SR-415-001 (2)
,
.
.
tf/s,-oo/
.
Io-L
~ ! l' l~S
C/ED:CPD:DKW:MMD:klc
COUNCIL MEETING: September 10, 1985
Santa Mon1ca, Ca11forn1a
TO: Mayor and CIty CounCll
FROM: Clty Staff
SUBJECT: RecommendatIon to Provlde Comments on Playa Vlsta EIR
INTRODUCTION
An ErR has been prepared on the annexatlon of approxImately 803-
acres of property, and the adoptIon of Spec1fIc Plans and
DIstrIct Plan amendments for the Playa VIsta ProJect (see Map 1).
ThIS report summar Izes the proposed development of the Playa
V1sta property and outlInes potentIal Impacts of thIS development
on the CIty of Santa MonIca. The 1mpacts of most concern to the
CIty are 1ncreased north-south traffIC congestIon, pOSSIble
excess use of the area's sewer lInes, Increased demand for Santa
MonIca's affordable hOUSIng, reductlon of reg lonal aIr quaIl ty,
and growth IndUCIng Impacts WhIch may affect Santa MonIca. It 15
recommended that staff be authorIzed to send an EIR comment
letter expreSSIng these concerns to the CIty of Los Angeles.
BACKGROUND
On August 15, 1985, the Santa MonIca PlannIng DIVIsion received
notIce that a Draft EnVIronmental Impact (DEIR) had been prepared
on the proposed annexatIon and zonIng of an apprOXImate 803-acre
6-(..
SEP 1 0 1985
- 1 -
...o...cf.
C'~
"'0
a
Scale I = 12ml
00
~Af.
1/
~ap 1
.
",EI PortD
\
\1I0~(CAnS _n ROSECR"'NS .
\ MANHATTAN
\~~ BEACH
PROJECT LOU.~ Tml
-2-
.
.
port~on of the 926-acre Playa VIsta property to the CIty of Los
Angeles as well as the annexatIon of several smaller parcels
located wIthIn the unIncorporated boundarIes of the proJect area.
The annexatIon WIll Include the IncorporatIon of thIs property
Into the Palms - Mar VIsta - Del Rey and Westchester - Playa del
Rey District Plans, and the designatIon of land use categories
and zon1ng of the property through SpeCIfIc Plan OrdInances. An
approximate 425-acre port~on of the subJect property IS located
In the Coastal Zone. The proposed land uses In the Coastal
Sector are conSIstent WIth the Land Use plan component of the Los
Angeles County MarIna del Rey/Ballona Local Coastal program
approved by the County Board of Supervlsors 1n September, 1984
and by the CalIforn1a Coastal CommISSIon In October, 1984. The
City of Santa Monlca raIsed a varIety of concerns about the
proJect to the Coastal CommIssion in March 1983 (see ExhlbIt 1).
The proposed land use plan calls for a development program,
phased over an apprOXImate 15 year perIod, which WIll Integrate a
broad range of uses conslstlng of offIce, medIum and high density
hOUSIng, retall shOPPIng, hotel, offIce/research park, recreatlon
ana open space/wetland restoratlon. The development speCIfIcally
proposes the constructIon of 7,611 hOUSIng unIts, 600 hotel
rooms] 4.7 mIlllon square feet of new commerCIal and offlcel
research space (In addItIon to the eXIsting 2 millIon square feet
of Hughes Hellcopters faCIlIties), and the restoratIon of 175.4
acres of wetland habitat withIn 197 acres of Habltat Management
Area. Table 1 summarIzes the proposed development.
- 3 -
.
.
TABLE 1
LAND USE
TOTAL
Offlce Space 2,950,100 square feet
Reta~l 700,000 square feet
Convenience Commercial 140,000 square feet
Llght Industrlal 941,200 square feet
Hotel 600 rooms
Wetland HabItat 175.4 acres
Housing Units 7,611 units
(655 residentlal unlts for low
and moderate Income lndll/.lduals
ana fam.ll.les, 225 unIts for
senIor cItIzen housIng)
P.M. Peak Hour Tr1.ps 9,847
Popu1atlon 16,500
(1225 school age, 1825 elderly)
Total Slte Acreage 803 acres
- 4 -
.
