SR-800-001-05CCS: icccsadmn\share\staffrepWirportElRcertification.doc
Council Meeting: October 14, 2003
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM City Staff
~A
(~CT 14 200;~
Santa Monica, California
SUBJECT: Approval of Design Plans and Certification of Final EIR for the Airport Park
Project
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council approve the design plans and certify the
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) with the adoption of a Statement of
Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Airport Park
project.
The project includes the development of 8.3 acres of non-aviation land located within
the Santa Monica Airport boundary at its southeasterly end. The proposed park
includes two lighted sports fields, a picnic area, a children's playground, an off-leash
dog area, a park restroom building, a paved walking/jogging path and on-site parking
totaling 116 spaces. The project also includes streetscape improvements along Airport
Avenue consisting of new street trees, lighting, crosswalk enhancements and sidewalks
for the entire length of the roadway, although these improvements will not be
implemented until the funding picture improves.
BACKGROUND
In July 1997, the City Council conceptually approved the Non-Aviation Land Use
Feasibility Study (Study), the result of a comprehensive community process that
~
g
~ OCT 14 200~
included three well-attended public workshops, as well as review by the Airport and
Recreation & Parks Commissions. The Study provided the framework for development
of a schematic design plan for the park, Public input regarding the initial schematic
design was gathered during a broadly-noticed community meeting and comments
received from viewers of the plans on the City's web site and at meetings before the
Recreation and Parks Commission's Sports Advisory Council and a joint meeting of the
Airport Commission and Recreation and Parks Commission Comments received
during these meetings were used to refine the plans for the park and streetscape and
were provided to the City Council in an Information Item (Attachment A). On September
25, 2002, the project was reviewed for consistency with the Los Angeles County Airport
Land Use Plan (ALUP) by the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission
(Commission) acting in their capacity as the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use
Commission since the proposed project is located within the boundaries of a public
airport. The Commission voted 5-0 to instruct their staff to prepare findings and
conditions for consistency with the ALUP. The project will be returned to the
Commission for final consent after the FEIR has been certified. An Environmental
Impact Report was prepared for this project and is before the City Council as the
certifying body since the project is located within non-aviation area at the Santa Monica
Airport and this land has no zoning designation.
DISCUSSION
Park Desiqn: The park is designed with side-by-side sports fields located on the
western end of the site. The fields will be striped to accommodate two youth soccer
2
fields (50 X 90 yards). The fields are separated from an off-leash dog area by a
landscaped picnic and playground area, which is located roughly in the center of the
Playground equipment has been chosen to reflect the industrial culture of the
Airport and the restroom/storage building is designed with an elongated roof element
that is reminiscent of an aircraft wing, The off-leash dog area will provide physically
separate areas for small and large dogs and a jogging/walking loop surrounds the entire
park site. Upper and lower parking lots are provided with a total of 116 spaces.
areas that have been addressed by the design team in refining the plans and in
response to the comments received during review of the schematic design, include the
reorientation of the playground and park building to place the playground closer to the
picnic area and the park building closer to the parking lot area. The off-leash dog area
will be graded into terraces sloped internally to ensure that runoff will be contained and
directed to infiltration trenches to reduce additional peak runoff impacts on the storm
drain system. A welcoming entrance to the park will be provided using a series of
strategically placed colorFul wind socks at the corner of Donald Douglas Loop South and
Airport Avenue. Layers of galvanized chain link fencing at this corner of the park will
secure the fields, while at the same time contribute aesthetically to the corner. The
height of the existing concrete wall separating the park from the mid-level tie down area
varies due to the slope of the site In order to secure the park from the mid-level tie
down area, an eight foot tall chain link fence similar to the typical Airport perimeter
fencing will be placed on top of the concrete wall and supplemental fencing around the
off-leash dog area will further secure the dog area from the balance of the park.
3
Streetscape Desiqn: As previously mentioned, the Airport Park project was designed to
incorporate streetscape improvements along Airport Avenue. Capital improvement
funding totaling 1.3 million that was allocated for the implementation of these
improvements was deferred to a future phase by the City Council in March 2003, due to
budget constraints. When implemented, these proposed improvements will include the
removal of the 78 existing carob trees and installation of new street trees due to the
poor condition of the existing trees. An independent arborist's report prepared for the
project determined that the existing Carob trees are in poor condition and a significant
percentage suffer from heart rot and other decay (Attachment B). Pink Trumpet trees
are proposed as the primary street tree with Mexican Fan Palms as secondary trees.
The Mexican Date Palm will line Donald Douglas Loop South. Pedestrian lighting will
be incorporated into the streetscape design and crosswalk improvements will be
provided at key intersections including the intersection of Donald Douglas Loop and
Airport Avenue. The proposed streetscape plan will eliminate 116 existing poorly
configured parking stalls along the Airport Avenue frontage and replace them within the
existing parking lots on the south side of Airport Avenue by restriping these lots. These
modifications will provide an improved environment along the street for cars and
pedestrians.
When the Study was presented to the City Council in 1997, Council provided staff with
direction to examine measures to improve pedestrian accessibility to the site from west
of 23rd Street, In response to this request, the design team proposed a pedestrian
activated signal with in-pavement flashers (like those on Pico Boulevard) for 23~d Street
4
south of the intersection at Navy Street, and a new pedestrian path within Airport
property that would parallel the adjacent sidewalk along the east side of 23rd Street.
Based upon preliminary cost estimates, it is anticipated that these features would cost
$350,000 to implement. Funding is currently not available for these features, which may
be added in a later phase. Vehicular traffic controls and pedestrian crossings at the 23ra
Street and Airport Avenue intersection were studied, but found to be problematic
because of safety and visibility considerations.
CEQA Analysis
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the project. A total of 16
comment letters were received prior to the close of the public comment period. Some of
these comments claimed that there were several new potentially significant impacts
associated with the proposed project related to traffic that were not sufficiently analyzed
in the document. In response, the City elected to prepare additional analysis and re-
circulate the new sections of the EIR. Public review of the re-circulated Draft EIR
closed on July 14, 2003. A total of 7 comment letters were received during the public
comment period for the recirculation.
With adoption of recommended mitigation measures, the EIR determined that impacts
in the areas of Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, and
Construction Effects could be reduced to less than significant levels. As discussed
below, the only significant impacts that could not be mitigated were in the areas of
5
Transportation and Traffic and Neighborhood Effects related to traffic. Therefore
adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required.
Traffic Impacts Identified In Draft EIR
In the Draft EIR, the following intersections were determined to have significant impacts
that cannot be mitigated
• 23~d Street and Ocean Park Boulevard (pm peak only)
• 23`d Street and Dewey Street (pm peak only)
• Bundy Drive and National Boulevard (City of LA) (am peak only using S.M.
analysis methodology)
• Centinela Avenue and Palms Boulevard (City of LA) (pm peak only using S.M.
analysis methodology)
In the cases of 23~d Street and Ocean Park Boulevard and 23~d Street and Dewey
Street, these impacts are due to projected traffic volumes and the increase in vehicle
delay at the intersections. Restriping 23rd Street to provide a short exclusive left-turn
pocket on the southbound approach would mitigate the project impact and result in a
slight volume to capacity improvement; however, this measure would be contrary to city
efforts to calm traffic on 23~d Street. The increased delay is preferable to increases of
speed that could be caused by such a mitigation measure and therefore is not
recommended Implementation of such a measure at this location was also previously
considered by the City and not recommended upon certification of the Final EIR for the
Santa Monica College Parking Structure B Replacement Project. In the case of 23~a
and Dewey Streets, installation of a traffic signal at this stop sign-controlled intersection
would be the only effective means of reducing delay for the eastbound movements on
Dewey Street. However, a signal would substantially increase delays for the very heavy
6
north-south through movements along 23~d Street. The end result would be that a poor
level of service would continue to be projected and delays would be experienced by a
much greater number of vehicles at the intersection. In addition, the installation of a
traffic signal could lead to the diversion of through-traffic into the residential
neighborhood to the west. Therefore this measure is infeasible and is not
recommended.
