SR-303-001-03 (3)
,. -
/ .
e F~ ~[
303 -00/-03
Monica, California
--
I ,.
RP:DTA:VR
Council Meeting 2-11-86
Santa
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
City staff
SUBJECT:
Recommendation to Adopt the Negative Declaration
and the Resolution Applying for a
Federal Land and Water Conservation Grant for
Development of Clover Park Extension
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution
which is required in applying for a Federal Land and Water
Conservation Fund Grant for the expansion of Clover Park and
adopt the Negative Declaration for this project.
BACKGROUND
The Land and Water Conservation Fund was established by Congress
in 1965 to provide funds for the acquisition and development of
public outdoor recreation areas and facilities.
Generally, forty percent of the fund is allocated annually to
federal agencies to acquire land at areas administered by the
U.S. Forest Service, National Park service, Bureau of Land
Management, and U.S. Fish and wildlife Service.
The remaining
sixty percent is allocated to the fifty-five states and
territories who in turn make 50 per cent matching grants to their
political subdivisions.
California's share of this year's
program is estimated to be $3.5 million of which $1,435,635 is
allocated to region 8 of which Santa Monica is a part.
L-F
F~ 1 tg86
- 1 -
e
e
The deadline for applying for these funds for the 1985/86 Fiscal
Year program is February 17, 1986.
On October 1, 1985 City council approved the schematic plans for
the Clover Park Extension which were developed with extensive
pUblic involvement. At that time the Council approved the
development of the park expansion in two phases due to the lack
of funds to complete the entire $717,000 project in this fiscal
year. Phase I, for which funds are available, will include
grading and planting of the area, irrigation, the concrete
walkway, signage and installation of the parking lot. For phase
II, the City has applied for a Regional competitive Grant from
the state for funds for installation of the softball fields, tot
lot, handicap viewing areas and picnic tables totalling $66,850.
This Land and Water Conservation Grant requests $109,410 for
construction of the restroom building and observation deck and
installation of a handicap accessible par course station.
If these two grants are received, the City will have to provide
approximately $90,000 from developer fees and/or the general fund
to complete the project.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
An Initial study and Negative Declaration were prepared on the
Clover Park Expansion project. The Initial study reviewed
potential impacts of the project and found that it would result
in no significant effects. A 30-day public comment period was
- 2 -
e
e
conducted. This staff report reconunends that the city Council
adopt the Negative Declaration.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The total cost for the development of the Clover Park Expansion
is estimated to be $717,000, and is development is planned in two
phases. The project will be funded through the following
sources:
FAA z'Berg Grant Gen Fund TOTAL
Phase I 125,000 237,600 362,600
Phase II 91,000 66,850 196,550 354,400
717,000
For Phase I $237,600 is available from the general fund in
accounts #01-740-511-000-978 and #53-740-511-000-978. For Phase
II a verbal agreement has been received from the state that
$90,000 will be reimbursed from state Roberti-Z I Berg funds and
$66,850 has been applied for from the state Regional Competitive
Grant program but not yet granted to the city. This Land and
Water Conservation grant application for $109,410, if approved,
would reduce the remaining General Fund contribution from
$197,850 to approximately $90,000. If this grant is awarded to
the City, staff will return to Council for authorization to spend
the funds.
RECOMMENDATIONS
staff reconunends that:
1. Council adopt the attached resolution to apply for a grant
- 3 -
e
e
from the Federal Land and Water Conservation program for
development of the Clover Park Extension
2. Council adopt the Negative Declaration for this project.
Prepared by: Donald T. Arnett
Director Recreation and Parks
Vivian Rothstein
Assistant to the Director
Recreation and Parks Department
attachment
- 4 -
I
,
,"" ~
PPD 8/34
e
e
EIA NO.
793
CITY OF SA~TA ~lONICA
I~ITL:\.L STUDY
:)ATE FILED 9/27/85
I. BACKGROU~D
1. ~ame of P=opc~e~t C~ty of Santa ~O~lca
2.
1685 Ma~n Street
ACGress and :?hcne ~j:..lmbe~ 8= PrGponen.~
Santa Mon~ca, CA 90401
(2l3) 458-2301
3. P=8Ject Accress 2600 Ocean Park Boulevard
Santa ~lon~ca, CA
r~ah;.e 0::
a??:'2.ca;,.!.e
Pro;:osal,
Clover Park Expans~on
~. :~ltlal Study ?re?a~ed By D. K, Webster
I:~ E~~J:~ON~E~TAL I~?ACTS
(Expl2.:1.a-,::..cns cf all lI"les" =.r:.a P"'a~<:::.e II arlswe=s a~e ::'equ~red en
at~ac~ed s~eets.~
Yes :'Iaybe 1:>;0
Ear::;:.
~lll t~e p=o~csal resul~ ~G:
~ C~s~able ea~~c c~~c~t~cn5 ~- ~n
- ~'.......
c~an~es ~~ geo_cg~c SUDS~=licc~~es:
x
~. S~gn:..flca~~ d~5~~~~~C~s, d~sDlace-
Ie~~s, 2G~?act~a~ C~ ove~cover~~g
0:: ~_'":8 5C:'~~
x
L~2~se ~~ ~cpog~a;~~ OI c=cu~~
su~=aC8 ~elle= =2a~~res?
x
The des~ruc~~on, c8ve=~ng 0=
~Cd~=~C2t~CD 8f a~~ ~~~Gue C2C-
log~ca~ Jr ~n~5~cal =eat~~es?
x
~ny ~~c~ease ~n ~~~d ~= ~a~8~
er~s~o~ of so~ls, elt~er on or
of:: tje s:.t.e?
.1L
C~a~~es ~~ ie~0S~~lO~ or erOS~0n
Gf be2C~ 3a~dsl C~ c~~~ges In
s~lta~LO~, ~e?cs~~~on cr e~os~cn
~.;h-=-::~~ ~a::.. ~CC~:i
Gee 3.:1 _ _ ::::. ......--.:- 82. ~_-
, --
~::e .;::;ec:. 8::
::2e
~i')
---J-L
v
,.
, .. "
2.
3. Water.
g.
Exposu4t of people or property
to geologlc hazards such as
earthquakes, landslldes, mud-
Slldes, ground fallure, or
simllar hazards?
e
Alr.
Wlll the proposal result in:
a.
Substantlal alr emlSSlons or
deterloratlon of amblent air
quallty?
b.
The creatIon of Ob]ectlonable
odors?
c.
Alteratlon of alr movement,
mOlsture, or temperature, or
any change In cllmate, either
locally or reglonally?
d.
Expose the proJect resldents
to severe alr pollutlon
condltioilS?
Wlll the proposal result in:
a.
Changes In currents, or the course
of dlrectlon of water movements,
In elther marlne or fresh waters?
b.
Slgnlflcant c~anges In absorptlon
rates, dralnage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alteratlons to the course or
flow of flood waters?
Change In the amount of surface
water ln any water body?
Dlscharge lnto surface wa~ers,
or In any alteratlon of s~rface
water quallty, lncl~dlng but not
llmlted to te~perature, dissolved
oxygen or turbldlty?
1: .
Alteratlon of the dlrectlon or
rate of flow of ground waters?
'= .