.
The CIty of Los Angeles PlannIng Commission w~11 conduct a PubllC
Hear Ing on thiS prOject on Thursday I September 19, 1985, at
1:00 P.M. In Room 350 of Los Angeles CIty Hall. The DEIR comment
perlod Wlll expIre on September 27, 1985.
ANALYSIS
The regIonal impacts resulting from the proposed development of
the playa Vista property do not appear to have been adequately
addressed In the Draft Envlronmental Impact Report. Those of
most concern to the Clty of Santa Monica are as follows:
1. Increased north-south traffIC on Llncoln Boulevard, Maln
Street, NeIlson Way and Ocean Avenue;
2. possIbllity that capac1.ty of Hyper 1.on Treatment Plant sewer
lInes WIll be exceeded;
3. increased pressure on Santa Monica's rental hOUSing stock;
4. reductlon In regIonal alr qualIty; and
5. growth inducing impac~s WhiCh may affect Santa Mon1ca.
Incceased Tcaffic
The Playa Vlsta Draft Env~ronrnental Impact Report bases its
CIrculatIon analysLs on the ~~aya VIsta Study' Area Transportatlo~
~n~l YS1.S, 1995 and on the CIty of Los Angeles I Proposed Coastal
Transportation CorrIdor SpeCIfIc plan Study. In the enVIron-
mental settlng section, the DEIR descrIbes the project area as a
5 -
.
.
s~te wIth def~nable l~mlts and constra1nts due to topographical
features (hIgh bluffs to the south, Ballona Channel, and the
Marina del Rey boat basIn) and surrounding developed areas (WhlCh
limit opportunltles for new construction). The DEIR proceeds to
describe the eXIsting road network, Including Lincoln Boulevard,
Vista del Mar, Pershing DrIve, Admtralty way, CentInela Avenue,
State Route 90 (MarIna Freeway), Falmonth Avenue and Interstate
405 {San Diego Freeway}, and concludes that north-south travel IS
lImited.
For the section on the future roadway network, the DEIR uses data
from a demand modelIng process developed by the Los Angeles
RegIonal TransportatIon Study. However, the study area IS
limIted to four square mlles bounded by WashIngton Boulevard to
tne north, PaCIfIC Ocean to the west, Los Angeles Internat~onal
Alrport (Century Boulevard) to the south, and the Interstate 405
(lncldlng Culver CIty) to the east. JudgIng from the magnItude
of traffIC expected to be generated, the study area should have
Included the CIty of Santa MonIca, or at least a discusslon on
the Impacts of the traffIC Increase on the CIty of Santa Monica.
The proposed development on the Playa VIsta property WIll
generate an addItional 9,847 P.M. peak hour trlps (see Table 2).
The measures proposed to mItIgate the Increased traffic may
assuage the traffIC problems In the ImmedIate area but WIll
exacerbate the problems for surrounding communItIes such as Santa
MonIca. The proposed road improvements WIll add two new lanes on
LIncoln Boulevard between Hughes Aircraft Company's access road
- 6 -
"
/
.
.
