DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING · West Adams-Baldwin Hills-Leimert Park ... Hollywood, Mission...

DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING

RECOMMENDATION REPORT

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Case No.: CPC-2013-0910-GPA-SP-CA-MSC

CEQA No.: ENV 2013-0911-EIR Incidental Cases: N/A Related Cases: N/A Council No.: All

Applicant: Department of City Planning

Date: May 28, 2015 Time: 8:30 a.m.

Place: Van Nuys City Hall, Council Chamber, 2nd Floor, 14410 Sylvan Street, Van Nuys, CA 91401

Public Hearing: Public Hearing Required Public Hearings held on March 15, 19, 22, 29 and April 2, 5, and 12, 2014

Appeal Status: Not Applicable

PROJECT LOCATION:

Citywide

PROPOSED PROJECT:

Mobility Plan 2035. The proposed Plan is an update to the 1999 City of Los Angeles Transportation Element of the General Plan and incorporates complete street policies to guide mobility decisions in the City through 2035. The Plan lays the policy foundation to design streets that meet multiple purposes and implement a full range of mobility options including transit, walking, bicycling, driving, and carsharing. The Plan and its accompanying supporting documents include:

1. Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Programs that support a balanced transportationsystem

2. Enhanced Complete Street Networks concept that prioritize selected roadwaypotential for future pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or vehicle enhancements

3. A Complete Street Design Guide that serves as a living document to guide Citydepartments in identifying and implementing street standards and experimental designconfigurations that promote complete streets

4. Revisions to the S-470-1 Street Standards Plan5. Technical Amendments to Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections6. Five Year Implementation Strategy

REQUESTED ACTION:

1. Approve and recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (attached as Exhibit C), including: adopting the Findings of Fact (Exhibit C-2); adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Exhibit C-3); and, Adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit C-2).

2. Pursuant to procedures set forth in Section 11.5.6 of the Municipal Code and City Charter Sections 555, amend the General Plan to update the Transportation Element by adopting the Mobility Plan 2035 (Exhibit A-1) and by adopting the attached Resolution (Exhibit A).

3. Take related actions to implement the Mobility Plan 2035, including among other actions, making amendments to the Land Use Element (35 Community Plans), adopting an ordinance to implement the new street standards and complete street principles, and adopts Complete Street Design Guidelines.

CPC-2013-0910-GPA-SP-CA-MSC 2

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

1. Conduct a public hearing on the Proposed Plan, as modified in this staff report.

2. Approve the staff report as the City Planning Commission Report.

3. Approve and recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution certifying FinalEnvironmental Impact Report (attached as Exhibit C), including taking all of the followingactions:

a. Adopt the attached Findings of Fact (Exhibit C-2).b. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Exhibit C-3).c. Adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit C-2(Section 5))

4. Approve and recommend that the Mayor approve and the City Council adopt the draftResolution (attached as Exhibit “A”), which does all of the following:a. Adopts the Mobility Plan 2035 (attached as Exhibit A-1)as an amendment to the

Transportation Element to the General Plan of the City of Los Angeles, including adoptingthe Citywide Circulation System Maps as the update to the Highways and Freeways Map(see Exhibit A1 - pgs 19-24 in the MP 2035).

b. Adopts amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element (consisting of the City’s 35community plans) to make it consistent with the Mobility Plan 2035 (including as provided inExhibit “A-2”) and do all of the following:

i. Amend Sylmar 2015 Community Plan text to align with Mobility Plan.

ii. Update the text of the following three pending community plans that have been approvedby City Planning Commission but not yet adopted by City Council to align with completestreets nomenclature of the Mobility Plan: Granada Hills-Knollwood, San Pedro, andWest Adams-Baldwin Hills-Leimert Park

iii. Update the text of the following 31 community plans to align with complete streetsnomenclature of the Mobility Plan: Arleta-Pacoima, Bel Air-Beverly Crest, Boyle Heights,Brentwood-Pacific Palisades, Canoga Park-Woodland Hills-West Hills-Winnetka, CentralCity , Central City North, Chatsworth-Porter Ranch, Encino-Tarzana, Harbor Gateway,Hollywood, Mission Hills-Panorama City-North Hills, North Hollywood, Northeast LosAngeles, Northridge, Palms-Mar Vista-Del Rey, Reseda-West, Van Nuys, ShermanOaks-Studio City-Toluca Lake, Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Valley , South LosAngeles, Southeast Los Angeles, Sun Valley-La Tuna Canyon, Sunland-Tujunga, VanNuys-North Sherman Oaks, Venice, West Los Angeles, Westchester-Playa Del Rey,Westlake, Westwood, Wilmington-Harbor City, Wilshire.

iv. Update community plan circulation maps to align with nomenclature and streetclassifications of Mobility Plan.

c. Directs the Director of Planning to update all the land use designations and correspondingzone maps for all of the community plans to reflect the following change: Freeways shall beshown as “Public Facilities-Freeway,” as provided in Exhibit “A-3”.

5. Approve and Recommend the City Council Adopt the draft Ordinance amending the L.A.M.C.to implement the new street standards and complete street principles (attached as Exhibit D).

6. Approve and Recommend the City Council Adopt the Resolution attached as Exhibit “B” whichdoes all of the following:


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Project Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 5 Project Summary Background Discussion of Key Issues

Public Hearing and Communications .................................................................................... 19

Public Participation Summary of Public Hearing Testimony and Communications

Exhibits: A – Proposed Plan Resolution

A-1: Proposed Mobility Plan 2035

A-2: Amendments to Community Plans to Align with Mobility Plan Nomenclature

A-3: Proposed Public Facilities and Freeways

B – Proposed Guide Resolution

B-1: Complete Streets Design Guide

B-2: NACTO Urban Street Design Guide

B-3: NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

C – Proposed Environmental Resolution

C-1: Final Environmental Impact Report

C-2: Findings of Fact

C-3: Mitigation Monitoring Plan

D – Los Angeles Municipal Code Technical Amendments

E – S-470-1 Street Standard Plan

F – Five Year Implementation Strategy


PROJECT ANALYSIS

Project Summary The Mobility Plan 2035 is an element of the City of Los Angeles' General Plan. It updates the City’s 1999 Transportation Element and integrates and updates the 2010 Bicycle Plan. The proposed Plan incorporates “complete streets” principles and lays the policy framework to address both mobility issues and prioritization of transportation infrastructure improvements. The proposed Mobility Plan 2035 establishes broad goals that set the foundation for a world-class transportation system that balances the needs of all road users. The corresponding objectives, policies, and programs direct the City towards achieving “complete streets” as mandated by California State Legislature through AB 1358, the Complete Streets Act, which requires local jurisdictions to: “plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, defined to include motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation, in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban or urban context.” The proposed Plan sets the stage for making holistic long term transportation decisions using a defined set of criteria (such as safety, equity, access, health, environmental, economic) that take into consideration the multiple functions that streets must serve from mobility, to public meeting spaces, retail and dining destinations, physical activity, stormwater infiltration and much more. Complete Streets lead to a more livable city with attractive corridors and mobility options for all types of mode users. The proposed policy components necessary to further the City’s transformation to a multi-modal/complete street system include:

• Mobility Plan goals, enhanced complete street networks, and an action plan that form the policy direction for achieving complete streets

• New street standards (S-470-1) that recognize the multi-modal role of streets • Redesignation of City streets to reflect new street standards and typical street widths • A Complete Streets Design Guide for the City of Los Angeles that provides guidance on

complete street infrastructure • The adoption of NACTO’s Urban Street and Bikeway Design Guides as reference tools

for major cities to implement complete streets • Technical Revisions to the Los Angeles Municipal Code to align with the proposed Plan • A Five-Year Implementation Strategy that prioritizes programs in the Action Plan for

implementation within a defined five-year time period. The Strategy is dependent upon staff and funding availability.

The Mobility Plan is a four year culmination of gathering information, drafting documents, and revising based on input. Since the inception of the Mobility Plan in the Fall of 2011, planning staff have held hundreds of meetings with city departments, community groups, and other interested parties. The Draft Plan, Draft EIR, and accompanying documents were first released during February 2014. A recirculated Draft EIR and revised Draft Plan were released in February 2015. On November 20, 2014, planning staff presented the proposed Plan to City Planning Commission. On March 12, 2015 planning staff was asked to come back to City Planning commission with a preliminary Five Year Implementation Strategy for discussion.


Background The State of California and the Los Angeles City Charter require that Los Angeles create and adopt a general plan. The City’s General Plan is the constitution for all future development and as such is the heart and foundation of the City’s long-range planning vision for potential growth. The State requires that each jurisdiction’s general plan include seven mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Safety, and Noise, but communities may also include additional elements that are tailored to meet specific needs and concerns. While State law requires that the various plans be internally consistent, cities are free to select a distinct name for each element and are permitted to combine and/or disaggregate the individual components of the elements in a manner that is practical for the jurisdiction. The General Plan is a comprehensive declaration of purposes, policies and programs that guide and establish the future form and development of the City. In Los Angeles, the General Plan is approved by the Planning Commission and the Mayor, and adopted by the City Council. The General Plan serves as a basis for decisions that affect all aspects of our everyday lives from where we live and work to how we move about. It is both a strategic and long term document, broad in scope and specific in nature. It is implemented by decisions that direct the allocation of public resources and by decisions that shape private development. The City of LA General Plan consists of: • Framework Element • 35 community plans (Land Use Element) • Plan for a Healthy Los Angeles • Housing • Transportation (Circulation Element) • Infrastructure Systems (Circulation Element) • Noise • Air Quality • Conservation • Open Space • Safety • Public Facilities and Services Changing Demographics This plan responds to changing demographics, a younger population desiring a wider variety of safe and accessible transportation choices, a growing number of residents and employees seeking alternatives to the car, and an aging population that may need a wider variety of mobility options as well. In 2030, senior citizens will make up one fifth of LA County’s population. This older population (as well as children and the disabled) will benefit from longer pedestrian crossing times, shorter street crossing distances, wider, shaded sidewalks, street benches, and separated bicycle facilities. Today, many teens are delaying getting their drivers’ license. According to a 2012 AAA survey, 56% of respondents did not get their license within one year of being age-eligible and only 54 percent had acquired their license before turning 18 years old.1 When they do get their driver’s license they are driving fewer miles than previous generations did at the same age. Young people between the ages of 16 and 34 drove 23

1 http://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Teens-Delay-Licensing-FTS-Report.pdf

http://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Teens-Delay-Licensing-FTS-Report.pdf


percent fewer miles on average in 2009 than did the same age group in 2001.2 Fewer of today’s households have two cars as more are deciding (for financial and/or environmental reasons) to get by with one car or none at all. Changes in demographics; increased analysis of the relationship among transportation, land use and health; technological innovations; and an embrace of streets as public places are influencing shifts in how the City of Los Angeles will plan for the mobility of its people. Trends in younger populations show a desire for safe and accessible active transportation options, while a growing older population cohort can benefit from mobility alternatives to driving solo. Technology improvements offer virtual alternatives to travel, new transportation-sharing options, and better information that enables real-time decisions about the best way to travel. The proposed Plan acknowledges the necessary and continued investments that are needed to maintain Los Angeles’ roadways in light of the many travelers for whom the automobile is the only viable form of transportation. The plan also provides policy guidance on how the role of future mobility technological advancements such as car-sharing apps, can be integrated into a complete streets system. Meanwhile, the plan acknowledges the necessary and continued investments that are needed to improve the variety of safe, comfortable, and attractive transportation choices. Streets As Our Largest Public Asset In today’s cities, streets not only facilitate movement but also provide “places” to gather, congregate, sit, watch, and interact. This expanded definition has fundamentally changed our relationship with streets and will factor into future transportation discussions. The success of opens street events coupled with the desire for improved sidewalks and more public gathering spaces speaks to the community’s increasing interest in using their streets for more than just transportation. Streets are the City’s public face, the places that connect us to work, entertainment, shopping, recreation, and each other. Complete street policies help describe a new vision for how we think about streets. Land Use, Transportation, Public Health There are strong relationships among land use, transportation, and public health. A large and growing body of academic literature points to the benefits of improved urban design that can increase active transportation use, which in turn spurs community interaction, economic activity, and fosters better public health outcomes. Improved urban design, such as wider sidewalks, street trees, street lighting, better land use design, and better access to transit, increases both the utilization of active transportation modes and decreases environmental impacts. State Legislature Recent state legislation requires cities to help meet regional goals through their transportation systems. Collectively, the state legislature calls for cities and their transportation systems to contribute to achieving better environmental and public health standards for the region. AB 32: Global Warming Solutions Act and SB 375: Sustainable Communities Act

2http://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/A%20New%20Direction%20vUS.pdf

http://uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/A%20New%20Direction%20vUS.pdf


AB 32 calls for the reduction of statewide greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) to 1990 levels by 2020. SB 375 gives fundamental support to AB 32 to achieve regional GHG reduction targets through the coordination of transportation and land use planning. The transportation sector is the largest source of GHG and the largest consumer of energy. GHG emissions are closely correlated with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Reducing VMT is therefore an important component of the overall strategy to reduce GHG emissions. Land use policies aimed at shortening the distance between housing, jobs, and services reduce the need to travel long distances on a daily basis and can help reach GHG reduction targets. The proposed Plan employs sustainable transportation systems as a solution to creating a livable and green city with a high quality of life. AB 1358: Complete Streets Act The proposed Plan is being prepared in compliance with the 2008 Complete Streets Act (Assembly Bill 1358), which mandates that the circulation element of the General Plan be modified to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, defined to include motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation, in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan. Compliance with the Complete Streets Act is expected to result in increased options for mobility; less greenhouse gas emissions; more walkable communities; and fewer travel barriers for active transportation and those who cannot drive such as children, people with disabilities, and more. Complete streets play an important role for those who would choose not to drive if they had an alternative as well as for those who do not have the option of driving. The Complete Streets Act specifically encourages an increase in non-driving modes of travel. SB 743 SB 743 changes the way cities measure project impacts by encouraging projects to reduce their GHG emissions through measuring vehicle miles traveled (VMT) versus the current priority of reducing queuing at intersections (LOS) through roadway widening as a mitigation. The State as a whole, and the City of Los Angeles included, is in transition with respect to the focus of transportation planning and traffic impact analysis. In the past the focus has been traffic delay-based with the objective of minimizing vehicle delay wherever possible. In the future, as directed by SB 743, the State, including the City of Los Angeles, will move to a VMT-focus, with the objective being to reduce VMT (and therefore GHG) as appropriate. Mobility Plan 2035 is a long-term plan intended to complement the VMT-focus of future transportation planning and implement the Complete Streets Act. Existing Community Plans include policies related to decreasing delay and improving Level of Service (LOS); these policies may not be entirely compatible with reducing VMT and therefore they will be re-evalutated as Community Plans are updated. As Community Plans are updated they will need to reflect the latest RTP/SCS, the proposed Plan (once adopted), and the Complete Streets Act, as well as input from the community. Until the OPR Guidelines implementing SB 743 are finalized and become effective, and the City’s corresponding CEQA Guidelines are revised and adopted, the City will continue to weigh and implement individual projects considering both delay and VMT, and mitigating impacts for both. In the future, reducing VMT will become more of a priority, and mitigation measures that


only reduce delay may no longer be required and therefore may not be implemented. Consistent with the proposed Plan, Community Plans and private projects will be required to plan for and implement mitigation measures that reduce VMT, including aggressive Transportation Demand Management, and physical improvements that support the enhanced networks identified in the proposed Plan. Discussion of Key Issues Mobility Plan Mobility Plan 2035 is a comprehensive revision of the adopted 1999 City of Los Angeles Transportation Element of the General Plan that will guide mobility decisions in the City through year 2035, coupled with supporting documents and discretionary actions to further align the City’s street standards, processes and procedures with the goals of the proposed Plan. These other components to the Plan, along with the enhanced networks and implementation strategy, will be further discussed in this section. Mobility Plan 2035 includes five overarching goals that make up the essence of the Plan and highlight the City’s mobility priorities. Each of the goals contains objectives (targets used to help measure the progress of the Plan) and multiple policies (broad strategies that guide the City’s achievement of the Plan’s goals). Five Goals of the Mobility Plan 2035 Goal 1. Safety First Safety is at the foundation of a Complete Streets policy – to design and operate streets in a way that enables safe access for all users, regardless of age, ability, or transportation mode choice. Safety consistently ranks as a top priority for many in the City of Los Angeles and is an important factor in creating livable neighborhoods. People want streets to be safe, stress-free places for all ages and all modes of travel. Goal 2. World Class Infrastructure Infrastructure is the physical underpinning of the City’s transportation system. In the City of Los Angeles, streets are our largest public asset and play a large role in defining the City’s character. A well-maintained and connected network of streets, paths, bikeways, trails, and more provides Angelenos with the optimum variety of mode choices. This Plan establishes a Complete Streets Network of individual roads enhanced for a particular mode (pedestrians bicycles, transit, vehicles, trucks). It also focuses attention on the benefits of flexible design standards, needed future infrastructure improvements and funding. Goal 3. Access for All Angelenos Accessibility is the ability to reach destinations. Emphasizing accessibility as a goal of a transportation system produces outcomes that speak to the important connection between land use and transportation. Accessibility is the goal of a seamless world class transportation system with the end result of increasing the ease of traveling to desired destinations such as jobs, recreation, and other resources. A fair and equitable system must be accessible to all. Goal 4. Collaboration, Communication & Informed Choices


Whether it is providing information about the cost and availability of a public parking space, the arrival of the next bus or the current speeds on a freeway, real-time technology is changing the way we think about our travel. In recent years, the advent of mobile phone applications has resulted in better management of travel decisions due to the predictability that real-time technology provides. The impact of new technologies on our day-to-day mobility demands will continue to become increasingly important in the future. New transportation network companies are using mobile technology to connect ordinary drivers with passengers needing a ride. Increasingly, technology informs us about real-time travel options so that tomorrow’s trip decisions can be aided by information as to the cost, length of trip, health benefits, departure and arrival time of multiple transportation options. Technology is already allowing people to be aware of all the transportation options out there and allows users of the transportation system to easily utilize a variety of modes. These new technologies are allowing people to change their everyday lifestyles with more freedom in transportation choice. 5. Clean Environments and Healthy Communities Designing walkable neighborhoods and providing more transportation options to connect communities has the benefits of increasing a city’s quality of life and decreasing vehicle miles travelled. Transportation is implicated in the health of both human beings and natural systems. Mobility directly impacts human health and wellness, both physical and mental. Active transportation modes such as bicycling and walking can significantly improve personal health and create new opportunities for social interaction, while lessening impacts on the environment. Objectives An objective is an aspirational measure of goal attainment. In the Mobility Plan, the objectives follow the goal and precede the policies. Meeting given objectives will depend on available funding to implement the proposed programs. Some key objectives include reducing the City’s transportation fatality rate to zero, increasing the mode split of active transportation to 50%, reducing VMT and GHG, and reducing the number of unhealthy air quality days. Policies A policy is a clear statement that guides a specific course of action for decision-makers to achieve a desired goal. Information about the intent of the policy is described in the text following the policy. Policies have associated programs (discussed later in the Action Plan section), which are action items that when and if implemented may assist in achieving the larger goals and objectives described in this Plan. In total, the plan includes overs fifty policies. Many policies speak to the need for safe roadway design and increased accessibility for all users. Other policies support the integration of future technologies into our transportation system, as well as introduce sustainability into transportation policy. Citywide General Plan Circulation Map The former Highways and Freeways Maps from the 1999 Transportation Element are being updated to reflect the new nomenclature defined in the revised S-470-1 and are rebranded as the Citywide General Plan Circulation Maps. In addition to nomenclature changes, arterial streets are being redesignated to more closely reflect existing street dimensions. The Citywide General Plan Circulation System maps establish the designated street classifications for arterial streets (scenic highways, divided streets, and/or any additional modified distinctions are depicted as well). Citywide Circulation Maps would go into effect concurrent with the adoption of


the S-470-1which is anticipated to occur at the first City Planning Commission meeting following the adoption of the Mobility Plan. Complete Streets Enhanced Networks The proposed Plan’s approach to accommodating complete streets within the City of LA is through the development of a complete streets network system. The complete street network system is comprised of three enhanced networks and an analysis of potential pedestrian districts, that work together to support pedestrian, bicycle, transit, goods movement, and vehicle travel. As cities are dynamic places, where trends and patterns can change, it is envisioned that the complete street system will be modified over time as needed. Balancing the needs of different users is important to achieving complete streets. The Mobility Plan relies on a network approach to help manage potential conflicts amongst various uses. This can allow for streets with dedicated bus travel lanes, safer movement for bicycling, pedestrian segments with priority signalization, or wide lanes and turning radii for goods movement. In instances where corridors are selected as important to more than one mode of travel, design solutions should be formulated that can balance the needs of various modes. The design process for balancing roadways will be gradual, and the Complete Street Design Guide can be looked to for continually updated solutions. The networks are a conceptual idea based on data driven analysis of land use, transportation, community input, and other factors. The networks look at our transportation system from a citywide perspective to provide the basis for further local level transportation planning. This tiered approach of regional planning to local planning is done to create a cohesive system that first looks at the bigger picture to link all modes of transportation together before a more local level analysis of circulation can be done. Implementation of individual projects within the enhanced networks will require further environmental analysis, design development, and community collaboration. Pedestrian Infrastructure Pedestrian Enhanced Districts (PEDs): The Pedestrian Enhanced Districts (PEDs) map illustrates the results of initial analysis that was done to clarify where pedestrian improvements on arterial streets could be prioritized to provide better walking connections to and from major destinations. This analysis will guide decision makers in determining where to allocate improvements. The PED will be updated periodically to reflect changing conditions. Neighborhood Enhanced Network (NEN): The NEN is a network of streets that are intended to provide comfortable and safe routes for localized travel of slower-moving modes such as walking, bicycling, or other slow speed motorized means of travel. Streets on the NEN are typically local and/or collector streets with one lane in each direction that are enhanced with street calming that can include, but are not limited to: bump outs, round-a-bouts, ample sidewalks and street trees. Some streets (or street segments) on the NEN may already provide a quality pedestrian and bicycle experience and will require little, if any, improvements. Other streets may require the addition of a signalized crosswalk to assist non-motorized users to cross a fast moving arterial street. Other streets also may require a more intense number of improvements to provide the desired comfort level. (See Complete Street Design Guide for an expanded list of street-calming enhancements.)


Bicycle Networks Integration and Update to the 2010 Bicycle Plan: The Bicycle Plan has been updated to reflect changing contexts and public input received since the 2010 Bicycle Plan was adopted on March 1, 2011. The 2010 Bicycle Plan, in its entirety, has been incorporated into the various chapters of the Mobility Plan and is no longer a stand-alone chapter devoted to a single mode. Instead, its inclusion within a broader plan reflects the City’s commitment to a holistic and balanced complete street approach that acknowledges the role of multiple modes (pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and vehicles) within a larger system. The Technical Design Handbook has been incorporated into the Complete Streets Design Guide, including sections on design needs, bicycle paths, bicycle lanes, bicycle routes and neighborhood friendly streets, network gaps, signalized intersections, bicycle parking, bikeway signage, non-standard treatments, and street sections. The 2010 Bicycle Plan established a network of bicycle paths, lanes, and bicycle friendly streets. The Mobility Plan builds upon this network by adding protected bicycle lanes as a complement to the menu of potential bikeways. While the previous bicycle plan established mileage goals as part of its implementation strategy the Mobility Plan instead focuses on implementing projects in areas of need and that meet prioritization factors such as safety, equity, and/or health. Bicycle Enhanced Network (BEN): The BEN is a regional network of low-stress bikeways. This network is comprised primarily of protected bicycle paths and bicycle facilities on arterials roadways with physical separation, also known as protected bikeways or cycle tracks. The protected bikeways represent a portion of the Bicycle Lane Network described below. To provide a complete network, the BEN also includes priority segments of the NEN to offer low stress bikeway options through parts of the City where opportunities to include a protected bicycle facility are limited. Bicycle Lane Network: The Bicycle Lane Network proposes bicycle facilities on arterial roadways with striped separation. This network includes the Backbone Network identified in the 2010 Bicycle Plan, as well as additional lanes that were either installed between 2011 and 2015 or identified as needed. Transit Network Transit Enhanced Network: The designation of a TEN is intended to prioritize key corridors for public transportation which supplements the existing transit network. Improvements along the TEN range from Moderate to Moderate Plus to Comprehensive (as shown on the TEN map in Chapter 6 of the Mobility Plan), based on their benefits and intensity of implementation. The range of treatments and different levels of intensity are focused on improvements to service, infrastructure, and interconnectivity. Moderate enhancements typically include bus stop enhancements and increased service, with transit vehicles continuing to operate in mixed traffic. Moderate Plus enhancements include an exclusive transit lane during the peak period only, while comprehensive enhancements typically include transit vehicles operating in an all-day exclusive lane. Implementation of TEN segments will require continued coordination with transit providers as infrastructure improvements will need to align with operational improvements such as service levels and hours. Vehicle Network


