SR-9-A (42)
3-!t
LUTM:PB:RF:NEITRAF2:WINWORD
council Meeting, September 29, 1992
Santa Monica, California
SEr ;:.: 9 1992
To: Mayor and city Council
From: city Staff
Subject: Sunset Park Neighborhood Traffic Program
INTRODUCTION
This report provides the city council with additional information
about
the process
for
implementation
of
a
Sunset
Park
neighborhood traffic plan.
This report discusses a proposed
environmental impact report (EIR) and concurrent activities, and
requests the appropriation of funds to conduct the ErR.
BACKGROUND
In May 1992, the Council directed staff to conduct an ErR for a
Sunset Park neighborhood traffic plan which included several
alternatives.
In summary, the scope of the EIR, as directed by
the Council, lncludes the "preferred alternative II which is
commonly known as the "enclave" plan. In addition to the enclave
plan, council directed that several other alternatives be
analyzed, including: the "closure/diversion" plan; the "parallel"
plan; the preferred alternative plus the draft Bicycle Plan; the
preferred alternative plus traffic control measures along
Walgrove Avenue in the city of Los Angeles (stop signs, signal
timing changes, etc); and "no project".
All of these alternatives include a base level of traffic control
if-A
('CD q, 1('--
~'-J ':f
measures such as traffic signal synchronization, roadway
improvements, stop slgns, peak hour parking restrictions, peak
hour turn restrictions, traffic circles and cuI de sacs. These
measures have the concurrence of both neighborhood organizations.
The preferred alternative or "enclave planll proposes a group of
cuI de sacs to address traffic volumes in the Cloverfield/23rd/
Walgrove corridor. ThlS includes cuI de sacing Oak, Hill,
Ashland, Pier, Marine, Navy and Dewey streets at 23rd street; cuI
de sacing 21st, 22nd, 23rd, Cloverfield and 25th streets north of
Ocean Park Boulevard; and 22nd, 25th and 26th streets south of
pico Boulevard. Also, speed humps are being proposed on 28th
street between Pico and Ocean Park Boulevards.
The nclosure/diversion" alternative proposes to cuI de sac 23rd
street north of Airport Avenue and divert all north/south traffic
on Walgrove Avenue over to centinela Avenue along a new roadway
constructed through the airport property along the existing
Airport Avenue.
The "parallel" plan incorporates the same Oak, Hill, Ashland,
Pier, Marine, Navy and Dewey street cuI de sacs at 23rd street as
proposed in the enclave plan. However, instead of cuI de sacing
streets north of Ocean Park Boulevard, the parallel plan calls
for speed humps along 23rd street and Cloverfield Boulevard and
the installation of several peak hour turn restrictions along
Ocean Park Boulevard. The parallel plan also includes speed
2
humps on 28th Street.
The preferred alternative plus the draft bicycle plan includes
the bicycle plan proposal to establish a bike boulevard through
the Sunset Park area on Pearl Street, as well as other bike
routes and lanes.
The preferred alternative plus traffic control measures along
Walgrove Avenue in the city of Los Angeles, envisions measures
being taken by the City of Los Angeles to slow or divert traffic
along Walgrove.
Staff prepared the Request for Proposals (RFP) and conducted a
public seoping meeting for the EIR. Proposals from environmental
consultants were received and it was determined that an EIR would
cost approximately $150,000.
As the Council is aware, many new issues have surfaced since the
Council directed staff to conduct an EIR for a Sunset Park
neighborhood traffic plan. These issues include the inability to
use traffic mitigation funds to conduct studies and implement
plans in Sunset Park, and the requirement to conduct an EIR
before any form of neighborhood traffic plan improvements can be
implemented.
In an information
conducting an EIR,
item dated August 3, 1992, in lieu of
staff suggested implementing a three-phase,
3
before and after "test" program. This process was suggested
after staff learned about the cost of an EIR and that traffic
mi tigatlon funds could not be used to fund thls study and no
other funds were budgeted for this purpose. Subsequent to the
information item, the City Attorney's office informed staff that
an EIR was necessary even to implement a before and after "test"
program. Therefore, staff no longer recommends the implemen-
tation of a three-phase test program.
