SR-308-006
.....~ -
.
. II-II
3 tJ 2'-- tJeJIP M61 " ,*
C/ED:EDD:EF:mb
Agency/CouncIl Meeting: 08/14/84
Santa MonIca, CalIfornIa
TO:
CIty Caunell/Redevelopment Agency Board
FROM:
CIty Staff
SUBJECT: RecommendatIon to CertIfy the Final EnVIronmental Impact
Report on the Ocean Park ReVIsed Beach Plan and to Ap-
prove the Plan.
INTRODUCTION
ThlS report tranSIIll ts 1) a f 1 na1 envIronmental Impact report
(FEIR) on the revIsed beach plan; 2) more detaIled plans and cost
estImates and 3) a recommendatIon to certIfy the FEIR and approve
the Plan.
BACKGROUND
On January 24, 1984, the CIty Council/Redevelopment Agency dl-
rected staff to proceed WIth the ImplementatIon of the Ocean Park
Redevelopment Project.
The fInal phase of the ProJect calls for
the development of an on-site park, 153 on-SIte market rate con-
dornlnlums, beach Improvements, and 55 unIts of off-sIte low and
moderate Income hOUSIng.
Staff was authorIzed to procure ar-
chItectural serVIces to prepare the revised beach plan, prepare
an EnVIronmental Impact Report on the Plan, and fIle for a new
Coastal Perml t.
In addl tIon, archl tectural serVIces were ap-
proved for the development of the on-SIte park.
A hOUSIng plan
callIng for a mInImum of 55 unIts to be developed off-SIte was
also approved.
- 1 -
II~;}~~
.
.
'\
As each component IS lmplemented, subsequent Councll/Agency Board
,
"
actIon wlll be requIred.
At this time CouncIl/Agency Board ac-
tlon IS required to certify the FEIR and to approve the revised
beach plan.
The follOWIng report descrIbes the beach plan, the
resul ts of an enVIronmental impact report on the plan, and re-
VI sed cost es tlma tes.
The FEIR has already been forwarded to
Council/Agency Board members under separate cover.
Beach Improvement Plan
The CounCIl/Agency Board directed staff on January 24, 1984 to
proceed With the development of the ReVIsed Beach Plan. The Plan
has evolved through a three year process of extensive ci tlzen
Involvement and development of several alternative deSIgns. At
the begInning of the process the CIty and deSIgn consultants held
a serIes of evenIng open house workshops to obtaIn input from the
publIC.
ThIS Input was prOVIded through dIScussIons, questIon-
naIres and sketches of deSIgn concepts.
The workshops were fol-
lowed by numerous meetings w1th reSIdents representIng the beach-
front and Ocean Park communI ty.
The primary concerns of area
res Idents Included traif Ie and Cl rcula tl on, beach access (auto-
mobIle, pedestrIan and bIcycle), views, park facilIties, the Im-
age and hIstory of the beach, and beach security/safety.
These
communIty prIorItIes, together wlth the economIC and environmen-
tal objectIves of the City and the regIonal recreatIonal objec-
tlves of the State Parks and Recreatlon Department and State
Coastal CommIss1on form the baSIS for the deSIgn of the Plan.
- 2 -
.
.
As stated ln the FEIR, the Plan seeks to:
1)
Increase trafflc and pedestrian
flow of "'egional trafflc through
the beach parklng lots and away
neighborhoods as possIble;
safety and fae i 11 tate the
Santa Monica streets lnto
from as many resIdentlal
2) Beautlfy the project area by lncreaslng the acreage of parks
and landscaped area; and
3) Increase the recreational opportunltles avaIlable to a
variety of groups (e.g., senlor cItIzens, chIldren, famllles,
etc.).
The Coastal CommIssIon has stressed the followIng Objectives with
respect to the proposed proJect:
1) MaxlmIze publIC access to the beach (both pedestrlan and
auto);
2) MaIntaIn eXIstIng parkIng; and
3) MaXImIze public recreational opportunItIes.
In developlng the PlanJ the CIty has tried to emphasize the areas
of consensus ln the commurn ty t whIle working WI thin the gUIde-
lInes of publIC agencies and the avallable budget of approximate-
ly $4 mIlllon. MaJor components of the Plan as dIscussed in the
FEIR are descr~bed below.
RefIned cost estimates for the major
componen ts of the Pl an are detaIled In Exhi bl t I and are SUID-
mar I zed below.
Slgnlflcant changes WhICh have occurred 1n
response to CItIzen concerns SInce the Plan was last presented to
CounCIl on January 24, 1984 are hIghlIghted begInnIng on page 7.
DescriptIon of ReVIsed Beach Plan
The ReVised Beach Plan conSIsts of a varIety of improvements to
the CI t y' s largest beach parkIng lot and to streets near the
- 3 -
.
.
Ocean Park Redevelopment ProJect.
The Plan IS bounded by Bay
Street, the beach, Barnard Way and the South CIty lImIts.
Planned Improvements Include a new bIke path and pedestrIan prom-
enade, expanded park and grassy picnic areas, creatIon of a
"lInear park" along Barnard Way, and pedestrian and vehicle ac-
cess Improvements to the parking lot. Deta1l schematiC draWings
of the Plan are attached as ExhIbIt I I and are discussed In
greater detaIl In the followlng sections.
LInear Park:
A new 3.5 acre lInear park WIll extend from Crescent Bay Park to
the south CI ty 11mI ts, 1 nterrupted only by the entrances and
eX1ts to the parkIng lot.
ThiS park IS Intended to contInue the
oceanfront/Palisades Park theme through the south City lImIt, an
extension of the recommendatIons contaIned In the Cl ty' s Draft
Land Use and Clrculatlon Elements WhICh currently suggest extend-
1 ng the Pall sades Park theme to Crescent Bay Park.
The lInear
park WIll prOVIde added open space and )ogglng turf at the east-
ern boundary of the beach park I n9 area. (Estlma ted cost $952,8(0)
Promenade:
A redesigned bikepath and pedestrIan promenade will be built
along the beach SIde of the parklng lot. BIcycle and pedestrIan
traf f Ie WIll be separa ted.
The bIkepath WIll WInd through the
park areas ImprOVing traffIC safety by slOWIng cyclists for
pedestrIan crossing pOInts.
The blkepath and pedestrIan prome-
nade WIll extend from Bay Street to the south CIty lImIt, thus
connectIng the maJor park areas. Small plazas WIll be located at
- 4 -
.
.
Intervals along the promenade creatIng specIal entrances to the
sand, and IntegratIng beach faCIlItIes such as restrooms, showers
and chang I og rooms.
A low seat wall along the promenade will
provide a strong edge, protecting the promenade from wind blown
sand,
and allOWIng
rest and VIew areas.
(Estlma ted cost
$605,200'}
Park Areas:
The current park at the foot of Ocean Park Boulevard WIll be In-
creased to 4.13 acres and an addi ti onal 1.5 acres of park space
WIll be added at the extreme southern end of the park i ng lot.
The new park area WIll Include light landscapIng, a seating area,
and a small children's playground.
Improvements to the larger
park WIll Include shade pavIlions WIth tables and benches, grassy
pIcnIC areas, restrooffiS and a new chIldrens' play area. A
detailed schematIc plan of the larger park IS Included as ExhIbIt
III. (EstImated cost $1,385,400)
The eXIsting food concession bUIldIng (2600 promenade) and bath-
rooms 10 thIS area are currently beIng renovated by McDonalds as
part of a separate proJect.
The food conceSSion stand at 240'0
Promenade IS also being remodeled by McDonalds. These conceSSIon
stand Improvements WIll take place with or WIthout the proposed
proJect.
ThIS plan calls for the replacement of the conceSSIon
at 2600 Promenade wlth a new faCIlIty located near the center of
the central park area.
The structure at 2400 Promenade would be
relocated northward as a pOSSIble future Improvement to the plan,
contIngent on funds being avaIlable.
- 5 -
.
.
Parkln9 Lots:
The entrances to the beach parkIng lot at Ocean Avenue and Ocean
Park Boulevard wIll be redesIgned to move waItIng vehicles more
qUIckly Into the beach parkIng area and away from the adJacent
resIdential neIghborhoods. The desIgn wIll include "no pay"
eXIts to allow ready exitIng of vehIcles whose occupants are un-
able to pay the parking charge or who SImply wish to be "dropped
off". ParkIng attendant booths wIll be moved farther Into the
beach parkIng area, addIng addItIonal off-street vehlcle storage
capacity. Attendants wIll be made avaIlable to staff both en-
trances durIng the months of peak beach use (May - September).
The eXIstIng connector road between the north and south lots wIll
be retained, to allow for traffIC circulatIon withIn the lot and
off of neIghborIng streets. Gates WIll be Installed at eIther
end all owi ng seasonal contra 1 of the tr:a ff I c. The road WIll be
elevated at the pedestraIn crOSSIng, wlth the use of bollards and
scored paVIng to slow traff IC, Increase pedestr Ian safety, and
better Integra te I ts des 19n Into the overall pa rk use and aes-
thetic appeal.
The entIre parklng area from Crescent Bay Park to the south CIty
limlts WIll be redeSIgned and repaved to Improve pedestrIan ac-
cess and trafflc safety. Landscaped pedestrIan walkways alIgned
to eXistIng street and pedestrIan patterns across Barnard Way
WIll be added to encourage dIrect pedestrIan access to the beach.
These walkways WIll be ra lsed, effectl vely creating WIde speed
bumps to slow north/south traffiC and dIscourage speedIng WIthIn
- 6 -
.
.
the lots.
The western edge of the lots wIll be redesIgned uSIng
a SIngle loaded parkIng lane, WIth a wIde aIsle allowIng a con-
tinuous pedestrian "drop-off" area, WIthout impedIng through
traffIC.
The eXistIng 2,40@ parkIng spaces WIll be retaIned by
restrIplng the parkIng lots to Incorporate a larger number of
compact car spaces. (EstImated cost $630,400)
Hollister Avenue wIll remaIn the maIn eXIt from the northern end
of the beach parkIng lot.
The two other eXIts, located south of
Ocean Park Boulevard and allOWIng rIght turns only onto Barnard
Way, would remaIn unchanged.
Ocean/Bay/BIcknell Trian~le:
The Ocean/Bay/BIcknell triangle at the north end of the project
SIte WIll be redeSIgned to facilItate the flow of traffIC Into
the north beach parkIng lot from Ocean Avenue.
At present the
Ocean Avenue entrance at BIcknell IS seldom used with the Ocean
Park Boulevard beIng the maIn entrance to the beach parkIng lot.
Under the rev~sed Plan, a more equItable dIstrIbutIon of beach
traffIC will be allocated between the Ocean Park Boulevard and
Ocean Avenue entrances to the beach lots.
Ocean Avenue WIll be-
come a beach access route from PICa Boulevard WI th SignIng to
dIrect traffiC from the freeway to the beach.
It is antICIpated
55% of the beach lot users WIll utIlize the redeSIgned Ocean
Avenue entrance.
ArIght turn only lane on Ocean Avenue at
BIcknell WIll provide for traffIC enterIng the beach lot. A
raIsed medIan along this portIon of Ocean Avenue WIll prevent
traffIC from enterIng the North Beach entrance fr:om BIcknell.
- 7 -
. .
Appian Way wIll be closed at thIs IntersectIon to mInImize the
number of streets converging at thIS pOInt. A small parkIng area
will be created off of Bay Street to replace the existIng AppIan
Way parkIng. These Improvements are Intended to Increase traffIC
and pedestr Ian safety and facIIl tate traff IC flow from Ocean
Avenue Into the north beach parkIng lot and away from the adJa-
cent residentIal neIghborhood.
Once these Improvements have been Implemented, traffIC sIgnals
WIll be installed on Bicknell Street at NeIlson Way and at MaIn
Street to address current vehicle and pedestrian crossIng prob-
lems.
In addl tlon, staff proposes to develop an overall Slg-
nallzatlon and signage plan to optimIze traffiC flow and safety
In the area. (EstImated cost $172,500)
Barnard Way/Ocean Park Boulevard:
Ma] or improvements along Barnard Way and Ocean Park Boul evard
will be Implemented.
Ocean Avenue/Barnard Way will be narrowed
from four lanes to two between NeIlson Way and BIcknell Street In
order te accommodate the creatIon of a 1 inear park.
A raised
medIan will be Installed In the center of Barnard Way between
Hell i ster and Ocean Park Boulevard to ml nIrnI ze VI Sl tor traff 1 c
enterIng the adJacent resIdentIal neIghborhood area.