Vehicle Enhanced Network: The Vehicle Enhanced Network (VEN) consists of arterial streets that carry high volumes of vehicles that are important to regional circulation, and provide access to the freeway system. Maintaining streets for regional circulation is also important to goods movement. The streets identified on this network are intended to provide consistent travel times. Reliable corridors for vehicular movement will continue to play an important role in the ever expanding menu of mobility options, from now and into the future, as we rethink vehicular technologies such as car share and ride share. Chapter 6 of Mobility Plan: Action Plan The Action Plan identifies a list of programs that, if and when implemented, could assist in carrying out the Plan’s policies. The set of programs encompasses the enhanced networks, as well as, amendments to existing plans, ordinances, development standards and design guidelines; capital investments/projects; coordination of economic development/development review processes; and interagency/interjurisdictional coordination. The Action Plan describes each of the implementation programs and identifies the City agencies responsible for implementation. Each program includes reference to the pertinent policies that it implements. The programs are organized into the following 15 categories: • Communication • Data + Analysis • Education • Enforcement • Engineering • Funding • Legislation • Maintenance • Management • Operations • Parking/Loading Zones • Planning + Land use • Public Space • Schools • Support Features Program implementation is in large part contingent upon the availability of adequate funding. Funding is likely to change over time due to economic conditions and to fluctuations in the priorities of federal, state and regional funding agencies. None of the programs included in the Action Plan can be implemented unless specific funding is made available. It is important to emphasize that none of the programs described in the Action Plan represent a mandatory duty or other official obligation on the part of the City. Since priorities and perspectives continually evolve, the program strategies the City may pursue are subject to change and the City may do so without formally amending the Mobility Plan. Five Year Implementation Strategy and Funding To assist the City in focusing its resources a Five Year (2015-2020) Implementation Strategy (Strategy) has been developed. (See Exhibit F). The Five Year Implementation Strategy is not required by the Mobility Plan 2035 and was prepared by City Planning, city departments, and


other interested parties. The Five Year Strategy is being provided for informational purposes and is not intended to be adopted by the City Council. The Strategy uses as its foundation the programs described in Chapter 6 of the Plan, outlining key programs and program level objectives that the City will strive to achieve in the first five years immediately following adoption of the Plan. Implementation is in large part contingent upon the availability of adequate funding and it is anticipated that City departments will utilize the Strategy to guide the development of future fiscal year budget requests. The implementation of the Enhanced Networks would not automatically occur as a result of adoption of the Plan. Further design, development, and specific right-of-way treatments would be determined only after further analysis and discussion with the community and the City’s leadership. The Mobility Plan will provide the framework for future community plans and specific plans that will take a closer look at the Plan’s Enhanced Networks and PEDs analysis in specific areas of the City and may recommend more detailed implementation strategies to realize the Plan. In turn, more detailed land use planning may reveal the need for changes to the networks, which will be undertaken as needed to reflect these more detailed planning efforts. Implementation of any segment of the enhanced networks requires identified funding sources and staffing. Funding is likely to change over time due to economic conditions and to fluctuations in the priorities of federal, state and regional funding agencies. The enhanced network maps identify streets where possible improvements could be prioritized when dedicated resources have been secured. The Plan identifies a citywide network of enhanced streets to make the City more competitive for local, state, and federal transportation funding dollars. This is done to ensure a long range planning process that is comprehensive and cohesive to the rest of the city and surrounding region. Alternative corridors that fulfill the same intent and need of the corridors currently included in the citywide enhanced network maps can be identified during the outreach and design phase. In order to be more effective with our limited transportation funds this Plan and its policies are shifting the way that projects are prioritized for implementation. Future projects will be prioritized based upon outcomes such as, improving safety, public health and providing social equity and economic benefits. Prioritized project areas will receive focused attention and discussions with the surrounding communities will play a central role in identifying potential “complete street” solutions. The Complete Street Design Guide can provide a platform for the street design process and describes a “complete streets” infrastructure that can first be implemented through pilot projects and eventually as standard actions after extensive evaluation. Some programs in the Strategy are currently being implemented through LADOT, Metro, and other city agencies as well as by mechanisms already in place. Other programs need sources of funding and staff before implementation is possible. New Street Classifications and Complete Street Standards S-470-1 Streets Standard Plan In response to the State’s Complete Street mandate the City is in the process of amending its street classifications and standard street dimensions. The current classifications are described in the Transportation Element and the dimensions are formally articulated in the S-470-1 Standard Plan, which defines the City’s street designation system and demonstrates standard cross sections for each type of street. The current street classifications and their corresponding


dimensions reflect the former primary focus on moving automobiles. The new expanded list of classifications and revised S-470-1 aim to acknowledge the multi-modal role and objectives of complete streets. While the naming conventions have been updated to reflect designations that are more inclusive of other modes, references to the old designation nomenclature are retained in the revised S-470-1 to ensure that federal funding and references to the City’s streets in other documents remain intact. The City Planning Commission has the authority to adopt minimum width and improvement standards it determines are necessary for the safe and adequate movement of people for all classes of public and private streets and alleys. Its action follows recommendations of the Street Standards Committee for such changes. On February 25, 2015, the Director of Planning and Chair of the Street Standards Committee approved the new Standard Street Form No. S-470-1. Concurring with the Director’s recommendation, the City Engineer, and General Manager of the Department of Transportation have signed the recommended change. These revisions have been arrived at through collaboration among the City Planning Department, Department of Transportation, and Bureau of Engineering senior level staff, working over a period of 24 months. These standards will result in preservation of roadway width and widening of sidewalk width. In very limited and specific locations, adoption of the standards may result in a roadway widening. Such standards shall not be applicable to any street or alley for which the City Council, by ordinance, adopts specific standards. The adoption of the S-470-1 is anticipated to occur at the first City Planning Commission meeting following the adoption of the Mobility Plan. Complete Streets Design Guide The Complete Streets Design Guide (CSDG) is a complementary document to Mobility Plan 2035. The Plan establishes the Guide as the City’s official document to influence the design and operation of streets and other public rights-of-way. Contents of the Guide include: principles for complete streets, selection and performance criteria for streets, storm-water management best practices, designated targeted operating speeds for each street classification to influence roadway design, and prototypical cross-sections. The Guide is a living document that will frequently get updated as City departments identify and implement streets standards and experiment with different configurations to promote complete streets. The Guide is meant to be a toolkit that provides numerous examples of what is possible in the public right-of-way and provide guidance on context-sensitive design. It will help direct planners, city engineers, and urban designers in determining the application of specific street improvements within the roadway and overall right-of-way. NACTO Urban Street and Bikeway Design Guides The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) “facilitates the exchange of transportation ideas, insights and best practices among large cities, while fostering a cooperative approach to key issues facing cities and metropolitan areas,” as described by the organization. Their two street design guides aid large cities in implementing complete streets strategies by providing design guidance on transportation infrastructure. These two guides draw on the experience of transportation practitioners throughout the nation. Cities around the country have adopted these two manuals to steer the implementation of complete streets. As a


parallel action to the Mobility Plan, adopting the NACTO street design guides as City documents will provide additional support in the City’s efforts to introduce complete street ideas into the design and operation of streets. L.A.M.C. 17.05 Street Design Section 17.05 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code creates a Street Standards Committee whose duty it is to recommend to the Commission minimum width and design standards for all classes of public and private streets and alleys. Section 17.05 is being revised to reflect the City’s emphasis on safety and balancing modes in our future transportation system and provide authority to the Committee to modify the Complete Streets Design Guide. The intent is to maintain street design practices within the Complete Street Design Guide that are current, innovative, and respond to the variety of settings found within the City. 12.37 Highway and Collector Street Dedication and Improvement Section 12.37 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code describes the Highway Dedication procedure that allows the Bureau of Engineering to obtain necessary public street right-of-way from private property owners to meet City Standards. It is being revised to reflect new street classifications, explain street dedication requirements, and rebrand the Highways and Freeways Maps of the General Plan as the Citywide General Plan Circulation Maps. Collectively, these amendments bring clarification to the street dedication process and align with the Mobility Plan’s direction to minimize errant roadway widenings. Summary of Plan Changes since November 2014 City Planning Commission Meeting The following represents the extent of changes that have been made to the Mobility Plan 2035 since the most recent draft was released in February 2015 along with the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR). The changes were undertaken in response to: comments received during the 45 day public comment period (February 19 - April 6), technical corrections that were identified as needed to remedy either redundancies, typographical errors, or to provide greater clarity to the reader. Below are network changes that were made in response to concerns from specific community areas: Valley Remove Roscoe Boulevard between Canoga Avenue and Van Nuys Boulevard from the BEN and instead substitute Parthenia as a BEN through this same segment. Due to the selection of Roscoe as a TEN corridor it would be infeasible for a protected bicycle lane to also be included. Hollywood Remove the portion of Sunset Boulevard between the border with the City of West Hollywood and Highland Avenue from the VEN. Due to changes in the land use patterns along Sunset Boulevard west of Highland as well as the extension of Sunset into an adjoining City where the VEN improvements are not currently being contemplated it was logical to terminate the portion of Sunset on the VEN at a location where it connected with Highland Avenue which is also on the VEN.


Remove the portion of Hollywood Boulevard between Fairfax Avenue and La Brea Boulevard from the BEN. The character of Hollywood Boulevard changes dramatically west of La Brea. The street narrows considerably from two lanes to one lane in each and the land uses change to predominantly multi-family residential uses compared to the heavily commercial character east of La Brea. The roadway constraints would inhibit the opportunity to install even a bicycle lane let alone a protected bicycle lane. Instead it will be preferred to encourage bicyclists to utilize streets on the NEN through this portion of Hollywood. Remove the portion of Highland Avenue between Hollywood Boulevard and Melrose Avenue from the BEN and instead upgrade Orange Avenue (just west of Highland) to a Priority NEN as a preferred north/south bicycle facility. Because this segment of Highland had also been identified as a VEN corridor it would have been infeasible to accommodate a protected bicycle lane. For the purposes of long range planning Highland is still identified as a possible planned future bicycle lane. Remove Beachwood Canyon and adjoining local streets north of Franklin from the NEN. The community felt strongly that the potential improvements identified for this corridor would be infeasible due to the steep inclines and curves. Remove Cahuenga Boulevard between Franklin and Lankershim from the BEN but retain this segment as a potential planned bicycle lane in the long- range. Limited roadway width through the Cahuenga Pass makes the installation of a protected bicycle lane through this corridor infeasible at this time. Mid-City Change Sixth Street between San Vicente and Fairfax from a protected bicycle lane on the BEN to a priority NEN segment. This change reflects the narrower road configuration and single family residential uses along this stretch compared to the section east of Fairfax. Westside Remove Veteran Avenue from the priority NEN and remove Santa Monica Boulevard west of Westwood Boulevard off of the BEN. Veteran Avenue, due to its hilly condition north of Santa Monica Boulevard, does not provide the most comfortable bicycling experience and therefore it was determined that Prosser Avenue to the east would better serve people that bike with a quality north-south bicycle facility. The east-west segment on Santa Monica Boulevard was removed because it no longer connected. Modify the priority NEN alignment by replacing the segment of McLaughlin Avenue south of Venice Boulevard with Inglewood Boulevard in order to provide a seamless connection to the Culver Bike path. Street Designations The following streets were downgraded due to improved street dimension information that identified these street segments as being narrower than previously had been believed. South Huntington Drive- Changed from Boulevard II to Avenue III. Sunset Boulevard/Cesar Chavez between Fountain and Mission from Boulevard II to Avenue I. Sunset Boulevard between Swarthmore and Rustic Lane from Avenue I to Avenue II. Fountain between La Brea and Vermont from an Avenue II to a Collector.


La Mirada between Bronson and Van Ness from Avenue III to a Collector and between Van Ness and Wilton to a Local Street Modified Street Designations The modified dimension for Motor Avenue between Woodbine Street and Venice Boulevard was changed from 86’ Right-of-way/ 66’ Roadway to 86’ ROW to 62’ Roadway to correct a previous typographical error. The roadway dimension today is 62’ and not 66.’ Policy Changes The following policy changes were made in response to public comment. Policy 2.4 about the Neighborhood Enhanced Network was changed to allow speeds up to 20 mph on a NEN street compared to the original 15 mph. This aligns the street speed with NACTO recommendations. Policy 4.15 was modified to require a public hearing for the removal of not just bicycle lanes but all bicycle facilities. This change will protect any bicycle facility from being errantly removed without full public discourse. Text Changes A reader’s guide was added to the Plan to provide a detailed description of the role and purpose of general plans and the adoption and implementation process. Changes to format and display of Maps The Highways and Freeways map that originally conveyed only general information about a street’s primary designation (Boulevard, Avenue) has been relabeled as the Citywide General Plan Circulation Map and regional maps have been inserted that illustrate not only the street’s primary designation but also information as to whether a street segment has modified dimensions, or is also a scenic highway or a divided highway. Both the Circulation Maps and the Network Maps are now included within the body of the Plan and are no longer a stand-alone Map Atlas. Upgraded Appendix F. This Appendix has been upgraded to reflect the complete list of street segments that have modified street dimensions. Modified dimensions imply that either the street’s right-of-way or roadway dimensions (or both) differ from the standard dimension for that particular street designation. Program Deletions The following programs have been removed as they were determined to be either infeasible, redundant or unnecessary. Bicycle Buddy Program (was C.2) County Congestion Mitigation Fee (was F. 4) Internal Streets Working Group (was MG. 4) Public Hearing Process for Bicycle Facility Removal (was MG. 6- upgraded to policy) Technology (was O.10)


PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMUNICATIONS

Public Participation The Mobility Plan is a citywide document and community outreach for a city as large and spread out as Los Angeles is no easy undertaking. A strategic approach was used to engage stakeholders on this large citywide issue. The Department’s public participation strategies were enhanced with the use of a project website, online town hall, Task Force, and Technical Advisory Committee. General Plans require a shared effort from a broad cross-section of stakeholders. Community participation and feedback have been critical to forming the direction of the Mobility Plan 2035. An open public dialogue has been integral to each step of the planning process, from visioning and analyzing to goal and policy formulation. Since the inception of the Mobility Plan in the Fall of 2011, project staff have participated in over 140 public meetings throughout the city, held four “think lab” workshops, two scoping meetings, seven planning forums, an open house, partnered with GOOD Corps on launching the “LA2B” campaign, maintained a project website for easy access to materials, implemented an online town hall to hear from those unable to go to traditional meetings, and worked with various agencies, nonprofits, and community groups, neighborhood councils, and council districts. Project Website: LA2B.org has been the main source of information for the Mobility Plan, providing regular updates on the status of the plan. From the website, the public has been able to download important documents released during the process and become more informed about the analysis behind each step by reading blog posts. Website visitors can read about the project, learn how to get involved, and contact planning staff online to give their comments. Online Town Hall: As an experimental effort and new way of expanding the number and diversity of stakeholders, the Mobility Plan contracted the services of MindMixer and introduced an online town hall through ideas.la2b.org. This online format provided an opportunity for community members to share thoughts and opinions about the streets of Los Angeles. The virtual town hall has allowed for a wider range of citizens to participate outside of traditional workshops and focus groups. The largest participant group was in the 25-45 age range. In addition, participants represented 79 of the 108 (73%) zip codes associated with the City of Los Angeles as well as additional participants from Culver City, Long Beach, Pasadena, Santa Monica, and the South Bay. The online format also allowed staff to identify geographical areas where there was limited participation and focus additional outreach efforts in those communities. Participants were surveyed periodically throughout the plan using the online town hall. During the beginning stages in Fall 2011, open-ended questions such as, “how do you want to move in the future?” were asked to gather the basis for broad vision statements. In the later phases of the Plan, a survey on the prioritization of the proposed programs list was conducted during the Summer 2013. The results indicated that the majority of commenters expressed the need for improved connections (between modes and networks), favored improvements to existing infrastructure, and strongly supported programs that focus on user safety, performance analysis, and expanding access to multi-modal networks. Although each category in the Action Plan Series received its fair share of support, programs in the engineering category were by far the most viewed on the online town hall and received over 150 comments.


GOOD Corps LA2B Campaign: The Mobility Plan collaborated with GOOD Corps to deliver four transportation related infographics (including an interactive video infographic) a mobility contest on what one would do on a car free day, and transit shelter ads that were displayed throughout the City. Council Districts: During year one of the outreach phase, project briefings were sent out to council districts to include in their monthly newsletters. All council districts took part in briefing meetings during year three on the Mobility Plan as well. In addition, planning staff meet with council district offices as requested throughout the time span of the project. Neighborhood Councils: To ensure widespread distribution of information, materials were disseminated at the Council District and Neighborhood Council levels. The Mobility Plan Team worked with the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment and Council staff to reach out to the community on a citywide scale. Neighborhood Councils were notified of major project milestones (including meeting notices or document review periods) through the list maintained by the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. “Great Streets, Great Neighborhood” Activity Kit: To obtain participation on an overarching citywide scale, an activity kit was sent to over 100 Neighborhood Councils and civic organizations. This pen-and-paper activity, with a one fourth response rate, was meant to supplement the dialogue of the online town hall and included a series of brief exercises to help give input toward the development of the proposed goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the Mobility Plan. Every Neighborhood Council Representative was contacted by phone during July – August 2012 to ensure submission of the returned activity kit. Task Force: The Mobility Task Force was put into place to guide this citywide effort and community-wide discussion. The Task Force played a pivotal role in assisting the City to generate significant engagement and input for the plan. Over 50 organizations were invited, including, community groups, nonprofits, major transit providers, and civic, business, and environmental transportation leaders throughout the City. The Task Force met six times during key phases of the project to provide input and guidance on plan development. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): The TAC consisted of representatives from city departments and other relevant government organizations that have a stake in transportation. The TAC met monthly from 2011 to 2013 to review transportation issues and opportunities within the City of LA and how they could be addressed in a citywide policy document. Public Workshops: In early 2012, the Departments of City Planning and Transportation held community workshops in different neighborhoods across the City: Van Nuys, the Miracle Mile, Downtown, and Pacoima. These “Think Labs” encouraged participants to explore L.A.’s existing mobility system through a gallery of maps that conveyed key information about the City’s streets and demographics. Community members also shared ideas that complemented those submitted onto LA2B’s online Town Hall.


Scoping Meetings: The environmental analysis of the plan required a scoping period to receive input from the public and other agencies on what should be studied in the Environmental Impact Report. Two scoping meetings held in the spring of 2013 focused the analysis around the potential impacts and benefits of the proposed enhanced networks. Community Planning Forums and Staff Level Public Hearings: The Proposed Mobility Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report were both released February 2014 for a 90 day public comment period. Over 300 participants attended a series of seven community planning forums and staff-level public hearings were held at each forum. Resources were pooled together with The Plan for a Healthy Los Angles and re:code LA to expand the Plan’s reach to a broader audience and allow contributors to participate at one location in three related long range planning efforts being led by City Planning.


Summary of Public Hearing Testimony and Communications During the initial 90 day comment period (February 13, 2014 – May 13, 2014) over 250 written and spoken comments on the Plan/EIR were received from individuals, community groups, non-profits, city departments, and state agencies through email, in person at the forums, and through the online town hall. During the second comment period on the Recirculated Draft EIR (February 19, 2015 – April 6, 2015) 170 comments were received on the Plan/EIR mainly from community groups and individuals. The staff report addresses and summarizes comments made on the scope of the Plan and not on the Draft EIR/ Recirculated Draft EIR. Comments pertaining to environmental analysis issues are addressed in the Final EIR. Summary of Comments Received During February 13, 2014 – May 13, 2014: Bicycle Enhanced Network (BEN) & Implementation Comment: Many comments were received regarding the Bicycle Enhanced Network (BEN) and its implementation (both for and against). Some commenters were in support of the BEN network but were concerned by the lack of an implementation plan. These commenters presented concern over the fact that many implementation plans/ideas that were present in the 2010 Bicycle Plan are no longer present in the Mobility Plan. The commenters also expressed concern over what percentage of the BEN network would ultimately be implemented and the time frame in which it will be implemented. Several commenters spoke of streamlining the implementation and approval process by having it coincide with routine road maintenance work. Several commenters supported the implementation of sharrows, with one comment against that particular feature. Commenters against the concept of the Bicycle Enhanced Network and its’ implementation were concerned of the traffic impacts that would result in implementation of bicycle lanes and/or protected bicycle lanes. This concern is addressed in the response to comments in the Final EIR. Response: The commitment to create safer streets for bicycling in LA has not been lost in the Mobility Plan, but strengthened. The Plan builds upon the bike plan framework and goes a step further by proposing fully protected bicycle lanes. The Mobility Plan has the benefit of assessing the last three years of Bike Plan implementation and as a result implementation strategies have been re-evaluated. The Bike Plan’s yearly mileage objectives created an ad-hoc network of pieces that were installed to meet a number. The Mobility Plan creates a prioritization structure to be strategic in implementation. The Mobility Plan calls for engaging other departments and the community to come up with a project that can be supported by all cross sections of stakeholders. This new implementation strategy hopes to look at traffic calming features more holistically with community needs in mind. Bicycle infrastructure will be a part of the conversation as an option for a traffic calming tool to reach community goals such as the safe movement of school children or speed limit compliance. Long range planning and implementation is an iterative process that will require reassessment every five years as the bicycle network maps continue to be updated. Document Language Comment: A number of comments were received regarding the weak language present in the Plan. Of the comments received, many were focused on bicycle related topics. A majority of these commenters expressed concern with the fact that the Mobility Plan did not incorporate many of the goals/elements present in the 2010 Bicycle Plan. Many of these commenters wanted more specific goals and stronger language regarding bicycle safety and implementation. Many commenters expressed concerns that the language relating to pedestrian improvements


is too vague or could be strengthened. Several other commenters stated that the plan in general uses language that is too vague and non-committal. Response: The Proposed Plan contains all of the same elements that the Bicycle Plan did, but reorganized and broadened to incorporate all modes of transportation and emphasize the idea of complete streets. The Mobility Plan still incorporates the three major goals of the former Bicycle Plan, stressing the importance of bicycling as a mode of transportation in the larger system, the need to expand and plan for the variety of bike users, and equity in project implementation. Many of the policies were broadened in the proposed Plan to emphasize the City’s goal of balanced and complete streets.

Transportation Equity Comment: The Mobility Plan received some comments relating to equity. Of these, commenters focused on bicycle related elements. These commenters were almost split 50/50 between positive and negative support for bicycle infrastructure. Those in support believed that bicyclists are not being treated equally and that policies should be put in place which gives bicyclists equal priorities. The other commenters believed that it is irresponsible to allocate a lot of resources to bicycle elements, as bicycle riders are a small percentage of overall commuters. Several commenters argued that the plan must consider senior citizens and other users who are reliant on their vehicles and would not be able to use the bicycle infrastructure. Some commenters spoke of active transportation elements. These commenters emphasized the importance of active transportation in improving an individual’s health. The commenters stressed that active transportation should be given greater emphasis and that improvements should be focused in low income/minority neighborhoods. Several commenters stated that the historical emphasis on automobile use creates inequalities and that public transportation should be emphasized more. Response: The idea of complete streets is about bringing balance to the way we design, operate, and fund transportation projections. Its definition inherently brings equity to the balancing act of different mode priorities and street infrastructure objectives. The plan proposes a series of networks that plan for more than one mode in mind. The development of the multimodal networks was data-driven and research was undertaken into transportation policies and practices used in other cities. Cities across the world and cities right next door to Los Angeles have seen increases in bicycling, walking, and transit when infrastructure supports the safe movement of it. Bicycling infrastructure does not prohibit the movement of other roadway users. The Mobility Plan does not favor one mode over the other. It stresses that all modes are important to a world class transportation system and should be planned for to give residents and tourists viable options to move around. The balancing act of modal priorities and objectives will be decided during implementation of projects, but the Mobility Plan lays out policies that bring all types of road users to the table. The Plan does provide a policy for prioritization of projects that speaks to equity. Policy 4.3 was released in the draft version and policy 4.6 was added to integrate equity into decisions related to implementing this Plan.


Air Quality Comment: The Mobility Plan received many comments regarding air quality in the Los Angeles area. One concern revolved around the creation of additional air pollution derived from the reduction of driving/parking lanes. The concern was that increasing bicycle/BRT lanes would take away a parking /driving lane and create more traffic, which in turn would create more air pollution as cars are idling. Several other commenters stated that they believe that adding bicycle lanes would not create more air pollution and that individuals citing these claims simply do not want to see bicycle lanes implemented. Another air pollution concern revolved around goods movement, the harbor area and truck routes. Commenters stated that truck corridors should be identified and that the Port should work to reduce air pollution coming from shipping vessels and trucks. There were several commenters stating concern that the Harbor area and low-income communities are disproportionately affected by air pollution due to goods movement. Response: Bus and bike lanes are cited as an effective transportation measure recognized at the State level to reduce GHG emissions in order to help the LA region meet GHG reduction goals. As more planning and infrastructure is put into other modes, mode shifts gradually occur as people become more informed about transportation options. There have been many peer-reviewed academic studies published in transportation and public health journals around the world that reinforce this idea. The DEIR analyzes the air quality impacts of the Plan in Chapter 4.3 of the DEIR. Construction and operations impacts related to air quality emissions and applicable plans, policies, and regulations were determined to be less than significant. The Final EIR address this concern in the response to comments section as well. The Port of LA has integrated green technologies into their vehicles and strives to hit reduction targets as stated in their long-range plans. Low-income communities are at a disproportionate risk due to their location next to major goods movement routes, facilities, and terminals. The Mobility Plan reinforces the Port of LA’s reduction targets with similar objectives and policies and includes policy 4.3 to look to when considering the impacts that can arise when modifications to our transportation system occur. Olympic/Pico Corridors and the Vehicle Enhanced Network Comment: The Mobility Plan received many comments from residents in the South Carthay Circle area expressing concern that the proposed Plan intended to turn Olympic and Pico into one way couplets. A majority expressed concern about the implementation of parking restrictions along VEN streets, Councilmember Paul Koretz, 5th District, expressed concern over peak period parking restrictions along Pico and around the South Carthay Neighborhood. Commenters were also concerned that on-street parking restrictions could harm local businesses, specifically along Pico. Several commenters believed that reducing parking and increasing speeds along Pico Blvd. would increase vehicle speeds and turn Pico into a “freeway”. Two commenters were in support of the idea of a Pico/Olympic couplet, however. There were also comments relating to the broader idea of the VEN. Many expressed concern in calling out a vehicle enhanced network as a priority while a few were in support of the VEN but wanted to ensure that its intention was to maintain a balanced system. Response: The Plan does not intend to turn Pico and Olympic into one-way couplets. Pico Blvd. is not on the VEN network, while Olympic Blvd is. The VEN was created to identify corridors that were important to regional circulation and to ensure driving times are to remain reliable and


consistent on this network. Safety is still first and foremost in this Plan and policies express that the movement of one mode will not compromise the safety of other modes.

Parking (Bicycles) Comment: The Mobility Plan received a number of comments regarding bicycle storage. A majority of commenters expressed concern with the lack of bicycle parking that is currently present throughout the city and wish to see more. A few commenters wanted the Mobility Plan to discuss bicycle parking minimums in addition to greater bicycle access within office buildings. Response: The Mobility Plan acknowledges through its policies and programs the importance of supporting infrastructure for bicycling. Through LADOT’s bikeway website, a process is in place to request bicycle parking. The implementation of bike parking depends on funding and staffing of the bikeways unit at LADOT. Implementation of other types of bicycle storage such as bicycle access in office buildings requires an ordinance and is identified as a program of this plan.

Westwood Bicycle Lane Comment: The Mobility Plan received many comments specifically regarding the proposed Westwood Blvd. protected bicycle lane. A majority of the commenters believed that adding a bicycle lane would create detrimental traffic for the neighborhood and local businesses. The commenters stated that Westwood Blvd. is already clogged with traffic and that by taking away a driving/parking lane (for a bike lane), it would create additional traffic for local residents. Commenters also stated that the addition of the Expo Line at Westwood Blvd. would only exacerbate these problems if a bike lane was implemented. Councilmember Paul Koretz, 5th District, expressed concern over the Westwood bicycle lane and would like to see the bicycle lane implemented on another street. A majority of commenters expressed concern and disapproval of the Westwood Blvd. bike lane and its effects on the surrounding neighborhood. The main concern was that cars would begin driving through the residential streets. There were a few suggestions that the bike lane should be moved from Westwood Blvd. to residential streets or Sepulveda. A number of commenters expressed support for a bike lane on Westwood. Response: The many viewpoints about the roadway configuration of Westwood point to the challenges that lay head for implementing “complete street” improvements. While the Plan sets out a vision for potential future configurations, further design discussions and improvements will rely on additional conversations with multiple participants. In consideration of the multiple transportation demands of Westwood Blvd, now and in the future, with the opening of Exposition Phase II, the Plan proposes to include Westwood on the Transit Enhanced Network while retaining short portions of Westwood on the Bicycle Enhanced Network. Remaining portions of Westwood would retain their existing bicycle lanes. Recognizing that all bicyclists may not be comfortable riding on the portions of Westwood without a protected bicycle lane, streets parallel to Westwood on the Neighborhood Enhanced Network could provide an option for bicyclists who desire a calmer bicycling environment. Complete Streets Comment: The Mobility Plan received many comments relating to “Complete Streets”. Of the comments received a majority of commenters support implementing “Complete Street” elements while some expressed concern about moving away from the City’s current priority of moving cars.


Response: Complete streets are the fundamental idea behind the update to the Transportation Element. The Mobility Plan lays out goals, policies, and programs to base City decisions on that will lead to the gradual implementation of this Plan. The Plan reinforces the principle that a balanced transportation system which adds choices to our transportation system is key to world class infrastructure. A pivotal policy shift in the City of LA will take time. Complete street policies do not prohibit the movement of vehicles; such policies only facilitate additions of other modes to the transportation framework to ensure that the City is meeting its requirements to plan for the movement of all road users.

Network Revisions (BEN and TEN) Comment: The Mobility Plan received comments relating to the BEN/bicycle routes. These commenters reflected the different routes that individuals believed should be included in the BEN. Examples include a bike lane down Santa Monica Blvd., bike lanes supplementing the Crenshaw Line, and a major increase in bike infrastructure in the Central and South Area Planning Commission districts. The Mobility Plan also received comments regarding public transit routes. Several of these commenters were advocating for more rail in the San Fernando Valley. Other route suggestions included the Sepulveda Pass Project and a Harbor Subdivision Line. Response: Changes to the bicycle and transit enhanced networks have been made in this revision of the proposed Plan based on comments from the public, council offices, and other City and regional departments. These revisions reflect roadway constraints and opportunities that were expressed during the comment period. It is important to note, however, that while the BEN establishes an overall vision of a connected network based on destinations, collisions, connecting gaps, etc, future conditions may warrant parallel corridors be considered as an alternative. Revisions to the TEN may also be required as ridership data changes or funding opportunities arise. Crosswalks Comment: The Mobility Plan received comments regarding crosswalks. A majority of these commenters were in support of more crosswalks and wanted all legs of an intersection to be striped with crosswalks. Several commenters also called for more curb bulb-outs and a greater use of continental crosswalks. Response: The Plan supports the enhancement of our pedestrian infrastructure citing safety as the first consideration of pedestrian movement. The Complete Street Manual describes pedestrian infrastructure in context and supports the implementation of crosswalks on all legs. Curb bulb-outs are also described in the Manual as being supportive of pedestrian safety. Continental crosswalks are now the standard treatment for crosswalks and LADOT is in the process of restriping all crosswalks in the City as funding allows.

Safety Comment: The Mobility Plan received many comments regarding safety topics. Of the comments, many were related to bicycle safety. The majority of these commenters stated that bicyclists must be given a safety way to travel along the streets. In addition, the commenters stated that bicycle safety should be taken into account whenever road repair work is being done. A majority of the commenters similarly believe that a greater emphasis must be placed on pedestrian and bicycle safety. Several commenters argue that bicycle lanes must be separated from automobile lanes for safety purposes.