T AS LE 2
1995 VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIOS P.M. PE,A,K HCUR
1995 V I C Ratios
1995 1 1995 2 Ct'lange
No-Build L.O.S. Build L.C.S. in vIe
lineal n
Washington 1.72 F 1.55 F -.17
Marina Freeway 1.45 F 1.28 F -.17
Oall .83 D 1.14 F +.31
Mindanao 1.15 F 1 .21 F +.06
Fiji .94 E 1.08 F +.14
Jefferson 1.23 F .98 E -.25
Hughes 1.04 F
83rd StreE:t 1. 12 F 1.22 F +.10
Manchester (3) 1 '~~(3) F 1':~{3) F -.32
Sepulveda
Marina Freeway
Washington .70 S/C .85 D +.05
Culver Ramp (eastbound) 1. 91 F .97 E -.94
Culver RaMp (westbourd) 1 .31 F 1.09 F -.22
Pershing
Manchester 1.65 F .97 E -.68
Admiralty
Via Marina .68 B 0':1 E +.15
.-'~
PalCtwan .64 B .66 B +.02
Ball .86 0 .89 D +.03
"'~indanao .72 C .95 E +.23
Fiji .60 B .85 D +.25
Centrnela (4) 1.47(4) F , .SlIP.) F +.07
Sepu Iveda
Jefferson 1. 1 9 F 1. 1 6 F -.03
Culver 1.37 F 1.40 F +.03
Cu Iver
Bay 1.09 F
Nicholson 2.00 F 1. 1 4 F -.86
Jefferson (northbound) (5) 1.31 (5) 1 .45 ( 5 )
1-405 Ramps F F +.14
1-405 Rarrps (southbound) 1. 1 7 D 1.34 F +.17
Falmouth/Culver 1. 1 5 F
( 1 )
(2 )
(3 )
(4 )
(5 )
Assumes S4 related projects are built but not Playa Vista ar.nexation area (Area /1 of
the Playa Vista project IS inclucec in the No-Build scenario as a relatec prOJect).
Assumes 54 relater' projects uriC the Playa Vista annexatIon area r Areas p. C ar.d D)
is built WIth all proposed mitIgations.
Assumes that the proposC'1! before the city for graefe-separation is implemented (not
cons Idered In V I C ana Iys IS) .
Proposal for ramps to/from northbound 1-4(15 not included. If implemented. V/C
would be siOnlflcantly reduced.
Proposal for Slauson flyover to ~.R. 90 not Included. If implemented, vIe .....ould be
significantly reduced.
-7-
.
.
to FIJ I Way, and will reserve the right-of-way so that Llncoln
Boulevard can be extended to eIght lanes In thts area. However,
the plIght of the additlondl vehIcles on the new lanes as they
attempt to merge WIth eXIstIng traffIC past FIJI Way and Hughes
access way 1S not addressed.
The other proposed Improvements that WIll Impact the Cl ty of
Santa MonIca are the extensIons of AdmIralty Way and the MarIna
Freeway. The facllltatlon of traffIC along these routes wlll
l.ncrease usage of Ma1.n Street, Ne1.lson Way and Ocean Avenue.
These streets will also attract travelers attemptIng to avold
increased traffIC on LIncoln Boulevard, which IS the maIn
north-south arterIal.
The Southern CalIfornIa ASSoclatlon of Governments recently
conducted a transportation study on the area surroundlng the Los
Angeles InternatIonal AIrport WhlCh concluded that, even w1th the
street Improvements proposed by thIS and other proJects, the
tr anspor tatIon system will be at 1.25 to 2 times capacl ty and
thus Inadequate to support such development.
Not only does the DEIR fall to discuss traffIC Impacts on the
CIty of Santa Monlea, It also falls to dl.sCUSS the Impacts on
Santa MonIca t s BIg Blue Bus LInes (and other bus lInes). A
memorandum from J. F. HutchInson, Director of Transportatlon
dated December 23, 1982, (see ExhIbit 2), suggested that
Increased traffiC along LIncoln Boulevard could adversely Impact
Big Blue Bus LIne *3 SInce In~reased congestion delays bus
- 8 -
.
.
service and requ1res the assIgnment of addItional busses to
maIntaIn eXIstIng schedules.
With the above dIScuSSIon In mInd, It seems that the Playa VIsta
prOject may cause sIgnIficant adverse Impacts to the Ci ty of
Santa MonIca and an ErR supplement needs to be completed so that
the traffIC concerns of Santa Monica and other communIties wIll
be addressed In the Playa VIsta DEIR.
Sewer Ca.{?~city.
