ITEM 9-A
COUNCIL MEETING: July 28, 1992 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation that the City Council Adopt in Concept
the Revised Draft Bicycle Master Plan for Evaluation in
an Environmental Impact Report
INTRODUCTION
This staff report recommends that the City Council adopt in
concept the revised Draft Bicycle Master Plan for evaluation in
an Environmental Impact Report.
BACKGROUND
The City proposed Bicycle Master Plan facilitates and encourages
bicycle ridership in Santa Monica. The Plan provides a wide
variety of facility improvements and ongoing programs to
facilitate the use of bikes for both transportation and
recreation purposes.
Many factors motivated this study, including concerns over air
pollution, traffic, the desire for an increase in bicycle
commuters through the City's adopted Transportation Management
Plan, and enhanced recreational opportunities. City residents
benefit from this plan because bicycle ridership:
o Is pollution free
o Is energy-efficient
o Offers point-to-point flexibility
o Offer flexibility of departure time
o Is enjoyable
o Relieves stress and promotes health
o Is quiet
o Consumes little space
o Is economical
Barriers to bicycle use currently exist within the City, with
some people perceiving that it is dangerous to ride in the
streets, while others forego the bicycle for lack of secure
parking.
This plan addresses the existing barriers. The Plan incorporates
a bicycle route network, public and employment related bicycle
parking, an education and awareness campaign, and other minor
facility improvements and programs. By carrying out the Plan,
Santa Monica will become a safer, more convenient place to
bicycle for transportation and recreation purposes.
OVERVIEW OF ORIGINAL PLAN
The development of the Draft Bicycle Master Plan began with a
community scoping meeting on May 16, 1991. The meeting was held
to gather public input on issues such as where new bike routes
are needed, where public bicycle parking is inadequate, what kind
of amenities are important to encourage employees to ride to
work, and how to address safety, awareness, and promote the use
of bicycles in the City. At that scoping meeting it was
suggested that the Plan address the following existing problems:
o East/west routes that parallel arterials have frequent
stop signs
o There are no north/south bike routes other than the
beach bike path
o Existing bike routes lack connectivity and relationship
to destinations
o Existing bike racks at City parks are inadequate
A second workshop was held on July 30, 1991 to discuss issues
related to the selection of a standard bicycle parking rack for
the City. The meeting included a demonstration of various racks
and a discussion of the ease of use, security from theft, and
compatibility with adjacent land uses of various bike racks.
After the workshops, the original Draft Bicycle Master Plan was
developed with a proposed bicycle route network, public and
employment related bicycle parking, an education and awareness
campaign, and other facility improvements and programs.
The bike route network proposed in the Draft Plan was determined
to be the most cost effective approach to the development of an
interconnected network of routes to and from significant
destination/origin points (See Attachment A). These points
included:
o Public schools
o Santa Monica College
o Santa Monica Pier
o Third Street Promenade
o Residential areas
o Main street/Ocean Park
o Beaches
o Palisades Park
o Pacific Coast Bike Route (Beach Bike Path)
o Downtown Businesses
o Parks
o Points outside the City such as UCLA
The proposed bicycle route network consisted of the following
route classifications:
o Class I Bikeways (Bike Paths) - completely separate
bicycles from motor vehicles. The beach bike path is a
Class I bikeway. There are few places in the City where
space is available for new bike paths.
o Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes) - dedicated lanes on
existing roadways for bicycles.
o Class III Bikeways (Bike Routes) - signed routes where
bicyclists share the streets with motorists.
o Bicycle Boulevards - recommended on certain, primarily
residential streets. Barriers are placed approximately
every six blocks to discourage automobile through
traffic. Through automobile traffic is diverted to
parallel streets, leaving only local traffic and
bicycles on the bicycle boulevards. After
implementation of a bicycle boulevard, it may be
possible to replace some 4-way stop signs with traffic
circles, or remove selected stop signs on the bicycle
boulevard, in order to improve bicycle flow. However,
these changes are not necessary for bicycle boulevards,
although they do increase their effectiveness.
A comprehensive public bicycle parking plan was also proposed to
provide bicycle parking in all commercial and retail zones in the
City and in front of pubic buildings and in recreation areas.
Secure bicycle parking would also be required in new work sites.
The City would use a standardized parking device for easy
recognition and use throughout the City. Bicycle park-and-ride
stations would provide secure parking at bus stops.