The Mobility Plan received some comments specifying a need to prioritize safety around school zones. In addition to these comments the Mobility Plan received comments relating to safety along the City’s highways and streets. Several of these commenters were concerned with vehicle speeds, specifically vehicles traveling at higher speeds through local neighborhoods. The Mobility Plan received comments regarding pedestrian safety. The commenters were largely concerned with the lack of safety designs for pedestrians, specifically where they intersect with vehicles and buses. The Mobility Plan received many comments regarding the topic of safety in general. Several of these commenters were concerned that the Mobility Plan did not stress the idea of safer streets enough in the document. Similarly, several of these commenters believed that all modes of transportation should be given equal rights and safety measures. Response: The Mobility Plan’s number one goal for the City’s transportation system is Safety First. This aligns with the number one goal of LADOT. In this version of the proposed Plan, the collision objective in chapter one was changed to Vision Zero because any city should strive to reduce transportation related deaths as much as possible – to zero. To support Vision Zero, there are policies and programs in the Plan that support LADOT’s Safe Routes to School program currently being implemented. To reduce bicycle collisions, a network of fully protected bicycle lanes is being proposed in this Plan. In addition, the Complete Streets Design Guide calls out target operating speeds for the City’s different street classifications to ensure the safety of other road users and ensure that are streets are being designed to perform safely. Health Comment: The Mobility Plan received many comments regarding health related issues. Two of these commenters spoke of the relationship between access to healthy food and transportation. The commenters spoke of the increased health benefits of having access to healthier food options. Four commenters expressed concern with the detrimental health effects due to goods movement, particularly due to air pollution. The plan also received three comments in support of increasing access to public transportation in addition to other active transportation modes to increase health. Response: The Plan makes the nexus between transportation and public health with Goal Four: Clean Environments and Healthy Communities. A healthy transportation system supports the makings of a healthy city. Healthy food access is addressed in the City’s new Plan for a Healthy Los Angeles. Policies that support safer and easier walking and biking environments to access different parts of our city are addressed in the Mobility Plan. Funding A large number of comments were received regarding funding issues. Of these, many comments were related to bicycle funding. A majority of these commenters expressed concern with future funding of the BEN network. These commenters believe that the BEN network requires a greater percentage of funding, and that those funding levels should remain constant. There were a few commenters against funding the BEN. The Mobility Plan also received comments regarding active transportation funding. A majority of these commenters were in support of increasing active transportation funds. Several


commenters argued that active transportation projects receive funding disproportionate to their actual ridership levels. The Plan received comments regarding “Green Street” funding. All of these commenters believe that funding for “Green Streets” should be increased. The Mobility Plan received comments relating to Public Transportation funding. Several commenters were concerned with the low staff levels currently allocated for implementing public transportation projects. Several commenters believe that Measure R funds need to be properly allocated for the balancing of transportation projects. Response: The Mobility Plan sets the policy framework to allocate funding based on objectives listed in Chapter Two and Policies 2.13 and 4.6. The Plan’s objectives and policies seek to increase funding of active transportation projects that have multiple benefits for different modes and outcome objectives such as public health and the environment. Metrics, Project Evaluation, and Performance Comment: Many comments were received regarding mobility-related metrics and standards. Of the comments received, many were related to active transportation. The commenters were in favor of the Mobility Plan’s active transportation policies, but were concerned with the lack of metrics and evaluation related to when projects are implemented. Another concern was the regularity with which the metrics would be applied and evaluated. In addition to these comments the Mobility Plan received comments regarding public transportation metrics. Similarly, these commenters wanted to see more performance reports on our current and future transit systems. Commenters were in favor of more regular reporting to determine if implemented projects in place are successful. A few commenters wanted to use more prioritization metrics and evaluation to determine future implementation of public transportation and bicycle routes. Response: Evaluation of projects after implementation is a policy identified in the Mobility Plan: Policy 4.7 - evaluate performance of new transportation strategies through the collection and analysis of data. The Mobility Plan supports project evaluation as data collection, analysis, and monitoring are instrumental to the smart investment in, and development of, programs and strategies that will improve the Citywide transportation system. Outreach Comment: The Mobility Plan received some comments regarding outreach. Of these comments, some were regarding improving multi-lingual outreach. The Mobility Plan received some comments regarding outreach in general. These commenters expressed that there was not enough outreach done throughout communities. There were several commenters concerned with reaching younger communities. Response: Given the scale, diversity, and geographic reach of the City, the Mobility Plan team employed a multi-pronged outreach strategy (For more details about outreach, please see the section on Public Participation starting on page 13): :

• The 98 Neighborhood Councils were engaged through an outreach list provided by the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment

• An online town hall (ideas.la2b.org) was used to connect those traditionally not involved in public meetings

• A task force was convened to receive guidance from community groups, nonprofits, academic institutions, and other city and regional departments


• To maximize opportunities to reach a larger segment of the population, Mobility Plan

staff presented at major outreach events that convened a cross-section of stakeholder groups

• Seven community planning forums were held citywide to capture a large audience. At each of these meetings, Spanish translation was available, as well as Korean, Chinese, Armenian, and other targeted languages for specific areas. Requests for translation needs were noticed in the meeting flyers.

• Outreach to younger communities were a component to the seven regional planning forums as there was a youth planning activity going on that invited local schools and youth programs to participate.

The Mobility Plan is a citywide document that sets broad goals and policies for our transportation system. As projects get implemented and locations get refined, a more targeted approach will be used to identify specific community concerns and translation can be made available into the particular dominant language in the area. Circulation Element Requirements Comment: The Plan received a comment on why only Complete Streets were being addressed in the update of this plan and why not the other components to the Circulation Element of the General Plan were not included. Response: The State requires that each jurisdiction’s general plan include seven mandatory elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Safety, and Noise, but communities may also include additional elements that are tailored to meet specific needs and concerns. While State law requires that the various plans be internally consistent, cities are free to select a distinct name for each element and are permitted to combine and/or disaggregate the individual components of the elements in a manner that is practical for the jurisdiction. The City of LA disaggregates the Circulation Element into three elements: Transportation, Infrastructure Systems, and Public Facilities and Services. The City of Los Angles is a mega city with 34 city departments that oversee various circulation components. The Office of Planning and Research in the State of California states in General Plan formulation guidelines that a City can plan and divide circulation element components as it sees fit, as long as planning is occurring. The Mobility Plan covers the same components as the previous 1999 Transportation Plan did. Other components continue to be covered by the long range planning efforts of the Port of LA, LADWP, and Public Works. Consistency with the Framework Element and General Plan Comment: A few commenters were concerned that the proposed Mobility Plan was inconsistent with the other General Plan components, including the Framework Element. A commenter expressed concern that transportation infrastructure projects proposed in Mobility Plan 2035 were intended to increase density without regard to the necessary planning of other infrastructure components relating to the development of land use. Response: The Mobility Plan 2035, as analyzed and discussed in the FEIR at Master Response 5 and 7 is not growth inducing. That is, adoption and implementation of Mobility Plan 2035 is not expected to result in increased density in the City. Additionally, as discussed in the land use analysis in the RDEIR at Section 4.2, the Mobility Plan 2035 is found to be consistent with the General Plan, including the Framework Element. Transportation policies and programs proposed by the Mobility Plan 2035 are intended to meet the infrastructure demands of our City’s high use areas consistent with the General Plan, including the Framework Element. The


Proposed Plan does this, by among other things, by concentrating transportation infrastructure around commercial centers and corridors and other areas with an existing high need for transportation infrastructure. Summary of Comments Received During February 19, 2015 – April 6, 2015: Of the 170 comment letters received during this period, 146 were pertaining to the Hollywood area specifically. Hollywood Specific Issues: Fairfax Ave from Hollywood Blvd. to Melrose Ave. Comment: A large majority of the Hollywood commenters expressed concern on this portion of Fairfax, citing that it was to be designated as a Boulevard I with a targeted operating speed of 40 mph. Commenters were concerned with the safety issues from increased speeds and asked to maintain the segment’s posted speed limit of 35 mph. Response: This portion of Fairfax is proposed to be designated as a Boulevard II, not a Boulevard I. This designation was based on its existing built-out right of way and roadway widths. The Boulevard II classification calls for a targeted operating speed of 35 mph, which is consistent with community desires. The proposed Plan has does not set posted speed limits but does have targets for operating speed and language on design speed as discussed in the Complete Street Design Guide. Targeted operating speed, design speed, and posted speed are interdependent variables that effect roadway design and speed outcomes. Sunset Blvd. west of La Brea Ave. on Vehicle Enhanced Network (VEN) Comment: A large majority of Hollywood commenters expressed concern with this portion of Sunset being on the VEN, due to the potential for speeding, safety issues, and increased neighborhood traffic. Many also opposed the removal of street parking on this segment and opposed the prohibition of delivery trucks for loading and unloading due to concern that these possible features of the VEN would have negative impacts to local streets.

Response: The portion of Sunset Blvd. west of Highland Ave. has been removed from the Vehicle Enhanced Network. It should be noted that the proposed Plan does not identify what particular enhancements would ultimately be implemented as that is beyond the scope of this policy document. Future VEN enhancements would be identified after additional analysis of the specific needs of the corridor, as well as discussion with the community. Options could include investments in intelligent transportation systems, access management and consolidation, parking restrictions and removal, improved signal timing, and turning restrictions to increase vehicular travel time reliability on VEN corridors. These and other ideas for the VEN are part of the kit of options to improve vehicular movement which does require making tradeoffs, as with all our transportation related decisions. The aim of the VEN is to provide consistent speeds on these corridors, not increased speeds. All traffic must still follow posted speed limits and targeted operating speeds would still apply to streets on the VEN.

Hollywood Blvd. west of La Brea on Bicycle Enhanced Network (BEN) Comment: A large majority of Hollywood commenters expressed concern with this portion of Hollywood Blvd being on the Bicycle Enhanced Network due to the changes in roadway dimension, land use, and character on Hollywood Blvd, west of La Brea.


Response: The portion of Hollywood Blvd. west of La Brea has been removed from the Bicycle Enhanced Network.

Highland Ave on Bicycle Enhanced Network (BEN) Comment: Council District 4 and some Hollywood area commenters expressed concern with Highland Ave being on the Bicycle Enhanced Network from Hollywood Blvd. to Rosewood Ave. due to the vehicular priorities and uses of that street segment.

Response: Highland Ave. has been removed from the Bicycle Enhanced Network. A parallel corridor on the Neighborhood Enhanced Network (NEN) was prioritized as a substitute north/south route. The parallel segment is Orange Dr. from Rosewood Ave. to Hollywood Blvd. Highland Ave. has been placed on the Bike Lane Network Map as a “planned bicycle lane” to keep it as an option to apply for transportation funding should community priorities desire so in the future.

Cahuenga Blvd West on Bicycle Enhanced Network (BEN) Comment: Council District 4 and some Hollywood area commenters expressed concern with Cahuenga Blvd West on the Bicycle Enhanced Network going through the Cahuenga Pass area due to the vehicular priorities and uses of that street segment.

Response: Cahuenga Blvd West has been removed from the Bicycle Enhanced Network. It has been placed on the Bike Lane Network Map as a “planned bicycle lane” to keep it as an option to apply for transportation funding should community priorities desire so in the future.

Construction and Filming Comment: A large majority of Hollywood commenters expressed concern with limiting construction and filming to night-time periods due to economic and noise impacts. Response: The proposed Plan goals, objectives, policies, and programs make no mention of limiting construction and filming operations to night-time periods. The Final EIR addresses noise impacts and mitigations.

Pedestrian Safety Sidewalk Design Comment: A large majority of Hollywood commenters expressed opposition to the narrowing of sidewalks and asked not to increase roadway speed due to impacts on pedestrian safety. Response: The proposed Plan includes Safety First as its number one goal and supports the idea of wide sidewalks. The revised Standard Plan S-470-1: Standard Street Dimensions makes wider sidewalks a new design standard for all streets. It is anticipated that wider sidewalks will result as future projects dedicate additional parcel area. Targeted operating speeds are also proposed for each street standard to ensure that streets are designed and operated at recommended speeds. Parking as a Buffer Comment: Commenters asked not to remove parking as part of future roadway enhancements because it provides a buffer for pedestrians. Response: No specific design details for specific streets on the enhanced networks are being proposed at this point. The roadway design of future projects will require further refined analysis


once funding is secured to implement projects. The proposed Plan sets up a framework of problem solving tools that can be used depending on context and community goals. Sidewalk Obstruction Comment: Concern about pedestrian safety was raised regarding sidewalk obstruction during construction periods.

Response: The proposed Plan recognizes the issue of sidewalk obstruction during construction periods with Policy 1.6: Multi-Modal Detour Facilities, “design detour facilities to provide safe passage for all modes of travel during construction.” The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways provides guidelines for temporary traffic control to meet the requirement of having detour facilities around construction areas. Compliance with this requirement is mandatory as projects go through the permit approval process with the Public Works Department and enforcement issues can be reported to local council district offices.

Street Widening Comment: A large majority of Hollywood commenters expressed opposition to street widening in the Hollywood area due to concerns with safety and historic residential streets that cannot support further widening. One commenter was in support of street widening.

Response: Historic residential streets are typically local streets which are beyond the purview of the Plan. However, the Plan does include Policy 2.17: “Carefully consider the overall implications (costs, character, safety, travel, infrastructure, and environment) of widening a street before requiring the widening.” This policy gives new direction to the City on how to best manage street capacity for streets by taking other factors into consideration as well. Widening streets has impacts on adjacent land uses, safety impacts, and historic preservation, though, in cases where widenings may be needed given the context, they may still occur.

Since the 1999 Transportation Element, there has been growing interest in restricting streets from being widened to match their currently assigned designation. To align with this interest, as community and specific plans have been updated and/or introduced over the past years, footnotes have been added and street modifications have been made that would restrain a street from future widening. In most instances, the street retained its designation in name only, but the footnotes and modifications indicated that the street was not to be widened in the future. Streets that had been previously “modified” will retain their corresponding “modified” dimension under the new designations. In a majority of cases, today’s arterial streets have not yet been widened to reflect the full dimension envisioned by the current designation, as physical changes to the roadway are not made until adjacent parcels are redeveloped. The proposed Plan, in most cases, assigns new street designations that are more closely aligned with the streets’ current dimensions and thus future dedications and/or widenings will be smaller in dimension than would be required under the current designation. Overall, roadway widenings will be minimized and sidewalk widths will be increased. Wider sidewalks will be achieved over time through the dedication process, and not by bringing the curb line in.

Beachwood Drive on the Neighborhood Enhanced Network (NEN) Comment: 20 commenters expressed opposition to Beachwood Drive’s inclusion on the Neighborhood Enhanced Network. The commenters cited safety concerns and roadway constraints if a bike lane were to be added or if there was an increased presence of pedestrians.


Some concerns stemmed from the idea that being on the Neighborhood Enhanced Network equated to having a bicycle lane. Additional concern was raised that if other “traffic calming” features were put into place, Beachwood Drive would still not be a good candidate for the NEN due to its hilly blind curves and lack of sidewalks.

Response: Due to community input from residents, this corridor was taken off the Neighborhood Enhanced Network. The NEN is comprised primarily of local and collector streets that were selected for their existing or potential role in connecting communities to local assets (schools, parks, stores). NEN corridors are not typically places where the City anticipates or encourages major development but instead they are intended to provide an alternative, local mobility option for persons who use active transportation. Improvements to streets within the NEN would occur only after additional discussion and communication with the community. Outreach Comment: A number of commenters from the Hollywood community felt that not enough outreach was done for the proposed Plan and more outreach was needed in the area since the Plan would affect many streets in Hollywood.

Response: As stated in the public outreach summary section, given the scale, diversity, and geographic reach of the City, the Mobility Plan team had to employ a multi-pronged outreach strategy to ensure a broad cross section of the City was represented. All Neighborhood Councils were notified of major project milestones (including meeting notices and comment periods) through the list maintained by the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. Briefings on the proposed Plan were including in Council District newsletters during phase I of the outreach as well. For more details about outreach, please see the section on Public Participation starting on page 19.

The Mobility Plan is a citywide document that sets broad goals and policies for our transportation system. It provides a framework and toolkit to address larger transportation issues. Streets on the networks are visionary concepts that were chosen based on a variety of factors to provide a cohesive transportation system for all modes. As project ideas get implemented, locations may get refined based on targeted outreach to stakeholders, specific community concerns, current data, and best fit solutions. Implementation of specific projects depends on a commitment of funding and project staff as well as community desire.

Hollywood Community Plan Comment: The Hollywoodland Homeowners Association asked that the Hollywood area be exempt from the Mobility Plan due to the pending Hollywood Community Plan.

Response: The Land Use Element is the only General Plan component that breaks up the city into 35 areas due to the refined context needed for land use planning. The 35 Community Plans are guided by the broad policy foundation established in the citywide elements of the General Plan, including the Transportation Element. Community Plans can then include additional policy directed suited to the specific needs of their plan area on a variety of topics including air quality, mobility, parks, and more.

Hollywood Bowl Stop Addition to Metro Red Line Comment: Two commenters were opposed to the addition of a Hollywood Bowl stop on the Metro Red Line citing that a Hollywood Mobility Plan showed this addition in its maps.


Response: The proposed Plan is a Citywide Mobility Plan and only shows existing Red Line stations in its maps (see Transit Enhanced Network map in Chapter 6 of the Citywide Mobility Plan), it does not propose any future stops for the already-built Metro Red Line. Other Issues Analysis of Proposed Enhanced Networks Comment: Concern was raised over the lack of specific detailed proposals for the enhanced networks, including the vehicle, bike, neighborhood, and transit enhanced networks. Many commenters were against specific strategies such as removal of parking or travel lanes. Commenters expressed the need for additional analysis of specific roadway interventions on specific streets and their impacts. Response: This Plan is a part of the City’s General Plan, which is a citywide policy vision document, and does not include individual project-level detail in its scope. The networks are a conceptual idea based on regional analysis of land use and transportation data, which provide the basis for further local level transportation planning. The proposed Plan establishes the idea for these network concepts as a policy. Further analysis and refinement will occur within community plans, specific plans, and project implementation. Implementation of Enhanced Networks Comment: Concern was raised about the implementation process of the enhanced networks. As related to the previous comment, commenters were concerned that there was not enough detailed analysis to thoughtfully implement the enhanced networks. Response: The Mobility Plan 2035 will provide the framework for future community plans and specific plans to take a closer look at the VEN, BEN, TEN and PED networks in specific areas of the City and may recommend more-detailed implementation strategies to realize the Mobility Plan’s enhanced networks concept. As the necessary details and funding become available prior to implementation of each project, additional review, including environmental review and clearance would be required for each of the proposed mobility improvements identified in the Mobility Plan. The level of environmental review and clearance required would depend on the size of the project and potential for impact. All roadway alterations that would potentially incur localized impacts would require additional analysis and environmental documentation once design details are known. Exemptions related to bicycle lanes (SB 2245) would require a traffic and safety assessment, when specific design details are known. The implementation of project-specific improvements and future land use planning will be undertaken in an iterative manner. More detailed land use planning may reveal the need for changes to the networks, which will be undertaken as needed to reflect these more detailed planning efforts Implementation of any segment of the enhanced networks requires identified funding sources and staffing. Funding is likely to change over time due to economic conditions and to fluctuations in the priorities of federal, state and regional funding agencies. The enhanced network maps identify possible opportunities once dedicated resources have been identified. The Plan identifies a citywide network of enhanced streets to stay competitive for local, state, and federal transportation funding dollars. Parallel corridors that fulfill the same intent and need of proposed corridors in citywide enhanced network maps can be identified when projects go through the outreach and design phase.


It is anticipated that the sequencing of mobility treatments proposed as part of the Plan would be implemented depending on future circumstances which would balance both transportation infrastructure planning (as presented in the Mobility Plan) and future land use planning efforts (community plans, specific plans and occasionally individual projects). Speeding, Collisions, and Traffic Calming Comment: A majority of comment letters from all areas of the City expressed concern on localized issues of speeding, collisions, safety, and cut-through traffic in their neighborhoods. There was a general support for traffic calming measures as a solution to these transportation issues. Response: The proposed Plan addresses these issues with overarching goals, measurable objectives, and policies that recognize the importance of safety and creating infrastructure that accommodates the movement of different mode users. Chapter 1 of the Plan identifies safety as the first goal and includes objectives to reduce collisions to zero and design roadways to meet targeted operating speeds. The enhanced networks and the Neighborhood Enhanced Network in particular, are a part of the traffic calming strategies that can be used to target safety concerns. The Plan lays the steps for the further outreach and analysis required to address safety issues. Overview of the Neighborhood Enhanced Network (NEN) Comment: There was general concern surrounding the concept of the Neighborhood Enhanced Network, particularly on what treatments make up the network and how implementation will occur. Response: The NEN is comprised primarily of local and collector streets that were selected for their existing or potential role in connecting communities to local assets (schools, parks, stores). NEN corridors are not typically places where the City anticipates or encourages major development but instead they are intended to provide an alternative, local mobility option for persons who use active transportation. Improvements to streets within the NEN would occur only after additional discussion and communication with the community. The NEN is an aspirational concept that would be built out through an iterative process that would identify project-specific details based on public input, and would include project-specific environmental clearance. NEN streets would be selected and prioritized for improvements based upon such metrics as population and employment densities, collision history and socioeconomic need. NEN improvements identified for a specific NEN corridor would be oriented towards slowing and calming the traffic speeds and volumes to ensure that the street is safe and comfortable for people walking, bicycling or using other slow-speed forms of transportation (scooters, skateboards). Clarification of Street Alignments on the Enhanced Networks in the Westside Area Comment: Letters received from community groups and individuals in the Westside area were concerned that Veteran, Manning, and Tennessee Avenues are being proposed to receive bicycle lanes. Response: Veteran Ave. has been removed from the Neighborhood Enhanced Network, while Manning Ave. is not identified on any of the proposed networks. The closest alignment to Manning is Prosser Ave. which is on the NEN. Tennessee Ave. has been retained on the NEN as it has been prioritized to receive state funding in orders to implement features that would establish it as a slower moving corridor.


Prosser and Tennessee are shown as a part of the Bicycle Enhanced Network Map (Map D1, Chapter 6 of Plan) to demonstrate gap closures to the larger network of bicycle facilities that are proposed to provide a safe, comfortable, and “low-stress” riding experience. They are coded in a different color and named in the legend of Map D1 as “Priority Neighborhood Enhanced Network.” In addition, these streets are part of the NEN maps (Maps C1-C5, Chapter 6 of Plan) and prioritized due to the gap closures they provide for low stress bicycling facilities. NEN Improvements identified for a specific NEN corridor would be oriented towards calming the traffic speeds and volumes to ensure that the street is safe and comfortable for people walking, bicycling or using other slow-speed forms of transportation (scooters, skateboards). NEN improvements would not typically eliminate a vehicular travel lane and while the improvements may slow vehicular travel the existing vehicular capacity would by and large by retained. Typically, a bicycle lane would not be included unless there was sufficient space to include it without removing a travel lane. Roadway design of street segments will be evaluated on a case by case basis. Enhanced Network alignments were chosen based on current data and citywide connectivity. Parallel streets can be considered during the outreach and design phase of a specific project. Plan Timespan Comment: A comment letter expressed concern with the long time period of the proposed Plan through 2035 and whether the Plan will be able to address changes that may happen over the next 20 years. Response: The proposed Plan is a long range planning document. The Plan horizon looks out 20 years ahead due to environmental analysis purposes based on Southern California Association of Governments’ Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Plan for the future of the region. This Plan’s horizon year is consistent within our regional planning horizon year. In addition, long range planning and implementation is an iterative process that will require reassessment as we have future opportunities to come back every five years to stay eligible for state funding. Bicycle Lanes Comment: Numerous comments were received that either expressed general support or opposition to bicycle lanes. Response: The proposed Plan addresses multi-modal transportation policies by creating a balanced vision for our City’s transportation framework that plans for the circulation of all mode users. This Plan speaks to the various viewpoints contained in the City by setting a prioritization platform based on data collection and evaluation of projects that promotes larger expressed outcomes such as social equity, increasing safety, benefiting populations of vulnerable social characteristics, environmental and public health, and/or economic benefits. Bicycle infrastructure, including bicycle lanes, is one transportation planning strategy used in cities to reach larger desired outcomes expressed by a community such as safety, reducing speeds, or increasing efficiency. The Plan proposes to look at transportation modes and strategies more holistically to examine the inter-relationships that make up our transportation system including: bicycle lanes, goods movement, driving, car-sharing technologies, walking, rolling, transit, para-transit, transportation demand management strategies, and more; as a comprehensive toolkit to offer travel solutions for the variety of needs in the City.


Multi-Modal Transportation Comment: Move LA, Community Health Councils, and a number of individuals expressed approval of the Plan’s commitment to: multi-modal transportation policies; emphasis on providing a safe and equitable transportation system; targets to improve public and environmental health; and support of a balanced network system to provide the basis of a multi modal vision. Mobility hubs to enhance connectivity, first-mile last-mile solutions, future technologic advancements in transportation, and education/communication were all mentioned as features that were of particular importance. Response: Mobility Plan 2035 contains goals, objectives, and policy statements that provide the basis for achieving a multimodal transportation system. The Plan emphasizes the importance of making all modes of travel safe and accessible. Policies such as 1.1 Roadway User Vulnerability, 1.2 Complete Streets, 1.3 Safe Routes to Schools, 1.4 Design Safe Speeds, and 1.7 Regularly Maintained Streets can be looked at to guide decisions on transportation safety matters. Policies 3.1 Access for All and 3.5 Multi-Modal Features acknowledges the importance of every mode and how their connections to each other are vital in a seamless transportation system. Policies 4.3 and 4.6 speak to equity being built into transportation decisions. In addition, the Plan contains a variety of programs that help move the City towards a multi-modal transportation system that offers users a variety of mode choices.

CPC-2013-0910-GPA-SP-CA-MSC


EXHIBIT A: Proposed Resolution on Plan

CPC-2013-0190-GPA-SP-CA-MSC For consideration by the City Planning Commission May 28, 2015


RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Transportation Element of the General Plan was adopted by the City Council in 1999; and

WHEREAS, the Highways and Freeways Map of the Transportation Element of the General Plan was adopted by the City Council in 1999 and periodically updated to reclassify selected streets; and

WHEREAS, the Mobility Plan 2035 updates the Transportation Element to reflect complete street principles and other strategies to support streets as public places for the safe utilization of all modes of transportation (e.g. pedestrians, bicyclists, transit goods movement, vehicles); and;

WHEREAS, the City’s street designations are being updated to establish a total of five arterial classifications with corresponding dimensions that more closely reflect existing street dimensions; and

WHEREAS, the Highways and Freeways Map of the Mobility Plan updates the Highways and Freeways Map to assign each arterial street to one of the new arterial classifications; and

WHEREAS, the Hearing Officer, as a representative of the City Planning Commission held seven public hearings on the proposed Plan on March 15th, 19th, 22nd, and 29th and April 2nd, 5th and 12th, 2014; and

WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was published in the Los Angeles Times on February 13, 2014, and distributed through the Council Offices, in accordance with Section 12.32-C4 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 20, 2014; and

WHEREAS, evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the City Planning Commission at the aforesaid public hearing, including but not limited to a staff report, exhibits, appendices, and public testimony; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Charter and ordinance provisions, the Mayor and the City Planning Commission have transmitted their recommendations.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES AS FOLLOWS:

1. Adopt the Mobility Plan 2035, attached as Exhibit “1” to this resolution, as the City’s amendment to the Transportation Element of the General Plan, including adopting the Citywide Circulation Systems Map as the update to the Highways and Freeways Map (see Exhibit A1 - pgs 19-24 in the MP 2035).


2. Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan (35 Community Plans), including relevant exhibits and maps, including as provided in Exhibit “2” to this resolution, to do all of the following: a. Amend Sylmar 2015 Community Plan text to align with Mobility Plan. b. Update the text of the following three pending community plans that have

been approved by City Planning Commission but not yet adopted by City Council to align with complete streets nomenclature of the Mobility Plan: Granada Hills-Knollwood, San Pedro, and West Adams-Baldwin Hills-Leimert Park

c. Update the text of the following 31 community plans to align with

complete streets nomenclature of the Mobility Plan: Arleta-Pacoima, Bel Air-Beverly Crest, Boyle Heights, Brentwood-Pacific Palisades, Canoga Park-Woodland Hills-West Hills-Winnetka, Central City , Central City North, Chatsworth-Porter Ranch, Encino-Tarzana, Harbor Gateway, Hollywood, Mission Hills-Panorama City-North Hills, North Hollywood, Northeast Los Angeles, Northridge, Palms-Mar Vista-Del Rey, Reseda-West, Van Nuys, Sherman Oaks-Studio City-Toluca Lake, Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Valley , South Los Angeles, Southeast Los Angeles, Sun Valley-La Tuna Canyon, Sunland-Tujunga, Van Nuys-North Sherman Oaks, Venice, West Los Angeles, Westchester-Playa Del Rey, Westlake, Westwood, Wilmington-Harbor City, Wilshire

d. Update community plan circulation maps to align with nomenclature and

street classifications of Mobility Plan. 3. The Director of Planning shall update the land use designations and

corresponding zone maps for all of the community plans to reflect the following change: Freeways shall be shown as “Public Facilities-Freeway,” as provided in Exhibit “3” to this Resolution.

4. To the extent the Mobility Plan 2035 is enjoined (in whole or in part, permanently or temporarily), or set aside by court order, the 1999 Transportation Element shall, by operation of law, be revived and continue in full force and effect, until such time as the injunction is dissolved, the court order is set aside, and/or until further action of the City Council.