The Hyperlon Treatment Plant (HTP), located on the coastlIne of
Playa del Rey, processes wastewater from the cItIes of Los
Angeles, Culver City, and Santa Monica, among ochers. Currently
HTP IS treating an average of 430 million gallons per day,
according to Hrp. The DEIR says HTP IS deSigned for an average
flow of 420 mIllIon gallons per day (mgd) for prImary treatment
only, WhlCh will soon be reduced to 335 mgd due to addi tIonal
requIr2ments for secondary treatment. It appears that the
current flow 1S over-capacIty WIthout eIther the antIc1pated
reductIon to 335 mgd, or the expected 2,651,125 gallons per day
from the Playa vista proJect. However; the DEIR claIms HTP has
sutficlent capaCIty to serve the proJect area. This could be
explaIned by the expanSIon (targeted for the year 2000) of two
faClll.tles located upstream of HTP to treat excess wastewater
from HTP, yet such an expanSIon would reqUIre new sewer lines to
be bUl.l t from communI tIes currently served by HTP to the other
faCIlIties.
- 9 -
.
.
The 2,651,125 gallons per day expected to be generated from the
Playa Vista proJect, and the 5,145,950 gallons per day est~mated
to be generated by f1fty-nIne related prOJects 1n the area may
Increase the lIkelIhood that Santa MonIca users wIll have to pay
for sewage capaCIty expanSIon to serve the City sooner than
ant~c~pated. Yet, the DEIR does not deSIgnate InsuffIcIent sewer
capaCIty as an adverse Impact, nor does It dISCUSS the impact of
the addit~onal flow from thIs proJect on Santa MonIca, or
surroundIng communItIes. Therefore, SInce the ~ncrease of
wastewater flow to RTP may be a sIgnifIcant adverse Impact to the
CIty of Santa MonIca, the SanItary Sewer sectIon should be
reVIsed to address regIonal concerns.
Demand for Affordable Hous~n9
The construction of 7,611 hOUSIng unIts, 655 of whIch WIll be for
low and moderate Income households, may address the hOUSIng needs
of many of the 17,979 employees holding Jobs WIthin the Playa
VIsta proJect. However, some hOUSIng demand will llkely be
Shl fted to otner areas In the reg lon, such as Santa MonIca. In
addItIon, some employees may prefer to lIve outSIde theIr place
of employment and most employees WIll not be eligIble for the 225
senIor c~tlzen hous~n3 un~ts. The degree of the overall hOUSIng
demand dependS on the phaSIng of the Playa VIsta commercIal and
offIce development, and the phaSIng of other proJects in the
area. The hOUSIng analYSIS 1n the DEIR is based on the 1980
Census for Los Angeles County, CIty of Los Angeles, !w1ar Ina del
Rey, Palms - Mar V~5ta - Del Rey, Ven~ce, Westchester - Playa del
Rey, and Culver CIty. The analYSIS asserts that hOUSIng ~s
- 10 -
.
.
needed 1n the reg10n and (lno adverse effects to area housIng
markets are expected."
It would appear that more hOUSIng should be prOVIded to meet the
need created by the 17,979 Jobs expected to be generated from
thls proJect, and 655 affordable hOUSIng unl ts wlll not
suffICIently address the demand for affordable housing expected
by a 17,979-member work force.
Glven Santa MonIca's prOXlmlty to the project SIte, an adverse
lmpact on Santa MonIca's lImIted houslng supply may occur as a.
result of tnis proJect, and the HOUSIng sectlon should be reVIsed
to Include a diSCUSSIon of impacts on the City of Santa Monica.
In addItlon, the HOUSIng SEctIon should be more speCIfIC
regarding the aSS1mIlation of the work force into other
communitIes, and should address the concern that the project may
create an adverse impact on area houslng markets.
~e9ional Air Qu~~ity
Al though the DEIR concludes that lithe proportion of emiSSions
related to the proposed development 1S so small in comparison to
reglona.l levels that the proposed proJect Will not have a
mater~al effect on the achievement of National Ambient Air
Quallty Standards 1n the South Coast AIr QualIty Management
Dlstr let, n the remainder of the seetlon seems to refute thiS
concluslon. The anticlpated aIr qualIty impacts from the
construction phase, the emlSSlons generated from electrical power
plants to ser ve the proJect, and the . 64 p~rcent Incr ease In
nItrogen OXides and 2.33 percent increase 1n carbon monoxlde do
- 11 -
.