DISCUSSION
At the meeting of September 8, 1992, the Council requested a
clarification of the process for implementation of a Sunset Park
neighborhood traffic plan.
Environmental Impact Report
If the Council appropriates the necessary funds( staff will
proceed with the EIR as outlined by the Council on May 12th and
summarized in this report. staff has received proposals to
conduct the EIR. The selected proposal, from the Keith
Companies, indicated a maximum cost of $150,000. It is estimated
the preparation of the draft EIR will be completed by April 1993.
Concurrent Activities
During the time the EIR is in preparation, staff will implement
those traffic control measures which will not create a
significant impact. These are measures that have the concurrence
of both neighborhood organizations and are common to all of the
4
alternatives for the EIR. This would include the installation of
new stop signs and some minor roadway improvements.
New stop signs are being proposed at the following locations:
1. 10th street at Grant Avenue
2. 10th street at pine street
3. Euclid street at Grant Avenue
4. Euclid street at pine Street
5. Marine Street near Marine Park
6. Pearl street at 31st street
7. Pearl Street at 34th Street
In addition, proposed roadway improvements include a southbound
"right turn only" lane on centinela Avenue at Ocean Park
Boulevard, and a forced turn diverter for northbound 28th street
at Ocean Park Boulevard.
staff can accommodate the costs of installing these traffic
control measures, estimated at $7,500, within the current
division budget.
The installation of these measures could be
completed in November 1992.
In addition to the measures mentioned above, staff has already
implemented many local traffic control measures in the area I
including the following:
1. Traffic signal synchronization improvements along Pico
Boulevard
5
2. Dual left turn lanes on Pico Boulevard at Cloverfield
Boulevard
3. Left turn lanes on Pico Boulevard at 11th street
4. Stop slgns on 11th street at Grant, Pine and Ashland
5. Chokers on 11th street at Ocean Park Boulevard and Marine
street
6. stop signs on Euclid street at Pearl street
7. School area stop signs on 14th street at pine street (Will
Rogers School) and on Pearl street at 24th street (Grant
Schoo l)
8. Stop signs on Ashland Avenue at 14th street
9. stop signs on 17th Street at Hill Street and Pier Avenue
10.stop signs on 21st street at Hill street and Marine street
11. stop signs on Pearl Street at 33rd street
Public Input
From the outset, it has been staffls intent to conduct additional
public information workshops during the EIR process to insure
broad neighborhood awareness of the proposed traffic plan
improvements.
The need for additional public involvement from
all sectlons of the Sunset Park area was underscored at both the
May 12th City Council and EIR public scoping meetings.
Therefore, in addition to a minimum of four workshops to be
conducted throughout the Sunset Park area between now and
January, staff suggests a broad based group of area residents,
businesspersons,
school and college representatives review,
consider and make recommendations based on input from the EIR and
comments from the workshops.
6
Finally, during the six month EIR process, staff will conduct a
neighborhood survey to gauge the opinions of residents about the
plans that were presented during the information workshops. This
will allow another opportunity for residents to add their input
on neighborhood traffic plans. The survey process should be
completed by March 1993.
Final EIR
In approximately June 1993, after public review and comment,
staff will return to Council with the results of the Final EIR,
the neighborhood workshops and neighborhood survey. It is
possible that during the EIR, workshop, survey and committee
processes, refinements to the traffic plan alternatives may be
developed. The broad based committee mentioned above could
provide recommendations to the Council with regard to a preferred
alternative. Implementation of a full neighborhood traffic plan
with temporary devices could begin within 60 days after the
certification of the EIR and direction from the Council to
proceed. Installation of temporary measures could be completed
within 90 days. Staff will request funds for implementation
during the FY 93/94 ClP process.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT
Prior to the May 12th Council meeting, staff had expected to fund
the entire Sunset Park neighborhood traffic plan process from
traffic mitigation fees. However, as indicated, this funding
7
source is not available for use in the Sunset Park area.