Accompanying the facility improvements was an education and
awareness campaign. Safety programs would teach students from
elementary school through college, employees working in Santa
Monica, and other adults to ride safely. The City would produce
a bicycle map with numbered routes, parking locations, and safety
information as an easy reference document for bicyclists. A
promotional campaign would educate bicyclists as well as
motorists about bicycle and traffic safety. Santa Monica would
also make facility improvements such as replacing drainage grates
and paving over railroad track crossings.
The Plan would be financed through a variety of federal, state,
county and local sources dedicated for bicycle use only. No City
General Fund monies will be used.
MODIFICATIONS TO STREETS PROPOSED IN ORIGINAL PLAN
The following outlines the major modifications which were
originally proposed to implement the original Draft Bicycle
Master Plan:
o Bicycle Boulevards were recommended on:
Alta Avenue
Washington Avenue
Arizona Avenue
Pearl Street
Ashland Avenue
Portions of Yale/Stewart/Twenty-Eighth
These bicycle boulevards would be created by the
placement of occasional barriers (approximately every
six blocks) to discourage automobile through traffic.
Exact placement of the barriers would be proposed as
part of the environmental review process.
o Class II bike lanes were recommended on numerous
streets. On Seventh, Eleventh and Seventeenth streets,
the improvements needed to implement these Class II
routes would include:
- Removal of on-street parking on one side of the
street in some single family neighborhoods north
of Montana and in Sunset Park where there is less
demand for street parking.
- Roadway widening by narrowing portions of the
parkway. This would occur on Eleventh and
Seventeenth Streets between Montana Avenue and
Wilshire Boulevard, on Seventeenth Street between
the freeway and Pico Boulevard, and on Ocean Park
Boulevard between Lincoln Boulevard and Eleventh
Street.
- Removal of two-way left turn lanes in the
mid-block sections on Seventh, Eleventh and
Seventeenth Streets between Wilshire and Olympic
Boulevards. Left turn lanes at intersections
would not be removed.
o Other Class II bike lanes were recommended that would
require:
- Restriping of existing streets to narrow the
center lane and provide more room in the curb lane
so that a bike lane may be added.
- Merely striping a bike lane since sufficient road
width exists.
o Most of the Class III bike routes would be incorporated
only through the proper signage of the routes.
o Bicycle parking was recommended throughout the downtown
and commercial areas of the City and at City parks and
beaches. The parking in the commercial areas would be
provided mainly through parking meter mounts, which
would provide secure bicycle parking on a parking meter.
These parking meter mounts were proposed for every two
or three parking meters in the parking districts. Where
parking meters do not exist, the City standard bike rack
would be used.
o The Plan proposed the creation of park-and-ride stations
for bicycle commuters who wish to use the longer
distance advantages of transit. Both short-term bike
racks and long-term bike lockers would be provided at
these locations.
o The Plan proposed bicycle parking standards for new
development, generally as a percentage of automobile
parking requirements.
o Some improvements were recommended as long-term
improvements. These included the addition of a bicycle
bridge over the Santa Monica Freeway near Seventh
Street, the widening of the Fourth Street Bridge over
the freeway (this could be done in coordination with the
Civic Center Master Plan), and the addition of a bike
ramp from the Santa Monica Pier to the beach bike path.
PUBLIC PROCESS
In November, 1991, copies of the Draft Bicycle Master Plan were
made available to the public for purchase. A public workshop was
held December 5, 1991 to present the Draft Plan and receive
public comments. Notification of the availability of the Plan
and the public hearing before the Planning Commission was mailed
to over 500 interested people, including those present at the
previous workshops on the Bicycle Master Plan.
The City's Task Force on the Environment reviewed the Plan at its
December 16, 1991 meeting and approved the Draft Bicycle Master
Plan in concept and requested staff to forward the following
comments to the City Council:
o Quantify the reductions in vehicle traffic from
implementation of the Plan
o Serve the Special Office District better by using
Colorado, Broadway or Olympic
o Route numbering system should parallel street numbers
o Removal of parking on one side of the street will create
neighborhood opposition - staff should consider allowing
parking at night or create bicycle one-way couplets
o An effort should be made to notify residents of streets
directly impacted by the Plan's proposals
o Is the Maguire Thomas development responsible for
widening the 4th Street Bridge?
The Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the
original Draft Bicycle Master Plan at its February 19, 1992
meeting. The Planning Commission had the following comments:
o There should be signalized crossings at Ashland and
Twenty-Third Street and at Washington and Twenty-Sixth
Street.
o Ashland may be too steep for a bicycle boulevard.
o Is the bicycle boulevard on Alta necessary?
o Why isn't there an east/west route to the Colorado Place
and Watergarden work center? Couldn't Broadway be
narrowed to two lanes to accommodate bicycle lanes?
o Don't widen streets for a bike lane if it requires the
removal of mature trees.
o The Exposition right-of-way should be used either as a
long-term or interim bicycle facility.
o Arizona is a good route, but has special concerns with
the hospitals.
o Consideration should be given to eliminating the bike
boulevards north of Wilshire and on Ashland.
o What bicycle accident statistics are available?
o Concern over removal of parking and lack of residential
driveways.
o Do additional community outreach.
In May, 1992, two additional public workshops were held by City
staff, one in the north of Wilshire area of the City, and the
other in the Sunset Park neighborhood. The following summarizes
the public comments critical of the Plan from those meetings and
the Planning Commission public hearing:
North of Montana
o Alta should not be a bicycle boulevard.
o No improvements are necessary north of Montana.
o Crime will increase along bike routes and bike
boulevards.
o No one will use the bicycle route network.
o Don't remove parking on 11th Street north of Montana.
o No data has been collected to support this Plan - who
will ride their bike to work to justify the cost?
o Bike Boulevards will only add to congestion and air
quality problems.
o Bike Boulevards will only be used by out-of-town
recreational users.
o Bike Boulevards and removal of on-street parking will
lower property values.
o The Plan costs too much, and the City can't afford it.
o Don't remove any stop signs.
o Why encourage bicycles on 11th and 17th Streets, they
are too crowded already.
o Why hasn't a survey been conducted of all Santa Monica
residents?
o There has been no public input on this Plan.
o Why weren't schools notified of this Plan?
Sunset Park
o Why hasn't a survey been done to see what the ridership
would be if the Plan is implemented?
o Do bicycle boulevards remove parking? How will
emergency vehicles get access to homes? How will the
placement of barriers take place?
o How does the Bicycle Master Plan tie in with the
neighborhood traffic plans?
o Plan is not a solution to traffic problems.
o What about spillover traffic from bicycle boulevards?
Also at the North of Wilshire community workshop, a proposal was
put forward to address bicycle issues primarily in the downtown
area. This proposal had support from a majority of those in
attendance that evening. The proposal included:
o A bicycle path along the Santa Monica/Venice border
o Create a one-way couplet downtown with 2nd and 5th
Streets and add a bike lane on each.
o Create a one-way couplet with Broadway and Colorado from
downtown to Centinela and add a bike lane on each.
REVISED DRAFT PLAN
Following the public comments and comments from the Planning
Commission and Task Force on the Environment, staff is proposing
that Council adopt a revised Draft Bicycle Master Plan. The
revisions to the original plan include:
o No planned improvements to any streets north of Montana
except for signed Class III routes on Seventeenth,
Eleventh and Seventh Streets between San Vicente and
Montana. This includes the removal of Alta as a bicycle
boulevard.
o Remove all considerations of removal of parking on one
side of the street for a bike lane. These areas have
been converted to Class III signed routes.
o Arizona is no longer considered as a bicycle boulevard.
It is proposed to remain a Class II lane between Lincoln
and Twenty-Sixth Street, with a Class II addition
between Ocean and Lincoln by merely striping a lane, and
a Class III signed route east of Twenty-Sixth Street.
In response to comments by the Planning Commission and the north
of Wilshire public workshop, staff is proposing two additions to
the revised Plan for Council consideration:
1) Restripe Broadway to one lane in each direction with a
two-way turn median and a bike lane between Lincoln and
Twenty-Sixth Street. This is similar to the restriping
that is occurring on Main Street, and would provide
excellent bicycle access between downtown and the
special office district. Similar restriping is already
proposed on Broadway between Twenty-Sixth and Centinela
as part of the Mid-City area neighborhood traffic plan.
2) The Parking and Traffic Division is considering
different alternatives for improving traffic in the
downtown area. As part of that discussion, a system of
one-way streets in the downtown area could be
considered. If implemented, this one-way system could
include bicycle lanes. This could include one-way
couplets with 5th and 2nd Street or 5th and 4th Street.