EXHIBIT A.1: Proposed Mobility Plan 2035



See attached document for Mobility Plan 2035

EXHIBIT A.2: Updates to Community Plans to Align Text and Maps to Mobility Plan 2035


Exhibit A.2 - Amendments to Community Plans to Align with Mobility Plan Nomenclature

Community Plan Page #Comment

#Comment

All PlansCirculation

System Maps

Update map showing circulation system to align streets with

new designations per mobility plan.


System Maps

Update reference note on circulation system maps to include: Local Streets, Hillside Local Streets, Standard Hillside Limited Streets, as well as Public Stairways, Shared Streets, Pedestrian Walkways, Access Roadways and Alleys


System Maps

Update reference of 2010 Bicycle Plan to Mobility Plan 2035

in footnotes

Sylmar PlanP. 4-4 ("Street

Classifications")1

Change "Major Highway Class I" to "Boulevard I" and "Major

Highway Class II" to "Boulevard II".

Sylmar Plan P. 4-4 2

Change "major highways" to "boulevards" and "Major

Highway" to "Boulevard" wherever the former two terms

appear.

Sylmar Plan P. 4-4 3Change the term "Secondary Highway" to "Avenue"

wherever the former appears

Sylmar Plan P. 4-5 (Figure 4-1) 1

Change the terminology (i.e. "Major Highway Class II" to

"Boulevard II" and "Secondary Highway" to "Avenue") and

specific street designations to reflect those given by the

mobility plan.


In the section on "Priority Streets", add a new sentence at

the beginning of the paragraph that reads: "The Mobility Plan

introduces the concept of prioritized improvements on

streets on the Enhanced Network." The following sentence in

the paragraph (currently the first sentence) should be

changed to read: "The Mobility Plan allows communities to

further classify streets at the local level by priority mode,

such as..."

Sylmar PlanP. 4-10 (Table 4-

2) 1

Change "Secondary Highway" to "Avenue" and change

"Major Highway Class II" to "Boulevard II" in the table.

Sylmar PlanP. 4-10 (Table 4-

2) 2

Note that for table 4.2, Bledsoe Street from Glenoaks to

Olive View is no longer classified as a Secondary Highway

under the mobility Plan and that Roxford Avenue, from San

Fernando Road to Foothill Boulevard, is classified as a

Modified Avenue (Class II) rather than as a "Modified

Boulevard II" under the Mobility Plan. Change the "New

Designations" column to reflect this?

Sylmar PlanP. 4-11 (Figure 4-

3)1

Change "Secondary Highway" to "Avenue" wherever the

former appears

Sylmar Plan P. 4-16 1Replace "friendly-streets" with "neighborhood streets" in the

second sentence of the second paragraph.

Sylmar Plan P. 4-16 2Replace the references to the "Bicycle Plan" in the 2nd

paragraph with references to "Mobility Plan 2035"

1 CPC-2013-0910-GPA-SP-CA-MSC



In the box titled "Citywide Bicycle Plan," also replace

references to the "2010 Bicycle Plan" with ones to "Mobility

Plan 2035." Reference the goals and provisions of the

Mobility Plan instead of those of the Bicycle Plan.

Sylmar Plan P. 4-16 4Change "Major Highway Class II" to "Boulevard II" where the

former appears in the box.

Sylmar Plan P. 4-16 5Change "Bicycle-Friendly Streets" to "Neighborhood Streets"

where the former appears in the box.

Sylmar Plan P. 4-17 1Change "Bicycle-Friendly Streets" to "Neighborhood Streets"

where the former appears .

Sylmar Plan P. 4-17 2Add a note to the paragraph on "Bicycle Routes" stating that

Bicycle Routes will be phased out.

Sylmar Plan P. 4-17 3 Replace the reference to the "Bicycle Plan" (in the section on

"Bicycle-Friendly Streets") with one to "Mobility Plan 2035"

Sylmar Plan P. 4-17 4Add paragraph on "Class IV" bikeway category below the final

paragraph and add reference to "Class IV" bikeways in the

sentence on "primary facilities." (first paragraph)

Sylmar PlanP. 4-19 (Figure 4-

4)1 Change "Class III Bicycle Friendly Street" to "Class III

Neighborhood Street" and add Class IV Bikeway classification.


Change the phrase "Major or Secondary highways" to

"boulevards or avenues" at the beginning of the second

paragraph


Change the phrase "major and secondary Highways" to

"boulevards and avenues" in the paragraph on Access

Management

Sylmar Plan P. 4-35 1 Change the phrase "major or secondary Highways" to

"boulevards or avenues" in the paragraph on Alley Access



Community Plan Page #Comment

#Comment


System Maps

Update map showing circulation system to align streets with

new designations per mobility plan.


System Maps



System Maps

Update reference of 2010 Bicycle Plan to Mobility Plan 2035 in

footnotes

Granada Hills-

KnollwoodP. 3-6 1

Change the expression "Highways and Freeways Element of the

General Plan" to "Mobility Plan, an element of the General

Plan" at the beginning of the "Circulation" section.

Granada Hills-

KnollwoodP. 3-7 1

Change the phrase "highways and local streets," at the

beginning of the first paragraph, to "streets".

Granada Hills-

KnollwoodP. 3-7 2

Change the phrase "Major and Secondary Highways" to

"Arterials" where the former appears on the page.

Granada Hills-

KnollwoodPps. 3-7 to 3-8 1

Change the phrase "secondary and major Highways" to

"Arterials" where the former appears in point 6.

Granada Hills-

KnollwoodP. 3-8 1

Change the term "major highways" to "boulevards" where the

former appears (point 6)

Granada Hills-

KnollwoodP. 3-8 2

Change the term "secondary highways" to "avenues" where

the former appears (point 6)

Granada Hills-

KnollwoodP. 3-8 3


Los Angeles General Plan" to "Mobility Plan, an element of the

Los Angeles General Plan" in the sub-section on "Features".

Granada Hills-

KnollwoodP. 3-8 4

Change the phrase "Major and Secondary Highways" to

"Arterials" in the paragraph titled "Features".

Granada Hills-

KnollwoodCirculation map 1

Change the terminology for street classifications to reflect that

specified in Mobility plan: i.e. "Major Highway Class II" to

"Boulevard II" and "Secondary Highway" to "Avenue" (May

differentiate between Classes I, II and III as well).

San Pedro P. 3-31 1Replace "Bikeways Ma(s)ter Plan" with "Mobility Plan (2035)"

in the sentence on "Bikeways" (point 4)

San Pedro P. 3-34 1Change the term "Major highways" to "Boulevards" where the

former appears on the page

San Pedro P. 3-34 2Change the term "Secondary highways" to "Avenues" where

the former appears on the page

San Pedro P. 3-34 3

Note (in the second paragraph in the "Freeways, Highways and

Streets" section) that Front Street, Harbor Boulevard, Miraleste

Drive, Ninth Street and Twenty-fifth Street are now classified

as "Avenues" rather than"Boulevards" (i.e. formerly "Major

Highways").



San Pedro P. 3-34 4



Plan" in the third paragraph in the "Highways, Freeways and

Streets" section.

San Pedro P. 3-34 5Change the phrase "streets and highways" to "streets" at the

beginning of Policy 14-1.1

San Pedro P. 3-34 6Change the phrase "...highway or collector street,.." in Policy

14-1.1 to "arterial or collector street".

San Pedro P. 3-34 7Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" in the

program for Policy 14-1.1 to "arterials".

San Pedro P. 3-35 1



Plan" in Policy 14-1.2

San Pedro P. 3-35 2Change the expression "Highways and Freeways Element" to

"Mobility Plan" in the program for Policy 14-1.2

San Pedro P. 3-35 3Change "Major Highways" to "Boulevards" where the former

appears in Policy 14-1.5

San Pedro P. 3-36 1Delete the phrase "major and secondary highways" in Policy 14-

2.2. (and make corresponding grammatical changes)

San Pedro P. 3-36 2

Replace "Citywide Bicycle Plan" or "City Bicycle Plan" with

"Mobility Plan (2035)" in the first paragraph on "Non-

motorized Transportation" and in the program for Policy 15-1.1

San Pedro P. 3-36 3Change "Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes" to "Bicycle and

Pedestrian Facilities" in the text of Goal 15

San Pedro P. 3-36 4Change the term "bicycle routes" to "bicycle facilities" in Policy

15-1.1

San Pedro P. 3-37 1Change the term "bicycle routes" (or "routes") to "bicycle

facilities" (or "facilities") in Policies 15-1.2 and 15-1.3.

San Pedro P. 3-37 2Change the phrase "major and secondary arterials" to

"arterials" in Policy 15-1.2

San Pedro P. 3-37 3

In the program for Policy 15-1.2, change the phrase "Bikeway

Plan in the Bikeway Five Year Program and the 20-year

Plan" to "bicycle network in the Mobility Plan (2035)".

San Pedro P. 3-37 4

In the program for Policy 15-1.2, note that the bikeway along

Westmont Drive is now designated a "Class II" (rather than a

"Class I") bikeway.

San Pedro P. 3-38 1Change "Citywide Bicycle Plan" to "Mobility Plan (2035)" in the

program for Policy 15-2.1

San Pedro P. 4-4 1Change "bicycle routes" to "bicycle facilities" in the paragraph

on "Non-motorized Transportation"?

San Pedro P. 5-2 1Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" to

"arterials" where the former appears (in point 2).



San Pedro Circulation map 1




differentiate between Classes I, II and III as well). Also change

the designations of specific streets (to reflect those in Mobility

Plan).

West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-26 1

Change the term "Major Highway(s)" to "Boulevard(s)"

wherever the former appears.

West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-26 2

Note (in the third paragraph) that Fairfax Avenue, Crenshaw

Boulevard south of 60th street, Washington Boulevard, Adams

Boulevard, Martin Luther King Boulevard, Rodeo (west of

Martin Luther King Boulevard), Slauson Avenue and Florence

Avenue, within the boundaries of the Plan area are now

classified as "Avenues" rather than"Boulevards" (i.e. formerly

"Major Highways")

West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-26 3

Change the term "Secondary Highways" to "Avenues"


West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-26 4

Note (in the sentence in the third paragraph listing "Secondary

Highways" ("Avenues")) that Redondo, Exposition and Hyde

Park Boulevards are no longer "Avenues" ("Secondary

Highways") but "Collector Streets" in the area covered by the

plan. Note also that Venice Blvd. becomes an "Avenue" only

east of Arlington (and not "east of La Brea", as the plan

asserts), and therefore, outside the plan boundaries.

West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-27 1

Change the phrase "streets and highways" to "streets" in policy

7-1.1

West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-27 2

Change "major or secondary highway" to "arterial street" in

policy 7-1.1

West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-27 3

Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" to

"arterials" in the program for Policy 7-1.1

West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-27 4

Change the phrase "Secondary Highway standards" to "Avenue

standards" in the second program for Policy 7-1.1

West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-27 5

Change the phrase "major highway standards" to "boulevard

standards" in the second program for Policy 7-1.1 (bottom of

the page)

West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-28 1

Change the expression "Highways and Freeways Element" to


West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-28 2

Delete the phrase "major and secondary highways" in the

program for policy 7-2.2.

West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-28 3

Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" to

"arterials" in the text of policy 7-2.3.

West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-33 1

Replace "Bicycle Master Plan" with "Mobility Plan (2035)" in

the paragraph on "Bikeways" (point 1) in the section on

"Transportation Demand Management"



West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-33 2

In the same paragraph (as above), change the phrase "existing

bike routes" to "existing bike facilities"



West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-35 1

Replace "Citywide Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility Plan (2035)" in

the second paragraph on "Non-motorized Transportation".

West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-35 2

Change "major routes" to "major corridors" in the second

paragraph on Non-motorized Transportation.

West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-37 1

Change "Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes" to "Bicycle and

Pedestrian Facilities" in the text of Goal 11.

West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-37 2

Change "bicycle routes" to "bicycle facilities" in policies 11-1.1

and 11-1.2

West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-37 3

Change "Citywide Bicycle Plan" to "Mobility Plan (2035)" in the

program for Policy 11-1.1

West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-38 1

Change "Citywide Bicycle Plan" to "Mobility Plan (2035)" in the

programs for Policies 11-1.3 and 11-2.1

West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 3-38 2

Change "local bicycle routes" to "local bicycle facilities" in

Policy 11-1.4

West Adams-Baldwin

HillsP. 4-4 1

Change "bicycle routes" to "bicycle facilities" in the paragraph

on "Non-motorized Transportation"?

West Adams-Baldwin

HillsCirculation map 1




differentiate between Classes I, II and III as well). Also change

the designations of specific streets (to reflect those in Mobility

Plan).


Exhibit J - Amendments to Community Plans to Align with Mobility Plan Nomenclature

Community Plan Page # Comment # Comment

All Plans Circulation

System Maps

Update map showing circulation system to align streets

with new designations per mobility plan.


System Maps



System Maps

Update reference of 2010 Bicycle Plan to Mobility Plan

2035 in footnotes

Arleta-Pacoima P. 3-2 1 Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" to

"arterials" where the former appears on the page

Arleta-Pacoima P. 3-4 1 Change the phrase "highways and local streets" to

"arterials and local streets" (at the beginning of

"Circulation" section)

Arleta-Pacoima P. 3-4 2 Change "Highways and Freeways Element of the General

Plan" to "Mobility Plan, an element of the General Plan"

where the former appears in the "Circulation" section

and in the "Features" sub-section.

Arleta-Pacoima P. 3-4 3 Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" to

"arterials" wherever the former appears.

Arleta-Pacoima Circulation

Map

1 Change the terminology for street classifications to

reflect that specified in Mobility plan: i.e. "Major

Highway Class II" to "Boulevard II" and "Secondary

Highway" to "Avenue" (May differentiate between I, II

and III as well). Also change the designations of specific

streets (to reflect those in Mobility Plan).

Bel Air-Beverly Crest P. 3-6 1 Change the phrase "highways and local streets" to

"streets"at the beginning of the second paragraph.

Bel Air-Beverly Crest P. 3-6 2 In the second paragraph and in the "Features" section,

change "Highways and Freeways Element of the General

Plan" to "Mobility Plan, an element of the General Plan."

Bel Air-Beverly Crest P. 3-6 3 Change the term "Major Highways" to "Boulevards"

wherever the former mentioned

Bel Air-Beverly Crest P. 3-7 1 Sunset Boulevard now a "Avenue I" rather than a "Major

Highway" (as stated in the first sentence)

Bel Air-Beverly Crest P. 3-7 2 Replace the term "Major Highway standards" with

"Boulevard Standards" (in reference to Sepulveda

Boulevard in the first paragraph)

1


Bel Air-Beverly Crest Circulation

Map




Highway" to "Avenue" (May differentiate between

Avenues I, II and III as well). Also change the designations

of specific streets (to reflect those in Mobility Plan).

Boyle Heights P. 3-10 1 Change the phrase "highways and local streets" to

"streets" in point 2, under "Policies"

Boyle Heights P. 3-10 2 In the same sub-section, change "Highways and Freeways

Element of the General Plan" to "Mobility Plan, an

element of the General Plan".

Boyle Heights P. 3-11 1 Change the term "secondary highway" to "avenue"


Boyle Heights P. 3-11 2 Change the term "Major Highway" to "Boulevard,"


Boyle Heights P. 3-11 3 Under the mobility plan, Marengo Street is designated as

a local/collector, rather than a secondary highway (as the

Community Plan proposes), from Soto Avenue to the City

boundary. (navigate LA map, however, shows a

secondary highway designation, so already implemented

perhaps?)

Boyle Heights Circulation

Map






of specific streets (to reflect those in Mobility Plan) as

discussed above.

Brentwood-Pacific

Palisades

P. 3-21 1 Alter reference to "Bikeways Master Plan." (in 1.

Bikeways) Change term to Mobility Plan

Brentwood-Pacific

Palisades

P. 3-23 1 In regards to sentences on "Major Highways" and "Scenic

Major Highways," in the last paragraph on page: Wilshire

Blvd, Sepulveda Blvd and PCH are now "Boulevards II"

(Sepulveda and PCH are still scenic thoroughfares);

Palisades Drive, Temescal Canyon Road and Sunset

Boulevard are now "Avenues," as are San Vicente Blvd.,

Montana Avenue, Barrington Ave. and West Channel

Drive; finally, Mulholland Drive and Topanga Canyon

Road are no longer classified as "Avenues" or

"Boulevards" (but are "Scenic Highways" instead)

2


Brentwood-Pacific

Palisades

P. 3-24 1 Change "Highways and Freeways Element of

the General Plan" to "Mobility Plan, an element of the

General Plan" where the former appears in the second

paragraph.

Brentwood-Pacific

Palisades

P. 3-24 2 Change the phrase "streets and highways" in policy 13-

1.1 to "streets".

Brentwood-Pacific

Palisades

P. 3-24 3 Change the term "Major Highways" to "Boulevards" in

policy 13-1.1

Brentwood-Pacific

Palisades

P. 3-24 4 Change the term "secondary arterials" to "Avenues" in

the policy 13-1.1

Brentwood-Pacific

Palisades

P. 3-24 5 Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" to

"arterials" in the program for policy 13-1.1

Brentwood-Pacific

Palisades

P. 3-24 6 Change the term "Secondary Highway" to "Avenue" (in

discussion of Barrington's classification). Change "Major

Highway" to "Boulevard" (in regards to Wilshire's

classification). Both are in section on "Capital

Improvement Program."

Brentwood-Pacific

Palisades

P. 3-25 1 Change the term "Scenic Major Highway" (in policy 13-

1.4) to "Scenic Boulevard"

Brentwood-Pacific

Palisades

P. 3-25 2 Replace the reference to the "Citywide Bicycle Plan" with

a reference to "Mobility Plan 2035" in second paragraph

on Non-motorized Transportation

Brentwood-Pacific

Palisades

P. 3-25 3 Change the term "backbone and support routes" to

"bicycle networks" (re: "Bicycle"/"Mobility" Plan)

Brentwood-Pacific

Palisades

P. 3-25 4 Change "Bicycle, Pedestrian and Equestrian Routes" to

"Bicycle, Pedestrian and Equestrian Facilities" in Goal 14

Brentwood-Pacific PalisadesP. 3-26 1 Change the term "bicycle routes" to "bicycle facilities"

(and "routes" to "facilities") in policies 14-1.1 and 14-1.2

Brentwood-Pacific PalisadesP. 3-26 2 Replace reference to the "Citywide Bicycle Plan" with a

reference to the "Mobility Plan 2035" in Policy 14-1.1

Brentwood-Pacific

Palisades

P. 3-26 3 In regards to "bikeway routes" (Policy 14-1.2), no "Class I

Bike Lane" currently exists between Will Rogers Park and

the Santa Monica border (as asserted in Community

plan), nor is there any extant planned Bikeway along

Montana Ave.

3


Brentwood-Pacific

Palisades

Circulation

Map







discussed above.

Canoga Park-Woodland

Hills-West Hills-

Winnetka

P. 3-18 1 Replace "City Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility Plan (2035)" (in

sub-section 5 on TDM)


Hills-West Hills-

Winnetka

P. 3-19 1 Change the adjective phrase "major and secondary

highway" to "arterial" in program for policy 12-2.1


Hills-West Hills-

Winnetka


1.1 to "streets".


Hills-West Hills-

Winnetka

P. 3-19 3 Change "Major Highways" to "Boulevards" and

"Secondary Highways" to "Avenues" in policy 13-1.1


Hills-West Hills-

Winnetka

P. 3-19 4 Change the term "highway" in the phrase "highway or

collector street" (policy 13-1.1) to "arterial"


Hills-West Hills-

Winnetka


"arterials" where the former appears on the page


Hills-West Hills-

Winnetka

P. 3-21 1 Change the term "secondary highway" to "avenue"



Hills-West Hills-

Winnetka

P. 3-21 2 Change the term "Major Highway" (or "Super Major

Highway") to "Boulevard" where the former terms

appear


Hills-West Hills-

Winnetka

P.3-22 1 Delete the phrase "major and secondary highways" in

policy 13-2.2


Hills-West Hills-

Winnetka

P.3-22 2 Replace the term "City Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility Plan

(2035)" in first paragraph in section on Non-motorized

transporation


Hills-West Hills-

Winnetka


"Bicycle, Pedestrian and Equestrian Facilities" in Goal 14.


Hills-West Hills-

Winnetka

P. 3-22 4 Change "bicycle routes" to "bicycle facilities" (and

"routes" to "facilities") in policy 14-1.1


Hills-West Hills-

Winnetka

P.3-22 5 Replace "City's Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility Plan (2035)"

in the program for policy 14-1.1

4



Hills-West Hills-

Winnetka

P. 3-23 1 Change the phrase "Major and Secondary highways" to

"Arterials" in Policy 15-1.1


Hills-West Hills-

Winnetka

P. 4-3 1 Change the term "bicycle routes" to "bicycle facilities"

where the former appears (in paragraph on non-

motorized transport).


Hills-West Hills-

Winnetka

Circulation

Map







discussed above.

Central City Ps. 4-2 to 4-3 1 Discuss freeway improvements listed in policies 11-2.1

through 11-2.13 (though not mobility plan's

responsibility)

Central City Ps. 4-3 1 Amend policy 11-2.9, recommending that city "improve

traffic flow on arterial street systems (in Downtown)"

Central City P. 4-5 1 Re: "Key Arterial Corridor Improvements", Alameda

Street has not been improved to a "Major Highway"

(change to "Boulevard") status at any point, nor has

Olympic Blvd. been similarly upgraded in the Central City

area. Both are "Avenues I" in the Central City area.

Central City P. 4-5 2 Re: "Key Arterial Corridor Improvements", say "improve

Olympic Boulevard to its standards…" rather than

"improve Olympic Boulevard to major highway

standards..."

Central City P. 4-9 1 Change "Major Highway" to "Boulevard" and "Major

Highway Class II" to "Boulevard II" (re: Grand Avenue).

Note that the designation has only been made from

Temple to 4th street (rather than from Temple to 5th).

Central City Circulation

Map







discussed above.

Central City North P. 3-24 1 For point 8, in proposals for "bicycle routes and lanes,"

no lane has been implemented along "Sunset

Boulevard/Cesar Chavez Avenue"

5


Central City North P. 3-25 1 Delete references to the "Citywide Bicycle Plan" and

replace with references to the "Mobility Plan," both in

the first paragraph and in the programs for policies 13-

1.1 through 13-1.3.

Central City North P. 3-25 2 Change "bicycle route and support routes" to "bicycle

network" in the sentence about the "Citywide Bicycle

Plan"/"Mobility Plan" (in the first paragraph)

Central City North P. 3-25 3 Change "Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes" to "Bicycle and

Pedestrian Facilities" in Goal 13

Central City North P. 3-25 4 Change the term "bicycle routes" to "bicycle facilities"

(and the term "routes" to "facilities") in policies 13-1.1

through 13-1.3

Central City North P. 3-25 5 Change the phrase "major and secondary arterials" to

"arterials" in policy 13-1.2

Central City North P. 3-26 1 Delete the reference to the "Citywide Bicycle Plan" in the

program for policy 13-2.1, and replace with a reference

to the "Mobility Plan."

Central City North P. 3-28 1 In regards to "routes designated as major highways": the

entirety of Sunset Boulevard/Ceasar Chavez Avenue (in

the plan area) and portions of Vignes Avenue are now

"Boulevards" (the successor to the "Major Highway"

term), however First Street and Santa Fe Avenue are

"avenues" in the area of the plan.

Central City North P. 3-28 2 Change the expression "Highways and Freeways Element

of the General Plan" to "Mobility Plan, an element of the

General Plan", in the second paragraph under the

"Capital Improvements" section.

Central City North P. 3-28 3 Change the phrase "streets and highways" in Policy 16-

1.1 to "streets".

Central City North P. 3-28 4 Change the term "Major Highways" to "Boulevards" in

policy 16-1.1

Central City North P. 3-28 5 Change the term "Secondary Highways" to "Avenues" in

policy 16-1.1

Central City North P. 3-28 6 Change the term "highway" in the phrase "highway or


Central City North P. 3-28 7 Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" in

the program for policy 16-1.1 to "arterials"

6


Central City North Circulation

Map







discussed above.

Chatsworth-Porter

Ranch

P. 8 1 Change the phrase "Highways and local streets" to

"streets" (at the beginning of the "Circulation" section)

Chatsworth-Porter

Ranch

P. 8 2 Change the expression "Highways and Freeways Element


General Plan" where the former appears on the page.

Chatsworth-Porter

Ranch

P. 8 3 Change the phrase "Major and secondary highways" to

"arterials" where the former appears

Chatsworth-Porter

Ranch

P. 9 1 Change the term "Major Highways" to "Boulevards"


Chatsworth-Porter

Ranch

P. 9 2 Change the phrase "major highway intersections" to

"boulevard intersections" where the former appears

Chatsworth-Porter

Ranch

P. 9 3 Change the phrase "Major and Secondary Highways" to

"Arterials" wherever the former appears.

Chatsworth-Porter

Ranch

Circulation

Map







discussed above.

Encino-Tarzana P. 3-20 1 Replace the phrase "City Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility

Plan (2035)" where the former appears

Encino-Tarzana P. 3-21 1 Change the phrase "major and secondary highway

intersections" to "arterial intersections" in policy 12-1.1

Encino-Tarzana P. 3-22 1 Change the term "Major Highways" to "Boulevards" (in

section on "Highways and Streets")

Encino-Tarzana P. 3-22 2 Change the term "Secondary Highways" to "Avenues" (in

the same section)

7


Encino-Tarzana P. 3-22 3 Note that Woodley Avenue, Sepulveda Boulevard (south

of the 405) and Havenhurst Avenue are no longer "Major

Highways" (now Boulevards), as listed in this section, but

"Avenues"

Encino-Tarzana P. 3-23 1 Change the phrase "streets and highways" in policy 13-

1.1 to "streets".

Encino-Tarzana P. 3-23 2 Change the term "Major Highways" to "Boulevards

where it appears in policy 13-1.1

Encino-Tarzana P. 3-23 3 Change the term "Secondary Highways" to "Avenues" in

policy 13-1.1

Encino-Tarzana P. 3-23 4 Change the term "highway" in the phrase "highway or


Encino-Tarzana P. 3-23 5 Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" to


Encino-Tarzana P. 3-23 6 Change the phrase "secondary highway standards" to

"avenue standards" where former appears (in regards to

"Oxnard Street")

Encino-Tarzana P. 3-23 7 Change the phrase "major highway standards" to

"boulevard standards" wherever the former appears (in

regards to White Oak Avenue)

Encino-Tarzana P. 3-24 1 Delete the phrase "major and secondary highways" in

policy 13-2.2

Encino-Tarzana P. 3-24 2 Replace "Citywide Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility Plan

(2035)" (in first paragraph on Non-motorized

Transportation)

Encino-Tarzana P. 3-24 3 Change "Bicycle, Pedestrian and Equestrian Routes" to

"Bicycle, Pedestrian and Equestrian Facilities" in the text

of Goal 14.

Encino-Tarzana P. 3-25 1 Change "bicycle routes" (and "routes") to "bicycle

facilities" (and "facilities") in policy 14-1.1

Encino-Tarzana P. 3-25 2 Replace "City's Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility Plan (2035)"

in the program for policy 14-1.1

Encino-Tarzana P. 3-25 3 Replace "Citywide Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility Plan

(2035)" in program for policy 14-1.2

Encino-Tarzana P. 3-25 4 Change the phrase "Major and Secondary highways" to

"Arterials" in Policy 15-1.1

Encino-Tarzana P. 4-3 1 Change term "bicycle routes" to "Bicycle facilities" where

former appears.

8


Encino-Tarzana Circulation

Map







discussed above.

Harbor Gateway P. 3-1 1 Change the phrase "Major and Secondary Highways" to




Harbor Gateway P. 3-4 1 Change the expression "Highways and Freeways Element


General Plan" where the former appears on the page.



Harbor Gateway P. 3-4 2 Change the phrase "abutting highways and streets"

(toward the end of the third paragraph) to "abutting

arterials and streets"

Harbor Gateway Circulation

Map





Avenues I, II and III as well).

Hollywood 4 1 Shorten the phrase "Highways and local streets" to

"streets" where the former appears at the beginning of

the "Standards and Criteria" section.

Hollywood 4 2 Change the expression"Highways and Freeways Element

of the General plan," where it appears at the beginning

of the "Standards and Criteria" and "Features" sections,

to "Mobility Plan, an element of the General Plan".

Hollywood 4 3 Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" to

"arterials" wherever the former appears in the

"Standards and Criteria" and "Features" sections.

Mission Hills-Panorama

City-North Hills

P. 3-21 1 Change "major and secondary intersections" to "arterial

intersections" in the second program for policy 12-1.1

9



City-North Hills


the section on "freeways, highways and streets"


City-North Hills

P. 3-21 3 Change the term "Secondary Highways" to "Avenues" in

the same section (to which comment 3 pertained)


City-North Hills

P. 3-21 4 Note that Rinaldi, Woodman, Woodley and Devonshire

are not classified as "Boulevards" ("Major Highways")

under the M.P. but as "Avenues."


