SR-070985-11a
.
e
e
301--ootJ
11-4
JUt - 9 1985
RP:DTA:VR:BMC
Council Meeting: July 91 1985
Santa Monical California
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Approve Location for Beach Bikepath
Extension
INTRODUCTION
This report describes the planning proce!:iS which has been con-
ducted to determine the most suitable location for the extension
of the beach bikepath from north of the Santa Monica pier to the
northern city limits and recommends that council approve the pro-
posed location, contingent on completion of an environmental
analysis and receipt of necessary approvals from the state De-
partment of Recreation & Parks and the Coastal Commission.
BACKGROUND
In 1968 the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted a
resolution calling for the creation of a bikepath along the ocean
front from Point Dume to Torrance. The Beach Master Plan, ap-
proved by the State of Californial includes a bike path the full
length of the Santa Monica beach front.
When the currently existing bike path was built by the County in
August, 1976, federal Land and ~vater Conservation funds were
used. However, construction of the path was not extended to San-
ta Monica's north city limits at that time because of opposition
from beach front property owners.
~/-4
JUL - 9 1&
- 1 -
e
e
The Los Angeles County Road Department currently has $240,000
budgeted to extend the existing bike path to the Los Angeles city
line at the northern boundary of Santa Monica. The County Road
Department is the funding and design agency and will be respon-
sible for the construction phase of the project. However, the
location and design of the path must be approved by the City of
Santa Monica, the State Recreation and Parks Department and the
Coastal Commission.
Four years ago staff from the Santa Monica Recreation and Parks
Department held a series of discussions with beach front resi-
dents and representatives of beach clubs to reach a consensus on
the placement of a bike path extension. However, when the loca-
tion was presented to council, a redesign was requested to allow
the path to swing towards the parking lots to facilitate public
access. However, the issue was not pursued with beach residents
because there were no funds available to construct the bikepath
extension at that time. The current design addresses the issue
of access from the public parking lots by including paved access
paths to the bikepath from the lots.
DISCUSSION
within the past 6 weeks, two public meetings have been held to
discuss the location of the bikepath extension. Beachfront prop-
erty owners, beach clubs, area bicycle shops and the general
- 2 -
e
e
public were invited to attend. Staff of the County Roads Depart-
ment was present at both planning workshops and made some alter-
ations to the planned route in response to concerns raised at the
workshops.
The Recreation and Parks Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed location on Thursday, June 13 to receive public com-
ments. Approximately 35 people were involved in the meetings and
pUblic hearing. In addition, 45 letters have been received by
the Recreation and Parks Department from members of The Beach
Club which are supportive of the proposed location of the
extension.
Public comment in opposition to the bikepath included the con-
cerns that: it is not needed because there currently is adequate
access to the beach for bicyclists; the danger it would pose par-
ticularly for young children who use the beach, the intensity of
use of that particular stretch of beach due to the size of mem-
berships of beach clubs in the immediate area; possible crime
which could result from increased access to beachfront homes; and
the spoiling of one of the last open stretches of beach sand.
Public comment in support of the bikepath focused on the public's
right to access to the area; the importance of providing a link
to the bikepath now being built by the city of Los Angeles which
ends at Santa Monica's northern boundary; and the belief that
using PCH as an alternative is dangerous for bicyclists.
- 3 -
e
e
After receiving public comment, the Recreation and Parks commis-
sion approved the proposed bikepath extension with the suggestion
that concerns about safety on the bikepath be explored through
signage and increased enforcement of regulations prohibiting
skateboarders and vehicles on the bikepath.
As proposed, the placement of the bikepath represents a compro-
mise which takes into consideration tidal action, public usage of
the beach, beach front property owners and bicyclists. The ocean
may occasionally wash over the path at high tide but will not
damage it.
After city approval, the county will conduct the necessary en-
vironmental review and seek Coastal Commission and state Recre-
ation and Parks Department approval of the route. The County
Roads Department anticipates a schedule which calls for plans to
be completed by September and work begun in January.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Approval of the proposed location of the bikepath extension will
allow the County to pursue other needed approvals and eventually
construct the path. Maintenance will be handled by the County.
It entails sweeping the path mechanically several times a week.
No financial impact is anticipated on the City of Santa Monica
with the extension of the bikepath to the northern City limits.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve the proposed location of
the bikepath extension which is attached to this report.
- 4 -
Prepared by:
Attachment
srbkepth
e
e
Don Arnett
Director Recreation and Parks
Vivian Rothstein
Assistant to the Director
Recreation and Parks Department
- 5 -
~
i.o'\I
f'
~
1
.
, t'
1 ~
-,
I
^
r--
~
"". ;.
.t. .'
.. .
~I t~-~.~.
i!'"
10. '.
.. -
4IrIJ ~ I
\
- !
t
f
\~
<
fit
\,
~
"
\--~
, "'-.,
: ,,' ~
,~~~
~"I
. \ '
- I
. \
I
. !
.\ tfa \
/I ~. ~I
., p.,i ~
- r... \-?,
P'~''''l
)-"'.1Il i-
... _r-7 ~.