Both the Bundy Drive and National Boulevard intersection and the Centinela Avenue
and Palms Boulevard intersection are located within the City of Los Angeles. The Draft
EIR examined impacts at these intersections using both the City of Los Angeles
analysis methodology and the City of Santa Monica's methodology for comparative
purposes. Under the City of Los Angeles methodology, no significant impacts were
identified at either intersection. Using the City of Santa Monica's methodology, a
significant impact was identified in the morning at Bundy Drive and National Boulevard
and in the afternoon at Centinela Avenue and Palms Boulevard given the increase in
vehicle delay and volume of traffic. Since these intersections lie in the City of Los
Angeles, the potential impact was brought to the attention of the staff in the City of Los
Angeles Department of Transportation. No feasible mitigation measures were identified
by eitherjurisdiction.
Neiqhborhood Effects Related to Traffic Identified in Draft EIR
The Draft EIR identified a significant neighborhood traffic effect on 23rd Street north of
Airport Avenue in the City of Santa Monica and on Walgrove Avenue south of Airport
7
Avenue in the City of Los Angeles. Although 23rd Street and Walgrove Avenue have
different physical characteristics and are located in different cities, they function as a
continuous corridor for north-south traffic in the project vicinity. This street segment
carries in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day. The City of Santa Monica analysis
methodology and impact criteria for neighborhood traffic impacts provides that the
addition of any new daily trips to a local street is considered a significant impact if the
daily traffic volumes are greater than 13,500. Based on these criteria, the proposed
project will generate a significant impact due to additional traffic on 23rd Street north of
Airport Avenue and on Walgrove Avenue south of Airport Avenue. Using the City of Los
Angeles methodology, the project-related increase in trips on Walgrove Avenue south of
Airport Avenue is not considered significant.
The City of Santa Monica has implemented traffic calming measures on 23~d Street
north of Airport Avenue, including narrowing the roadway and installing a raised,
landscaped center median and curb extensions at the intersection of Ashland Avenue
and 23~d Street. The volume of traffic on this street segment is such that other
neighborhood traffic calminc measures (such as stop signs and speed humps applied
on 23rd Street north of Ocean Park Boulevard) are not considered safe. At one time,
stop signs were installed on this segment of 23rd Street to calm traffic but were found to
be problematic and have since been removed. No further traffic calming measures are
considered feasible.
8
~~c~~~e ~h~ str~~~ ~~g~~~t a~ VValgrc~ve Av~r~u~ ~~~a~h o~ ~irpcar~ ~v~r~ue li~~ wit~~n t~~
~ity ~-f ~~~ An~~l~~, the pat~r~ti~l imp~~~ w~~ k~r~ught ~~ t~~ ~~fi~r~tic~r~ ~f st~~ ir~ tf~~ ~ity
of Los Angeles Department of Transportation. No feasible mitigation measures were
identified under their jurisdiction.
Re-circulated Draft EIR
In response to comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR, the
City elected to prepare and re-circulate new Draft EIR sections to examine impacts
associated with the displacement of the temporary Santa Monica College (SMC) shuttle
parking lot at the Airport. The re-circulated report included a qualitative traffic circulation
analysis of the proposed project at the study locations previously analyzed in the Traffic
and Parking Study for the Santa Monica College Parking Structure B Replacement
Project Environmental Assessment (EA) which was prepared subsequent to the Final
EIF; for the College parking structure project (26 intersections, including 4 intersections
already analyzed in original Draft EIR for Airport Park and 16 neighborhood street
segments). Two scenarios were developed to assess the impact of the removal of
SMC's temporary parking lot at the Airport Park site on traffic circulation
• Scenario One:
Methodology and Traffic Impacts
Scenario One assumes that there is no replacement in the area and that displaced
shuttle lot parkers will travel to SMC and the surrounding neighborhood in search of
parking. The qualitative analysis draws on data presented in the SMC EA, the City of
9
Santa Monica TRAFFIX database, and data collected during a five-hour parking
occ;upancy survey conducted in December 2002 on streets within approximately one-
half mile of SMC and not posted for preferential parking. The survey occurred while
SMC was in session and was done prior to the temporary closure of Ocean Park
Boulevard that occurred late last year.
Th~ potential significance of the project's impact was measured by either the change in
the average vehicular delay or by a change in the intersection Level of Service (LOS) to
an unacceptable condition for Levels of Service A through E. These criteria were
applied qualitatively for the additional intersection impact analysis. Where the forecast
for the LOS at the intersection is E or F, it is expected that a significant impact could
possibly occur with the addition of a relatively small number of project related trips and a
significant impact would likE;ly occur with the addition of a relatively large number of
project related trips. The number of additional trips at each analyzed intersection during
the AM and PM peak periods was estimated on the basis of the total estimated trips that
would be shifted to the vicinity of SMC, the location of available on-street parking as
estimated based upon the 5 hour parking occupancy survey and the specific trip
distribution pattern described in the SMC Parking Structure EA. Using this
methodology, potential significant traffic impacts were identified at the following 7
int~;rsections.
• 20th Street and Pearl Street
• 17~' Street and Pearl Street
• 23~d Street and Pearl Street
• 20th Street and Pico Boulevard
• 20th Street and Ocean Park Boulevard
• Lincoln Boulevard and Pico Boulevard
10
23rd Street and Pico Boulevard
As described in detail in the EIR, the intersections of 20th Street and Pearl Street, 17tn
Street and Pearl Street and 23~d Street and Pearl Street are all 4-way stop intersections
witfi forecast Levels of Service (LOS) that are either D, E or F, depending upon the
particular intersection and time of day. In each case, the anticipated vehicle delays
result in the possibility that a significant impact could occur. Two-phase signals could
be installed at these intersections to alleviate poor levels of service, however such an
im~>rovement could negatively impact the adjoining residential neighborhood by causing
cars to bypass these intersections and use other nearby streets. Therefore this is
infeasible and is not recommended. In the case of 17th and Pearl Streets, while it would
be physically possible to restripe the northbound approach to provide separate left and
right-turn lanes, this would require removal of on-street parking which is contrary to the
City's practice of minimizing the removal of on-street spaces This is also not
recommended and the same conclusion was reached by the City in the SMC Parking
Structure Final EIR. A Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required
Thp intersection of 20t" Street and Pico Boulevard is forecast to have a LOS F in the AM
and PM peaks with over-saturated conditions for long periods of time and it therefore is
likely that a significant impact will occur. Currently only the southbound approach to this
intersection provides left-turn protection, Provision of an eastbound protected-permitted
left turn phase at this location would be expected to mitigate the likely project related
impact and is recommended as a mitigation measure
11
Based on the analysis it is estimated that a possible significant impact could occur at
the intersection of 20th Street and Ocean Park Boulevard. Implementation of an
eastbound left turn lane, with or without a protected signal phase, would likely mitigate
the potential impact of the project but would require the removal of on-street parking
frorn both the eastbound and westbound intersection approaches. This is contrary to
city practice, particularly in a residential neighborhood with multi-family dwellings and
limited on-site parking. Therefore, this mitigation measure is infeasible and is not
recommended. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required.
Due to limitations of the existing right-of-way width, there are no feasible mitigation
measures for the intersection of Lincoln and Pico Boulevard. A significant and
unavoidable traffic impact at this intersection was also identified in the Final EIR for the
Target Department Store. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be
required.
Prc~vision of an eastbound left turn lane on Pico Boulevard to accommodate turns into
Virginia Avenue Park would likely mitigate the possible project impact at 23~d Street and
Pic.o Boulevard, however duie to physical and operational constraints at this intersection
on-~street parking would neE~d to be removed and therefore this mitigation measure is
inf~asible and is not rec;ommended. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations will be required. A significant impact at this intersection was also
identified in the Virginia i~venue Park Final EIR and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations was adopted
12
Methodoloqy and Neiqhborhood Traffic Impact Analvsis
A qualitative analysis was conducted at 16 neighborhood street segments in the vicinity
of ;~MC using the City of Santa Monica's significant impact criteria for neighborhood
street segments. The number of additional trips at each analyzed street segment was
estimated on the basis of thE total estimated trips that would be shifted to the vicinity of
SMC. The estimates were developed using the specific trip distribution pattern
described in the SMC Parking Structure Final EIR and EA and the location of available
on-street parking as estimated based upon the 5 hour survey. At locations where the
addition of one or more trips would be considered significant based on the City's
methodology, it was determined that the project would likely cause a significant impact.
At street segments where the criteria is based on increased traffic as a percentage of
the existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT), it was determined that the project would be
unlikely to create a significant impact. The analysis determined that the project would
likely create significant impacts at the following six street segments.