.
not seem adequately mItIgated by the followIng measures
l.dentIfl.ed by the DEIR: ground wett1ng, land use plannl.ng for
compact urbdn form and desIgn to mInImIze travel dIstances, and
transportatIon systems Improvement measures.
Sever al problems emerge after a rev lew of the DEIR AIr QuaIl ty
sectIon. The DEIR should make It clear that eXIstIng hIgh carbon
monoJ{lde concentratIons on SIte, due to ground-based lnverSlon
created by early morn1ng coastal fog, WIll be sIgn1ficantly
1ncreased If the proJect IS constructed. AccordIng to the South
Coast Alr QualIty Management D1strlct (SCAQMD), the energy
consumptIon rates and emISSIons 1n the DEIR were mIscalculated so
that proJect em1SSlons are underestImated. Although the proJect
1S descrlbed as beIng conSIstent WIth the SCAQMD standards, 1t
presents a slgnIfIcant Impact on aIr qualIty SInce any additIonal
reactIve organIC gas and nltrogen oXlde emlSSlons on the coast
contr Ibute to the overall ozone problem 1n the BaSIn. Also,
according to SCAQMD, II the dISCUSSIon of cumulatIve lmpacts does
not fully recognIze the fact that the BaS1n and the proJect area
suffer from poor aIr qual1ty now and, even WIth mltlgatlon
measures, the Basln WIll stIll not be able to attaIn certaIn
feder al and state amblent aIr quaIl ty standards." (Gay
Muttersbach, 1985.)
The AIr QualIty sectlon In the DEIR should be rev1sed to make the
changes noted above, to prOVIde measures WhICh more effectIvely
m1tIgate the traff1c and energy consumptIon Impacts of thlS
development, and to dISCUSS the regIonal effect of the add1tIonal
em1SSlons generated by thIS proJect on surroundIng commun1 tIes,
- 12 -
.
.
such as Santa MonIca, SInce such emISSIons may signIfIcantly
reduce aIr qualIty In the regIon.
Growth Induc1ng Impacts
The Growth Induclng Impacts sectIon prImarIly lISts the beneflts
aSSOCIated WIth the proJect such as not requIrIng constructIon of
a new Infrastructure, the provlsIon of houslng and Jobs, the
Increase in demand for consumer goods and se~vices from the
IncomIng populatIon, and the serVIces prOVIded to such a
pOpulatIon by the proposed mIxed use development. It is
suggested tnat the proJect may attract commerCIal development in
surrounding areas, IncludIng Santa Monlca, that would create
additIonal demands on publIC Infrastructure and serVIce, but that
these would not be SIgnifIcant adverse Impacts.
In reference to cumulatIve Impacts of related proJects yet to be
bUIlt, the DEIR admIts that these impacts may be sIgnIflcant In
terms of Increased demand for addltIonal publIC services and
utIlI tIes, but tl)at they WIll be "dIffused because the related
housing proJects are dispersed among several communItIes."
Tne DEIR should be revised to address the possibly SIgnIfIcant
adverse Impacts on Santa MonIca and other communItIes created by
competitl.on with eXl.sting hotel and off1ce developments, and by
Increased demand for addl tlonal publ ie services and utIlI tIes.
The 1mpact on eXIstIng development IS not discussed at all In the
DEJR as originally prepared.
- 13 -
.
.
~UDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The recornmendat10ns In thIS staff report have no budget/flnanC1al
impacts on the CIty of Santa Monica.
RECOMMENDATION
The Los Angeles CIty PlannIng CommIssIon needs to be made aware
of the potentIal adverse regIonal Impacts assocIated wIth full
development of the presently vacant Playa VIsta land.
In order
to acqua1nt those wIth deCISlon-rnaklng authorlty wIth the
traffIC, sewage, housIng, alr qualIty and growth 1nduclng issues
of partIcular concern to Santa MonIca,
staff respectfully
recommends that the Ci ty Manager be author lzed to transmIt a
letter to the CIty of Los Angeles. The letter should address the
conce rns lden tl fled 10 thIS staff report, and should recommend
that the Draft Envlronmental Impact Report be supplemented to
lnci ude analysIs In each se.::::; tlon of the DEIR of the potent lal
effects of the proposed Playa Vista development on Santa Mon1ea
and other surroundIng communItIes.
