SR-212-005 (6)
e
..
;2/2-CDS
It
11-8
JUt 2 2 1!86
AP:HED:mh
council Meeting 7/22/86
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to direct the city Attorney to prepare
an emergency ordinance prohibiting the use of railroad
rights of way in the City for other than transportation
uses.
Introduction
This report discusses several alternatives for preserving the
Southern Pacific right of way in the City as a viable future
transit corridor and recommends that the city council direct the
city Attorney to prepare an emergency ordinance prohibiting the
use of railroad rights of way in the City for other than
transportation uses for a period of not more than one year.
Backqround
In mid 1985, the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPTC)
made application to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICe) for
authori ty to abandon a portion of the Santa Monica Branch Line
extending from the corner of Venice and Robertson to 15th and
Olympic in Santa Monica, a distance of 4.5 miles.
Concerned
about the loss of this right of way for future transit usage, the
city of Santa Monica opposed the abandonment application, and
entered a plea that the right of way be preserved for public use.
Effective early April 1986, the Ice granted SPTC's application
- 1 -
1/-8
JUt 2 2 1986
e
e
for abandonment but imposed a 180 day public use condition on the
abandonment. During this 180 day period, the SPTC could only
dispose of the property to public agencies.
city staff began to investigate the feasibility of a joint
acquisition of the abandoned right of way with the city of Los
Angeles in April as the right of way extends through both
jurisdictions. Through discussions with the City of Los Angeles
Department of Transportation, staff became aware that the City of
Los Angeles Department of city Planning was engaged in extensive
discussion with the railroads concerning protection of right of
way segments with future transit potential.
Discussions with Los Angeles City Planning officials revealed
that the following steps had already been taken:
o Earlier this year, L.A. City officials became aware of the
abandonment and subsequent sale of a portion of right of
way in the San Fernando Valley. Concerned with the loss of
possible transit opportunities, city Planning staff were
directed to prepare an ordinance requiring a conditional
use permi t for any change of use regarding any
transportation right of way. The permit would only be
approved after a determination that the right of way had no
transit potential.
o This process alarmed the railroads as it would have
prevented development on property which did not have
transit potential as well. Southern Pacific and Santa Fe
subsequently contacted the City of Los Angeles to suggest a
- 2 -
e
e
joint effort to identify potential transit corridors and to
agree not to develop or dispose of rights of way in these
corridors until it was determined that no transit usage was
likely. The railroad I s sudden interest in this effort
stemmed not only from their desire to free up rights of way
without transit potential but also from their realization
that joint development and Transfer of Development Rights
opportunities could be substantial if light rail lines were
actually built. Substantial public and political interest
has been identified for two lines - the Santa Monica Branch
Line from Santa Monica to downtown and a Valley rail line
through Burbank to downtown Los Angeles.
o The conditional use permit ordinance is still in the
process of being adopted and simultaneously the city and
Southern Pacific and other railroads are coming to terms on
an agreement stating their mutual desire to work together
in good faith to identify and protect transit corridors.
Both the agreement and the ordinance are scheduled for
ratification this summer.
Both the city of Los Angeles and the railroads seem eager to
include us in this process, which would also include Burbank and
Glendale. Given the above, city staff recommends the following
next steps regarding the Santa Monica Branch Line:
o The City should defer consideration of purchase of the
right of way at this time.
- 3 -
e
e
o The City council should direct the city Attorney to prepare
an emergency ordinance prohibiting the use of
transportation rights of way within the City for other than
transportation purposes. The ordinance would sunset within
one year or upon adoption of the zoning ordinance,
whichever is sooner.
o The City should include in the new zoing ordinance a
conditional use permit process for transportation rights of
way similar to that being adopted by the City of Los
Angeles. Such a process would both provide the City with
discretionary review over any development proposal by
Southern Pacific on the abandoned right of way and provide
for a coordinated effort with the City of Los Angeles.
o The City should begin discussions with the Southern Pacific
Transportation Company with the objective of entering into
a formal agreement to protect the Santa Monica Branch Line
Right of Way. Such discussion should be undertaken in the
context of the ongoing discussions between the City of Los
Angeles and the Southern Pacific.