• Pearl Street, east of 16th Street
• 14th Street, north of Pearl Street
• 14th Street, south of Pearl Street
• 16th Street, south of Pico Blvd
• 16th Street south of Pearl Street
• Delaware Ave, west of 17th Street
Var~ious measures for minimizing neighborhood traffic impacts have already been
implemented on these stree1 segments including curb extensions, roadway narrowing,
90 degree parking, all-way stop control at intersections, preferential parking and speed
humps. Additional measures to reduce projected traffic on these street segments would
likely increase traffic on other local residential streets and therefore there are no
13
feasible mitigation measures. Adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations will
be required.
• Scenario Two
Staff considered what other areas might be available for the relocation of the 310 space
temporary shuttle lot for SMC that will be displaced once Airport Park is under
construction. SMC owns the former BAE site located southwest of the intersection of
Bur~dy Drive and Airport Avenue. This site is 5 acres as compared to the 2.6-acre
existing shuttle lot and there are approximately 550 parking spaces on the site.
Therefore the site in its current condition is large enough to accommodate the displaced
spaces. Access to the site is currently gained from Bundy Drive. This scenario would
avc~id all of the potential impacts identified under Scenario One but is outside of the
control of the City of Santa Monica as the site is located within the City of Los Angeles
ancl is owned by SMC. It is not within the ability of the City of Santa Monica to require
this site to be used by the College, but it is an option for the College to consider.
Alternatives to Proposed Proiect
The EIR considered alternatives to the proposed project as follows:
• Alternative 1: No Project. This alternative represents maintaining the site in its
current state. The existing condition of the SMC Shuttle lot, the vehicle storage
lot and the Aircraft mid-level tie down area would remain as is and streetscape
improvements along Airport Avenue would not occur under this alternative.
• Alternative 2: Extension of Park Facilities through Elimination of the Proposed
Off-Leash Area (OLA) Dog Park. This alternative would eliminate the dog park
along the eastern project and replace it with additional park facilities involving
larger or additional sports fields, tennis courts or a skate park facility.
14
• Alternative 3: Elimination of Field Lighting Structures and Limit Night Use of
Santa Monica Airport Park. This alternative would eliminate the use of field
lighting on the site, which would reduce night use of the fields.
Alt~rnative locations were considered for the project in accordance with Section
15126.6(f)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines but were eliminated from further consideration
due to FAA restrictions, land use incompatibility, jurisdictional zoning conflicts and
safety issues and concerns.
The CEQA-mandated environmentally superior alternative was found to be Alternative
3, as it incrementally reduces impacts to noise, public services, air quality and
aesthetics (lighting). This alternative is not feasible as it would result in significant
negative impacts associated with recreation as the needs and demands for sport fields
in the City of Santa Monica far exceed the current supply. The installation of field
lighting to allow night use o the sports fields is an important strategy to address this
demand.
Th~: No Project alternative would result in impacts that would be greater than the
proposed project, except for noise, utilities and service systems, public services, and
coristruction effects, which ~r/ould be reduced. The No Project alternative is not feasible
as it would not satisfy the project objectives of maximizing green space and increasing
recreational opportunities including the addition of sports fields. Furthermore, the No
Project Alternative would not result in the implementation of Policy 2.1 of the Open
Space Element which calls for the City to reuse of portions of public lands including the
15
"conversion of non-aviation lands at the Municipal Airport including streetscape
im~~rovements to Airport Avenue, sports fields, picnic area and off-leash dog area".
The Elimination of the Off-Leash Dog Area alternative would result in similar or greater
impacts than either the proposed project or the other alternatives. This alternative is not
feasible as it would not meet project objectives that call for the conversion of non-
avi~tion lands at the Municipal Airport for uses including an off-leash dog area and
woiald also not implement the objectives of the Santa Monica Parks and Recreation
Master Plan which called for an off-leash dog area in this general location.
Recommendation for a Statement of Overriding Considerations
The construction of Airport Park and the associated streetscape improvements will
provide a significant public benefit. As noted in the City's Open Space Element, the City
ha~~ 112 acres of park space (115 acres with expansion of Virginia Ave Park). The
proposed project will increase that amount of open space in the City by 8.3 acres or 7%
and is consistent with General Objective 1.1 of the Land Use Element which calls for
im~~roving the quality of life by providing a balance of land uses including adequate park
space and green landscaped space throughout the City. The project is also consistent
with Land Use Element Policy 1.11.1, which encourages the development of parks and
recreational facilities to meei: the needs of both the resident and daytime populations. In
addition, the project is consistent with Objective 1 of the Open Space Element which
calls for the City to develop and maintain a diversified and balanced system of high
quality open space and Open Space Element Objective 2 which calls for the City "to
16
expand the open space system through the use of public properties" by utilizing
municipally owned non-aviation land to provide much needed sports fields that will allow
for day and evening use, an off-leash dog area and a playground with picnic areas. In
the future, Airport Avenue will be improved with the streetscape enhancements and this
will provide an aesthetically pleasing environment for the tenants and users of the street
making it easier to traverse on foot.
The proposed Airport Park project will be a significant improvement over the existing
conditions of the site in that the project will provide much needed recreational space,
will convert asphalt to green space which will significantly reduce impervious surfaces,
ancl increase groundwater recharge and decrease the amount of stormwater runoff
which is consistent with sustainable city goals. Due to these public benefits, staff
rec~mmends that a Statement of Overriding Considerations be adopted.
Use of Off-Leash Dog Area by Los Angeles Residents
Given fhe location of Airport Park and its adjacency to Los Angeles, City staff has
received a number of inquiries from nearby LA residents expressing interest in being
able to use the off-leash doc area. Municipal Code Section 4.04.150 currently limits the
usE of the City's off-leash dog areas to residents of Santa Monica whose dogs are
licensed by the City. With the popularity of Santa Monica's dog parks and the need to
serve Santa Monica residents who have over 5,000 licensed dogs, staff does not feel
that it would be appropriate for the City to alter the existing residency requirements
17
sp~:cified in Municipal Code Section 4.04.150 for use of the planned off-leash area at
Airport Park.
Park Land Use Compatibilitv Issues
On March 17, 2003 the Task Force on the Environrnent adopted a motion expressing its
coricerns about the adequacy of the Airport Park EIR. Specifically, the motion questions
the air quality analysis and suggests the potential for air pollutants to present hazards to
fut~are park users.
Subsequently, members of the Task Force reviewed a report prepared by Sonoma
Tec;hnology, Inc. for the City entitled "Results of Gaseous Organic Compound
Measurements around the Santa Monica Airport" (March 19, 2001), and a March 31,
20()3 letter from Paul T. Roberts, Executive Vice President of Sonoma Technology
(Attachment F). The City Attorney's Office recommended that the Task Force's
coricerns be expressed dirE:ctly to the City Council rather than to the Recreation and
Parks Commission or City staff. At its June 16, 2003 meeting the Task Force adopted a
motion to send a letter to the City Council expressing its concerns. (Attachment G). As
described in its letter, the ~Task Force recommends that the Airport Park project be
placed on hold pending a hi,~man health risk assessment using data collected from the
Santa Monica Airport, to evaluate the potential health impacts to patrons of the
proposed park from jet exhaust.
Th~ basic purposes of CEQA are to inform governmental decision makers and the
public about the potential environmental effects of a proposed project on its
18
surroundings and prevent significant avoidable damage to the environment by requiring
changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures where the
governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible. CEQA's requirements apply
only to environmental impacts caused by a project. The requirements do not apply to
im~~acts from preexisting conditions that are not exacerbated by the project. Since the
Task Force's concerns have to do with the impact of the existing aircraft operations on
the proposed park's users, this is not a CEQA issue but rather a land use policy issue.
Moreover, while not legally required, the Airport Park EIR examined this issue and
determined that the impact was not environmentally significant. This conclusion is
supported by two studies described in the EIR, which examined local air quality around
Chicago O'Hare International Airport, one of the world's busiest and most congested
air~>orts, and the March 2001 Sonoma Technology, Inc. study. Staff feels that this site is
no different than other potential sites in Santa Monica in terms of regional air quality
conditions and that the project should proceed as planned in order to provide much
ne~:ded playfields for the community.
