SR-9-B (33)PCD:PPA:SF:RF:PC
f:~ppd~share~ccreport\sptsoc
COUNCIL MEETING: November 22, ].994
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
aow 2 s ~
Santa Mor~ica, Ca~ifornia
SUBJ'ECT: Recommendation to Approve a Resolution Adopting a
Statement of Overriding Considerations and Appraving
Transpartation Control Measures for Sunset Park; Adopt a
Resolutian Adopting the Mitigation Manitoring Pragram;
and Apprapriate Funds far the Temporary Installatian of
the Transportatian Cantrol Measures.
INTRODUCTION
With this report, staff is recommendir~g the Co~ncil take the
fallowing actions with respect ta the Sunset Park Traffic Plan:
1) approve a resalution adop~ing a Statement af 4verriding
Consideratians and approving ~ransportation control measures for
Sunset Park; 2) adopt a resalution adopting the mitigatian
monitoring program; and 3) apprapriate funds for the temparary
installatian of traffi.c control measures on a six--month trial
period.
BACRGROUND
For several years, City staff has been warking with groups of
neighbors in Sunset Park ta develop and implement a neighbarhood
traffic plan within the area bounded by Pico Boulevard on the
north, the south city limit, Linco~n Baulevard on the west and
Centinela A~enue on the east. A neighbarhoad traffic plan is the
comprehensive and coordinated implementation of traff~c control
measures to address neighborhood traffic cancerns.
NQV ~ 9 '19~
~
An Environmenta~ Impact Report (EIR} was prepared to evaluate the
impacts from three different neighbarhood traffic plans. The three
plans consisted of two proposed by the neighborhood, the Enclave
and Parallel Plans, and one proposed by staff, the Staff Plan.
The Council reviewed the Plans presented ta them, and on October 5,
1994 approved a compromise plan for implementation on a six manth
trial periad (see Attachment A for a copy of the Plan).
The primary objec~ive af the traff~c cantrol plan is to mitigate
the volume of "through" traffic which is travellinq or "cutting"
through residential areas. The goa~ of moving "through" traffic
ou~. of residential areas is being addressed by installing traffic
control measures on the residential streets to discourage or divert
tra~fic out of the neighborhoods and improvi.ng the adjacent
arterial highway system ta facilitate traffic flow thereby reducing
the need to divert through a residential ar~a.
Traffic control measures included in the council approved plan
include the use df stop signs, signaz improvements, signal timing,
peak hour and 24 hour turn restrictians, and traffic circ~es. The
Council also directed staff to establish a speed hump program for
residential streets to ~equest speed humps, similar to the
preferentia~ parking program, remave the truck route designation on
28th Street, and rep~ace the stop signs on Airport Avenue with
signals.
2
In order far the Council to implement the approved plan for a six-
month trial periad, the Council must adopt a Stat~ment of
Overriding Cansiderations, a mitigation monitoring program, and
appropriate funds for the six month trial implementation.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CON3IDERATIONB
At the octaber 5, 1994 City Council meeting, the Council certified
the Final Enviranmental Impact Report {EIR} which analyzed various
alternative traffic control plans, including the Enclave, Parallel
and Staff Plans.
The implementatian of the transportation control measures approved
by Cauncil may result in significant environmental impacts based
upon the analysis in the EIR on the three plans. Therefore, it is
necessary for the Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding
Consideratians.
Even assuming a worst ease scenario, the impacts from the traffic
control ~neasures approved by the City Counci7. wil~ be iess than the
impacts from the Enclave Plan since the measures appraved by
Couneil use turn restrietions on some movements as opposed to fu11
barriers in the Enc~ave Plan. However, in order to account ~or any
potential impact fram the Counci~ approved traffic control
measures, the Statement of Overriding Considerations identifies the
following patential significant impacts after mitigation:
3
o Traffic and Circulation on Residential Streets, aileys
and at signalized intersections
o Air Quality impacts at two intersections
The attached resolutian adopts the Statement of O~erriding
Considerations, discusses the benefits and impacts of the Sunset
Park Traffic Plan, how the benefits autweigh thase impacts, and
formally adopts the measures approved by Council by resalution (see
Attachment A).
MIT~GATION MONITORTNG PROGRAM
The F~nal EIR identified numerous mitigation measures for traffic,
air quality~ public services, and police impacts. CEQA requires
that a mitigation monitoring pragram be established to ensura the
implem~ntation of these mztigation measures. The mitigation
measures for the Airport Avenue improvements were adopted as pa~t
of the Project by the Council, and are therefare not identified in
the mitigation monitoring program. The ~onitoring program includes
air quality construction-related mitigations and mitigatians
associated with the use of barriers or diverters to ensure
emergency vehicle access. See Attachment C for the mitigation
monitoring program.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
After adoption of the Statement of Overriding Cansiderations, staff
can begin trial implementation of the traffic control measures.
Before implementatian, every resident and business awner in Sunset
4
Park will be mailed a copy of the approved measures. A~so, traffic
counts will be conducted on e~ery residantial street before
implementatian begins.
Due to the size of the project area, implementation of the measures
approved by the Council would be phased in over a twa month periad.
Stop signs and same peak hour turn restrictions would be incZuded
in the first phase, while the turn restriction on Ocean Park, Pico,
and Lincaln Boulevards would be inc~uded in the second phase. The
third phase will include the turn restrictions on Pearl at
Centinela and 20th Street. The six month trial period would begin
after all the measures were impl~emented.
A few measures would not be included in the six month trial period.
These include the dual left turn lanes on Ocean Park Boulevard at
Centinela, the left turn lane into Clover Park fro~n Ocean Park
Boul~vard, the Lincoln/Ashland mitigations, and the signals on
Airport Avenue. The Lincoln/Ashland mitigation measures have been
shown on the approved traffic plan, but are actually condi.tions of
the Lincoln/Ashland project. They will be imp~emented when the
proj~ct is completed. The remaining measures are significant
constructian prajects that will be implemented in a timely manner,
but separate from the phas~d ~mple7nentation plan.