The medIan
WIll have It roll ed 11 curbs to allow emergency access.
On Ocean
Avenue from BIcknell to HollIster a painted medIan will sImIlarly
facilItate emergency vehIcle access.
A medIan wlll also be io-
stalled along Ocean Park Boulevard, InclUdIng landscape materials
to buffer resldents on the north from the traffIc generated by
- 8 -
.
.
the planned Sea Colony III maIn entrance on the south SIde of
Ocean Park Boulevard. (EstImated cost $322,700)
ModIficatIons to the ReVIsed Beach Plan dated 01/24/84
At the January 24, 1984 meetIng the CouncIl/Agency dIrected staff
to meet WIth Bicknell and Ocean Park Boulevard neIghbors regard-
ing their concerns as to the proposed beach parking lot entrance
and eXIt system. City staff, consultants and project archItects
held a series of lndIvidual and group meetlngs with the neIghbors
at BIcknell, Neilson and Barnard VIllas, Fraser and along Barnard
Way. The goal of these meetIngs was to address the Plan's lmpact
on the adjacent resIdential area as well as to balance each Indl-
vldual group's concerns relatlve to those expressed by other area
resIdents. These meetIngs have led to varIOUS modIf1catlons to
the Revlsed Beach Plan. These modiflcatlons are summarized
below.
South of Ocean Park Boulevard -
o A 4 ft. raised medIan was added along the Barnard Way curve
near Ne1lson Way. In addi tIon to 1Dsur ing that automobIle
traffiC rounding the curve does not veer into the opposlng
traffiC lane, the medlan helps to slow the flow of traffIC, a
high priorlty for reSIdents 1n the immedIate area.
o A metered, 13 space reSidentIal VIsitor parklng zone was cre-
ated and separated from Barnard Way traffIC by a 4 ft. medlan
- 9 -
.
.
In order to improve area safety and to provIde needed reSl-
dent parkIng. Access to the parkIng zone will be via a turn-
out lane from southbound Barnard Way and from a new connec-
tlon to the eXIsting Speedway Avenue right-of-way. The
Speedway connectIon also allows area reSIdents a new eXltlng
route to NeIlson Way VIa Barnard Way.
Central Park Area -
o The south parking lot was extended northward reducIng the
north-south dImenSIon of the central park area in order to
maIntaIn the number of eXIstIng parkIng spaces.
The prof lIe
of the Promenade has also been modI fled to offset the area
lost to the parkIng area.
The central park square footage
remains 4.0 acres.
o The three shade structures In the central park were consoll-
dated Into one maln shade paVIlIon OppOSIte the food conces-
SIan structure and two small square pergolas located on the
Pomenade.
The structures were consolIdated to accommodate
the redesign of the park space, blkejskateway and chIldren's
play area. The pergolas formalIze the approach to the center
of the park along the Pomenade and prOVIde shaded seatlng
areas at the sand's edge.
o The blkejskateway was moved closer to the promenade and be-
hlnd the new conceSSIon faclllty. The path was realigned to
maXlmlze the amount of uninterrupted green space whIle
- 10 -
.
.
mInImIzIng the potentIal conflIct between beach/concesslon
users and those on bIcycles and skates.
o The promenade plazas have been reduced In number and rede-
signed to carefully Integrate beach user facIli ties (rest-
rooms, showers, and changIng rooms) WIth entry to the beach.
Bicknell to HollIster -
o The proposed 4 ft. raIsed medIan along Barnard Way between
Holllster and BIcknell was eliminated due to the communlty's
preference to maIntain parkIng along the east and west curbs
of Barnard Way and to maIntain the left turn capabIlIty from
and to Barnard Way.
Instead, a paInted medIan Will be used
to faCIlitate emergency vehIcle access.
Blcknell-Ocean-Bay TrIangle -
o No eXIting WIll be allowed at the Ocean Avenue entrance ex-
cept for emergency and "no pay" vehIcles.
The Ocean Avenue
medIan WIll be extended Into the Ocean/Bicknell IntersectIon
to prevent the use of Bicknell as an access corridor to/from
the Ocean Avenue parkl ng lot en trance.
SInce the volume of
BIcknell trafflc will be thereby reduced, the formerly pro-
posed median along BIcknell was elImInated.
o The Ashland Avenue eXlt from the south parking lot was rede-
SIgned to emphaslze the rIght turn only restrictlon onto Bar-
nard Way.
- 11 -
.
.
o For pedestr lan safety consider ations , the combi natlon
pedestrIan walkways/automobIle cross aIsles wIthin the park-
lng lots were elIminated in favor of pedestrIan only
walkways.
o The westerly southbound travel lane on Ocean Avenue wIll be
rIght turn only lnto the par kIng lot. The easterly south-
bound travel lane will be for through traffiC only. The ex-
IstIng parkIng along the west curb of Ocean Avenue wIll be
maintaIned.
o The proposed parkIng area along ApPlan Way above Crescent Bay
Park wIll be relocated along the south slde of Bay Street
between Ocean Avenue and Appian Way. The former asphalt
paved area wIll be converted to open green space WhICh WIll
Increase the SIze of Crescent Bay Park.
PotentIal Added Improvements
The Beach Plan has been deSIgned to prOVIde maXImum benefIt from
fund s avaIlabl e for the proJ ect area. Dur H::g staff dISCUSSIons
wi th area residents, addi tlonal Improvements were requested for
WhICh fund So are not curr en tly av allable. In add 1 tIon J there 1 S
stIll some dIsagreement among the nearby neIghbors as to the ap-
proprIateness of some of these Improvements. The Plan does not
preclude addIng these Improvements, If In the future an affIrma-
tive action of the Cl ty Council/ Agency Board dIrects staff to
proceed With theIr ImplementatIon. PotentIal added Improvements
Include:
- 12 -
.
.
Introductlon of addItIonal actlvltles or facilitIes at the
south park and Crescent Bay Park, Including shaded structures
addltIonal shade pergolas along the promenade, or at the en-
try plazas
allowance for the ecologlcal demonstratIon area at the south
park
development of addl tlonal park space on Cl ty owned land at
Bay Street, Just north of Crescent Bay Park
extensIon of the Promenade and/or linear park northward
relocatIon of the McDonald's currently located at 2400
Promenade
establlshment of a "hand-powered" boat launch faCIlIty at the
southwest corner of the south parking lot, once planned Im-
provements are bUilt and an operatlons plan IS lmplemented
The FInal Env Ironmen tal Imp<:,.c t.. Report J F~I R)
FollowIng the January 24th actIon of the CIty CouncIl!
Redevelopment Agency, the staff prepared an InItIal Study on the
proposed Beach Plan and IdentIfIed a number of potentIal enVIron-
mental effects of the proJect. The Initial Study found that fur-
ther analysIs In the form of an Environmental Impact Report was
necessary. MaJor areas for study Included nOIse, land use, ac-
cess, parkIng, CIrCUlatIon, publiC serVIces and aesthetIcs.
- 13 -
.
.
After preparatIon of the InItial Study, the CIty Issued a Request
for Proposal (RFP) to fIve env i ronmental consul ti ng fI rms. BeL
Associates of Long Beach was selected to prepare the EIR. BCL
was requIred to address all potentIal Impacts identIfIed by the
Inl tIal Study as well as standard areas mandated by State and
local law.
In addItIon, BeL met with proJect desIgners and at-
tended a neighborhood meetIng on AprIL 14, 1984 to obtaIn flrst-
hand Information regardIng reSIdents' concerns.
BeL contacted a number of CI ty departments 1 nclud ing FInance,
FIre, PolIce, Transportation, General SerVIces and RecreatIon and
Parks.
In addItIon, BCL dIscussed varIOUS aspects of the proJect
WIth the CalIfornia Water QualIty Board, the County Department of
Beaches and Harbors, the Southern CalIfornia Rapid Transit Dis-
trlct and several other agencies.
Included In the FEIR IS a let-
ter from the County Department of Beaches and Harbors suggestIng
that the Plan be modifIed to Include a 2 1/2 story lIfeguard sta-
tion at Ocean Park Boulevard.
ThIS station is not part of the
proposed Plan.
It represents a suggestion by the County and IS
not endorsed by CIty staff.
The FEIR on the proposed plan found that no signIficant adverse
envIronmental effects would result from Plan Implementation, and
tha t a number of Important pOSI tl ve effects would occur. The
Plan would Improve traffic cIrculation and parking management
capabIlity. SInce the Plan would not Increase parking spaces, no
SIgnIficant overall Increase In traffic WIll occur, and In fact
the project WIll cause a decrease In traffic on Ocean Avenue/
Barnard Way between BIcknell Avenue and Ocean Park Boulevard due
- 14 -
.
.
to the planned parking lot entrance at Ocean Avenue near
BIcknell.
The analysIs of the proposed narrowing of Barnard Way
and other c1rculatIon improvements by the consultIng professional
traffIC engineers found there would be no slgnIflcant negative
effects on safety or emergency access.
The analysls of the clrculat10n lmpacts of the Beach Plan found
that several Improvements outSIde the context of the project
should be conSIdered by the CIty. These lnclude ImprOVIng opera-
tIon of the Intersections of PlCO at MaIn and Ocean, increasing
capaclty at the Llncoln freeway on-ramp, lncreasIng capaclty of
Llncoln at Ocean Park Boulevard, and lmproving trafflc s1gnal
tlmIng on NeIlson, Maln Street and Ocean Park Boulevard. The
FEIR lndlcates that these 1mprovements should be conSIdered with
or WIthout the proposed Beach Plan SInce they would address ex-
lstIng problems unrelated to th1S proJect. The Clty has revlewed
these recommendations and has hired a trafflc consultant to make
speCIal recommendations as how to lmprove the lntersectlons of
pica at Maln and Ocean.
One posslble alternatIve deslgn component ldentlfIed by the FEIR
1S the addltlon of a Bay Street veh1cle eXlt, dIscussed on pages
88-93 of the FEIR.
Thls alternat2ve would appear to result 2n a
more dIrect and efflclent eXltlng pattern from the parklng lot,
and would reduce exi ting trafflc south of Bay Street on Ocean,
Ma1n and Nellson.
However, staff recommends agalnst utlllzlng
the Bay Street exit for the reasons dlscussed below.
The FEIR
also analyzes other alternatIve deslgns for the Beach Plan, but
- 15 -
.
.
fInds that these alternatIves would result in fewer benefIts, and
would have various dIsadvantages compared to the proposed Plan.
Comments on the Environmental AnalysIs
The Dr aft E1 R was I ssued In late June of thl s year.
A legal
NotIce of Completion was published In the EvenIng Outlook on June
27, 1984 wlth a comment perIod ending on July 30, 1984.
CopIes
of the DEIR were made avaIlable to Interested communIty
resIdents. In addition, copies of the Draft EIR were provided to
the Plann1ng Comm1sslon, Recreat10n and ParKS Comm1sslon and the
Arch1tectural Review Board.
The PlannIng CommlsSlon and the
RecreatIon and
Parks
CommiSS1on conducted
adv 1 sory publ ic
meetl ngs on the matter.
Comments from the two comm1SSlons are
attached as Exhibits IV and V.
A number of comments on the Plan and the environmental lmpact
analysls were rece1ved.
Comments on the merlts of the Plan
1tself were not dealt WIth 1n the FEIR unless they pertaIned to
enVironmental Impact Issues.
The FEIR Includes all comments on
the enVIronmental analysIS and provldes a response to each
comment.
Comments related prinCIpally to three maJor lssue
areas:
traffIC CirculatIon and safety, Vlew lmpacts, and
potentIal damage to planned Improvements from ocean storms.
These and other matters are summarized below.
What will be the lmpact of narrOWing Barnard Way/Ocean Avenue
from four -lanes to two lanes? --. --
The FEIR tr a ffl c analYSIS was per formed assumlng 100$ occupancy
of the parklng lot.
The analysls lndlcates that Barnard Way/
- 16 -
.
.
Ocean Avenue can be narrowed wIthout sIgnIficant impacts on
traffic cIrculatIon or safety.
Barnard Way/Ocean Avenue presently carr les an average of 7,000"
vehIcles per day durIng the peak summer weekends wIth four lanes.
Th i s compares to 22,00"0 vehlC les per day on Ne 11 son Way, and
16,000 vehicles on Main Street.
Fourth Street south of PlCO
Boulevard, a two-lane roadway, carrIes over 14,000 vehIcles per
day.