Next Steps
Upc~n Council approval, the consultants will proceed with construction documents and
refined cost estimates. The current estimated cost of the park project, without the
streetscape improvements is $5.4 million, and is fully funded. Construction of the park is
anticipated to begin in Spring 2005, with completion anticipated in Summer 2006.
Annual maintenance and operating costs for this park are estimated at approximately
19
$5C)0,000. This amount includes start-up costs for vehicles and equipment of $137,000.
Staff will return to the City Council for award of a construction contract.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Not;ice of the public hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial
tenants located within a one-half mile radius of the project site including Los Angeles
residents and published in the California section of the Los Angeles Times at least ten
consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is contained in
Attachment H.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
ThE: recommendations presented in this report do not have a budget or financial impact.
Furiding for the park including the off-leash dog area has been appropriated in previous
years capital budgets; however, the streetscape improvements along Airport Avenue
and the pedestrian crossing improvements at 23~d Street ($1.65 million) are anticipated
as <~ later phase of the project to be completed when funding becomes available.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1. ~pprove the Design Plans for the Airport Park Project; and
2. Adopt a Resolution to Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report evaluating the
en~rironmental impacts of the project; and
3. ,Adopt the Resolution Approving a Statement of Overriding Considerations and
Mitigation Monitoring Program.
20
Prepared by: Barbara Stinchfield, Director
Karen Ginsberg, Assistant Director
Department of Community & Cultural Services
Jeff Matthieu, Director
Bob Trimborn, Airport Manager
Rod Merl, Senior Administrative Analyst
Department of Resource Management
Craig Perkins, Director
Brian Johnson, Environmental Division Manager
Miriam Mulder, Architect
Dean Kubani, Senior Administrative Analyst
Department of Environmental and Public Works Management
SuzannE: Frick, Director
Lucy Dyke, Transportation Management Division Manager
Department of Planning and Community Development
ATTACHMENTS: A. Recommendations of Airport Commission and
Recreation and Parks Commission (July 23, 2001) ~
B. Arborist's Report (March 2001) ~~~' ~i~ 1!v~
C. Resolution to Certify Environmental Impact Report a
D. Resolution to Adopt Statement of Overriding ~~,~}~~~~~ ~GGs~
Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program (~5)
Plans
June 16, 2003 correspondence from Task Force on
the Environment to the City Council
G. Sonoma Technology Inc. report "Results of Gaseous
Organic Compound Measurements Around Santa
Monica Airport" and March 31, 2003 letter from Paul
T. Roberts, Executive Vice President, Sonoma
Technology, Inc.
H. Public Notice
Final EIR
21
~
~~~~C~fi~~l~~~~r~`~~ NF~i°T°~J
~~t~~~ 3' ~~1~-
Gh~~~~~V1~Tl'~~ ~7E~~
~"~~ ~.~~~rr~r ~r~~' ~~~~~~:~I
FF~~M ~it~ ~t~~f
~U~.~~~'T ~~~tu~ ~f I~~~k F'r~l~~t
~~.r~~~ I~,~~r~~~~, ~,~lif~r~i~
I ~t~~c~~~t~+~s~
~.~~ fc~ll~~i~n~ r~p~r# u~d~~~ e~~~ t~i~: ~~~t~~ ~f t~i~ ~~i~~~~k ~~r~ ~~~j~ri..
~~~jk~r~t~c~d
T~~ ~ir~~rrt~ ~`~~I~ ~~~j~~~
r~rarnsr t~€~ ~~p~t~ F~l~r~i~~
~~r~ frr~t ~~ °~~~~~~a~~ ir~
~~ri,r~.~t~i~IG~ ~~~~'~~~~'~~ I~~
~rrr~~:~~~ I"h~ pr~p~~~~
1~;~~;h ~~~ ~r~~ ~~~'~
t5,~~?~:a r~~r~ir~~ I~t~ ~~t~
rG
~r~~~~~ I~~ irr~14~~~~
r~h~~r~±~ ~~Ep~rf ~,~~n~.
~r~s~irr~ ~r~~~~~~~ nr~ ~'~~"s,
~i~c~~~i~n
~~Ila~~i~~~ c~c~~~~t~fii~•~
F~~r~~i~r~~~~~~ ~~~t~t ~~r~~ r~f C~r~~ ~~fi~r~ ~n~~~r~~~~~
i~i~~I ~~r~art ~~1 i~~r~,. ~ ~i~ti~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ i~n~ Thar~ ~~~a~~f.~~
~~,I~r~-e~~i~#u~r~ L~r~~~' 1~~~ F~~~i~ai~it~ ~t~Jri~+ °~I~i~~~
~i#+~ ~c~~an=~ir i~, 1 ~~7 ~~~~~rur~~~u~ ~c7~~;~~~~r~~~~~~~ ~~t~m~r~it~
II~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~ra I~~~t~:r~~ ~~u,~~7 ~~r:~:~r f~l~~; ~I~~ ~~'~~ ~~f•
~n~ ~~~r~~~ ~~~Ir~inc~ ~~ r~~~r~ ~r~~r~ ~~~~~ ~n,;~-ri~ ~6~~~,
~f 6 ~~~1~i~,~ ~~~~~~ ~~~, r~~l~lr~ri~ ~~~~€;~rc~~n~ ~ h~
p~ rrr~a~c~~~~~r~~~ I~r~~fi~~;~~,iri~ ~~i~~~~~~e-I ~~5.~i~q ~,r~~
r~ fT~~ ~~n#i~~l~ ~~ ~~~" ~tr~~t ~~~ ~~~~rcalE~~J ~~~~~~r~~~
~~~.~t~ ~~ I`~~~5ry ~te~~~
~~~a~~~s fF-.a ~;1~ ~~~an~il ~ti°~~~~~~ ~~nL~~~t ~~ ~~I~~r~ ~~
T~~~~~~~~
Abe Associates in June, 2000 for the design of Airport Park and the associated
improvements along Airport Avenue. On April 1, 2001 the City held a broadly noticed
public workshop to present alternative schemes for the Airport Park project. Additionally,
thE alternative schemes were posted on the City's web site. Based upon input received at
the workshop and from the web site, the schematic design was refined and presented to
the Sports Advisory Council (SAC) on July 11, 2001 for input which was transmitted to the
Recreation and Parks Commission,
On July 23, 2001 the Airport Commission and the Recreation and Parks Commission held
a special joint meeting to review and act upon the proposed schematic design for Airport
Park. The Commissions recommended that the City Council approve the schematic design.
Earh made a number of recommendations outlined in Attachment C. These
recommendations will be fully considered by the design team as the design is further
refined.
On October 15, 2001 City staff presented the plans for Airport Park to the Environmental
Task Force. The Environmental Task Force expressed particular interest in learning about
the elements of the park that could be designed to comply with the City's Green Building
Guidelines and allow for a silver rating from the Leadership and Energy in Environmental
Design (LEED) rating system. Staff described the sustainable features planned for the
park including the use of permeable surfaces in parking lots, infiltration galleries that will
2
store runoff, the use of efficient irrigation systems combined with sustainable landscape
features and photovoltaic panels for lighting and water efficient fixtures in the restroom
building. Staff explained the difficulties in applying LEED criteria for a park since the LEED
rating system had been developed for buildings. Members of the Task Force expressed
support for the proposed sustainable design features and indicated that they would like to
review the Draft EIR when available. One Task Force member expressed particular
interest in air quality issues given the proposed park's location adjacent to the Airport.
Copies of the Draft EI R will be provided to the members of the Task Force when available.
Th~; Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project will be available for public review
thi~ winter and will be distributed to you at that time. It is anticipated that formal
consideration by the City Council on EI R certification and approval of the plans will occur in
early 2002. Construction of the improvements is anticipated to begin in fall 2002.