After all the measures have been implemented for approximately two
to three manths, traffic counts will be conducted to assess the
5
change in the valume of traff~c. Criteria wil~ be established for
monitoring any patential shift in traffic which will be presented
ta the Counciz in an informa~ion item.
During implementation, Staff will respond ta any immediate problems
by making m~nor adjustments to the Plan before returning to the
City Council. This wil~ prevent unacceptable impacts to
residential streets from lasting for the entire six month trial
periad.
After appraximately four months, staff will meet with neighborhood
representati~es to determine if there is consensus on a final p~an.
If there is no cansensus, staff wiil return to the Council with a
recommendation on a final Plan.
FINE TUNING PROCESS
After Council action on Octobex 5, 1994, City staff inet with
numerous groups ta discuss issues that may have ]aeen inadvertently
missed during the Cduncil hearing. City staf#', a~ong with
representatives of the two neighborhood organizations, met with
representatives of 16th Stre~t, 28th Street, Pearl Street, and the
eastern part of the neighborhood (east of 28th Street).
Discussions werE also held with business otaners an Picn Boulevard,
and the President of the Grant Schooi PTA.
6
Based upon issues raised during these discussions, staff has made
minor modifications which are detailed in Attachment C. These
changes are reflected in the map provided with this staff report.
A~though th~re appeared to be consensus between the two Sunset Park
neighborhoad organizations on October 5, 1994, Sunset Park
Associated Neighbars (SPAN) Baard of Direct~rs voted unanimously on
November 14, 1994 to not support the p~an as appraved by the
Council. (See Attachment D). The SPAN Board recammends proceeding
with stop signs and same peak hour turn restrictions for a six
month trial periad, and then analyzing whether any additional
measur~s are necessary after public input is conducted and
consensus a~hieved.
Sinc~ there is na longer consensus among the two neighbarhood
groups for the measures approved by the Council on october 5, 1994,
the Council may consider the following options:
1} Continue with the implementation of the measures approved
by Cauncii an Octaber 5, 1994 on a six month trial
period, with the minar modifications propased by staff.
2) Implement the Council approved plan in phases. After
each phase staff would evaluate the effecti~eness of the
measures and at the end of full implementatian, staff
would return to tha Cauncil with a recommendation on
which measures should remain on a permanent basis.
3) Direct staff to prepar~ a less restrictive plan from that
approved on October 5, 1994 and return to the City
Council with budget authflrization, an implementation
schedule, and a stat~ment of o~erriding considerations.
7
BIIDGET/FINANCIAL iMPAGT
The cost for implementing the measures appraved by Council on a
trial basis is $95,000. As mentioned earlier, this does not
include large capital proj~cts, like the traffic signals on Airport
Avenue. Thase projects will be pursued separate~y frQm the six
month trial period.
Staff has analyzed existing funding opportunities for the
implementation of the Plan and has not identified any existing
sources. Therefore, staff recammends that the City Council
appropriate funds in the following manner:
o Appropriate $95,000 in general fund dollars to be repaid
with eventual Playa Vista mitigatian funds. The Playa
Vista Phase I development agreement between the City and
Maguire Thomas Partners provides for $1,500,000 to
mitigate potential traffic impacts on Santa Monica
generated by the first phase of the develvpm~nt. One-
half of that sum will be paid to the City at the time of
recordation of a construction laan for any second
subphase af the First Phase development. The balance
will be paid to the eity at the recozdation of a
canstruction loan for any fifth subphase of the First
Phase development. R~presentatives with Maguire Thomas
Partners state that recordation of a canstruction loan
for a second subphase will nat occur until early ].997 at
best.
Funds shauld be appropriated to account # 01-770-415-20095-890a-
99720.
8
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council: 1} apprave a resolutian
adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and appraving
transportation contral measures for Sunset Park; 2) approve a
resolution adapting the m~tigation monitoring program; and 3)
apprapriate funds in the a~nount of $95,000 for the temporary
insta~lation af transportation control measures on a six-month
tria~ period to account # 01-770-415-20095-890D-99720.
Prepared By: Suzanne Frick, Director
Ron Fuchiwaki, Parking and Traffic Engineer
Paul Casey, Acting Senior Planner
Planning and Community Development Department
Policy and Planning Analysis Division
Attachments: A) Resolution adopting a statement of
overriding considerations and approving
transportation control measures for
Sunset Park {including Map af ineasures
approved by Cauncil an October 5, 1994}
B} Minor Modifications to the Sunset Park
Traffic Plan
C) Resolution Adopting Mitigation Monitorinq
Program
D) Sunset Park Associated Neighbors Letter
Dated November Z5, 1994
9
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NUMBER
(City CQUneil Series)
A RESOLIITION OF THE CITY CDUNCIL
OF THE CYTY OF SANTA MONICA APPROVING THE
IMFLEMENTATION OF TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASiTREB
FOR SIINSET PARR AND MAKING FINDINGS
NECES3ARY TO APPROVE THE PROJECT
AND AD4PTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATI~NS
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report was issued in October, 1992; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion af a Draft En~ironmental
Impact R~port was published in May, 1994; and
WHEREAS, the Draft ~nvironmental Impact Report was
circulated fvr a 45 day period; and
WHEREAS, in September 199~, the Final Enviranmental
Impact Report was published; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report and all notices
were prepared in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), and the City of Santa Monica CEQA guidelines;
and
WHEREAS, the Praject with the use of turn restrictions
and signage and without barriers as praposed in the Encla~e Plan
1
substantially reduces the impacts on the environment identified
with the Enclave Plan while accomplishing the City~s goals and
ob~ectives for the Sunset Park neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the City Cvuncil has reviewed and considered the
contents a~ the Final EIR in its decision-making process;
WHEREAS, the City Council certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report on Qctober 5, 1994;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE C~TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council approves the
implementation of transp~rtation contro~ measures for the Sunset
Park neighborhood (the "Project~~) as pr~sented on Octaber 5, 1994
to the City Council, with minar modifications as recommended by
City staff, and subject to the mitigation measures identified in
Section 3 of this Resalutian, Attachment A includes a map of the
Project. The Project uses turn restrictians, stop signs, signal
synchranization, and other traffic contral devices to reduce the
amount of cut through traffic on residential streets and redirects
it to arterial stree~s.