The City PolIce Department reported no congestion problems
on Fourth Street on the 4th of July, a peak traffIC day.
The City ParkIng and TraffIC DIvision conducted a survey of Ocean
Avenue south of PICO Boulevard on July 4th this year and found a
peak of 7138 vehicles per hour.
EngIneering analysis IndIcates
that a one-lane roadway can accommodate 8@0 vehicles per hour at
Level of Service A, the hIghest level of service.
Thus I the
Level of SerVIce under the proposed Plan would remaIn excellent.
The
analYSIS
performed
by pro fess i onal
consultIng
traffIC
engIneers for the FEIR IndIcates that the planned travel lanes
WIll allow for safe and adequate CIrculatIon of emergency
vehIcles and passing of stalled or Illegally stopped vehIcles.
The narrowing will also enhance pedestrIan safety by reducing the
overall street WIdth to be c~ossed.
If Barna~d way/Ocean AVenue 1S narrowed to one lane In the
south-bound dlrectionr won't vehIcles trYIng to ente~ the ~arkln9
lot queue and block ~ther south-bound vehIcles?
ThIS problem seldom occurs at present WIth only one parkIng lot
entrance open.
The FEIR IndIcates that WIth the proposed Plan,
traffic WIll rarely back up Into the street for seve~al reasons.
- 17 -
.
.
Instead of a sIngle entrance, the Plan would provIde two full
service entrances, thus splIttIng traffIC volumes between them.
Further, both entrances WIll be reconflgured to SIgnIfIcantly
improve thelr operatIonal efflcIency.
Payment booths wIll be
moved farther Into the lot to allow more stacking space.
Both
entrances will provlde two lanes of vehicle storage space In
front of the payment booths.
The desIgn of Ocean Avenue at the
northern entrance reserves one south-bound lane far vehIcles
enterIng the parkIng lot and provldes one lane WhICh allows other
trafflc ta proceed south along Ocean Avenue.
The Ocean Park
Boulevard entrance has been re-deslgned to prOVIde more stackIng
space than currently eXIsts for vehIcles comIng south along
Barnard Way.
ThIS stackIng space IS also separated from other
Barnard Way traffIC.
The deSIgn of thIS entrance also allows
effICIent and safe IntegratIon of vehicles enterIng from Ocean
Park Boulevard and for north-bound vehIcles on Barnard Way. The
planned entrance changes WIll slgnIflcantly Improve the flow of
traffIC lnto the parkIng lot.
In addl tIon, pedestrIan safety
WIll be enhanced by redUCIng the area WhICh a pedestrIan WIll be
exposed to vehIcular traffIC.
WIll the two entrances really o~erate equally, gIven hIstorIcal
use patterns?
Many beachgoers are not familIar WIth the Ocean Avenue entrance
SInce It is currently rarely open. Under the proposed Plan, thIS
entrance and the Ocean Park Boulevard entrance would both be open
and staffed dur Ing the en tl re summer season (May - September).
Over tIme and as a result of Improved slgnage, many persons would
become aware of the Ocean Avenue entrance and fInd It more
- 18 -
.
.
convenIent.
The FEIR predIcts that 55% of the parkIng lot users
would utIlIze the Ocean Avenue entrance.
At this tIme, the CIty
seldom provIdes for the use of thIS entrance even durIng the peak
summer months, caUSIng Ocean Park Boulevard to be the maIn
en trance to the beach lots.
Th I S broad Shl ft from the cur ren t
pattern would not occur unmedIately, but over tIme would be
realIzed.
WIll the plaz:1ned cIrcula tIon s'ystern provld_e adequa te erner<]ency
access?
The travel lanes on Barnard way/Ocean Avenue wIll enable
emergency vehIcles to safely pass other traffIc.
In addItIon, a
strIped medIan has been added to further facilitate emergency
access.
The Internal connectIng roadway between the north and
south portIons of the parking
lot WIll
allow additIonal
north-south emergency and publIC safety access.
The undulators
In the parking lot WIll not interrupt emergency access. The bIke
path WIll be wlde enough to accommodate emergency vehIcles,
allOWIng access along the beachfront and WIthIn the park at the
Ocean Park Boulevard entrance.
Emergency eXItIng lS provlded at
the Ocean Avenue entrance and at the eXIstIng Hollister eXIt and
the two ex 1 ts south of Ocean Park Soul evard.
The medIan on
Barnard Way between HollIster and Ocean Park Boulevard WIll have
a "rolled type" curb WhICh allows emergency vehIcles WIth hIgher
ground clearances to transverse the medIan at any pOInt but would
be dIffIcult for standard motor vehIcles to cross.
The Ocean P~rk Boulevard I?arkIng
series of barrIers to pedestrIans:
lot entrance desI9n creates a
first Barnard Way, then the
- 19 -
.
.
stackln9 lane,
the bikepath.
beach?
then the north-south connectln9 roadway a_nd then
wouldn't thlS dlscourage pedestrian use of the
The Ocean Park entrance IS one of two vehicle access points to
the parking lot and IS deSIgned to provide safe and effICIent
access
for vehIcles and pedestrlans.
The Intersectlon IS
s 19nall zed, allOWl n9 sa fe pedestr lan access across Barnard Way.
In addI tIon, the proposed deSIgn would narrow Barnard Way at
Ocean Park from four to two lanes - reduclng the wldth of roadway
pedestr lans must cross.
The major clrculatlon elements of the
proposed Plan at the Ocean Park Boulevard entrance would not be
slgnl flcan tly d 1 fferen t from those cur ren tly in pI ace:
Barnard
Way, a stacklng lane, the north-south connectlng access route and
the blkepath.
The connectlng road wIll also have a textured
surface and a ralsed pedestrian crosslng to slow vehicles.
There are not SIgnIficant vehIcle-pedestrIan conflicts at present
and there IS no reason to antICIpate they would be worsened under
the Plan.
Indeed, because the Ocean Avenue entr ance would be
operated as a full-servIce entrance, the number of vehIcles USIng
the Ocean Pack Boulevard entrance would be reduced, and WIth that
reductlon, any current pedestrian-vehicle conflicts would also be
reduced.
Some persons have suggested that the north-south
connectIng roadway be ellmInated to reduce pedestrIan-vehIcle
confllcts.
However, this roadway prOVIdes an Internal "relIef
yalve" between the north and south portions of the parklng lot,
keeps clrculatlng beach parking trafflc WI thin the parking lot
Instead of on nelghborlng steets, and prOVIdes needed emergency
and publIC safety vehIcle access.
- 20 -
.
.
Based on both ingress and egress proJectIons, the connector road
IS also necessary to keep cIrculatIon beach parkIng traffIC
WI thl n the parkl ng lot and of f resIdential streets In capac i ty
SItuatIons.
About 33% of the parkIng spaces are located in the
southern portion of the lot, and 67% In the northern portion.
However, It IS proJected that 45% of in-bound drIvers WIll
utILIze the Ocean Park Boulevard entrance, and 55% WIll use the
Ocean Avenue entrance. In a capaCIty SItuatIon WIth the southern
lot full and the northern lot WIth empty spaces, and without a
connector road, approxImately 12% of the In-bound vehIcles (45%
demand mInus 33% capaCIty of southern lot) would be forced to use
sur face streets to travel to the northern lot entrance. The
connector road enables such in-bound vehIcles to CIrculate WIthIn
the parkIng
lot,
redUCIng
traffIC
Impacts
on neIghborIng
reSIdentIal streets.
The connector road IS also necessary to provide fleXIble eXItIng.
Data IndIcates that only about 20% of drivers utilize the
southern eXIts, WIth 80% USIng the HollIster exit to travel north
and east.
In a 1130% capaCity Situation, 33% of the vehIcles
would be parked In the southern portIon of the lot, but up to 13%
of these (33% of spaces mInus 20% south eXitIng demand) would
Ideally choose
to use
the
Hollister
eXIt,
presumably to
faCIlItate travel to the north and east for freeway access.
WI. thout a connecting road, vehIcles eXl tlng from the south lot
would be forced to use IndIrect sur face routes, crea t 1 ng added
congestIon. WIth a connector road, thiS traffIC would CIrculate
WIthin the parkIng lot, redUCIng Impacts on surface streets.
- 21 -
.
.
The connectIng road will also enhance polIce patrol capabIlIty by
allowing patrol cars to easily crUIse the entIre length of the
parkIng
lot.
FInally,
the
Ocean Pa r k
Boulevard entrance
represen ts only one po Int for pedestr Ian access, WhICh 1 S al so
prOVIded at a number of other speCIfIc locatIons on Barnard
Way/Ocean Avenue.
Why tr,7asnft there more study of traffiC lIur>acts on NeIlson Way,
MaIn Street, PICO Boulevard, Fourth Street and LIncoln Boulevard?
These streets and theIr current operatIonal CharacterIstics are
part of the eXIstIng circulation context studIed in the FEIR. The
Intersection Level of SerVIce analYSIS provided by the FEIR
IndIcated that the Plan WIll have lIttle effect on these streets.
The most noteworthy shIft 10 traffIC volumes WIll occur In the
ImmedIate VicinIty of the prOJEct on Barnard Way/Ocean Avenue.
This IS not to say that NeIlson Way, PICa Boulevard or LIncoln
Boulevard do not currently have some CIrculatIon problems
unrelated to the Beach Plan WhICh should be addressed outSIde of
the Beach Plan proJect. These problems WIll not be compounded by
thIS proJect.
Why Isn't a full exit at Bay Street part of the Plan SInce It
mIght reduce nOIse and traffIC elsewhere?
EXI tlng vehIcles tend to "percolate" out of the parkIng lot
throughout the day In small number S, resul ting In few ex it lng
problems.
The planned eXI tlng facII i tIes WIll prOVIde adequate
exiting capablllty. Thus, the Bay Street eXIt is not needed from
thIS perspectIve. The FEIR IndIcates that inclusion of the Bay
Street eXI t would not reduce nOIse to a notlceable extent. In
addItIon,
the
City
recently
resolved
ownerShip
questIons
- 22 -
.
.
concernIng the vacant land parcel next to Bay Street 1mmedIately
to the south of the Pr1t1kin Center. The future use of th1s land
has not been determ1ned and development of the Bay Street eX1 t
might preclude some uses of the land, so untIl th1 s 1 ssue 1 s
resolved It seems advisable not to 1mplement the Bay Street eXIt
alternatIve.
Won1t the placement of the bIke path 1n the park at the foot of
Ocean Park Boulevard create unacceptable bIcycle or skater
conflIcts wIth pedestrians?
The meanderIng pattern of the bIke path 1S desIgned to slow down
bIke path users to provIde safer InteractIon. SIgnIfIcant safety
problems are not antIcIpated.
It 15 noted that In response to
recent suggestIons by the RecreatIon and Parks CommIssIon and the
publIC the locatIon of the bIke path In the park was moved west
to provIde a larger unInterrupted green space.
The proposed CIrculatIon system may be confus1n9 to some persons,
especIally around BIcknell Avenue. What wIll be done to address
thIS?
In addItIon to planned rned1ans, street markIngs and other traffIc
control devIces, a complete sIgnIng program IS beIng studIed and
WIll be Implemented.
Thi S sIgnIng prog ram wi 11
prov Ide cl ear
dIrectIon to beachgoers so that the most safe and direct routes
WIll be utilIzed.
How much VIew blockage WIll be caused by ~lanned landscapIng and
structures?
North of HollIster Avenue, the grade differentIal between the
parkIng lot and resIdentIal uses east of Ocean Avenue 15 such
that the potentIal for VIew blockage by landscaping IS mInImal.
Fur ther, 1 andscap1ng throughout the parking lot WIll be Slm 11 ar
- 23 -
. .
to that currently in place In the southern port~on of the parkIng
lot WhICh does not cause sIgnIfIcant VIew loss.
Planned
landscapIng In the central park will not cause view blockage, but
the use of slender palm trees for most of the larger landscapIng
elements and the placement of trees outsIde of eXIsting view
corrIdors whenever possIble IS Intended to mInimIze view losses
whIle at the same tIme addIng to the park setting, shade, and
vertIcal deSIgn elements Silhouetted agaInst the ocean.
Planned structures, Including concession stands, bathrooms and
pergolas would also cause some view blockages, however the
pergolas are the only net added faCIlIties and would be deSIgned
WI th open sides to allow VIeWIng through them.
The proposed
structures would not create SIgnIfIcant VIew blockages.