Prepared by: Jeff Mathieu, Airport Director
Barbara Stinchfield, Director, Community and Cultural Services
Karen Ginsberg, Assistant Director, Community and Cultural Services
Bob Trimborn, Airport Manager
Attachments: A. Schematic Design Plans
B. Staff Report to Airport and Recreation and Parks Commissions for July
23, 2001 Special Joint meeting
C. Airport Commission and Recreation and Parks Commission
Recommendations
3
~
rt
~-
S31
C~
~
~
tD
~
~
~
•
~ Santa Monica Airport Park
~
not to scale
07.06.01 2~+~' CalvinR.AbeAssociates,Inc.ILandscapeArchitects
ITEM 2(A)
DA,TE: J.uly 23, 2001
TO: Airport Commission
Recreation & Parks Commission
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Consideration of the Recommended Airport Park Schematic Design
IN1'RODUCTIiON
This report provides information about the planning process used to develop and finalize
the schematic design for the Airport Park project, and requests that the Airport Commission
and Recreation & Parks Commission review, take public comment, and make separate
recommendations to City Council on the schematic design for the project, as depicted in
Attachment A.
The Airport Park project encompasses approximately five acres of land at the southeast
corner of Santa Monica Municipal Airport on non-aviation designated land, with two
(lighted) youth soccer fields, a one-acre off-leash dog area, a park restroom and storage
building, an open green space, picnic areas, two parking lots, and a children's playground.
The project also includes streetscape improvements (landscaping, enhanced paving, and
lighting) on Airport Avenue from Centinela to 23~d Street, and a controlled pedestrian
crossing on 23~d Street south of Navy Street.
BACKGROUND
In July, 1997, the City Council conceptually approved the Non-Aviation Land Use
Feasibility Study (NALUFS), the result of a comprehensive community process that
included three well-attended public workshops, as well as Airport and Recreation & Parks
Commission review. The NALUFS provided the framework for the final schematic design
ATTACHMENT B
1
ITEM 2(A)
wr~ich was refined based u~~on public input at a broadly-noticed community meeting held
on April 1, 2001, and public review and comment of Airport Park design schemes on the
City's web site.
DI:iCUSSION
Fin~al Schematic Design
Th~ design, as depicted in Attachment A, has been informed by the preferences expressed
by ~~ommunity members during the public participation process. Below is a summary of the
comments received.
Location of uses. The design keeps the greatest distance possible between the play fields
and the off-leash dog area. The community expressed concern about close proximity of
doys and children in the park, and the final design scheme provides an adequate buffer
area between the two major park uses.
Centralized Park Support Features. The children's play area, picnic benches, and the park
building with restrooms and storage are all centrally located to serve the entire park.
Proper Soccer Field Orientation. With soccer field goals oriented at the north and south
ends, the impacts of direct sun are minimized,
Fie/d Use Flexibility. With the soccer fields located side by side, the large open field area
can be reconfigured to accommodate one adult soccer field (perhaps in a east-west
ATTACHMENT B
2
C~.[~~_~,~~ ~`(~"~.~
~ri~r~~~~ir~~r ~ir7~~ it~r°~ul~ 1~4~~1y b~ ~~e~~~ ~y ~c~~.~lt~ ~t r~a~ht ~r~+~ ~~~~ ~~~~h ~~ft~~~
~~~~ in fi~ fi~fi~~re ~~s~,~~~r~ ~~a~~r~~a it~" ~~~°r~~t~r~~7 ~~~~~~J~ r~~~r~t~~ ~t~~-G:~~, liq~tar~r~. ~r~~
~~~I~' m~c~ifi~.~#r~r~~ w~~~i'~~ ~~ n~r;~~~~r~ ~r~i~ ~I~~~r ~~t~t~~ ~~-i~, ~~~1~ ~~~~#~~II ~~i~l~! n~~ b~
;~r~f~~r°frn~~~t~~ ~~~~: t~ t~~ ~~ t~~ f«i~
~sf~r~ra~t~ ~~~1c~r~q~ 7h~
~~~ i'~~~i~~~it I~ts_ ~~f~t~ tl~~
sp=~~~~ r~~l~~~r~ E~~a
~~1-1~.~r~~
~i~~i~r~ ~.~F~~~ra~ ~rs~~id~~ 116 p~~~i~~€~ ~~~c-;~~ t~+~
irri~~~~~r~r~~~~t~ ~i~~~ ~i~~r~ Ao~~r~~~ ~~r~~nt ~~r~i~~g
~i~l ~~ r~l~~~t~r~ ~G~ ~~~_~~r~,~~~ 6~~~s, ~~r nca~ ~e~ ~€~~~ ~f
~~~~ Ar~,~~~~f~~n T1ir~ ~~r~~l' ~r~h~m~ rr~~~~~~r~~'~~s #~~~ ~~~~r~~ ~a~ ~F~~~~~. ~~r~~~ti~an~
~~~1' r~~~ ni~~ ~~~I t~iu~ ~`~~~~i~~ ~~~~~~ r~~+~r4~i~~ c~fi~~~ ~it~ ~r~~ Ji~p~~~er-r~~r~~
~f {~~~t~
~t~~f~rra:~~~~r"~~ ~~~f~:~ Tk~~ ~u~ll ~~~~~~~r~ #~ t~~ ~~~~' ~r~~r~ ~~i~~y~~ ~g~ir~~li~~~ ~~~ ~a~
~r~~s,rrir~r~~~~7t~~Cy ~ri~t~~l~t ~rr~ f~~~ltr~:~ #I~~~ ~r~rr~~t~ ~~f~t~~ ~~~~~~r~r~#i~~~~ f r~r:~r:Cir~,~~
~r~r3 r~~~~~ ~r~~ fi~~t ~~n ~f~i~i~r-itly ~i~~°~~~in~~i ~r~~ ~~FF~~t~~,f~E~ ~~~r~~.~~ ~ifl ~~
i~~=~r~~r~t~ri` ~~t~ition, ~~~~~r r~t~~~~~~~ f~~t~a~~~ ~rll r-r~n~'rm~~~ ~~1~~,r~ r~ar~~a~ ~r~r~~
th~ t~~~s ~,~r~:i~c~ ~~~~~.
~,~rc~ ~~r~~~ ~~,~~~,~j7~_ T ~~fi~~~+ ~r~~ p~~~~tri~~, ~s~~a~~~ t~ ~~~: ~~~k ~r~~ ~L.~~~~~
~~I~ ~~~it~~IJ~d ~~~~~~ ~a~ ~~'~ ~t~~~t ~~~~ ~~~a~h ~~ f~~~yr~tr~~t ~s ~~~~~a~~~~ ~~~
~TT~~'~~a~~~~C ~
ITEM 2(A)
Attachment B). The proposE;d crossing will stop vehicles with a pedestrian-activated stop
light, and pedestrians would continue walking down the east side of 23~d Street to Airport
Avenue to get to the park. The project's traffic engineering consultants are continuing to
refine the location for the crossing. Vehicular traffic controls and pedestrian crossings at
the 23~d Street and Airport Avenue intersection were studied, but found to be problematic
bec;ause of safety and visibility considerations.
Sp~orts Advisory Council
On July 11, 2001 a presentation of the Airport Park final schematic design scheme will be
made to the Sports advisory Council (SAC). Comments received at this meeting will be
transmitted orally by staff to the Commissions on July 23, 2001.
Ne:~ct Steps
Before the project can be built, a few milestones remain. An Environmental Impact Report
(EIR), currently being prepared by Culbertson, Adams and Associates, must be completed,
circulated for public review, and certified by City Council. While this document is being
prepared, staff will continue to work with the design consultant team to refine the plans for
the project. It is anticipated that the City Council will consider certification of the EIR and
the project design with the recommendations of the Airport Commission and Recreation &
Parks Commission in Fall/Winter2001. Afterconstruction documents are completed, staff
will bid the project and return to City Council for award of a construction contract.
Construction is expected to commence in Fall/Winter 2002 and last approximately 12
ATTACHMENT B
4
manths.
RECOMMENDATION
ITEM 2(A)
Staff recommends that the Airport Commission and Recreation & Parks Commission
review the final schematic design for Airport Park, take public comment, and make
separate recommendations for transmittal to City Council.
Prepared by: Barbara Stinchfield, Director
Karen Ginsberg, Assistant Director
Brett Horner, Senior Analyst
Community & Cultural Services
Bob Trimborn, Airport Manager
Rod Merl, Senior Analyst
Resource Management
Miriam Mulder, Architect
Environmental & Public Works Management
Attachment: A. Airport Park Final Schematic Design Plans
B. 23~d Street Pedestrian Crossing
ATTACHMENT B
5
SEP-15-2003 11~45 SANTA MONICA CIV DIV 310 458 8721 P.02i13
d . • ~~
. Ak~ ,~
M~chael T. Mahoney ~,
INDEPENDENT GONSULTANT - SPECIALIST !N AR80RICULTURE AND URBAN FORESTRY ~
425 30'" STREET, SU1TE 26 ~ NEWF'OR' BEAGN, GLIFORNIA 9zE~ • 9e9.673.5199 ~ FAx 949,673.5197
ti~aRCH 24, 2001
VVALTER WARRINER, COMMUNITY FORESTER
CITY OF SANTA MONICA SPORTS S~ PARKS
Z6OO OCF~N PARK BLVD. .