Therefore, it is necessary for the Council to appropriate funds
to proceed with the program outlined in this report.
It is
estimated that the cost of the EIR will be $150,000.
Funds for
the implementation of a plan with temporary devices will be
requested during the FY 93/94 ClP process.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Appropriate $150,000 from General Fund reserves
number 01-210-267-00000-5506-00000 to conduct an
Sunset Park neighborhood traffic plan.
to account
EIR for a
2. Authorize the city Manager to negotiate and execute a
contract, not to exceed $150,000, with the Keith Companies to
prepare an EIR for a Sunset Park neighborhood traffic plan.
3. Direct staff to implement those traffic control measures which
will not create a significant impact including new signage and
minor roadway modifications.
4. Direct staff to proceed with the neighborhood public informa-
tion workshops and conduct a neighborhood survey about a plan.
5. Direct staff to outline and recommend the formation of a
traffic committee that has broad based representation of the
residents, business community and school and college districts
to review the input from the EIR, workshops and survey and
make recommendations as to a preferred alternative.
Prepared by:
Paul Berlant, Director of LUTM
Ron Fuch1waki, city Parking and Traffic Engineer
8
fA
2445 Cloverfleld Boulevard
Santa Monica, CA 90405
September 28, 1992
City Clerk
Santa MonIca. CA
Dear City Clerk,
I have written each of the councIl members a personal letter regardIng what
have been told IS Agenda Item 9A. nameiy reconSideratIon of fundIng EIR for a
NPP for Sunset Park. Due to famIly obligations both In Orange County and here, I
may be able to attend only a portion of the Council MeetIng. tomorrow. September
29. I would however lIke my VIews part of the record for dISCUSSion of thiS
1 tern.
In the main, I would like to express the following excerpt from my letters
to council members..."Please understand how frustrating It IS to have petitioned
councIl for over four vears to help give some traffiC protectIon to all our
neighborhood. Because I have lIved on Cloverfleld Boulevard SInce 1971. I am
accutely aware of the lack of neighborhood traffiC protection but In wanting
some relief. have wanted It not Just for our street but for the whole
neighborhood; likeWise, I do not want to contInue to be Included In the
literature of the day, as a cut-through route for the Westslde of the LA BaSin,
see the book, L. A. SHORTCUTS (portIons of which I COPIed and sent to members).
I do want p~-oted10ri - from such IntrusIons by CI ty government. I was
encouraged by the vote at Council in May to do an EIR on the proposed Enclave
Plan; now four months later, it is my understanding that it IS In questIon.
Why? ! have seen a flyer by Span that makes It sound as If a plan has been
deSigned covert1y ... but the meetings to work out a p1an had representatIves
from the city staff. FOSP. and SPAN; all of the neighborhood meetings I have
attended were open to the publiC; the prOblem In part IS that Sunset Park IS
huge and somewhat diverse In ItS traffiC concerns and so much of what has been
done has been because of volunteer efforts on the part of concerned netghbors.
There has sometimes been a limit of resources, time. and money to PUbliCIze In
as large a fashion as one would deSire. As you may know, some of these efforts
has been truly professlonl In qualIty (though done by neighbors) and then others
have been like mIne-- part of a support system. canvaSSing neighbors and Ir
truth feeling like most of the TraffIC City Staff IS more adversaria] than
supportive. I see places 10 the "CIty" where NPP's are In effect; for example.
behInd Westslde PavII] Ion and west of SMC and by SamohI on PICO. The barriers
used are minimal and not especially attractive but that IS a good begInning and
I do not understand why we can not do things like that so that people could
start to determIne out of reality, rather than SUPPositIon how certaIn Impacts
lIke traffiC barrIers. for Instance, would effect a neighborhood. Please help a
plan move forward so that a real NPP oeomes a realIty.'
Sincerely.
Leota Flaten
/Jc/d 911
September 29, 1992
Santa Monica CIty Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main St.