It IS
noted that in response to recent comments by the Planning
CommIssIon, RecreatIon and Parks CommISSIon and the publIC, the
number of new trees and pergolas In the Plan was reduced.
Isntt there SIgnIfIcant danger of damage to planned Improvements
from ocean storms lIke the 1983 storm?
The City asked Dr. Cholue Sonu of TekmarIne, Inc., recognIzed
experts in coastal faCIlIties deSIgn, coastal protectIon and
coastal hydrodynamIcs to evaluate thIS issue. Dr. Sonu IndIcated
that there IS very low likelIhood of occurance of storms
comparable to those of 1983 over the llfe of the proJect.
Further, Dr. Sonu noted that the area in questIon sustained
relatIvely little damage (less than $30,000 VIa Police Department
records) from the 1983 storms and that the design of proposed
Improvements Will mItIgate potential damage.
- 24 -
.
.
For example, grasses and other landscapIng have been selected
WhICh, based on experIence of other coastal communItIes such as
Santa Barbara and San DIego, are reSIstent to damage from sea
wa ter and sand.
Planned structures and walls WIll have deep
footings designed to prevent undercutting by storm water. The
Ocean Park Boulevard park Will be deSIgned to promote rapid
draInage of sea water should It Intrude Into the area. The
central area of thIS park WIll be raised one foot to further
protect Improvements. Low walls SImIlar to those eXIstIng In the
area Will be prOVided WhICh will also protect the structures and
plantIngs. WhIle the proJect SIte WIll contInue to be exposed to
potentIal damage from severe ocean storms, the design mItIgates
potentIal
adverse
impacts and SIgnIfIcant effects are not
antICIpated.
The full text of Dr. Sonu1s comments are included
in the FErR.
Won1t planned pergolas attract crImInal elements and create a
polIcing problem?
The pergolas are Intended to prOVIde shady seatIng and VIewing
areas.
Some use by tranSIents may occur, partIcularly dur ing
off-peak hours.
However, this kind of actIVIty presently occurs
and IS not expected to be SIgnIficantly changed by the proposed
Improvements.
PolICIng needs WIll be SImIlar to the eXIstIng
SItuatIon.
It IS noted that in response to recent comments by
the PlannIng CommIssIon, RecreatIon and Parks CommIssIon and the
publIC, the number of pergolas was reduced.
- 25 -
.
.
Adequacy of Env~ronm~,ntal "Ana~J,sls
Based on a review of the issues raised during the ErR comment
perlod and the responses prepared by BCL AssocIates 1n the Final
EIR,
It appears that all environmental
Issues have been
adequately addressed.
The Plan wIll create no SIgnIficant
adverse env1ronmental Impacts.
The envIronmental analYSIs has
been prepared 1n compliance WIth the City'S adopted CEQA
gUI dellDes and the CalIfornIa Env I ronmen tal QuaIl ty Act.
It IS
recommended that the City Councll/Redevelopment Agency adopt the
at tached resolutIons certl fYI ng the FInal Env I ronmental Impac t
Report.
FISCAL IMPACT
CertIfIcation of the ReVIsed Beach Plan FEIR wIll not create an
addItIonal fIscal Impact on the Redevelopment Agency's approved
FY 84-85 budget. Funds for the constructIon of the Revised Beach
Plan have been budgeted in account number 18-200-263-000-906 and
01-200-263-000-910. As the reVIsed cost estimate does not exceed
the budgeted amount, DO addItIonal fIscal Impact IS antICIpated.
RECOMMENDATION
It IS staff's recommendatIon that the Redevelopment Agency Board:
1. Approve the attached resolutions certifYIng the adequacy of
the FEIR purusant to the Callfornla EnVIronmental QualIty Act
and CEQA gUIdelInes.
2. Approve the attached ReVIsed Beach Plan and dIrect the
ExecutIve DIrector to submIt for a new Coastal PermIt.
3. DIrect staff to proceed with the development of worKIng
draWIngs on the ReVIsed Beach Plan.
- 26 -
.
.
It IS staffts recommendation that the Clty Councll:
1. Approve the attached resolutlons certlfYlng the adequacy of
the FEIR pursuant to the Callfornla Envlronmental Quallty Act
and CEQA gUldellnes.
2. Approve the attached Rev ised Beach PI an and dlrect the Cl ty
Manager to submit for a new Coastal Permit.
3. Direct staff to proceed with the development of workIng
drawlngs on the ReVlsed Beach Plan.
Prepared by: Ernesto R. Flores, Manager
Economic Development Unit
Communlty & Economic Development Department
Kenyon Webster, ASSOcIate Planner
Program and POlICY Development DIvision
Community & EconomlC Development Department
IIX
- 27 -
EXHIBIT I
EXHIBIT II
EXHIBIT III
EXHIBIT IV
EXHIBIT V
EXHIBIT VI
EXHIBIT VII
.
.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Ocean Park Beach Improvements - Costructlon Cost
EstImates as of August 6, 1984
Ocean Park Revised Alternate Plan
Ocean Park Central Beach Park Plan
Summary of Ocean Park Draft EIR PlannIng CommisSion
DiScussion (July 16, 1984 meeting)
MInutes of Regular Meeting - Recreation and Parks
Commission (July 19, 1984)
A Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the
CI ty of Santa Mon 1 c a Cer tl fYlng That It Has Re-
viewed the Final Environmental Impact Report on the
Ocean Park Beach Improvements Plan
A Resolution
Santa MonIca
Impac t Report
Plan
of the Cl ty CouncIl of the City of
CertifYIng the FInal EnVironmental
on the Ocean Park Beach Improvements
- 28 -
..
.
.
EXHIBIT I
OCEAN PARK BEACH IMPROVEMENTS
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
August 6, 1984
Moore Ruble Yude11
1. BARNARD WAY and LINEAR PARK
a. South of Ocean Park Blvd.
Roadway improvements
Landscape
pedestrian s~gnal
$ 155,800
362,200
40,000
558,000
b. Ocean Park Blvd. to Hollister
Roadway improvements
Landscape
83,900
197,600
281,500
c. Hollister to Bicknell
Roadway improvements
Landscape
60,000
263,000
323,000
2. OCEAN-BICKNELL-BAY TRIANGLE
Roadway improvements
Landscape
Traffic signals (2)
42,,500
80,000
130,000
252,500
3. OCEAN PARK BLVD.
Roadway ~mprovements
Landscape
14,200
8,800
23,000
4. PROMENADEjBIKEPATHjSEATWALL
a. Crescent Bay Park to Central Beach Park
b. Central Beach Park (seatwall only)
c. Central Beach Park to South Park
d. South Park
e. Plazas (5)
204,000
55,000
258,800
40,400
47,000
605,200
.
.
.
OCEAN PARK BEACH IMPROVEMENTS -- Page 2
5. CENTRAL BEACH PARK
Food Concess~on and Restrooms (not 1ncluded)
Office and ma1ntenance yard
Demolition
Shade Pav~lions
Restrooms at south plaza
Landscaping
Hardscape
Steps and pedestals
Earthwork
$ (298,000)
12,000
60,000
240,000
110,000
456,500
92,500
30,000
45,000
1,046,000
6. SOUTH PARK
Demolit1on
Restrooms
Landscap~ng
20,000
110,000
209,400
339,400
7. BEACH PARKING LOTS
Demolition
Island curbs
Curbs at landscape strip
Landscape
Speed bumps
A.C. resurfac1ng
Connnect1ng road
Strip1ng
5,500
45,000
22,000
199,400
10,000
265,000
76,000
7,500
630,'400
8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
Relocate Promenade l1ghts
Demolition @ existing Promenade & along Barnard Way
Toll booths, gates, bollards, etc.
15,000
56,000
50,000
121,000
.
OCEAN PARK BEACH IMPROVEbrnNTS -- Page 3
SUMMARY
1. BARNARD WAY AND LINEAR PARK
a. South of Ocean Park Blvd.
b. Ocean Park Blvd. to Hollister
c. Hollister to Bicknell
2. OCEAN- BICKNELL-BAY TRIANGLE
3. OCEAN PARK BLVD.
4. PROMENADE/ BIKEPATH/ SEAT WALL
5. CENTRAL BEACH PARK
6. SOUTH PARK
7. BEACH PARKING LOTS
8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
TOTAL
.
558,000
281,500
323,000
252,500
23,000
605,200
1,046,000
339,400
630,400
121,000
$4,180,000
.
.
EXHIBIT IV
S"~~ary of Ocean Park Draft EIR
Plannin9 Commission Discussion
July 16, 1984 Meetin9
A summary paraphrase of comments and questions of City Plannlng
Comm1ssioners on the Plan and DEIR lS provlded below, together
W1 th br lef responses prepared by staff. CommlSS loner s' gener al
co~~ents are also provlded.
Ken Genser: The EIR talks about pass lble m1 tlgat10n measures,
some of Wh1Ch make a lot of sense. How do we know that those are
or are not gOlng to be part of the proJect?
Response: The design team 1S evaluatlng mltlgatlon measures
suggested by the DEIR. M1tlgatIon measures w1ll be incorporated
to the extent approprlate and feasible.
Ken Genser:
avallable?
Is there a more detalled verSIon of the Plan
Response: The Plan lS 1n a
phase. The current drawlngs
Detailed working drawlngs wIll
des 19n development and
show all maJor Plan
be prepared once baslc
schematIc
features.
concepts
are set.
Ken Genser: The Ocean Park Boulevard parklng lot entrance lane
beglnn1ng around Fraser Avenue seems to interfere w1th pedestr1an
access. Why can't there be a dlrect rIght turn at Ocean Par k
Boulevard?
- 1 -
.
.
Response: The lane prov1des needed stackIng space for cars
enter1ng the park1ng lot from Barnard Way. A dIrect rIght turn
would resul t In frequent back-up of cars onto the street. The
Island separatIng the lane from Barnard actually may enhance
pedestr Ian safety and traffIC flow by redUCIng the street wIdth
to be crossed.
Ken Gense!: The Island In the mIddle of Barnard Way at BIcknell
may create a traffIC flow problem for persons travelIng west VIa
BIcknell who wIsh to enter the parkIng lot.
Response: The Ocean Avenue/BIcknell intersectIon was desIgned to
address the needs and concerns of BIcknell res1dents to
dIscourage use by persons travelIng to the parkIng lot. The
Intent of the Plan IS for parkIng lot users to ut111ze other
routes. Clear SIgning and other traffIC control measures will
dIrect beachgoers to approprIate routes.
Ken Genser: Is the Bay Street eXIt part of the Plan?
Response: The Bay street eXIt 15 dIscussed as an alternatIve In
the FEIR. It IS not part of the Proposed Plan. Please see
add1tlonal dlScuss10n of thIS Issue In the staff report and FEIR.
Ken Gense!: WIll planned trees block VIews?
Response:
Please see dISCUSSIon of thIS Issue In the staff
report and FEIR.
- 2 -
.
.
Tom Larmore:
Was an effort made to evaluate potentIal storm
damage to planned Improvements? How much potentIal damage can be
prevented?
Response:
Please see dIScussIon of thIS Issue In the staff
report and FEIR.
Tom Larmore:
If Barnard Way IS reduced to two lanes wIll It
stIll provIde adequate cIrculatIon?
Response:
Please see d1ScussIon of thIS Issue In the staff
report and FEIR.
Eileen Hecht:
The Bay Street eXIt alternatIve would appear to
reduce traffIc and nOIse elsewhere.
It should be Implemented.
Response:
Please see diSCUSSIon of thIS Issue In the staff
report and FEIR.
Eileen Hecht:
Why weren1t on-street parkIng spaces provIded on
the west SIde of Barnard Way between HollIster and Fraser?
Response:
The on-street parkIng spaces along other portIons of
Ocean Avenue/Barnard Way were Included at the request of adJacent
reSIdents.
ReSIdents In the HollIster-Fraser area did not
request such park1ng.
It would also reduce the area devoted to
the lInear park.
Par kIng resources for area res Idents prov Ided
In that ne1ghborhood Include a 24-hour preferentIal parkIng zone,
perml t par k1ng In the beach par kIng lot, and free par kIng for
reSIdents WIth preferentIal permIts in Lot 11 south of HollIster
on NeIlson Way.
- J -
.
.
Eileen Hecht: Has any consIderation been gIven to creatIng
addltlonal conceSSIon faCllltIes In the Plan area?
Response: Ther e are no plans to Inc rease the net amount of
conceSSIon faCIlltles.