S~ANTA MONICA, CA 90405
RE: Carob Trees along Airport Parkway
dear Mr. Warriner,
This report addresses representative trees among 78 Carobs (Ce~atonia siliqua) growing
along Airport Parkway in the City of Santa Monica and it has been prepared at your
request. A site visit was carried out in conducting this study, tissues were collected
from three trees, photographs were taken, and a spreadsheet of per~inent data
(supplied by your office) was reviewed. The following information summariaes work
and conveys my findings to date.
It; is very apparent that some disorder is
presently impacting many of the trees
associated with this study. Some tree
canopies are thin, shoot elongation is
s~.tinted in some cases, and many of the
trees' foliage appear yellow instead of the
dark green typical of healthy Carob trees. In
the case of trees with yellowing r~nopies -
photosynthetic tissues are deteriorating and
leaf margins are dead and dying. With the
(oss of healthy foliage to capture the energy
of the sun, affected plants are in jeopardy of
dysFunction and slow death. Certainly the
value of the plant is diminished, as is its
ability to contnbute to an effective urban
farest.
Ir~itially, perhaps the most signif,Gant issue is the condition of the site and its suitability
for the culture of trees such as the Carob. Experience with Carobs in southern
California, and Santa Monica notwithstanding, indicates that a history of less than
proper care and maintenance exacerbates the deterioration of the species, and hastens
the advancement of decay. All of these trees are growing in narrow planters or, worse,
in spaces where the soil has been covered with asphalt immediately abutting the tree's
trunk. No protection is afForded the trees from cars that are routinely parked so that
their bumpers might strike the tree trunks, their tires ~ompact soil in the root zone, and
ATTACHMENT B
SEP-15-2063 11~45 SANTA MONICA CIU DIU
14EiBORI5Y5 REPOR7: AIRPORT PARKWAY G4RDBS
310 458 8721 P.93i13
MARCN Z4, 2001
PA~E z
they damage major lateral iroots that are growing at or above the soil surface. At the
same time these cars are e;Kposed to a higher than usuai degree of risk from falling
branches that are weakly ai:iached in the trees infrastructure, and from the fallout of
sap-sucking insetts that exc:rete sticky residue beneath the canopies of weak and
vuilnerable trees. (It should be noted that although no insects were observed at the
ti~ne of this study it is typic`31 behavior af a variety of these herbivorous creatures to
atkack weakened trees).
Tc~ find the irnpact of specific ciisorders that might be present, plant tissue s~mples
wf~re sent for analysis of pathogens to 6BC Laboratory, Inc., an environmental
microbiolagical service Ivcat:ed in Tempe, ,Arizona (480/967-5036) and portions of the
same material were forwarcaied for nutrient analysis to a third party - IAS Laboratories
(allso o~ Tempe). BBC l.ab c,ultured the material and inspected it via microscopy and
de~termined that ~ertici/lium; the pathogen presumed to be causing the wilt-like damage
ati`.ributed to exist in the tr~es, however does not exist in the sampled material.
Furthermore, no fungal gro~~rth was found associated with va5cuiar tissues (although
th~ere was fungal growth as;sociated with surFace tissues that in no way contributes to
th~e apparent damage oF th~~ trees). The 6BC Lab summary and IAS nutrient
as~sessment summaries are ~attached here and are incorporated with this report.
If ~ertici//ium or similar func~al pathogens were found the prognosis for continued health
(or lack therea~ might hav~~ been clear-~ut. Embracing the possibifity that fungal
pathogens might not be fou~nd to impact the trees,, and to help further deterrnine the
ca.use of the apparent disor~~er, a nutrient assessment was undertaken as a
co~ntingency. Interpretatiort of the nutrier~t an~lysis indicates a variable deficiency of
m~~cronutrients as well as low manganese in some trees, low sulfur, low copper in
so~me, and excessive boron in some trees {critical elements taken from Handbook of
R~-~rence Methods for Planit Analysis, Yash P. Ka(ra, CRC Press, 1998). Boron excess
ca~uses leaf tip necrosis (dea~th or dieback); manganese insufFciency causes chlorosis
(ye~llowing). Macronutrients (carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium, sulfur and calcium) are required in suffic~ent quantities to maintain the
ch~emical properties of plant;s. Soil compaGtion and some other surface treatments can
prE:vent o~rygen diffusion in the soil and obstruct hydrogen (in maisture). Air-borne
particulates and residue in "t;ne environment of industrial land-use areas can negatively
imipact the trees ability to aC~sorb carbon (~tomata anr~ leaf surfaces}.
Additional evidence is repre;;ented by the spreadst~eet data, which indicates that almost
17'% of the trees appear to have a wilt disease (symptoms that were subsequently
found in this study t~ be oth~er causes), A significant percentage of the trees suffer
from heart rot and other de~:ay, poor form and weak canopies. First hand evidence
deimonstrates that the growiing conditions at the site are very harsh and not conducive
to healthy growth and deve~opment.
Wf~ile there is inconclusive evidence that the trees are doomed to an untimely death
thE~re is clear evidence that ~~ubstantial improvements are needed to improve the
grc~wing environment for thc~se trees. The growing spaces must be signiFicantly
SEP-15-2003 11~46 SANTA MONICA CIU DIU
AR;BORTST`5 REPdlrf : AIRPORT PARKWAY CAROBS
310 458 8721 P.04i13
MARCH 24, 2001
PAGE 3
en~larged: install and/or widen parkways to a minimum of seven feet in width. Soil
characteristics must be modified to allow the trees to recover from poor a cultural
environment: aerate soils and treat them with nutrients and beneficial organisms
thiroughout the root zones. Even so, considerable damage has been done to the trees
and they are increasingly susceptible to degeneration and weakness of heart rot and
ins~tability, It is nec~ssary to monitor and provide preventive treatments to maintain
weakened canopies in areas of high exposure to persons and property beneath trees,
At~tached, several photographs are presented that describe conditions at the site.
Additional photos were taken in th~ process of investigating the trees; these images will
be hefd in my files and will be made ~vailable to you upon request. If you have any
questions please feel free to contact me at the address and telephone number indicated
in the letterhead of this report. Thank you for your continued interest in my services.
Siricerely,
.. ,, ., ,
.. , .
,; = ~ • rr ~ ~' ~ ; ' ~ ~ ~ ~,"~'1,c ~.
rl
Mic:hael T, Mahoney, registered consulting arborist
Enclosures Photographic references (1 page)
Spreadsh~et Data (3 pag~s)
Lab reports (5 pages)
Invoice (3 pages)
., ..~,~., ~~h+"~.,~ ~ I ~' ~ ~~..p"~' ~ ~ i ~ i ~~_-f ~ S ~a ~°il 4~ ~ ~,F ~ ~ ~.~
d~~~ ~ ~ @ ~F~ ~" ~~t a~4` ~`4~,~~„~i
~~~~~ r~~~~'~~I~;~~
. ~+ ~~~1~ i;t~E3 ~'~iml?S~ fm~
~~~~~ ~~j ~'~~~.