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Councilmembers
We are writing in support of moving forward wIth the Sunset Park Neighborhood Traffic
Protection Plan EIR. We feel this imtial step of examining the feasibIlIty and possible
impacts of the vanous plan options is long overdue, and we are disappomted that we are
again examining this issue despite the consensus at the Council's May 12th meeting
that the EIR would move forward.
However, we must insIst that the EIR consider the revised Enclave plan that we have
twice mentioned to City Staff, and that the Friends of Sunset Park also endorses for
consideration. We first broached our concerns wIth the impact on Pearl St at the
scoping meeting held by City staff after the May Council meeting. We submitted this
concern in writing directly to Paul Casey at that meeting (copy attached). We then
followed this up wIth a more substantial discussion in our letter mailed to Mr Casey on
June 25th, which proposed studying a modified Enclave plan. (copy attached)
Since that time, we have SInce had numerous working sessions with the Friends of
Sunset Park, including residents of the vanous impacted streets. These numerous
meetings, analyses, and discussions have lead to the final modified plan whIch the
Friends are also describing in their letter to the Council. Briefly summarized, the key
components of this plan are to modIfy the origmal Enclave Plan by:
· Placmg a barrier on Pearl St. just East of 20th St.
· Placing a diverter on 23rd St. and Ocean Park, forcing northbound traffic to turn
right.
· Placmg partial barriers on 23rd and Cloverfield at Ocean Park Blvd, blocking
Southbound traffic. The barriers would allow northbound travel on these streets
off of Ocean Park Blvd SpecIfically, Eastbound traffic on Ocean Park Blvd. may
turn left onto 23rd, and Westbound traffic on Ocean Park Blvd. may turn ri~ht
onto Cloverfield Left turns from Eastbound Ocean Park Blvd. onto Cloverfield
would be prohIbited
These revisions represent a neighborhood consensus which mitIgate possible negative
Enclave Plan impacts by allowing freeway and Grant Street School access, whIle not
unfairly shifting traffic from one street to the next. This modificatIOn responds both to
reactIOns of Central Enclave residents and objections raised by resIdents hving South of
Ocean Park Blvd. (concerned about school and freeway access).
We feel the Council and CIty staff would be neglIgent to not include this modIfication III
the ErR analysis, given the ObVIOUS merits of this plan which have withstood repeated
analyses, its endorsement by a major neighborhood group, and the fact that It has been
submitted on numerous occaSlOns to the City.
John E. Ruchinskas Suzanne Barron 2018 Pearl
~\d-" tc: T E, leen ~rc_s~r LO i+ p~.? rl
6~~ -+ t- D a c Lf~ IIJ Z c? I F~.~ L s;r
!\ . \ 'lei) r... S......
~I\-r-'\ r:. '- ~ Lf\-.JtZ.A I. K.,. -lN1 '_U7_1-- \'::.-O"Q...... I
licld ?/l
Frank & EIleen Fraser
2017 Pearl Street
Santa Monica CA 90405
September 29, 1992
Santa Monzca Cuy Councll,
We purchased our home In March of this year, and are on the route of the proposed bicycle
path. Our residence IS one block east of Santa Momca College.
We are in favor of havmg a Pearl Street bIke path. as II should enhance the desired
character of Santa Momca
We presume the path will be designated In the same manner as on Pearl Street west of 14th,
wInch proVides for two-way vehIcle traffic, and parkmg on both sides of the street.
One proVISO, however: Because Pearl Street has less wIdth east of 20th street than it has
west of the College, cyclIsts and vehIcles will have less room to maneuver to aVOId hutlng
each other To provide a safer environment for both, substantial reductIOn of vehicular
traffic IS needed, and we urge a barncade be constructed on Pearl, euher on the east side of
the 20th Street mtersectIOn, or on the west sIde of the 21st Street mterseCllon. Tlus
barncade should prohzbu passage offour-wheeled vehIcles, but penna passage of two-
wheeled cycles. Slgnage would also be needed to mfaml motonsts of the barncade.