City-North Hills

P. 3-21 5 Note that Haskell Avenue, Chatsworth Drive, Terra Bella

Street and Branford Street are also classified as

"Avenues" within the community plan area.


City-North Hills

P. 3-21 6 Change "Highways and Freeways Element of the General

plan" in the next-to-last paragraph to "Mobility Plan, an



City-North Hills


1.1 to "streets".


City-North Hills


policy 13-1.1


City-North Hills


policy 13-1.1


City-North Hills




City-North Hills




City-North Hills

P. 3-23 1 Change the expression "Highways and Freeways Element


General Plan" in Policy 13-1.2


City-North Hills

P. 3-23 2 Change "Highways and Freeways Element" to "Mobility

Plan" in the program for Policy 13-1.2


City-North Hills

P. 3-24 1 Delete the phrase "major and secondary highways" in

policy 13-2.2.


City-North Hills

P. 3-24 2 Replace "Citywide Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility Plan

(2035)" in the paragraph on "non-motorized

transportation"


City-North Hills

P. 3-24 3 Change the phrase "backbone bicycle route" to

"backbone bicycle network" in sentence on the Mobility

Plan ("Citywide Bicycle Plan")

10



City-North Hills

P. 3-24 4 Change "Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes" to "Bicycle and



City-North Hills

P. 3-24 5 Change the term "bicycle routes" to "bicycle facilities" in

policies 14-1.1 and 14-1.2


City-North Hills

P. 3-24 6 Change the phrase "major and secondary arterials" to



City-North Hills

P. 3-24 7 Replace "City Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility Plan (2035)" (in

program for policy 14-1.1)


City-North Hills

P. 3-24 8 Change the phrase "Bikeway Plan in the Bikeway Five

Year Program and 20-year plan" to "Bicycle Network in

the Mobility Plan" in the program for policy 14-1.2


City-North Hills

p. 3-25 1 Change the term "bicycle routes" to "bicycle facilities"

(and "routes" to "facilities") in policy 14-1.3


City-North Hills

p. 3-25 2 Replace "Citywide Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility Plan

(2035)" in the program for policy 14-2.1


City-North Hills



motorized transport)?


City-North Hills


"arterials" where the former appears (point 2)


City-North Hills

Circulation

Map







discussed above.

North Hollywood P. 3-4 1 Change the phrase "Highways and local streets" to

"streets" (at the beginning of the "Circulation" section)

North Hollywood P. 3-4 2 Change "Highways and Freeways Element of the (Los

Angeles) General Plan" in the Circulation section and in

the "Features" sub-section to "Mobility Plan, an element

of the (Los Angeles) General Plan."

North Hollywood P. 3-4 3 Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" to

"arterials" in the "Features" sub-section.

11


North Hollywood P. 3-5 1 Change the term "secondary highway" to "avenue"


North Hollywood Circulation

Map







discussed above.

Northeast Los Angeles P. 3-23 1 Change the term "Major Highways" to "Boulevards" in

the sub-section on "Freeways, Highways and Streets"

Northeast Los Angeles P. 3-23 2 In same paragraph (that comment 1 applied to), note

that Main Street, Soto Street, Valley Boulevard, Figueroa

Street and Glendale Blvd are not classified as

"Boulevards" (as a successor to term "Major Highway"),

but "Avenues." In contrast, Eagle Rock Blvd and Mission

Road are designated as "boulevards," within the plan

area.

Northeast Los Angeles P. 3-23 3 Change the expression "Highways and Freeways Element


General Plan" in the "Freeways, Highways and Streets"

sub-section.

Northeast Los Angeles P. 3-24 1 Replace "Citywide Bicycle Plan" (and "Bicycle Plan"-once

actually adopted by council) with "Mobility Plan (2035)"

in the section on "Non-Motorized Transportation".

Northeast Los Angeles P. 3-24 2 Change the phrase "backbone and support routes" to

"backbone and support facilities" in the same paragraph

as referred to by comment 1.

Northeast Los Angeles P. 3-26 1 Change "Major Highway (s)" to "Boulevard(s)" wherever

the former term appears

Northeast Los Angeles P. 3-26 2 Change the terms "secondary highway(s)" or "secondary

arterials" (policy 10-1.1) to "avenue(s)" wherever the

former two terms appear

Northeast Los Angeles P. 3-26 3 Change the phrase "streets and highways" in policy 10-

1.1 to "streets".

Northeast Los Angeles P. 3-26 4 Change "major and secondary highways" to "arterials"

where the former phrase appears

Northeast Los Angeles P. 3-29 1 Change "Bicycle, Pedestrian and Equestrian Routes" to


of Goal 13.

Northeast Los Angeles P. 3-29 2 Change the term "bicycle routes" to "bicycle facilities"

and the term "routes" to "facilities" in policy 13-1.1

12


Northeast Los Angeles P. 3-29 3 Change "Citywide Bicycle Plan" to "Mobility Plan (2035)"

where the former appears in the programs for policies 13-

1.1 and 13-1.2

Northeast Los Angeles Circulation

Map







discussed above.

Northridge P. 3-23 1 Replace the term "Major Highways" with "Boulevards"

where the former appears

Northridge P. 3-23 2 Replace the term "Secondary Highways" with "Avenues"


Northridge P. 3-23 3 Note that Devonshire Avenue is no longer classified as a

"Major Highway" (now "Boulevard"), as listed in the first

paragraph, but rather as a Avenue I

Northridge P. 3-23 4 Include Devonshire on the list of "Secondary Highways"

(now "Avenues") in the first paragraph.

Northridge P. 3-23 5 Change the phrase "Highways and Freeways Element of

the General plan" to "Mobility Plan, an element of the

General Plan" in the second paragraph.

Northridge P. 3-23 6 Change the phrase "streets and highways" in policy 13-

1.1 to "streets".

Northridge P. 3-23 7 Change the term "highway" in the phrase "highway or


Northridge P. 3-23 8 Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" to


Northridge P. 3-23 9 Change the term "major highway" to "boulevard where

the former is used in regards to White Oak Avenue (see

the last "Program" on the page)

Northridge P. 3-24 1 Replace the term "major highway" with "boulevard"

where the former appears (under "proposed street

widenings")

Northridge P. 3-24 2 Replace the term "Secondary Highway" with "Avenue"

where the former appears (in "street widenings" and

"Proposed street extensions" sections)

Northridge P. 3-25 1 Change the phrase "Highways and Freeways Element of


General Plan" in Policy 13-1.2.

13


Northridge P. 3-25 2 Change "Highways and Freeways Element" to "Mobility

Plan" in the program for Policy 13-1.2

Northridge P. 3-26 1 Delete the phrase "major and secondary highways" in

policy 13-2.2

Northridge P. 3-26 2 Replace the phrase "Citywide Bikeway Plan" with

"Mobility Plan (2035)" (in next-to-last paragraph on

page)

Northridge P. 3-26 3 Replace the term "bicycle route" with "bicycle network"

only in the sentence on the "Citywide Bikeway Plan"

("Mobility plan") in the next-to-last paragraph

Northridge P. 3-26 4 Change "Bicycle, Pedestrian and Equestrian Routes" to


of Goal 14.

Northridge P. 3-27 1 Change the term "bicycle routes" (or "routes") to "bicycle

facilities" (or "facilities") in policies 14-1.1 through 14-1.3

Northridge P. 3-27 2 Replace the phrase "Citywide Bikeway Plan" with

"Mobility Plan (2035)" in the programs for policies 14-1.1

and 14-1.2

Northridge P. 3-27 3 Change the phrase "major and secondary arterials" to


Northridge P. 4-4 1 Change the term "bicycle routes" to "bicycle facilities"



Northridge P. 5-1 1 Change the phrase "major or secondary highways" to

"arterials" where the former appears (i.e. next-to-last

sentence).

Northridge Circulation

Map







discussed above.

Palms-Mar Vista-Del

Rey

P. 3-17 1 Change reference to "Citywide Bicycle Plan" and replace

with reference to the "Mobility Plan 2035".

Palms-Mar Vista-Del

Rey



Palms-Mar Vista-Del

Rey

P. 3-18 1 In programs for policies 12-1.1, 12-1.2, 12-1.3 and 12-

2.1, replace references to the "Citywide Bicycle Plan"

with refs. to "Mobility Plan 2035."

14


Palms-Mar Vista-Del

Rey


policies 12-1.1, 12-1.2 and 12-1.3. Change the term

"routes" to "facilities" in Policy 12-1.3.

Palms-Mar Vista-Del

Rey



Palms-Mar Vista-Del

Rey


"arterials" in the section on Residential Neighrborhood

Protection Plans.

Palms-Mar Vista-Del

Rey

P. 3-21 1 Change the term "Major Highways" to "Boulevards,"

wherever the former appears in the last two paragraphs.

Palms-Mar Vista-Del

Rey

P. 3-21 2 Note that Pico Bl., Culver Bl. and Bundy Drive/Centinela

Ave. are no longer "Major Highways" (or Boulevards) but

"Avenues I" within the area of the plan.

Palms-Mar Vista-Del

Rey

P. 3-22 1 Change the phrase "streets and highways" in Policy 16-

1.1 to "streets".

Palms-Mar Vista-Del

Rey


Policy 16-1.1

Palms-Mar Vista-Del

Rey

P. 3-22 3 Change the term "Secondary highways" to "Avenues" in

Policy 16-1.1

Palms-Mar Vista-Del

Rey



Palms-Mar Vista-Del

Rey

P. 3-22 5 Change the phrase "major arterial standards" to

"boulevard standards" where the former appears in

section on "proposed street widenings"

Palms-Mar Vista-Del

Rey

P. 3-23 1 Change the phrase "secondary arterial standards" to

"avenue standards" in the paragraph on National

Boulevard

Palms-Mar Vista-Del

Rey

P. 3-24 1 Change the expression "Highways and Freeways Element



Palms-Mar Vista-Del

Rey

P. 3-24 2 Change the phrase "Highways and Freeways Element" to

"Mobility Plan" in the program of Policy 16-1.2

Palms-Mar Vista-Del

Rey

Circulation

Map







discussed above.

15


Palms-Mar Vista-Del

Rey

P. A2 1 Make revisions to proposals for widening Lincoln

Boulevard near the Culver bridge and for contructing a

new bridge over Ballona Creek to be consistent with

newer reduced emphasis on street widening and changes

on the ground

Reseda-West Van Nuys P. 3-2 1 Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" to

"arterials" where former appears

Reseda-West Van Nuys P. 3-21 1 Replace the phrase "City's Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility

Plan (2035)" where former appears

Reseda-West Van Nuys P. 3-22 1 Change the phrase "major and secondary highway" to

"arterial" in the program for policy 12-1.1

Reseda-West Van Nuys P. 3-23 1 Change the term "Major Highways" (in first paragraph) to

"Boulevards"

Reseda-West Van Nuys P. 3-23 2 Change the term "divided major" to "divided boulevard"

(re: Sherman Way)

Reseda-West Van Nuys P. 3-23 3 Change the phrase "streets and highways" in policy 13-

1.1 to "streets".

Reseda-West Van Nuys P. 3-23 4 Replace the terms "Major Highways" and "Secondary

Highways" with terms "Boulevards" and "Avenues"

(respectively) in policy 13-1.1

Reseda-West Van Nuys P. 3-23 5 Change the term "highway" in the phrase "highway or




Reseda-West Van Nuys P. 3-23 7 Change "4-lane secondary highway" to "4-lane avenue"

in the proposal for Saticoy Street (final paragraph).

Reseda-West Van Nuys P. 3-24 1 Change the phrase "major highway standard" to

"boulevard standard" wherever the former appears.



Reseda-West Van Nuys P. 3-25 2 Replace the phrase "Citywide Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility

Plan (2035)" where the former appears

Reseda-West Van Nuys P. 3-25 3 Change "Bicycle, Pedestrian and Equestrian Routes" to


of Goal 14.

Reseda-West Van Nuys P. 3-26 1 Change the term "bicycle routes" (or "routes") to "bicycle

facilities" (or "facilities") in policies 14-1.1 through 14-1.3


Plan (2035)" where the former appears in policy 14-1.1

16


Reseda-West Van Nuys P. 3-26 3 Change the phrase "major and secondary arterials" to


Reseda-West Van Nuys P. 3-26 4 Change the expression "Bikeway Plan in the Bikeway 5-

year program and the 20-year plan" to "Bicycle Network

in the Mobility Plan"


Plan (2035)" where the former appears in the program

for policy 14-2.1

Reseda-West Van Nuys P. 4-4 1 Change the term "bicycle routes" to "bicycle facilities"





Reseda-West Van Nuys Circulation

Map







discussed above.

Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake

P. 3-16 1 Change the term "Major Highways" to "Boulevards"

where it appears. Note that Woodman, Barham and

Laurel Canyon are no longer classified as "Boulevards"

("Major Highways") but "Avenues".

Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake

P. 3-17 1 Change the term "Major Highways" to "Boulevards" at

the beginning of the page. Note that Riverside Drive no

longer a "Boulevard" (or "Major Highway") but an

"Avenue (III)"

Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake

P. 3-17 2 Change the term "Secondary Highways" to "Avenues",

wherever the former appears in the first paragraph.

Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake

P. 3-17 3 Change the phrase "Highways and Freeways Element of


General Plan" in the second paragraph

Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake

P. 3-20 1 In the program for policy 12-1.1, change "major and

secondary intersections" to "arterial intersections."

Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake

P. 3-20 2 In the program for policy 12-1.2, change the phrase

"Highways and Freeways Element of the General plan" to

"Mobility Plan, an element of the General Plan".

17


Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake


1.1 to "streets".

Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake


policy 13-1.1

Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake


policy 13-1.1

Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake



Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake



Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake

P. 3-21 6 Change the term "Secondary Highway" to "Avenue"

wherever the former appears in the program.

Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake

P. 3-21 7 Change the term "Major Highway" to "Boulevard,"

wherever the former appears in the program.

Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake


the General plan" in Policy 13-1.2 to "Mobility Plan, an


Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake

P. 3-22 2 Change the phrase "Highways and Freeways Element" in

the program of Policy 13-1.2 to "Mobility Plan"

Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake

P. 3-23 1 Delete the term "major and secondary highways" in

policy 13-2.2

Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake


one to "Mobility Plan (2035)" in the intro paragraph on

"Non-motorized Transportation"

Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake

P. 3-23 3 Replace the phrase "backbone bicycle route" with

"backbone bicycle network" in the sentence discussing

the "Citywide Bicycle Plan" (see Comment 2)

Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake



of Goal 14.

Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake

P. 3-23 5 Replace "bicycle routes" (or "routes") with "bicycle

facilities" (or "facilities") in policy 14-1.1

18


Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake

P. 3-23 6 Change the phrase "City's Bicycle Plan" to "Mobility Plan

(2035)" in program for Policy 14-1.1. Note that the

mobility plan also designates bikeways along Van Nuys,

Lankershim and Vineland (the last has already been

implemented).

Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake

P. 3-24 1 Change the term "major and secondary highways" to


Sherman Oaks-Studio

City-Toluca Lake

Circulation

Map







discussed above.

Silver Lake-Echo Park-

Elysian Valley

P. 3-38 1 In first "Program" for policy 4-1.4, change "modified

secondary highway" to "Avenue (II)" in discussing

proposal for Silver Lake Blvd.


Elysian Valley

P. 3-47 1 Replace reference to the "City Bicycle Plan" with

reference to "Mobility Plan (2035)" in last sentence on

the page (point 5)


Elysian Valley


1.1 to "streets".


Elysian Valley


policy 13-1.1 and in the program for policy 12-1.1.


Elysian Valley


policy 13-1.1


Elysian Valley




Elysian Valley

P. 3-50 1 State that Silver Lake Blvd has been redesignated from a

"Secondary Highway" to a "Avenue II" (rather than to a

"Modified Secondary Highway") in the sentence on Silver

Lake Blvd.


Elysian Valley

P. 3-50 2 State that Beaudry has been redesignated from a

"Secondary Highway" to "Avenue II" (rather than to a

"Major Highway Class II") in the sentence on Beaudry.

19



Elysian Valley

P. 3-51 (Figure

7)






of specific streets as discussed above.


Elysian Valley

P. 3-55 1 Replace reference to the "Citywide Bicycle Plan" with ref.

to the Mobility Plan in first paragraph on non-motorized

transportation


Elysian Valley



of Goal 14.


Elysian Valley

P. 3-55 3 Change the word "routes" to "facilities" in Policy 14-1.1


Elysian Valley

P. 3-55 4 Change reference to the "City's Bicycle Plan" as done

above in the program for policy 14-1.1


Elysian Valley

P. 3-56 1 Note that Riverside Drive from Glendale to Figueroa

designated (under M.P.) a "Class II Bike Lane" and not a

"Class III signed Bike Route" (as the Community Plan

proposes-see point 4)


Elysian Valley

P. 3-58 1 Change "Major and Secondary Highways" to "arterials" in

policy 15-1.2


Elysian Valley

P. 5-2 1 Change "Major and Secondary Highways" to "Arterials"

(in point 3)


Elysian Valley


(in point 8)


Elysian Valley

Circulation

Map







discussed above.

South Los Angeles P. 3-8 1 Change "major streets and highways" to "major streets"

in policy 2-2.1

South Los Angeles P. 3-24 1 Change the expression "Highways and Freeways Element


General Plan" in the second paragraph of the "Freeways,

Highways and Streets" sub-section.

South Los Angeles P. 3-25 1 Change "Secondary arterials" to "Avenues" in Policy 11-

1.1

South Los Angeles P. 3-25 2 Change the phrase "streets and highways" to "streets" in

policy 11-1.1

20


South Los Angeles P. 3-25 3 Change "Major Highways" to "Boulevards" in policy 11-

1.1

South Los Angeles P. 3-25 4 Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" to

"arterials" in the program for Policy 11-1.1

South Los Angeles P. 3-25 5 Change the expression "Highways and Freeways Element


General Plan" in policy 11-1.3.

South Los Angeles P. 3-25 6 Change the phrase "Highways and Freeways Element" to

"Mobility Plan" in the programs for policies 11-1.3 and 11-

1.4

South Los Angeles P. 3-26 1 Delete the phrase "major and secondary highways" in

policy 11-2.3

South Los Angeles P. 3-26 2 Change the phrase "Highways and Freeways Element" to

"Mobility Plan" in the second program for policy 11-2.3

South Los Angeles P. 3-32 1 Change "Bikeways Master Plan" to "Mobility Plan (2035)"

in the first sentence of the section on "Bikeways" (point

1)

South Los Angeles P. 3-35 1 Change "Citywide Bicycle Plan" to "Mobility Plan (2035)"

where the former appears in the second paragraph on

"Non-Motorized Transportation".

South Los Angeles P. 3-35 2 Change "major routes" to "major corridors", "local

routes" to "local corridors" and "support bikeway routes"

to "support bikeway facilities" in the second paragraph

on Non-motorized Transportation.

South Los Angeles P. 3-35 3 Change "Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes" to "Bicycle and


South Los Angeles P. 3-35 4 Change "bicycle routes" to "bicycle facilities" in policies

16-1.1 and 16-1.2

South Los Angeles P. 3-36 1 Replace "Citywide Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility Plan

(2035)" where the former appears in the programs for

policies 16-1.2, 16-1.4 and 16-2.1

South Los Angeles P. 3-36 2 Change "bicycle routes" to "bicycle facilities" where the

former appears in policies 16-1.3 and 16-1.5

South Los Angeles P. 4-4 1 Change "bicycle routes" to "bicycle facilities" in the

paragraph on "Non-motorized Transportation"?

South Los Angeles P. 5-6 1 Change "major highways" to "boulevards" in section on

"entryway improvements" (point 2)

South Los Angeles P. 5-7 1 Change "major and secondary corridors" to "arterial

corridors" under point 3 ("Streetscape")

21


South Los Angeles Circulation

map





Classes I, II and III as well).

Southeast Los Angeles P. 3-24 1 Change the expression "Highways and Freeways Element


General Plan" in the third paragraph in the "Highways,

Freeways and Streets" section.

Southeast Los Angeles P. 3-24 2 Change the phrase "streets and highways" to "streets" in

policy 10-1.1

Southeast Los Angeles P. 3-24 3 Change the term "Secondary arterials" in policy 10-1.1 to

"avenues"

Southeast Los Angeles P. 3-24 4 Change the term "Major Highways" to "Boulevards."

(where the former appears in policy 10-1.1).

Southeast Los Angeles P. 3-24 5 Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" to

"arterials", where the former appears in the program for

policy 10-1.1

Southeast Los Angeles P. 3-25 1 Change the expression "Highways and Freeways Element


General Plan" in the text of Policy 10-1.3

Southeast Los Angeles P. 3-25 2 Change the phrase "Highways and Freeways Element" to

"Mobility Plan" in the programs for policies 10-1.3 and 10-

1.4

Southeast Los Angeles P. 3-26 1 Delete the phrase "major and secondary highways" in

Policy 10-2.3

Southeast Los Angeles P. 3-26 2 Change the phrase "Highways and Freeways Element" to


Southeast Los Angeles P. 3-32 1 Replace "Bikeways Ma(s)ter Plan" with "Mobility Plan

(2035)" in the sentence on "Bikeways" (point 1)

Southeast Los Angeles P. 3-35 1 Replace "Citywide Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility Plan

(2035)" in the second paragraph on "Non-motorized

Transportation" and in the program for Policy 15-1.1

Southeast Los Angeles P. 3-35 2 Change "major routes" to "major corridors", "local

routes" to "local corridors" and "support Bikeway routes"

to "support Bikeway facilities" in the second paragraph

on Non-motorized Transportation.

Southeast Los Angeles P. 3-35 3 Change "Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes" to "Bicycle and

Pedestrian Facilities" in the text of Goal 15

22


Southeast Los Angeles P. 3-35 4 Change the term "bicycle routes" to "bicycle facilities" in

Policies 15-1.1 and 15-1.2

Southeast Los Angeles P. 3-35 5 Change the phrase "major and secondary arterials" to


Southeast Los Angeles P. 3-36 1 Change the term "bicycle routes" (or "routes") to "bicycle

facilities" (or "facilities") in Policy 15-1.4

Southeast Los Angeles P. 3-36 2 Replace "Citywide Bicycle….Plan" with "Mobility…Plan

(2035)" in the program for Policy 15-1.4

Southeast Los Angeles P. 3-36 3 Change "Citywide Bicycle Plan" to "Mobility Plan (2035)"

in the program for Policy 15-2.1

Southeast Los Angeles P. 4-4 1 Change "bicycle routes" to "bicycle facilities" in the

paragraph on "Non-motorized Transportation"?

Southeast Los Angeles P. 5-6 1 Change "major highways" to "boulevards" in sub-section

2 under "entryway improvements

Southeast Los Angeles P. 5-7 1 Change "major and secondary corridors" to "arterial

corridors" under point 3 ("Streetscape")

Southeast Los Angeles Circulation

map





Classes I, II and III as well).

Sun Valley-La Tuna

Canyon


(2035)" (point "5. bikeways")

Sun Valley-La Tuna

Canyon

P. 3-22 1 Change "major highways" to "boulevards" and

"secondary highways" to "avenues" where the former

terms appear in the section on TSM.

Sun Valley-La Tuna

Canyon

P. 3-23 1 Change the phrase "streets and highways" to "streets" in

Policy 13-1.1.

Sun Valley-La Tuna

Canyon


policy 13-1.1

Sun Valley-La Tuna

Canyon

P. 3-23 3 Change the term"Secondary Highways" to "Avenues" in

policy 13-1.1

Sun Valley-La Tuna

Canyon



Sun Valley-La Tuna

Canyon



Sun Valley-La Tuna

Canyon



Sun Valley-La Tuna

Canyon


(2035)" in the first paragraph on non-motorized

transportation and in the programs for policies 15-1.1

and 15-1.2

23


Sun Valley-La Tuna

Canyon



of Goal 15.

Sun Valley-La Tuna

Canyon



Sun Valley-La Tuna

Canyon


policies 15-1.1 and 15-1.2

Sun Valley-La Tuna

Canyon


policy 15-1.3

Sun Valley-La Tuna

Canyon

P. 3-28 2 Replace "City's Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility Plan (2035)"


Sun Valley-La Tuna

Canyon


the paragraph on non-motorized transportation?

Sun Valley-La Tuna

Canyon


"arterials" near where it appears on the top of the page.

Sun Valley-La Tuna

Canyon

Circulation

Map







discussed above.

Sunland-Tujunga P. 3-13 1 Note that Stonehurst Avenue, the Foothill Freeway and

Lopez Canyon Road are no longer designated scenic

highways

Sunland-Tujunga P. 3-21 1 Change the term "Major Highways" to "Boulevards" in

the last paragraph on the page.

Sunland-Tujunga P. 3-21 2 Note that of the streets listed as being "Major Highways"

(now "Boulevards") in the plan area, only a small portion

of Van Nuys Blvd. is classified as such in the M.P. The rest

of the streets are now classified as "Avenues."

Sunland-Tujunga P. 3-21 3 Change the term "Secondary Highways" to "Avenues"

where it appears in the same paragraph

Sunland-Tujunga Pps. 3-21 to 3-

22

1 Note that Big Tujunga Canyon Road is no longer classified

as an "Avenue" ("Secondary Highway") under the

Mobility Plan

Sunland-Tujunga P. 3-22 1 Change the phrase "Highways and Freeways Element of

the General Plan" (second paragraph) to "Mobility Plan,

an element of the General Plan".

Sunland-Tujunga P. 3-22 2 Change the phrase "streets and highways" in policy 13-

1.1 to "streets".

24


Sunland-Tujunga P. 3-22 3 Change the term "Major Highways" to "Boulevards in

policy 13-1.1

Sunland-Tujunga P. 3-22 4 Change the term "Secondary Highways" to "Avenues" in

policy 13-1.1

Sunland-Tujunga P. 3-22 5 Change the term "highway" in the phrase "highway or


Sunland-Tujunga P. 3-22 6 Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" to


Sunland-Tujunga Pps. 3-22 to 3-

23

1 Change the phrase "Highways and Freeways Element of

the General Plan" to "Mobility Plan, an element of the


Sunland-Tujunga P. 3-23 1 Change the phrase "Highways and Freeways Element" in

the program of Policy 13-1.2 (top) to "Mobility Plan"

Sunland-Tujunga P. 3-23 2 Delete the phrase "major and secondary highways" in

policy 13-2.2

Sunland-Tujunga P. 3-23 3 Replace "Citywide Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility Plan

(2035)" in the paragraph on "non-motorized

transportation"

Sunland-Tujunga P. 3-23 4 Replace "backbone bicycle route" with "backbone bicycle

network" (in the sentence discussing the "Bicycle Plan"

(i.e. the Mobility Plan))

Sunland-Tujunga P. 3-24 1 Change "Bicycle, Pedestrian and Equestrian Routes" to


of Goal 14.

Sunland-Tujunga P. 3-24 2 Change the term "bicycle routes" or "routes" to "bicycle

facilities" or "facilities" in policies 14-1.1 through 14-1.3

Sunland-Tujunga P. 3-24 3 Replace "Citywide Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility Plan

(2035)" in the program for policies 14-1.1 and 14-1.2

Sunland-Tujunga P. 3-24 4 Change the phrase "major and secondary arterials" to


Sunland-Tujunga P. 4-3 1 Change "bicycle routes" to "bicycle facilities" in the

paragraph on "non-motorized transportation"?

Sunland-Tujunga P. 5-2 1 Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" to

"arterials" where the former appears (e.g. "site planning"

section)

Sunland-Tujunga P. 5-8 1 Note once again that Lopez Canyon Road, Stonehurst

Avenue and the Foothill Freeway are no longer

designated as "Scenic Highways" under the Mobility plan

25


Sunland-Tujunga Circulation

Map







discussed above.

Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks


"arterials" in second paragraph

Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks

P. 3-22 1 Change the phrase "major and secondary intersections"

to "arterial intersections" in the second program for

Policy 13-1.1.

Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks

P. 3-22 2 Change the term "Major Highway(s)" to "Boulevard(s)"

where the former appears.

Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks

P. 3-22 3 Note that Woodley Avenue, Woodman Avenue and

Riverside Drive are no longer "Major Highways" (now

Boulevards) but "Avenues"

Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks

P. 3-22 4 Change the term "Secondary Highways" to "Avenues"


Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks

P. 3-22 5 Note that Saticoy Street and Valjean Street are also

"Avenues" (within the Comm. plan area) according to the

mobility plan.

Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks

P. 3-23 1 Change the phrase "streets and highways" to "streets" in

Policy 13-1.1.

Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks

P. 3-23 2 Change the term "Major Highways" to "Boulevards"

where the former appears (in policy 14-1.1)

Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks

P. 3-23 3 Change the term "Secondary Highways" to "Avenues"

where the former appears (in policy 14-1.1)

Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks



Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks



Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks

P. 3-24 1 Change "Secondary Highway" to "Avenue" where the

former appears in the page (i.e. in regards to Saticoy

Street)

Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks


the General Plan" in Policy 14-1.2 to "Mobility Plan, an

element of the General Plan"

Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks

P. 3-25 1 Change the phrase "Highways and Freeways Element" to

"Mobility Plan" in the program of Policy 14-1.2 (top of

the page)

26


Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks



Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks

P. 3-25 3 Replace the term "Citywide Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility

Plan (2035)" in last paragraph on the page

Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks

P. 3-25 4 Change the term "backbone bicycle route" to "backbone

bicycle network" (only in reference to the "Citywide

Bicycle Plan") in last paragraph on the page

Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks



Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks

P. 3-26 2 Change the term "bicycle routes" to "bicycle networks"

(or "networks") in policies 15-1.1 through 15-1.3

Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks

P. 3-26 3 Replace the term "Citywide Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility

Plan (2035)" in policy 15-1.1

Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks



Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks

P. 3-26 5 Change the phrase "Bicycle Plan in the Bikeway 5-year

program" to "Bicycle Network in the Mobility Plan" in the

program for policy 15-1.2

Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks

P. 3-27 1 Change the term "Citywide Bicycle Plan" to "Mobility

Plan (2035)" in Policy 15-2.1

Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks


the paragraph on non-motorized transportation?

Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks


"arterials" where former appears

Van Nuys-North

Sherman Oaks

Circulation

Map







discussed above.

Venice P. 3-23 1 Take out reference to "Bicycle Plan" in paragraph on

Bikeways: replace with reference to the Mobility Plan.

Venice P. 3-24 1 Replace reference to "Citywide Bicycle Plan" in

Paragraph on "Non-motorized transportation" with one

to 2035 Mobility Plan.

Venice P. 3-24 2 Change "Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes" to "Bicycle and


27


Venice P. 3-24 3 Replace the term "bicycle routes" with "bicycle facilities"

in policies 12-1.1

Venice P. 3-25 1 Change the phrase "major and secondary arterials" to


Venice P. 3-25 2 Replace the term "bicycle routes" with "bicycle facilities"

in policies 12-1.2 and 12-1.3 and change "routes" to

"facilities" in policy 12-1.3

Venice P. 3-25 3 Change the reference to "Citywide Bicycle Plan" in the

program for policy 12-1.3. Replace with one to "2035

Mobility Plan".

Venice P. 3-27 1 Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" to

"arterials" (in the first paragraph on the "Residential

Neighborhood Protection Plan")

Venice P. 3-29 1 Change "Major Highways Class I and II" to "Boulevards I

and II" in sentence regarding Lincoln, Washington and

Venice Boulevards

Venice P. 3-29 2 Change "Secondary Highways" to "Avenues II" (in

sentence re: Main Street, Via Dolce and Venice Way )

Venice P. 3-29 3 Change "modified secondary highway" to "Avenue II" (in

sentence re: Pacific Avenue)

Venice P. 3-29 4 Change "secondary highway" and "modified secondary

highway" to "Avenue III" (in sentence re: Abbot Kinney

Boulevard)

Venice P. 3-29 5 Change references to "major and secondary highways"

(in third paragraph) to "arterials"

Venice P. 3-29 6 Change the phrase "streets and highways" in Policy 16-

1.1 to "streets".

Venice P. 3-29 7 Change the term "major highways" in policy 16-1.1 to

"boulevards" and change the term "secondary highways"

(in the same policy) to "avenues"

Venice P. 3-29 8 Change the phrase "highway or collector street" in policy

16-1.1 to "arterial or collector street"

Venice P. 3-29 9 Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" in

the program for policy 16-1.1 to "arterials"

Venice P. 3-31 1 Change "Secondary highways" to "Avenues" and

"Modified Secondary Highways" to "modified avenues"


Venice P. 5-2 1 Change "major or secondary highways" to "arterials"

Venice P. B-1 1 Edit two improvements for Lincoln Blvd., insofar as these

do not mention LRT or Bike Lane proposals

28


Venice Circulation

Map







discussed above.

West Los Angeles P. 3-21 1 Alter the reference to the "Citywide Bicycle Plan" (in

sentence "6. Bikeways") and replace with ref. to

"Mobility Plan 2035".

West Los Angeles P. 3-22 1 Delete and alter the reference to the "Citywide Bicycle

Plan" (to "Mobility Plan (2035)") in the paragraph on

"Non-motorized transporation"

West Los Angeles P. 3-22 2 Change "Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes" to "Bicycle and


West Los Angeles P. 3-22 3 Alter references to the "Citywide Bicycle Program" found

in the programs for Policies 12-1.1 and 12-1.2 in line with

changes suggested above

West Los Angeles P. 3-22 4 Change the phrase "major and secondary arterials" to


West Los Angeles P. 3-22 5 In program under Policy 12-1.2, note that Bicycle Lane

along Santa Monica Blvd. still a Class II Bikeway and is

scheduled to be upgraded to cycletrack, a Class IV

bikeway, rather than to a Class I bikeway.

West Los Angeles P. 3-23 1 Replace the term "bicycle routes" with "bicycle facilities"

and the term "routes" with "facilities" in Policy 12-1.3

West Los Angeles P. 3-23 2 Replace "Citywide Bicycle Plan" with "Mobility Plan

(2035)" in the program for Policy 12-1.3

West Los Angeles P. 3-24 1 Change the phrase "Major and Secondary Highways" to

"Arterials" where the former appears in first paragraph

on "Residential Neighborhood Protection Plans."

West Los Angeles P. 3-26 1 Change the phrase "major and secondary arterials" to


West Los Angeles P. 3-27 1 Change "Major Class I Highway" (re: Olympic Blvd.

between Century Park West and Century Park East) to

"Boulevard II." Do the same in regards to the sentence

about Santa Monica Boulevard.

West Los Angeles P. 3-27 2 Change "Major Class II Highways" (or "Major Class II") to

"Boulevards II" wherever the former appears

29


West Los Angeles P. 3-27 3 Cross out parenthetical phrase "(West of Sepulveda)"

next to Santa Monica Blvd in sentence listing Boulevards

II ("Major Highways"). Integrate this change with change

suggested in Comment 1.

West Los Angeles P. 3-27 4 Remove Pico Avenue and Beverly Glen Boulevard from

the list of "Boulevards II (Major Highways)." You may

note that both are classified as "Avenue I" within the

area covered by the plan

West Los Angeles P. 3-27 5 Note that Overland Avenue is a "Boulevard II (Class II

Major Highway)" only South of Pico

West Los Angeles P. 3-27 6 In sentence on "Avenue of the Stars", change "Major

Class II" to "Boulevard II"

West Los Angeles P. 3-27 7 Change "secondary highways" to "Avenues" in the

sentence listing streets in this category. You may add

Pico Blvd. and Beverly Glen Boulevard to the list (see

Comment 4).

West Los Angeles P. 3-27 8 Overland (between Santa Monica and Pico Boulevards)

and Monte Mar Drive are no longer Avenues/Secondary

Highways. Remove from the list

West Los Angeles P. 3-27 9 Make parenthetical notes that Sawtelle is only an Avenue

south of Olympic and Manning is only an avenue south of

Motor

West Los Angeles P. 3-27 10 Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" to

"arterials" in the third paragraph in the "Freeways,

Highways and Streets" section

West Los Angeles P. 3-28 1 Change the phrase "streets and highways" to "streets" in

Policy 16-1.1.

West Los Angeles P. 3-28 2 Change the term "Major Highways" to "Boulevards"

where the former appears in Policy 16-1.1

West Los Angeles P. 3-28 3 Change the term "secondary highways" to "avenues" in

Policy 16-1.1

West Los Angeles P. 3-28 4 Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" to

"arterials" in the first program for Policy 16-1.1

West Los Angeles P. 3-28 5 Change the term "major highway standards" to

"boulevard standards" in the second program for Policy

16-1.1

West Los Angeles P. A-1 1 Change term "Secondary Highway" to "Avenue I" in the

two comments on Bundy Drive

30


West Los Angeles Circulation

Map







discussed above.

Westchester-Playa Del

Rey

P. 3-34 1 Replace the expression "Highways and Freeways Element

of the General plan" with "Mobility Plan, an element of

the General Plan" in the page's second paragraph.


Rey

P. 3-34 1 Change the term "Major Highways" to "Boulevards" and

change "Secondary Highways" to "Avenues" in policy 11-

1.1


Rey


"arterials" in the first program for policy 11-1.1


Rey

P. 3-34 3 Change references to "Major Highway Class II"

to"Boulevard II" (in the second program for Policy 11-

1.1)


Rey

P. 3-35 1 Change references to "Major Highway Class II"

to"Boulevard II"


Rey

P. 3-35 2 Change references to "Secondary Highway" to "Avenue"

(in paragraph on Culver Blvd, specify further by noting

that it’s a Avenue I?)


Rey

P. 3-36 1 In paragraph on "Playa Vista Drive," change the term

"Secondary Highway" to "Avenue"


Rey

P. 3-36 2 Change "Major Highway Class I" to "Boulevard I", "Major


Highways" to "Avenues", in the next-to-last paragraph on

"Highway and Street Reclassifications".


Rey

P. 3-37 1 Change the term "Secondary Highway" to "Avenue",



Rey

P. 3-37 2 Howard Hughes Parkway now a "Boulevard (Major

Highway Class) II." Change language to reflect this.


Rey

P. 3-37 3 *Arizona Avenue from Riggs Place to Arizona Place no

longer exists. Needs to be deleted from Mobility Atlas

map.


Rey


"arterials" in the paragraph on TSM


Rey

P. 3-39 1 Change the phrase "Major and Secondary Highways" to

"Arterials" in policies 12-1.2 and 12-1.4, as well as in the

programs for policies 12-1.2 and 12-1.3

31



Rey

P. 3-40 1 Change "Major and Secondary Highways" (wherever

term appears) to "Arterials"


Rey

P. 3-44 1 Change "Major Highways" to "Boulevards" where the

former term appears.


Rey

P. 3-45 1 Replace reference to the "City of Los Angeles Bicycle

Plan" with a reference to the "(2035) Mobility Plan" in

the sub-section on Bikeways


Rey

P. 3-46 1 Replace references to the "Citywide Bicycle Plan" and

"City's Bicycle Plan" (in the first paragraph on "Non-

motorized transportation") with one to Mobility Plan.


Rey

P. 3-46 2 Replace the phrase "of bicycle routes and support

routes" with "bicycle networks" in the sentence (under

"Non-motorized transportation") discussing the

"Citywide Bicycle Plan"


Rey




Rey

P. 3-47 1 Replace references (in 16-1.1 and 16-1.2) to "Citywide

Bicycle Plan," "City's Bicycle Plan" or "Bicycle Plan" with

ones to "Mobility Plan". Reference bikeways (in the

neighborhood) designated by the Mobility Plan instead

of those of designated by the Bicycle Plan (in Program for

policy 16-1.2).


Rey

P. 3-47 2 Change "Major Class II and Secondary Highways" to

"Boulevards II and Avenues" in policy 16-1.2


Rey

P. 3-48 1 Note that the Bikeways along Loyola Boulevard, both

north of Manchester Boulevard and south of Lincoln

Boulevard, are Class II Bike Lanes rather than Class III

Bike Routes.


Rey


(and the term "routes" to "facilities") in Policy 16-1.3


Rey

P. 3-49 1 Change "Major and Secondary Highways", wherever the

former appears, to "Arterials"


Rey

P. 5-2 1 Change "Major or Secondary Highways" to "Arterials"


Rey



Rey

P. 5-8 1 Change "Major Class II and Secondary Highways" to

"Boulevards II and Avenues"

32



Rey

Circulation

Map







discussed above.

Westlake P. 3-9 1 Change "Major Highways" to "Boulevards" (in sentence

"Routes designated as Major Highways…"): note that

Wilshire Boulevard is now an "Avenue" (Avenue I west of

Alvarado, Avenue II east of Alvarado) rather than a

Boulevard

Westlake P. 3-9 2 "…major north-south highways" change to "major north-

south boulevards..." Alvarado now an Avenue II (instead

of "boulevard…") but Rampart is classified as a Boulevard

II (from Beverly to 6th street)

Westlake P. 3-9 3 Replace the expression "Highways and Freeways Element

of the General Plan" with "Mobility Plan, an element of

the General Plan" in the second paragraph of the

"Circulation" section.

Westlake Circulation

Map







discussed above.

Westwood P. 3-4 1 In policy 1-2.2, change the phrase "major and secondary

highways" to "arterials" wherever the former appears

Westwood P. 3-19 1 Replace reference to "revised Bicycle Plan" (in point 6)

with one to "mobility plan"

Westwood P. 3-20 1 Replace reference to "Citywide Bicycle Plan" in

paragraph on Non-motorized Transportation with

reference to "mobility plan"

Westwood P. 3-20 2 Change "Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes" to "Bicycle and


Westwood P. 3-20 3 Replace references to "Citywide Bicycle Plan" with refs to

"Mobility plan" in Policies 11-1.1 and 11-1.2

Westwood P. 3-20 4 Change "major and secondary arterial streets" to

"arterial streets" in policy 11-1.2

33


Westwood P. 3-21 1 Note (in segment on "Class I Bike paths") that Santa

Monica is designated as a "Class II Bike Lane" (rather

than "Class I Bike Path") under the M.P. and is scheduled

to be upgraded to a Class IV cycle track, rather than to a

Class I Bike path

Westwood P. 3-21 2 Change the term"bicycle routes" to "bicycle facilities"

and the term "routes" to "facilities" in policy 11-1.3

Westwood P. 3-22 1 Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" to

"arterials" in the section on Residential Neighrborhood

Protection Plans.

Westwood P. 3-24 1 Change the term "major and secondary arterials" to


Westwood P. 3-24 2 Change "Major Class I Highway" to "Boulevard II" in

sentence about Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards

(last paragraph on the page)

Westwood P. 3-24 3 Note that Westwood Boulevard, between Santa Monica

and Wilshire, is also a Boulevard II. However, Sunset

Boulevard and Beverly Glen Boulevard (from Santa

Monica to Wilshire) are Avenues I.

Westwood P. 3-24 4 Westwood Boulevard between Le Conte and Wilshire is a

"Divided Avenue I" rather than a "Divided Major Class II

Highway" (or "Boulevard II")

Westwood P. 3-25 1 Change "secondary highways" to "avenues" in the first

paragraph. Note that no portion of Weyburn, Tiverton,

Glendon or Midvale is listed as an "Avenue" in the

Mobility Atlas (though the latter two are still classified as

"secondary highways" in the navigatela map). Also note

that portions of Lindbrook Drive and Rochester Avenue

(which are not listed as such in this paragraph) are

designated "avenues"/"secondary highways" in the

Mobility plan Atlas (as well as on the navigatela map).

Westwood P. 3-25 2 Change the phrase "major and secondary highways" to


Westwood P. 3-25 3 Change the phrase "streets and highways" to "streets in

Policy 15-1.1

Westwood P. 3-25 4 Replace the term "Major Highway(s)" with

"Boulevard(s)" wherever the former appears in policy 15-

1.1 and its programs

Westwood P. 3-25 5 Replace the term "Secondary Highway(s)" with

"Avenue(s)" where the former appears in policy 15-1.1

34


Westwood P. 3-27 1 Change the term "Secondary Highway" to "Avenue" in

the program for Policy 15-3.1 (re: Weyburn Avenue)

Westwood Circulation

Map







discussed above.

Wilmington-Harbor

City

P. 3-14 1 In policy 3-1.5, change the phrase "major or secondary

highways" to "arterials" where the former appears

Wilmington-Harbor

City

P. 3-29 1 Replace the reference to the "Bikeways Master Plan"

with a reference to "Mobility Plan 2035" (in point "4-

bikeways")

Wilmington-Harbor

City

P. 3-31 1 Change the phrase "major and secondary intersections"

to "arterial intersections" in the program for Policy 12-

1.1.

Wilmington-Harbor

City


a reference to "Mobility Plan 2035" in first paragraph on

Non-motorized Transportation

35

EXHIBIT A.3: Proposed Public Facilities and Freeways Nomenclature



The Land Use Designations and Corresponding Zone Maps for all of the community plans are updated to reflect the following change: Freeways shall be shown as “Public Facilities-Freeway”


EXHIBIT B: Proposed Resolution on Guide



RESOLUTION


WHEREAS, the Mobility Plan 2035 updates the Transportation Element to reflect complete street principles and other strategies to support streets as public places for the safe utilization of all modes of transportation (e.g. pedestrians, bicyclists, transit goods movement, vehicles); and

WHEREAS, the Complete Street Design Guide (attached as Exhibit “B-1” to this Resolution) is being developed as guidance for implementing complete streets in the City of LA; and

WHEREAS, the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide and Urban Bikeway Design Guide (attached as Exhibit “B-2” to this Resolution) offers supplementary guidance on complete streets to cities nationally; and

WHEREAS, the Complete Street Design Guide and the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide and Urban Bikeway Design Guide are intended as guidelines and do not create mandatory requirements on future right-of-way improvements; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Charter and ordinance provisions, the Mayor and the City Planning Commission have transmitted their recommendations.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES AS FOLLOWS:

1. Adopt the Complete Streets Design Guide (attached as Exhibit “B-1” to this Resolution).

2. Adopt the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide and Urban Bikeway Design Guide as supplements to the above Guide (attached as Exhibit “B-2” to this Resolution).


EXHIBIT B.1: Complete Streets Design Guide



See separate document, Complete Street Design Guide.


EXHIBIT B.2: NACTO Urban Street Design Guide



Please see: http://nacto.org/usdg


EXHIBIT B.3: NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide



Please see: http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/

EXHIBIT C: Proposed Environmental Resolution


RESOLUTION

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE (SCH) No. 2013041012 AS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED MOBILITY PLAN 2035; ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AS REQUIRED BY PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21081(a) AND CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES, SECTION 15091, APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN AS REQUIRED BY PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21081.6 AND CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15097, ADOPTING THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AS REQUIRED BY PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SEC. 21081(b) AND CEQA GUIDELINES 15093, AS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED MOBILITY PLAN 2035 AN ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.


WHEREAS, the Mobility Plan 2035 updates the Transportation Element to reflect complete street principles and other strategies to support streets as public places for the safe utilization of all modes of transportation (e.g. pedestrians, bicyclists, transit goods movement, vehicles); and;

WHEREAS, the project does not authorize specific right-of-way improvements and therefore, physical changes to the enhanced network system cannot occur without additional community engagement, design development and environmental review.

WHEREAS, the City retained Fehr and Peers, a traffic and environmental consultant, to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) on the Mobility Plan 2035; and

WHEREAS, on April 4, 2013, the City filed a Notice of Preparation with the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; and

WHEREAS, on April 4, 2013, the City distributed a Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR SCH No.2013041012, for the Mobility Plan 2035, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.4 providing notice of a 30-day review period during which responsible agencies, trustee agencies and members of the general public could provide comments to the City regarding the scope of the proposed EIR; and

WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation was published in the Los Angeles Times and distributed electronically to the MailChimp listserve, the Council Offices, Neighborhood Councils, and public agencies and available for download on the Planning Department’s website and the project website www.la2b.org, throughout the comment period; and,

WHEREAS, on April 16, 2013 and April 22, 2013, the City conducted public scoping meetings for the Mobility Plan 2035 EIR during which it received comments regarding the scope of the proposed EIR; and,

WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, upon completing the Draft EIR dated February 2014, the City filed a Notice of Completion on February 14, 2014 with the Office of Planning and Research; and

WHEREAS, on February 13, 2014, consistent with the requirements of the Public Resources Code Section 21092 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15087, the City published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR in the Los Angeles Times, filed a copy with the Los Angeles County Clerk, and mailed a Notice of Availability to all organizations and individuals who had requested notice; and,

WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability and Notice of Completion noticed all agencies, organizations, and the public that they had 90 days to provide comments on the contents of the Draft EIR; and,

WHEREAS, the complete Draft EIR with appendices was available in hard copy for in-person review at eleven locations at the nine regional libraries within the City of Los Angeles, at City Hall and the Van Nuys Civic Center, and available for download on the Los Angeles Department of City Planning’s website and the project website at www.la2b.org, throughout the comment period; and,

WHEREAS, for at least 90 days following the date of publication of the Notice of Availability and the Notice of Completion, the public was given opportunity to comment, in writing, on the adequacy of the Draft EIR as an informational document; and,

WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the 90-day public review and comment period related to the Draft EIR, the City determined that it was necessary to prepare a Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; and,

WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088.5(d) and 15085, upon completing the RDEIR dated February 2015, the City filed a Notice of Completion on February 18, 2015 with the Office of Planning and Research and consulted with requisite agencies and parties and requested comments on the RDEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15086; and

WHEREAS, on February 19, 2015, consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088.5(d) and 15087, the City published a Notice of Availability of the RDEIR in the Los Angeles Times, filed a copy with the Los Angeles County Clerk, and mailed a Notice of Availability to all organizations and individuals who had requested notice; and,

WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability and Notice of Completion noticed all agencies, organizations, and the public that they had 45 days to provide comments on the contents of the RDEIR; and,

WHEREAS, the complete RDEIR with appendices was available in hard copy for in-person review at eleven locations at the nine regional libraries within the City of Los Angeles, at City Hall and the Van Nuys Civic Center, and available for download on the Los Angeles Department of City Planning’s website and the project website www.la2b.org, throughout the comment period; and,

WHEREAS, for at least 45 days following the date of publication of the Notice of Availability and the Notice of Completion, the public was given opportunity to comment, in writing, on the adequacy of the RDEIR as an informational document; and,

WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the 45-day public review and comment period related to the RDEIR, the City prepared the Final EIR, dated May 14, 2015, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088, 15088.5(f), 15089 and 15132, which included the Draft EIR, RDEIR, responses to comments on the Draft EIR and RDEIR and minor corrections and additions; and,

WHEREAS, on May 28, 2015, the Los Angeles City Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which the Commission considered and discussed the adequacy of the proposed Final EIR (which included the Draft EIR, R EIR and the Responses to Comments), as an informational document and voted to recommend to the City Council certification of the Final EIR; and,

WHEREAS, notice of the May 28, 2015 Planning Commission hearing included posting at City Hall East as well as publication on the Department of City Planning’s website at least 10 days before the hearing; and,

WHEREAS, the City prepared a Final EIR, dated May 2015, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15089 and 15132; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21092.5 of CEQA and Section 15088(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, on May 14, 2015, the City provided written proposed responses to all public agencies as well as private parties that commented on the Draft EIR and RDEIR by mailed notice of the availability of the Final EIR; and

WHEREAS, on _____ the City Council conducted a public hearing and considered the record of proceedings for the EIR, which includes, but is not limited to the following:

(1) The Notice of Preparation for the Project (the “NOP”), and all other public notices issued by the City in connection with the Project;

(2) The Final EIR dated May 14, 2015; (3) The RDEIR dated February 2015; (4) The Draft EIR dated February 2014; (5) All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during any

public review comment period on the Draft EIR or RDEIR; (6) All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for

the Project at which such testimony was taken, including without limitation, the Report to Council, including all attachment, any all presentations by City staff, the City’s consultants, the public, and any other interested party;

(7) The Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) for the Mobility Plan 2035; (8) The reports, studies, and appendices included and/or referenced in the DraftEIR,

RDEIR and the FEIR and or their appendices; (9) The Mobility Plan 2035, the Complete Streets Guideline, and all Ordinances and

Resolutions presented to and/or adopted by the City in connection with the Mobility Plan 2035; and all documents incorporated by reference therein, specifically including, but not limited to, this resolution and all of its exhibits;

(10) Any documents expressly cited in this Resolution and its exhibits, the Report to Council, the Final EIR, or the RDEIR or the Draft EIR; and

(11) And any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings under Section 21167.6(e) of the Public Resources Code.

WHEREAS, on June ___ 2015 the City Council also considered and discussed the adequacy of the proposed Final EIR as an informational document and applied its own independent judgment and analysis to the review and hereby desires to take action to certify the Final EIR, as having been completed in compliance with CEQA, based on the findings found herein; and

WHEREAS, notice of the June __ 2015 City Council hearing was property noticed at least 10 days before the hearing, including publication in the ____ and posting at ___ locations ; and,

WHEREAS, CEQA requires in Public Resources Section 21081 the following:

21081. No approval if significant effect unless findings.

Pursuant to the policy stated in Sections 21002 and 21002.1, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur:

(a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.

WHEREAS, CEQA guidelines require the following for certification of a final environmental impact report:

15090. Certification of the Final EIR.

(a) Prior to approving a project the lead agency shall certify that: (1) The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (2) The final EIR was presented to the decision making body of the lead agency and that the decision making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; and (3) The final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. ….

15091. Findings.

(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subdivision (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section.

15092. Approval.

(a) After considering the final EIR and in conjunction with making findings under Section 15091, the lead agency may decide whether or how to approve or carry out the project. (b) A public agency shall not decide to approve or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless either: (1) The project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment, or (2) The agency has: (A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible as shown in findings under Section 15091, and (B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in Section 15093. (c) With respect to a project which includes housing development, the public agency shall not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure if it determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation measure available that will provide a comparable level of mitigation.

15093. Statement of Overriding Considerations.

(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, AS FOLLOWS:

1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

2. Findings. Council finds based upon the substantial evidence in the record of

proceedings, and its independent judgment and analysis, that:

(a) Compliance with CEQA. The Final EIR in Exhibit 1 to this Resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, includes the Draft EIR SCH No. 2013041012 dated February 2014 and the RDEIR dated February 2015 and all related appendices, the Response to Comments, all corrections and additions to the RDEIR, and all related appendices and attachments to the Final EIR. The Final EIR was prepared, in both substance and procedures, in compliance with the requirements of CEQA.

(b) Ratification of Findings and Analysis in the Final EIR. In making the findings in this Resolution, the Council ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the Final EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions in the Final EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures. The Council also adopts all statements and findings in Exhibit 2 to this resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

(c) Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Found to be Significant and

Unavoidable. Council adopts the statements and findings in Exhibit 2 (Section 2) to this resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The Project has significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through the imposition of mitigation measures. These significant effects are identified in Exhibit 2 (Section 2.1-2.3).

Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR for the significant impacts identified in Exhibit 2 (Section 2), including based upon the findings in Exhibit 2 (Section 2) to this resolution, and the findings in Exhibit 2 (Section 5) regarding the proposed alternatives. Therefore, those impacts are found to be significant and unavoidable.

(d) Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Found to be Less than Significant with Mitigation. Council adopts the statements and findings in Exhibit 2 (Section 3) to this resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The Project has significant effects that can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation measures. These avoidable significant effects are identified in Exhibit 2 (Section 3.) These avoidable significant effects will be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the changes that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project through the imposition of mitigation measures as described in Exhibit 2 (Section 3.1-3.4). These mitigation measures identified in Exhibit 2 (Section 3) will be imposed pursuant to the MMP attached at Exhibit 3. All mitigation measures in the MMP are feasible.

To the extent that any of the mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City, those mitigation measures can and will be adopted and imposed by the other agency based on state and/or federal law, communications by those agencies, and/or existing policies and/or intergovernmental relationships with those agencies.

(e) Finding Regarding Environmental Impacts Found to be Less than Significant without Mitigation. Any and all potential significant impacts discussed in the Final EIR that are not subject to paragraph 2(c) or 2(d), above, as either an avoidable significant impact, or as an unavoidable significant impact, are insignificant impacts to the environment. Council adopts the findings in Exhibit 2 (Section 4) to this Resolution, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

(f) Alternatives. The City Council adopts the statements and findings on the Rejection of Project Alternatives in Exhibit 2 (Section 5) to this resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

3. Final EIR Reviewed and Considered. The Council certifies that the Final EIR:

(a) has been completed in compliance with CEQA;

(b) was presented to the Council and that the Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approval of the Project, and all of the information contained therein has substantially influenced all aspects of the decision by the Council; and

(c) reflects Council’s independent judgment and analysis.

4. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Exhibit 2 (Section 6) to this resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Council finds that each of the Significant and Unavoidable Impacts identified in Exhibit 2 (Section 6) may be considered acceptable.

5. Mitigation Monitoring. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the MMP set forth in Exhibit 3 to this resolution, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby adopted to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted for the Project are fully implemented.

6. Location and Custodian of Documents. The record of project approval shall be kept in the office of the City Clerk, City of Los Angeles, City Hall, 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 which shall be held by the City Clerk as the custodian of the documents; all other record of proceedings shall be kept with the Department of City Planning and the Director of the Department of City Planning shall be the custodian of the documents.

7. Certification. Based on the above facts and findings, the Council of the City of Los Angeles certifies the Final EIR in Exhibit 1 for the Mobility Plan 2035 as accurate and adequate. The City Council further certifies that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The Director of the Department of City Planning is directed to file a Notice of Determination as required by the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines.