~~a~ ~
SEP-15-2003 11~46 SANTA MONICA CIV DIV 310 458 8721 P.06i13
Ai2FivRtsrS REPOI~T; AtRPOaT PnRxwAY CAROes MARQi 24, 2001
PAGE S
Spneadsheet of Data Collected by Gty Arborist
F1::~~ Roots Foor Weak
~t=eet tio. Tsee DBH S/W GeCay Gu*_s W._: P=unecY L~en Form Cui~opy Comn;e-ts
., c 25" - 30" NU 1
3~01 'r. 7" - 12" NO 1 1 PCOr =~rm
:{ i 19" - 34" NO
5 19° - 24" YES
-• O I9~ -~nn N~ 1 1 1 WP,.dw CaClopy
3201 ~: 5 19" - 29° NO 1 Conii-_d
>: ~ 13" - 18" NCti
v 19" _ 24" NO
~ 19.~ _ ~q„ YE~
= 19" - 24" YES 1
i 19" - 24" NO
_ 7" - 12" NO 1 FOOZ '~rm
'_ 13" - 18^ NO 1
~ 13" - 1B" YES 1
r 19" - L4" YES 1 1
6 19" - ~9" YES 1 _
5 ].9" - 29" YES 1 :
~ 13" - 18" Y&S
3 19^ - 24" ~'ES 1 Weak ar~wth
2 13" -'lA" YE5 1
1 25" - 30" YES 1
_ 25" - 3(1" YES 1
15" - 24" YES '_
3 ;y" - ~4" YES 1 1
19" - 24" YES 1
19" - ?.a" YE5
YES ~ :
YES Uff ba:ance
SEP-15-2003 11~46 SANTA MONICA CIU DIU 310 458 8721 P.07i13
rlush BOOr,~. P~or w~>ak
Addre95 Tr2e DyH S/W L=~a~• Cut~ Wilt Pruned Lean Form :'anopy C,pnVn~r,C~
2600 x ?0 1~" - ?4" ;vc~
2800 } li c5" - 30" NO
2800 :! 1B 19" - ~'9" y0 1 1 Weal~ grpvtt~
~800 }! 15 ~" - 1?" NO 1 weak, qrouch
2800 Y. 14 7" - 1~" r7p : :
2800 % 13 25" - 30" NO 1
2800 ~ 12 7" - 12" No ? 1 1 weak growtYi
2800 x 11 7" - 12" !vC
280U x 9 '7^ - 12" NO
280Q Y. % 13" - 18" NO
2800 X 6 7" - 1="^ NO 1 weak arowtn
3800 x , 7" - i~^ NQ
2800 x 9 7" - lz" NO
2800 k 2 7" - lc^" NO
2701 6 1~•• - 24" N~
2701 5 25" - 30" NO
3701 3 1°" - 24" No
2~01 1 13" - ~8" NO
3'601 X 1: ry" - 12^ NO 1
?~91 Y. 10 13" - 18" YES
2603 ~: 9 ~" - 12" N~
2601 X B 7" - 12" YES
2601 X 7 0" ~ 6" NU 1 1 903 dead
2601 ;i 5 13" - 19° YES
2601 k q 7„ _ 1,^ Np 1
2601 Y. 3 ~" - 1?" NO
'1601 :i ~ 7" - 12" NO 1
260? x 1 i3" - 16" YES
3501 13 13" - 18" NO
2501 11 19" - 2C" NO Close to curb
<501 9 13" -?F" NO Close to curb
?501 ~ 19^ - ~9" NQ
SEP-15-2003 11~46 SANTA MONICA CIU DIU 310 458 8721 P.08i13
Fiusf~ RooCS Poor wPak
Addre:s Trec DBH S/W Decay Cuts ~:L: ?runed Lean Form Cunopy Comments
25Q1 c I°" - ~4" N~
2501 5 13" - 18" NO
2501 4 1°" - ~9" No
2501 _ 13" ^ 18" Np
2501 I 7" - 1~" N4
2902 :: 19 7" - 1?" NO
2402 !~ 13 0" - E" Nq
2402 Y, ii %" - 1'?" NO
2902 .. 11 ~" - 13" NO
21p2 :t la 0" - 5" NO
Z902 }: 5 13" - 18" NO
zao< x e 1~~. _ ;+a^ No
2402 }: 5 7" - 1:" NO
2402 x 2 13" - 18" NO
2902 }: 1 19" - :'.4" NO
I 1
1 1
1
i i
• 1
i 1
i 1
?5 9 1~ 9 9 8
7
C~vcred in _•:y
Old ar.µ~.~
'sprout
Off baid.'.~5
Pooz condi=:an
Poor condi:_an
Poor condi__an
Poor conds=:~n
Paor condi=:an
SEP-15-2003 11~46 SANTA MONICA CIU DIU
Michael Mahoney
425 30~' Street, 5ui~e 28
Newport Seach, CA 92663
Client: Sample m:
Praject:
SAmple Matrix:
L~boratory ID:
~~~ ~i~~
L~~~~~~~
t~~~~ ~~ s~~ ~~~~ ~
1~~2~m~t~~~~
REPORT
316 458 8721 P.09i13
: ` cy` ~~ .
~•."~~' t~~.~~~'~. .
BBC Laboratories, lrrc.
rlate Sampled: 03-07•O1
Date Submitted: 03-08-01
Date Reported: 03-16-~01
Clie~t Samnle ID Lab ID Pat6ogen Screen
DpP 3100 10~29 Verticillium not detected in tissues submitted.
~25 ~~ 10~30 Verticilliurn not detected in tissues submitted.
N/~ of .~.800 t 0531 Yerticillium not detected in tissues submitted.
Metho~ds: Culture and microscopy.
Notes: No fungal growZh was found associated with vascular tissues; the only fungal
~row~th observed was associated with surface tissues ~epidermis, bark).
''
Reviewed by; ~l,~w ~~ ~~~~/
ENVIRONMEN7~1L MICROBIOLOGICAL SERVICFS
. :;... ' .. ° • - ~' = ---° ' - -: 9~' S~3 ' ~ax ti8~~.~5' S~73o ,.... .~.'acs :_
SEP-15-2003 11~47 SANTA MONICA CIV DIV
310 458 8721 P.10/13
/ /_-
: ~;`; • ~
;~ ~d, w .
-~i-^ ~:~••.,_ __
BBC Laborataries, Inc,
Michael Mahoney
42~ 30`' Street, Suite 28
Ivewport Beach, CA 93663
Client Sample ID: DPP 31U0
Project: Uaknown
Sampte Matrix: Leaf and Stem Tissue
Laboratory ID: 10529
REPORT
Date Sampled: 3-07-01
Date Submitted: 3-08-41
bate RepoRed: 3-19-O1
Total (N) % _9
Tota! (P) % .OS
Poiash (K) % .?
Caicium (Ca) % 1.60
Ma~nzsium (Mg) % ? 1
Sulfur (S04-S) % _13
Sodium (Na) % .07
lron (Fe) ppm 170
Zinc (Zn) ppm 34
Manganese (Mn) ppm 37
Copper (Cu) ppm 3
Boron (B) ppm 1 I O
Anal}~sis by IAS Laboratories, Phoenix, AZ (see anached documentation)
Revie~+ed by: ~"( (,~,~, `~ ~~~
ENV1RpNMEN7AL Mf~ROB10LOGICqI SERVICFS
SEP-15-2003 11~47 SANTA MONICA CIV DIV
Michael Mahoney
425 30`~ Srreet, Suite 28
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Client ~ample ID: 425 D
Projecc: UhknoN~n
Sample Matrix: Leaf and Stem Tissue
Laboratory ID: 10530
x~PORT
310 458 8721 P.11i13
/ /r,~; .
s f' •
. `~• _4•~•-
BBC Laboratories, Inc.
Date Sampled: 3-07-01
Date Submitted: 3-OS-OI
Date Reported: 3-19-p1
Total (Iv) % 1.?
Totai (P) % .14
Potash (K) % .4
Calcium (Ca) % 1.90
Ma~esium (Mg~ % .33
Sutfur (S04-S) % .l 1
Sodium (Na) % .03
Iron (Fe) ppm 170
Zinc (Zn) ppm 3~
Manganese (Mn) ppm $4
Copper (Cu) ppm 5
Boron (B) pprn 160
Analysis by (A5 Laboratories, Phoenix, AZ (see attached documentation)
Reviewed by: ~~ ~ ~~~
ENVIRONMENTqL MICR0810LOGICAL SERVICES
.._ .:~ : . • • . • ,. . . :-. -• • • - . - .. _ , . . . . . . . -
SEP-15-2003 11~47 SANTA MONICA CIU DIV
Michael Mahoney
~25 30~' Streec, Suite 28
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Client Sample ID: N/E of ZS00
Prvject: LJaknuw•n
Sample Matrix: Leaf and Stem Tissuc
Laborauor~~ ID: 1053I
REPORT
310 458 8721 P.12i13
~' ~ ~ - .
~ ~ ~' • ~ •~.` . .