ExhIbIt 1: Letter to the CalIfornIa Coastal Comm1SS10n
ExhIbIt 2: Memorandum from the DIrector of TransportatIon
Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, ActIng SenIor Planner
MIchele M. Daves, ASSIstant Planner
CIty Plannlng DIVISlon
Commun1ty and EconomIC Development Department
- 14 -
. , .
. Exhibl. t 1 CITY 1=
SANTA MONICA
CALIFORNIA
Otot-lCE OF THE CITY MANAGER 393.9975, cxt. 301
1685 Ma.in Street, Sanl:& Momca, C.hlol'n1a 90401
March 22, 1983
Commissioners
California Coastal Commission
24S'West Broadway, Suite 380
P.o. Box 1450
Long Beach, California 90801-1450
Commissioners,
The City Council of the City of Santa Monica requested at its
meeting of March 15, 1983, that I forward to you the City's
comments on the proposed Local Coastal Plans (LCP) for the
Marina del Rey/Ballona area and for Malibu. We are especially
concerned with these two LCPs because Santa Monica is in such
close proximity to the two areas 2n question. The plans for
future growth and development in both the Marina/Ballona and
Malibu areas could have a significantly adverse impact on this
City's ability to meet the basic goals for the coastal zone as
enumerated in Section 30001.5 of the California Coastal Act:
specifically, to assure orderly, balanced utilization of coastal
zone resources; to maximLze public access to and along the coast
and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone;
and to assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related
development over other development on the coast. We hope that
before you formally adopt the Plans you will consider these 1mpacts
and that you will attempt to modify the Plans accordingly.
The Local Coastal Plans for the Marina/Ballona and Malibu areas
are impressive in their scope and detail but the magnitude and, to
some extent, the type of growth that is being proposed is of concern
to Santa Monica. The addition of 1.3 million square feet of new
commercial/office area and 3,600 new hotel rooms in the Marinal
Ballona area could: 1) generate traffic that contributes to
congestion in Santa Monica and inhibit access to the coast;
2) increase the demand in the City for its limited supply of
affordable housing; 3) overburden the Coastal Interceptor Sewer
line to Hyperion Sewage Trea~~ent Plant; and 4) oversaturate the
market for office space and to a greater extent hotel rooms Wh1Ch
could seriously retard the expans10n of Santa Monicats visitor-
serving tour2st economy.
: ~.
.
e
"
commissioners,
Calif. Coastal Commission
-2-
March 22, 1983
The Malibu LCP proposes the addition of almost 12,100 new
res~dential dwelling units or about 24,200 new residents. The
increased traffic resulting from this increase in the population
of Mal~bu could increase the congest~on on Palisades Beach Road
in Santa Monica which would ser~ously h~nder access to the C~ty's
north beaches.
Traffic
The City requests that the Coastal Commission review the impacts
on coastal access in other communities of the nearly 230% increase
in daily vehicle trips that would be generated by proposed new
development in the Marina/Ballona area. The precise impacts on the
City of Santa Monica are not possible to determine from the inform-
ation provided in the LCP since traffic forecasts are not provided
beyond the LCP planning area. However, indications are that
two of the street improvements proposed in the Lep, the extension
of the Marina Freeway to Lincoln Boulevard and the construction of
the Marina Bypass connecting Lincoln Boulevard and Washington Street,
and the ~ncreased congestion expected on Lincoln Boulevard could
cause some increased Mar1na area traffic to be directed onto Main
Street and Neilson Way-Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica. These streets
serve as access routes to the City's south beaches. Main Street and
Neilson Way are currently indirectly linked to the Marina area via
Washington Boulevard and Pacific Avenue and already attract traff1C
from people avoiding heavy traff1c along Lincoln Boulevard.
