SR-04-11-2006-7D~ir
~ ccy ar
Santa Monica
City Council Report
City Council Meeting: April 11, 2006
Agenda Item: ~ ~
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Andy Agle, Interim Director, Planning and Community Development Dept.
Subject: Final Negative Declaration and Text Amendment 06-001 to Create a New
Transportation Preservation District within the Exposition Rail Right-of-
Way, Establish Performance Standards for Specified Temporary Uses
within the District and Amend the Official Districting Map
Recommended Action
It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Review and adopt the resolution approving the Final Negative Declaration
2) Introduce for first reading an Ordinance to add Part 9.04.08.37 to the Municipal
Code to create a new Transportation Preservation District ("TPD") within the
Exposition Rail Right-of-Way and to add Sections 9.04.12.110, 9.04.12.160, and
9.04.12.170 to the Municipal Code to establish performance standards for surface
parking lots, film and video production, and commercial nurseries in that District
3) Introduce for first reading an Ordinance to amend the official districting map to
establish the TPD for the property within the Exposition Rail Right-of-Way
Execu#ive Summary
Creation of the proposed district will facilitate approval of temporary land uses that are
consistent with the City's General Plan, while maintaining the right-of-way for public
transportation purposes as the primary goal. The new zoning designation would furnish
1
a mechanism for approval of a limited number of temporary uses, through a
Performance Standards Permit (PSP), rather than requiring a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP). Proposed temporary uses allowed through a PSP process include: surplus
parking for businesses that currently meet off-street parking requirements, film or video
production uses and associated non-permanent structures such as temporary film sets,
and commercia! nurseries. The amendment would not authorize or prohibit any uses
that are not already authorized or prohibited under current zoning. Consistent with
current zoning and the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, no
permanent non-transportation-related structures or other long-term improvements would
be permitted. There are no anticipated budget impacts from the text amendment.
Discussion
Backqround
The Exposition rail right-of-way (ROW) is owned by the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and runs from Downtown Los Angeles to
Santa Monica. Within Santa Monica, it is a 1.3-mile corridor that runs between
Centinela Avenue and 17th Street, generally ranging between 50 to 100 feet wide, as
indicated in Attachment A. The area is currently zoned Light Manufacturing and Studio
District (LMSD) and Industrial Conservation District (M1).
Metro, as the owner of the ROW, has adopted policies and procedures for management
of the ROW. The policies require the preservation of the ROW for future transportation
projects while encouraging utilization on an interim basis to generate lease revenue for
2
the agency. Compliance with local municipal code is a standard requirement of Metro
leases; however, Metro places the responsibility of complying with local codes on the
leaseholder and does not require proof of local approvals prior to issuing the lease.
Currently there are two mechanisms to obtain approval from the City for use of the
ROW for non-transportation uses such as non-code required parking and film studio
production activities. A Temporary Use Permit (TUP) may be issued for a six-month
period and can be extended for only one six month period. If an applicant desires to
lease and use property on the ROW for more than a year, the City requires that an
applicant obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). However, the code does not currently
authorize issuance of CUP's with durational limitations. Thus, approval of non-
transportation uses through a CUP process would be in conflict with long-standing City
and General Plan policies concerning preservation of the ROW for transportation
purposes. Consequently, there is currently no viable mechanism to approve uses for
more than one year subject to future transportation needs.
Plans to use the ROW for transportation purposes have recently become more real.
Design of a bike path is underway in the near term (Council action March 14, 2006.)
Recently several key actions have taken place for Phase I of the Exposition light rail line
from Downtown Los Angeles to Culver City. The final environmental documentation has
been completed and the Exposition Rail Construction Authority, a state-created special-
purpose agency, recently approved the design-build contract for Phase I
Groundbreaking is anticipated to occur later this year, with completion of the line by
3
2010. The Metro Board has established the "vision and intent' to complete the light rail
line to Santa Monica" and is in the process of updating its Long Range Plan with respect
to funding for the extension to Santa Monica.
Proposed Text Amendment
The proposed zoning code provisions would change the Metro ROW zoning
designations to the Transportation Preservation District (TPD) zone (Attachments B)
and would establish the following:
Allowed Permanent Uses: The proposed uses are consistent with those allowed in
the City's current zoning code. The property development standards included in the
proposed ordinance are applicable to the allowed uses and are consistent with current
zoning code. The proposed permanent uses are the following:
^ Public Transportation
^ Open Space and landscaping
^ Public parks and recreation.
^ Film or video production uses associated with the existing legally permitted buildings
located north of Olympic Boulevard. These uses are proposed to be permitted as
long as the legally permitted buildings remain because this section of the ROW is
not anticipated to be used for the future rail line since it ends mid-block on 17tn
Street. The area is planned as bike and pedestrian path in the not-too-distant future
and the width beyond the path could be used for additional public recreation. No new
buildings would be allowed.
4
Temporary Uses Subject to Performance Standards Permit: The foliowing uses
would be permitted subject to approval of a Performance Standards Permit. The uses
would only be authorized until the ROW is needed for transportation purposes and
would need to be removed within six months of receiving notice.
^ Surplus parking for businesses that currently meet off-street parking
requirements.
^ Film or video production uses and associated non-permanent structures,
including temporary film sets. The proposed performance standards included in
the ordinance specify requirements and limitations that apply to film and video
production activities, including hours of operation, noise, limitations on temporary
structures and parking.
^ Commercial nurseries. The proposed performance standards included in the
ordinance specify requirements and limitations that apply to commercial
nurseries operating in the ROW, including noise, limitations on temporary
structures, fences, storage of materials and parking.
Prohibited Uses: The prohibited uses are consistent with those prohibited in the City's
current zoning code. The proposed ordinance addresses repair and maintenance of
existing permanent structures, and sets a time limit of five years or a time when the
ROW is needed for transportation purposes, whichever is longer, to remove legal non-
conforming buildings and uses. The prohibited uses are the following:
^ Structures on permanent foundations not associated with a permitted use
5
^ Permanent site improvements such as buildings or walls not associated with a
permitted use
^ Vehicle impound or junk yards
^ Building material storage
^ Required parking for an off-site use
^ Vehicle storage
^ Any use not specifically authorized.
Previous Council Actions
On October 13, 1998 the City Council identified the need to establish a new zoning
designation to allow limited and temporary uses, while protecting the ROW for future
transportation purposes. The item remained on a list of future staff efforts until the FY
04-05 budget priorities discussion. At that time, reflecting the desire to move forward on
the project in the short-term, Council directed staff to proceed with the project rather
than considering the issue as part of the future Land Use, Circulation Element and
Zoning update process.
Commission Action
On March 1, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft Zoning Ordinance and
heard comments from Metro and several lessees or potential lessees. Comments were
addressed as follows:
• The Metro letter, Attachment D, provided specific recommended changes to the
proposed text amendment. Several of the suggested wording changes have
6
been incorporated into to the draft Ordinance. Staff has met with Metro to
discuss why other proposed changes were not incorporated, with the primary
reasons being that the Metro's proposed changes are appropriate for Metro's
lease agreement but not for the City's Zoning Ordinance or the wording focused
on the need for Metro approval of a use, which is unnecessary since Metro is the
property owner and has full control over the use of its land. Metro also proposed
adding "building material storage" as an allowable temporary use subject to a
Performance Standards Permit. Staff explained that this use is not permitted
under the current zoning designation and the Planning Commission agreed that
there should be consistency with the current zoning designation and the use
should not be allowed.
• A comment from a representative of several film industry lessees requested the
Performance Standard Permit provisions include advance notice of six months to
one-year before terminating a permit, rather that the 30-day notice proposed in
the draft Ordinance language that went to Planning Commission. The reason
provided was that a lessee in mid-production would need time to conclude a
filming schedule or make other arrangements. The attached draft Ordinance was
revised to incorporate this proposed change and includes a six-month (180-days)
notice provision.
The Commission suggested several changes including the listing of "vehicle storage" as
a prohibited use. The Commission also directed staff to follow-up regarding the
comments received and staff has followed up accordingly. The Planning Commission
7
unanimously adopted recommendations to Council to adopt the Final Negative
Declaration, amend the Zoning Ordinance to create the proposed Transportation
Preservation District and rezone the properties within the Exposition ROW.
Alternatives
The following alternatives could be considered by Council:
1) Maintain the current zoning designation and decide not to facilitate long term
temporary uses, since there are current plans to use the ROW for a bike path
and light rail in the near future. However, this alternative could deprive Metro of
lease revenue, since not all the ROW will be needed for the bike path, and the
light rail is not as immediate. This option could also encourage continued illegal
use of the ROW.
2) Incorporate consideration of a new Transportation Preservation District into the
Land Use and Circulation Elements and Zoning update process. This would
defer resolution of the issues and they would remain unresolved until the new
City of Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance is adopted, which is predicated on the
adoption of Land Use and Transportation Elements of the General Plan.
Environmental Analysis
An Initial Study and Negative Declaration (IS/ND) was prepared for the proposed project
in accordance with Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines. The document provides a description of the project setting, land use
characteristics, project objectives and presents the environmental analysis for each
8
issue area, including: geology/soils, air quality, hydrology and water quality, biological
resources, noise, shadows, hazards and hazardous materials, population/housing, land
use and planning, transportation/traffic, utilities/service systems, public services,
recreation, cultural resources, aesthetics, construction effects, economic and social
impacts, agricultural resources, mineral resources and neighborhood effects. The
conclusion of the Initial Study is that amending the City's Zoning Ordinance to designate
the Exposition rail right-of-way as a Transportation Preservation District would have no
significant environmental impacts. Therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared in
accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines. The Transportation
Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study/ Final Negative
Declaration Report is contained in Attachment F.
The Draft IS/ND was noticed, as described in the section below, and circulated for
comment between January 9th and 30th, 2006, in accordance with Section 15073 of
CEQA Guidelines. The two comment letters received are included in the Final Negative
Declaration, along with responses. The comments focused on the interpretation of legal
non-conforming versus illegal uses as it relates to the storage of building supplies. The
commenters were both referring to the same business that is leasing space from Metro
on the ROW for the purpose of building materials storage. The proposed text
amendment does not change the definitions or interpretation of legal non-conforming or
illegal uses as they relate to building materials storage yards. Moreover, the comments
do not raise issues pertinent to CEQA.
9
Public Outreach
A"Notice of Availability of an Initial Study and a Proposed Negative Declaration on the
Proposed Transportation Preservation Zoning Ordinance Amendment" that provided a
description of the proposed project, the location, how to comment and the public
hearing dates was filed with the County of Los Angeles Clerk on January 5, 2006. The
same notice was mailed as a postcard to all property owners, business owners and
residents within a 500-foot radius of the project. Three notices were published in the
"California" Section of The Los AncLeles Times; the "Availability" notice described above
was printed on January 7, 2006, a"Notice of Public Hearings" was published on
February 18, 2006, prior to the Planning Commission and a"Notice of Public Hearing"
was published on March 31, 2006.
Text Amendment Findinqs
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, land
uses and programs specified in the adopted General Plan, specifically: Land Use
and Circulation Element Policy 1.11.3, which encourages the retention of the
Southern Pacific [Exposition Branch] ROW as open space and also permit its use for
transportation purpases, in that the amendment includes both open space and public
transportation as allowed permanent uses and protects the ROW from other types of
permanent development ; Policy 4.1.8, which states that right-of-way for new
alternative transportation facilities shall be reserved and land uses that would
preclude the timely development of transportation facilities shall be prohibited, in that
the amendment includes provisions for timely removal of temporary uses and
10
protects the ROW from other types of permanent development; Policy 4.6.3, which
encourages the implementation of a Class I bicycle route and pedestrian trail along
the Southern Pacific Railroad (Metro) right-of-way corridor as long as it does not
conflict with a rail line, in that the amendment protects the use of the right-of-way for
public transportation projects including a bicycle and pedestrian path; Open Space
Element Objective 2, which encourages expansion of the open space system
through the use of public properties, in that the amendment includes open space as
an allowed permanent use and protects the ROW from other types of permanent
development; Open Space Element Objective 4, which encourages the
establishment of a citywide system of pathways and linear open spaces, in that the
amendment includes open space and public transportation (including non-motorized
transportation) as allowed permanent uses and protects the ROW from other types
of permanent development; and Policy 4.3, which encourages enhancement of the
MTA corridor as a bicycle lane and linear open space, in that the amendment
includes open space and public transportation (including non-motorized
transportation) as allowed permanent uses and protects the ROW from other types
of permanent development.
2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the proposed
amendment, in that the amendment would provide a mechanism for the ROW to be
used on a temporary basis, while preserving it for public transportation uses as the
primary use; the amendment provides restrictive development standards to ensure
that uses can be removed within a 180-day period to allow the use of the ROW for
transportation purposes; and the amendment ensures compatibility with the
11
surrounding area by prohibiting visually intrusive uses such as vehicle impound
yards or building materials storage yards.
Budget/Financial Impact
There is no anticipated budget/financial impact to this policy decision.
Prepared by:
Ellen Gelbard, Deputy Director, Planning and Community Development Department
Approved:
i'
Andy Agfe
Interim Director, Planning and
Community Development Department
Forwarded,bo Council:
~
P. l~amont Ewell
Ci{y Manager
Attachments:
A. Location Map
B. Ordinance to Add Part 9.04.08.37 and Sections 9.04.12.110,
9.04.12.170 to the Santa Monica Municipal Code
C. Ordinance to Amend the Official Districting Map
D. Comment Letter
E. Resolution to Adopt a Negative Declaration
F. Final Negative Declaration
9.04.12.160 and
12
Attachment A
Attachment B
f:\atty\m uni\laws\barry\transpreserveord-1.doc
City Council Meeting 4-11-06 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA ADDING PART 9.04.08.37 TO THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL
CODE TO ESTABLISH A TRANSPORTATION PRESERVATION DISTRICT AND
ADDING SECTIONS 9.04.12.110, 9.04.12.160, AND 9.04.12.170 TO THE SANTA
MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR
SURFACE PARKING LOTS, FILM AND VIDEO PRODUCTION, AND COMMERCIAL
NURSERIES AUTHORIZED IN THE TRANSPORTATION PRESERVATION DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Exposition rail right-of-way (ROW) is owned by the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and extends from Downtown Los
Angeles to Santa Monica; and
WHEREAS, within Santa Monica, the ROW is a 1.3-mile corridor that runs
between Centinela Avenue and 17t~' Street and is generally between 50 to 100 feet
wide; and
WHEREAS, Land Use and Circulation Element Policy 1.11.3 encourages the
retention of the ROW as open space and also permits its use for transportation
purposes; and
WHEREAS, Land Use and Circulation Element Policy 4.1.8 provides that the
ROW shall be reserved for new alternate transportation facilities and that land uses
which would preclude the timely development of transportation facilities shall be
prohibited; and
WHEREAS, depending on the location, the ROW is currently zoned Light
Manufacturing and Studio District (LMSD) and Industrial Conservation District (M1); and
WHEREAS, these districts require that a conditional use permit be obtained for
any use of the ROW for other than transportation purposes; and
WHEREAS, the proposed district would protect the ROW for long term public
transportation uses including light rail and bike/pedestrian paths, while expediting the
approval process for limited temporary uses such as non-code required parking and
filming production; and
WHEREAS, this proposed amendment would not authorize or prohibit any uses
that are not already authorized or prohibited under current zoning; and
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2006, the City Council adopted a Resolution of
Intention directing the Planning Commission to initiate the amendment process; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed text
amendment and accompanying Negative Declaration on March 1, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City
Council adopt the Final Negative Declaration and the proposed text amendment with
modification; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this proposed Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment on April 11, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives,
policies, land uses and programs specified in the adopted General Plan, specifically:
2
Land Use and Circulation Element Policy 1.11.3, which encourages the retention of the
Southern Pacific [Exposition Branch] ROW as open space and also permit its use for
transportation purposes, in that the amendment includes both open space and public
transportation as allowed permanent uses and protects the ROW from other types of
permanent development; Policy 4.1.8, which states that right-of-way for new alternative
transportation facilities shall be reserved and land uses that wou~d preclude the timely
development of transportation facilities shall be prohibited, in that the amendment
includes provisions for timely remova~ of temporary uses and protects the ROW from
other types of permanent development; Policy 4.6.3, which encourages the
implementation of a Class I bicycle route and pedestrian trail aiong the Southern Pacific
Railroad (Metro) right-of-way corridor as long as it does not conflict with a rail line, in
that the amendment protects the use of the right-of-way for public transportation
projects including a bicycle and pedestrian path; Open Space Element Objective 2,
which encourages expansion of the open space system through the use of public
properties, in that the amendment includes open space as an allowed permanent use
and protects the ROW from other types of permanent development; Open Space
Element Objective 4, which encourages the establishment of a citywide system of
pathways and linear open spaces, in that the amendment includes open space and
public transportation (including non-motorized transportation) as allowed permanent
uses and protects the ROW from other types of permanent development; and Policy
4.3, which encourages enhancement of the MTA corridor as a bicycle lane and linear
open space, in that the amendment includes open space and public transportation
3
(including non-motorized transportation) as allowed permanent uses and protects the
ROW from other types of permanent development; and
WHEREAS, the public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of
the proposed amendment, in that the amendment would provide a mechanism for the
ROW to be used on a temporary basis, while preserving it for public transportation uses
as the primary use; the amendment provides restrictive development standards to
ensure that uses can be removed within a 180-day period to allow the use of the ROW
for transportation purposes; and the amendment ensures compatibility with the
surrounding area by prohibiting visually intrusive uses such as vehicle impound yards or
building materials storage yards,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Part 9.04.08.37 is hereby added to the Santa Monica Municipal
Code to read as follows:
Part 9.04.08.37 TP Transportation Preservation
District
Section 9.04.08.37.010. Purpose.