STAFF RESPONSES TO OTHER ISSUES
The following includes staff responses to the issues raised by
the Task Force on the Environment, the Planning Commission, and
the public.
Quantification of Increased Bicycle Ridership
The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission has recommended
a formula for estimating the projected ridership from a bicycle
route project based upon the number of employees at a destination
plus the number of existing bicyclists. Using that formula, the
City can expect over 10,000 daily commute trips to be made on the
bicycle route network throughout the City. This is a
conservative estimate since it does not include recreational
ridership, ridership associated with the schools or Santa Monica
College and trips made by Santa Monica residents to work outside
the City boundary.
After implementation of the Plan, the City will quantify the
number of commute bicycle trips in the City through data provided
by the City's Transportation Management Plan.
Fourth Street Bridge Widening
The Maguire Thomas development is responsible to pay for its
prorata share of improvements to the 4th Street bridge, which
includes widening for auto traffic by removing the east sidewalk.
This will not create adequate space for a bike lane as proposed
in the Plan. Actual widening of the bridge would be required to
provide enough width for bike lanes.
Air Quality
City staff contacted representatives of both the California Air
Resources Board (ARB) and the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD), and received letters supporting the Plan and
bicycle boulevards, in general, as effective ways of reducing air
pollution (Attachment B). The ARB letter states:
"Both Board and staff here at ARB are fully
supportive of local government initiatives to meet the
mandates of the South Coast Air Quality Management
Plan through an improved system of bicycle facilities.
Only with the development of an infrastructure which
supports alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle
can Californians be expected to make the necessary
changes in travel behavior to significantly reduce
vehicle-related air pollution."
Also, in relation to bicycle boulevards, the letter states that
adopted ARB guidance on transportation control measures to air
quality districts and cities to meet the requirements of the
California Clean Air Act cites "preferential access for
nonpolluting transportation" as an example of land use policies
that support reductions in vehicle trips.
Financing the Plan
The revised Bicycle Master Plan has a total cost of $2,741,799.
However, no local general fund revenues will be used to implement
this plan. All funding will come either from grant monies
available at the regional, state or federal level, or from local
return monies earmarked specifically for bicycle programs.
Survey
A survey of large employers in Santa Monica was conducted to
assess the potential ridership in Santa Monica. The results of
the survey show that approximately 2.6% of their employees
currently ride to work, and that over 40% of the employees live
within five miles of work. This shows that there is significant
potential to encourage employees to ride to work through an
improved bicycle route network and the City's Transportation
Management Plan.
Also, as mentioned earlier, the Los Angeles County Transportation
Commission has recommended a formula for estimating the projected
ridership from a bicycle route project based upon the number of
employees at a destination plus the number of existing
bicyclists. Using that formula, the City can conservatively
expect over 10,000 daily commute trips to be made on the bicycle
route network throughout the City.
Crime, Safety and Property Values
The only available published research on crime and safety issues
related to a bicycle route is from the City of Seattle. The
study indicates that concerns about decreased property value,
increased crime, and a lower quality of life due to the
construction of a bicycle trail are unfounded. The study shows
that the bicycle trails increase property values and improve the
quality of life in the neighborhood.
Signals
Traffic signals may be needed at the corners of Washington/Twenty
Sixth and at Ashland/Twenty Third. Council can recommend
inclusion of those items if they wish. Final determination for
such needs will be determined in an EIR and engineering studies.
Tree Removal
No trees will be removed for widening the street for purposes of
a bicycle lane. The City arborist has surveyed the proposed
areas, and feels that the majority of the proposed streets can be
widened without impacts on trees. However, in a couple of
instances, there are trees too close to the curb. Mitigation
measures, such as no parking in the area around the tree, will
have to be proposed in the EIR process.
Bicycle Boulevards
The revised Draft Bicycle Master Plan recommends bicycle
boulevards on Washington, Pearl, Ashland and Yale Streets.
On Washington, residents raised the issue that barriers were
placed on Washington at 20th and 26th Streets to divert traffic
off the street in the early 1980's. They said the barriers were
quickly removed and replaced with speed humps due to opposition.
They feel there will still be opposition to barricades, and
wanted to know how a bicycle boulevard would be any different.