Eileen Hecht: What provIs lons have bean made for drop-off of
handIcapped persons close to the beach area?
Response: The parkIng layout wIll Include spaces sIgned for
exclUSIve use by handIcapped persons close to the beach and other
faCIlItIes. The parkIng lot w1l1 have a travel lane adjacent to
the promenade WhICh could be used to faCIlItate drop-offs.
AddItIonal drop-off areas are beIng Investlgated.
Penny Peclman:
var lOUS features
of
Plan. The
by publIC
reductIon of
comments
Barnard
oppOSIng
Way/Ocean
I
am Impressed
Avenue from four lanes to two IS a gamble.
Response: Please see dIScuSSIon of thIS Issue 1n the staff
report and FEIR.
Penny Per Iman:
problem.
The gazebos may create a publIC nUIsance/cr Ime
Response: Please see dISCUSSIon of thIS Issue In the staff
report and FEIR.
General Comments b~ CommISSIoners
Ken Gense r :
A deCISIon on
thIS proJect may come down to the
for the most people. Not everybody
questIon of the most good
- 4 -
.
.
wlll be pleased.
The lInear park IS an extremely Important
element of the desIgn.
I am not convInced that narrowIng of
Barnard way/Ocean Avenue wIll create a problem.
The advantages
of the lInear park outweIgh the mInImum amount of rIsk Involved.
Problems on peak days such as the 4th of July wIll occur no
matter how many lanes are provIded.
On VIew blockage, It seems
appropr I ate to
look and see how many trees are appropr late In
the park.
The pagodas seem to be a much-needed amen1ty WhiCh
w1l1 serve the greatest numbers of people.
There may be a risk
of some storm damage over tIme, but the pleasure the Improvements
WIll give people outweIghs such potentIal damage.
to see the Plan go forward.
I would lIke
Tom Larmore:
WhIle there are people who support the Plan, It
appears a lot of money would be spent for a lot of thIngs people
don't want.
I dIdn I t hear a lot of obJections to green space,
WhiCh seems to be a benef1t, but densIty of trees, crIme problems
and VIew blockage by buildings appear to be a problem to many
people.
I am not convinced that EIR adequately dIscusses storm
damage potentIal.
El1een Hecht: The Plan seems very sketchy with many detaIls not
specIfIed. I am shocked at confIguratIon of Barnard Way, feel
that the lInear park IS an extenSion of what IS there now, WhiCh
presently provIdes no functIon or value.
space WIll SImilar ly provIde no functIon.
The addI tlonal green
I had assumed that
thIS had been developed at request of the ne1ghbors. WhIle I am
In favor of green space, I feel It should be useful, and I don't
fInd thIS deSign useful other than for walkIng or Jogging WhIch
- 5 -
.
.
one can do now. NarrowIng Barnard ~~ay would make 1t dIff~cult to
pass, and I see no rat~onale for narrowIng. I lIke expandIng the
Interior park, but feel more specIfIcs are needed.
Derek Shearer: I relate to thiS area as a walker. I have always
dlsl~ked traff1C roarIng down Barnard Way. Area 1S presently
faIrly sterIle In contrast to the way It was years ago when there
were many structures at the beach and a very lIvely beachfront.
WalKIng down lInear park has a value to me. A beachfront area
WIth lots of POSItIve actIVity IS the best way to protect agaInst
unhealthy elements. ThIS proJect WIll Increase property values
of nearby hOffies and improve the ne1ghborhood. Perhaps bIke path
should be moved closer to ocean to reduce bIcycle/pedestrIan
conflIcts. Overall, I VIew Plan as an Improvement to the area.
- 6 -
-
.
EXHIBIT V
Regular Meeting - Recreatl.on and Parks Carmission
CouncIl Chambers - Cl.ty F..all
July 19, 1984 - 7:30 p.m.
'The Recreation and Parks Carrnisslon of the C1 ty of Santa l'wbnica met in regular
session on July 19, 1984, at the above named place. Chanperson Pewell pre-
siding. 'Ihe meeting was called to order and the Pledge of Allegiance was
g1ven.
Present:
Carnmissioners: Evans, Ice, Powell, Scott, Toodh
Absent:
Cul.nissl.oners: Abramsky, Jones
Council liaison Reed was not present.
4. Minutes of the Prev10Us Meeting - Camussloner Scott rroved to approve the
minutes of the June meeting. The notion was seconded by Canniss10ner Toodh
and carried unanirrously.
5. D1.rector' s ReJ?Ort It was rroved to accept the Director's Report. The
rrotion was seconded by CClfmdsS10ner Evans and carried una.ru.rrousl y .
7.A. SWearing In New Camuss10ner - L1nda Evans was welcomed to her second
term as Carmissioner. Chuck Ice was swam 1.0 and welccmed to the CamusSl.on
on hl.S appointment.
7.B. Presentation of Plaque - Frank Juarez was not present to rece1ve lus
plaque of appreciat10n for serv1ce as a Camussioner over the past years.
7.C. ElectIon of Chal.rperson - Cumtl.SS10ner Scott normnated Carnuss10ner
Abramsky as Cha1rperson, and she was elected ll!1am..ITously. Cue to her absence
at the July meetIng, she will assume the dut1es of Olcur at the August
meetl.Og.
7. D. Mldnl.ght Graphics - Kathy Arnold of M1..dnight Graphics made a presenta-
tion and slide shOW' to the Ccrnru.SS10n concerning thelr deslre to use
Pall.sades Park, at the Senior Recreation Center, for a "Heart Transplant" shaw
on August 11 & 12 from 8-9: 30 p.m. This l,>,Duld be shown on a suspended screen
and ...culd run 10-15 minutes for the whole shOW', and lt w::>uld be shown con-
tinuously over the 1 1/2 hr. presentation.
Camu..sS10ner Scott rroved to approve the presentation in Pall.sades Park, by the
Sen10r Recreation Center, of M1dnight Graphl.cs on August 11 and 12 fran 8-9: 30
p.m. The notJ.on \.\ldS seconded l:y ccmnissioner Powell and carried una11JJll)usly.
7. E. Ocean Park Beach Improvements Plan - John Ruble of the arclu. tectural
fim worklllg on this project, was present to address the CUlffliSS10n and pres-
ent drawings on the park plan. Also present was Ernesto Flores of the Re-
developnent Agency and Vivian Rothste1n of the C~ty M:m.ager's off1ce. Members
of the publlC addressed the CUIILLlSS1.0n and gave their ccmnents concermng the
plan. Several areas of concerns were that there were tco many trees, that the
sma.ll pergola structures contributed to crime, Barnard Way should not be re-
duced to t\OJO lanes, the b1..ke path bIsects the large green area and pedestrl.an
- 1 -
.
.
,
and vel11cluar trafflc at the entrance at Ocean Park Blvd. seerred to 1:Je confus-
ing and unsafe.
CarmisSloner Scott rroved to recuLl'lLend to the City Councll:
1. The bike path 1:Je rroved as far west as possl.ble to alla...r a larger area of
green space and not bisect the park.
2. Tree plantJ..ngs be oriented to the beach concept and the a.m::>unt planted
consider safety and aesthetics.
3. The connector street 1:Jetween the north and south parking lots be elJ.rni-
nated and trafflC concerns be dealt with by traffic engmeers.
4. Drop off polnts on Barnard Way be provlded wherever feaslble.
5. '!he gazebo structures at the peripheral area of the park be el1.minated.
6. Maxi.mJm pedestrlan access in the park and parlung lot be provided.
The notion was seconded by Camri.ssiner Tcoch and carried unanitrously.
B.A. Old Business - Beach Security Plan - The Cum1l5sion received a CX)py of a
rnerro to John Alschuler fran John Jallh statlng that the newly adopted budget
provides for addl.tlonal beach security conslstlng of two pollee officers on
ATe 15 for 4 hours per day, 8 p.m. to ffildnight, during the peak beach perled.
Dav~d Lutz, Director of the Arts Camusslon, addressed the Camusslon on the
Percent for Art ProJects for Ocean Park Beach and Pallsades Park projects. It
was requested that a rrember of the Camussion be appointed to ~rk on this
pr<::x3rarn Wlth the Arts CarrniSSlon. llillHissloner Abramsky, although out of
tCMn, was suggested for tins proJect. Cuu:Ll.SSlOner Povvell WIll act as her
alternate.
Respectfully suhmtted,
~iLJ_/ ~ (,' (f/L/~dJ;f-'
Donald T. Arnett, Secretary
DI'A:db
- 2 -
.
.
(/-/+
6~ (y~
-- --_...._......... .....iIlIt..
, NOTICE OF A ~1II!:A1O'PfG ON THE
PROPOSED OCEAN PARK BEACH IMPROVE.
MENTS PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT.
OffiCial Notice IS hereby given by the City of
l Santa Monica of a Publtc Heanng before the City
I Council/Redevelopment Agency on the proposed
Ocean Park Beach Improvements PIan and Fmal
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) The
proposed project COnsiSts of a variety of ImproVe-
, ments to Lot 2600, the City's largest beach parkmg
, lot. and to streets near Lot 2600 Lot 2600 IS
I located west of Barnard Way and Ocean Avenue m
Santa MoDica The Improvements prmlarlly 10-
volve extensive additions of Iandscapmg, parlung
lot access changes and alterattons to certam
streets The plan !Deludes a new bike path, a new
grassy ~lCmc area and creation of a . 'lmear park"
along Barnard Way/Ocean Avenue through a re-
o duchon m street Width
PUBUC HEARING ON BEACH PLAN
Date August 14, 1984
Time 730 PM
Place Room 211, City Hall, 1685 Mam Street,
Santa MODIca, Cahfonua
A copy of the EIR which describes the proJect
may be reVIewed m the Clty Plannmg DIVISion,
Room 212. Clty Hall, 1685 MaIO Street, Santa
. MonIca, California 90401. and m the office of the
L City Clerk
; The purpose of tins notice IS to let you know
about the heanng so that you or your representa-
tive may attend and comment.
Conpnents, questions or feqllests for further
iftfonaatwn about the proJect should be for-
I ...... to Kenyon Webster in the Program and
, Polie1~ment DIViSion, POBox.. San-
I ta MOItiIlJ~ Cabfomla 90406-ZlOO. teh1phou4 mI.
4511-8585
: Este es un aVlStl de una audlencla publ1ca ante
:' Ia Conslllo de la CiOdrKtc:on relaclOn a Ocean Park
. Beach Improvements Plan (Plan de Progresso)
Para mas mformaclon, por favor de comUDlcarse
con Barbara Rentena. City of Sa&ta MODIca, al
213/458-85115 ;.;:;.a,--,~.~
Pub .All~ a.t n~o
'- .-. I" I I
,. ff (U- /r~ ~~tu/-'1
./)~y,~~
fu /I-:!\Yf/)
t~
WE ARE RESIDENTS OF BARNARD PARK VILLAS AND WISH ~u
WHOLEHEARTEDLY URGE THAT YOU AS COUNCIL PERSONS VOTE
FAVORABLY ON THE OCEAN PARK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
IT WILL BE A BIG STEP FORWARD TO SOLVE PARKING AND
TRAFFIC PROBLEMS THAT PLAGUE US DAILY. AND THEPRO-
POSED GREEN AREA WILL IMMEASURABLY UPGR~E THE
SOUTHERN SANTA MONICA BEACHFRONT.
.
PLEASE VOTE YES SO THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER DELAY!
JE:IIi/iii /If! is- '15<'5
" J 'i I '*
kuu(. !V~ll.-li.t-A.V ~o J
.b
. ~....
.-/ ~
"( .,~,:;v:~'
I l~ ...- /
i' \( r---
!'! ,-,_ v"'-1 l~ - I-
........ I .'t --...._<...~~-l
) / -
, ..
~ /-r,
j I ,)
~ : J j
\. /" ~
~.~
1
f
{ /1 I 1../ ,_~ ::e I"
''--<k 4.. ,..L-v'-"'~ J-- '4
: .
.,..
..-"
,I
,
,0:7
:r
/ -J r,.
'. ,1 _ '
- -'
~ / ,/
-
V-.
, '
~
.-
'"
,/
"'" J /"
-<.. \,;>
'..
! i /'" "
~ ,/ .
/.1' '~~--<i
r
,. I---J
~ .....---------"
,
..../
\
,
'-...-- \
"
~ .; iI' _/"
:~l
cr' ,I r,
, < -
I
/
..
~
'\
,,'
" l
'~ll A
'-,-, '~--..