The TP District is intended to preserve the Los
Anqeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(METRO) Exposition Branch riqht-of-way for transportation-
related uses. The District mav allow temporary non-transit
4
uses and limited site improvements, but require all non-
transit uses and improvements to be removed at such time
as the right-of-way is needed for public transportation-related
uses. Consistent with the qoals, objectives, and policies of
the General Plan, no permanent non-transportation-related
structures or other long-term improvements are permitted.
Section 9.04.08.37.020. Permitted Uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in TP District:
(a) Public Transportation.
(b) Open space and landscapin~
~c) Public parks and recreation.
(d) Film or video production uses associated with
leqally permitted buildinqs located north of Olvmpic
Boulevard which were constructed prior to the effective date
of Ordinance Number (CCS), May 25, 2006.
Section 9.04.08.37.030. Uses subiect to
Performance Standards Permit.
The followinq uses may be permitted in the TP District
subject to the approval of a Performance Standards Permit
and compliance with applicable standards of Section
9.04.12. The uses approved pursuant to this section shall
on~v be authorized during such time as the riqht-of-way is not
required for transportation uses. All interFering non-
transportation uses shall cease operation and all non-
transportation improvements shall be removed from the
riqht-of-way within one hundred and eiqhty (180) of receivinq
natice from the City.
(~ Surplus parking for businesses that currently
meet off-street parking requirements.
(b) Film or video production uses and associated
non-permanent structures, includinq temporary sets.
(c) Commercial nurseries.
Section 9.04.08.37.040. Prohibited uses.
Except fo~ those uses identified in Sections
9.04.08.37.020 and 9.04.08.37.030, the followinq uses shall
be prohibited:
~a) Structures on permanent foundations not
associated with a permitted use.
~b) Permanent site improvements such as
buildings or walls not associated with a permitted use.
(c) Vehicle impound or iunk yard.
(d) Building material storage.
(e) Required parking for an off-site use.
(fl Any use not specificallv authorized above.
Section 9.04.08.37.050. Property development
standards.
Allproperty in the Transportation Preservation District
shall be developed in accordance with the following
standards:
~~ Maximum buildinq height. The maximum building
heiqht shall not exceed 45 feet. Heiqht in the Transportation
Preservation District shall be measured from an imaqinary
line extending befinreen the midpoints of the front propertv
lines at the sidewalk level of the through parcels.
~b) Floor Area Ratio. The maximum floor area ratio
shall be 1.0.
(c) Landscapincl and screening. All areas not needed
or used for transit facilities or riqhts-of-ways should be
landscaped. All landscapinq plans shall be reviewed and
approved bv the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
(d) Lighting. Lighting shall be screened from the view
of residentiallv zoned or used properties pursuant to the
provisions of Section 9.04.10.02.270.
~e) Parking and vehicle access. Vehicle access,
circulation and passenger loadinq zones shall be desiqned
to minimize traffic conqestion and hazards, and provide
accessible, attractive and maintainable parking facilities
while minimizincqthe number and size of driveway curb cuts
as determined by the Transportation Planninc1Manager. The
required number of parkinq spaces specified in Section
9.04.10.08.040 shall be provided. A parking demand
analvsis may be required if it is deemed necessary bv the
Transportation Planninq Manaqer and the Zoninq
Administrator. The analysis shall be paid for by the
developer. In the event the anaysis shows parkinq
requirements qreater than required by Section
9.04.10.08.040, the Transportation Planning Manaqer and
Zoning Administrator shall require such additional parkinq as
is determined by the analysis. Parkinq shali be desiqned
pursuant to Section 9.04.10.08.060.
Section 9.04.08.37,060. Leqal Nonconforminq
buildinqs and uses.
A buildinq which lawfully existed on the effective date
of Ordinance Number (CCS) but which does not comply
with one or more of the property development standards for
the Transportation Preservation District may be maintained
in accordance with Section 9.04.18.020 Uses and
permanent structures that were lawfully established before
the effective date of this Ordinance and that are not in
conformance with the provisions of this Part shall be
discontinued and removed, or be altered to conform to the
requirements of this Part within five Years of the effective
date of Ordinance Number (CCS), or at such time as
the riqht-of-way is required for a transportation-related use,
whichever time period is lonqer. Temporarv structures
without permanent foundations shall be discontinued and
removed, or be altered to conform to the requirements of this
Part at such time that the right-of-wav is required for a
transportation-related use.
Section 9.04.08.37.070. Architectural Review.
Any development of the right-of-wav shall be subject
to architectural review pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
9.32 of this Article.
SECTION 2. Section 9.04.12.110 is hereby added to the Santa Monica
Municipal Code to read as follows:
Section 9.04.12.110. Surface parking lots used for
non-required automobile parkinq in the TP District.
The pupose of this Section is to ensure that surface
parking lots used for vehicle parkinq will not adversely
impact the environment of nearby industrial, commercial and
residential uses, and that anv non-transit uses and
improvements are removed if non-transit uses interfere with
the development of the right-of-way when needed for public
transit use.
(a~ Applicability. The following performance
standards shall applv to surface parking lots used for non-
required vehicle parking. Interfering vehicle parking uses
shall be removed from the transportation riqht-of-way within
one hundred and eiqhty (180) davs of receivinq notice from
the City that the property is required for public transportation
uses.
(b) Maximum Height. The finished qrade of surface
parkinq lots shall not exceed eiqhteen inches in heiqht as
measured from an ima~inarv line extending between the
10
midpoints of the front property lines at the sidewalk level of
the throuqh parcels.
~c) Parkinq and vehicle access. The parkin dq esiqn
and vehicle access shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Transportation Planning Manager to
minimize traffic congestion and hazards and ~rovide
accessibilitv.
(d) Fences. Fences shall conform to the provisions
of Sections 9.04.10.02.080 and 9.04.10.02.090.
(e) Lighting. Any lighting shall be provided pursuant to
the provisions of Section 9.04.10.02.270.
(fl SurFacing. Drivewavs, drive aisles and parkinq
spaces shall be surfaced with a materials approved by the
Transportation Manaqement Division which shall minimize
noise and shaif not create airborne particulates. The
surfacing design, installation and materials used shall
prevent contaminants from enterinq the storm drain system,
or allow the surFacinq material or dirt from beinq carried on
vehicle tires onto adjacent public streets. The City
encourages pervious surfaces to reduce urban runoff.
11
~g) Storaqe. No overniqht parking or storage of
vehicles, or equipment, or materials is permitted.
~h) Property Maintenance. The property shall be
maintained free of trash, debris, or junk materials.
Hardscape areas shall be swept at least once a month to
minimize airborne particulates and runoff pollution.
SECTION 3. Section 9.04.12.160 is hereby added to the Santa Monica
Municipal Code to read as follows:
Section 9.04.12.160. Film and video production in
the TP District.
The purpose of this Section is to allow for film and
videoproduction activities to take place on the transportation
riqht-of-way while ensuring that adiacent and nearby
industrial. commercial. and residential uses are not
negatively impacted, and that any non-transit uses and
improvements are removed when the right-of-wav is needed
for public transit use.
(a) Applicability. The followinq perFormance
standards shall apply to all film and video production
activities conducted on the right-of-wav. All uses and
improvements shall be removed from the right-of-way within
one hundred and eiqhty (180) days of receivinq notice from
12
either the propertv owner or the City that the property is
needed for public transportation uses.
(b~ Hours of operation. All production activities,
includinq set construction and preparation, delivery and
loading/unloading of equipment, trailer delivery and set up,
and rehearsals shall comply with Resolution Number 8140
~CCS), regulatinq Pictures for Commercial Purposes, and
any successor resolution as may be adopted by the City
Council from time to time.
c1 Noise. No aroduction activities shall exceed the
maximum noise thresholds established in the City's Noise
Ordinance (Section 4.2).
(d) Permitted structures and enclosures. No
permanent structures shall be constructed on the
transportation riqht-of-way. Existinq structures mav be used
for film production uses but mav not be expanded.
Tem~orarv structures without permanent foundations, such
as fences or landscaping for exterior sets and backdrops,
tents, scaffoldinq for lightinq or camera placement and
trailers mav be permitted. No structure shall exceed 30 feet
in height.
13
(e) Parkinq. A Performance Standards Permit shall
be denied unless the applicant demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Transportation Planning Manaqer that
sufficient parkinq and/or alternative means of transporting
roduction crewmembers to and from the site will be
~rovided so limited public parkina resources will not be
adverselv impacted. All parking located on the riqht-of-way
shall be improved and used in conformance with the
standards specified in Section 9.04,12.110.
(fl Propertv Maintenance. The property shall be
maintained free of trash, debris, or junk materials.
Hardscape areas shal! be swept at least once a month to
minimize airborne particulates and runoff pollution.
SECTION 4. Section 9.04.12.170 is hereby added to the Santa Monica
Municipal Code to read as follows:
Section 9.04.12.170. Commercial Nurseries in the
TP District_
The purpose of this Section is to allow for commercial
nurseries to operate on the transportation riqht-of-way while
ensurinc~that adiacent and nearbv industrial, commercial,
and residential uses are not negatively impacted, and that
14
the non-transit uses and improvements are removed when
the right-of-wa~is needed for public transit use.
(a) Applicabilitv. The following performance
standards shall ap~lv to all commercial nursery activities
conducted on the transportation right-of-way. All commercial
nursery uses shall be removed from the riqht-of-way within
one hundred and eighty (180) days of receiving notice from
either the property owner or the City that the property is
needed for public transportation uses.
(b) Noise. No activities shall exceed the maximum
noise thresholds established in the City's Noise Ordinance
~Section 4.2).
(c) Permitted structures. No permanent structures
may be constructed on the transportation right-of-wa~
Existing structures mav be used for commercial nursery
purposes but may not be expanded. Temporarv structures
without permanent foundations mav be permitted. No
structure shall exceed 30 feet in height.
(d) Fences. Fences shall conform to the provisions of
Sections 9.04.10.02.080 and 9.04.10.02.090.
15
(e) Storaqe of Materials. All plants shall be kept in
moveable pots or containers, no piants shall be planted
directly in the qround except pursuant to a landscape plan
approved by the Architectural Review Board. All other
nursery materials and equipment shall be screened from
public view by a minimum five foot tall fence or potted hedqe
or shall be stored in an enclosed structure.
(fl Property Maintenance. The property shall be
maintained free of trash, debris, or junk materials.
Hardscape areas shall be swept at least once a month to
minimize airborne particulates and runoff pollution.
Lq) Parking. Parkinq requirements, vehicle access
and parking space desiqn shall be subiect to the review and
approval of the Transportation Planninq Manager to
minimize traffic congestion and hazards and provide
accessibilitv.
SECTION 5. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 6. 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
16
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would
have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion
of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 7. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to 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 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~
MAR JONE MOUTRIE
City Attorney
17
Attachment C
f: \atty\m u n i\laws\barry\transpreserveord-2. d oc
City Council Meeting 4-11-06 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL DISTRICTING MAP TO ESTABLISH
THE TRANSPORTATION PRESERVATION DISTRICT IN PORTIONS OF THE
FORMER M1 AND LMSD DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, concurrently with adoption of this amendment to the Official
Districting Map to establish the Transportation Preservation District ("TPD District") in
portions of the former M1 and LMSD Districts, the City Council is adopting an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to establish authorized uses and property
development standards for the TPD District; and
WHEREAS, the TPD District encompasses the Southern Pacific Railway, also
known as the Exposition rail right-of-way ("ROW") owned by the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("METRO") which within the City is a 1.3 mile
corridor that generally parallels Olympic Boulevard between Centinela Avenue and 17tn
Street and generally ranges between 50 to 100 feet wide; and
1
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives,
policies, land uses and programs specified in the adopted General Plan, specificaNy:
Land Use and Circulation Element Policy 1.11.3, which encourages the retention of the
Southern Pacific [Exposition Branch] ROW as open space and also permit its use for
transportation purposes, in that the amendment includes both open space and public
transportation as allowed permanent uses and protects the ROW from other types of
permanent development; Policy 4.1.8, which states that right-of-way for new alternative
transportation facilities shall be reserved and land uses that would preclude the timely
development of transportation facilities shall be prohibited, in that the amendment
includes provisions for timely removal of temporary uses and protects the ROW from
other types of permanent development; Policy 4.6.3, which encourages the
implementation of a Class I bicycle route and pedestrian trail along the Southern Pacific
Railroad (Metro) right-of-way corridor as long as it does not conflict with a rail line, in
that the amendment protects the use of the right-of-way for public transportation
projects including a bicycle and pedestrian path; Open Space Element Objective 2,
which encourages expansion of the open space system through the use of public
properties, in that the amendment includes open space as an allowed permanent use
and protects the ROW from other types of permanent development; Open Space
Element Objective 4, which encourages the establishment of a citywide system of
pathways and linear open spaces, in that the amendment includes open space and
public transportation (including non-motorized transportation) as allowed permanent
uses and protects the ROW from other types of permanent development; and Policy
4.3, which encourages enhancement of the MTA corridor as a bicycle lane and linear
2
open space, in that the amendment includes open space and public transportation
(including non-motorized transportation) as allowed permanent uses and protects the
ROW from other types of permanent development; and
WHEREAS, the public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of
the proposed amendment, in that the amendment would provide a mechanism for the
ROW to be used on a temporary basis, while preserving it for public transportation uses
as the primary use; the amendment provides restrictive development standards to
ensure that uses can be removed within a 180-day period to allow the use of the ROW
for transportation purposes; and the amendment ensures compatibility with the
surrounding area by prohibiting visually intrusive uses such as vehicle impound yards or
building materials storage yards,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Official Districting Map of the City is hereby amended as set
forth in Exhibit "A."