Exhibits: 1 – Final EIR

2 -- CEQA Findings of Fact which include:

Environmental Impacts found to be Significant and Unavoidable

Environmental Impacts found to be Less than Significant with Mitigation

Environmental Impacts found to be Less than Significant without Mitigation

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

The Statement of Overriding Considerations

3 – Mitigation Monitoring Plan


EXHIBIT C.1: Final Environmental Impact Report



See attached document for Final Environmental Impact Report

EXHIBIT C.2: Findings of Fact


Findings of Fact Mobility Plan 2035

Los Angeles, California State Clearinghouse Number 2013041012

May 14, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………...1

SECTION 2: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE…………………………..…………………………………....6

SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION…………………………………..……………………...11

SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITHOUT MITIGATION…………………………………………………….15

SECTION 5: FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES………………………..….21

SECTION 6: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS..…………………31

1

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Background

In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Los Angeles (City) has conducted an environmental review of the proposed Mobility Plan 2035 (MP 2035 or proposed project). A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released for public review in April 2013. In February 2014, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was released. Subsequently, in February 2015, a Recirculated Draft EIR was released. Public comments on both the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR were incorporated into a document entitled Response to Comments on the Draft and Recirculated EIR (RTC). The RTC document includes the verbatim comments received on the Draft EIR, a list of persons, entities, and agencies providing comments, the City of Los Angeles’s responses to the significant environmental points raised in the comment, review and consultation process, and the various written responses to the comments prepared by the City of Los Angeles’s technical consultants and City staff. These Findings of Fact (Findings) are based upon the information contained in the record of proceedings, including the Final EIR, which includes the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIR and technical appendices, the RTC, the staff report, and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan.

CEQA provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” (Public Resources Code Section 21002 [emphasis added].) The procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed project and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” (Public Resources Code Section 21002.)

CEQA’s mandates and principles are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three conclusions:

1. “[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the projectwhich avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identifiedin the final EIR,”

2. “[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of anotherpublic agency and not the agency making the finding [and] [s]uch changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency,” or

3. “[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, includingprovision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible themitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.” (PublicResources Code Section 21081; CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code ofRegulations Section 15091.)

CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, legal, environmental, social and technological factors.” (Public Resources Code Section 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15364.)

2

Because the MP 2035 Final EIR identified significant environmental effects that may occur as a result of the MP 2035, and in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Los Angeles hereby adopts these Findings. For each of the significant environmental effects identified in Section 2, as set forth in greater detail in these Findings below, the City of Los Angeles makes the finding under Public Resources Code Section Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3). For each of the significant environmental effects identified in Section 3, as set forth in greater detail in these Findings below, the City of Los Angeles makes the finding under Public Resources Code Section Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1).

Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as having “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact. Nevertheless, Section 4 in these Findings fully account for all resource areas, including resource areas that were identified in the Final EIR to have either no impact or a less than significant impact on the environment.

In accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council of the City of Los Angeles has independently reviewed the Record of Proceedings (see list of contents in this section) and based on the evidence in the Record of Proceedings adopts these Findings of Fact.

1.2 - Project Location

The arterials included in the MP 2035 as part of the Pedestrian Enhanced Districts (PEDs), Bicycle Enhanced Network (BEN), Neighborhood Enhanced Network (NEN), Transit Enhanced Network (TEN), and Vehicle Enhanced Network (VEN) are located within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Los Angeles. Within the City’s boundaries, are approximately 467 square miles of land area, including approximately 214 square miles of hills and mountains. The San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountains bound the City on the north, the Santa Monica Mountains extend through the middle of the City and the Palos Verdes Hills and Pacific Ocean bound the City on the south and west. The City is geographically divided into 35 community planning areas and two special purpose districts.

1.3 - Project Characteristics

The MP 2035 would update the current Transportation Element (1999) and would provide a transportation blueprint for the City of Los Angeles through the foreseeable future (at least 2035). The MP 2035 reflects current State and regional policies and programs aimed at balancing land use and transportation planning and reducing vehicle miles travelled and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The MP 2035 identifies a full range of options to meet mobility needs, including bicycling, carpooling, driving, transit, and walking. The MP 2035 would lay the policy foundation for safe, accessible and enjoyable streets for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and vehicles alike. The MP 2035 would be substantially consistent with the 1999 Transportation Element, updating policies to reflect recent State requirements and recent guidance on GHG emissions and mobility in urban areas. The MP 2035 is being prepared in compliance with the 2008 Complete Streets Act (Assembly Bill 1358), which mandates that the circulation element of the General Plan be modified to plan for a balanced, multi-modal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, defined to include motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public

3

transportation, in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan. Compliance with the Complete Streets Act is expected to result in increased options for mobility; fewer GHG emissions; more walkable communities; and fewer travel barriers for active transportation and those who cannot drive such as children or people with disabilities. Complete streets play an important role for those who would choose not to drive if they had an alternative as well as for those who do not have the option of driving. The Complete Streets Act specifically encourages an increase in non-driving modes of travel. The MP 2035 is also consistent with the 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. The MP 2035 includes:

Policies – that support the goals and objectives described in the next section.

A Map Atlas – that identifies1:

o an Enhanced Complete Street System that includes selected roadways for pedestrian, bicycle, transit, or vehicle enhancements and proposed and programmed projects from a variety of sources

o a Generalized Circulation System (Highways and Freeways Map)

o Scenic Highways

o a Goods Movement System.

An Action Plan – that identifies programs that support implementation of the Plan’s goals and policies and aids the City in achieving its objectives.

The MP 2035 is further supported by the following documents (which have been assessed as part of the Project):

A Complete Streets Design Guide – a living document that provides a compilation of design concepts and best practices that promote the major tenets of Complete Streets-safety and accessibility.

An Update of Standard Plan S-470 to include an expanded suite of complete street arterials and nonarterials.

A Five-Year Implementation Strategy – that prioritizes programs in the Action Plan for implementation within a defined five-year time period and identifies metrics upon which the success of each program should be evaluated. The Strategy is incumbent upon staff and funding availability.

The MP 2035 is a mix of policies and conceptual-level improvements to the transportation network. Specifically, the enhanced networks (TEN, BEN, NEN and VEN) are identified as a program in the Action Plan to the MP 2035 (Draft MP 2035 at p. 145). They are also

4

identified as concept maps (Draft MP 2035 at p. 145). None of the programs in the Action Plan, including the enhanced networks, are mandatory and they may be amended without a Plan Amendment (Draft MP 2035 at 146). Although any change would still need to comply with State planning law consistency requirements and therefore, meet the overall goals, objectives and policies of the MP 2035.2 Based on the conceptual nature of the enhanced networks, detailed roadway designs for improvements to individual roadways or corridors are not yet available. Therefore, in the EIR, the MP 2035 was modeled within the regional transportation network on the basis of generalized assumptions that are appropriately summarized and discussed at the scale of APC areas rather than at the level of individual roadways or corridors in order to present a programmatic level analysis. (See Master Responses 1 and 22 in FEIR for a discussion of the methodology and scope of analysis in the EIR.) For purposes of the EIR analysis, the fact that the enhanced networks may be adjusted over time, based on future circumstances, is not expected to affect the Area Planning Commission level of detail analysis in the EIR. The RDEIR indicates that, “[s]hould an alternative street be determined to better serve the needs of the individual network (than the street originally identified), it is expected that the alternative would serve users similar to the originally selected street. The build-out strategy for the networks and districts … is intended to provide for a flexible and iterative process based upon prioritization criteria, funding, roadway capacity, community support and political interest. It is reasonably expected that future alterations to the enhanced networks would operate similarly as the enhanced networks for purposes of environmental review and analysis and would have similar impacts at the programmatic City-wide level” (RDEIR at 3-7; page 3-10 of the Final EIR Project Description as revised). Any specific local impacts from such an alteration of an enhanced network would be speculative at this point. Finally, future projects to implement the MP 2035, including construction and interventions to improve City right of ways for the enhanced networks, including selecting alternative streets, would be required to be reviewed under CEQA, including under CEQA Guidelines 15162 to determine the appropriate form of subsequent environmental review.

1.4 – Project Objectives/Mobility Plan 2035 Goals

The primary purpose/objective of the Project and the update to the City’s transportation element and the preparation of the draft Mobility Plan 2035 is to implement the State Complete Streets Act, increase multi-modal access for all Angelenos and reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled and associated GHG emissions.

The five goals of the MP 2035 and corresponding policy topics as identified in the Final EIR are as follows:

Safety First – focuses on topics related to crashes, speed, protection, security,safety, education, and enforcement.

World Class Infrastructure – focuses on topics related to the Complete StreetsNetwork (walking, bicycling, transit, vehicles, green streets, goods movement), Great Streets, Bridges, Complete Street Design Guide, and demand management.

2 This may be contrasted with Street Designations in the MP 2035 which are not conceptual and would require a plan amendment to be redesignated (see Draft MP 2035 at 18).

5

Access for all Angelenos – focuses on topics related to affordability, least cost transportation, land use, operations, reliability, demand management, and community connections. Collaboration, Communication & Informed Choices – focuses on topics related to real-time information, open source data, transparency, monitoring, reporting, emergency response, departmental and agency cooperation and data base management. Clean Environment and Healthy Communities – focuses on topics related to environment, health, clean air, clean fuels and fleets, and open street events.

1.5 - Record of Proceedings

For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the MP 2035 consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and all other public notices issued by the City of Los Angeles in conjunction with the MP 2035.

The Draft EIR, the Recirculated Draft EIR, and the technical appendices for the MP 2035.

All written comments submitted by agencies, organizations, or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIRs.

All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIRs.

The Final EIR for the MP 2035, which consists of the Draft and Recirculated Draft

EIRs, the technical appendices, and the RTC.

All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the MP 2035, where testimony was taken.

The MMP.

The documents, reports, and technical memoranda included or referenced in the technical appendices of the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIRs.

All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIRs and.

The Department of City Planning Recommendation Report

The Resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Angeles in connection

with the proposed project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein.

Any documents expressly cited in these Findings or in the resolution adopting these Findings.

Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e) (excluding privileged materials).

6

1.6 - Custodian and Location of Records

The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City of Los Angeles’s actions related to the proposed project are located at the City of Los Angeles City Clerk Office at 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are, and at all relevant times, have been and will be available upon request at the City of Los Angeles City Clerk Office. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guideline Section 15091(e).

SECTION 2: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE

The Final EIR identified the following project-specific and cumulative impacts that cannot be mitigated to less-than-significant levels: circulation, neighborhood intrusion, congestion management plan (CMP) (freeways), emergency access, excessive noise and permanent noise increase (from buses), and special status species and habitat.

The City of Los Angeles finds, based on the facts set forth in the record, which include but are not limited to the facts as set forth below, those facts contained in the Draft and Recirculated Draft EIRs and the RTC, and any other facts set forth in materials prepared by the City of Los Angeles and/or City consultants, that there are no feasible mitigation measures, changes, or alterations available to reduce the identified significant impacts.

2.1 Transportation, Parking & Safety (Chapter 4.1, Impacts 4.1-2, 4.1-3, 4.1-4, 4.1-5)

Circulation, Neighborhood Intrusion, CMP (Freeways), Emergency Access

Significant and Adverse Impact The Final EIR found that the proposed project would have a significant impact to the circulation system, neighborhood intrusion, CMP (Freeways) and emergency access, as it would exceed the applicable thresholds established by the City.

The MP 2035 would have a significant impact to the circulation system, neighborhood intrusion, Congestion Management Plan (freeways), and emergency vehicle access. (See EIR Chapters, 4.1, Impact discussions in 4.1-2, 4.1-3, 4.1-4 and 4.1-5). These impacts were found significant because the traffic analysis from the EIR found that the Project resulted in traffic conditions that exceeded established thresholds for neighborhood intrusion as a result of cut-through traffic, increases congestion/delay on the circulation system (arterials and freeways), results in inadequate emergency access (such that emergency vehicles are delayed), or increases the volume to capacity ratio on some freeway segments by greater than 2 percent. The inclusion of Mitigation Measures T1 through T5 in the MMP will help mitigate significant impacts on the circulation system, neighborhood intrusion, CMP (Freeways) and emergency access where feasible; however, these impacts, due to the aforementioned conditions, will remain significant and unavoidable.

Finding

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(3), specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for

7

highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

Facts in Support of Finding

The significant and adverse impacts to the circulation system, neighborhood intrusion, CMP (Freeways) and emergency access will be reduced by virtue of the following mitigation measures as identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the MMP.

MM T1 Signal Timing. City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) will adjust traffic signal timing after the implementation of the MP 2035 (both along project routes and parallel roadways if traffic diversions have occurred as a result of the proposed project). This adjustment would be necessary, especially at the intersections where roadway striping would be modified. Signal timing adjustment could reduce traffic impacts at impacted intersections. (LADOT routinely makes traffic signal timing changes and signal optimization on an as-needed basis to accommodate the changes in traffic volumes to reduce congestion and delay in the City.)

MM T2 Transportation Demand Management (TDM). For all projects the City shall implement appropriate TDM measures including potential trip-reducing measures such as bike share strategies, bike parking, expansion of car share programs near high density areas, bus stop improvements (e.g. shelters and “next bus” technologies), crosswalk improvements, pedestrian wayfinding signage, etc.

Since the implementation of Mitigation Measures T1 and T2 cannot be certain to reduce the level of impacts to less than significant, the MP 2035 would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to level of service of roadways within the City based on current thresholds. However, the model-estimated changes in circulation system conditions reflect a likely worst-case, vehicle-centric estimate based on historical travel behavior patterns and do not account for additional changes that would lead to decreasing vehicular volumes. Under Senate Bill (SB) 743 there will be new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts. Since this guidance is not yet defined, it is possible that some or all of the impacts related to vehicular level of service (LOS) that are considered significant would no longer be considered significant if analyzed using the new criteria. Mitigation Measures T1 and T2 are also consistent with Great Streets for Los Angeles Strategic Plan developed by the Mayor’s Office and LADOT. With that said, under the existing threshold of significance, the results on traffic congestion, and its impacts to LOS in the City are significant. It is not known whether the identified significant impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level with MM T1 and MM T2 because it is not possible to quantify the effects of these measures at a city-wide level without design details. There are no other identified feasible mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant.

MM T3 Traffic Diversion and Calming. In areas where implementation of proposed project could potentially result in diversion of traffic to adjacent residential streets, LADOT shall monitor traffic on identified residential streets, upon request submitted through the Council Office, to determine if traffic diversion occurs. If traffic on residential streets is found to be significantly impacted, in accordance with LADOT’s Traffic Study Policies and procedures, LADOT will work with neighborhood residents to identify and implement appropriate traffic calming measures.

8

The implementation of Mitigation Measure T3 would reduce the level of impact related to neighborhood intrusion but impacts could remain significant. However, Mitigation Measure T3 is consistent with the Great Streets for Los Angeles Strategic Plan that identifies the need to protecting neighborhoods from traffic intrusion and vehicle speeding. There are no other identified feasible mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant.

MM T4 Inter-agency Coordination. In areas where the implementation of the proposed project could potentially affect transportation systems managed by other agencies, such as the California Department of Transportation or Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, or neighboring jurisdictions, the City of Los Angeles shall coordinate with these entities to identify transportation improvements in accordance with the goals and policies of Mobility Plan 2035 and seek opportunities to jointly pursue funding. Mobility solutions shall be focused on safety, enhancing mobility options, improving access to active modes, and implementing TDM measures to achieve both local and regional transportation and sustainability goals.

The implementation of Mitigation Measure T4 would reduce the level of impact related to freeways and the CMP but impacts could remain significant. The MP 2035 could still have a significant impact related to CMP freeway segments as it could continue to exceed the established threshold. There are no other identified feasible mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant.

MM T5 Emergency Response Access. The LADOT, City of Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) and Department of City Planning (DCP) shall coordinate and review design plans involving lane reallocation to ensure that emergency response access is adequately maintained (for example by expanding the Fire Preemption System).

Because CEQA requires comparison to existing conditions, and a number of factors will contribute to the need for new LAFD facilities, including project actions, and because it is not possible to foresee all potential stressors to the fire protection system to which the project would contribute, in the interests of being conservative even with implementation of Mitigation Measure T5, impacts are considered potentially significant. There are no other identified feasible mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant.

2.2 Noise & Vibration (Chapter 4.5, Impacts 4.5‐1, 4.5‐4)

Excessive Noise or Vibration

Significant and Adverse Impact The Final EIR found that the MP 2035 would expose persons or generate noise in levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in applicable standards of other agencies and would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.

9

Increased bus frequency with the implementation of the MP 2035 would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, above levels existing without the project.

Finding

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(3), specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.


No feasible mitigation measures were identified to reduce the significant impact related to increased operations - bus frequency- to make operating noise less than significant. Reducing bus frequency is not considered as a feasible mitigation measure because the action would not meet the goal of the proposed mobility improvement. Therefore, the MP 2035 would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to bus noise.

2.3 Biological Resources (Chapter 4.6, Impacts 4.6-1, 4.6-3, 4.6-4)

Special Status Species and Habitat

Significant and Adverse Impact The Final EIR found that implementation of the MP 2035 could have a substantial adverse effect during construction either directly or indirectly on special status species, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and federally protected wetlands.

Implementation of the MP 2035 could result in a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and could also have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Implementation of the MP 2035 could have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. The MP 2035 would result in potentially significant impact during construction and less than significant impacts during operation.

Finding

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(3), specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.


The significant and adverse impact to special status species and habitat including wetlands will be reduced by virtue of the following mitigation measures as identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the MMP.

10

MM B1 Special Status Species and Habitat. For future enhancements occurring within 200 feet of a Significant Ecological Area designated by the County of Los Angeles or within 200 feet of areas containing native vegetation, such as open space and undeveloped areas, a project-specific biological resource survey and assessment shall be conducted and prepared that discloses any potential impacts to special status species and habitats, and mitigates, to the extent feasible, the impacts of the mobility improvements. In addition, prior to implementation of mobility improvements, all required permits must be obtained; permits for work in wetland and riparian habitats frequently require project specific measures to preserve resources.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure B1 would ensure that supplemental project-specific analysis would be completed for mobility improvements that occur outside existing right-of-way and are adjacent to protected riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. It is anticipated that project-specific mitigation measures would be identified that would reduce potentially significant impacts related to protected riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities to a less-than-significant level. However, since details of the projects and mitigation measures are unknown (and unknowable) at the present time this impact remains potentially significant.

MM B2 Wetland Habitat. For mobility improvements that extend into the Ballona wetlands, all applicable wetland permits shall be acquired. These permits include, but would not be limited to, a Section 404 Wetlands Fill Permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers, or a Report of Waste Discharge from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWCQB. Additionally, a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) would be required for development that would cross or affect any stream course.

Where feasible, the maximum amount of existing wetlands shall be preserved and minimum buffers around all sides of these features shall be established. In addition, the final project design shall not cause significant changes to the pre-project hydrology, water quality, or water quantity in the wetland that is to be retained. This shall be accomplished by avoiding or repairing any disturbance to the hydrologic conditions supporting these wetlands, as verified through wetland protection plans.

Where avoidance of the Ballona Wetlands is not feasible, then mitigation measures shall be implemented for the project-related loss of any existing wetlands on site, such that there is no net loss of wetland acreage or habitat value. Wetland mitigation shall be developed as a part of the Section 404 Clean Water Act permitting process, or for non-jurisdictional wetlands, during through the RWQCB, CDFW, and/or USFWS. Mitigation is to be provided prior to construction related impacts on the existing wetlands. The exact mitigation ratio is variable, based on the type and value of the wetlands affected by the project, but agency standards typically require a minimum of 1:1 for preservation and 1:1 for construction of new wetlands. In addition, a Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be developed that includes the following:

Descriptions of the wetland types, and their expected functions and values.

11

Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the mitigation wetlands over a period of five to ten years.

Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be created or restored.

An implementation schedule showing that construction of mitigation areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with the initiation of construction.

A description of legal protection measures for the preserved wetlands (i.e., dedication of fee title, conservation easement, and/ or an endowment held by an approved conservation organization, government agency or migration bank).

Implementation of Mitigation Measure B2 would ensure that for mobility improvements that extend into the Ballona Wetlands, that the wetlands would be altered in the least disrupted way possible and replacement wetlands are incorporated to reduce potentially significant impacts related to wetlands to less-than significant. However, since details of the projects and mitigation measures are unknown (and unknowable) at the present time this impact remains potentially significant. There are no other identified feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the impact to less than significant.

SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION

The Final EIR identified potentially significant project-specific adverse impacts of the proposed project and proposed mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen those impacts. Those impacts and mitigation measures are identified in the following section. The City Council of the City of Los Angeles finds, based on the facts set forth in the record, which include but are not limited to the facts as set forth below, that the incorporation of the identified mitigation measures will mitigate the following identified significant project-specific impacts to a level that is considered less than significant.

3.1 Transportation, Parking and Safety (Chapter 4.1, Impacts 4.1-8)

Construction

Potentially Significant Impact

The Final EIR indicates that while potentially significant, construction impacts generally would not be considered significant for the anticipated improvements due to their temporary nature and limited duration. Impacts such as closure of major and/or secondary highways, loss of regular vehicular or pedestrian access, or temporary loss of a bus stop or rerouting of a local bus route for more than a day would be reduced to a less than significant level by standard construction techniques identified in the Mitigation measure T6.

Finding

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Plan, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect.

12


The potential significant environmental effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measure as identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project:

MM T6 Construction activities will be managed through the implementation of a traffic control plan to mitigate the impact of traffic disruption and to ensure the safety of all users of the affected roadway. The plan will address construction duration and activities and include measures such as operating a temporary traffic signal or using flagmen adjacent to construction activities, as appropriate.

The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant construction impacts related to Transportation, Parking, and Safety to a less-than-significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Planning Commission hereby directs this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the MP 2035, and included in the MMP, would substantially lessen the severity of a potentially significant effect to a less-than-significant level.

3.2 Noise & Vibration (Chapter 4.5, Impact 4.5-1 (construction); Impact 4.5-2)


The Final EIR found that the MP 2035 could expose persons or generate noise in levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in applicable standards of other agencies from construction.

The RDEIR found that construction activities would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels on an intermittent basis. Additionally, it found that it is possible construction activities lasting more than one day would exceed noise levels by 10 dBA or more at any one noise sensitive use along a transportation corridor. (RDEIR at 4.5-8 to 10).

Finding

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Plan, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect.



MM N1 Construction activity that would last more than a day, that could increase

ambient noise by more than 5 decibels (dBA), and would be located within 500 feet of a sensitive land use shall incorporate measures to reduce noise levels at sensitive receptors including, but not limited to, sound walls, sound blankets on impact equipment, and engine mufflers to reduce noise levels to acceptable levels. The noise reduction levels achieved by the measures shall limit noise increases to less than 5 dBA over the exiting ambient levels.

13

Construction noise was determined to result in a significant impact without mitigation. Mitigation Measure N1 would reduce construction noise within 500 feet of sensitive land uses to less than a 5-dBA incremental increase from noise levels identified in established standards and reduce substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels above existing noise levels. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact associated with construction noises exceeding adopted standards.

Vibration

Potential Significant Impact The Final EIR found that the MP 2035 could have a significant impact on Noise and Vibration if it would expose people to or generate excessive vibration or ground-borne noise levels.

The MP 2035 would not include stationary sources of vibration, such as heavy equipment operations. Operational vibration in the project vicinity would be generated by vehicular travel on the local roadways. According to the Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance document, vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. Project-related traffic vibration levels would not be perceptible by sensitive receptors and effects would be less than significant during operation. During construction, implementation of the MP 2035 would result in potential significant impact related to vibration generated during construction where construction equipment was within 11 feet of adjacent buildings. However, as the Final EIR concluded, implementation of Mitigation Measure N2 would substantially lessen the severity of a potentially significant effect to a less-than-significant effect.

Finding

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the MP 2035, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect.



MM N2 Construction Vibration. A project-specific vibration analysis shall be completed if the City determines that construction equipment would be located within 11 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. Potential vibration impacts shall be mitigated to such that vibration levels do not exceed 0.3 inches per second at 11 feet. Methods to reduce vibration include, but are not limited to, choosing to use light weight equipment when an option between equipment types is available and avoiding impact equipment (e.g., jackhammers).

Mitigation Measure N2 would ensure that construction vibration requiring heavy-duty equipment would not exceed the significance threshold for activity. Mitigation Measure N2 would reduce temporary and periodic construction activity to less than significant. The City Planning Commission hereby directs this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the MP 2035, and included in the

14

MMP, would substantially lessen the severity of a potentially significant effect to a less-than-significant level.

3.3 Biological Resources (Chapter 4.6, Impact 4.6-4)

Migratory Birds


The Final EIR found that the MP 2035 could have a significant impact on migratory birds if it would interfere with the movement of native or migratory species, or with established wildlife corridors for such species, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

In general, existing roadways, sidewalks and public right-of-way, do not serve as wildlife corridors, movement pathways, or linkages of note between larger habitat areas for terrestrial wildlife. While, wildlife does sporadically find their way onto transportation infrastructure, the proposed mobility improvements would not create a condition that would increase the exposure. However, street trees within or immediately adjacent to the enhanced network right-of-ways could potentially support migratory birds. Accordingly, construction activities could result in conflicts with the Migratory Bird Treat Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) through the removal or destruction an active nest or direct mortality or injury of individual birds, creating a potentially significant impact if no mitigation is implemented.

During operation, mobility improvements along the enhanced networks would not result in direct physical effects to migratory wildlife corridors as enhancements would occur on roadways, sidewalks, and right-of-way. The nature of the improvements would not substantially alter the existing transportation infrastructure from its current condition in such a way that could indirectly affect migratory wildlife corridors. Therefore, no significant impacts related to migratory wildlife corridors would occur.

Finding

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Plan, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect.



MM B3 Migratory Birds. To prevent the disturbance of nesting native and/or migratory bird species, the City shall require that clearing of street trees or other vegetation should take place between September 1 and February 14. If construction is scheduled or ongoing during bird nesting season (February 15 to August 31), the City of Los Angeles shall require that a qualified biologist conduct a nesting bird survey within 250 feet of the construction activity, no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the commencement of construction activities. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with CDFW protocols, as applicable. If no active nests are identified on or within 250 feet of the construction activity, no further mitigation is necessary. A copy of the pre-construction survey shall be submitted to the Department of City

15

Planning. If an active nest is identified, construction shall be suspended within 100 feet of the nest until the nesting cycle is complete, as determined by a qualified ornithologist or biologist.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure B3 would require that potential conflicts with the MBTA and CFGC are avoided as enhancements are implemented and impacts related to migratory birds would be reduced to less than significant. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the MP 2035, and included in the MMP, would substantially lessen the severity of a potentially significant effect to a less-than-significant level.

SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITHOUT MITIGATION

Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as have “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact. Nevertheless, these findings fully account for all resource areas, including resource areas that were identified in the EIR to have either no impact or a less than significant impact on the environment. The Proposed Project would have either no impact or a less than significant impact in the following resource areas:

4.1 Transportation, Parking and Safety (Chapter 4.1, Impacts 4.1-1, 4.1-6, 4.1-7): Plans and Policies, Public Transit, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities, Parking, Safety

As the Final EIR concluded, the implementation of the MP 2035 would not have a significant impact related to certain components within the topic of Transportation, Parking and Safety. The MP 2035 does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. In addition, the MP 2035 would not substantially disrupt existing public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or interfere with planned facilities. Lastly, the MP 2035 would not substantially harm transportation safety. None of the transportation system improvements proposed in the project would introduce new safety hazards at intersections or along roadway segments, as most would be designed to improve safety for all roadway users.

4.2 Land Use and Planning (Chapter 4.2, Impacts 4,2-1, 4.2-2): Consistency with Plans and Policies, Division of a Community

As the Final EIR concluded, the implementation of the MP 2035 would not have a significant impact related to land use. Significant impacts related to land use only pertain to projects that: physically divide and established community, and/or conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Additionally, the City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guidelines hold that the significance for land use impacts shall be made on a case-by-case basis, with the following factors to be considered in the evaluation of land use compatibility: land use type is incompatible with existing or proposed adjacent land uses; project includes features such as a highway or above ground infrastructure, or an easement that through an established neighborhood community that could cause a permanent disruption in the physical arrangement of that established

16

community or otherwise isolate an existing land use. City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guidelines provide the following factors for determining whether the MP 2035 is consistent with existing land use plans: whether the proposal is inconsistent with the adopted land use/density designation in the community plan, redevelopment plan or specific plan for the site, and whether the proposal is inconsistent with the General Plan or adopted environmental goals or policies contained in other applicable plans.

The Final EIR found that the MP 2035 would have less-than-significant impacts related to land use. Any construction related to the MP 2035 would be temporary, and the operation of the project would occur along existing developed streets. The PEDs, NEN, BEN, VEN, and TEN all showed less-than-significant impacts related to the division of a community and land use compatibility. However, while the VEN’s indirect land-use effects due to on-street parking loss was found not to be significant, a suggested mitigation measure LU1 was still proposed, which included as follows:

MM LU1 Prior to the decision to remove on-street parking, the City of Los Angeles shall meet with the affected business and property owners to discuss the potential for the removal of on-street parking to affect the economic viability of the affected businesses. The City shall identify parking replacement options to businesses that do not have off-street parking and would be substantially affected by the permanent removal of on-street parking.