2
SECTION 2. Consistent with Sect~on 15093 of CEQA, the
City Council finds that the benefits of thE project outweigh the
una~oidable ad~erse environmental effects for the following
reasons:
(1) The City Council finds that, in respanse to concerns
over the Enclave Pian's potential en~ironmental impacts as analyzed
in the Final EIR, the City has approved the Project that uses turn
restrictions on some traffic movements without the use df full
barriers. This change away from the ~se of full barriers reduces
the environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR for the
Enclave Plan by allowing more internal circulation through the
neighborhood and less diversion of traffic. Turn restrictions will
have less impact on residential streets and signalized
intersections by diverting less traffic.
(2) The City Council finds that the Project is consistent
with the City's General Plan and Land Use and Circulation Element
(LUCE) in imp~ementing Policy 4.2.2 of the LUCE which statQS that
thraugh vehicular traffic shall be reduced and diverted from
residential streets by implementation af a neighborhood traffic
control program.
(3) The City Council finds that there is no other
feasible, reasonable and available alternative to the Project to
implement the policy of the LUCE and that there are no further
3
mitigation measures ta this project that wauld significantly and
substantially r~duce the impact on the environment while
accomplishing the City's goals and objectives for reducing thraugh
traffic an residential streets.
(4) The City Council finds that the Project is
consistent with the goa~s of improving the quality af life far
residents by reducing the amaunt af through traffic on residential
streets by redirecting the tra~fic onto the main arterials.
{5) The C~ty Council finds the impacts to the City of
Las Angeles have been reduced with this Praject by reducing the
restrictians included in the Enclave Plan by remov~ng the us~ of
full barriers and using turn restrictions on certain movements
instead.
( 6) The City Council f inds that the Pro j ect protects the
residential character af the sunset Park neighborhood by improving
the main arterials through extensive signal improveznents and
reda.recting traffic to the arterials and away from residential
streets.
(7j The City Council finds that the Project improves the
air quality on residentia7. streets by redirecting through traffic
onto the main arterials.
4
{8) The City Council finds that the Project reduces
noise pollution on residential streets by redirecting through
tra~fic onto the ~ain arterials.
SECTION 3. Consistent with Article VI, Sections 12 and
13 of the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines and Sectians 15091
and 15093 of the State of California CEQA Guidelines, the City
Council makes the following findings:
(a) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
Enclave Plan cauld result in significant adverse impacts on Airport
Avenue by diverting traffic to and £rom Airpart Avenue between
Walgrove Avenue ~nd Centinela Avenue (Final EIR, Section 4.1).
However, stop signs at wal.grove Avenue and Airport Avenue, along
with replacing stop signs along Airport Avenue with traffic
signals, were adopted by the City Council as part of the Project,
thereby avoiding the significant impact identified in the Final
EIR.
(b} The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
Enclave Plan cauld result in significant ad~erse impacts on short-
term construction related air quality fro~- construction activiti~s
that involve installatian of barriers and diverters (Final EIR,
Section 4.2-1). The City Council finds that changes have been
incorporated into the Project which will avoid or substantiaily
5
lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified
with respect to short-term construction related air quality:
(1) The City wi1Z utili2e standard dust contr~l measures
and good hausekeQping practices to minimize dirt spillage onto
rQadways during constructian activities.
These measures, as well as approval of the Project which uses less
restrictive turn restrictions as opposed to barriers analyzed in
the Enclave Plan, will mitigate or avoid the potential for
significant adverse impacts on short-term construction related air
quality and thus mitigate or avoid the significant environmental
effects identified in the Fina~ EIR, Section 4.2-1.
(c) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
Enclave Plan could resu~t in significant adverse impacts an short-
term construction related evaparation of volatile organic compounds
{VOC} used as paint salvents ar driers in the restriping of travel
Ianes (Fina1 EIR, Section 4.2-2}. The City Council finds that
changes have been incorporated into the Project which will avvid or
substantially lessen the potential significant environmental
effects identified with respect ta short-term construction related
evaparation af VOC:
6
(~) The City will use paints for restriping streets that
compiy with the S~uth Coast Air Quality Management District's
standards for VoC control.
These measures will mitigate or avaid the potential for
significant ad~erse impacts on short-term construction ~-elated
evaporation of VOC and thus mitigate ar avoid the significant
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, Section 4.2-2.
(d) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
Enc].ave Plan could result in significan~ adverse impacts on
emergency vehicle access due to the use of diverters or barriers
requiring emergency vehicles to use less direct routes in
responding to fira or medical calls in the projeet area (Final E~R,
Section 4.4-~). The City Council finds that changes have been
incorparated inta the Project which will avaid or substantially
lessen the potential significant environmental effects identified
with respect to emergency ~ehicle response times:
{1) The City will incorporate breakaway posts in the
middle of di~erters or barriers to allow for emergency vehicle
access.
These measures, as well as approval of the Project wh~ch uses less
restrictive turn restrictions as opposed to barriers analyzed in
the Enclave Plan, will mitigate or a~aid the patential far
7
signi£~cant adverse impacts on emergency vehicle response times in
responding to fire or medical calls in the project area and thus
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects ident~fied
in the Final EIR, Section 4.4-1.
(e) The Final EIR determined that withaut mitigation the
Enclave Plan could result in significant ad~erse impacts on
response times for fire services and responses to emergency calls
due to the incorporatian af speed humps, traffic circles and
chokers(Final EIR, Section 4.4-2). The Cxty Council finds that
changes have been incorporated into the Project which will avoid or
substantialiy lessen the patential significant environmental
effects identified with respect to respanse times for fire
services:
(1) The City of Santa Manica will implement such speed
hump and/ar traffic circie designs as may be capable of reducing
negative effects to fire ~ehicle responses. Such designs may
include speed humps created at reduced heights with painted lines
that cause a visual impression of increas~d height and spe~d, but
do not create a physical need to reduce speed excessively, or
traffic circles constructed with low curb areas to allow fire
vehi.cles ta drive vver the peri.meter af the device in an emergency.