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. 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
3
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would
have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion
of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to 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 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MAR HA JON MOUTRIE
City Attorney
4
EXHBIT A
~ Transportation
} ~
~
a~ `~
~ ___..
,f r, ,~ ._-
_=~~_ _
"~ ` - .
r~
ytiy ; d~,-,
} r f - =-`~ --
~ ~ ~ --
,~ ~~-
, , ~-_=;~,~„~____
+ ~ --_
~', -
r--=~-~ __
a- ---
~l~'~~_C:
_ _ ,~
~~
--, }~-~
L r, J
_ ~~ ~~ ~
__ ~ ~
__~_
t : _. ~_~ ~
~~ ~~
~ ~ R .- ,
u __
. ~
__ ~ - ~
e
n _~ ~ ,
~
~ .~ ~~t k *f.
;~ ~,,
~ _ _ ~..,~ _ _
~~;~__--~_____
,.~~ _ ----
~
r -==~~____a
!,~1~-~.~,~ rl
,4~ ~ ~ n,_` _ y : !
~ t, . ~ +, ~ ~ ~_ - ~.- ~ _
,~' 1.~ $~~mn ~ -~-~-_._~ ~
~ ' ..' ~,y ~ ~
1
i
. ' ~ ~a•t+e-- ' t
~ + r ~ ~ ~ il ~ "~+~r:. ~- ~~ ~ E k
,+ I ~~~'~J-~ 1 `, ( - ry
r ~~~ 4 ~
v
y ~ ~,.~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ L.~~ ~
_ -_
,{ ~, t ~ ~'`-~+a.;~= - l'. ~ ~ ~
-. r~ _ _ • .
- ~ ~ '~'' ~ ,~ „'-- ~~~ T ~
~.
~~ _ ~ 3 ~- - ~~~ , ~ ~-=- ..
~` ~ ( I ~ ~ ~ E ~ _ -- ` ~`- . _.
~ ' t f ? . ~ +~~ _ _ ` h i ~ r -'
~ ~ ~~~'~ ~~ ~ ' ~~ _ _ ~~ iq~ +~ -~
~ `r , ~ ~~4+k, ,~~ ~` ~Y~'~°~"`g _ _~"~ i '~~-
;~,,,P~; _ _ 4,-S,_-_
! ' r~i ~ i~~`~ "~,, ~,
~ i,',~'---~,~~ ..~; ~~---__~ ~+
«- ~ - ~, ~ __ ~ :> , ~h _ _ _ _ 1 ~ti " - :
_ , ;, ~
„
~ ~r++,~~ ~ __ ~ ~"'y~ -=;-54 1 ~ ~ar "
,; .
, r..
.~ ~.._ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _a.
~, ~s _ __ ~-~ ~ ; f, ~ = .,~~-~ry ~ ,p~~-- _ ' °'' - _ ~ , ;
` ":?~ ~ ~ :~~ _ k~1~ _~ ' ~f . ~ ! I_ C" ~+~-'- ~'~ -_'-
_. J
!~~
9e. - - -
_ . ' _ ._.. ~ . : ~'~
] ~_ ~ ` ~' ~ 7 ~~-''~'~' - ~ ~"- d - ~
-- ---- -- __.. ~
_,
_ ~__~~~ r ~ _ , f w ~ . __. , ~ - ti.~-
~
-_-~7 ~ +r~ ~~~ l-~ _ , , Y~_ - _ - ~ --_-_
_ _
, r ~ ,~,,..~ ~ , _ , ~ , ~
--.
r~ ' , - ~
r ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~~~.I I.~~ ~ , ~ , ~ ~1 _ _ _
. .
~~ ~~~ ~ ~_' ~_ `~ ~ „ , -
, ~~ -~ -
, ~I r'
i. ~ 4- ~ - - , __ , ~' _ ~ 1~i~fiies~. , " i ~ i ~~
I__~ ~~ _ ~ ~_ ~ r~r~r.r. a. • Ly~ ~ j 1 I
~
__J I~~ ; ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ _ ._' ~
` ' ~ ~~ ~
~ ~w _ G . ~ ~!
_ _ ?~N ~ , ..
~___ !~ ~
_ ._. a - --
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
f~
-- ~ ~ ~ 4R1ner ~
~- _
~ -~--~
`
~ - -- - rfi~"~,'°~^!s _ __ _-- i
~ ,
,.
~ i
r„g~{~t°s ` ~.
~
_.
I
~'
_ i r i : a
-- }l~~,qrf~ . ~
.
~ ~ 14ai~. _ ~_
~
:
. .
. .. .
~ ~ . ~
' I
~
~
~ ~, ' ~ ~
r -+I ~
., u~.~ ,~~,
Ctm~rherj ' I !
°"` ~, ~~
I
~' ' ~ il
, ~ .~.~.~.
I
.~
....-.
~ ; !
. ~
_
-
-"- .
~ .
.~
o~~rxar -
-___1 I 1
..
~ '
1 iT I I [ I ! i ~
Attachment D
Metro
Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Zi3.9zz.2ooo Tel
Los Angeles, CA 9oo~z-2952 metro.net
VIA FAX & U.S. MAIL
Fax No. 310-576-4755
March 1, 2006
Ellen Gelbard
Planning and Community Development
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
1b85 Main Street, Room 214
Santa Monica, CA 90401
SUBJECT: COMMENTS TO DRAFT', PROPOSED TP TRANSPORTATION
PRESERVATION DISTRICT OF METRO RIGHT-OF-WAY
Dear Ellen:
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO) has reviewed the
Draft TP Transportation Preservation District that is proposed for METRO's right-of-way.
METRO generally supports this proposed zoning ordinance; however, METRO wishes to
submit to the Planning Commission Hearing later today, recommendations for additional
language and deletions to the Draft, shown on the ~-page attachment.
Toiiy I,oui, Planning Manager for METRO's Westside Area Team, will be attending the
Planning Commission Hearing.
If there are any questions, please call Frances Impert of my staff at (213) 922-2410.
Sin erely,
'` j "1
G ~: ~~:~,~._,;~; ~ ~,~ ~~~ G-~~.•~'L'
VELMA C. MARSHALL
Director of Real Estate
VCM/fci
Attachment
c: Chron> F. Impert, D. Robb - w/ Attach.
T. I.oui, D. Mieger - w/ Attach.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
TP Transportation Preservation District
METRO Comments to Draft
February 28, 2006
9.04.08.37.010 Purpose
Recommended change to the last sentence: "Consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the General Plan, no new permanent non-
transportation-related structures or other long-term improvements are
permitted unless approved by a conditional use permit, variance, or other
approved deviation from current zoning designation. (Note;
9.04.08.37.020 Permitted Uses
(c) Public parks and recreation subject to review and approval by METRO
for such uses on METRO-owned properties.
Comments: these uses are typically not allowed under METRO's Right-
of-Way Preservation Guidelines and therefore require discretionary
approval by METRO. Park uses on transportation right-of-way may
involve environmental clearance under Section 4(~ of the National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Environmental clearance would
be needed when a transportation project is planned for the METRO right-
of-way.
(d) Legally permitted Buildings located. north of Olympic Blvd. existing
on January 1, 1991 that may be used for ~lm or video production, child
care, or recreation: Comments: METRO recommends the date of
January 1, 1991 (property transfer from Southern Pacific)
Recommended Additional Section:
(e) Uses permitted under a conditional use permit, variance or other
approved deviation from current zoning designation.
9.04.08.37.030 Uses Subject to Performance Standards Permit
Recommended change to the third sentence: For METRO-owned Right of
Way, all interfering non-transportation uses as determined by METRO
shall cease operation and all non-transportation improvements shall be
removed from the right-of-way '
as directed in writing by the
METRO. [Note: lease termination clause will control the termination.]
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
TP Transportation Preservation District
METRO Comments to Draft
February 28, 2006
Page 2 of 5
09.04.08.37.040 Prohibited.Uses.
Recommended Change to First Sentence:
Except for those uses identified in section 9.04.08.37.020, section
9.04.08.37.030, and/or as permitted by a conditional use permit, variance,
or other approved deviation from current zoning designation, the
following uses shall be prohibited:
(a) No Comment
(b) No Comment
(c) No Comment
(d) : Comments: Delete from list for
METRO-owned Right-of-Way
(e) No Comment
(~ No Comment
09.04.08.37.050 Property development standards
(a) Maximum building height
(b) Floor Area Ratio
Comments on above: Maximum building height and Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) shall be reviewed when corridor studies or transportation projects are
implemented to provide flexibility and compatibility of the future project to the
land uses adjacent to the right of way. Maximum building height and FAR
through this review process should reflect best transportation and land use
practices and should be compatible with local and regional growth management
policies.
(c) Landscaping and screening. Recommended Change:
All azeas not needed or used for transit facilities or rights-of-ways
should be landscaped. All landscaping plans shall be reviewed and
approved by METRO for METRO-affected properties.
(d) Lighting. No comment.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
TP Transportation Preservation District
METRO Comments to Draft
Februazy 28, 2006
Page 3 of 5
09.04.08.37.060 Non-conforming buiidings and uses.
Recommended change to section:
The repair or reconstruction of any existing permanent structure that is
damaged shall be conducted in accordance with Subchapter 9.04.18. ~
,
,
, •
Comment: Strikeout applies to METRO-owned property.
Comment: All non-conforming uses or current leases on METRO-owned
Right-of-Way would be given reasonable time to comply with new
requirements under the TP district.
09.04.08.37.70 Architectural Review.
Any development of a City-owned or METRO-owned right of way shall
be subject to architectural review pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
9.32 of this Article. METRO input shall be provided for all architectural
reviews affecting the METRO-owned right of way.
Subchapter
9.04.12.110 Surface parking lots used for non-required automobile parking in the
TP District
Recommended change:
The purpose of this section is to ensure that surface parking lots used for
vehicle parking will not adversely impact the environment of nearby
industrial, commercial, and residential uses, and that any non-transit uses
and improvements are removed sv}~et3 if these non-transit uses interfere
with the development of the right-of-way ~s when needed for public transit
use.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
TP Transportation Preservation District
METRO Comments to Draft
February 28, 2006
Page 4 of 5
(a) Applicability. Recommended change to section:
The following performance standards shall apply to surface
parking lots used for non-required vehicle parking. ~ Interfering
vehicle parking uses shall be removed from the transportation
right-of-way ...:.~.:., .~,..~<. ~~n~ ,~.,,,.. „f ..o,.o„~; ~*~ upon
reasonable notice from e~e~ METRO for METRO-owned
properry, or within thirty (30) days of receiving notice from the
City for City-owned property ' when the property is
required for public transportation uses.
(b) Maximum Height. No comment.
(g) Storage. No overnight parking or storage of vehicles, or
equipment, or materials is permitted for City owned property. City
input is recommended for new storage uses on METRO-owned
property.
Subchapter
9.04.12.160 Film and video production in the TP District
(a) Applicability. Recommended change in section:
The following performance standards shall apply to all film and
video production activities conducted on the right-of-way. All
uses and improvements shall be removed from the right-of-way
upon receiving reasonable notice from
°;•~METRO for METRO-owned property or within thirty (30)
days upon receiving notice from the City for City-owned property
when the property is needed for public transportation uses. [Note:
termination clause in METRO lease determines this notice.]
Subchapter
9.04.12.170 Commercial Nurseries in the TP District
(a) Applicability. Recommended change in section:
The following performance standards shall apply to all commercial
nursery activities conducted on the transportation right-of-way.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
TP Transportation Preservation District
METRO Comments to Draft
February 28, 2006
Page 5 of S
All commercial nursery uses shall be removed from the right-of-
way~~^''~~-~~~'~"` a^•~~ ~~upon receiving reasonable notice
from e~#ee METRO for METRO-owned property or within thirty
(30) days upon receiving notice from the City for City-owned
property when the property is needed for public transportation
uses.
(c) Permitted structures. Recommended change in section:
No permanent structures may be constructed on the transportation
right-of-way. Existing structures may be used for commercial
nursery purposes but may not be expanded unless permitted under
a conditional use permit, variance, or other approved deviation
from current zoning designation.
Attachment E
o.
Attachment F
Transportation Preservation District
Zo n i ng Ord i na nce Amend ment
Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Prepared for
City of Santa Monica
Planning and Community Development Department
1 685 Main Street, Room 21 2
Santa Monica, California 90401
Prepared by
EIP Associates
225 South Lake Ave., Suite 300
Pasadena , California 91 101
(626) 432-5423
Contact: Alison Rondone, Senior Manager
February 23, 2006
Contents
~~:~~~~~~~~ 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Legal Authority ....................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Public Review .......................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 IS/ND Format ........................................................................................................................ 1-2
~'~:~~~~~~~~'~ Project Description/Existing Conditions .............................................................. 2-1
2.1 Project Location ..................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Land Use Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Project Objectives .................................................................................................................. 2-2
2.4 Proposed Project Description .............................................................................................. 2-7
2.5 Required Approvals ................................................................................................................ 2-7
2.6 Other Agency Policies, Guidelines, and Future Projects ................................................. 2-8
~~:~~~~~~~~ :~ Environmental Analysis .........................................................................................3-1
3.1 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................... ............................. 3-2
3.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................. ............................. 3-4
3.3 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................. ............................. 3-6
3.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................. ........................... 3-10
3.5 Noise ........................................................................................................... ........................... 3-12
3.6 Shadows ...................................................................................................... ........................... 3-13
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................... ........................... 3-14
3.8 Population and Housing ........................................................................... ........................... 3-16
3.9 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................. ........................... 3-17
3.10 Transportation/Traffic ............................................................................. ...........................3-19
3.11 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................... ........................... 3-22
3.12 Public Services ........................................................................................... ........................... 3-24
3.13 Recreation ................................................................................................... ...........................3-25
3.14 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................... ........................... 3-26
3.15 Aesthetics .................................................................................................... ...........................3-28
3.16 Construction Effects ................................................................................. ........................... 3-29
3.17 Economic and Social Impacts ................................................................. ........................... 3-29
3.18 Agriculture Resources ............................................................................... ........................... 3-30
3.19 Mineral Resources ..................................................................................... ........................... 3-31
3.20 Neighborhood Effects .............................................................................. ........................... 3-31
3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................... ........................... 3-32
~~:~~~~~~~~ ~~ Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................. ........................4-1
~'~:~~~~~~~~ ~ Comments and Responses .....................................................................................5-1
Figures
Figure 2-1 Regional Location ..................................................................... ............................. 2-3
Figure 2-2 Project Site Location ................................................................ ............................. 2-4
Figure 2-3 Zoning Designations for Site and Vicinity ........................... ............................. 2-5
Tables
Table 2-1 Uses within the Project Boundary ...................................................................... 2-1
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study iii
~ ,~r Introduction
1.1 LEGAL AUTHORITY
This Initial Study and Negative Declaration (IS/ND) for a proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
designate a Transportation Preservation (TP) District has been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as the City of Santa Monica's (City) Guidelines
for the implementation of CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c) states that the purposes of an
Initial Study are to:
1) Provide the Lead Agency with infonnarion to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepaYe
an(Environmental Impact Report) EIR or a Negarive DeclaYarion.
2) Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mirigaring adverse impacts before an
EIR is prepaYed, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Negarive DeclaYarion.
3) Assist in the prepaYarion of an EIR, if one is required.
4) Facilitate environmental assessment earlyin the design of aproject.
5) Provide documentarion of the factual basis for the finding in a Negarive DeclaYarion that a
project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs.
~ Deteul~ine whether a previously prepaYed EIR could be used with the project.
According to Article 6(Negative Declaration Process) and Section 15070 (Decision to Prepare a
Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration) of the CEQA Guidelines:
A public agency shall prepaYe or have prepaYed a proposed negarive declaYarion or mirigated
negarive declaYarion for aproject subject to CEQA when:
a) The inirial study shows that there is no substanrial evidence, in light of the whole record before
the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or
b) The inirial study idenrifies potenrially significant effects, but:
1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a
proposed mirigated negarive declaYarion and inirial study aYe released for public review
would avoid the effects or mirigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects
would occur, and
2) There is no substanrial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the
project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.
The City of Santa Monica City Planning Division has prepared an Initial Study (IS) and Neighborhood
Impact Statement (IS No. 00-003) to determine the level of environmental review necessary for the
proposed TPD zoning ordinance amendment. Based on the analysis in the IS, it has been determined
that all project-related environmental impacts are less than significant; an ND will meet the requirements
of CEQA.
1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW
In accordance with CEQA and the City's Guidelines for CEQA compliance, there is a 20-day public
review period for this Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration. A Notice of Availability of the he
Draft IS/ND was distributed to interested or involved public agencies, neighborhood organizations, and
private individuals for review. In addition, the IS/ND is available for general public review.
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 1-1
Chapter 1 Introduction
During the public review period, the public will have an opportunity to provide written comments on the
information contained within the Draft IS/ND. The public comments on the Draft IS/ND and
responses to public comments will be incorporated into the Final IS/ND. The City Council will use the
Final IS/ND for all environmental decisions related to this project In reviewing the Draft IS/ND,
affected public agencies and interested members of the public should focus on the sufficiency of the
document in identifying and analyzing potential project impacts on the environment.
1.3 IS/ND FORMAT
This document contains four sections. Section 1(Introduction) (this section), describes the legal
authority that requires preparation of an IS/ND, and the environmental and public review processes.
Chapter 2(Project Description/Existing Conditions) provides a detailed description of the project's
setting, objectives, and characteristics. Section 3(Environmental Analysis) presents the environmental
analysis for each issue area identified on the environmental checklist form. It should be noted that if the
proposed project does not have the potential to significantly impact a given resource, the relevant issue
area section provides a brief discussion of the reasons, and rationale for why no impacts are expected.
Chapter 4(Summary of Impacts) provides the reader with an overview of project's overall impacts.
Chapter 5(Comments and Responses) includes two comment letters on the IS/ND received during
the public review period as well as the City's responses thereto.
1-2 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
~ ,~r Project Description/Existing Conditions
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Santa Monica (City) is located along the Pacific Ocean coastline in western Los Angeles
County, California, approximately 20 miles west of the City of Los Angeles Central Business District.
The regional location of the City is shown in Figure 2-1.
The project site is a strip of land ranging from 50 to 100 feet that was previously used as a railroad right-
of-way (RO~. The project site extends east from Seventeenth Street, south of Colorado Avenue, to the
eastern City limits, south of Olympic Boulevard. Figure 2-2 illustrates the project site's location within
the City.
2.2 LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS
Currendy, the land use in and surrounding the ROW is zoned as Light Manufacturing and Studio District
(LMSD) and Industrial Conservation District (M1). The ROW is largely vacant; however, portions of it
are occupied by a limited number of relatively small structures, surface parking, building material storage,
and plant nursery stock. The owner of the ROW, Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), has
adopted policies to preserve the ROW for transportation use. The area surrounding the ROW is
occupied by a variety of light industrial, warehouse, film production, auto repair, and commercial uses.
Table 2-1 provides a listing of the current uses within the ROW.
Nane
c~~rcur«n~r
Block 1: Centinela Ave. to Stewart St. (Eastern Boundary)
Warehouse~Storage of TUP 97-006 &
Golden Auto Body & Paint 13,737 Wrecked & Dismantled Vehicles CUP 98-005
Pending
TUP 97-010 &
Spelling T.V.~North Shore Productions 61,767 Parking~TV Production CUP 97-020
Pending
Ambrose Development Limited 25,01 2 Parking~Storage No CUP or TUP
on Record
Lantana North Hines Development 1 14,961 Parking No CUP or TUP
on Record
American Botanical Company 19,423 Plant Nursery CUP 93-O12
Block 2: Stewart St. to 26Th St.
2800 Olympic Blvd. Partners 7,200 Driveway No CUP or TUP
on Record
City of Santa Monica 80,300 Vacant N~A
Block 3: 26Th St. to Cloverfield Blvd.
Presently Vacant Vacant N~A
Block 4: Cloverfield Blvd. to Olympic Blvd.
German Car Service 25,550 Automobile Maintenance No CUP or TUP
on Record
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 2-1
Chapter 2 Project Description~Existing Conditions
Nane
Cunent CUP a TUP
Block 5: Olympic Blvd. to 20Th St.
Neville Ostrick 21,636 Industrial Offices~Warehouse No CUP or TUP
on Record
Kilroy Reality Corp. 26,600 Construction, Maintenance, No CUP or TUP
Parking, & Dog Park on Record
1631 215} Street Entertainment Production~Office No CUP or TUP
on Record
1630 215} Street Entertainment Production~Office No CUP or TUP
on Record
1641 20'h Street Entertainment Production~Office No CUP or TUP
on Record
Block 6: 20Th St. to 19Th St.
1920 Colorado 1 2,840 Parking No CUP or TUP
on Record
Samo Natives (Bourget Bros.) 19,800 Construction Material Storage No CUP or TUP
on Record
Block 7: 19Th St. to 17Th St. (Western Boundary )
Standard Concrete Products 5,678 Parking~Storage No CUP or TUP
on Record
Samo Natives (Bourget Bros.) 31,150 Construction Material Storage No CUP or TUP
on Record
Temporary Placement of No CUP or TUP
J. Goodman & Associates 285 Freezer & Pad on Record
Crossroads School 28,600 Parking No CUP or TUP
on Record
Hastings Plastics Co. 1,200 Parking~Storage No CUP or TUP
on Record
SOURCE: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority~City of Santa Monica 2005
Areas not specifically listed are vacant.
Land Use and Zoning Designations
The City's Zoning Ordinance serves as the principal instrument of land use regulation for all properties
and proposed development within the City. The Zoning Ordinance includes regulations for permitted
uses, project design and development standards, parking requirements, application requirements, hearing
procedures, and other information regarding land use and development in the City. As shown in
Figure 2-3, the ROW is zoned as LMSD and M1.
2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The City proposes to amend its Zoning Ordinance to designate the Metro public transportation ROW as
a Transportation Preservation (TP) District The purpose is to specify and clarify allowable uses until the
ROW is needed for public transportation purposes.
2-2 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
~
s
/ ~
~ ~ Glendale
~o~ Pasadena
Hollywood ~ ~
~ 110
,~
~ 101
;; .~ .\ ~ i _-
PROJECT ~ ~
LOCATION ~ ,,
Santa ~
Monica ~ ,o ~
~~~~~ . ~
~~
Los
~ 405 Angeles
C
s
\ 605
\
LAX ~~o
710
~ ~
~ 105 5
g ~ ~~
~ ~
~~~
r'
r ~ \.,
~' ~\
~ 405
~
~
Q ........ .
~
\ ~
-- ~
~ Long ~
~ ~ Beach
,
~~ ~,1
~
\
0 1 2 4
I `~ I
FIGURE 2-1 Scale in Miles
-~- Regional Location
EIP
~..~~. ~vu ..
10391-01 Source: EIP Associates, 2005 City of Santa Monica ~ ~~~~
M et ro R i g ht-of-Way
~ ~
Metro Right-of-Way
~ ~ ~ _._. __.,,,
~ 1 ~' i C3~p Y~ts
~~~ ~ .da. I '~"'g
~~
~nfn[ iYiaale,~•.
~~
~( ~
~ s,. "a
~~
~ ~~
~ ~~_~~~
p~-~-~~'_"_~^~-.~.
~ ~
t fd.d,. ~_:::.w
~~
FIGURE 2-2
-~- Project Site Location
10391-01 I Source: EIPAssociates, 2005
.. , ~~~ . . . ~~~.
.~~.
{~
~
EIP
of Santa Monica ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I Scale in Miles
Ioning Districts
~~~
~ ~ ~,,,~
a.. ., ,~ `;
~
~~
~
,~~ ~n~~~,~
~n~ ~f y~ t ~n~
~~ ~~1,~ ~~~~
~ kFri~1 m~ .
n~ ~$~~ ~~
~ ~~~ ~~~
z~"~fi~~t~~
~~ ~~~ ~
~~~~i~~~~
~~~~~~~
4i~~~$( ~4~
r~}
~~~.~¢
~~~ ~
~
~~~~ ~
s~~
,
~~
M~.
~ ,~, ~
~
~
~ ~
T~
~ ~
kl Single Family Resideniial
R2~ law Uensity Duplex
R2 Low ~ensnry Multiple Residential
Rd8 low 13ensity Muliiple Family faastaf Residentiad
R3 Medium ~ens~ty Multiple Family Residential
R3~ Medium ~ensity Multiple Far~ily CaastaP Reside~tia~
R4 ~~' High Demsity Multipla Family Resident~al
RMH Residential Mnbile Hume Park
[3PI Qeean Park SingCe family
[3P-d Qcear~ Park-Lluplex
OP2 Ocean ~ark tow Multiple Family
OP3 Ucearn Park Med'oum Multiple Family
(1P4 x; Qcea~ Park Eligh ~lulteple Faanely
RVC Reside~tial-Wisator Commerci~l
B~~ Bf0~~W3'~L0117117CPCI~I
C~ N~I'~h~OF~lOlkd CPII1~fIRfCld~
C3 DuwnCawn Lomrmercial
C3C Dnwntown pverlay
C4 ~ttsy,~~~ High~ay Commercial
C5 ~~~~,`~u Special (lffiee Cammercial
Cb I~, ~,~ Baulevaesl Commertial
CM Main gtreet Ipecial Cnmmercial
Cp Comrnercial Pro(essional
B~€ Bayside ~om~ercial
CC Civic Cente~
MI ,s' 3 ~ Industri~l Conaervatian
L@1S6 ~` r Nr Light ManufacCu~ir~g and ~tutlia District
BPD Beach Parking
6p Designated Parks
~V~P~~'~ ~15tCICtS
h Offatreet Par~Cimg
NW North of Wil~6~ire
Beach Overlay Qistrict
^ Boulevard Residential (lveriay Distri~t
Neigh6nrhond Commercia]
Public ~in~s
FIGURE 2-3 Not to Scale
~~~ Zoning Designation for Site and Vicinity ~ T~
1
~. ~.vu,.•
10391-01 Source: City of Santa Monica City of Santa Monica ~ ~~~~
Chapter 2 Project Description~Existing Conditions
2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance to designate the public
transportation ROW within the City as a TP District The ROW, owned by Metro, is also known as the
Exposition ROW. The ROW (extending east from Seventeenth Street, south of Colorado Avenue, to the
eastern City limits, south of Olympic Boulevard) is within the City's LMSD and M1 zoning designations.
Currendy, any use of the ROW for purposes other than public transportation-related activities requires a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Approved use of the ROW has been very limited to date. The proposed
district is intended to facilitate approval of limited term land uses that are consistent with the City's
General Plan and the City's goal to re-establish the ROW for public transportation use in the foreseeable
future. The City has not authorized the majority of existing uses within the ROW. The TP District
zoning would make it easier to legalize some of the existing unpermitted uses; however, some of the
existing unpermitted uses would continue to be unpermittable and would be subject to removal.
Although the proposed district is largely vacant, some portions are used for surface parking, building
material storage, studio/filming production sets, plant nursery stock, vehicle impound/junkyards, and
other uses. These uses may be categorized as conforming, legal nonconforming, and illegal
nonconforming uses. Since the majority of the uses were not permitted at the time the used were
established, and have not received either a CUP or a current Temporary Use Permit (TUP), they are
categorized as illegal-nonconforming. See section 3.9, Land Use and Planning Analysis.
Proposed Transportation Preservation Zoning District
The proposed project is intended to preserve the Metro ROW within the City for transportation-related
uses, including a light rail or transit-way, a bikeway, and a pedestrian pathway. The proposed district
would allow a limited number of temporary uses, which could only be permitted with a CUP under the
current code. The proposed district would clarify current requirements that improvements must be
removed or relocated at such a time as the ROW is needed for transportation-related uses. Permanent
structures or other long-term improvements, with the exception of transportation-related facilities, would
be restricted within the proposed district The proposed district would clarify the limited uses that would
be allowed and make it easier to approve the uses so they become legal and conforming. It would not
authorize any uses that are not currently authorized by the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
and would prohibit permanent site improvements such as buildings or walls not associated with a
permitted use, vehicle impound or junk yards, building material storage, required parking for an off-site
use, or any use not specifically authorized. Permitted uses would include public transportation facilities,
open space and landscaping, public parks and recreational facilities. Film or video production uses
associated with legally permitted buildings north of Olympic Boulevard would be allowed. Uses that
would be allowed subject to a performance standards permit (I'SP) include surplus parking for businesses
that currendy meet off-street parking requirements, film or video production uses, and associated
nonpermanent structures, including temporary sets and commercial nurseries. The proposed district also
identifies existing uses that are not allowed by existing code and list them as prohibited uses, for clarity.
2.5 REQUIRED APPROVALS
The proposed district would require review and recommendations by the City Planning Commission, and
adoption by the City CounciL The City Planning Commission and City Council would use the Final
IS/ND for all environmental decisions related to review and approval of the proposed district.
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 2-7
Chapter 2 Project Description~Existing Conditions
2.6 OTHER AGENCY POLICIES, GUIDELINES, AND FUTURE PROJECTS
Below are descriptions of guidelines and projects led by other agencies applicable to the proposed
project.
Metro Rights-of-Way Preservation Guidelines
The Metro Rights-of-Way Preservation Guidelines are intended to support Metro's existing Real Estate
Department Policies and Procedures. The existing policies require the preservation of the ROW for
future transportation projects while encouraging utilization on an interim basis for the creation of
revenue to Metro. While these policies and procedures are comprehensive with respect to general
property management practices, they provide no specific direction to Metro on a number of issues that
may affect the preservation of the area for future transportation projects. The guidelines are organized
into six key elements, each addressing activities that could specifically impact the future availability of
land within the ROW for future transit use, given the level of improvement to the ROW that these
activities promote.
Metro Rail Mid-City/Exposition Light Rail Transit Project-Phase 1
Current plans call for a 9.6-mile line extending along the Metro-owned Exposition ROW from the
existing Metro Rail station at 7th/Metro Center in downtown Los Angeles to Venice/Washington in
Culver City. The Mid-City/Exposition Light Rail Transit Project will include eight to nine new stations
plus upgrades to existing stations, providing up to eleven stations for the length of the initial segment of
the route to Culver City. The alignment will primarily be at-grade. The Metro Board's vision and intent is
eventually to complete the light rail line to Santa Monica.