-~
_\ I 1
., , \
~ ]:-_-"-L
_r' ; I ~
---.,
"
. l
r-'-
~ -..J.... -----=-----.....
" ~
;./
'YH ~'LAJ
r :"',~, /-.;'-f}--';ty
_ J/.l , J 1'"- j ;--
,.,
- ~- - j:""- ~ - -
/1 I . '
:; ~1<-~./_U
,
,/
/_~ .
r..- _ '___
j
,
'\
,/-
.J
~ ~ r; t&G-~
U-'\._Pf\...:\../~ ..\ '- \V~L-~~~
DI~O>>ATE Alllltftl(;AN _AIID
Of" 0,"'1't{"'~MC:II.0GY
.
.
."ECIA~I:ZINc;I IN TWit CAllE 0"
DlaEA.E "'ND .UlIl;IEIIY 0" THE EYE
(2131 381.0473
) I ~A,
'(-) J- ~,} Y
JuJ~yJJd !
CDf ;f>-1&L-t-VV1
JAMES M. SOORANI. M.D.
WA.HINOTON EYE c:L.INIC
4183 INGL.EWOOD BOUL.EVARD
L.a. AN~ELES CAl..1FORNIA 800..
August 22,1983
The Honorable Governor George Deukmejian
State Capitol Building
Sacramento , Ca 95814
Dear Mr. Deukmejian,
In 19B1 it came to public awareness that five
lifeguards working at Santa Monica Beach became ill with cancer.
Among them were two men who suffered from leukemia. In an
independent review of the cancer surveillance study done in 1981
these findings carne to our attention: that there has been an
increased incidence of leukemia both among the people who live
in Santa Monica (2x that of the General Los Angeles County
Population); and among the people who live in the costal tracts
the incidence of leukemia 1s even higher (4.6x that of the
General LAC Population). Tnis information, in combination with
the findings of an extremely high rate of cancer (1978-1981)
among the pe~ffianently employed lifeguards in the same section
(35x that of the General Population) produces a rising incidence
rate pointing towards a focus point at the beach or nea~ the
water thus raising the possibility-and making it more likely
that there was an involvement of toxic material in the illnesses
that developed among the lifeguards.
This discovery brings out that contaMination of
the water is a serious problem that must be dealt with. As you
know the Hyperion Plant releases into Santa Monica Bay an effluent
that is 2/3 raw liqUid sewage (from Los Angeles County) with only
sedimented material removed and 1/3 is liquid that has received
aeration and deco~position. This in addition to the chemicals
Page 2
.
.
that inadvertantly enter into the bay through storm drains
(of which there are approxiMately 100) could very well be
responsible for the occurence of cancer in various sltes froM
the added effect of several different carcinogens.
Seeing what we see here one can only feel shame
to know the great technological advances we have achieved and
how little we have done for the Nature that our lives depend upon.
Today there is a great calling for help from our people in
government to honestly present these problems to our people.
Can we not ask but that you our leaders be in the center of the
coordination of the work; that we should cleanse and recycle
appropriately all solid and liquid waste~ for all that is
poisonous and dangerous must cone to be accounted for; that all
that is usable be reused and all that cannot be safely discarded
~ust by wisdom not be produced; for tr.e suffering of the earth
cannot but become the suffering of men - and we have seen this
suffering. If we are a society with a governing order justifying
its life with the changing time - must we not then ask for the
passage of legislation for the needs of today to secure the
safety of our people that what is disposed of in one place by
one man does not come to bring damage somewhere else to another
man. As this is the first requirement for social order to assure
the inalienable right of life that we who live in a society
should live together successfully.
For we see now that with the growth of our cities
there lS no other direction that can be taken today that is more
vital to the life of our people than that of recycling and cleansing
of all solid and liquid waste. Bringing this education to our people
can be helped most by our municipalities and our people in gover~ment.
~~ile the failure to take this step cannot but be negligence, tr.e
earnest effort in t~is ~ould i~self be t~e invest~ent i~ our
future and our success would be a victory for all nen.
One pleasant outcome is that there is enough jobs here for all
the ~neMployed~ for those who choose to take part~ there is enough
~.
.~
Page 3
.
. .
work for all our people sufferlng without direction in insane
asylums and fo~ all of our people in prisons (of all nature),
from the elderly who have been isolated from the workings of
society to the children that have lost the light of their future
all we need is a beginning and encouragement. ~ose whe jOln in
are investing their life within the great bank of the life of
mother earth, wherein the One who Fathers Nature keeps the Living
Book balanced and every star in the sky and eve~y grain of sand is
made good and is accounted fer. Would it not be to the wisdom
of the government of nen to be counted also in the ~iving Book?
then we should join the truth and account in our society for the
materials that we use and for what becomes of the~.
The evidence is before us and the direction is
clear. You help and encourageTIent will be extremely appreciated.
Enclosed is the detail of the review of the study of the cancer
incidence among the lifeguards. (7he problem of the water involves
the greater region and I will send you a copy of the report that
I am preparing when it is completed.)
With best ~egards,
Yours Sincerely,
James M. Soorani, H.D.
Copies sent to: Senator Alan Cranston
Senator Peter Wilson
Mayor ~om Bradley
Congress~en Tony Coelho, Mel Levine and Richard Leeman
State senators Herschel Rosenthal and Diane Watson
Assemblyman Ton Hayden
Mayor Ken Edwards
Los Angeles County Supervisor ~ichael Antonovich
Mr. Robert ~fuite
Secretary Gordon Duffy
e;: CD _ Lt'l_ 1"'-- aM- N_ .-4-
. 0'\ . '0::1' .N . . CO . CO -0
51 N~ r- 0"1 M 1'"1 N'o::I' C'\ U'l 1"1 co C'\ '<:7' N~
""'0 N \0 ...-1("01 N N M C\
N M co
~B 0- .... - N_ CO _ 0::1'_ ~-@ ,...;-
c.~ '0 . 1.0 . \0 . '<:7' .N . ...-I . l" .N
'O:l" 10 C I"'- .-I ON ~ 0 If'l N CO C'\ N
If'l Ul~ N- I""- - ...-I - r-i - - ..-! N r-I
I M-
lJ1 ~
'<:7'
...-Itf) 1~
~... 0'\- CO - 0_ 0_ O- m - co -
Ul .&..10 .M . C'\ .N .M . "'"" . .-4 . \0 . co
(!) Ulr.3 o- N- '<:7'- 0- I""- - r-- - .-I - '1:1" '0::1'
.u ~~ N \0 .-I N 'O:l" 1""'1-
."", M
Ul >. /r
.u
l-o C C
(!) :::J
(J 8
c:
10 - - - - -
0 Ul '1:1"10 l" ,...; C'\ \0 N\P 0""; '0::1'0 I""- CD C'\ N
Q) sl . co .N . N . If''I .0 . .-I . .-I .~
'g '"'"' 1""-....-1 \0 0::1' '" 'O:l" \0 ..-f '0::1'-/ '0::1'.-1 <:2'..-l \OC'\
0.1 - r-i- r-i- - - - - ...-I Ni
.u ~ r-i-
(J
CJ
r-i C'\ 10 n:l N_ o- CD _ oc:' - N_ N_ O- r- -
dI en r- vi .uC) . "'"" . In . 0'\ . N . .-l . .-I '0 . 0'\
~ 3 0'\ c.~ 1""'1- \C - CD - \0 - M- 1""'1- 0- 'O:l"M
.-I '1:1" 108 .-I N N-
l-o I I .-I
0 'tl N If''l U)::E:
Il-I c l" 1""'1
10 0'\
.-I r-i Ull
en r.::I
dI C) .. 10 .u. co - CD _ \C - co- co - co --- 0- \0 -
.... .... tf) .&..I u: . ..-f . "'"" .N . ...-I .....-1 ..-1 '0 . \0
0 C (!) l..'l /OJ l"- - r- - Lt'l- r-- - r-- - r- - 0- '"'" '"'"'
c ~ r-i 881 .-I ?1 , N-
Q.I ~ '" 7f -/
N g. ttl
.u Q)
l!J ,.. C .u
.--I 4-1 10 ... - - - -
.a u:l ~ o In If''I....-I C\ 0'\ 1"10 ~ r- MM r--N C'\ M
~ t)1 . Il'l . 0::1' . U"I .N . \D '0 '0 . \C
In .. :sl N ...... NM '<:7' "'"" N r- N M....-I \0 CD
0 tf) tl 1""'1- - \0 ......
.-I .u ..... -
0 c:
en to a.
(!) w ~IO
.u .u Ul .uO o- N_ r-- - .-I _ 0- \0 - 0- ""'-
It! .... c.... .0 .N . \0 . .-I '0 . Il'l .0 . co
,.. 1""'1 - ",. enc 0- '0::1'- N- N- o- 0- 0- OM
10 'i M Ul~ ...-i r-i CO -
C,.L +J c:
0 [/) :2 Il'l
r" r-:; N .--.
ai 8
"0 ...-It!)
... 11J+J 0- '0::1'- .-I - 0- 0- 0- 0- 0'\ -
U I:l .u{) .0 .N ) .M .0 .0 '0 .0 . ..-f
C U ,,1 m 0- 0'\ - '1:1" 0- 0- 0- 0- ....-I ......
.... "'" BE:: ~ .-I l.tl -
C
(J ~
-poi
l4-l
.... 10
(J .LJ
~ C
10 ~
U) ~
I
ClJ .u
C' Ul ..c
0::: >.. ~
U) ClJ
U)
Ul n:l
5 0.1
(f) (j)
:> - -
w C '0
dI ....
Z :L Ul Ul
~ en - IU QJ
....-I '8 c ..... .u
IU U) 'o-i e ....
c: r:: w 10.1 ::c .::.! Q.I Ul
0 0'1 to ~~ I en x
r-i C r-i C ~ ::l r-t
8 .3 ~ 8~ ~ ~ r-t
4:
.c -Vi [;11
. u.'
.... I":i 1
..c 1
~ Ul
0;::0 ~ CO ~ 1.0 1.0 C"'1
>'C~r-il . . . . .
.cU n:; ,....; ..-l ..-l ..-l .-I .-:t ..-l
U C C.....,
'-' CIJ 0 g.
.... O'U [
.c ~ 1 r- u""" ><Cf.l
~d~ UO\..l
l'Cl C r,l \:..II
.cCl3 u \ ~H:>C
~ U QJ.... I
.cu \
:>-t (J) .LJ oM \D 1.0 .-t ~ U"'I ..-l ~ \ -
.0 U C . . . . I 0'1 0:::1' N ("") M ~ r-
C:C.c ..-l .-( -.:r ..-l ,....; N ,....; '.:J 0 N 0 0 (") 1..""1
'-'QO+J \ ~ qo N .-I ,....; r-i r-i
0'0 ~ ..-l
,LJ'M >. j ~
UU'-'
I"JCI'Cl~ 11'') 0 00 0 N ~ ~
~H:>O CO CO ("") N
o:!' a C'\
("'1 0\ .-I ....-l
E - ,...., --. -
C\ - ,...., - - - - - - Ol en ,., J.fl <;I' en N
r-- ..-l ~ N ...-I \Xl ...-I 0 QJ ,., M 0:::1' .-t 0 U"'I \D
(jJ 0"\ a 0 0"\ C'\ 1.0 . r-i U M \0 t' ~ U"'I N r-
,.,. ...-l N M Cf\ r-- e- ..-l U"'I c::: N L/'l
8 I r-- \t'l N ..-l r-i N Q) ~
N ....-{ '0
C r-- ... N U"'I N C'\ co 0"\ C'\
B 0'1 :..... (]) tf) . . . .
..-l QJ.&.J co 0 \D 0 M N \0 Q) 1.0 U'l ....-j r-. r- t'1 rl
,e... . . . ~ M co rl .-I
'B .. C)~ Cf\ rl ~ O"l 0'\ ~ M I.I-.l
>. M co ..-l .-I 0
.LJ 4.J --. ,...., - - ,...., - -
0 C ~ 1..''''1 ..-l N ~ U"'I N -.;:0
C> 8 N U"'I C'\ c:> U"'I ....... 0'1
'""" CO co 1.0 qo <l;f' N 1.0
CJ rl M
Ul - - - - - - .c !""'l -
I.., M N ..... N N \0 N l.o
~ CIJ r- 0;) r""J 0'\ \0 ?"'- M ~~ t;T\ 1.0 C"'; \0 L/'l 0 co
0 ...... 1.0 .-:t rl .-I N . . .