Although this barner would mconvenzence reSIdents and college students to some degree,
altemallve routes already exIst, and sllch mconvemence seems mmor when compared to
enhancmg safety for all persons uszng Pearl Street
Szncerely,
~ "..J... ..
~b~ ~A~'
blkepath.ltr ca03
field q#
June 18, 1992
PAUL CASEY
city Planning Division
city of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407
RE: Sunset Park Neighborhood Traffic "Enclave Plan"
Dear Mr. Casey:
This letter represents the views of several residents of Pearl
Street in Sunset Park. We support the concept of the Sunset Park
Neighborhood Traffic plan known as the "Enclave Plan," with one
caveat: the plan would clearly increase traffic flow on Pearl
street from 20th st. east. Therefore, we ask that the pending
Environmental Impact Report include consideration of a traffic
barrier east of 20th on Pearl street. We feel such traffic
mitigation is necessary to specifically address the following
concerns with the currently designed Enclave Plan:
* All residents of Sunset Park between 20th and 28th streets will
have access to their residences from the southwest only by
entering or exiting via 20th st. and Pearl st. We feel this
would significantly increase local traffic on Pearl.
* since all north/south thoroughfares between 14th and 28th will
be closed, 20th st. will become the only thoroughfare. Twentieth
street often becomes crowded now, and, non-residents, in order to
access the Cloverfield freeway entrance, avoid 20th & pico by
turning right on Pearl to Cloverfield. We feel the increased
traffic flow north on 20th st. may exacerbate the situation.
* The combination of neighborhood and cutthrough traffic ensures
a heavy traffic volume on Pearl st. This may make the Enclave
Plan less compatible with the proposed master bicycle plan which
envisions Pearl st. as a bicycle boulevard with minimal auto
traffic. The addition of a traffic barrier east of 20th on Pearl
would minimize the traffic flow in the center of Sunset Park and
maximize the effectiveness of the bicycle master plan.
* It is likely Santa Mon1ca College will seek to continue use of
the surface parking lot between 20th and 18th streets on Pearl.
Lacking a traffic barrier on Pearl east of 20th, signficant
college cutthrough traffic will continue to enter Sunset Park and
flow down Pearl.
Thank you for your consideration.
Daniel McKinny
John Ruchinskas
Beth Hagen
Jamie Wolffe
Laura Hart McKinny
Suzanne Barron
Edward Rowin
steve Gordon
2022
2018
2021
2110
Pearl st.
Pearl st.
Pearl st.
Pearl st.
IJdd' 9/9
June 25, 1992
Paul Casey
Pohcy Development - Rm 212
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main St.
Santa Moruca, CA 90401
Dear Paul'
I'm wntmg on behalf of a group of Pearl Street farmlies to request that the Sunset
Park Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation EIR specifically consider the impacts of a
revision to the "Enclave Plan," which we believe would improve the plan and
lessen Its environmental Impacts These reVISIons WIll help address the Issues we
raised III our letter to you at the onginal EIR scoping meebng.
The Enclave Plan was originally proposed by FIiends of Sunset Park Wlth a traffic
banier on Pearl St. east of 20th. Recently, the plan was revised to remove this
harner, replacmg It with a card key gate on Pearl Just west of 20th. This
seemingly IllInor change III the plan will dramatically Impact Pearl St traffic, and
the efficacy of the NTPP. As the sole route in and out of the Central Enclave to the
south and west, we believe the Enclave Plan will sigmficantly increase traffic on
west end of Pearl 5t.
The current Enclave Plan blocks off the through north-south streets at Ocean Park
Blvd., effectively sealing the Central Enclave's southern border. All of the almost
400 single farmly resIdences between 20th and 24th Streets will have to use Pearl
and 20th Streets as theIr route to such key destinations as Bob's, Lucky's, Ocean
Park, and the Beach. Every tune a resident wants to buy groceries. go to the dry
cleaners, go to Main Street or VIsit the southern beaches, they will be forced to
drive past our homes. Anyone who works to the southwest or is retuming home
from that dIrection will have to use Pearl. This means hundreds to thousands of
new car trips a day flowing down Pearl St.