Exposition Corridor Commuter Bicycle and Pedestrian Path
The City of Santa Monica is planning to develop a bicycle path on the Metro owned transportation
ROW. It will be the westernmost segment of a continuous bikeway on the Exposition Corridor, from
Santa Monica to Downtown Los Angeles. The section in Santa Monica, from Centinela Avenue to 17`''
Street, will be designed so as not to preclude the future light rail extension.
2-8 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
~ ,~r Environmental Analysis
The following is a discussion of the environmental issues addressed in the IS and the environmental
checklist prepared for the proposed district. It should be noted that after conducting the environmental
analysis (provided in this section), the proposed district was found to have no significant impacts. A
discussion of impacts, and the associated explanations for arriving at the impact conclusions, is provided
in the following issue area analyses. Issue area discussions in this section are presented in the following
order:
^ Geology/Soils
^ Air Quality
^ Hydrology and Water Quality
^ Biological Resources
^ Noise
^ Shadows
^ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
^ Population/Housing
^ Land Use and Planning
^ Transportation/Traffic
^ Utilities / Service Systems
^ Public Services
^ Recreation
^ Cultural Resources
^ Aesthetics
^ Construction Effects
^ Economic and Social Impacts
^ Agricultural Resources
^ Mineral Resources
^ Neighborhood Effects
^ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Summary of Impacts
The conclusion of this Initial Study is that amending the City of Santa Monica's Zoning Ordinance to
designate the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Exposition Right-of-Way as a Transportation
Preservation District would have no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, a Negative
Declaration can be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines.
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 3-1
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Would the project:
(a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the ~
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued
by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Discussion
^
Less Than
Significant
Impact
^
No Impact
~
The proposed district would result in a change of zoning within the project boundary to facilitate the
approval of land uses that are consistent with the City's General Plan and goal of re-establishing
transportation uses to the ROW. The proposed district is within close proximity to the Santa Monica
Fault, resulting in potential adverse effects to people and property associated with ground rupture;
however, the proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the
construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance, and
would not subject persons to new hazards. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
^ ^ ^ ~
Discussion
The principal seismic hazard to the proposed district would result from strong ground shaking due to
earthquakes produced by local faults, such as the Santa Monica Fault, Hollywood Fault, or Newport-
Inglewood Zone of Deformation. While the proposed district is within close proximity to the Santa
Monica Fault, resulting in potential adverse effects to people and property associated with ground
shaking, the proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the
construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No
impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ~ ~ ~ ~
Discussion
The proposed district is considered to have a low potential for liquefaction, flow slides, and lateral
spreading based upon on-site soil types, and topographic and subsurface conditions. Furthermore, the
proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of any
new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
3-2 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
(iv) Landslides?
Discussion
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
~ ~ ~ ~
The proposed district is located on level terrain and, as such, there is no evidence of the potential for
landslides on the site. In addition, the proposed district is not located on a mapped landslide area (1990
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, Chapter 7.8 of Division 2 of the California Public Resources Code).
Furthermore, the proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the
construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No
impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ~ ~ ~ ~
Discussion
The proposed district would result in a change of zoning within the project boundary to facilitate the
approval of land uses that are consistent with the City's General Plan and goal of re-establishing
transportation uses to the ROW. The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would
not result in the construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning
Ordinance. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that ~ ~ ~ ~
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Discussion
The proposed district would result in a change of zoning within the project boundary to facilitate the
approval of land uses that are consistent with the City's General Plan and goal of re-establishing
transportation uses to the ROW. While the proposed district is within close proximity to the Santa
Monica Fault, the proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the
construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No
impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 3-3
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of ~ ~ ~ ~
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
Discussion
In order to ensure that any fill material would support any future proposed on-site structures, the stability
of the on-site soils, relative to the proposed surface and subsurface structures, would be evaluated further
during the planning and design phase for future construction pursuant to existing regulations. Moreover,
the proposed district is not located on expansive soil, which would create substantial risks to life or
property. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of ~ ~ ~ ~
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
Discussion
Any future development within the project boundary is anticipated to connect to existing wastewater
connections. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are not anticipated to be required for
any future use. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ~ ~ ~ ~
quality plan?
Discussion
Recent air quality monitoring data shows recurring violations of both the federal and State hourly
standard for ozone, and the State standard for PM10; however, levels of primary automobile pollutants,
such as CO, have rarely exceeded their standards in recent years. That said, desirable levels have not yet
been attained for some of these pollutants. The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning
Ordinance would not result in the construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the
existing Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed district would not violate air quality standards,
contribute substantially to air quality violations, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
criteria pollutants within the South Coast Air Basin. In addition, project implementation is direcdy
consistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management
Plan. Project implementation would facilitate the goal of improving regional air quality. No impacts
would occur.
3-4 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to ~ ~ ~ ~
an existing or projected air quality violation?
Discussion
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed
district would not violate air quality standards, contribute substantially to air quality violations, or result
in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants within the South Coast Air Basin. No
impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ~ ~ ~ ~
criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions that exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Discussion
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed
district would not violate air quality standards, contribute substantially to air quality violations, or result
in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants within the South Coast Air Basin. In
addition, the proposed district is intended to facilitate the plans of regional agencies such as Metro,
SCAQMD, and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in their efforts to reduce
criteria pollutants by providing public transportation. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ~ ~ ~ ~
concentrations?
Discussion
Receptors considered sensitive to ambient air quality, as defined by the CEQA Air Quality Handbook
prepared by the SCAQMD (1993), include: long-term health care facilities (hospitals, convalescent
facilities, rehabilitation centers and retirement homes), schools (including colleges), childcare centers,
playgrounds, and athletic facilities. The proposed district is located in proximity to uses considered
sensitive; however, the proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the
construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No
impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 3-5
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
(e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ~ ~ ~ ~
people?
Discussion
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Would the project:
(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ~ ~ ~ ~
requirements?
Discussion
The proposed district is located within an area that includes existing and adequate storm drainage
facilities. Similar to the surrounding developments and land uses, the proposed district's runoff would
drain into the existing system. The proposed district would involve no significant discharges associated
with stormwater surface water runoff. As part of its approval, any future project would be required to
comply with all waste discharge requirements and water quality objectives of State and federal agencies,
and the standard City-required erosion control techniques. The proposed action of amending the City's
Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of any new structures that were not authorized
by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ~ ~ ~ ~
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
Discussion
Water provided to the proposed district may derive from groundwater sources; however, it is likely that
the majority of water used at the site would be Metropolitan Water District (MWD) water. In addition,
total on-site consumption of water is expected to be negligible due to the limited use of on-site
structures. Therefore, the City's groundwater supply would not be significandy altered by the proposed
district.
Groundwater levels in the vicinity of the proposed district are controlled locally by the South Branch of
the Santa Monica Fault The proposed district is located approximately one mile south of the South
Branch of the Santa Monica Fault. Water levels north of the fault have historically been about 40 to 50
3-6 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
feet below the ground surface, while water levels to the south of the fault have historically been at least
120 feet below ground surface. The proposed district would evaluate future development and alteration
of the finished grade within proposed district on a project-by-project basis. Minimal grading should
occur and would not result in any construction-related excavation activities that could cause the
disruption and displacement of extensive amounts of on site soils. The proposed action of amending the
City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of any new structures that were not
authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ~ ~ ~ ~
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on or off site?
Discussion
The proposed district is not located within the immediate vicinity of any waterways or other bodies of
water. The proposed district is located approximately one (1) mile inland from the Pacific Ocean. The
proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of any
new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ~ ~ ~ ~
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on
or off site?
Discussion
The proposed district is not located within the immediate vicinity of any waterways or other bodies of
water. The proposed district is located approximately one (1) mile inland from the Pacific Ocean. The
zoning amendment would not result in an amount of urban runoff which could cause noticeable changes
in the currents or the course of direction of water movement within the Pacific Ocean. The proposed
action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of any new
structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(e) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the ~ ~ ~ ~
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Discussion
It is unlikely that the proposed district would result in an amount of urban runoff which could cause
noticeable changes in the currents, or the course of direction of water movement within the Pacific
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 3-7
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Ocean. In addition, the zoning amendment would not result in significant changes in the area's
absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff on or off site. Furthermore,
the proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ~ ~ ~ ~
Discussion
The proposed district is located within an area that includes existing and adequate storm drainage
facilities. Similar to the surrounding developments and land uses, the proposed district's surface runoff
would drain into the existing system. All exposed on-site soil is not allowed to erode, or be carried into
the storm drain system. The standard required erosion control techniques, such as the use of silt fencing,
would mitigate soil erosion effects. Furthermore, the proposed action of amending the City's Zoning
Ordinance would not result in the construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the
existing Zoning Ordinance. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ~ ~ ~ ~
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Discussion
The City is not located within a floodplain, and the proposed district is not located within an area that is
exposed to potential inundation. No flood hazards due to rainfall exist within the City, and the zoning
amendment would not have a significant impact on the course or flow of flood water. Therefore, the
zoning amendment would not result in any further risk associated with a 100-year flood hazard, and is
not expected to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
flooding. Furthermore, the proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result
in the construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No
impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that ~ ~ ~ ~
would impede or redirect flood flows?
Discussion
The City is not located within a floodplain, and the proposed district is not located within an area that is
exposed to potential inundation. No flood hazards due to rainfall exist within the City, and zoning
amendment would not have a significant impact on the course or flow of flood water. Therefore, the
zoning amendment would not result in any further risk associated with a 100-year flood hazard, and is
not expected to impede or redirect flood flows. Furthermore, the proposed action of amending the City's
3-8 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of any new structures that were not authorized
by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury ~ ~ ~ ~
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam?
Discussion
The City is not located within a floodplain, and the proposed district is not located within an area that is
exposed to potential inundation. No flood hazards due to rainfall exist within the City, and the zoning
amendment would not have a significant impact on the course or flow of flood water. Therefore, the
zoning amendment would not result in any further risk associated with a 100-year flood hazard, and is
not expected to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
flooding. Furthermore, the proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result
in the construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No
impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
^ ^ ^ ~
Discussion
The City's Seismic Safety Element specifies that low-lying coastal areas within the City are subject to
tsunamis; however, given the elevation above sea level of the proposed district, run-ups associated with a
500-year tsunami return period are not expected to have the potential to reach the proposed district.
Furthermore, the proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the
construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No
impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 3-9
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through ~ ~ ~ ~
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Discussion
There is no suitable habitat currently within the proposed district to support any of sensitive species
identified by the U.S. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Service or California Department of Fish and Game. In
addition, the proposed district does not contain any sensitive species. Therefore, the zoning amendment
would not result in significant impacts on sensitive plant species.
The proposed district is within an urbanized area and lacks identified sensitive animal species. The lack
of large-scale contiguous native habitats and the ease of public access to the shoreline have resulted in
little opportunity for sensitive plant and animal species to remain in the City. Although review of the
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for Beverly Hills and Topanga quadrangles reveals
several records of sensitive species, most of these species are believed to be extirpated, or no longer
existing within the area. There are no natural habitats or natural biological communities within the
vicinity of the proposed district The project would continue the trend of urban land use development
and would eliminate the potential for the establishment of any sensitive species; however, due to the
unchanged condition of the proposed district, common animal species are expected to continue to use
the proposed district. Furthermore, the proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would
not result in the construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning
Ordinance. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ~ ~ ~ ~
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Discussion
There is no suitable habitat currently within the proposed district to support any sensitive riparian
species. The proposed district is within an urbanized area and lacks sensitive riparian animal species. The
lack of large-scale contiguous native habitats and the ease of public access to the district have resulted in
little opportunity for riparian habitat or sensitive plant and animal species to remain in the City.
Furthermore, the proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the
construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No
impacts would occur.
3-10 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ~
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
Discussion
^ ^ ~
The proposed district does not involve development within a federally protected wetland and does not
involve improvements that would impair or interrupt hydrological flow into such a wetland.
Furthermore, the proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the
construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No
impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ~ ~ ~ ~
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Discussion
There is no suitable habitat within the proposed district to support any sensitive species. The proposed
district is within an urbanized area and lacks sensitive animal species. The lack of large-scale, contiguous
native habitats, and the ease of public access to the district, has resulted in little opportunity for any
wildlife species to remain in the City. Furthermore, the proposed action of amending the City's Zoning
Ordinance would not result in the construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the
existing Zoning Ordinance. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ~ ~ ~ ~
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Discussion
The proposed district would not change or conflict with any current City ordinances regarding biological
resources, including tree removal, nor does it contain suitable habitat to support any sensitive species.
Furthermore, the proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the
construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No
impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 3-1 1
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ~ ~ ~ ~
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
Discussion
There is no suitable habitat within the proposed district to support any sensitive species. Because the
proposed district is not of such a scope as to have a significant, wide-ranging effect on the natural
environment, it appears to be consistent with all habitat conservation and natural community
conservation plans that may be applicable to the area. Furthermore, the proposed action of amending the
City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of any new structures that were not
authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Would the project result in:
(a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess ~ ~ ~ ~
of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Discussion
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ~ ~ ~ ~
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Discussion
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ~ ~ ~ ~
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Discussion
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No impacts would occur.
3-12 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ~
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
Discussion
^ ^ ~
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ~ ~ ~ ~
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Discussion
The proposed district is located approximately one (1) mile north of the Santa Monica Municipal Airport.
The project would not result in immigration to the Santa Monica area. Therefore, implementation of the
zoning amendment would not expose people in the proposed district to airport noise in excess of what
currendy exists at the site. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Would the project:
(a) Produce extensive shadows affecting adjacent uses or ~ ~ ~ ~
property?
Discussion
All development for permitted uses within the proposed district would comply with property
development standards or PSPs. The proposed district would result in a change of zoning within the
project boundary to facilitate the approval of land uses that are consistent with the City's General Plan
and goal of re-establishing transportation uses to the ROW. The proposed action of amending the City's
Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of any new structures that were not authorized
by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 3-13
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
, , , •
Would the project:
(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ~ ~ ~ ~
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Discussion
The proposed district would result in a change of zoning within the project boundary to facilitate the
approval of land uses that are consistent with the City's General Plan and goal of re-establishing
transportation uses to the ROW. The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would
not result in the construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning
Ordinance. As the project would have to comply with CaIOSHA (California Occupational Safety and
Health Administration) requirements and other State and local requirements during any future
construction or operations, no significant hazards are expected from the project. No impacts would
occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ~ ~ ~ ~
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
Discussion
As the proposed district would have to comply with CaIOSHA requirements and other State and local
requirements during any future construction or operations, no significant hazards are expected from the
project. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ~ ~ ~ ~
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
Discussion
The proposed district is not expected to introduce any unusually hazardous materials to the area. The
proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of any
new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. As the project would have to
comply with CaIOSHA requirements and other State and local requirements during any future
construction or operations, no significant hazards are expected from the project. No impacts would
occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
3-14 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
(d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ~ ~ ~ ~
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
Discussion
According to the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC), the proposed district is not on the State's Hazardous Waste and Substances
Sites List (CORTESE List) and has no known history of use involving hazardous materials. No impacts
would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ~ ~ ~ ~
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
Discussion
The proposed district is located approximately one (1) mile north of the Santa Monica Municipal Airport.
Given the proposed district's distance from the airport, it is unlikely that the zoning amendment would
expose people to airport-related safety hazards in excess of what currendy exists within the proposed
district The zoning amendment would not change regulations regarding airport-related safety hazards.