Change lTI the quantlty of ground
waters, elther through dlrect
addltlons or wlthdrawals, or through
~~te~ce9tlon of a~ asulfer by cuts
0= excavatlons?
-2-
Yes Haybe No
~
x
x
x
x
x
x
-1L
x
x
x
x
~ ,
e
~ Yes Maybe ~o
h.
Substant~al reductlon In the
a~ount of water otherwlse
ava~lable for publlc water
supplles?
l.
Expos~re of people or property
to water related hazards such
as floodlng or tldal waves?
4.
Plant LIfe.
Wlll the proposal result In:
a.
Char.ge In t~e dlverslty of speCles,
or ~umber of any specles of plants
(lncl~cl~g trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, a~d aquatlc plants)?
b.
Reductlo~ of the Gumbers of any
unlsue, rare or endangered specles
of plants?
IntroductLon of ne~ spec~es of
91ants lnto an area, or lTI a barrler
to the hor~al replenlslli~ent of
ex~s~~~g s~ec~es?
~.
.P~n2..m2.1 ~:.fe.
Wlll ~2e proposal res~l~ l~:
a. Cha~ge L~ t~e c~verslty of spec~esl
or ~~Tbe~ 0= any spec~es of an~mals
,DlrQS, land anlmals lncludlng
rept~lesl =ish and shellf~sh, benth1c
or:;anl5fi:'1S
~nsects?
0"
~edUC~lOTI 0= the ~~~~e=s of a~y
u~~~~e, ra~e 0r e~can~er9~ s~ec~es
- - .....
c:: a:.i.:.:rta~s:
:~~~~d~ctlon of ~ew S?e~leS of
anl~a15 ~~=c a~ a~ea, 0= result lTI
a ~a=~~e= ~0 ~~e rr~q~atlon 0=
~oveme~~ 0= anl~als?
d~ Ce~2~lc~~tlon of ~x~st~ng =lS~ or
~~~l~l~~e hab~ta~5?
E ~
E2Erc,-y.
Wll: t~e prQPC5~~ res~lt ~~:
a. ~se of s~osta~t~al ~~cu~t of fuels
o ~ e::e=S:i?
Subs~a~t~a: 12crease ~n ~ema~d upon
ex~s~~~q so~~ces of ene~g7, c= re-
~~~=e ~~e develcpme~t a: new sa~rces
c:- ene:-gy?
-]-
x
II
x
x
x
x
x
--1L
x
x
x
7.
Natural RJlturces.
::esult in:
Yes
Will the proposa~
a.
Increase ~n the rate of use of any
natural resources?
b.
Substant~al deplet~on of any non-
renewable natural resource?
8.
W~ll the proposal result lU:
~o~se .
a.
S~gn~f~cant ~ncreases ~~ ex~sting
nOIse levels?
b.
Expos~re of people to severe
no~se levels?
9.
Llght and Glare. Wlll the proposal
2ro~uce slgnlf~can~ new llgh~ or glare
f~on st~eet llg~~s or other sources?
10.
Shadows. Wlll the proposal produce
substantlal shadows affectlng ad-
Jacent uses O~ property?
11.
RlSk 0= U9set.
~~ll the prc?csal lnvolve:
a.
A rls~ of an ex~los~on or the
release of hazardcus s~bstances
(~ncludlng, but ~ot 11~l~2C to,
all, pest~cldes, cheml~als or
raclatlon) ~~ the eve~t of a~
aCClcent or ~pset condlt~ons?
'::J.
Pos51ble ~nterference w~~h an
e~erge~cy ~es;onse ?lan or a~
e~ergenc7 evacua~lon ~la~?
12.
3:J.rna.:l Hea2- ~:___ .
~tJ~2-: tr:e ::=::)~csa.2..
result J.n:
a.
Crea~2..0!1
of any health ~aza~d or
~eal~~ (excl~d~ng 3en~al
?ote:--..."t.la:
::ealt::)?
o.
Ex~osure of ?eo?le to ?cte~t~a:
::ea1"th :'1azarGs?
13.
?opul3.~:Lcn~
W~l~ ~~e ?r~~osa: =es~~~ ~~;
-3..
~~~~~~~~a~; ~~~~~~ ~~~~h~f~~~~r~~~~~o~,
po?u:a~~Qn ~= a~ ~~ea?
<
--'-r:-
:'1avbe
..
No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
~
x
x
x
"
e
b.
The relccat~on of any persons
because of the effects upon
hous~ng, commerc~al or ~ndustr~al
fac~l~t~es?
c.
The relocatlon or dlslocat~on
of employment or bus~nesses?
14. La:ld Use.
Wlll the proposal result In:
a.
A substantlal alterat~on of the
present 0= planned land use of
an area?
b.
Demol~t~on, relocat~on, or remodel-
Ing of res~dent~al, co~~erc~al or
~ndustrlal bUlldlngs or other
fac~lltles?
W~ll the proposal:
15. HOlislng.
a.
Create a slgnlIlcant demand for
addltlonal housing?
b.
3ave a slgnlflcant lmpact on the
avallable rental hous~ng In the
commun~ty?
:6. ~tllltles. W~ll the proposal result
~~ a ~eed =or new syste~s, or substan-
~lal alteratlons to the followlng
8~11:....tle5:
a.
Power or natural gas?
:::.
CGmn~~~Ca~lons systens?
c.
~,ater?
d.
Sewer or septlc ~a~ks?
Storm water dra~nage?
Solld waste and dls~osal?
-;)-
e
Yes Maybe No
x
x
x
v
"
v
"'"
x
x
x
x
x
~
-X.-
17.
R~ght of ,.v'
result ~n:
eYes
Will the proposal
a.
Reduced front/s~de lot area?
b.
Reduced access?
c.
Reduced off-street paYk~ng?
d.
Creation of abrupt grade
d~fferentlal between publlc
and prlvate property?
18. Transportatlon/Clrculatlon. WIll
the proposal result ~n:
a.
Generat~on of substantlal
addlt~onal vehlcular xovement?
b.
Effects on ex~st~ng parklng
faCllities, or demand for
new park:wg?
c.
Substa~tlal Impact upon eXlstlng
transportatlon systems?
c. Alteratlons to ?resent patterns
of c~rculatlon or mcveme~t of
people and/or goods?
e. Alteyatlons to waterborne, rall
or a~r traff~c?
Increase ~n trafrlc hazards to
motor vehlcles, blcycllsts or
pedestrlans?
19. ?~bllC Se~Vlces. ~~~~ t~e ~roposal h2ve
a slgnlflca~t e=fec~ ~po~, O~ res~lt l~ a
need =or new or al~ered gove~~@e~~al
SeYVlCeS ~n any 0= the =c~~GWlng arQ~~.
a.
Flre 9rotec~lor:?
b.
Pollee ?rotectlon?
c.
Schools?
c.
Parks or other recreatlonal
facllltles?
e.
Mai~tenance of ?u~l~c =acll~t~~sJ
lncludlng roacs?
Ot~er gcvernme~~a_ se~71~es?
-5-
Maybe
No
x
x
~
~
x
x
x
x
~
"-
x
x
~
-1:L
x
~
"'
x
e
20.
FLscal. WLll t~e proposal have a
subs~antLal negat~ve fLscal effect
on the CLty?
