
requirements pertainmg to obstructions at the end of the runway. The
amount of surface change is unknown at thiS time since there is no
development plan. "'l'o slgmflcaflt lmpacts are a'"ltIcipated as a result of
the annexatlOT" proJect.
AIR
2a: Dependmg on the nature of ultImate development, the all" emiSSions are
typJcally dependent on vehJcular traffIC generated, stationary source
consurnptlOn (I.e. natural gas, electrICity at appropnate power pla~ts)
and the development actlOn's impact on local all" traffiC actIvity.
Consequently, 1f a development actlOn impacts surface transportation,
energy consumption or air traffIC actlv Ity, ambient aIr qualIty may be
affected. No sIgnificant impacts are antiCipated as a result of the
annexa tion project.
V."A TER
3b: As dIscussed 10 Ib anc c, some soli displacement and topograp~ucal
change is likely to occur W1th most development actions and an
accompanying change In dramage would occur. Spec1flc pattern
changes, rate and amounts of runoff would depend on the specIfIC
development item. No SignIfIcant impacts are antiCipated as a result of
the annexatIon proJect.
"-lC'ISE
8 a, b:
NOise is typically dependent on the type of land use actiVity, the
vehicular traffic generated, and the development's accompanying
Impaet on aVIation activity, if any. Any development plan would neec
to be assessed for its contribution to these actJV Jties and Jts
correspondmg Jmpaet on nearby reSIdential uses. No Significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of the annexation project.
II-I
.
.
LICHT A.ND GLA.RE/sP.A.DO\l'S
9, 10:
Any hghtmg accompanymg a development \l:oulc need to be assesse~ for
ItS subseouent Impact upon nearby resJdentlal uses. ExceSSIve
shadowmg 0'1 nearby residential uses ...;oulc be forecast 1f a taU buiJdmg
were mcorpora Ted mto a de',{e lopmen t plan. A t the present tl me, there
are no plans to indJCate thIS actlOn. No SIgnIficant Impacts are
antiCipated as a result of the annexatIOn proJect.
RISK OF UPSET
lIb: Any development would need to address concerns of the CJty'S PoliCe
and Fire Departments to ensure adequa te access. No SIgnifiCant
ImpaCts are antICIpated as a result of the annexation project.
LA~D L'SE
14a: Land use changes may occur or be more easily facil1tated due to
annexa tlO!i anc the ZOnI"lg change to mdust"lal. Howeve", the type and
mtensay of use IS not mdJCa ted at the present tIme. Regardless, any
development plaT' would neee! to be assessed for cOmpatlblllt)' with
surroundmg lar'lc uses. No S!gmflCant Impacts are antiCipated as a
result of the annexatIon project.
TRANSPOR T A TIO"'fCJP CL'Lt\, TI0"-:
18 Co, h,
d, e:
AESTH=-TICS
23 a, c:
Development of the subject property may impact surface transportatJOn
movements In the VICinIty and mdlrectly mfluence air traffJC actlYlt}'
dependmg Ol"l the nature of the development actIon. Additional
vehicular movements, parkmg. access, and levels of service may be
altered. The annexatlOn actIon, Ir. Jtself, does not impact these
processes but does facilitate development and the potentIal for
changmg transportatIon needs at the al,port. No SIgnificant Impacts
are antlClpatec as a result of the annexation proJect.
The potential development may alter the eXIsting aestheUc character
of thIS portIon of alrport propert). ThIS Impact may be benefiCial or
adverse dependmg on the use and the desJgn/Jayout of the subject
taelhty. For example, the elirnmatlOn of the grove of t:-ees along
Centmela Avenue may be evaluated as an adverse Impact. Ho.....ever, no
development project IS proposed at thIS time. No SIgnifIcant Impacts
are antlcipatec as a result of the annexatJon proJect.
II-2
. .
CITY OF SA^'T A MONICA
DEPARTMENT OF COMJ,fVNITY A.ND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEl..'T
EiA NO. ~/O
DETEFtllhA110N
Project Title:
Muriclpal Airport Annexation
On the baS1S of this lnltial evaluatlon:
I flnd that the proposed project could net have a
significant effect on the enviror:rr.ent, and a X
~egatlve Declarctlon wlll be prepared.
! flnd that althOugh the prcpcsed prcje~t cculd
have a signiflcant effect on the environment, I
there alII not be a s:gnlflcant effe~t In th:s
case because the mltigation measures described on
an attachec sheet have been added to the project.
A Negative Declaration wlll be prepared.
I fi~d the propesed p~oject may have a signlflcant
effect on the envlTcnreentt and an Envl~on~entBl
l~pact Report 15 requlred.
d..../D --tb
~r ~ /f
I tI~ ..._>:: ~~~
D~rectoTJ'C6rni.u~ltY and Econ~rr~~
Develop~ent Department
Dat.e
:;',:,1\ r'lV. Ol U
.
.
CITY OF SAA'TA ~'JO.\JCA
DEP4RTUE.\ T OF COU\JC\lTl A \D ECO\O\flC DElTLOPUEST
on H4LL J6~_~ \f4f\ STREIT PO EO' ::ry,
5A\T4 \1O\1C4 C.f,,';FOR.\1:, ""'4 } ::.,.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PIfO\L ':13 ,15J...... -,'J
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
An appl icatlon for a NEGJI..TIVE DECLARATION to carry out the follo~nng
pro]ect:Annexatlon of a 34-acre parcel I~ the northeast corner of the
Santa MonIca MUnICI?al Alrport from the Clty of Los Angeles to the
Clty of Santa Monlca
on property located at
(see above)
In the Clty of Santa MonIca, Callfornla, hav:ng been flIed by
Clty of Santa Monl=a
, on
':a:1..;ary
, 1986.
an5 tl"'ie appllcat lon hav lr\g b€en rev lewed by the Commu!'H ty and EconoJr lC
Developrr-ent Dep~r~went l~ a~corda~ce WIth the procedures establlshed by
Resol~t1on 6694 (CeS), t~erefore, the Department hereby f1nds that:
1 .
Tne proposed aC1:1vl':Y does:onstlt~te
meanl:1g of the Callfornla EnvIronmental
as alT'endea.
a p:cJe::-t wlti'nn t:-le
Q~allty Act of :9~O,
2.
The proposed aC~lVl.~Y lS not
such ar+ by reason of be:~9
exemp~ or err.er;ency aC~lvl~Y.
exejnpt froIr, the
a rnl~lster ~al,
prOV1Slo~S of
cat.egon.ca2.1y
3. The propcse5 3,(:tl'\'lty does not. ap?ear t.:Jc have a 5Jts~a...t:a:..
adverse effect upon ~he enVlronment.
4. Ir.a srow ch as 1 t can be seen WI th reasona.::,le cer unn ty tha t no
substantlal a~verse ef~ec~ 1S lnvolved, no proper p~rpo5e
would be served by the preparatlon of an Envlronrne~tal l~pact
Report.
5.
A Neg at 1 .,;e
approprIate
p.:rpose and
of 1970, as
Declarat.ion docLlment 1S the proper, correct
procedure reqUIred to ass;,ne compllan;:e WIth
:ntent of the CalIfornIa Envlronmental O~allty
arner.oed.
and
the
Act.
Tne Department, therefore, has deter~lned that the proposed proJect dOES
not have a slgnlflcant effect on the envlronment and that an
Envlronmental Impact Report 1S not requlred.
'-/I'-/rt jJ.1:.
Da~e:
u~