These measures will mitigate ar avoid the potentia~ for significant
adverse impacts on response times for fire services and thus
8
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified
in the Final EIR, Sectian 4.4-2.
(f ) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
Enclave Plan could result in significant adverse impacts on police
vehicle access due to the use of diverters or barriers requiring
police vehicles to use less direct routes in responding to
emergency calls in the project area (Final EIR, Section 4.4-3).
The City Council finds that changes ha~e been incorporated into the
Project which wi11 avoid or substantially lessen the potential
significant environmental effects identified with respect to palice
vehicle respanse times:
(1) The City will incorporate breakaway posts in the
middle of diverters or barriers to allow for palice vehicle access.
ThESe measures, as well as approval af the Project which uses less
restrictive turn restrictions as opposed to barriers analyzed in
the Enclave Plan~ will mitigate or avoid the potential for
significant adverse impacts on police vehicle response times in
responding to fir~ ar medical ca11s in the project area and thus
mitigate or av~id the significant Environmental effects identified
in th~ FinaZ EIR, Section 4.4-3.
(g) The Final E~R determined that without mitigation the
Enclave Plan could result in significant adverse impacts on
9
response times for police vehicles and personnel in the area due to
the incorparatian of speed humps, traffic circles and chokers(Final
EIR, Section 4.4-4} . The City Council finds that changes have been
incarparated into the Project which will avoid or substantially
iessen the potential significant environmen~al effects identified
with respECt to r~spanse times for palice services.
{1) The City of Santa Manica will implement such speed
hump and/or traffic circ~e designs as may be capable of reducing
negativa effects to poiice vehicle responses. Such designs may
include speed humps ereated at reduced heights with painted lines
that cause a visual impression of increased height and speed, but
da nat create a physical need to reduce speed excessively, or
traffic circles cons~ructed with low curb areas to allow police
vehicles to drive over the perimeter of the device in an emergency.
These measures will mitigate or avoid the patential for significant
adverse impacts an response times for police services and thus
mitigate ar avoid the significant environmenta]. effects identified
in the Final EIR, Sec~.ion 4.4-4.
{h) The Final EIR determined that without miti.gation the
Enclave P~an couZd result in significant adverse impacts on sa~id
waste collection routes due to the use of diverters vr barriers
requiring the co~lections routes to be modified in the project area
(Final EIR, Section 4.4-6). The City Council finds that changes
10
have been incorporated into the Project which wi~l avaid or
substantiall~ lessen the pat~ntial sign~ficant environmental
effects identified with respect to soiid waste collection routes:
(1) Priar to imp~ementation, the responsible City
division shall notify the Santa Monica Environmental and Public
Works Department (formerly the General S~rvices Depart~ent) af the
proposed improvem~nts so that salid waste collectian routes in the
area may be modified accordingiy.
These measurES, as well as approval of the Project which uses less
restrictive turn restrictions as opposed ta barriers analyzed in
the Enclave Plan, will mitigate or avoid the potential for
significant adverse impacts an solid waste collection rautes and
thus mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects
identified in the Final EIR, Sectian 4.4-6.
(i) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation
the Enclave Plan could result in significant adverse impacts on
response times for emergency vehicles and personnel in the
neighborhood due to the forc~d turn diverters, speed humps,
barriers, traffic circles and road closures(Final EIR, 5ection ~.5-
2j. The City Councii finds that changes have been incorporated
inta the Project which will avoid ar substantially ~essen the
potential significant environmental effects identified with
respect to emergency vehicle response times:
11
(1) The City of Santa Monica wiZZ impZement such speed
hump and/ar traffic circle designs as may be capable of reducing
negative effects to respanse times for emergency vehicles and
personnel in the neighborhood. Such designs may include speed
humps created at reduced hEights with painted lines that cause a
visual impressian of increased height and speed, but do not create
a physical naed to reduce speed excessively, or traffic circles
constructed with low curb areas to allow emergency v~hicles to
drive over the perimeter of the device in an emergency.
(2) The City will incorporate breakaway posts in the
middle af the diverters or barriers to allow for emergency vehic~e
and personnel access.
These measures, as we11 as approval of the Project which uses ~Q55
restrictive turn restrictions as opposed to barriers analyaed in
th~ Enclave Plan, wi11 mitigatE or avoid the potential for
significant adverse impacts fln respons~ times far emergency
services and thus mitigate or avoid the significant environmenta~
effects identified in the Final EIR, Section 4.5-2.
SECTION 4. The Final EYR found that implementation of
the Enclave Plan, without peak haur parking restrictions on Lincaln
Boulevard, could result in a significant impact on cumulative peak
hour aperating conditions at the following 19 signaliaed
~ntersections:
12
o Lincoln Boulevard/Pico Boulevard (both peak hours)
o Lincoln Boulevard/Marine Avenue (AM peak hours)
o Lincoln Boulevard/ocean Park Bou~evard (AM peak hours}
o Lincnln Soulevard/Venice Boulevard (PM peak hours}
0 14th Street/Ocean Park Boulevard (PM peak hours)
0 18th St. Al1ey/Pico Bou~evard (PM peak hours}
0 20th Street/Pico Bou~evard (PM Peak hours)
0 21st Street/ocean Park Boulevard (PM Peak hours)
o Cloverfield Boulevard/I-10 Eastbaund on-ramp (PM peak hour)
0 28th Street/Oeean Park Bou~evard (both peak hours)
a 33rd Street/Pico Bou~evard (PM Peak hours}
0 34th Street/Pico Baule~ard (PM Peak hours)
o Bundy Drive/Pearl Street (PM peak hours)
o Bundy Drive/Ocean Park Boulevard {AM peak hours)
o Bundy Drive/National Boulevard (PM peak hours)
o Centinela Avenue/Airport Avenue (AM peak hours)
o Centinela Avenue/Venice Boulevard {PM peak hvurs)
o Centinela Avenue/Pico Boulevard (AM p~ak hours)
o Centinela A~enue/Y-10 Westbound Ramps (bath peak h~urs)
Mitigation measures identified for signalized intersections in the
Final EIR are found to be inconsistent and infeasible with the
goals and objectives of the Project. The mitigation m~asures
identified include turn pockets trom arterial streets onta
resid~ntial streets. 5uch measures would encourage use of the
residential streets and go against the goals of the project of
redirecting through traffic aff of residential streets and on to
arterials. No additional mitigation measures were identified in
the Final EIR which would lessen ar substantially avoid these
signif icant ef fects .