21.
Pecreatlon. WLll tee proposal
~esult lD a substantlal lQpact
u~on the qual~ty or quant~ty of
ex~st~ng ~ecreatlonal opportunLtles?
22. Cultural ~esources.
a.
WLll t~e proposal result In the
alterat~on of or the destruct~on
of a prenlstorLc or ~~storlC
a~chaeologlcal slte?
b.
W~ll t~e propos a: result In
adve~5e phys~cal or aesthet1c
e=fects to a preh~storlC or
h~stcr~c Du~~d~~g, s~ruct~re,
:Jr cJ:Ject?
Does t~e proposal have t~e
pc~ent~al to ca~se a physlcal
=ha~ge wh~ch wou~c a~fect
unlq~e ethnlC cultural values?
j.
W~ll the ~~cccsal ~est~lct
eXls~~ng rel~g~ous cr sac~ec
uses wlt~~n ~~e ?ot~nt~al
l::lpac-:. area?
23. ~est~et~cs. h~l~ t~e pro?csed
~r01eCL ~esGlt ~~:
2. T~2 Gbstr~c~~~~ o~ a~y scenlC
"':;"ls--:a cr
t:J
t:-.e
",..71'2:P';
?~l2-C?
?~e c=eat~J~ c= a~ aest~et~~
=a:l~ cfr2nSl7e Sl~e o~e~ ~o
-::c~l~:: V~2""';?
The ~2str~ctlon of ~ stand of
~~ees, a =cc< outC~??l~~ or
ct~e~ lcca:ly recog~~zec deslr-
acl2 ~est~etlc ~at~ral feature?
d. rl~Y s~bs~a~t~al ~esat~ve
aes~~e~~c e:=2c~?
e
Yes Maybe No
:L
x
x
~
x
x
x
x
x
x
e
e
24. Mandatory FIndings of S~gn~f~cance.
a. Does the project have the potent~al
to degrade the quality or the env~~-
onment, substantlally reduce the
habitat of a flsh or wlldllfe speCles,
cause a f~sh or wlldllfe populat~on
to drop below self sustaln~ng leve~s,
threaten to elimlnate a plant or
anlmal co~munlty, reduce the number
or restrlct the range of a rare or
endangered plant or anlmal or
ellm~nate lmporta~t examples of the
maJor per~ods of Callfornla h~story
or pre-hlstory?
b. Does the proJect have the potentlal
to achleve short-te=~~ to tne dlS-
advantage of long-term, env~ronmental
goals?
c. Wlll the proposal have s~gnlflcant
effects on the proJect ne~ghbor-
hood?
d. Does the proJect have ~mpacts
Wh1Ch a~e ~nd1v~Gually 11mitecJ
but cQmulatlvely cons~derable?
e. Does the project have enVlron-
~e~tal effects w~lch ~111 cause
subs~ant~al adve~se effects on
hw~a~ be~ng5r elt2er ~lr~c~ly
or lnc.J..rec::.l1-'?
II:::.
~lSc~ss~on of ~~VlrGC~e~t2: EvalGat~orr
(See attac~""ent)
IV. Determlnatlcn
(See att.achr.1ent;
-8-
Yes
Haybe
x
No
X-
If.-
v
-"-
x
e
~
J
.
---------- 5
----- ------- ~ ~
u
~
e
.
& :. r.
H: '~: ~! ,:
~p i: Iii ,i
..f , I 0 )
~!~~:_;~
;~; ~ ~ ~
~ lioo..."'.. :: T
e
e
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
INTRODUC'rION
ThlS attachmenc supplements the CIty of Santa MonIca InItial
Study Form for the proposed Clover Park expansion proJect.
According to the CIty of Santa Monica CEQA GU1delines, the
purposes of an Inlt1al Study are to:
(1) Identify potentIal envIronmental impacts;
(2) Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modIfy a proJect,
mItigatIng adverse Impacts before an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) 15 written;
(3) Focus an EIR, 1f one 1S required, on potentIally slgnif1cant
env1ronmental effects;
(4) Fac1l1tate envIronmental assessment early In the des1gn of a
proJect;
(;}) ?roVl::le documentat1on of the factual baS1S for the flnd10g
1n a N2gat1\1e Declaration that a proJect will not have a
slgnlf1cant effect on the environment;
(5j Ell~lnate unnecessary EIRs.
The conclusIon of thIS Inl1:lal Study IS that no slgnif1cant
aaver32 enVIronmental effeces WIll result from trie proposed
proJecl:, and, therefore, a Negat1ve Declaracion Will be issuej.
Any comments on thiS Initial Study, or the determination to
prepar2 a Negative DeclaratIon, should be sent to:
- 1 -
e e
D. Kenyon webster
CIty PlannIng Dlvislon
City Hall
P. O. Box 2200
Santa MonIca, Callfornla 90406-22QO
ProJect Locatlon
Map 1 shows the locatlon of Santa Monlca In the regIon.
Map 2
shows toe locatlon of the proJect wlthln the CIty of Santa
MonIca.
ProJect Descrl9tlon
The:)!:;)"1e:!:. lnvolves ~ S..j a;:;r2 eXpcirl310n of the eXlstlng Park
ana wlll lnclude a 26-s~ac2 Clrcular parKlng lot accessed by an
extenslon of 28th Street fro~ tne east, a graded area which WIll
serve as c. wacer re tentlon basln capdble of handllng peak water
a:::::::::1iTIul3.tlon from a 10 year scor:u, two softball flelds and 1
SGc;:cr
c. ~ .-. ~ -=;
--'--..........,
a. r2Sl:.rOOW I.vlt:l sport.s le3.gu~ storage lockers,
a
to~ lo~ and plC~lC area and an obser:vatlon deck near the
perl:lece:c of the Al:-;::ort.
Llghtlng wlll only be provlded along
the concr2~e patn, low co cne ~r:)und. There wlll be cwo handIcap
V~erNl'1g ar233 .5DO\l"'=: t~c pl.?tYlng f~elcl.
The plaYlng fIeld area
"nIl be s:opej tov;aL::s c:he nor :nwes: WI ::1 landscaped mounds for
02..S51.\'~= plcnlC a['~a.3 a~ t~"1e top of tne slopes.
A copy of the
p(ell~lna:cy par~ plan IS atcached.
e
Map 1
.,
N
tD!I~GunfY
~C'
'J5c ~'7
~4~
"OANiA~,.
.... leA.
.
Regional Setting
Af11lb
Q~
.
v
CI.l
+l
....