Pearl Street Will also become the sole means of access for all Grant School parents
living south of Ocean Park Blvd. Thus, hundreds of more new car tnps for Pearl
St.
MOVlng the barrier west of 20th opens up the possibility of sigmficant
neighborhood/ freeway cut-through traffic. For all resIdents liVIng south of Ocean
Park Blvd., Pearl wIll offer a less crowded street than Pico to access the Santa
Moruca Freeway In the morning, or to return home at night. Undoubtedly, other
drivers would discover this path. and add it to their repertoire of possible routes
(depending on conditIons on 20th and PIco) Again, hundreds to thousands of
trips diverted onto Pearl St
Finally, Pearl St. and the Central Enclave will continue to receive cut through
Santa Moruca College traffic. even if a card key gate is added west of 20th.
Hundreds to thousands of card key tnps will contInue to use Pearl to access the
parking lot between 18th and 20th on Pearl The exact number of trips will
depend on the number of card keys Issued by SMCC It is m the College's
interests to maximize the number of card keys to ensure the spaces are filled. and
to allow the maxImum number of students to attend the school. AddItIonally,
"-
II ....
f / t');
l: F .
\.-.-. f -
! -'
September 28, 1992
Members of the City Council
1685 City Hall
Santa Monica, CA
90401
Re Item 9A on heanng scheduled for September 29th, 1992
Honorable members of the Santa MOnica City Council,
I had planned on attendIng the City Council hearrng on September 29th and to
speak. on Item 9A dealing with the funding of an EIR pertinent to vanous traffic
protectIon measures for the Sunset Park neighborhood Regrettably, urgent business
has forced me to leave town prior to the hearmg I hope that thIs leUer suffIces to
express both my disappointment over the continUing delay In obtaining a meaningful
traffic protection plan and my anger over what I antiCipate will be the tone of the public
heanng.
Recommendations.
I want to express In the strongest terms pOSSible my support for.
(1) Moving ahead wIth the EIR (there has been enough delay),
(2) Defernng any addItional community meetings (as suggested In the
staff report) until after the EIR has gathered the data essentlal for a
meaningful analysIs of the consequence of alternatIve mitigatIon
measures (there have been ample opportunities for public Input over
the past several years), and
(3) The City not proceeding with the non-controversial traffic mitigatiOn
measures until all traffic counts are completed (to do otherwise would
distort the traffiC counts from current conditions and make
restrictive measures more difficult to construct)
I endorse a full public hearing and debate on alternative protection plans after the E/R
has been completed. It IS only at that time that the City will be able to estimate the
consequences of alternative plans. thereby providing the reSidents with sufficient
InformatIon to make an informed deCISIon Armed wIth the data, the CIty should foster a
full public diSCUSSion of alternative plans, mcludmg plans not directly considered in the
EIR The plans currently under conSideration 10 the EIR are Important pomts of
reference, but none of us would assert that they are wIthout flaw or that they cannot be
Improved once the additIonal data IS available. Thus, I also recommend
( 4 ) A commitment by the City to reconSider all traffic protection plans
after the EIR IS complete, at which time a fmal chOice of how to
proceed would be made
The Interests of all parties would be well served by you accepting these
recommendations.