The Council finds that approval of the Project, which is Zess
restrictive ~han the Enclave Plan as specified above, will reduce
the potential impact an traffic circulation at signa~ized
intersections identified in th~ Final EIR. Ther~fore, the City
13
Council finds that the potential impacts on traffic and circuiation
at signalized intersecti~ns is acceptable.
Consistent with Article VI, Section 13 of the City CEQA Guidelines
Section 15093 af the State of Cala.~arnia CEQA Guide~ines, the City
Council hereby makes a Statement af Overriding Cansiderations and
finds that the b~nefits af the Project autweigh its unavoidable
environmental risks based on the findings in Sectian 2, and that
the unavoidable impacts are therefare acceptable.
SECTION 5. The Final EIR determined that without
mitigatian the Enclave Plan, without peak haur turning restrictions
an Lincoln Soulevard, could result in significant adverse impacts
on 19 resid~ntial street segments, inciuding:
South of Pico:
20th Street
26th Street
27th Street
29th Street
30th Street
32nd Street
North af Ocean Park:
Euclid Street
~Sth Street
21st Street
2 2 nd Stree't
24th Street
28th Street
30th Street
32nd Street
South of Ocean Park:
Euclid
~4th Street
East of Lincoln:
Ashland Avenue
Pier Avenue
Marine Street
Nv mi.tigation measures wexe identified in the Final EIR which would
lessen or substantially avoid the significant effects on
14
residential streets. However, the Final EIR determined that there
would be s~bstantialiy more beneficial impac~s to residential
streets through adoption of the Enclave Plan by moving traffic away
from residential streets and anto the arterials and that the
significant impact to resid~ntial streets overall would be less
than the na project alternative.
The Council finds that approval af the Project, which is less
restrictive than th~ Enclave Plan as specified abave, will reduce
the potential impact an traffic circulatian on residential streets
as identified in the Final EIR. Therefare, the City Council finds
that the potential impacts on traffic and circulation ~n
residential streets is acceptable.
Consistent wi~h Article VI, Section 13 af the City CEQA Guidelines
and 5ection 15091 and Section 15093 af the State of California CEQA
Guidelines, the City Cauncil ~ereby makes a Statement of Overr~d~ng
Considerations and finds that the benefits of the Project outweigh
its unavoidable environmental risks based on the finding in Section
2, and that the unavoidable impacts are therefore acceptable.
SECTION 6. The Final EIR determined that without
mitigation the Enclave Plan cau~d result in significant adverse
impacts on alleys with imp~ementation of the proposed traffic
cantra~ measures.
15
No mitigation measures were identifi~d in the Final ESR which would
lessen or substantially avoid the significant effects on aZleys.
The Cauncil finds that approval of the Project, which is less
restrictive than the Enclave Plan as specified above, will reduce
the potential impact on alleys identified in the Final EIR.
Therefore, the City Council finds that the potential impacts on
alleys is acceptable.
Consistent with Article VI, Section 13 of the City CEQA Guidelines
and Section 15091 and Section 15093 of the State of California CEQA
Guidelines, the City Council hereby makes a Statement of Overriding
Cansiderations and finds that the benefits of the Project outweiqh
its unavoidab~e environmental risks based on the finding in Sectian
2, and that the unavaidable impacts are therefare acceptable.
SECTION 7, The Final EIR determined that without
mitigation the Enclave Plan, without peak hour turning restrictions
on Lincoln Boulevard, could result in significant adverse impacts
on Air Quality through Carbon Monaxide Standards violations (CO hot
spats) at the intersections of Claverfield and the X-10 Westbound
ramps and at Clonerfie~d and Michigan.
No mitigation measures were identified in the Final EIR which wouZd
lessen or substantially avoid the significant effects on air
quality.
16
The Council finds that approval of ths Praject, which is less
restrictive than the Enclave Plan as specified above, will reduce
the potential impact an air quality identified ~n the Final EIR.
ThereFore, the City Council finds that the potentia~ impacts on air
qua~ity is acceptable.
Consistent with Article V2, Section 13 af the City CEQA Guidelines
and Section 1~Q9~ and Section Z5093 of the State of California CEQA
Guidelines, the City Cauncil hereby makes a Statement of Overriding
Considerations and finds that the benefits of the Project outweigh
its unavoidable environmental risks based on the ~inding in Section
2, and that the unavoidable impacts are therefore acceptable.
SECTTON 8. In the event any af the advers~
enviranmental effects identified in the Fina~ EIR are not
considered substantially mitigated within the meaning of Article
VI, Section 13 of the City CEQA guidelines, the City Council finds
that the benefits of the prQject outweigh its unavoidable
en~ironmental significant risks for the reasons stated in Section
2 above, and that the unavoidabl~ impacts are therefore acceptable.
17
SECTION 9. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sectian
21081.6, the mitigation measures required by this Resolution shall
be ~onitored by the City ta ensure their comp~iance during praject
implementation in accordance with the requirements of the EIR's
mitigation monxtoring program,
SECTION 10. The City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this ResoZutian, and thenceforth and thereafter the
same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TD
~ ,-
~ -
~ ~ ,
° ~~~ ~ L~_X
e La~rerice
' ssistant City
~
FORM:
;
~-~~~ ,
3,_ ~ . r i,
Attorney
f:\ppd~share~reso\SPSOC
~8
ATTACHMENT A
MAP ~F THE TRANSPORTATION CONTRdL MEASURES
APPRQVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR SUNSET PARI~
ATTACHMENT B
CHANGES TO THE TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES APPROVED BY
COUNCIL AT THE OCT~BER 5, 1994 COIINCIL MEETING
23rd STREET
o Stop signs on 23rd Street at Hill, Pier and Airport (remove
stop sign at Ashland).
o Break in the 23rd Street median at Marine and Navy with peak
haur turning restrictions, but maintain full median at
Dewey.