Lincoln Boulevard is the only major north-sQuth connector west of
the San Diego Freeway; it can be assuned that ~t w1l1 attract much
of the increase in traffic between Santa Monica and the Marina/
Ballona area. Lincoln is currently operating at 79% to 94% capacity
in the City and by the year 2000 is forecast to be operat~ng at 117%
to 129% capacity. This congestion and the more direct access to
Main Street and Neilson Way created by the Marina Bypass would 11kely
cause a significant increase in traffic on these streets from the
Marina/Ballona area as people beg~n avoid~ng Lincoln Boulevard
traffic ~n greater number.
Main Street is projected to carry traffic at 40% of its capacity by
the year 2000 and Neilson way 57% of capacity. under these fore-
casts, coastal access appears adequate. However, since congestion
of a street generally begins to occur when traffic is at 75%
capacity, any significant increase in traffic from the Marina/
Ballona area could cause these streets to become congested. As a
result, the City could find that its access to south beaches would
be greatly reduced, not maintained and enhanced as directed by the
Coastal Act.
I' .
commissioners.
Cal~f. CoastaI ommission
-3-
.
March 22, 1983
f
Palisades Beach Road in Santa Monica is estimated to be carrying
traffic at about 71% of its des~gn capacity which is Just below
the congestion threshold. Any s~gn1ficant 1ncrease in traffic
using th1S street could hinder access to the Cityts north beaches
since Palisades Beach Road 15 the only access to the north beaches.
Since the estimated 24,200 new res~dents that have been proposed
for Malibu in the LCP will most likely use Palisades Beach Road,
Malibu growth could reduce access to City beaches.
fiousing Demand
The City requests that the Coastal Co~~ission review to the extent
possible the affordabil~ty and the phas1ng of new res~dential
development in the Marina/Ballona area to ensure that the housing
demand created by new employees 1n the area is satisfied locally
and not transferred to nearby communities where housing supplies
are limited.
The 6,261 new dwelling units proposed in the LCP should satisfy
much of the demand for houslng created by employees working ~n the
new commercial, office, and hotel development proposed for the area.
However, some demand for housing w1l1 be sat~sfied by surround~ng
corr~unities unless the housing in the Marina/Ballona area is af:ordabl,
to the employees expected to work there.
In 1980, the Census and the Los Angeles Region Transportation Study
revealed that about 60% to 75% of the C~tyls residents worked ln
other commun1ties. This 1nd~cates that a great deal of Santa
Monica's housing stock may be occupied by people unable to find
affordable housing in areas where they work. The degree of additlonal
pressure on Santa Monica's hous1ng stock that could be attributed
to employees in the Marina/Ballona area will depend on whether new
units are constructed in the Mar~na/Ballona area that are properly
phased to coincide with the new commerc~al, off1ce, and hotel develop-
ment and that are affordable to the workers employed in the new
development.
~ewer Capacity
The City suggests that the Coastal Corr~ission deterrni~e whether new
growth in the Marina/Ballona area will exceed the capacity of the
Coastal Interceptor Sewer (CIS) line to handle the coastal region's
sewage. The LCP states that the excess capacity of the CIS I1ne
can accommodate the range of development proposed for the Marina/
Ballona area. The LCP does not appear to consider the capacity of
the line that may be requ1red by the remaining Playa Vista proJect
outside the LCP planning area.
.
I' 4
Commissioners _
Calif. Coastal~ommission
_4_
.
March 22, 1983
Oversupply of Uses
The City requests the Coastal Commission to review t~e effects
that the off~ce and hotel growth proposed for the Marina/Ballona
area could have on coastal-related and coastal-dependent develop-
ment in surrounding communit~es. The C~ty hopes that the Comm~ss~on
will approve a plan for the Marina/Ballona area that will complement
the plans of surrounding comroun~ties to promote access to the cOAst,
and not one that overshadows and competes with ne~ghboring Juris-
dictions.
Of special concern to Santa Monica is the proposal for 3,600 new
hotel rooms for the LCP area. Santa Monica currently has 900 hotel
rooms and market analyses indicate that the City could accommodate
an additional 1000 rooms by the end of the century. A large portion
of the City's current room demand (19.4%) is from airline contract
business which is expected to account for 23.4% of the room demand
by the year 2000, Marina/Ballona hotels are likely to attract
a large portion of the airline contract business due to the~r close
prox~mity to Los Angeles Internat~onal Airport. Santa Monica, along
with other communities, could experience difficulty ~n develop~ng its
visitor-serving tourist and hotel industry should the Marina/Ballona
absorb a large segment of the hotel demand for the area.