effort to recruit volunteers to perform traffic counts or other labor-intensive activities
which might reduce the City's cost of obtaming the EIR. But even If such measures
cannot be Implemented, we stili urge the City to pay the $150,000 cost. We have been
waiting for something to happen for over four years Trme IS wasting The next large
growth In traffrc IS commg sooner than we would like (and from the south) Further
delays Will only make obtaining a meaningful plan harder
The arguments of the opponents against gOing forth with the EIR are faulty r and in
some cases outnght dishonest
The assertion made by some that addItional public heanngs are needed
to develop addItional options for the EIR is nonsense' What purpose
Will these options serve? The time for new options is after the EIR IS
completed, when the City has the data needed to make Informed
Judgments about the Impact of vanous measures on traffic flows
Without the data, we are Just guessing about some of the Impacts
What IS absolutely clear IS that additional public heanngs Will not
produce significantly new ideas Four years of such heanngs, coupled
With hundreds of hours spent by vanous residents In Sunset Park, has
covered the field and then some
· SPAN has circulated a flier to some parts of Sunset Park with the
assertion that the current collection of plans Will cause some streets
to experience an increase In traffiC volume Speaking only for the
Enclave plan, I don't believe that thiS is true Nor do I believe that a
reasonable case can be made for such an assertion But even If I grant
that It may be true, additional publiC heanng wouldn't settle Its truth
Data Will. The EIR IS an essential step In uncovering such problems if
they eXist
I also understand that some reSidents from south of Santa Monica are
gomg to argue that diverSion of traffiC off the current 23rd street
route to the Santa Monica freeway would be an unacceptable hindrance
to reSidents In those areas I flatly reject such arguments as 111-
mformed In all likelihood the addltJonal driVing time of those uSing
23rd street to cut through to the freeway would be no more than one
mmute One Minute' Hardly a repugnant delay, and certainly not
enough to go to war over 2 And the dnve IS on Santa Monica streets,
and on an artenal, not a resldentlal street I also reject the notion
that there are legal reasons why thiS cannot be done
2 ThiS assertion IS so stark that It requires some Justification. First, assuming
that the north-bound traffIC on 23rd street IS diverted at Ocean Park Blvd toward the
east. the actually dnvlng distance to the freeway on-ramp on Centlnela IS actually less
than one mile longer than the distance to the freeway on 23rd street Furthermore, the
distance along the freeway from 23rd to Centmela is Itself approximately one mile,
making the actual mileage of the two routes approximately equal Assuming some light
synchrOnization along Ocean Park Blvd (planned), coupled With two left turn lanes at
Centlnela (already In eXistence), the total travel time should be about the same (the 4
synchronized lights along Ocean Park should approximately equal the 3 lights plus stop
sign along 23rd north of Ocean Park)
...
Finally, there are some who put forth the argument that the plans now
up for examination in the EIR were constructed by a bunch of radIcals
or, worse, self-serving residents of the most heavily impacted
streets. ThIs argument is as insulting as it IS untrue. As a reSIdent of
33rd street. a street that the City staff has characterized as one of the
quietest in the CIty (in this regard. they are a bit off base), I
personally have nothing to gain from the various mitigation measures
that I have helped craft both as a member of Friend's land use
committee and as a member of the Jomt Fnends-SPAN task force. Our
goal has always been to serve the Interests of all Sunset Park
residents. If the residents of 23rd street gain more than most. It is
only because they have suffered more than most. Some have put forth
the argument that those who support diverSion of traffic off 23rd
street are Just looking to Increase their property values--they
bought cheap and now are trying to "cash In". The falSIty of this
argument lies In the demographics The majonty of the residents of
23rd street have lived there for more than 10 years, during which
time the traffIC volume on 23rd has more than doubled Furthermore,
as a middle class street, conSIsting mostly of elderly residents trapped
In their homes by the non-stop traffiC and young parents With pre-
school or pre-teen children, It ments traffiC measures on safety
grounds alone
I am not unsympathetic about the City'S budget problems and the many pnontles
that ment support But we have been w8Itlng for at least 4 years for some action by the
City ThiS process will not Yield a comprehensive traffiC protection plan for at least one
more year, and probably even longer. We have been more than patient, watching year
after year the total volume of traffiC grow Please don't listen to those who suggest that
anythmg but the highest motives underlie those argUing for the City to proceed Without
additional delay Please don't permit the staff to add further roadblocks to getting the
EIR done Act In the Interest of all Sunset Park reSidents Lets get gomg
:z I
; <:::::;i
, -~ ~lo..uv
Dr Russell D. Shaver
2673 33rd Street
Santa MOnica, CA 90405