Marine
o Stop signs on Marine a~ Prospect and Linda.
Pico Businesses
o cul de sac of 22nd street just south of the alley at Pico.
Remove all turn restrictions at Pico and 22nd Street to
allow access to alley for businesses.
28th Street
o Improvements to ~nforce the no through traffic at 28th
street narth at ocean Park Boulevard -- could include
overhead sign or green arrows.
o Establish speed limit signs on 28th Street
o Allow U-turns from eastbound Ocean Park at 28th Street
during all hours if feasible.
16th Street
o Additional stop sign on 16th Street at Dak
o Speed hump program will be established by the City
o Median strip on 16th Street fram Pico to Pacific
Grant School
o Remove turn restrictions at 24th and Ocean Park Boulevard
o Right turn only lane on LincoZn Boulevard northbound to
Ocean Park eastbound
Misc.
o Remove turn restrictions fram westbound ~cean Park ta
northbound 21st and 22nd Streets.
0
Stop signs a
- an
- on
- on
- on
- on
t the following locations:
Clover at Pier
Pier at Clover
Dewey at 21st
21st at Fier
Ashland at Euclid
ATTACHMENT C
RES4LUTION NO.
(City eouncil Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COIINCIL
OF THE CrTY OF SANTA MONICA
ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR THE SUNSET PARK TRAFFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report for the Sunset Park Traffic Plan was issu~d in
october, 1992; and
WHEREAS, a Notice af Completion af a Draft Environmental
Impact Report was published in May, 1994 ;and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environ~iental Impact Report was
circulated ~or a 45 day period; and
WHEREAS, in September, 1994, the Final Environmental
Impact Report was published; and
WHEREAS, on Octaber 5, ~994 the City Counci~ certified
the Final Environmentai Impact Report and conceptually appr~ved a
Sunset Park Traffic Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Cauncil faund the Final
Environmenta~ Impact Report adequately discussed all significant
enviranmental issues and certified that the final EIR was
1
prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State EIR Guidelines and
the City of Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines, and that the City
Council has re~iewed and considered the contents of the Final EIR
in its decision-making process.
WHEREAS, Sectian 21081.6 of the Califarnia Environmental
Quality Act requires that a mitigation monitoring program be
adopted by the City to ensure that mitigation measures intended to
reduce or avaid the project's ad~~rse environmental impacts are
implemented;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COLTNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Pursuant ta Section 21d81.b of the California
Environmental Quality Act the City Council does hereby adopt the
Mitigation Monitaring Program ~or the Sunset Park Traffic Plan as
set forth in Exhibit A attached to this Resolution.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify ta the adoption of
this Resalution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be
in full farce and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
,
f ; -
~ ~ ~~ ri` r + .1 iY~ ~
a_ • :
,~~ oe ~awrence
Assistant City Attorney
2
EXHIBIT A
MITIGATION MON~TORING PROGRAM FOR THE
SUNSET PARK TRAFFIC PLAN
h~TIGATION MOlVITORING PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
3ecnon 21081.G of the Califorrua Env~ronmental Quality Act (CEQA}, requires that a mitigation
monitoring program be adopted by the lead agency to ensure that mitigahan measures intended
ta reduce or a~oid a project's adverse environmentai impacts are implemented. This report
contains the mit~gat~on momtonng program for the Sunset Park Neighbarhood Traffic Plan.
Mitigation measures are grauped by ~mpact categories (e.g., traffic, a~r quahty, etc.}, followed
by the ident~fication vf the party responsible for implementation, the phase of the pro~ect during
which the measure should be monitored, the enfarcement agency, and monitoring agency.
The City of Santa Mamca will be the momtonng agency for the Suriset Park Neighborhood
Traffic Plan mittgation momtoring program. The City wil~ serve as the clearinghouse for the
pragraan, ensunng that the vanous mitigation measures are camed out by the responsible paattes
and enfarcement agencies. The City w~ll che~k for compliance of the mitagation measures
during the constructio~ of the Sunset Park Traffic Plan ta ensure implernentation of the ident~fied
mit~gat~on measues. If the measures have not been implemented, the City will take all
appropriate steps to implement the mitagat~on measures hefore completion of the consturction
phase.
ALL MITIGATIQN MEASURES WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED YN CQNJUNCTION WITH
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRAFFIC PLAN.
AIIt OUALITY
4.2-1 Canstruct~on acnvities will ut~lize standard dust control measures aryd goad housekeepXng
prachces to minimfze ~irt spillage onto roadways.
Responsible for T~nplementatian: Canstruction Contractar
Monitoring Phase: Post-Construction
Enforcement Agency: The City of Santa Monica
Manitoring Agency: Parlung and Traffic Division
4.2-2 Paints used far restriping streets shall comply with the South Coast Au Quality
Managemen~ Distnct's standards for VOC content.
Responsible for Implementation:
Monitoring Phase:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construct~on Contractor
Post-Construct~an
The City af Santa Momca
Parlang and Traffic Division
P`LTBLIC SERVICES
4.4-1 Breakaway posts in the middle of the diverters or bamers shall be incorporatetl into the
diverters or barriers to allow for emergency ~ehicle access.
Responsible for Implementation:
Monitori~ng Phase:
Enforcement. Agency:
Monitoring Agen~y:
Construct~an Contractor
Construct~on
The Crty of Santa Monica
Parking and Traffic Divisian
4.4-2 Implement such speed hump andlor traffic circle desi~ns as may be capable of reducing
negat~ve effects to emergency vehicle responses. Such designs may include speed humps
created at reduced heights wfth painted l~nes that cause a visual impression of increased
height and speed, but do not create a physical need to reduce speed excessively, or traffc
circles constructed with low c~rb areas ta a~low emergency ~ehicles to dri~e over the
penmeter of the device in an emergency
Responsible for Implementatian:
Monitoring Phase:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction Contractor
Canstructian
The City of Santa Monica
Parlang and Traffic Division
FOLiCE
4.4-3 Breakaway posts in the middle of the diverters or bamers shall be incorporated inta the
drverters ar barners to allow for pol~ce ~ehicle access.