Staff is aware of the experience on Washington in the early
1980's. However, it is believed that a bicycle boulevard is a
different situation. In the early 1980's, the barriers were
placed in only a small section of Washington, and were designed
to limit access to a limited segment of Washington. The proposed
bike boulevards will consist of strategically paced barriers
along the entire length of the street. Therefore it is not a
preferential improvement for a limited number of residents on the
street. The bicycle boulevard proposal is to encourage bicycle
travel on the length of Washington and is part of a
well-connected network of bicycle routes throughout the City.
The Pearl bicycle boulevard is consistent with many of the
proposals for Sunset Park neighborhood traffic plans and has
received support in conjunction with those plans. Opposition on
Pearl has been limited to opposition to the whole bicycle master
plan.
The Ashland bicycle boulevard has had both support and
opposition. Supporters feel that Ashland is used by bicyclists,
or that barriers would divert some traffic and slow down traffic
that does remain. Others feel Ashland is too steep to encourage
bicyclists.
The Yale Street bicycle boulevard is consistent with the Mid-City
traffic plan's proposal for a diverter at Yale and Arizona. No
other changes would be required if that were implemented except
for clear signage.
City staff has prepared some preliminary analysis of the traffic
impacts of the bicycle boulevards on neighboring streets using
available average daily trip information (Attachment C). This
analysis is preliminary, and should not replace a more thorough
analysis that would occur in the EIR process.
The bicycle boulevards proposed in the Plan have the following
average daily trips (ADT):
Washington Avenue: 4,300
Yale Street: 6,850
Pearl Street: 5,550
Ashland Avenue: 1,350
The analysis suggests that Pearl and Yale Street will divert
automobile traffic to Pico (813 ADT), Ocean Park (751 ADT),
Centinela (365 ADT), Stanford (399 ADT) and 26th Streets (2,557
ADT). However, the preliminary analysis shows that volumes
diverted onto these streets appear to be potentially significant
only on 26th Street. The EIR would have to analyze this in more
detail using more detailed data and include a level of service
analysis at signalized intersections based upon MEA traffic
information.
Also according to this analysis, Ashland and Washington do not
have a significant amount of automobile through trips and
therefore will not have an impact on parallel streets. These
streets are still recommended as bicycle boulevards since they
may help to slow down traffic, especially on Ashland, and provide
for an opportunity at a later date to consider traffic circles or
the removal of selected stop signs to improve the flow of the
street without creating any significant automobile traffic
impacts, like increased automobile speed or traffic volume.
There has not been a great deal of opposition to the Pearl and
Yale bicycle boulevards since they are consistent with the
neighborhood traffic plans in those neighborhoods. For the
Ashland and Washington bicycle boulevards, staff will conduct
community workshops and surveys on those streets to gauge public
support for the proposals before returning to Council for final
adoption.
General Plan Requirements
Some of the proposed changes, like bicycle boulevards, require
amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Element of the City's
General Plan. If the Draft Plan is adopted by Council, staff
will return to Council with the results of the EIR and language
for incorporation into the General Plan. This will have to occur
before implementation of the Plan elements requiring General Plan
changes.
Removal of Two-Way Turn Lanes
The removal of two-way turn lanes in the mid-block area of 7th,
11th and 17th Streets from Wilshire to the Freeway has received
some opposition from the Chamber of Commerce. They feel this
will make it inconvenient for customers to access many of the
businesses on these streets by making it difficult to exit and
enter parking facilities. However, this is the only alternative
in that part of the City for implementing a bicycle lane, since
removal of parking in the commercial and high density residential
areas is not a good alternative.
These streets have the following average daily trips:
7th Street: 6,000 to 8,000 average daily trips from
Wilshire to the Freeway
11th Street: 10,000 to 12,000 average daily trips from
Wilshire to Pico
17th Street: 8,000 to 9,000 average daily trips from
Wilshire to Olympic.
A more detailed analysis of the traffic impacts will occur as
part of the EIR process.
City staff has also counted the number of parking lots for
commercial businesses that may be impacted by the removal of the
two-way traffic lanes in the mid-block section. On 7th Street,
there are approximately 16 parking lots in the mid-block
sections, while 11th Street and 17th Street have approximately 10
parking lots each in the mid-block sections. With the volume of
traffic, the number of parking lots, and the apparent light use
of the two way turn median, staff believes that this proposal
will not have a significant impact on automobile traffic or
access to businesses on these streets. Again, this would be
analyzed in more detail in the EIR process.