Q,I N G\ 0 !""'l C'\ 0'\ ~ qo
O'l Q) tJ'l M (:() ...., ..-l
g C +J ....
..ct oX ~ U"'I U"l N N 0 0 ... Q)
U . . . . . . ~z - - --. ,...., -
"l QJ tI) ItS 0.0 0 ,....; I"'- 1.0 N 0 ~. N C'I qo 0\ L"l 0'1
~ S rl M 0 rl ~ 0\ .-I 0 ~ co o::t' an
:.. ~ CQ ....... w 0 co l/') 0'1 0:::' ..... N 1.0
Q,I ..-l !""'l
-0 '-' .. .c c: N ""-
.P L::.c tI) .jJ 0
.... 0 ...
;-i Q) C 4.1 0 0 co ..-l <q' z.n .......
"0 r-4 ~l l'Cl . . .
c::: ~ - - - - U) <q' \0 1.0 0'\ 0 '=' ~
!ll co \0 qo !""'l 0 \D 0"\ U qo r-- ,....[ ...-I r-I
M """ .-:t !""'l LO M N UJ :::I
.. I U"'I 0 ...-I N N --I o::t' n::l 'S
Q) tI'l ..-l ...-I --.
.LJ tI) - - - - - U ~ U"'I 0 r- eo 0\ lJ""l 0
~ l'Cl '0 C""'J M 0 .-I 0'1 0 N
r-4 I"'- \0 1.0 M N ~ oqo r-4 C \0 0 '<:t' N ..-l .-I N
U . . . . I'Cl l'Cl r-l
CI qo ..-l M \0 0\ M N .... -
u .... .....1 ("\i I.{) r-f ~ ~
C l'Cl =1 0 \0 0\ r""'l M M '<:I'
QJ ..... . . . . .
"0 g U ?"- m 0'\ ...-I N U"'I \,.""l
.... C ~ lQ ,......, ..-l ..-l ......
U t1J H
C C
H 'E en [,1
L.I 10 '-'
'0 l'Cl ~ Q.l g
CJ ~
.jJ :>-t ~ C g
[''l +J
:::I .... 0
rl U e ~ E
~ ..-1 Q) ~ C.I 5
c +J .LJ
.c U] UJ 1Il
(ll .LJ :>. t l'Cl :>.
.g' ~ Ul e Ul ~
<11 Q)
U] u:I lJ1 1Il
3 .:.:l 113 5 r;:;
(],I ~
:> ~tI) CIl :> ...tr.l v)
w C ..-4 W C ....
(],I ...-1 0" tl.I .... Cl
Z .;L. Z oX.
~ 0' _en nf ~ 0'1 _w IV
.... :a c:: .... ,......, :a c ......
Il3 ...-1 E Il3 .,-1 E
6 ..... ..... .::.t. Q) C c: l.o 'j' .;L. c;
~I g' to' ~ I ~ x ~l 0 c:r> 10 .LJ 0'1 ~
.... r-4 C ~ :::I ....... C ....... C c :8 :l
8 3 ~ (],I ~ 8 3 i! Q) :2 S
u u ....
I
I
~
DI~OMATIi AMEIIICAN ..,....".
O~ "":.NTMALMOL.OGV
.
.
1i..IECIAI..::IHG IN THE CARE 01'
DISIIA.I! A.ND SultGillllY 01" THII: a:YI:
JAMES M. SOORANI, M.D.
WAliHIHGTON IEYIE CI.INIC
4183 INGI.EWOOD BOULEVARO
LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA. aooee
(213) :U1.0473
July 29, 19B3
Thomas Mack, M.D.
Department of Ep~demiology
use School of Medicine
Dear Doctor Mack:
After speaking to you on the telephone one week ago I chose to
honor your request for a letter and proceed accordingly. If ln
your judgement what I say is true, it would mean a thousand tlmes
more for our cornmunlty that the movement carne concurrently from
you to bring these discoveries to a higher level of lnvestigatlon.
The ultlmate conclusion that can be drawn from my findlngs dlffer
appreciably from yours yet my hope is that further understanding
will corne from this letter that would bring a gather~ng of force
in a dlrection of solution and as best that such a serlOUS
problem can be unlocked within the lives of men.
First and foremost is the group which the lifeguards
belonged to. Your study only indirectly touched upon this yet it
is the most lmportant factor here. The five lifeguards who
developed cancer while working on Santa Monica beach during a
two year perlod all worked year in and year out, were of a
select group and were all permanently employed as lifeguards. This
knowledge alone, the group of permanently employed llfeguards
being approximately fourty persons {in the central s~ction of
Los Angeles} makes the incidenc~ rate of cancer In thlS populat~on
group to be 6% per year or approx~mately 35 times that of the
general populat~on of Los Angeles County. The cancer rate of
which taken as an average to be 0.17% per year (approximately
averaged between the 35-45 age group and 45-55 age group); while
the 830 persons included in your study many of these people
worked only for a season, while the total number of lifeguards
that work at the busiest time of the year is no more than 250
.
.
Page 2
persons of which no more than approximately 100 belong to the
permanently employed group of lifeguards. The distribution
of the permanently employed group is approximately as follows:
approximately 40 work in the central area of which group are the
5 lifeguards who worked in Santa Monica. In the south bay it
~s also approximately 40 and the remaining twenty work in the
north section. The breakdown In terms of days of employment 1S
approximately as follows: Out of a pool of about 600 lifeguards
Wh1Ch the service draws from - approxi~ately 20 work 200 days a
year or more, 100 work 50-100 days a year, 100 work 20-50 days
a year and the remainder work 10 days or less a year. For th1s
reason the incidence rate can only become d~luted if the greater
pool was used to br1ng out the primary meaning in the study. In
fact when you divided the group of 830 lifeguards that were
studied as you yourself pointed out (into light and moderate
exposure groups) you found a much greater incidence rate of
cancer in the group that worked moderately. The ~nc1dence rate
1n this group being 10 times that of the Los Angeles County
population.
If you take this into cons1derat1on w1th the knowledge I
heretofore brought forth, in fact one can see that a focus
point of incidence becomes inescapably visible.
3S-
P ERHA/tJ tNTL Y
fHPLDfE.D
L I;,t 'flA.R I{)S
( '19 _f,t)
/0
HODtRltTr
l ~POS()~e
llF'E&OIr~
r; fNcRA L
LOr- ItNGEJ..fS
C~()Nrv
popul.~'O){
1
COM P fi (UrTlvE
lIt.CI n ~/tICf
~lrrt-
a.
I .7~IL R2CR tit TID" /It-r-rrlilM Nrs6~ !71)
ALL L'~r(j.u~~1) S S TVD'E~ (',/i -"0)
The incidence in the general population being 1 the incidence
of cancer in recreation attendents in all sites (between 1972-
1978) being even less than the general population 0.75; the
incidence in the group you studied of 830 lifeguards being 2.5;
.
.
Page 3
the incidence in the group that had moderate exposure was 10;
and the incidence in the group that worked year in and year out
in Santa Monica is 35 times that of the general population.
This evidently maps out a point of focus and ind~cates that the
greater the exposure the greater the incidence as diagramed here.
While the earlier group of recreation attendants (1972-l978)
suffered less as one would have naturally expected for all the
groups.
If you d~d a Chi square test for 5ignif~cance of the
incidence in the permanently employed group you would find a
number so large that it is out of the range of most tables
(over 1000) indicating that the likelihood that this d1str1hution
could have happened by chance is less than one in a b11lion and
less l1kely even than that when compared to the general inc1dence.
Several conclusions can be drawn from the summary of the
study done by the cancer surveillance program that I received
from Dr. Finn's office.
1. In reference to page 1 of the report.
That the group of recreation attendants stud1ed from 1972
to 1978 did not develop cancer in the same frequency as the group
you studied from 1974 to 1980 indicates that the group that
developed cancer more frequently is even more a specifically
h1gher 1ncidence group for according to your study the latter
group developed cancer at an incidence rate that 15 2.5 to 0.75
(the incidence rate of the earlier group) or 3.3 times as much.
Conclus10n: The l~feguards in the 1972-1978 group were generally
of a healthier group than that of the general populat~on as
would be expected - the incidence rate is lower but by 1980 it
becomes appreciably higher than the general populat~on and in
the group studied of more recent time the incidence rate goes
up 3.3 times when these groups are compared.
2. See Table 2 of the report.
In your study of the tracts in the Santa Monica coastal
regions between 1972-1979 there is anincidence rate 6.3 times
that of the general population with reference to lung cancer
(age group 25-34) 4.6 times that of the general population with
reference to Leukemia (age group 45-54) and about 2 times that
of the general population in the cases of central nervous system
tumors, non hodgkins lymphoma and hodgkins disease in the older
.
.
page 4
age group ~n the case of eNS tumors and the middle age group ~n
the latter two problems. Conelusion: There is ~ncreased incidence
in the cases of leukemia - in the coastal tracts it is 4.6 times
that of the general Los Angeles County populat~on and in Santa
Mon~ca it is 2 times that of the general population in age group
45-54 again bringing out a po~nt of focus towards the coastal
area wh~le in the case of leukemia there ~s very little variat~on
with respect to the other p~rameter of ethnic variatlon. (Table 5).
3. Dividing the general population into samples of similar s~ze
as the group of 830 l~feguards - that is the taking of samples
of similar size to derive the probability of occurance of clusters
of this type of inc~dence rate increase - this has not a
significance of substance to our study, because the groups we
are studying are all of the same employment and the stat~stics
of chance here in the cluster study analyze groups that are
random. That the same size sample all of one employment should
get ill w~th cancer is much less likely than if you randomly
divided the whole Los Angeles County into groups of 830 persons
yet even your random cluster study shows that ~t is 6 ~n a
thousand or less than 1 in a hundred that it is a chance
occurence - and does not such finding warrant further invest~gation?
4. The incidence specifically increases as into a focus po~nt
both in time and in place as indicated in the diagram on page two
of this letter. When you study the group of permanently employed
lifeguards the rise of the inc1dence rate 15 35 tlmes that of the
general populatlon.
These are my flnd~ngs from the summary that I received from
Dr. F~nn and from my own investigation. From these find~ngs it is
evident that there 1S a d~rect relationship between exposure a~j
the cancer r~sk in the lifeguard population and it IS on the basis
of this f~nding that investigation of higher levels are called for.
Barring any other factors in the lives of the l~feguards that may
have contributed to what we see here, these flndings appear to
indicate that there was something terribly wrong ~n or near the
water where the lifeguards worked (in the period between 1970 and
1980). Among the factors contributing to this may very well be
carcinogens of social origin from sewage or from industrial
chemicals, and there are now preventative measures that can be
taken. To br~ng this protection forward to our people is the
.
.
page 5
duty of physicians and the purpose and success of our public health
service. To sit 1dle here would mean indifference and will soon
come to mean obstruct~on of justice.
Several factors need to be known here.
1. That four of the five l~feguards who developed cancer
between 1979 and 1981 2 who developed leukemia one who
developed hodgkins disease, one who developed cancer of the
thyroid all worked at one time or another near the pico storm
drain that often was seen in the years between 1976 and 1981
to be dra1ning industr1al chemical waste.
2. There are about lOO more storm drains that eX1t d1rectly
into Santa Monica bay and samples need be taken and studied
for carcinogens d1rectly from these drains when the sighting
of the chemicals occur. The Ames test need be applied here.
3. The Ames test for carc~nogenicity need be applied directly
to the effluent from the Hyperion plant as it has been discovered
recently that there are carcinogens in sewage. Also other
chemicals inadvertantly find their way into the sewage system and
this need be known by the general public and by our people in
government.
4. Other poss1ble exposures in the l~fe of the lifeguards
themselves that became ill should be studied 1f the lifeguards
themselves choose to do so to rule out other commun1cable causes.
5. Other groups of lifeguards 1n other areas not exposed to
water toxins of sewage or chemicals of the levels of Santa
Mon~ca bay should be studied and compared.
Finally S1nce the lifeguard population ~s a group of men that
is ~n general healthier than the general population as studies
of past incidence of illness has shown (between 1972-1978) and
since the fresh ocean breeze is a benef~t for those who live
near the ocean - the higher incidence of illness among the
l1feguards and the higher incidence of the sam~ illnesses
(leukemia, lymphoma and central nervous system tumors) among the
people who live near the beach - raises the significance of
these find1ngs.