· ] \-c/~\~ -
-'\ #
'--
-,. - .
~"'e
.,
~-. -, .
~~~~j r
"...-':.~ II"f
;&~;~ ...-: !
"
-~
e
z
1.\
11
,..C/)
-
lit
'"
.-J
o
-l
8
"
'"
lit
't
~
11
o
'"
,..
--.
~
tI\
C
~
--
..
'"
i
~
S
'^
\"'.
~
cs
I
-t
g
;J:
;t~
~~
~~
f'>
~
e
}~-
T_ .'
II
~~f~,'~
~F-l:-'- J"--
tf {:-(~":,~-
iY~i~;: - i~~ ;;~
:-L
-~ ~ -
~- ,
.!i "!- ~
~ : :~~~:
~~"
- ,
F:;'t:
-- ~ ~ ~-.-
_T
~.e:)!'J..J 0-
-,c, :;~
'-'
. ~ ~ .....
--~
.. ::'1_ . r
'- ~ ~ . .~
"_ _ J_-
,..-":>-
::~:."'l
.=" I
~ ~:h-
. I.
~_- _ II I
. E-
"'~J.--
.-
B
r-;'"
",
..~- ~....... ~
....'" ~
~"
......"
.
.'
.. .
~ #' ...,.
:":::{~I~ -::~::_'
~
e
%
!
IJ\
II
>~
~
'Z
1
CI'
~
e
e
AJd
-fv (1-4
r
1- q -45
,_!une 24~ 1 c85
TO Honorable Herb Katz
FROI'l Parks ComrrnsslOn
Dear Counc.llmember t<etz,
I iJm wn t 1 ng ot the be hes t of the ellt 1 re camm1 SSlOn At au r lest meet mg
of June 20, 1984, we held a pubhe hearmg on the sl~b]ect of irlB proposed
BIke Path 8xtenslOn to run north of the pIer to the Clty 11mlt t1embers of
the DUbl1c who lIVe In thl~. oreo (known as the Gold Coo~.t), l"1embers of the
Beech Club, find members of the blklng populotlOn were heard from
The Commlsslon deCIded to opprove the 61ke Poth We hove long supported
thlS type of recrel3tlOnel use ot the t18echfront But many of Hie comments
from the pub 11 (. Wl th regards SElf etl~ 5nd mel1 ntl3lnce fEll sed 1 ssues we coul d
not slJtlsfy ot our oppOlnted IJnd eldV1sory level we elr€' fowf:lrd1ng to you
-:.orne of trl8se concerns ""te, elnd the publ1C IJt If:1rge, c.urrently hold, 1n
hope~. IdoU w111 alert the entIre Counell Cind help us seek so1utlOns to trI8-:,€'
I...e;~mg oroblems
1 ':'1gnage on all oi nil? tqke: patll~. 1::. madequate ihere l~, mlxed usage
common ern the roths, rnc:ludlng skatB boards, roller skates, wolkers and
Joggers, In addlt.lOn to b1kes Trler-e he:;:, tleen some cases clted of small
motor vetll cul ar use Ijunng off hour,:. It should be made clear to
reocr-Igoers whot the usef of the peth ere, and these authonzed u::,es must
tie posted at regultlf lntervals and E'nforced
In addl tlOn. many users ;:.eem lmaWfJfE' Of unwIll mg to go 1ft! th the
1 ndl cated fl ow of tn:ffl C, V\"hl ct-l 1 s al so f:I f ell 1 ure of ::,1 gnE!ge emd
enforcement. and results In slower, Clnd m many ceses dangerous trafflC
flow
') in some ca::.~s persons seeklng trflsh receptlcles tnust cross the pBth
"3 Small ciHldren are partlcularly .:it haZard cros::.wg tfie paths
4 The paths prov1de an attractwE'. but extn'me1y un::,afe f:llternetwE' for
the handll:-eipped to "get onto" th€' send
.
'-
e
e
The [c,mrnls';lOn '..vould tie w11l1ng to mSl1gelte an ad hoc commlttee to
'NC1rf( on the DfGtrl em~. of ~: 1 qnelge/ anf arc ement or other pert ment POltlts
should the eounell so wIsh PleCl38 let us know 1f we Cljf/ be of furtber
1::.::;. 1 stance
\"/e tin egree theJt the beElcl"lfront offers a mynad of excItlng recreEltlonel
')pportLJnI t 1 e~. m C1ddl t IOn to ::. "'\'1 mrm ng, su~bCltrl1 ng, Clnd oHler trfldl t 1Ono 1
beech uses Vole beileve blc.yclmg con be one But It 5hould be expected ttleJt
the Clty cen otter such dlVerslty 'Nlthout sacraflclng lS3UE'S of sMety
Whl (h aft ee t the re~. t of the beach 901 ng popul at lOns, In Clddl t lOn to those
resldents who llVe ad J8cent to the sand
Trl6nk you for your conSl derat IOns,
Jll AbrClrm:,ky,
Chell r Porks C omrm S::-lOn