Responsibie far ImpZementatian: Canstructian Contractor
Monitoring Phase: Constructian
Enfarcement Agency: The City of Santa Momca
Monitoring Agency: Parlnng and Traffic Div~sion
2
4.4-4 Implement such speed hump and/or traffic circle designs as may be capable of reducing
negative effects to emergency vehicle responses. Such designs may include speed humps
created at reduced heights with painted lines that cause a visual impression vf increased
height and speed, but do nat create a physical ne.ed to reduce speed excessi~ely, or traffic
circ~es constr~ctecl with law curb areas ta allow emergency vehicles to dnve o~er the
penmeter af the device in an emergency.
Responsible for Implementation:
Manitoring Phase:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction Cantractor
Con struction
The Crty of Santa Monica
Parking and Traffic Division
4.4-6 Pnor to implementation, the responsible City division shall not~fy the Santa Monica
General Serv;ces Department af the proposed irnprovements so that solid waste collection
routes in the area may be modified accordingly.
Responsible for Implementation:
Manitoring Phase:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Paz~ng and Traffic Divisior~
Pnor to Implementarion
The City of Santa Momca
Parking and Traffic Division
NEIGHBORH04D EFFECTS
4.5-2 Breakaway posts in the middle of the diverters or bamers shall be incorporated into the
di~erters ar barriers to allow for police veh~cle access Implement such speed hump
andlar traffic circle designs as may be capable of reducing negata~e effe~ts to emergeney
veh~cle responses. Such designs may include speed humps created at reduced he~ghts
with painted lines that cause a visual impression of increased height and speed, but do
not create a physical ne~d to reduce speed excessively, or traffic circles constructed with
low curb azeas to allow emergency vehicles to drive o~er the perimeter of the device in
an emergency
Responsible far Implementation:
Monitoring Phase:
Enforcement Agency:
Moaitoring Agency:
Construct~on Contractor
Construction
The City of Santa Monica
Parlcing and Traffic Division
f:lppolsharelppddacslspmmp
3
ATTACHMENT D
• ..... . ~ ~,,, ,~~'-~'~,= m-~--~• : -
k ~
i .-•~'i~~t_=-S:'s~''Y=~~j~ f"~- _ :'iY ~ -_ . .'r^j-~ly~ z" ~~
[ _ .~ . : ~ ~ _ _ A.: Lt'
h
ri~ CO~Oi;ii:0 ri1:Il:__. ~.iJ ~ IC~)~ L"1=~r1 ~iG~11C?.f C,~
i(i--'_!i •~~L'f:ill_~i ~7 ~i_t°?i']~_'~]W1?C7'J
November 15, 1994
Suzanne ~rECk
Di~ector of Planning and Commun~ty De~elopment
Gity of Santa MonECa
~ 685 Main Street, Room 214
Santa Mon~ca, CA 9Q~01
Re Sunset Park Traffic Mitigat~an Plan
Dear Suzanne
Th~s letter ~s to respand to your req~ests macfe at our evening meetir~~ or~ Nov~mber
'10, 199~, w~th regard to our boa~~ d~cfs~ar~ con~e~ ning sup~ort of t~~ phase~ tAst
approach af thQ Su~s~t Park Tra~f~c M~tigat3on Plan, its con#ent, timmg ~nd SPA~;'s
role in the forthcaming process
After lengthy discussions, addit~onal ne~ghborhood input, analysis ar~d r~view of
the cu~ r~nt sta#us of the aboue, #he follaw~ng cflnclusions ha~e been r~dche~
I) TF~e Plan The plan fs current~y unacceptable as drawn rn that 24 hour devices were
not ag:~eed to by either our executrve comm=ttee ~ror our Board of Directors At th~
~ctober Stf~ Cauncal meQtir~g, Co~ncii gave appravai bas~d upon our agreement to a
"conceptual" consensus Due ta the ~nab~li#y to s~ek #uii SPAN Board dpprova!
bec~use o~ th~ tim~r~g of the unve~i~ng of th~t p~an, lack of a wr~tten d~scr~ptior~, and last
minute changes, SPAN was able to g~ve only cor~ceptua! ap~ro~al to the plan
presen#ed at the ~ctober 5th Council meeting 1n our exc~tement to successfuEly
concfude a lang and arduous process, we agreed to a conceptua! plan and pracess for
r~finement that we thcught we heard descnbed to the pualic by staff and the C~ty
Counc~! When, nearly two r~veeks a#~er the vote, we ~eceE~ed our staf# prepared "chec~C
print" cantaining all of the de#a~~s. we immediately noted the numerous 24 hour
restrictions and ~egan to assess t~eir impact on ou~' neighborhood
We infarmed representati~es of the Council, s#aff and F~SP of aur disagreement w~th
24 hour restrictions at our farst oppart~nity to review #he ent~re plan ~r~ p~~nt We wpre
ft~en ~n~ormed that the ~~an befor~ us was what the Council f~ad agreed to and items
cau~d o~fy be changed by consensus We were eve~ informed that peak ho~r versus
24 ho~r restnctions were "not on fhe tabie for d~scussion" Up to that point we were
unaware that tY~e pfan contained features that were off limits Hacf w~ knaw~, we woufd
nat have bee~ able to support the ~lan prese~ted an #he evenmg of Qctaber 5th
Il) Phasinc~ Last n~g~t, our Baard v~ted to support the concept of the ~hased test