Furthermore, the proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the
construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No
impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would ~ ~ ~ ~
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Discussion
The proposed district is located approximately one (1) mile north of the Santa Monica Municipal Airport.
Given the proposed district's distance from the airport, it is unlikely that the zoning amendment would
expose people to airport-related safety hazards in excess of what currendy exists within the proposed
district The zoning amendment would not change regulations regarding airport-related safety hazards.
Furthermore, the proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the
construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No
impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 3-15
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
(g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ~ ~ ~ ~
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Discussion
Vehicle access to and from the proposed district would be subject to Transportation Management
Division approval and the requirements of Section 9.04.10.08 of the City's Zoning Code regarding access
driveways. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, ~ ~ ~ ~
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion
There are no significant areas of flammable brush, grass, or trees on site, or in the vicinity of the
proposed district, that could result in a wildland fire or expose people or structures to such a fire. No
impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Would the project:
(a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ~ ~ ~ ~
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
Discussion
The proposed district is located within a developed area and requires no significant changes to the local
infrastructure to accommodate it The zoning amendment would not result in the creation of any new
employment opportunities or residential housing units which would result in direct or indirect growth
inducement The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the
construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, no potential impacts on future housing stock and population would result from the zoning
amendment. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
3-16 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ~ ~ ~ ~
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion
The proposed district currendy contains no existing residential structures and no residential dwelling
units are proposed to be removed as a result of the project Therefore, the proposed district would not
displace any people or existing housing, or necessitate the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ~ ~ ~ ~
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion
The proposed district currendy contains no existing residential structures and no residential dwelling
units are proposed to be removed as a result of the project Therefore, the proposed district would not
displace any people or existing housing, or necessitate the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Would the project:
(a) Physically divide an established community? ~ ~ ~ ~
Discussion
The proposed district would result in a change of zoning within the project boundary to facilitate the
approval of land uses that are consistent with the City's General Plan and goal of re-establishing
transportation uses to the ROW. Given that the proposed district is within the existing Metro Exposition
ROW, the zoning amendment primarily changes the zone designation to match its transit use. Any future
use of the ROW would not physically divide any established community. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 3-17
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
(b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ~ ~ ~ ~
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or Zoning Ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Discussion
The proposed district is intended to facilitate approval of land uses, consistent with the City's General
Plan and the City's goal of re-establishing the ROW for its intended use, public transportation. The
proposed zoning amendment would clearly state what uses are consistent with the City's Zoning
Ordinance. PSPs would be issued instead of CUPs, expediting the process of authorizing a limited set of
allowed uses to obtain approvals.
All existing uses within the Metro Exposition ROW in the City of Santa Monica can be categorized as
any of the following:
^ Land uses that are in conformance with the City's General Plan and Zoning requirements
^ Land uses that are nonconforming but legal because the use was established with pertinent City
approval and permits, but no longer complies with code
^ Nonconforming uses that are not legal and are therefore inconsistent with the City zoning and
were established without pertinent City approval
The City's General Plan already contains language to establish the ROW's intended use. The designation
of the ROW as a TP District would not expand or change City policies or goals within the ROW. The
City's General Plan Land Use Element policies that pertain to the project include the following:
^ Policy 1.11.3: Encourage the retention of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way as open space.
Open space use of the right-of-way shall also permit its use for transportation purposes.
^ Policy 3.3.16: Encourage five- to twenty-foot setbacks from the street front and the Southern
Pacific Railroad right-of-way in order to allow room for landscaping and usable public open space.
The proposed district would be consistent with the aforementioned City policies, as the ROW would be
used for transportation purposes. Conforming and permitted uses within the proposed district would
continue to be consistent with City requirements subsequent to the zoning amendment. Some existing,
unpermitted uses could obtain a PSP and continue activities under the requirements and duration of their
permits. All nonconforming, illegal uses, which would not be authorized under the proposed code, would
continue to be subject to abatement. The proposed district does not alter the need to abate
nonconforming, illegal uses.
Regardless of the status of the uses within the proposed district, and given that it is a public
transportation ROW under the ownership of a regional transportation authority (i.e., Metro), at such time
that the proposed district is required for a transportation-related use, all nontransportation uses shall
cease operation and all nontransportation improvements shall be removed from the ROW within a
specified time period. Any abatement of illegal-nonconforming uses, in establishment of the TP District,
would be consistent with City policies and goals and the Metro's intent to preserve the existing ROW for
public transportation uses. Therefore, the zoning amendment would not result in any policy
inconsistency impacts. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
3-18 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
(c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ~ ~ ~ ~
natural community conservation plan?
Discussion
There is no suitable habitat within the proposed district to support any sensitive species. As the zoning
amendment would not have a significant, wide-ranging effect on the natural environment, it appears to
be consistent with all habitat conservation plans and natural community conservation plans that may be
applicable to the area. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Would the project:
(a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to ~ ~ ~ ~
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
Discussion
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance, or result in an increase in
population. The proposed district would not result in an increase in traffic volumes or result in any
increase in vehicle trips. In fact, the proposed district is intended to help facilitate public transportation
and is beneficial to the City's long-term goals for traffic reduction. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ~ ~ ~ ~
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways?
Discussion
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance, or result in an increase in
population. The proposed district would not result in an increase in traffic volumes or result in any
increase in vehicle trips. In fact, the proposed district is intended to help facilitate public transportation
and is beneficial to the City's long-term goals for traffic reduction. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 3-19
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
(c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an ~ ~ ~ ~
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
Discussion
The proposed district does not include any component relevant to air traffic, and would not change air
traffic patterns. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., ~ ~ ~ ~
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
Discussion
The proposed district would require that vehicle access to and from the ROW be subject to
Transportation Management Division approval and the requirements of Section 9.04.10.08 of the City's
Zoning Code regarding access driveways. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
^ ^ ^ ~
Discussion
The zoning amendment would not change City codes requiring emergency access at the proposed
district. Development within the proposed district would still be subject to Transportation Management
Division approval and the requirements of Section 9.04.10.08 of the City's Zoning and Fire Codes,
ensuring adequate emergency access. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
^ ^ ^ ~
Discussion
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting ~ ~ ~ ~
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Discussion
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, the
3-20 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
proposed district is intended to facilitate public transportation consistent with the goals and policies of
the City, and regional planning agencies such as the Metro, SCAQMD, and SCAG. No impacts would
occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(h) Involve right-of-way dedication resulting in a reduced lot ~ ~ ~ ~
area?
Discussion
The proposed district would be a change of zoning designation within a Metro ROW, and does not
involve the dedication of any ROW land. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(i) Reduce access to other properties and uses? ~ ~ ~ ~
Discussion
The zoning amendment would not change City codes requiring that development within the ROW be
subject to Transportation Management Division approval and the requirements of Section 9.04.10.08 of
the City's Zoning Code, regarding access driveways. The proposed district would not alter existing access
driveways. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(j) Create abrupt grade differential between public and private ~ ~ ~ ~
property?
Discussion
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. As such, no abrupt
grading would be created by future site grading or development resulting from the zoning amendment.
No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 3-21
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
,
Would the project:
(a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ~ ~ ~ ~
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Discussion
As the proposed district is within an area surrounded by previously developed uses, the project is not
expected to negatively impact utilities and service systems. The proposed action of amending the City's
Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of any new structures that were not authorized
by the existing Zoning Ordinance, which could contribute to a need for additional wastewater, water, or
solid waste facilities, or expansion of existing facilities. The proposed district is located within an area
that includes existing and adequate storm drainage facilities. Future development would connect to the
existing storm drain facilities and, therefore, would not result in the need for new storm drain facilities.
No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ~ ~ ~ ~
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Discussion
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance, which could contribute to
a need for additional water or wastewater facilities, or expansion of existing facilities. Future
development would connect to the existing facilities and, therefore, would not result in the need for new
facilities. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ~ ~ ~ ~
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Discussion
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance, which could contribute to
a need for additional stormwater facilities, or expansion of existing facilities. The proposed district is
located within an area that includes existing and adequate storm drainage facilities. Future development
would connect to the existing storm drain facilities and, therefore, would not result in the need for new
storm drain facilities. No impacts would occur.
3-22 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project ~
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
Discussion
^ ^ ~
As the proposed district is within an area surrounded by developed uses, the zoning amendment would
not negatively impact utilities and service systems. The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning
Ordinance would not result in the construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the
existing Zoning Ordinance, which could contribute to a need for existing or additional resources or
entitlements. Future development would connect to the existing water facilities and, therefore, would not
result in the need for new facilities. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ~ ~ ~ ~
provider that serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
Discussion
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance, which could contribute to
a need for additional water or wastewater facilities, or expansion of existing facilities. Future
development would connect to the existing facilities and, therefore, would not result in the need for new
facilities. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ~ ~ ~ ~
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Discussion
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance, which would substantially
contribute to an increase in solid waste production or the need for additional solid waste facilities. No
impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 3-23
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
(g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations ~ ~ ~ ~
related to solid waste?
Discussion
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance, which would substantially
contribute to an increase in solid waste production or the need for additional solid waste facilities. All
future development within the proposed district would comply with solid waste regulations. No impacts
would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
(i) Fire protection? ~ ~ ~ ~
Discussion
The proposed district would not result in immigration to the Santa Monica area. The proposed action of
amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of any new structures that
were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. There would be no need to construct a new fire
station(s) to serve the proposed district. Current water supply for the proposed district is considered
adequate to meet current fire flow requirements. Therefore, implementation of the proposed district
would not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services. No impacts
would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(ii) Police protection?
^ ^ ^ ~
Discussion
The proposed district would not result in immigration to the Santa Monica area. The proposed action of
amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of any new structures that
were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. There would be no need for additional police
officers to serve the proposed district Therefore, implementation of the proposed district would not
have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered police protection services. No impacts would
occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
3-24 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
~III~ SCh00~5?
Discussion
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
~ ~ ~ ~
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance, and is not anticipated to
increase the demand for schools, pre-schools, or child care. Therefore, the proposed district would not
result in a considerable effect upon existing educational facilities, or result in a need for new or altered
facilities. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(iv) Parks?
^ ^ ^ ~
Discussion
According to the standards used by the City's Recreation and Parks Commission, 2.5 acres of open space
should be provided for every 1,000 City residents. The proposed district would not result in immigration
to the Santa Monica area, nor will the number of residents within the proposed district increase due to
project implementation. Therefore, the proposed district is not expected to have a considerable effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered parks and recreational facilities. In fact, the proposed district
would allow for the implementation of open space, landscaping, public parks, and recreational uses
within the ROW, if approved by Metro. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(v) Other public facilities?
^ ^ ^ ~
Discussion
The proposed district is located within an urban area, surrounded by established communities, and would
not generate population growth. Implementation of the proposed district would not have a significant
impact on other governmental services. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood ~ ~ ~ ~
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
Discussion
According to the standards used by the City's Recreation and Parks Commission, 2.5 acres of open space
should be provided for every 1,000 City residents; however, the project will not create immigration into
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 3-25
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
the proposed district, nor will the number of residents in the proposed district increase due to project
implementation. Therefore, the proposed district would not have a considerable effect upon, or result in
a need for new or altered parks and recreational facilities. No further analysis of this issue is required.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ~ ~ ~ ~
construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Discussion
The proposed district would allow for open space, landscaping, public parks, and recreational uses, all of
which would be in compliance with all Cit~ General Plan and Zoning requirements. Policy 1.11.3 of the
City's General Plan Land Use Element provides that the ROW shall be encouraged to be retained as
open space. Further, open space, landscaping, public parks, and recreation uses would be consistent with
Metro requirements for public recreation uses along their ROW's, as described in the Metro's Rights-of-
Way Preservation Guidelines. These guidelines promote extensive landscaping, linear parks, bikeways,
and pedestrian paths. Any future recreational facility projects proposed within the ROW would be
reviewed for potential significant environmental impacts through their own environmental review
document The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the
construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. No
impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Would the project:
(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ~ ~ ~ ~
historical resource as defined in 15064.5?
Discussion
The National Register of Historic Places lists no properties located within an approximate 0.25-mile
radius of the proposed district The California Historical Landmarks (1990) list of the Office of Historic
Preservation indicates no Landmarks located within an approximate 0.25-mile radius of the proposed
district. Additionally, the California Points of Historical Interest (1992) of the Office of Historic
Preservation lists no properties located within an approximate 1-mile radius of the proposed district The
California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) (1996), however, lists sixty-five historic resources
located within an approximate 1-mile radius of the proposed district In addition, the City identifies the
Woodlawn Cemetery, which is owned by the City, and is located on the north side of Pico Blvd. between
14th and 17th Streets, as a resource that appears to be eligible for local designation.
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, in the event
that an archaeological, paleontological, or historical resource is discovered on site, project compliance
3-26 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
with the City's standard conditions of approval and regulations would ensure the protection of the
archaeological or historical resource. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ~ ~ ~ ~
archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?
Discussion
According to the City's General Plan, the proposed district is not known to contain any lands that are
known to have the potential for archaeological resources to exist The structures currently located within
the ROW are not designated within The California Historical Landmarks (1990) list, which contains
structures of archaeological importance. Furthermore, in the event that an archaeological,
paleontological, or historical resource is discovered on site, project compliance with the City's standard
conditions of approval would ensure the protection of the archaeological or historical site. No impacts
would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ~ ~ ~ ~
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Discussion
According to the City's General Plan, the proposed district is not known to contain any lands that are
known to have the potential for paleontological resources to exist. Furthermore, in the event that an
archaeological, paleontological, or historical resource is discovered on site, project compliance with the
City's standard conditions of approval would ensure the protection of the archaeological or historical
site. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ~ ~ ~ ~
formal cemeteries?
Discussion
According to the City's General Plan, the proposed district is not located within a known cemetery, or
contains any lands that are known to have the potential for prehistoric human remains to exist.
Furthermore, in the event that an archaeological, paleontological, or historical resource is discovered on
site, project compliance with the City's standard conditions of approval would ensure the protection of
the archaeological or historical site. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 3-27
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ~ ~ ~ ~
Discussion
There are no scenic vistas of any significance within the proposed district that could be affected by the
zoning amendment. Currendy, the ROW is largely vacant with portions occupied by a limited number of
relatively small structures, surface parking, building material storage, temporary construction staging, and
nursery stock. None of these are a part of, or contribute to, a scenic vista of any significance. No impacts
would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not ~ ~ ~ ~
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
Discussion
There are no significant scenic resources within the vicinity of, or on, the proposed district that would be
affected by the zoning amendment. Currendy the ROW is largely vacant, occupied by scattered,
temporary uses, none of which could be considered a scenic resource. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ~ ~ ~ ~
of the site and its surroundings?
Discussion
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. All development for
permitted uses within the proposed district would comply with property development standards or PSPs.
New permanent or temporary structures within the proposed district would be subject to architectural
review and be restricted to a maximum height of 45 feet In addition, the new zoning would allow for
landscaping, open space, and recreation improvements that would help improve the visual quality of the
ROW. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
3-28 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ~ ~ ~ ~
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Discussion
The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of
any new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. Lighting on the proposed
district would be provided for security and safety purposes only. Lighting would be screened from the
view of residentially zoned or used properties pursuant to the provisions of City's Zoning Code Section
9.04.10.02.270. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(a) Would the proposal have considerable construction-period ~ ~ ~ ~
impacts due to the scope, or location of construction activities?
Discussion
The proposed district would not result in a change to the City's codes regulating construction activities.