Route on Santa Monica/Venice Border
City staff does not feel this is a viable route based upon lack
of existing right-of-way and that improvements would require
expanding into City of Los Angeles property.
Environmental Review
Any proposal adopted by Council will require an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). This EIR will analyze traffic impacts of
proposed changes, verify the impacts on trees of parkway removal,
and analyze potential areas for placement of barriers to create
bicycle boulevards. Staff will return to Council after selection
of an EIR consultant for appropriation of funds for an EIR either
from locally dedicated bicycle monies or grant monies. The
results of the EIR will be presented to Council along with a
recommendation on the Plan before final adoption.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public outreach has been conducted with three public workshops,
discussions with the neighborhood associations and transportation
committees through the Neighborhood Support Center, a Planning
Commission public hearing, and two neighborhood workshops.
Approximately 30 people attended each of the three public
workshops, with close to 200 people in attendance at the Planning
Commission public hearing and over 80 people at each of the
neighborhood workshops. Staff has also met with employee
transportation coordinators representing businesses in the City,
and representatives of the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce.
The public hearing and workshops were noticed by mailings to over
500 interested individuals. The two community workshops in May,
1992 were noticed by mailing a flyer to every resident on a
proposed bicycle route in the north of Wilshire and Sunset Park
areas. The Outlook published a story regarding the Draft Bicycle
Master Plan and included a map of the planned bicycle route
network. A recent article also appeared in the Los Angeles Times
regarding bicycle planning throughout the Westside (Attachment
D).
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
All environmental review costs and implementation of the Bicycle
Master Plan will be funded either by regional, state or federal
grant monies, or by using the City's local return funds earmarked
for bicycle programs. The City currently has $76,257 of TDA
Article 3 monies, which are earmarked for bicycle programs, which
can be spent on environmental review or implementation of a final
adopted Plan. No City general fund revenues will be used to
implement the Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the revised Draft
Bicycle Master Plan. The revised Plan includes the measures
included in the original draft plan, with the following
modifications:
o No planned improvements to any streets north of Montana
except for signed Class III routes on Seventeenth,
Eleventh and Seventh Streets between San Vicente and
Montana. This includes the removal of Alta as a bicycle
boulevard.
o Delete all considerations of removal of parking on one
side of the street for a bike lane. These areas have
been converted to Class III signed routes.
o Arizona and 28th Sreets are no longer considered as
bicycle boulevards. Arizona is proposed to remain a
Class II lane between Lincoln and Twenty-Sixth Street,
with a Class II addition between Ocean and Lincoln by
merely striping a lane, and a Class III signed route
east of Twenty-Sixth Street. 28th Street is proposed as
a Class III signed route.
The following is also recommended:
1) Restripe Broadway to one lane in each direction with a
two-way turn median and a bicycle lane between Lincoln
and Twenty-Sixth Street. This is similar to the
restriping that is occurring on Main Street, and would
provide excellent bicycle access between downtown and
the special office district. Similar restriping plan is
already proposed on Broadway between Twenty-Sixth and
Centinela as part of the Mid-City area neighborhood
traffic plan.
2) The Parking and Traffic Division is considering
different alternatives for improving traffic in the
downtown area. As part of that discussion, a system of
one-way streets in the downtown area could be
considered. In the event that a one-way couplet system
is implemented, bike lanes could be included. This
could include one-way couplets with 5th and 2nd Street
or 5th and 4th Street.
3) Add signals to the intersections at Washington and 26th
Street, and at Ashland and 23rd Street.
By adopting these recommendation, Council would be authorizing
staff to begin the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) and apply for funding opportunities that could be used
after final adoption of a Plan and EIR. Information from the EIR
will be presented to Council at the time the Plan is adopted.
Prepared By: Paul Berlant, Director of LUTM
Suzanne Frick, Planning Manager
Paul Casey, Transportation Planner
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
Program and Policy Development Division
Attachments: A. Originally Proposed Bicycle Route Network
B. Letters from Air Resources Board and South Coast
Air Quality Management District
C. Bike Implementation Traffic Distribution
D. Los Angeles Times Article on Bicycle Planning
E. Letters From the Public
F. Revised Draft Bicycle Master Plan