[J)
+l
U
CI.l
n
o
l-I
11<
)(~ ::: ~::l!~:r ~:=:: :::~:::::b: :::':I :;;~t:l~~l:i: ::: ::1:::! :a::t;:;= ~~:t;: :;:!n~L~~;U~:: ::::U g::~i:!~:nI:n~Z~~;l:~I~::::::t;;;::~:t::~;:
~I 1'1 'III! 1'1'1 J 'III illl!' 111 i I~ I, ij I, 'il [:I,! II,:': j IT :,1: I', I'! I,I!I" 'I '.III,i' !:Yi,lIIIII:'.11 '! I '1'1 1.,1 Ii I! !III!III'I 1:1'111'11 I
I ' I II I '" II." e! . ' I 'I' I II. ,I, I I "I' I " ,.. I "I' II I, I' ,." II' II "I.. , I'
It i"'~~i It;>-~~~ ji"! l;'r':tl 1:= Ii I i~~= IS' -; i . ..... I! i~ I~i I~ ~~ I :; ~:: ~:i I ~ "_.: ~ i=~ 1$ !~, I ~ i : , . i ic~~..t;;~ j- .~tJ:il!~ I it i~
!i~1 Ii !~:;~,~~~ H,: i~:~i! :~s:~~ :ja'!~ j:: s~, =~ ~i;~ :~,,':' i~~:~:i=!St~: ~;~~::::~i~~:}l ;~h~f~l ='i:~;Mi~rt~i=!
g..hi F" =...I.;~! :'~~9' ~ E'."~-,' ..:;.!~;i:, q: ,,'I! ~.'~i~_i_!_ 5!.; !~;m;~~, a~'~~i 0'3.: ~~ ijii!!~~~nS~e~ m~,,5 !Is.~
..",if"...... ,.a.lll~lIlOllllitliJ.........u ,,<.oS a Q 15.. ~...... __r: "'-"-e'" '" "..., 1:1..,.." e ~ '"..... .:li-,~ -,~i~. 3I.J[":I' "'..... ;e1o ../lo.. ..tl tift.... i.........t;..~~.. :055.. ...... i....
IL
0..
'1l
:;:
Ilil~n!11iili:i 1 II iW:II;:;:
;;~~~~ ~m~;mii~ ~~~~m ~i~~~~
II.
w ... III
...
~
Q,;
'"
~
N
a
o
"'1.;,,+' ~
-Hirl,!i(
'(Imn
~ ~J ~ ~ ~I f~
~~ ~'I
I ~,
;1 ;1 ~ ~ ;1 : : 1~~~H,:1 ~.:, \
I J 1:'1 I r' ~"''";I 'r
.". .. .. I I I I 1 I il I I ~.~ r.; ..
I~-- -,. I ~I ;1 I I I I I iH 1""'1 I~.n.
~..,~".~ , I I I I I I 1"1Ir~".~
... ..;; .1::;::.:.:;: ~ ;- .. .. :; .: ;;
. . _1111 ,.- 'o~"._
",' ",! ::.1"
J".., i
.
\:,;
'-
.... 0
...,
y
> ,-
.~
- ~
i ,
-
r f""U
"" ,n
lD
I'
I
m
<
Cd
=~
~zz
co...
~ ~ ~
r ""
~ ~
~~"'l
........~F:i
IdZ~
<'"
CJ:
<(
lL
C
:IE
t-
III
11/
a::
t-
1/1
"](',"..~1~
~'
--,J '-, ,r
ft~ ~:
~ ,~
:-. In,.._ -l..___
--.-;;-,-::;;;;.....
<(
il.
N
IC)
v
ID
~
e
e
BACKGROUND
In January 1984, Councll approved an agreement between the Clty
and the Federal AVIatIon Adm~n~stratlon whl.ch settled the long
standl.ng controversy surroundIng the Santa MonIca AIrport and
adopced a new layout for the alrport. MaJor factors In the
alrport redeslgn agreement l.nvolved expanslon of Clover Park and
a Clty commItment to a publlC plannlng process for the deslgn of
the park expanSlon.
In February 1985, CIty CouncIl approprIated $60,000 from the
Alrporc Fund to develop plans for the park extenSIon and
authorlzed CIty staff to retaIn a landscape archItect. CounCIl
also ex?ressed Its Interest In notlfYlng surroundlng nel.ghbors by
mall and lnvoll/lng representatlves of youth sports leagues In the
plannlng process.
PUBLIC PLANNI~G PROCESS
Over 4,000 flIers were mailed to resldents of the CIty Ilvlng In
the areas adJace'1t to Clover Park expl<:I.1::11n3 the park plannIng
process and the conStralnts on developlng a park next to aIrport
operaClons. Fllers were dlstrlbuted WIdely aI'loung youth sports
leagues, and nO~lces of the meetIngs appear2d In the local
papers.
Over 150 people par t.lC Ipa ted In the two plannIng war kshops held
at Clover Par~ on July 15 and 22. Each workshop Included
pre5e~tatlons on the deSIgn constraInts faced by the proJect and
- 3 -
e
e
the need to lnclude a water-retentIon faCllity as part of the
park desIgn. The archltect was asked to tabulate all Input
provlded by the publIC and to develop two alternative schematic
desIgns for conslderatlon at the August 22 meetlng of the
Recreatlon and Parks Commlsslon.
In addltlon to the suggestIons receIved at publIC workshops, a
number of wr I teen suggestIons were receIved regardlng the park
deslgn. These Included a petItIon requestIng that new softball
fle1ds at Clover Park be deslgnated for use by Bobby Sox
so f tball .
At each workshop, votes were taken on key lssues to identlfy the
level of support for
the followlng Items
varlOUS
program suggestlons.
To summarIze,
receIved
the
most
support (lIsted froID
In the park deslgn:
hIgnest to lowest prIorIty) for
lncluSlon
1. HandIcap acc2s31bl~ play area Wlt:'} acceSSIble eqUIpment in
the eXIstIng Clover Par~ playground
2. Exten~lon of walkwaY/JoggIng pat~
3. SO~tball fleld (adul~ a~d Boboy Sox)
4. Soccer fIeld
The follOWI'lg lC2iUS reC2.!.'/eo mOL" llIDlted support from publIC
partIclpantS (llscej l~ order of prlorlty):
1. Communlcy sWlmillln~ pool
2. AIrport oos2rv~~lon deck
3. BIcycle dIrt course
4. Tennls 80urts anJ prac~lce wall
- 4 -
e
e
5. Natural passive area
6. Pet exerCIse area
7. Natural herb gardenjaboretum
8. Golf puttIng green
9. Lake wIth paddle boats
10. Sculpture garden
11. Communlty recreatlon center
A consensus was expressed for provIdIng vehIcular access to the
new pari{ land through the extenSIon of 28th Street rather than
from 25th Street, a prlmarlly reSIdentIal street.
Of the two deSIgn alternatlves presented at the August 22
Recreatlon a~d Parks CommlSSl0n meetIng, the one selected by the
35 people In attendance provlded for a Clrcular parkIng lot
confIguratIon and a small satellIte tot lot.
PARK EXTENSION DESIGN SUMMARY
As desIgned, tne par'< extenSIon provldes a soccer fleld, two
sof~ball flelds, the exte~sl~n of the wal<lng/]ogglng path loop,
three par-course statIons, a tot loc:, an al=!?Ort observatlon
area, and passlve pICTI1C facllltles.
Tne area 15 sloped to
accomodate water retentlon whlle at tue same tlme provldlng
paSSIve recreatlon areas and 13.ndscaped mounds. Access t::> the
area IS provided by extending 28th 5t!:2ec:.
A 26 space cIrcular
parkIng lot and a restroom faCilIty WIth league eqUIpment lockers
are also Included.
handl~ap accessiole.
All faCllitles In the par:< extenslon are
In res;?onse to publiC lnterest a handicap
- 5 -
e
e
accesslble viewlng area for softball and soccer and electrlc
serVIce outlets near the softball fleld are provided as well.
RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION ACTION
On September 19,
the RecreatIon
the completed schematIc plans were presented to
and Parks CommIssIon. PubllC comments were
generally
reconslder
presented,
favorable to the plan but there was
the excluslon of fleld llghtlng.
were approved by the Commlsslon
a
request
The
wlth
plans,
to
as
a
scrong
plaYlng
recommendatIon
to
Incorporate
fleld
llghtlng
lnto
the
fIelds, If lt can be
done, whlle at
the
same
tIme malntalnlng
Com~lSSlon also
adequate park and
recommended that the
younger chlljren.
aIrport
safety.
The
satelllte tot lac be desIgnej for use by
LIGHTING
From the beglnnlng of the 91aool09 process It has been suggested
that fleld llghtlng would be precluded be.::ause of the potentl3-1
hazards presented to pllots landlng and ta%lng off at nlgh~ from
the Santa MonIca Airport.
Due
to FAA regulatIons,
llght
standards can be no t3.l1er than 35-58 fee t dependIng on thelr
locatIon.
Llght flxtures of thlS helght would provlde lnadequate
llghtlng of the outfleld areas. ~hlle staff supports an Increase
in the number of Ilghted plaYIng fIelds, staff and the landscape
- 5 -
It
e
arch~tect feel that these fl.elds cannot be adequately lIghted
wIthout posIng a danger to pIlots utilizing Santa MonIca A1rport.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE PUBLIC
Concern was expressed by workshop partic1pants regard~ng the
parkIng of cars 1n res~dentlal streets surround1ng the park. A
study was conducted of the currently eX1sting park parkIng lot
Wh1Ch was found to be below capacIty at nearly all tIme.
Increased slgnage was suggested to Inform dr1vers of the
ava~labll1ty of parkIng adJacent to the park 1n order to reduce
1mpact on the resldent1al area. WhIle some resIdents opposed the
1ncluslon of a parkIng area In the park extensIon, ~t was felt by
C1ty staff and the landscape architects that th1S feature should
be Included for the convenl.ence of park users.
REDESIGN OF EXISTING PLAYGROUND POR HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY
Ac each of the two publ ic workshops and aga1n 1n dISCUSSIon
before the Recreation and Parks CommiSSion, strong publIC support
was expressed for mod1fYlng the eXIstIng Clover Park Playground
to make It handIcap acceSSIble. Such a redeSIgn was not
1nl t15lly ~ncluded 1n the scope of serVices for toe landscape
architects. However, due to publiC Interest In th1S proJect and
t!1e Cl1:Y's COml111tmeot to access1billty In publlC faCllltles, an
estImate was requested from the consultants to provlde the plans
for tne playground redeSIgn. $9,200 was estimated as the cost
for a playground redeSIgn and working drawIngs. Actual
- 7 -
e
e
constructlon and InstallatIon of such a playground IS estimated
to cost about $90,000.
Members of the publIC also suggested constructIng a ramp for
accessIbIlIty to the pIcnIc area WhIch wl11 be accomplIshed with
exstln~ department funds.
BUDGET/FI~ANCIAL IMPACT
The estlmated cos~ for the entlre Clover Park extenslOn proJect,
wOlch Includes extendlng 28th Street to provlde vehlcular access,
IS $716,520. $125,000 wl11 be pald by the FAA as part of the
gradIng and do.lnage plan for the Santa Monica Alrport. That
leaves a total cost to the CIty for the park extenslon of
$591,520. rhe cost extlmate Includes a number of prevIously
unantlclpated costs lncludlng:
1. S75,940 for lrrlga\:lon, WhlCh proved tel be lnellglble for
FAA fundlD3.
2.
$53,570
for the
extel1Sl0n
of 28th
Street
to prOVIde
suggested by
venlcul-3.r
access.
ThlS was
a des Ign
feature
ar=3. resljents.
3. $36,190 for dD unusually long sewer connectlon reqUIred for
the park restroom.
4. General development costs WhlCh are hIgher because the
2xtentloo, as measured, 15 5.5 acres, not 4.25 acres.
$198,000 IS provlded for the Clover Park project from the general
fund E1 the 1983-86 budget In account 401-740-511-000-978. An
- 3 -
e
e
addItIonal $95,000 IS avaIlable for park desIgn from Roberti-
Z'Serg funds. The total of $293,000 w111 be used for Phase I of
the development Wh1Ch w111 1nclude grad1ng, landscaping, seedIng,
1rrlgat1on, the concrete walkway, the 28th Street extension,
s1gnage, and lnstallatlon of the parkIng lot. The City lS
applYlng for State 1986-87 Reg10nal CompetItIve Grant to pay for
installatlon of tne softball f1elds (backstops, seat1ng, etc.),
tot lot, handIcap vlewlng areas, and plcn1c tables totall1ng
$66,850. If the grant is receIved, about $232,000 would be
reqUIred ln the future to complete Phase II WhlCh would 1nclude
restroom, utll1tles, dr1nk1ng fountalns, alrport v1ewlng deck,
and par-course statIons.
The funds requested to provIde the des1gn and work1ng drawIngs to
make the current.ly eXlstlng playground handlcap acceSSIble w11l
be drawn from Uns eXlS1:lng account. Other fandlng sources may
be ldentlf1ed for tillS proJect ln the future.
ENVIRONMEN~AL REVI~W
In May 1978, an Envlronmental Impact Report (EIR] was prepared by
West2c Servl:::es, I~c. on tb~2 de'lelopille~t of Clover Park.
ThlS
document 1S hereby lTIcorpora:.ed by reference.
Impacts of the
1985 expanslon proposal wlll be substantlally sllTIllar, al though
lesser li1 s;:;ope, than the 1973 ~lover Par~ development proJect.
In addltlon, the par~ expanSion pr:o]ect -..as discussed 1n the
November 1983 EIR prepar~d by Eng1neering-Servlces on the A1rport
- 9 -
e
e
Layout Concept Plan and NOIse Mitigation Program.
15 hereby Incorporated by reference.
ThIS document
PotentIal EnvIronmental Impacts
As requIred by the CIty of Santa Monl=a InItIal Study form, thIS
se=tlon proVIdes an explanatIon of all "yes" and "maybe" answers.
The purpose of thIS analysIs 15 to IdentIfy potentIal
envIronmental effects r to assess the SIgnIfIcance of potentIal
effects and to focus any subsequent analysIs.
lb. Eartn. WIll the proposal result In SIgnIfIcant dIsrup-
tIons, dIsplacements, compactIon or overcoverl~g of the
sOLI?
Response:
ThIS Item IS checked "maybe."
The proJect WIll
reqUIre some gradIng and excavatIon. No such a~tlvItIes WIll be
lnl tlated untIl a gradIng plan IS approved by tne CIty, and a
gradIng permIt IS
accordan~e WI th all
Issued.
Earchwork
WIll be accomplIshed In
applIcable el2me~ts
of elCY and St3.te codes
and ordInances pertaInIng to gradIng and ex~ava:lO~. Please also
see geotecnnlcal and hydrolog1(::al analysIs In the )lay 197& EEL
No
adverse
Impact
from
5011
dIsr~ptLon/dIsplace~ent
IS
antIcIpated as a result of thIS proJect.