SBC Laboratorres, lnc.
Date Sampled: 3-U7-O1
Date Submitted: 3-OS-01
Date Reported: 3-19-01
To~al (N) °,~0 1.7
Total (P) % .1<i
Potash (K) % .4
Calcium (Ca) % .95
MagneSium (Mg) % .12
Sulfur (S04-S) % .19
Sodium (?tia) % .O1
lron (~'e) ppm 130
Zinc (Zn) ppm I S
R~fanganese (Mn) ppm 41
Capper (Cu) ppm 4
Boron (B) ppm 49
Analysis b}~ IAS Laboracories, Phoenix, AZ (see attachzd doeumentation)
Reviewed b;': ~ ~• ~~~
~~~ ~
ENVIRONMENt4~ h'~CR0610LOGICAL SERVICES
~
~~
L .~
~ I~
^ Y
LL ~'
~
,~, Il
~
~
L
~
U
.~
O
`
\V
~F~
~
'~^
V J
~i
d
U
~ (0
i
: Q.
~
_
'k ~
~ ~ ~
~*' ~W
1L
~
~
l
~
~~ 1 ~~~ - ~~'; A ~
Santa Monica Airport Park
Park Building and Playground
~
~~ I'1 k) E' landscape architects
Plan View of Park Building and Playground
~~~f~ ~~r~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~r~
~~rk 8~il~i~,~
.y~~`~i R-'-' S~:'F
4' Ts I . ~~ .,/`~~ ~w ~~~~.~
~ N ^ay
y ~~~S a~'~ ~~~V
Y ~ 9. I'.`" . . v . .
~'f:.n:Y:;f~ ~,Y~ 6
~€ ~
~,~ ;g~
t~~ifl ~ ~.~.~_ .
`"~;;1~
~ar~ ~~i~c~i~~, _ F~~~vf ~f~r~
~~r~, ~~,ilrJi~r~~! - ~I~n ~~~~
I
~
, ~
€~, ~ ,~ k zn~~.:~~~ ~r_~o,._L;~:
~~~t~ I~~~~~~ ~~r~~~~ ~"~r~.
~~r~ ~~~C~iw~~ ~~~v~t~~~,~
~~t~t~'~ ~I~va~i~~t
h9~~1k~ ~~e~r~~i~~
~~~t ~~~w~t[~a~u
~~~~ ~~eu~~~rn
~
[ ~„ ~
[~ f ~ ~,u~ ~~ i art+~~~,::r~? ~lErf~tl,n.ci~a
~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~a~~`~t~~ ~'~r~;
~r~~~r~~~t~~~ ~t ~~sa~g~~~ ~t~~~ ~~~~h ~~.~f ~1~rp~r~~~r~r~n~;~
~
~
~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~.3 I ~s ~; '`~:~= ar4:la~f~~.Cti
~~a~ti lf€~+.~r
~e~~'n~~ F~J~~~ ~ ~~~.~~~i~~
~~a~e~~~ ~I~~~~ u ~e~t~s~'~
Santa Monica Airport Park
Airport Avenue Streetscape
3021 ~aIR~~~~AVE
~ o om
,--~-, ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~
AIRP[)RT GVFNI IF
Partial Plan View of Streetscape at 3021 Airport Avenue
~
~~ I"1 k) E; ~andscape architects
Concept Sketch of Airport Avenue Streetscape at Barker Hanger
~
June 16, 2003
S~nta Monica City Counci]
1685 Main Street, Ste. 200
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Council Members:
Members of the Environmental Task Force (ETF) had concerns relative to the proximity
of the Santa Monica Airport to the proposed Airport Park and the potential for jet exhaust
to impact the health of users of the proposed Airport Park. Therefore the Santa Monica
Airport Park Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), dated July, 2002 was reviewed
by the ETF. The following are our comments as presented during our meeting on March
17, 2003:
1. A human health risk assessment was not conducted to evaluate the potential for
jet exhaust to impact the health of children and adult patrons of the proposed
Airport Park.
2. Data referenced in the DEIR represents two studies conducted at Chicago O'Haze,
one of which was misinterpreted by the authors of the DEIR. Santa Monica
Airport and Chicago O'Hare are very different types of airports and do not lend
themselves to cvmparisons regarding jet exhaust.
3. The results of the two studies conducted at Chicago O'Hare provide useful
information regazding desia ing a study at Santa Monica Airport to measure jet
exhaust such that the data may be used in a human health risk assessment to
evaluate the potential health effects of jet exhaust on the patrons of the proposed
Airport Pazk.
The ETF was provided the Sonoma Technology, Inc. (STn final report, Results of
Gaseous Organic Compound Measurements around the Santa Monica Airport, dated
March 19, 2001 by the City on May 19, 2003 and asked to review the STI report relative
to our abovementioned comments on the DEIR. The following are our comments on the
STI final report:
The STI final report was desianed .to answer specific questions regarding jet
exhaust emissions from the Santa Monica Airport; namely:
(a) Are there differences in the types of organic compounds detected in jet
exhaust and in the sunounding ambient atmosphere?
{b) Are there differences in the weight percentages of the measured
organic compounds in jet exhaust as compazed to the surrounding ambient
atmosphere and other emission point sources, such as gasoline powered or
diesel powered vehicle exhaust? and
ATTACHMENT F
City Council
ETF' Comments of the DEIIZ and STI final report for the Proposed Airport Pazk
June 16, 2003
(c) Is jet exhaust a major contributor to the measured organic compounds
in the sunounding community?
2. Regardless of the technical questions regarding the project's design, that directly
influenced the result~, the study was not designed to evaluate whether children
and adults exposed to jet exhaust while exerting themselves would have either
acute or chronic health risks. Therefore the STI final report does not address the
abovementioned deficiencies in the DEIR.
The ETF recommends the proposed Airport Pazk be placed on hold pending a human
health risk assessment using jet exhaust data collected from the Santa Monica Airport,
following the applicable guidelines in the Chicago O'Hare studies, to evaluate the
potential health impacts to patrons of the proposed Airport Park from jet exhaust.
Additionally, the ETF recommends the City explore an alternative site for a much needed
park while the human health risk assessment is prepared for children exposed to jet
exhaust at the proposed Airport Park location.
Sincerely,
i!' ~- ~~.
~
~~~~ ~ ~ ~
Mark Gold ~•,~ ~
Environmental Task rorce I~hair
2
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE S~NTA MO1vICA CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Approval of Design Plans and Certification of Final Environmental Impact
Report for Airport Park Project
Location: Northwest corner of Airport Avenue and Bundy Drive (bounded by Donald
Douglas Loop (west); the airport mid-level tie down area (north), Airport Avenue (south)
and Bundy Drive (east) and the length of Airport Avenue between Bundy Drive west to
the intersection with 23ra Street/Walgrove Avenue.
A Public Hearing will be held by the City Council on the following requests:
Approval of Design Plans for the Airport Park Project, which includes the development
of an 8.3 acre park with sports fields, surrounding lawns, restrooms, children's play area,
picnic areas and an off-leash dog area. 116 parking spaces are proposed. The project
also includes streetscape improvements along the length of Airport Avenue including
street trees, landscaping, pedestrian lighting and enhanced crosswalks. The project will
replace the existing Santa Monica College shuttle parking lot and an automotive storage
parking lot and will relocate a portion of the mid-level aircraft tie-down area.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for this project and the Final
Environmental Impact Report will be considered by the City Council for certification.
The Final EIR, which consists of the Draft EIR, the Recirculated Draft EIR and the
responses to comments received during the comment periods, is available in the City
Planning Division Public Counter in Room 111 in City Hall, at the Airport
Administration Building, Resource Management Department (3223 Donald Douglas
Loop South, Suite 2) at the Fairview Library and at the office of the City Clerk and city
website.
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2003 AT 6:45 P.M.
LOCATION: COUNCIL (~HAMBERS, ROOM 213
1685 MAIlV STREET
SANTA MO1vICA, CALIFORNIA
HOW TO COMMENT: The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You
may comment at the City Council public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written
information received before October 7, 2003, will be given to the City Council in their
packet. Information received after that time will be given to the City Council at the
meeting.
Address your letters to: Community and Cultural Services
1685 Main Street, Room 210
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Attention: Karen Ginsberg
Telephone: 310-45 8-8310
ATTACHMENT H