Santa Monica recently began a major planning program that includes
revision to both its coastal zone and city-wide land use plans. The
City is pursuing development pollcies that will promote balanced
growth throughout the City, maintain the City's unique population
diversity, promote jobs for City res1dents, ensure that the City's
infrastructure system is not overburdened, and implement the spir~t
and intent of the Coastal Act. With respect to the latter item, we
are concerned that elements of both the Marina/Ballona and Malibu
Local Coastal plans will seriously h~nder our efforts to promote
orderly utilization of coastal resources, promote public access and
ensure priority of coastal-related and coastal-dependent development.
We hope the Commission will consider these concer~s carefully in its
revie~ of both the Marina/Ballona and Malibu LCPs.
Sincerely,
~~
~ ohn H. Alschuler. Jr.
\ )City Manager
JHA:PS:ps
cc: S.M. City Co~ncil Members
County Supervisor Dean Dana
. .
.
Exhiblt 2
.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMO
DATE:
December 23, 1982
TO:
FROM:
Christopher Rudd, Asslstant Planner A
J. F. Hutchison, Director ~f Transportati~
REVIE~ OF MARINA DEL REY/BALLONA ~~D USE PLAN
StJBJECT:
In response to your memo of November 30, 1982. we reviewed the Marina del Reyj
Ballona Land Use Plan. Insuffic~ent detail eX~sts in the report to draw de-
talled conclus~ons about the effects of the plan. However. we have drawn
general conclusions which we hope will prove useful to you.
We operate our Blg Blue Bus Line #3 on Llncoln Boulevard in the Marlna del Rey
area. Thls service operates bet~een LAX, Santa Monlca and UCLA every 20 minutes
on weekdays, wlth reduced service on Saturday and Sunday. A route map and
schedule of Line #3 are enclosed for your lnformation. We also operate serVlce
in the Venice area on Pacific Avenue, Maln Street and Kashington Boulevard. The
detailed routes of these services are lncluded on the system route map.
In general, the major adverse effect to our Blg Blue Buses would be the lncreased
traffic along Lincoln Boulevard. ~~lle, the proposed widenlng of L1ncoln Boule-
vard may serve to m1tigate traffic congestion, insufficient data is presented
to ascertain ~hether the comblnatlon of added traffic together with proposed m1t1-
gation measures would result 1n a net lncrease or decrease in Lincoln Boulevard
traffic congestion. To the extent that increased congestion delays bus serV1ce
and requires the assignment of additional buses to maintain eX1stlng schedules.
the Munic1pal Bus Lines will experience lncreased costs.
However. these higher costs may be offset by the addit10nal bus patronage WhlCh
will probably be generated from the new development 1n the area. In add~tlon,
the lnternal Marina shuttle service referenced ~n the plan may also bring add1-
tlonal r1dership to our Lincoln Boulevard l~ne. However. quoting specific fi-
gures at this point in tlme, would be imposslble.
In fact. lack of detail concerning future traff~c congest~on hinders our drawing
any definite conclusions concernlng the plan's effect on transit service. For
~nstance, the construction of the Mar1na B}~ass may fac~11tate access to the Venlce
area. Ho~ever. the maps included ~n the plan do not 1ndicate where or how the
west end of the proposed route will be located. Therefore, it would not be pos-
sible to est1mate the effects of add~t1onal trafflc congest~on to our ex~sting
service on Pac~flc Avenue. Main Street and ~ash1ngton Boulevard in the Venice area.
We appreciate your permittlng us to reVle~ the plans and apologlze for not being
able to g1ve 3 more detailed plcture of the effects on our Blg Blue Buses. If
you have any quest1ons, please do not hes1tate to contact me.
JFH:dag
Enclosures:
CC' Mark 11gan, Dlrector of Corr~u~~ty G EconO~lC Develop~ent