- 10 -
e
e
3b. Water. WlII the proposal result in significant changes In
absorptIon rates, draInage patterns, or the rate and amount
of surface runoff?
Response: ThIS ltem IS checked "maybe." Development of thls
proJect would result in InsIgnIficant decreases In absorbtlon
rates as a result of added paved cIrculatIon areas and new small
structures. The retentIon bas1n planned for the proeJct WIll
correct an eXIsting storm water runoff problem. No sIgnIfIcant
adverse water-related Impacts WIll result from the proJect.
8.
NOIse.
WIll the proposal result In:
a)
slgnlf1cant
lncreases In eXIstIng nOIse levels;
to severe nOIse levels?
b) exposure of people
Response: These 1tems are checked "maybe." The n01se Lllpact of
thIS proJect w111 be SImIlar, although lesser 1n scope, than the
orIgInal Clover Park development proJect, analyzed on pages 20-23
of the 1978 EIR. Based on thIS analysIs, adverse nOIse Impact
may occur, but WIll not be slgnlf1cant as meant by CEQA.
9. L1ght and Glare. WIll the proposal produ22 slgn1fl2ant n2~
lIght or glare from street llghts or other sources?
Response: ThIS Item 1S checked "maybe." The proposed pro] eCi:
lncoporates a low-level lIghtIng system wh1cn w1Il m1nlm1ze llght
and glare Impacts on nearby uses, Includ1ng Santa MonIca AIrport.
The llghtIng system WIll cons 1st of lIght fIxtures apprOxImat21y
- 11 -
.. .
e
e
14 ft. h1gh, placed about 100 ft. apart.
are antic1pated.
No sign1f1cant Impacts
14. Land Use. W1ll the proposal result 1n a substantial
alteratIon of the present or planned land use of an area?
Response: ThIS Item is checked "maybe." The proposed proJect
Involves the development of expanded public park facllltles on
land that IS presently vacant. The eX1stlng l4-acre Clover Park
1S located d1rectly north of the project slte. To the south IS
Santa MonIca AIrport, a general aVlat10n facilIty. To the west
are resIdent1al areas of Sunset Park. To the northeast 1S the
Santa Mon1ca Business Park, conslst1ng of Im.-r1se offIce and
retaIl facllltleS.
The proJect slte IS zoned M2, or 1ndustrlal.
The Land Use
Element calls for a1rport-compat1ble uses to be developed at th1S
Sl~e and others at or adJacent to Santa Mon1ca A1rport.
Development of the pro] ect Sl te, as proposed, would represent a
change 1n the current use (vacant property} to recreatIonal use.
The property serves no publIC 1nterest as vacant land. The park
expanS10n would result In an enlarged publIC faC111ty provldlng
bot~ actIve and paSSIve actIVIty areas. The landscapIng and
berms enC1rcl1ng the proJect would provlde an effectIve buffer
aga1ns~ any potentlal VIsual or nOIse Impacts on surroundIng land
uses. No s1gn1flcant land use Impacts will occur.
- 12 -
. '
e
e
18. Transportation/CirculatIon. WIll the proposal result in:
a) generatIon of substantIal addItIonal vehIcular move-
ments; b) effects on existIng parkIng faCIlItIes, or demand
for new parkIng; d) al teratlons to present patterns of
CIrculatIon or movement of people and/or goods?
Response: These Items are checked "maybe." By enlargIng and
enhanCIng the eXIstIng park fa~llltlY, the proposed proJect WIll
lIkely result In addItIonal vehIcular movements, and In a need
for added parkIng. However, the amount of traffIC generated as a
dIrect result of tne 5.4-acre expanSIon IS not expected to result
In any SIgnIfIcant effect, and the pro]e~t Includes an extenSIon
of 28th Street to faCIlItate park access, and also includes an
addItIonal 26 parkIng spaces to address parkIng demand. No
slgnIfIcan~ traffIC Impacts are antICIpated.
19d. Publlc SerVIces.
WIll the prOposal have a signlflcant
effect upon, or result In a need for new or altered
:Jovecnmental
or other
recreatIonal
serVIces on parks
faCilitIes?
Response:
~hl3 lt2ill LS checked Ilmay~e."
Cost data for the
5.4-acr2 expan:;lon proJect 13 pCJv1.ded In precedIng sectIons of
tnl3 Inl~lal Study. Addej annual
ap~roxl~at21y $30,000 would also occur.
maIntenance
costs
of
20.
Fl5cal.
~111 the proposal have a substantIal negatIve
flscal effect on the Cley?
- 13 -
~
e
e
Response: ThIS item is checked
discussed above. WhIle negative,
sIgnifIcant as meant by CEQA.
"maybe."
Cost
impacts are
not Judged
thIS Impact IS
21.
Impact
upon
the
the proposal
qualn.y or
resul t In
quantity
a substantIal
of existIng
RecreatIon.
WIll
recreatIonal opportunItIes?
Response: ThIS 1 tern IS checked "maybe." The proposed pro] ect
would add 5.4 acres of parkland to Clover Park and to the CIty'S
useable open space Inventory. ThIS IS viewed as a positIve
Impact on recreatIonal opportunItIes In Santa MonIca. No
negatIve recreatIonal Impacts are antIcIpated.
24c. i'i1l1 the proposal have SIgnIfIcant effects on the proJect
neIghborhood?
Response:
analYSIS,
ThIS
Item IS
checked
"maybe."
Throughout
neIghborhood
thIS
potentIal ImpactS
to the
Iffim2cllate
are
conSidered and addressed.
No SignIficant environmental Impacts
as meant by CEQA are d~tl:::lpated as a result of the proJect.
cloverp;c
- 14 -
. C;TY OF SANTA M!,/CA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECO,VOMIC DEVELOPMENT
e
EI A NO. 793
DETE!W:;:NATION
PrOject Tltle: Clover Park ~xpanslon
Or the basIs of thls lnltlal evaluatlon:
I flnd that the proposed p"ojec::; cculd not; have a
slgnlflcant effect on the enVlrO'1T:e"'::, ar.d a
NegatIve Declaratlon wlll be prepa"ed.
x
I flnd tha~ al:hough the proposed prcjec~ co~~d
have a slgnlflcant effect cn the e1vl"cr.reent,
there WIll not be a slgnlflca~t; effect 10 thlS
case because the ~ltlgat;lon measures descrlbed on
an attached s:-Jeet have bee:-: added to the prc'Ject.
A NegatIve DeclaratlO" WIll be prepa~ed.
D
! fl~d the p"'oposed p~oJect rr.ay have a slg11f1cart
effect on the envlronment, and a~ Envlror~e1~al
Impact Report is reqUIred.