All future development within the proposed district would be required to comply with existing City
codes and regulations related to construction-period impacts. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(a) Does the project have economic or social effects which would ~ ~ ~ ~
result in additional physical changes (e.g. if a new shopping
center located away from a downtown shopping area would
take business away from the downtown and thereby cause
business closures and eventual physical deterioration of the
downtown)?
Discussion
The proposed district is not expected to result in economic or social factors which would cause
additional physical changes to the City. The proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance
would not result in the construction of any new structures that were not authorized by the existing
Zoning Ordinance; however, portions of the proposed district currendy have unapproved and
nonconforming uses which must be abated pursuant to the current and proposed zoning designations.
This will cause the relocation/elimination of any use that cannot be legalized. The majority of current
nonconforming uses includes surface parking with some storage facilities and sheds. No negative
economic or social effects on the City are expected.
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 3-29
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Regardless of the status of the uses within the ROW, and given that the proposed district is a public
transportation ROW under the ownership of a regional transportation authority (i.e., Metro), that at the
time which the ROW is required for a transportation-related use, all nontransportation uses would cease
operation and all nontransportation improvements would be removed from the ROW. As such, any
abatement of uses through the establishment of the proposed district would in fact be consistent with the
City's goals and policies, and Metro's intent to preserve the existing ROW for public transportation uses.
No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Would the project:
(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ~ ~ ~ ~
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to
nonagricultural use?
Discussion
The proposed district is located in an urbanized area, and does not contain any significant plots of rural
land within or in its vicinity. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ~ ~ ~ ~
Williamson Act contract?
Discussion
The proposed district is located in an urbanized area, and is not zoned for agricultural use, or contained
within any Williamson Act contracts. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due ~ ~ ~ ~
to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to nonagricultural use?
Discussion
The proposed district is located in an urbanized area, and does not contain any significant plots of rural
land within or in its vicinity. No impacts would occur.
3-30 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
No mitigation measures are necessary.
. •
Would the project:
(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource ~ ~ ~ ~
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
Discussion
The proposed district does not contain any parcels which have been classified as a Mineral Resource
Zone by the California Division of Mines and Geology (DMG). Therefore, the proposed district is not a
designated mineral extraction site. In addition, the DMG has not classified the area as a regionally
significant mineral resource area. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral ~ ~ ~ ~
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan, or other land use plan?
Discussion
The proposed district does not contain any parcels which have been classified as a Mineral Resource
Zone by the California Division of Mines and Geology (DMG). Therefore, the proposed district is not a
designated mineral extraction site. In addition, the DMG has not classified the area as a regionally
significant mineral resource area. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(a) Would the proposal have considerable effects on the project ~ ~ ~ ~
neighborhood?
Discussion
The proposed district would result in a change of zoning within the project boundary to facilitate the
approval of land uses that are consistent with the City's General Plan and goal of re-establishing
transportation uses to the ROW. All existing uses within the ROW, in the City, can be categorized as any
of the following:
^ Land uses that are in conformance with the City's General Plan and Zoning requirements
^ Land uses that are nonconforming but legal because the use was established with pertinent City
approval and permits, but no longer complies with code
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 3-31
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
^ Nonconforming uses that are not legal and are therefore inconsistent with the City zoning and
where established without pertinent City approval
Conforming and permitted uses within the ROW would continue to be consistent with City requirements
subsequent to the zoning amendment. Legal, nonconforming uses would continue activities under the
requirements and duration of their permits. Nonconforming, illegal uses are not permitted and would
therefore have to be abated.
Regardless of the status of the uses within the proposed district, and given that it is a public
transportation ROW under the ownership of a regional transportation authority (i.e., Metro), at such time
that the proposed district is required for a transportation-related use, all nontransportation uses shall
cease operation and all nontransportation improvements shall be removed from the ROW within a
specified time period. As such, any abatement of uses in establishment of the proposed district would in
fact be consistent with the City's goals and policies, and Metro's intent to preserve the existing ROW for
public transportation uses, which would be a benefit to the neighborhoods being served by the ROW. In
addition, the zoning amendment would allow open space, landscaping, public parks, and recreation uses
in an effort to help improve the public usability of the ROW, if approved by Metro.
The proposed district's intent is to facilitate public transportation, and an underlying goal of transit is to
help reduce traffic and air pollution within the neighborhoods it serves and the region as a whole.
Therefore, preservation of the Metro ROW would not have significant effects on surrounding
neighborhoods and could potentially result in long-term, indirect benefits to the project neighborhood by
promoting public transportation. No impacts would occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of ~ ~ ~ ~
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Discussion
The proposed district site is located within an urban and developed area, and no significant biological or
cultural resources would be affected by project implementation. As such, impacts with regard to these
resources are not expected to occur.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
3-32 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Potentially
Potentially Significant unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, ~ ~ ~ ~
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
Discussion
The proposed district would not create immigration to the City, nor will the number of residents in the
proposed district increase due to project implementation. Therefore, the proposed district would not
have a cumulatively considerable effect when measured in connection with the effects of past projects or
the effects of other current projects.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
(c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause ~ ~ ~ ~
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
Discussion
The proposed district would not directly result in any physical changes to the environment. The
proposed action of amending the City's Zoning Ordinance would not result in the construction of any
new structures that were not authorized by the existing Zoning Ordinance. The proposed district would
not have environmental effects which could cause substantial adverse effects on the human environment
either direcdy, or indirecdy.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 3-33
~ ,~r ~ Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The conclusion of this Initial Study is that amending the City of Santa Monica's Zoning Ordinance to
designate the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Exposition Right-of-Way as a Transportation
Preservation District would have no significant environmental impacts. Therefore, a Negative
Declaration can be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines.
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 4-1
~ ,~r ~ Comments and Responses
Two comment letters were received on the IS/ND during the public review period, from Real Property
Group and Bourget Bros., both dated January 30, 2006. The comment letters are included in this chapter,
followed by responses to each of the comments as identified.
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 5-1
Chapter 5 Comments and Responses
4._ sf.~. .~~.~..lo~ ~:r ~ i:F `e::~'S ,~~.~~~ ~e,.~;:s~'y g"!~-6
_ _,°.~ °° " _,r .".~~ F~'`~`'1:4~' i ~~ i~~'"il:l`~
~'T= =,.~;_s..siaT~,e~
i i ~f ~~~LF~~'~
n , ia'a ~~'6 -~7~~x0. ` ~
~ ~~~ 4
•~~~~:
a4st5 '~fiG~ j ~~ i„~4
u:
,>~~~~~~~'~ "~1}e.~~4.'t}
f~:~;~~' '~' ~'~'T?!L~ ~*'~.4~~5.5{''~'
L"a~.'~~.I~J.1€~13,~ii~~ C~~"~iYoi°ii=,L1T!L"~`LlYti'~.6J~lS~:i~?~i54T~C`.`~~,.
~'4~ t~. ~'~'1~'!,1 {a~~~°9~i1e4 .. . ..
1 ~$~_S ~~sl°s ~t~~4:~, 3~~~ ~Y~l '.~?~
~.~r~,;~ ~ir~~~a.r~:zo, ~.'A ~lil l~i~~-~-~r~~ `~~L~..~'..~T~~ T~~~.1,~~L~SF"
Y~F`,v ``~'a~~~L~~~,i;~E~°4~a~ T'e~~~aBio~ J~.isl~~w~~ ~u~.i,~~~ ~r~~Leu;nc~~+.~a~~~~.~~~?~°~~
Letter RPG
~o~;..r c~-.r a ~
~' ~ ~ °
a~1~~~s 1~•~~ ~,~~~l~~rt':.:
~
~ e:~x~~ 4a,~~~,s;='~aAt ili~tr~,~.tr~ci ~:~~,:`~ ~I'b~1 ut~~t rts~~i~~ raso~~~ n~~~~ f,.~ui:i7~ ~i~r~i~ouisrt:~.~cen~w~i~~;a~p 7Aa Iau;ltire ,~
~
4~i'?1°~ ~'~;l Fh~~~ l~s~~i~~l.lti° i~=5~~~~~w~ ~a l~: ;:rr~iti~Ar~rl, ~~~anw= ~at~diea~~, r~:°is :mi7 t~a~e ,.~~G9~J~ ~~~~ t ti~r::r u~4~ (,~
~
i,,s!5'~' ~fj4,{$i+~~3 ~~ I~•i~ ''~+~,'~ s~v.~l7$ iSf t?,•.~,#% lt'174~.. l~ Lr~'3111~a"'~'g~ i{1~~~1'~1~IJ~:{~ [i C%~.;y~7+f c}i~ ~l'r~ ~ E5~°~~~" ~~'4'~~1 a. 6~`~~t,4, ~
.ar~.s.54"1.~7:~47~~~ ny+.= G~i~~iL.~e4S'tir~~'~,1~'"4~1i:-~~. ~,`.~,'o~amiros~ ~a°~L9""a'C~~j..:
i i~~~~.44 ;..titi.~.~.~~; rt;~ T:.~~~~•:°rr~i~Y.~~7 ":~=a~a~r~.-~rta~~~~ f~r~~i~s.~w~C~i~~ k~refai7~T~c:;^..,~i~~Jai~ 4oi alM,~~.~~s°:~i7~.
~.~~ f~~~l a~~~ri~ ~y,'` lht. at~r,~a~.~.r~~ t.~arl~~.a~°~1 i,~~ ii n~y~l~~.b~ir~~ ~~.°~~'~yd' ~utrs':~~t ~~l~,s;:i~~~0a~,~, .I ~~~
i~~Ll~tv~s~, ta?~ e:c~m~i~~ a~1~ii!~~cs.,atiL,~;sr~~~.1,
„~:`~rF~~aa~~,u~ ~,~~ay ~~~° c~,~~~.~O~i~ ,f~~'#~ ~a~~ ,~~a~r,~~ra~~~,s ~t~~`r~' d~rr~ae ~p~+~~'~~~~ ~~aate~;r~a~~`~d~r,~~,r#'~a~~.~ ~t, ~.r~-~r~,~
r~~rrr~~r~=b ,~ ~a'r~rr~'~~~ta.~~`~ ~ E.~e~ i~`r.rx~e,f,r ?~ r ~a ,r
1~=i, is~~~~rl~ct ~"~~Lxss~i ~coi~l~t ~r6~~=~• ~,4 ~s] a e~~,~,;~. ~.~.~~_~"u43~ oloa~t o.ll ~~~ ..~~1 ~:la~ a~~~i ~.~+rc a. [m..l `~_
rr~ c~r~~;,~.~tirr~ z11~~,1i~~.°
.,°~'~r~ ~'a~, ~rar,s ,~~ ~~a~r.~~,~~' ~J~~ dar~e,~ar~ w~ ra;f ~ if~~~ ~r~~~ i~°a~t~~r a'~r~ ~'~k~~fr. a~
~t~€l7r^ ~:iB.v ~~+~ t7atit 1~aG~~;i ~:~ ~a.~,.~ ~~a~i~ ti~i.~~ ci~ "8+,~'at~ •~i,1,,,, iat ~_=~r iG ~~ ~r;~;,t~;!l7~ea ~41~a~ t~°~t ~1~~ [~u%
Gi~°..~~ ~s~01~~~7~~,'~L.
da,~a'j~~~~: ~'d~~ ~~r~~~a~~~ ~r~' R~aa^. ~Sa~~ ~~r^~ ArQ~"~~n~r;rta~~'. ~~ ~~ ~ c~P~~ t~re s~~r~ ~~r:F~ e~~~~~r~~,~aa~r~°~ ~rv~ ~~sv~
raar;~ ~a~~~~'y+~~ ~°dP~~~ o. ~'T~'!~'.ra~ ~x ~~Y~rrr ~'~aa~~rrr~~a~ r'r~~ ~~+rra~er ~`Y'~;~~~. r1;~6d ~±;~ ~ r~~~•.~r~rr'st'.~1 ~s
~~ld'~'~8-r~~r]i+rda~•r~,~araArr~; "~
.,~`:~, I.7°~~ ~`~v.'Lfi 3~~,ad°.''s tk.r~,:~;.~3ilt~c; :7~ ~'r ~°, f~6' ~~!~ G~"I.~::~ ~ IC'~"9.~ n:t.PCOUf111Fti~~!W,i1Ts~ ~3w4~
R~~° P'..:~~Pk~~ ~:~CUUp . ps{} t~,~, rt°t:U4„ ~-k. •~ ~~n'ta iua:~'llee ~'r~. ~~O~a . ?; t'i ~,~'+-~3~U ~ b}'~",°~~ ~-1~~~1 ~~•'
~
~
G~
N
5-2 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
Chapter 5 Comments and Responses
r"~~~'~11 wf~k~E~ 72. ~~l :~'1~r~i~~~~;1,~'S EIF' A5`.~n~'zNTf~:~ F~R~F ~G~~3E
~,~,~~-.r°°'- ' ~. ?..,~
. E °~1.6~ 57~ ~7~~ "t"~9c;~1.&=6~~#1~
~.--- "-- ~ 3~.'~4 Fk'~"€s sC~t ~C.'C~ Wf~'4~i~;
~ _~.
L'kfy z3i ~n~t~ tu~aaaac~
~1a~s~~At~ =~aa+~ C~tsnmunrt~ ~7~v~l~~nticn~ ~}~p~.
,~ S"6'Cd' 4slla:n Cael~AttC~~
laatu~tsv :i9, '?UU~
a,~~~ .~,
~.'k~c f~l~c~+~vin~ rw~ ste~t~r~ak:a~t;; ~e~rrz tz~ ~~ ~'ai.xly' ~1~'~r %n ttl~ia' int~:nt.
'{°~'Ir~ ~rrr~~rstas~tl rlas`tri~C wa~tatslal {'faa,+[fy ~dl~e #err~it~e~ ~~S~s t~e~t +~Ptelxl Ge~ ~f1~•au~~t tx+~cl rr~uke i~ ~~stta' 1€~ ~
a~r~~roa=~ E~rs~ ~~~' sr~ ~Iz~ 6ec+~n~~ te~c~t rzr~d ~~r~~afi?rrn~ts~g_ ~#,v~aslct eaot ~txr#lanr8;~ u~}° us~a• rh~rt a~~ ~
nra~ cr~~t^~;~r.~~y +~~t~r~rl~e~f 6y tF~e Cr`~}° 5~~ra~r~~l'~c~sra rr~~1 Te~i~~a~~ ~rrtirar~ttc~ r~nr~ x~u:t~d p~ah~~T# ,., G7
btsid[1i~~~ aa~~#a~~~tr[ strrrt#rx€'., .,,. "' W
"'.., ,rrrra~~ raJ`~~e ~a~Lsl~rrg~ r~n~errraitt~ud atsc.s w~auf~I C~r:ti~~tr~e tv ~c' ~+[c~t~~'r~r~at{u~al~ rraxrt w~ttl~!' I~~
s+ibj~cl fr3 ~'~~ratav~( ,'
J~rst whcn wa5 4~~ C~ty ~raatt~ t'u ia~f<aa°za~ F3c~~~r~c:~ ~sc~~. ti,~~t t~a~v ;~rc nu R~-~~cr v~etd~c~,~ge'1
~~~~rl ~.t~~~tily: ~
.`3.11~. ~v~.s tf~~ prc~j~ct Fznve errwir~rr~rr~cr~xt~l e,{~'e~ts tfiut will carese su,~aa(r?~ta~1'rrrlv~ts~ ~,~j~r°~:s r~r~ '~
F~r~r~zcrat hr~~+~;~s, ~ct#r~~• dir~ctd~ car tate~~r~€t~ ~~tN~3I,~`t~.tY~F"' G~
~
l~<r~,si"t k~X~: ~a~t~nC~al l~~s rr3'72~ yabs cnntita#txt~ ~~axEswt~saac7a~ ~:iiv~r~~ ~ffc~17
i ~~~ tkYe ~e~la~~~ Ciat~~ ~vlaoevc~• ~~c~sAr~e:~c~cr~ tl~i~ repart s`:; eiT,~~z° ~~'~~~~cxt~a~ ~ ~~~~t~~~~ ~ ;~.n~e ~z~ }u~~ ~
t~L{~iAt t~a~ i~'SE~'l~' ~'tS?3Y1c:~1r'4Jl'1C. ~
~
i
Sira~er~l~', cn
~ ~~~ ~~
.T~,~rpal~ ~'~r,~az~eal€~
I~~~r F'~v~erCy ~~s~ta~s r~dE~ 2C~'n ~±~~~t, #~ • S~~t~~ l~Rram~f~~, ~A fd~3A~l~ f S'tt~-~d5;~~3~(~ ~ 3iU-9~a3-Ei~.~1 f~x
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 5-3
Chapter 5 Comments and Responses
Letter BB
~ro1ICs~ ~~>~r0b 12:'?~ ;~~.~~~~817~ ~~P ~~~~r~Cr~r~:~ ~~br~~ i ts~~ 1~
Jf"ihJ-35 -'~'~E~~a 1F,: ~. ~ i~~"J*T=~h3 PCD ~Lhi IN 31~ti ~~"'7~, i€ ~SS "fIJ~ 3102~EV: r°`+ P. ~~'2'
~~ ~+r P
n ~ ~ ~. .tF..