Budgetary/Fiscal Impact
NO budgetary or fiscal impacts result from the recommended
actions.
- 4 -
e
e
Recommendation
city staff respectfully recommends that the City Council:
1. Direct the city Attorney to prepare an emergency ordinance
prohibiting the use of transportation rights of way in the
City for other than transportation purposes;
2. Direct city staff to include in the new zoning ordinance a
requirement for a conditional us permit for any change of
use in a transportation right of way; and
3. Direct City staff to begin discussions with the Southern
Pacific Transportation Company regarding a formal agreement
to protect the Santa Monica Branch Line right of way.
Prepared by: Hank Dittmar, Airport Director
- 5 -
.... ..., .....
~ i B.III J
r-;:m
o CD )(
::s _ 'C
(Q ""I 0
CD 0 en
CD :c-
1>> ~. 0
n ::s
:::r m
f
roo <
o 0.
lI'
>
::l
<C
CD
CD
~
t
:D
-t
~
~
VI
.-
('1
\I'D
':A
e
l>
er_
(J)u
l>
o
fT1
(J)
'V
I
H!;
..
-
I-
:JjCIJ~
o DI -
c::s-
_ _ en
~DJ:r
""'3:;
o m
::I )Ie
n -
DI C
'- ::s
:E~
ur ::s
::r
-
...
CD
~
o
z
-
"
("
~
.
-: ~I;_J"'"
)>
~!:i
~m
....:0
bZ
~~
::J _
to<
:r: (~m
o l en
--:0
~ ~ m)>
-< ""--
... ~ :E r-
:!~O ~n:tr
~I:O 00
o-i.O~ ....
~ . ,'" ~. C
-, c. -I
I Qm
en
z
......,
~4 ff"'.:.
z
C>
r
,."
~
o
o
o
AVE
s":
,...
<
"..
:u
Z
o
Z
~
C
1>
i:
.
....
a:I
r-
<
0'
b
(.II
CD
r
<
0'
a:I
I
<
a
" :
,.
'"
r-
"""
AVE
BI..VO
I I
t4
:r:
a: r ~ 1>
!C z < <
o -4 fTI '" _
\\IIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIJ~1 IltlJlfllllJ1l~rlliiJ "
'-i
,.....
e
e
~ --------
~-~~-~
~
~ ~--
ct-
4.4.J
~
-~~
e
e
ADD il) 11- B
JUl 2 2 1915
DAVID G CAMERON
ATTORNEY AT LAW
POBOX 61 1
SANTA MONICA CAL.IFORNIA 90406
TELEPHONE (213)~
452-0914
22 July 1986
Hon. Mayor and Counc~l
C~ty of Santa Monica
1685 Main street
Santa Monica ~ CA 90401
Re: Item Il-B, Agenda of July 22
Railroad Rights of way
Dear Friends,
I endorse the staff recommendations to provide interim preser-
vation of railroad rights of way for possible future use as transit
corr J.dors .
The following concerns should be taken into consideration:
1. The southern pacific right of way is one h1L.'J.dred feet in width,
but the rallroad has already allowed same nontransportation uses w~thin
those lllUJ.ts (presumably under lease), reta~nJ.ng at some points only
enough clear right of way for a single track rail line. Every effo.x:t
should be made to provide long-term protection for enough right of way
to enable a double-track rail transit corrJ.dor to be develoved, and
preferably the entire one hundred feet. The d:unensional standards used
for the Los Angeles-Long Beach lJ.ght rail transit line, now under con-
struction on an existing right of way, could provide useful guidance.
2. The portion of the Southern Pacific IS Santa Monica branch not
being abandoned at thl.S time extends east from Venice Boulevard to down-
town Los Angeles. The first three-quarters of a mile of this is within
the c~ty of culver city. I suggest that Culver city be l.ncluded in any
discussions with the railroad and the city of Los Angeles concerning pos-
sible future use of this branch as a transit corridor.
(f~
/.) /(.7 /
L-t-t. /fu.1'-6-1l<- (l
I "
I " .t..:. " )
tct; ell W-I-~ .
t2 1.-€-;--I'1-1 (()
very trulx_x?urs,
____. - 1:
cameron
AIJD -16 //- B
JUl 2 2 1916