D
1/,12-0/ is
1llJ~t.4'-
D:"r"el:t~)r, CC"'1".'.:i..Jr"'lty C:11\"l Econor"i:c-
Deve:op~e~~ Jepart~e~~
Date
..EL}.\'.NO.
e
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECO.vO}.fIC DEVELOP,HENT
793
e
ClTl H4LL. 1685 .HAI.... STREET. SA.'I"TA MO'llCA, CALlFOR \-14 9V40J
CITY OF S]>..!:\TA MOKICA
NEGATIVE DECLARATIO~
An application for a NEGATIVE DECLARATION to carry out the following
project:
Clover Park Expanslon (5.4-acre adcltlon to Clover Park,
a publlc park)
on property located at 2600 Ocean Park Boulevard
ln L~e Clty of Sa~ta MO~lca, Call=ornla, h5v~ns bee~ f~leG by
The Cltv of Santa MonIca
, Orl se1;t~I1ber 27
, 19 87
and the applicatlon having been revlewed by tee CO~U~lty and Econo~c
Development Department In accordance with the procedures establ~shed by
Resolution 6694 (CCS), therefore L~e Department here~y flnds ~~at:
1. The proposed actlvlty does constltute a project withln
L,e mean~ng of the Callforn~a EnVlrOI'J'ental Quallty Act
of 1970, as amended.
2. The proposed actIvity 1S net exe~~t from the provis1ons
of such act by reason of belng a rr.inlsterlal, categor1cally
exempt or e~ergency act~vity.
3. The proposed activlty does not appear to have a s~stant~al
adve~se effect upon the e~viro~~ent.
4. Inasrruch as 1t Cd~ be see~ with reas0nable certaInty that
no s~tantlal acverse effect 1S 1nvolved, no prope~ purpose
would be served by the pre?arat~on of an Env1ronmental Impact
Report.
5. A Negative Declaration doc~~ent is the proper, correct and
appropriate procedure resu~red to assure conpliance W1L~
~~e purpose and 1ntent of the Cal1fornld Env1ro~~ental
Qual~ty Act of 1970, as a~encec.
The Department therefore has determ~ned that the proposed proJect does
not have a slgniflcant effect on the e~v~row~ent and ~~at an Environ-
mental Impact Report is not requ~red.
Date:
rtj ZJo/U-
,
}Il,~GcL-t~
D:RECTC'E, COY_'~0r~!.:'Y ;'2'~J ECO~~O!--~!C
:=...~:::::":'? ~~~;: C~? ;.~'-=-~~:~:-
JAN 0 6 1986
STATE Of CAllfORNIA-Of'FICE OF THE GOVE
e
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governo,
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
D. Kenyon Webster
City of Santa Monlca
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
January 2, 1985
Subject:
Clover Park Expansion
SCH# 85120409
Dear Mr. Webster:
The State Clearinghouse suhnitted the above named proposed Negative
Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review pe~iod is
closed and the C:Ulc~nts of the individual agency(ies) is{are) enclosed.
Also, on the enclosed ~otice of CoMpletion. the Clearlr~~ouse has
checked which agencies have cor.mented. Please review the Notice of
Completion to ensure ~hat your cOll1llent package is cQI:JPlete. If the
is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse iMmediately.
eight-dig1.t State Clearinghouse number should be uaed so that we may
promptly.
package
Your
respond
Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or
other public agency shall only make substantive cornrnents on a project which
are within the area of the agency's expertise or which relate to activities
which that agency must ca.rry out or approve. CAB 2583. Ol. 1514, Stats.
1984. )
'lbese COll1llel1ts are forwarded for your use il1 adopting your Negative
Declaration. If you need more information or clarification. we suggest you
contact the commenting agency at your earliest convenience.
Please contact GleQ~ Stober at 916/445-0613 if you have a~ questions
regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely.
~. /
~~~/
John B. Ohanian 7"
Chief L'eputy Director
Office of PlannL~ ~~d Research
cc: Resources Agency
Snclo5ures
---
p
~
- ~?:~-,rr.~- ... ._........_-_,~
.t:lHe ::'&.-~ ].tor,.e so; ..:=. SII-_Ulo ::a :I!Ill~ll,<M!o-OII
II:Ina::CI"a::IIP"..l"n~ft.....~......-r--r-'tU.II!IaT"'...a:,.:rc:.
",.85120409
1~/7 I
i'
J
, -~
-'~"'-i
P"'-::;~. ....~ r."lr:ve~ PArk F.~Rr,Rl'1'"
&.-c AA:="" r.i~ c,!' SL...t~ I..fi"'if"-;;""II
:... .lIt__.ws:....... 1685 Ma~~ s!:!"e@";
k ~ I.cs A::Jre195
~~ u;Q.rCJi -I :w:..&II""'T !.Ds .P.nR'@l9S
Co ~. ila'aJ ~
.. ....~
.. =ro- snwr... -Ocean P!1l'k Blvd /26t:t St. ..
. ft':;WIl:ll:.l_ . ..... 1 2 ...... SMO
.. . t para
- - ,.,. . J,ICILlIIC!':(JII"'VE
s= '" _~ Pl.a& ~'t.
.. -"'" .. _a '" ___~'l
'" _krh e:- o- _orr '" _~P1u_'
.' " l....1lK ..- _JaJ .. -~,~
! _Onnmo '" __ta_
i III:F'Pl_:' .. _tpIII::.!).cPlu
CB ~'l ED
1 CJI'1F'1a1: Ro '" _~U 'w-
.. _......~':
~ .. --
"..,"
j .. -'"" u - El. '" 1.-ZIC~"r'U11X
i ]5iEor. ...... -,
'" -....., -"" .... ..... .... ~.
= U _u.~'1:
" -~~ "' _1IIu'u~P1..cl
l4 _po.-: --'It .. -~ ..-...
'" --. I< --.
lC~
.2 ~~!\~-,.~.DI~
0:. _~U:~1-..l
<<< _A6f:';.~~~ ~
_1J.r~'EJ
01. _""_'-:~
l>> _Ge4;~..~e
J.D ...--JaIII--"'!..laIIcw 1J; _'=1 ~
1I'_a:,w~
X1_1'cIc.,,~ . '-"~1.~
21 .!...rr...u~c,"CJ.~~ 311 _o..u.auw ~~eeu
"" -"-"
'!)t. _a::.-;~l~r"..1;II.l :='1 _Clllft.UI
as _0IaID.. .kW :: JL---
os _r.-c :.: LJl'.lDac~
t"'" _P'"-n:IIIiID..-=
~ ~ .a,."'JlI'IX' ,.....~ s
.. ~:..IE!:!!:!~zan:JG
":acBDt 1m::'. tI.2 zcdng (.1Lc.us"tri..e.l)
_"""10
"
3c ~~
i;Ile'".a:. ~ n. tr.B:!lvon liebste!"
31. c:.-.. SA!lt;e. M~~:.~'i
9"4C' '" _ 213-"58-8585
C::.t'Y~...> Santa. "!o~ica
... -..
"'-
"'-""t<
~ ~~- SF
. .......--.....
D: _~'nal
= _ou~ lit r;
II ::- Pac'::'~~c
......-
..-
.=_~ ScI~_
..~..... - ~~~
, ;~.i,';i,\V
'" _ - tC'\'t2Jl!.lRS_-
.. _ .'C\~~~c
'" _.&.to"~l
.. --- 'TJ'pR ...~---
II;. _._-.n.- ""_l- ~
.10 a::s llIu1.ell
u I--- .P!,~k !":x/7/1 {)<,-/,,,..,
; - - ,
U 'Kft:I:.,~.QIE.IrID
U _"'uc ~
1"_~~"T
1- _.!