~
" .
~~
~
~
~ `'. ~ ~~J~r `,5~*~t7}t,~Fil~aS.~5~7"
.%,s~r ,
___ _-_
__ ~
_
,~~.~3fi-' Y1~~.~`ET€Ef. i~ ~`~.nk~ ~~pRTC!!„ ~L7~~li7Tltr,'t '9~~{j*~ #` ~~~~~:'~,~'~FJ.~4~i~~i~ ~...~.~~'~~4.~~~~1~1~ ~i3.A'y~ -
S&~7.Abq,~~' ~{~r. ~t~?~4C} '~y. ~n~~4 ~~. ~ ~ ~~
#,
M~, ~;CHea~ ~~lh~rd
~ ~ p~, Y4A,7~ ~i§ztlSTai;ffT'ET}" ~C'Y~~S;P~1'(~M.'•R~: ~~~Y~. ~J~Y.~TA31#t..
~'.IYy ta;'~: ~~}Ik1~ ~teYl~~^fk
I.~i~~ 343~s3n `a~#T~4, ~{'y,~35'IS ~i~~
~~1'11~4~Qffi9~.~fA, ~''~Z3:~i~at3i& '~~1~4{7~~°~~~~
~. EVd d 1~ ~W71~ ~.t437~ ~.~Yi'C+C~'S ~ t tlY 0.7i ,LV~ ~~~~5
- .~?~Fi~ l~~pipy ~'dl{S~49IP3'L5.
~'~ ~ , ~'+i%~S. ~'C~.~S~kCt~:
~ ~~.
w
I~uurgct ~nrs. is w~z~~~g tt~a~ i~t~:a' to €orm~diy ti~t:r~ent t~tn disa~~fCr~t]~tnt x~~ardir~~ ~teax~~ls ra~cl~ in 8
b~
~,
„ "'~wask~~e,rt;t~p~ ~a^u~vatz~ct IJiCttict ~`~~i~~ C?rdiII~c.~ 1Lmcut3srmcn[" n7CE~t1y t~fst~air~ec~ dsy ~~ztr Nat~ve5t a~zts ~
~f.~ ~F~L4.VC;S t~ #~ ~38tfn~r5hi~'r w}t,W~C~d. Oly+'d75 ~3i`d~c'1'~y' tBYCL~ccri t(3 4~.@ R~JVe lIXA~C4f;117A~ ~"~'t~i. 7~RT1d. 'I~a~SC ~Y~TI"fC~ ~
~~s~8crt~t~ B~?s~c~et $ati~s. Ns~l ~3z~na; Ck.~~~ 5h~avrr~ctffi a~sd l'~rci, W'~ ar~ ag~p~ed ac t~i~ r1~s~a~mcz~i ara~i [tzs
ar ~''
~a6vio~„ prru€,*l~c s~t~Ck~ crn F~nua~~at ~rtF9,~
?$L' (}3~3i~s~l':e ~'7ii5 sj~~'6'9$l~T f'l~~'~,XP~fl"~. i+l [Ytt1€1r~}4tira~ Ey7Gifitii3~, Pr.LSes ~]f`i{i93.d ~{3 "~18,'sidtl5~,.* ITS3.teE's`8~. sCCMY~" ~a~.'~ i€'rxjill~"S
$~4R~ ~~[~11i'~C~.C ~ii7~= ~"~"ti.4 bC4=n j7~L'YV1~9[Y,~ ~°~fYi#;~Y 2'kl~ 'C,~ttl'Y~."' ~'L`.Sil`$ ~Vl~,}SS8'6I~~ ~~ ~11'L~3€1T122il1Qli 3~RT t}iC L"9€.fS'1L'1~ ll~. ;~..Y' W
sY3C~3, 'L~1~' 71L}tSC~ '~k,3R'T~.sC~' i&1]gs~Ra'.^,~" C~ ~kCfuY'~cct $TU~. ~td.ti }y,~."11 SCLk.d.A€;, 1im a4 s„""i^iraq3nal p~iD~cF }J~' BX,k~'4~~71~ i7ti I~ie~,`ikI
~ ~
., 14C£lY.f IIC~~ ~~
~~'9.~ '1~~ ~7P,'fi7G~ T.A7,k1I1~, ~451:;~~.I.:it1{t~:C ;:3 ~k1Cf t.d7 ~?~t~`i~¢ 5QI5fl~ 4t~G i;~.5t~lsftc7~ lCC1peT17,7BYtk`~. 31~1"-.St...°` ~;cgse" ~
` zat~te ~fl. CE~.a '~,,"fi'f ~'~.7~3 S1CUeY~ YtUti~E~.. tt$ a7~ S~SC[S' C~ISC4tnCdit. eyi.f~~k th~ 5&.rrae 1§sa~jG~~ -'- ~5:3 ~CC7t m,t'~ia'T~SZat~d 63~ 'nE91[~ N
~rer~s?3` fi~r 4verlrs~~eariy year~i
Whi9c~ F#t~ur~ei ~rvs. has ~wa~^~ bezn a~'ai°c th~ tiwb vsnfukl ~v~ Cc~ vt~ca~ee t}~~ sai3r[sa~ ~'ig,Ptt-+~€=w~y (ftCl W) f+~r the
is~t Rgi~ prajcc~, th~t g~naj~a,~ z~ ~znde~zmhip ia ~ha ~i~€rt fiaf~iz~. I~ w~~ w#tl+ dus ~r+d~r~&;us~i~g ~d t~in~ t;~at
" ~
&r~a°~t ~3r~as. inve~~ ,~ il4e ~zse caf tne ~te3
~~ ~c# ~dj~a,~i~,g S~a N~.ives-awz~zel ~s~~~c.~ey. ras,~,v~r. r~c ~
A4aYA~S7r~Y'nt7aa4 eta3ti~~ ?k@1V 113t1i.45S~ti 115'd$. '~}7ita~Q3S~ ~tc;ll'[~~4j t~:S~i" 'F4't?i1~.4$ ~34~s~u{~fi `.`.. ~ O"~L4 S¢)FUCG ~ ~t4.t1![~:aC8~711'3~~,.
13~7~C itt~~1T B11t~ SCC1Y~i.41f8f3H3 °~p.~A[7~k~S"; i3A~}A4'C ~:lflYi ~S5 ~..i tit ~1~ 8U ~Y'~. .. ~u ~![li~ L~113 fiC4V' LL'.a«1 ~ tt~
~ Ia Pa b~ } ~s ~' 6R"fJIkf~'. Sl$d~, ~
w
t#r~ ~lqy just iDY~+~st4d b9tiilliona ak siol9rar3 ir~ ~ite pres~aerty r,ra ~,~~t~!`~a~o {~~:4~~c~+~ #is~rYc~ca ~ttd s3XSeeti stz+~:t~ f[arm~a`dy
used by 1'i~~aca t,um{~ar~ ~shiC~ w'ss e~€'t~a.*'aslc~r~ ('c~~ ~tCdilivns~ P~t cr~Y~~~a~t~[es~ a~ i~ stGSw 4~eas ~In~d ~t gtstd~
~i9y r~hac~es9 T~~s aaW f,:itV ~sa~ui;~ilian is Sc~~ ~~~~ ~ hc~C4' iuil~ aau~y rny~n tBu; x~suve rrce~dir+n~ ~AiA, prta~y ~aad
~~~~~d ~Stc~vvide raarc ~hc~ ~~t~%e€e~t °`public ~.rk,* ~z~.~ ~rrcl "'~.°crc~n~n~i feca~zta~s„ f+~r ttlr ~:Sk~.
'~art^ ,~na~stda~~t nnt~ec ~~;r d~,~r}bes tha ~aky'~ c`~~sirt #a uti3;ze th~ itC~k~W f~rr u;~2cyc~a snd Pe~e~trs"sa~ ~"azh.
~
~' ~F.~I
+
aiT3~'(~5~ 1.5 d3C1 S~fl7ika~C a7~51{~.~F'~~~5 ~SY T~3c.' L
3t~v ~~ ~~iGBY l~~ ~ 2?C3SK1.C4~ ~.1j~~* ~YAPC 6fF ~'h7$~W~T, ~O ~3~C?~}°i3' Ci3 T;~AG w
~V~c3;c(~,lt~ t7p~Se+Yx~ Y1A3# Illis ncw ~[t1n~ p~£#ri @XiS4s 1't~t~Z~SasGta~ Ckt~iiac t3hdua cnurr:~r~.ted. kA t~0 F'd#2. ~3ac~u.r~r.e'ntA ~
~tmur~"wi 8t'cBS. .t149 htt:27 0 d1'Y3b~~ GYta'~IiSY~z`SiCL1~t ~I ~[tn~ta ~Ic3tti.c:A.31#3G~ 14.47f V4r~ ~ tt~,lu,*-~~er~p' iC€ +~1~ L~Ci~1c'ktti(tqg. ~ry
[AP{1Vdt~t.` ~~~jtt~Si 1Lk F# SAti7~~;1$4~G $l~L~.t5,C~4lil~.i~ftPY~+a CtVti~ ~y,~ 58~'1.~. U.C~{(st.5.~2ttt'~.e~ A~t4~ ~l~t3jt~%13, ,~ SS}C}.~ S1'C I'~S~dL~ti$ S~€8[ ~
.
Y~'lc ~..`~4~+~ 7~k,41k4 S4 ~9~3~7~Y~ Ii:lTtc{.'4~It3II ~Q~Y'~S~° ~I$1CI9t~.(Y1G"fi[ ~~7Y~TTimTY~'~5 ~N~"}3C~5. ,",:C7 ~7~.F&%1lll~~~ $BT'41i.y~1 91tF 1"f:~ris;i4l~p41~ ~~E4'htil~~ F.~I
w
~F'(113 ~7A~C ~ k`~i11$~'31~4~PLl3. ~"7~4:.:'~ 6~3 T1i,1~ ~1Ct5.1~#~L' ~Cl (:(3fS~c'1U"I BLI~ ~~f.~]~" 1~55[ ~~ ~ (1~ ~~~-~7,~~j~ X.~.~~: ~
~
,T93i£S ,6. ~$4StiIC~~t
~~~Xder~,ti
5-4 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study
Chapter 5 Comments and Responses
Real Property Group
(January 30, 2006)
Resbonse to Comment RPG-1
This comment does not raise any environmental issues that would impact the adequacy of environmental
analysis for the proposed zoning changes. Commenter does question the adequacy of the noticing
procedure. Adequate notice was provided as follows. On January 9, 2006 the City published a"Notice of
Availability of an Initial Study and a Proposed Negative Declaration on the Proposed Transportation
Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment" and mailed it to every business, property owner,
and resident within a 500-foot radius of the project The notice provided the location and description of
the proposed project and how to comment The same notice was also run in the Los Angeles Times
"California Section" on January 7, 2006. The noticing was done in accordance with Section 15072(a)-(~
of the CEQA Guidelines.
Response to Comment RPG-2
This comment does not raise any environmental issues that would impact the adequacy of environmental
analysis for the proposed zoning changes. Consequently, no formal response to this comment is required
pursuant to CEQA. See CEQA Guidelines Section 14088. Notwithstanding the above, the City addresses
the comment as follows. Any existing structure or use within the right-of-way that is not public
transportation-related and was established in compliance with pertinent permitting regulations is
classified as legal-nonconforming. Any use or structure within the right-of-way that is not public
transportation-related and was not established in compliance with pertinent permitting regulations is
classified as illegal-nonconforming. Nonconforming structures and uses are regulated by Santa Monica
Municipal Code Section 9.04.18.
Response to Comment RPG-3
This comment does not raise any environmental issues that would impact the adequacy of environmental
analysis for the proposed zoning changes. Consequently, no formal response to this comment is required
pursuant to CEQA. See CEQA Guidelines Section 14088.
Response to Comment RPG-4
The potential loss of jobs is an economic impact, not an impact on the environment. Pursuant to
Subdivision (e) of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, economic and social changes resulting from a
project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment.
Response to Comment RPG-5
This comment does not raise any environmental issues that would impact the adequacy of environmental
analysis for the proposed zoning changes. Consequently, no formal response to this comment is required
pursuant to CEQA. See CEQA Guidelines Section 14088.
Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study 5-5
Chapter 5 Comments and Responses
Bourget Bros.
(January 31, 2006)
Response to Comment BB-1
This comment does not raise any environmental issues that would impact the adequacy of environmental
analysis for the proposed zoning changes. Consequently, no formal response to this comment is required
pursuant to CEQA. See CEQA Guidelines Section 14088.
Response to Comment BB-2
This comment does not raise any environmental issues that would impact the adequacy of environmental
analysis for the proposed zoning changes. Consequently, no formal response to this comment is required
pursuant to CEQA. See CEQA Guidelines Section 14088.
Response to Comment BB-3
The commenter is raising policy issues that are more appropriately directed to the City Council as it
assesses the proposed amendment. This comment does not raise any environmental issues that would
impact the adequacy of environmental analysis for the proposed zoning changes. Consequendy, no
formal response to this comment is required pursuant to CEQA. See CEQA Guidelines Section 14088.
Response to Comment BB-4
The commenter is raising policy issues that are more appropriately directed to the City Council as it
assesses the proposed amendment. This comment does not raise any environmental issues that would
impact the adequacy of environmental analysis for the proposed zoning changes. Consequendy, no
formal response to this comment is required pursuant to CEQA. See CEQA Guidelines Section 14088.
Response to Comment BB-5
This comment does not raise any environmental issues that would impact the adequacy of environmental
analysis for the proposed zoning changes. Consequently, no formal response to this comment is required
pursuant to CEQA. See CEQA Guidelines Section 14088. The proposed amendment would not
authorize or prohibit any uses that are not already authorized or prohibited under current zoning and
General Plan criteria.
5-6 Transportation Preservation District Zoning Ordinance Amendment Initial Study