Does wisdom not then ~nd1cate that these findings be
expla1ned and accounted for?
. .
.
.
.
truth on all levels should come outr the others must take this
knowledge that it not be lost from life.
With prayer for unity and hope for resolution, your help
would be extremely appreciated.
.
Page 7
S~ncerely yours,
James M. Soorani, M.D.
JMS : SID
DIPLO"'''';!I: "''''E''IC''N .CARt!
nF OPH1....ALMOL.OGY
--
.
.
SPECIALIZINCJ IN THE CA..I: 01'
DIS~""'1Ii AND eURGERY OF THe: lEY!;
;a<
JAMES M. SOORANI. M.D.
W...5HINGTON EYE CLINIC
4183 INGLEWOOD BOULEVARD
LOS ....NGELES CALIFORNIA 900&e
(2131 39l-0473
April,7,1982
Rtlth Ya"1."1atta Goldway
~ayor City of Santa Monica
City Council Offices
l685 Fain Street
Santa Monica, Cal. 90401
Re :redevelopement sight in Ocean Pa:>k
Dear l"rs Goldway,
Because of the extremely dengerous pollution in the "later that
:olotA!s dO'..mstream near the redeveloper.lent sight in Ocean Park and the backed c.p
se_ffio"'e a..'1d drainage syntHt you have legal ~ights to halt developement now
so ~hat tnese o~ner lTIOre urgent and serious problems are dealt with
appropriately for the safety of the comr.l..:nity. No one can successfUlly
contest the city on this ground if that is truly what the decision is
based L;.pon. p.,s a physicial1 I can testify as to the health hazards.
Ivtr recomenda:':ion is to close the beach to swirrmers frOPl. the pier to
Navy s~reet a~d ask for State assistance in cleaning up the Pico sewer
&'1d other sewers leading to the ocean. f.'lrs Goldway, 1 th:L"1k that
this would be a move consistent with the real tr.reat. Five lifeguards
gettiP.g the terrible disease of cancer four from station 18,one from a
nearby station J is an epidemiological Jindication of danger in the
book of COl'mlOn sense. I suspect t~at the che.'l1ical agent in the ....'8.ter
that is most seriously in question is an industrial solvent of the
type used for radiator cleaning, and other industria.l uses. Because
these cherUcals precipitate in salt .dater) sar.ples should be taIcen of the
soil, and specifica.lly) Ti\:nen these chemcals 3..."'e exitil'1g from the dra.1n
I will be happy to supply sarrples :Ocr i can recognize this chemical
by the ;.!hite color in the water a"1d the sItell. Usually it is late
at night about blO hotL'"'es into lb~" t:.de 'i,hen the drain begins to erpty .
I suspect that even trace a'nOunts of' this c::e-r.ical are dangerous. ~e source
is nest likely garages and other industrial installations .
I am sorry about the confrotation yesterday at the redevelopement
hearings. I thiI1k you would agree that continous L'1terruption and l..lfL""'easonacle
ti..'Tle li."1i tat ions render a speaker l:nable to contribute. I understand the
press1.1..""'e you were under that night . I hope that from the content of this
letter you can UI"2derst2..r.'1d the pressure and the dutyfull task that l
\-las aIld am under.
I pray that strength comes to you frorrJ. our community and from God
to guide you and the city council :in the right path. I pray that throug, this
strength you can open the doors of this standing vehicle ofgoverrm:ent that
you are sitting in so that you all can get out and look around you carefully
and not succurnb to the pressures. I have :L"1cluded a copy of Ttlhat :!. was going
to read to you T...'ith the hope that if ti...'lle finds you reading it that in the
silence of your own ti.'Tle you T,%uld understand it.
Sincerely Yours
Twith C€st l'Iishes for the Holiday
J a.."'1il
Soorani
..... '--'. I I I r-L I -... :r I 1\ I I~ I I I
..
~~
~
I can tell you today o~oes not represent !'e. No !erson can have 1;;,'0 heads
in one body and no society can have blO goverrnents. So the relationship of a
government to a connmity organization should be no diff'e::-ent tha.'1 the :-ela-:ionship
of government to church. The connection is positive only if' the relat:.onship is
open, honest, and spiritual.
Now, I can tell you that no person or gove~nt O",'DS the earth a:."'1d tr"e land.
The land trtlly belongs only to our Great Creator of :leaven and Ea......-.th and the
or;mer of' the deed is only protected relative to other merillers of "::he society by
virtue of the society. The deed does not protect his right relative to othe::-
members of the earth, especially if he ab:..lSes other citizens of tr..e earth and pollutes
the air' and the oce2n. This I say 1..'1 relation to the sewer system that leads from
the land and near the 1a..'1d, of' which the Ollmers of the deed a......-oe the ci-:y of
Santa f-!onica. How rr.any of you have smelled the foul odor that L"lcreased and beca.'TIe
unbearable on P.ill and l\lain i..'"11T'Ediately after the completion of the buildings south
of the towers. S'noulc. not this be tended to before any other buildings ~"'""e further
considered? .1\nd ~ow iiEIlY of you have recognized the deadly chemicals that flow
dm'il"strearn near the property. M1at the ~e'ilSpapers called soap washings frC!Tl car
washes are really industrial solvents f'rc:rt g:'l"Y'ages. ('I.hese materials &"'e the L110st
dangerous cOl"pounds lmown to 1J'.2n, second only ill dal1ger perhaps to radiation.) They
are notoriously lmollm to cause cancer because of their ability to dissolve oil. 'They
can ente::- the skin because they ccntai.l'1 a hyerophilic and a hyd..Y>Ophobic end. NOlll
salt water causes them to precipitate on tl'"'e sk~ and then they penet~ate and.
dissolve just like they dissolve oil-trley penetrate and dissolve into cells and
ce II reP1l::ranes all the way i.'1to the nucleus and this is how they cause cancer. I
have studied this and can tell you that this is the biggest threat fac2...."'..g us in
Ccean Park today, and in qy eyes it is wrong to build if the building increases the
congestion today unless it 1s for the bare necessities. If you are a goverr.P1.ent
that ca..-.oe for the people, then is it not your duty to '1alt all buildmg in the ~ea
and close the beach from the pier to pavJ Street unt:.l the '"3i:;ate and county core to
our rescue and help us .~th this widespread disaster-these lethal toxic wastes
going into our ocean. In light of this tr..e present contract is not valid and the
city has firm ground to halt development. In fact the dangers brought about by the
presently planned construction is illegal. H~thout first tending to the outdated
selt;age facilities leading out of t~e land and the pollution in t;,.e .'later near the
land and then teY1ding to tte r.eeds of' the poor and the horr.eless; by alle;wing the
people to build '.~th high profits in n:iLd for sone individuals jT T/l.fC.~DF ~71If~ f'/iSN jel)
Atf misleadin.g both the contractor and the perspective buyer and the public. But by
tending to the needs of the land fL""'St, t1:.en by tending to the neecs of the poor
and homeless, then by tending to the highe~ ~eeds you wuuld then be buildir~ the
social body upright, and this inevitably ~ErIS 'the recycling of seT.-lage, for no
organism can remair: alive if the seT.;age is not recycled properly witt the envi::::'On'"r.ent.
Should our government not see to it that our social body is built upright
~dth a !'irn foundation and not upside dmm io'ihere it 'I>lould collapse? I ;;ray that
by God we all begin to see the path clearly.
-,,--.- - -
.
.
CA: RJ.'1N: KW: gp
RA Mtg: 8/14/84
Santa MonIca, CalIfornIa
RESOLUTION NO.6900{CCS)
{Clty CouncIl SerIes}
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA CERTIFYING
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON
THE OCEAN PARK BEACH IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
WHEREAS, an Inl tlal Study was prepared on the Ocean Park
Beach Improvements Plan In February 1984: and
WHEREAS, a NotIce of Preparat10n of an EnvIronmental Impact
Report was Issued In February 1984: and
WHEREAS, NotIce of CompletIon of a Draft Env1ronmental
Impact Report was publIched In June, 1984, In complIance WIth the
CalIfornIa Env1ronmental QualIty Act and the CIty of Santa MonIca
CEQA GUIdelInes; and
WHEREAS, a publIC reVIew perIod expIred In July 1984: and
WHEREAS, In August 1984, the completIon of the F1na1
Env lronmen tal Impact Report on the proposed pro] ect, cons IstIng
of the Draft EnVIronmental Impact Report, comments on the
document, and responses to comments was certIfIed: and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 1984, the CIty CounCIl, as Lead CIty
Agency, and the Redevelopment Agency, as a ResponsIble Agency
- I -
..~
.
.
conducted a publIcly notIced hearIng on the FInal Envlronmental
Impact Report,
NOW I THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN Tl\.
MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I.
The Cl ty Counc1l of the CI ty of Santa Mon1ca
does hereby certlfy that the F1nal Envlronmental Impact Report on
the proposed Ocean Park Beach Improvements Plan has been
completed ln full complIance Wl. th the Call fornla Env lr onmen tal
Quall ty Act, the State En., Honmen tal Impact Repor t GUl.dellnes,
and the Cl ty of Santa MonIca CEQA GUlde11nes, and tha t 1 t has
revlewed and consIdered the contents of the FInal EIR in
determInIng whether to approve the Ocean Park Beach Improvements
Plan.
SEC~ION 2. The Clty Clerk shall certlfy to the ddoptlon of
thIS Resolutlon, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be
In full force and effect.
Approved as to form:
~~.~
Robert !4.. ~lyers
CIty Attorney
- 2 -
-
.
.
Adopted'and approved this
Mayor
I hereby certIfy that the foregoing ResolutIon No. 690Q(CCS)
was duly adopted by the CIty CouncIl of the CIty of Santa MonIca
at a meetIng thereof held on August 14, 1984 by the following
Council vote:
Ayes: Councllmembers:
Conn, Jennings, Press and Zane
Noes: Councllmembers:
EpsteIn
Absent: Councilmembers:
Reed and Mayor Edwards
AbstaIn: Councllmembers:
None
ATTEST:
a .
I '
-. CA
'"~. fJ /- ..]-iLti-k..J(
Clty Clerk
'W
.
.
CA: Rl.U.l: KW: gp
RA Mtg: 8/14/84
Santa MonIca, CalIfornla
RESOLUTION NO. 387 (RAS)
(Redevelopment Agency SerIes)
A RESOLUTION OF ~HE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA CERTIFYING
THAT IS HAS REVIEWED THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON
THE OCEAN PARK BEACH IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
WHEREAS, an Inl tIal Study was prepared on the Ocean Par k
Beach Improvements Plan In February 1984; and
WHEREAS, a NotIce of Preparatlon of an Envlronmental Impact
Report was Issued ln February 1984; and
WHEREAS, Notlce of CompletIon of a Draft EnVIronmental
Impact Report was pUblIched In June, 1984, In complIance WIth the
California EnVironmental QualIty Act and the City of Santa Monica
CEQA GUIdelInes; and
WHEREAS, a publIC reVIew perIod expIred In July 1984; and
WHEREAS, In August 1984, the com91etion of the FInal
EnVIronmental Impact Report on the proposed project, conSIstIng
of the Draft EnVIronmental Impact Report, comments on the
document, and responses to comments was certIfIed; and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 1984, the CIty CouncIl, as Lead City
Agency, and the Redevelopment Agency, as a Responslble Agency
- 1 -
J'"
.
.
conducted a publ~cly not~ced hearIng on the Final EnvIronmental
Impact Report,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPt-1ENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa
MonIca does hereby certIfy that It has revIewed and consIdered
the FInal EnVIronmental Impact Report on the proposed Ocean Park
Beach Improvements Plan ~n determIning whether to approve the
Ocean Park Beach Improvements Plan.
SECI'ION 2.
The Agency Secretary shall certify to the
adoption of thiS ResolutIon, and thenceforth and thereafter the
same shall be In full force and effect.
Approved as to form:
~ '- . '---Q--~
Robert r4. Myers
Agency Attorney
- 2 -
~
.
.
Adopted and
I hereby certify that the foregoIng ResolutIon No. 387(RAS)
was duly adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the CIty of Santa
MonIca at a meeting thereof held on August 14, 1984 by the f01-
lowing Agency vote:
Ayes: Agency Members:
Conn, JennIngs, Press and Zane
Noes: Agency Members:
EpsteIn
Absent: Agency Members:
Reed and Mayor Edwards
AbstaIn: Agency Members:
None
ATTEST:
~ / 7, ~""-jlLU(-f
Secretary