= _~:aG
haUl:!;
":JIE.1E""~tJt
5 :"-ac:--e expa::.s1:)!l of ex1.st:1..f1.g 'D'llblic !lark
Z3 _.1.e'c:iaal.j....
_'--- "'~r
z _ ~lUia 'b.....-....
. ...-.-."ucw"
r._~~
ftIu.lI
ga'!"W Cl.&I.HI~_:'L_ -l-40D ~ ~~. ;l;!lI !21 - (n&./.u~eJ_ 3/~1'i11
aD',.,.,.,....,.,,~.
Clent1 :;-;ober
= Il!.VI!X BBiAII. I ~ ) ] /~
LUJ:. IlM1W t'O~: 1:2. J;)b /<6::
~ ~..lilo' t'O S:::S. [;;z) ~ / /:z.:;
S:::S~. I ):2 /<6 (.
-l
(lIIm.SW u-aJl
.
I~ :~o"WA4La'
.C:S
-
,--
I..
-
..-...
1
~..;rll'l. of Callfomla
e
Memorandum
lusle Transportation and HoUllng A9-.cy
To
State ClearInghouse
Office of Planning & Research
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, C~ 95814
Attn Glenn Stober
~e December 26, 1985
File Clearinghouse
jSanta Monica Airport
From DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAnON
DMSION Of AlRONAIITICS
Subject City of Santa Monica's Negative Declaration for Clover Park
Expansion; SCH #85120409 (in Vicinity of Santa ~lonica
Municipal Airport)
The Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has
reviewed the above-referenced document with respect to those
areas germane to its statutory responsibilities. Those areas
include the impact of noise and safety from the airport on
the project, the project's impact on an airport itself, and
the compatibllity of adjacent land uses in the vicinity of
an a~rport. Sa~d document appears to address all of the issues
of concern to this Division, and there are no additlonal
comments to add at this tlme.
Thank you for the opportun~ty to review and co~~ent on this
proposal.
JACK D. KE~~ERLY, Chief
Dlvision of Aeronautlcs
~n~tD\J'Jl
Environmental Planner
fO) Rfi\)RI~wnS rU"" ,
j R, LSll1.~_- 'V 'd
15\ DEe:3 O..J1385 1--.
StA.'lo.... ...~I\...'l'4't1i-'-lo,.l'1uC!e
_.......; \..,-....---~o.ui.,J w
VOTE: Affirmative:
~ Negative:
~ Abstain:
~ Absent:
g ~ PROOF VOTE~ WITH ANOTHER PERSO~ BEFORE A~~THING
~ DiSTRiBUTiuN: uKiGiNAi.. 1:0 be signed, sealed and
!-o
o
BEFORE DISTRIBUTION CHECK CONTENT OF
DISTRIBUTION OF RESOLUTION II trb 0
-:j //r I! ;;
('- ,r
;Vc)
. ~ ,
e
Council Meeting Date
'"
X>
---
=>
'~
---
j\
Agenda Item It
Was it amended?
7- C5
e
ALL FOR CITY C~~RK'S ACTION
ORD I NA.c\jCE II
Introduced:
Adopted:
AU~YS PUBLISH AOOP1'W ORDINANCES*
*Cross out Attorney 's a?rroval
NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION (Date:
~
>
M
~
U
~
!-o
+-'
o
s::
>-
l!.l
s::
!-o
o
+-'
+-'
<
fIled in Vaul t.
)
)
Department orlglnating staff report (
~
Management Serv.i~e? Lynne Barrette
urdinances only
Agency mentioned ln document or staff report
(certified?)
Subject file (agenda packet) 1
Others:
Counter file 1
SEND FOU~ COPIES OF ALL ORDINANCES TO:
tODFD SYSTEMS, Attn Peter Maci-earie
120 ~fain -'"'tT~et
AV~~I ~~w Jersey_07717
SEND FOUR COPIES OF ALL ('lRnT"IANrToS TO:
glfifl ~fljJtEl MUNICIPAL COURT
~ 725 r.fAIN STREET, Room lIB
SANTA MON!CA, CA 90401
+-'
oj
..::
...,
AIrport
-0
~
...,
or.
Q)
;:j
0-
Q)
I-<
Q)
U
M
......
4-1
o
Auditorum
Bm.lding Dept.
W,",amity and Econauic Dev.
Finance
Flre
tIl
General Servo
-
>-
Q)
....
I-<
o
...,
...,
<
>-
+-'
M
U
Library
r.lanager
4-<
o
oj
+-'
!-o
Q)
~
o
c::::
Parklng Auth.
Personnel
Planning
Police (en-
forcement?)
Purchasing
Recr/Parks
/
Transportation
Treasurer
*Check COde Sectl0ns before sendIng.
TOTAL COPIES
3
'k . -. ,
e
e
RP:DTA:VR
Council Meeting 2-11-86 Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION NO. 7l60(CCS)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR LAND AND WATER
CONSERVATION FUNDS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE CLOVER PARK
EXTENSION
WHEREAS, the Congress under Public Law 88-578 has authorized
the establishment of a Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund
Grant-In-Aid Program, providing matching funds to the state of
California and its POlitical subdivisions for acquiring lands and
developing facilities for public outdoor recreation purposes; and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation is
responsible for the administration of the program within the
State, setting up necessary rules and procedures governing
application by local agencies under the program; and
WHEREAS, said adopted procedures established by the State
Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant to
certify by resolution the approval of applications and the
availability of local matching funds prior to submission of said
applications to the State; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Clover Extension project is consistent
with the Statewide Comprehensive Recreation Resources Plan:
Recreation in california, Issues and Actions: 1981-1985; and
- 1 -
~ .
e
e
WHEREAS, the project must be compatible with the land use
plans of those jurisdictions immediately surrounding the projecti
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The city council approves the filing of an
application for Land and Water Conservation Fund assistance.
SECTION 2. The city Council certifies that said agency has
matching funds from the General Fund and ROberti-z'Berg Block
Grant funds and can finance 100 percent of the project, half of
which will be reimbursed.
SECTION 3. The City Council certifies that the project is
compatible with the land use plans of those jurisdictions
immediately surrounding the project.
SECTION 4. The City Council appoints the City Manager as
agent of the city to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit
all documents including but not limited to applications,
agreements, amendments, billing statements, and so on which may
be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project.
SECTION 5. The city Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this resolution and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be
in full force and effect.
- 2 -
-1l. I -"' "
e
APPROVED AS TO FOill1:
~ "-. \.-
Robert M. Myers,
city Attorney
o
e
-
- 3 -
" ... .. f- '"
e
e
Adopted and approved thIS 11th day of February, 1986.
I/Ct--- (/u n
//~~ /c f~
- Mayor
I hereby certIfy that the foregoIng ResolutIon No. 7160(CCS)
was duly adopted by the Clty Councll of the Clty of Santa MonIca
at a meetIng thereof held on February 11, 1986 by the followlng
CounCll vote:
Ayes: Councllmembers:
Conn, Epsteln, Jennl,gs, A. Katz,
H. Katz, Zane and Mayor Reed
Noes: Councllmembers:
None
AbstaIn: Councllmembers:
None
Absent: Councllmembers:
None
ATTEST:
(~(~~ j)?
Clty Clerk
I
!/ /
k:tZdkp
i