approact~ In add~t~on hawever, the Board found that at fhis fime it could only suppo~t
~mplementat~on o~ a P~ase 1 Test PEa~ wh~ch is referred to as the Spinal Portaon~ or~e
which pursuas an approach of minimEZing devic~s and maxim~zing tr~:ffic reduct~ons or
to put Et another way, accomplish substantial reuuc#ions of cut-through traffic on
resjder~t~a[ streets w~th m~n~mal negativ~ effects upon th~ ne~ghbortiood Subs~quent
phases, if any, wou[d be the resu~t of evafuat~on and pu~lrc input process followmg the
first phase and fested/ ~mplernenteci anly with cansensus
The (Spinal} Pi~ase 1 Test Pla~ ~as been approved by our Board a~ foffo~vs
A Stop s~gns a# the following ~ocatrons o~ Pearl @~Qth, an 14th ~a Grant, on 14th
@ Cedar, on 17th @ Pme, on 16th @ Oak, on 16th @ H~~l, on Mar~ne @
Pros~ect, on 11^arrre at Lir,da, cn 'l8th C H,II, on D~;~~ey @ 18th, on 23rd @
Airpo~t, on Clov~r @ P~er, or~ P~er at Clo~,fer, a~ 25th @ Ashlan~, on Pearl ~ 26~h
B Peak hour (7 00 to 9 30am and 4 30 to 7 OOpm, P~~ond~y thru Fnday} #urn
r~str~cfinns at t~~~ fo(~cvri~g fo~afton~
1 23rd norti~baund iP~t ar~ci r~g`~t tums at Oak, H~~~, ks~lanci, Pier, h~arirl :& N~vy
2 Oak, H~11, Ashl~nd, P~e~, N^~nne and Navy east~~u~d rig!~t and ~~~estb~un~~
left tums at 23rd
3 Dewey eastbound nght turn at 23rd
4 LEncoln northbound rigY~t tum at Qzone
5 L~ncoln northbound nght turn at Manne
fi~rnco~r~ no~h~ound rtght tu~n a# P~er
7 Marine west~o~rr~d left tum at L~ncoin
8 Cen#inela southbound right and narthbound 1eft at Pearl (no pa~tial barrier)
9 Peari eastbour~d and westbound thraugh at Centinela (no par~~ai barrier)
C Tra~c signal impravements and sync~ran~zat~an on P~co, Qcean Park B1vd (more
green easUwest @ 23rd), L~ncoln, and Centinela (more gree~ nortY~lsouth at Pearl~
D Dedicated r~ght tum lanes at Lmcoln northbour~d to Oc~an Park B~vcf
eastbound an~ P~co eastbound to Cer~tin~[a sout~bo~nc#
E MedEan on 23rd south of Pier to soutf~ of Dewey w~~f~ breaks af Man~e and
Navy w~th peak hour turn restric#EOns ty~ica! of P~er, Ashland, Hill & Oak
F 24 hour turn restrictEOns at the fallowing loca#~ans
~ 23rd northbound !eft at Der~vey ~median)
2 Dewey eastbound left tum at 23rd (median)
G Re-stri~e r~ort~ibau~ci 23rd at Oceart Par~C fo~ a rrg~rt tur-r~ only lane and a sha~ed
straigh~lleft tum lane
H Med~an strEp or~ 16th Street from PECO to Pac~fic
2
]I1) TIM[N~ & MEASI~REMENT 8~ PRQCESS
1(VEEK 1 ~Mail plan and process mformahon ta af[ Sunset Park ResEdents &
Business and surrounding c~mmunit~es such as Pieo NeighborF~ood
& ~PCO
~P~rform ather educatian~llout~eachl~~tificat~an programs
--Tak~ exist~ng traffic Counts
W~EK 2&3 Ir~sta~I Phase ~
WEEK 4-27 Phase 1 Tr~al Period
WEEK 28 Take Traffic Counts
WEEK 30 --Neighborhood groups meet witf~ Cify Staff, revEew t~e test results,
evaluate the data, review t~e public process, consider the add~tion or
eliminat~on of devECes, and determme ~f there is consensus on the plan
m place as well as any ad~ustments
~Sta~f E eports t~ ;e resu~.s of the t~ast and t~? Neighborhoo~ g; ou~
r~eet~ng(s} ta Crty Counc~! for d~recf~on of tha process contin~afror~
andlor ad,ustment recommendataons
AS NECESSARY
~C~ty staff wil! me~t ~vEth ~~~g~~ar~oad graups to d~sLuss arEy ir~Grm2~i~te ad~usfine~ts
--Emergency ad~us#ments ca~ b~ made by s#aff ~f necessary w~~h not~fica#fan g~ven to
ne~gt~borhood groups
TRAFFIC VO~UME GOAL.S
~No street shall incur an increase of 10% or 150 ADT, w~~ch ~ver is greater,
~Evaiuate the impro~emsnts aft?r the test through a~ub1~c process s~m~~ar ta
ti~at wh~ch occurrea after #f~e EPR An ADT reductror~ af app~oxir~:ate~y 20%
on the 23rd Street corr~dor ~s ant~ci~ated. hawever, it is sub~ect ta the evaluatian
~rocess
IV~ N~T PART OF THIS TEST BUT $HALL CQMMENGE 1MMEDlATELY AS
PERMANENT DEVICES:
_ 1. Crosswalics at 25th 8~ Ashland {tF~ree sides),
2 Ocear~ Par~c westbaund [eft tum only lane intfl Clover Parfc
3 Qcean Park eastbound douale lef# tum ~anes to r~or#~rbo~r~d Centrne~a
4 Lincofn 1 Ashland mitagat~an's- pro~ect is completed
5 Rer~ove Airport A~e stop signs &~ep[ac~ wi#h s~gnals
6 fr~sfail spe~c~ limit sagns on 28th Street from Pico ~o Ocean Park
7 Impro~ements to en#orce the 'na thro~g~ traff~c' at 28th northhound at Ocea~
Park us~ng overhead signs andlor left & right aROws
8 Establish a Spe~d Hump Program w~th ~to addEtianal street assessment casts
for thos~ streets analyzed m the EER
It is our sincere ho~e that a tnle car~sens~rs can be reached based upo~ the above lf
so, SPAN's full support of #he process can be achieved and tf~e implemer~tatEOn of
long-awaited measures can commence
3
Sincerely,
SPAN Baard of Directars
cc Mayor Judy Abda
All C~ty Council Members
C~ty Manager
City Traffic EngEneer
A[f SPAN Baard af D«ectors
NSC
bro; b 4ra`fio
4