The MP 2035 was found to be consistent with all of the objectives of the Regional State Plans and Policies, and the City of Los Angeles General Plan Framework Element. While the MP 2035 would replace the 1999 Transportation Element, it builds upon many of the concepts, maintains designated scenic and truck routes, and is consistent with the Transportation Element that it would replace. Overall, the MP 2035 is consistent with many of the goals and objectives of the City of Los Angeles’ community plans. Therefore, the implementation of the MP 2035 would have a less-than-significant impact on land use.

4.3 Air Quality (Chapter 4.3, Impacts 4.3-1, 4.3-2, 4.3-3, 4.3-4, 4.3-5): Conflict with Air Quality Plan, Plan, Violation of Air Quality Standards, Cumulative Increase in Criteria Pollutants, Objectionable Odors

As the Final EIR concluded, the implementation of the MP 2035 would not have a significant impact with respect to air quality. In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the MP 2035 would have a significant impact if it would: conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and/or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The MP 2035 is projected to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated mobile source emissions. Daily construction emissions would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) localized significance thresholds, and the project as proposed will not change diesel-emitting truck travel patterns substantially. The plan does not include land uses or industrial operations that are known to cause objectionable odors. Therefore, the implementation of the MP 2035 would have a less-than-significant impact on air quality.

17

4.4 Greenhouse Gases (Chapter 4.4, Impacts 4.4-1, 4.4-2): GHG Emissions, GHG Reduction Policies

As the Final EIR concluded, the implementation of the MP 2035 would not have a significant impact with respect to Greenhouse Gases (GHG). In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the MP 2035 does not have a significant impact because it neither generates GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment, nor does it conflict with any application plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The MP 2035, along with anticipated emissions controls, was found to incrementally decrease citywide GHG emissions compared to Existing and Future No Build conditions. Therefore, the implementation of the MP 2035 would have a less-than-significant impact on GHGs.

4.5 Noise and Vibration (Chapter 4.5, Impacts 4.5-5, 4.5-6): Noise Near Airports and Airstrips

Construction workers associated with the proposed project would be located within two miles of Van Nuys Airport, Hawthorne Municipal Airport, and Santa Monica Airport. Construction activity would not occur on airport property or directly adjacent to flight paths. It is not anticipated that airport-related noise levels would be louder than equipment noise levels at construction zones due to the distance from the airports to the construction workers. Airport-related noise levels are not hazardous at the proposed construction areas. There are no private airstrips located in the vicinity of the proposed enhancements. The proposed enhancements would not expose construction workers to excessive airport noise. Therefore, no impact would occur. The proposed enhancements would not develop residential or employee-related uses and would not expose people to excessive airport noise levels. Therefore, no impact would occur.

4.6 Aesthetics (Chapter 6, Section 6.5)

Scenic vistas and scenic resources, including trees and historic buildings, are found throughout the City of Los Angeles. The urban streetscape currently includes street furniture and lighting. Implementation of enhancements for particular major streets in mode-specific enhanced networks could result in physical changes to existing rights-of-way. lanes. In general, it is anticipated that the physical changes would primarily involve the loss of travel lanes, but in some circumstances, parking could also be lost. Scenic highways would remain as identified in the existing Transportation Element and any modifications to a Scenic Highway to incorporate network enhancement features would not affect the scenic elements. No scenic resources would be impacted because all work would occur within existing rights-of-way. It is not anticipated that changes within existing rights-of-way would significantly impact a scenic vista, damage any scenic resources, change the visual character or quality of a particular area or transportation corridor, or substantially change the shading and lighting levels along a transportation corridor. Any removal of street trees would be done in accordance with City of Los Angeles policies regulating such removal. Accordingly, less-than-significant impacts would occur.

18

4.7 Agriculture and Forestry Resources (Chapter 6, Section 6.5)

The proposed modal enhancements would be implemented within and adjacent to the existing public rights-of-way and would not require substantial acquisition of properties, including those that support agricultural and forestry resources. Therefore, the proposed enhancements would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use, conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract, or conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, no impact related to agriculture and forestry resources would occur.

4.8 Cultural Resources (Chapter 6, Section 6.5)

The proposed enhancements to the City’s pedestrian facilities, bikeway system, transit network, and street network resulting from the project would involve work within and adjacent to existing rights-of-way that have already been disturbed. Therefore, proposed enhancements are not anticipated to affect existing historic structures, as all work would occur within and immediately adjacent to existing rights-of-way. Minor additional right-of-way would be acquired to implement the proposed enhancements. Traditional methods of construction for pedestrian facilities, bikeways, transit improvements, and roadway improvements typically necessitate excavating to a depth no greater than 24 inches. As the proposed project would involve minimal ground disturbance during construction in areas where soil has already been disturbed as a result of construction of the existing roadways, impacts to subsurface historical resources, cultural resources, archaeological resources, or human remains are not anticipated; in cases where excavation could go beyond previously disturbed soils, site specific review would be required as appropriate. If unexpected archaeological resources were encountered along the enhancement corridors, it is the City’s standard procedure that construction be halted and a qualified archaeologist would be required to review the project plans and, as appropriate, identify protective BMPs. With respect to unique paleontological resources or sites, paleontological resources typically would be located below the depth of expected soils disturbance. Therefore, the proposed enhancements identified in MP 2035 are not anticipated to significantly impact paleontological resources.

4.9 Geology and Soils (Chapter 6, Section 6.5)

The City of Los Angeles, like most of Southern California, is a region of high seismic activity and is, therefore, subject to risk and hazards associated with earthquakes. Several active faults within the region are considered capable of affecting property throughout the City. Implementation of the proposed enhancements would involve work within or immediately adjacent to existing street rights-of-ways. The design and construction of any structures associated with pedestrian, bikeway, transit, and street improvements would conform to applicable codes, including the California Building Code seismic standards and other codes as determined by the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works to reduce the risk and hazards (e.g., ground shaking, liquefaction, settlement, subsidence, etc.) associated with seismic events, loss of topsoil and unstable soils. Therefore, less-than-significant impacts related to geology and soils would occur.

4.10 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Chapter 6, Section 6.5)

The proposed enhancements would be developed within existing rights-of-way and would not require acquisition of surrounding properties except as development occurs and the abutting properties are required to dedicate land to bring a right-of-way up to standard.

19

These enhancements would include the development of bicycle and transit lanes and other street improvements to address pedestrian needs and safety and improve the through movement of vehicular traffic. Construction of the proposed project would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials, including vehicle fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. Compliance with all applicable local, State, and federal laws and regulations would regulate, control, or respond to hazardous waste, transport, store, disposal, and clean-up in order to ensure that hazardous materials do not pose a significant risk to nearby receptors, such as schools and residences. All hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and California OSHA standards and other applicable regulations. Operation of the proposed enhancements would not result in emissions or release of hazardous materials beyond existing conditions. Subsurface work could encounter unexpected contaminated soils; any such soils would be evaluated and handled in accordance with applicable regulations.

The proposed enhancements would be located throughout the City of Los Angeles and may be located in the vicinity of an airport (e.g., Los Angeles International Airport, Van Nuys Airport, and Burbank Bob Hope Airport). Additionally, there are numerous helicopter landing pads throughout the City. However, none of the proposed enhancements would add any feature over 40 feet tall and, accordingly, would not pose a hazard to approaching airplanes or helicopters. The proposed mobility improvements are located in or adjacent to existing transportation infrastructure and not located in areas identified as a wildland fire hazard area, according to Exhibit D Selected Wildfire Hazard Areas of the Safety Element. The proposed enhancements would not interfere with the City’s Emergency Operations Master Plan and Procedures (potential interference with emergency vehicles is discussed in Section 4.1 Transportation, Parking and Safety). Therefore, less-than-significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would occur.

4.11 Hydrology and Water Quality (Chapter 6, Section 6.5)

The proposed enhancements would include the development of bicycle and transit lanes and other street improvements to address pedestrian needs and safety and improve the through movement of vehicular traffic. As previously described, the project segments are located within existing public rights-of-way in an urbanized environment. Construction activities associated with these enhancements could include minor earth moving, maintenance/operation of construction equipment and handling/storage/disposal of materials, which may contribute to pollutant loading in storm water runoff. However, with conformance to applicable City of Los Angeles and regional regulations and requirements concerning storm water discharge, and implementation of source control and treatment best management practices (BMPs), the proposed enhancements would minimize or eliminate the discharge of potential pollutants from storm water runoff that could degrade water quality to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the proposed enhancements would be implemented in areas currently developed with paved asphalt streets and sidewalks and would not alter existing drainage patterns place housing or structures in flood areas which would increase the risk of flooding or impede flood flow. Consequently, these enhancements would not measurably change the volume of storm water runoff. Similarly, since the proposed enhancements would be located within or immediately adjacent to existing rights-of-way, they would not increase the amount of area or the number of structures that maybe subjected to flooding or inundation. The proposed mobility improvements would not increase the exposure of persons to failure of a levee or dam, inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Therefore, less-than-significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality would occur.

20

4.12 Mineral Resources (Chapter 6, Section 6.5)

The enhancement corridors consist of existing streets located in developed urbanized areas of the City of Los Angeles. These corridors are currently used for transportation uses and would continue to be used as such under the proposed project. Accordingly, the proposed enhancements would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.

4.13 Population and Housing (Chapter 6, Section 6.5)

The proposed enhancements would not develop residential uses and, therefore would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. The proposed enhancements would include the development of bicycle and transit lanes and other street improvements to address pedestrian needs and safety and improve the through movement of vehicular traffic and would not displace any residential units or on-site residents or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur.

4.14 Public Services (Chapter 6, Section 6.5)

The proposed enhancements would be located within an existing urbanized area that is served by existing public services, including fire protection, police protection, parks, schools, or other public facilities. Because the proposed project would not induce growth or include the construction of new buildings, the proposed enhancements would not result in an increase in demand for fire and police services, schools, or other public facilities. As discussed in Section 4.1 Transportation, Parking and Safety, increasing congestion could significantly affect access of emergency service vehicles. However, any impact from construction of facilities related to adversely affected emergency service vehicles is speculative at this point in time. Therefore (other than the impact to access discussed under transportation), less-than-significant impacts related to public services would occur.

The proposed enhancements could result in the increased use of existing parks and other recreational facilities due to increased accessibility of these facilities by bicycles, transit, or pedestrian facilities along the existing and prospective enhancement corridors. However, the potential increase in use of existing parks and recreation facilities would be considered minor and would occur throughout the City and would not be concentrated on any particular facility. Therefore, less-than-significant impacts related to public services would occur.

4.15 Recreation (Chapter 6, Section 6.5)

As discussed above, the proposed enhancements would not induce population growth. No residential uses would be developed under the proposed project. The proposed enhancements would not include the construction or expansion of recreational facilities or contribute to a need that would necessitate the development of parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed enhancements could result in the increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities that include bicycle facilities. However, any increase in use of existing parks and recreation facilities would occur throughout the City and would not be concentrated on any particular facility. Therefore, less-than-significant impacts related to recreation would occur.

21

4.16 Utilities and Service Systems (Chapter 6, Section 6.5)

The proposed enhancements would include the development of bicycle and transit lanes and other street improvements to address pedestrian needs and safety and improve the through movement of vehicular traffic and would not connect to the public sewer system. Accordingly, these enhancements would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. In addition, operation of the proposed enhancements would not generate any solid waste or require additional water supply. There is the potential for utilities within streets to be severed by work; however, standard safety procedures would serve to avoid this potential impact. Therefore, less-than-significant impacts to utilities and service systems would occur.

SECTION 5: FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

CEQA requires that an EIR include an analysis of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to a proposed project capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant adverse environmental impact associated with the project. The discussion of alternatives is required to include the “No Project” alternative. CEQA requires further that the City of Los Angeles identify an environmentally superior alternative. If the “No Project” alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, an environmentally superior alternative must be identified from among the other alternatives. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6.)

As set forth in these Findings, the implementation of the MP 2035 will result in significant impacts that are considered unavoidable.

The following section identifies the alternatives to the proposed project that were considered and evaluated.

5.1 Alternative 1 - No Project Alternative

The No Project Alternative is required by Section 15126.6 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines and assumes that the MP 2035 would not be implemented.

Impact Analysis

Consistency with Land Use Plans, Policies: The No Project Alternative would be inconsistent with the most recent applicable plans and policies related to mobility. Therefore, a significant impact could occur related to consistency with applicable plans and policies.

Congestion Management Program: Under Alternative 1, cumulative growth would result in a 9.8 percent increase in daily VMT when compared to Existing conditions and a 2.2 percent increase in VMT when compared to the MP 2035. Alternative 1 would result in a potentially significant impact compared to Existing conditions. Since a demand model does not exist for capturing the benefits of the MP 2035, impacts related to the CMP would be less than the MP 2035 because the No Project Alternative diverts less people onto the freeway system.

Emergency Access: Similar to the MP 2035, Alternative 1 would result in potentially significant impacts to emergency access. In some instances, emergency access under Alternative 1 would be more affected than the MP 2035 in areas where no center turn lanes

22

are implemented and significant impacts related to emergency access would be similar or worse than the MP 2035.

Conflict with AQ Plan: The lack of adequate transportation infrastructure or measures to reduce VMT that would occur under Alternative 1 could conflict with the SCAQMD goals of accommodating growth and reducing VMT.

GHG Reduction Policies: From a cumulative perspective, Alternative 1 continues the status quo and would not contribute directly towards the regional goal of reducing the Basin's cumulative impact for ozone (O3), particulate matter 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter (PM2.5), particulate matter 10 microns or smaller in diameter (PM10), or lead (Pb). Alternative 1 would not include the implementation of multi-modal mobility enhancements and, therefore, would not be consistent with these GHG reduction policies. Therefore Alternative 1 would result in more GHG emissions compared to the MP 2035.

FINDINGS ON ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE:

The City rejects this Alternative for any and all of the following reasons:

1. This Alternative would not avoid significant impacts compared to the project withrespect to circulation, neighborhood intrusion, CMP, emergency access, noise, andbiology. Additionally, it would have additional significant impacts than the project,based on its violation of transportation plans and policies, and its failure to implementGHG reduction policies (RDEIR at 5-5 to 5-9).

2. Alternative 1 would not meet the primary purpose and goal of the project toimplement the Complete Street Act because it would not increase multi-modalaccess (RDEIR at 5-3 to 5-9).

3. Alternative 1 would not meet the MP 2035 goal to improve safety because it wouldnot implement Vision Zero safety objectives (RDEIR at 5-3 to 5-9).

4. Alternative would not meet the primary purpose and goal of the project and the MP2035 to decrease per capita vehicle miles traveled (RDEIR at 503 to 5-9).

5.2 Alternative 2 – Fewer Comprehensive Enhancements.

Alternative 2 reflects an alternative with overall more moderate mobility improvements as compared to the proposed project. The more moderate enhancements (in Alternative 2 most TEN enhancements would be Moderate as compared to the greater extent of Moderate Plus or Comprehensive lane miles under the proposed project) associated with this alternative would therefore result in fewer lane conversions on the TEN, which could result in potentially fewer impacts to the vehicular circulation system and biological resources. The proposed project would result in increased benefits compared to Existing conditions, related to multi-modal mobility and consistency with adopted plans and policies, but fewer benefits as compared to the proposed project. Alternative 2 would result in similar congestion as compared to the proposed project. Alternative 2 would result in less intervention and similar congestion but would have fewer multi-modal benefits.

23

Impact Analysis

Circulation System. Daily VMT under Alternative 2 would be 7.9 percent greater than existing conditions and 0.4 percent greater than the MP 2035. The increase in VMT would result in potentially significant impacts related to the circulation system. However, fewer vehicle lanes would be converted under the BEN and TEN for Alternative 2 than the MP 2035, which would provide additional capacity for vehicle travel compared to the MP 2035.

Neighborhood Intrusion. Alternative 2 would result in a potentially significant impact related to neighborhood intrusion. As with the proposed project, the greater projected VMT, along with the additional bicycle lane capacity, would result in similar congestion as the MP 2035. This would result in a greater likelihood for cut-through traffic. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have similar effects related to neighborhood intrusion when compared to the MP 2035.

Congestion Management Program. As described above, daily VMT under Alternative 2 would be approximately 0.4 percent greater than the VMT for the MP 2035. However, fewer vehicle lanes would be converted under the BEN and TEN for Alternative 2 than the MP 2035, which would provide additional capacity for vehicle travel compared to the MP 2035. Therefore, the amount of congestion would be similar to the MP 2035 and Alternative 2 would have similar effects related to the CMP compared to the MP 2035.

Emergency Access. Alternative 2 would result in similar congestion as the MP 2035, which could impede and result in potentially significant impacts to emergency access. Moderate enhancements are less likely to provide additional room for emergency vehicles. Therefore, the significant impacts for Alternative 2 could be similar or worse than the MP 2035.

Expose Persons or Generate Excessive Noise or Vibration Levels Above Standards. As with the proposed project, construction activity associated with the enhanced networks under Alternative 2 would mainly include reconfiguration of roadway striping and would not include excavation or construction. Limited heavy-duty equipment is anticipated to construct the proposed enhancements (e.g., small loaders for sidewalk widening or asphalt pacing equipment). It is possible that construction activities lasting more than one day would exceed existing ambient noise levels by 10 dBA or more at any one point source; it is not anticipated that construction activities lasting more than ten days in a three-month period would exceed existing ambient noise levels by 5 dBA or more at any one point source, and/or it is not anticipated that construction activities would exceed the ambient noise level by 5 dBA at any point source between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, before 8:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, or anytime on Sunday. With implementation of mitigation, Alternative 2 would result in less-than-significant impacts related to the generation of excessive noise levels during construction. The mobility enhancements under Alternative 2 would result in similar noise effects during construction as compared to the proposed project.

Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels. As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in significant impacts related to permanent increases in bus noise. The lower intensity mobility enhancements under Alternative 2 would result in fewer effects related to substantial increases in ambient noise levels as compared to the proposed project. Adverse Effect on Sensitive Species, Sensitive Habitats, or Wetlands. As with the MP 2035, under Alternative 2, mobility improvements could require widening outside the right-of-way that could have the potential to affect sensitive species, sensitive habitats, or wetlands.

24

Therefore, a potentially significant impact related to an adverse effect on sensitive species, sensitive habitats, or wetlands would occur.

Adverse Effect on Migratory Species or Wildlife Corridor. While, wildlife does sporadically find its way onto transportation infrastructure, the proposed mobility improvements would not create a condition that would increase the exposure. However, street trees within or immediately adjacent to the enhanced network right-of-ways could potentially support migratory birds. Accordingly, as with the MP 2035, construction activities associated with Alternative 2 could result in conflicts with the MBTA and CFGC through the removal or destruction of an active nest or direct mortality or injury of individual birds, creating a potentially significant impact. FINDING ON ALTERNATIVE 2 – FEWER COMPREHENSIVE ENHANCEMENTS The City rejects this Alternative for any and all of the following reasons:

1. Alternative 2 would not avoid the significant unavoidable impacts from the project (RDEIR at 5-9 to 5-15).

2. Alternative 2 would not as fully meet the goals and objectives of the project.

Alternative 2 would result in less intervention and similar congestion compared to the MP 2035, but would have fewer multi-modal benefits. In the long run, it is anticipated that a more robust multi-modal network as would occur under the MP 2035, could be more beneficial to the City as mode shift choices continue to evolve, i.e. as more people choose alternative modes to vehicles, greater choice would be provided by the MP 2035 (as compared to Alternative 2) because alternative modes (e. g., transit, bicycles and pedestrian) would have more interconnected networks potentially accelerating mode shifts to modes other than vehicles. Alterative 2 would have similar impacts to the project but would not achieve the same benefits (RDEIR at 5-9 to 5-15).

3. Alternative 2 would not as fully meet project objectives to increase multi-modal

access and decrease per capita VMT and GHG emissions (RDEIR at 5-9 to 515).

5.3 Alternative 3 – Project without Bike Lanes outside of the BEN and Fewer Miles of Transit Improvements Alternative 3 includes the same roadway and transit assumptions (intensity of infrastructure and enhancements) as for the MP 2035 except that it does not include the conservative analysis of the planned bicycle lanes for roadways that are not part of the BEN.

Impact Analysis

Circulation System. Daily VMT under Alternative 3 would be 7.6 percent greater than Existing conditions and about the same (less than 0.1 percent greater) as the VMT for the MP 2035. However, the analysis of Alternative 3 assumes that no vehicle lanes would be converted to bicycle lanes in the Bicycle Lane Network, which would provide additional capacity for vehicle travel compared to the MP 2035. Nonetheless, the amount of congestion generally would be similar to the MP 2035 and Alternative 3 would result in a similar significant impact related to congestion and the vehicular transportation network.

25

Neighborhood Intrusion. Along roadways where Alternative 3 would cause increases in traffic congestion, diversion of trips could occur onto adjacent parallel routes. It is anticipated that increased traffic could occur on roadways through neighborhoods. However, the model-estimated changes in circulation system conditions for the project, and alternatives that include increased facilities for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users, are conservative. They are vehicle-centric estimates based on historical travel behavior patterns and do not account for changes in demographics, vehicle ownership patterns, energy prices, and migration to alternate modes (pedestrian, bicycle and transit) that would lead to decreasing vehicular volumes. Transportation demand models are largely dependent on historical travel patterns and mode choices when forecasting future traffic projections and are not able to capture the benefits of a shift to multi-modal options. As with the project, Alternative 3 would result in a potentially significant impact related to neighborhood intrusion. As described above, the greater VMT, along with additional vehicle lane capacity would result in similar congestion as the proposed project, which would result in a similar likelihood for cut-through traffic. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have similar effects related to neighborhood intrusion as compared to the proposed project.

Congestion Management Program. Daily VMT under Alternative 3 would be approximately 0.1 percent greater than the VMT for the MP 2035. However, fewer vehicle lanes were assumed to be converted to bicycle lanes under Alternative 3 than the MP 2035, which would provide additional capacity for vehicle travel than the MP 2035. Nonetheless, overall, the amount of congestion would be similar and Alternative 3 would have similar effects related to the CMP compared to the MP 2035.

Emergency Access. As with the MP 2035, Alternative 3 would result in increased congestion compared to Existing conditions, which could impede emergency access. Similar to the MP 2035, Alternative 3 would result in potentially significant impacts to emergency access. The significant impact related to emergency access for Alternative 3 would be similar to the MP 2035.

Expose Persons or Generate Excessive Noise or Vibration Levels Above Standards. Alternative 3 would have similar noise impacts as compared to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would result in a potentially significant impact related to bus noise. As with the proposed project, implementation of mitigation would reduce potential impacts on construction noise and construction vibration to less than significant.

Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would result in significant impacts related to permanent increases in bus noise. However, with fewer miles on the TEN, fewer people may be exposed to these increased noise levels.

Adverse Effect on Sensitive Species, Sensitive Habitats, or Wetlands. As with the proposed project, under Alternative 3, mobility improvements could require widening outside the right-of-way that could have an impact on sensitive species, sensitive habitats, and/or wetlands. Therefore, as with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would result in a significant impact to sensitive species, sensitive habitats, or wetlands.

FINDING ON ALTERNATIVE 3 – PROJECT WITHOUT BIKE LANES AND FEWER MILES OF TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS

The City rejects this Alternative for any and all of the following reasons:

26

1. Alternative 3 would not avoid the significant impacts of the project (RDEIR at 5-15 to 5-19). In terms of intervention to the roadway system, Alternative 3 lies between the MP 2035 and Alternative 2. Alternative 3 reflects an alternative with similar comprehensive mobility improvements as the MP 2035 that would, in turn, result in similar environmental (traffic) impacts. The primary difference between Alternative 3 and the MP 2035 is that Alternative 3 does not include the analysis of the potential vehicle impacts of the Bicycle Lane Network resulting from vehicle-lane conversions to provide available roadway space for bicycle lanes. Alternative 3 does not include additional miles added to the TEN after the Draft EIR was circulated. The resulting outcome of the inclusion of bike lanes into the MP 2035 provides a multi-modal transportation network with increased connectivity, but the conservative analysis of the project bike lanes results in greater congestion impacts compared to Alternative 3.

2. Alternative 3 would not as fully meet the project’s primary purpose, objectives and

goal to provide multi-modal access to all Angelenos. With less investment in the Bicycle Lane Network and Transit Enhanced Network, Alternative 3 would not as fully address the network accessibility, safety and reduced GHG goals of the MP 2035 or fully incorporate the City’s Bicycle Plan (RDEIR at 5-15 to 5-19).

5.4 Alternative 4 – Project with Priority Bike Lanes Only (in general those bike lanes that have been identified to be implemented in the short-term). Alternative 4 includes the same roadway enhancements as for the MP 2035 except that it only includes priority bike lanes on the BEN.

Impact Analysis Circulation System. Daily VMT under Alternative 4 would be greater than Existing conditions and greater than the MP 2035 (since Alternative 4 includes fewer bicycle enhancements). However, fewer vehicle lane conversions would occur under Alternative 4, which would provide additional capacity for vehicle travel compared to the MP 2035. This would result in slightly less congestion and an incremental decrease in impacts to the circulation system compared to the MP 2035. Neighborhood Intrusion. Along roadways where Alternative 4 would cause increases in traffic congestion, diversion of trips could occur onto adjacent parallel routes. It is anticipated that increased traffic could occur on roadways through neighborhoods. However, the model-estimated changes in circulation system conditions for the project, and alternatives that include increased facilities for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users, are conservative. They are vehicle-centric estimates based on historical travel behavior patterns and do not account for changes in demographics, vehicle ownership patterns, energy prices, and migration to alternate modes (pedestrian, bicycle and transit) that would lead to decreasing vehicular volumes. Transportation demand models are largely dependent on historical travel patterns and mode choices when forecasting future traffic projections and are not able to capture the benefits of a shift to multi-modal options. As for the project, Alternative 4 would result in a potentially significant impact related to neighborhood intrusion. As described above, the slightly greater VMT, along with fewer vehicle lane conversions, would result in slightly less congestion than the MP 2035, which would result in a slightly less likelihood for cut-through traffic. Therefore, Alternative 4 would have more incrementally fewer effects related to neighborhood intrusion than compared to the MP 2035.

27

Congestion Management Program. VMT under Alternative 4 would be greater than Existing conditions and greater than the MP 2035. The greater VMT under Alternative 4, along with fewer vehicle lane conversions would result in slightly less congestion than the MP 2035 and a slightly lower demand to capacity ratio than the MP 2035. Therefore, Alternative 4 would have incrementally fewer effects related to CMP than compared to the MP 2035. Emergency Access. As with the MP 2035, Alternative 4 would result in increased congestion, which could impede emergency access resulting in potentially significant impacts to emergency access. Therefore, the significant impacts related to emergency access for Alternative 4 would be similar to the MP 2035. Expose Persons or Generate Excessive Noise or Vibration Levels Above Standards. As with the proposed project, Alternative 4 would result in a potentially significant impact related to construction noise and construction vibration; with implementation of mitigation, these impacts could be reduced to less than significant. As with the proposed project, noise impacts related to increased bus movements and changes to the TEN could result in significant impacts related to increased bus noise.

Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels. As with the proposed project, Alternative 4 would result in significant impacts related to permanent increases in bus noise. Adverse Effect on Sensitive Species, Sensitive Habitats, or Wetlands. As with the proposed project, under Alternative 4, mobility improvements could require widening outside the right-of-way that would have the potential to affect sensitive species, sensitive habitats, and/or wetlands. Therefore, as with the proposed project, a potentially significant impact related to an adverse effect on sensitive species, sensitive habitats, and/or wetlands would occur.

FINDING ON ALTERNATIVE 4 – PROJECT WITH PRIORITY BIKE LANES ONLY The City rejects this Alternative for any and all of the following reasons:

1. Alternative 4 would not avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project (RDEIR at 5-19 to 5-22). In terms of intensity, Alternative 4 lies between the MP 2035 and Alternative 3. Alternative 4 reflects an alternative with similar comprehensive mobility improvements as the MP 2035 that would, in turn, result in similar environmental impacts.

2. Alternative 4 would not as fully meet the primary purpose, objectives and goals of the

project to implement the Complete Streets Act and provide multi-modal access to all Angelenos. The primary difference between Alternative 4 and the MP 2035 is that Alternative 4 includes only priority lanes (in general those bike lanes that have been identified to be implemented in the short-term) on the bicycle network. The resulting outcome of the inclusion of priority bike lanes only in Alternative 4 provides a multi-modal transportation network with increased connectivity compared to Alternative 3 and less connectivity compared to the MP 2035.

3. Alternative 4 would not as fully implement the goals and objectives of the project

(safety first, world class infrastructure, access for all Angelenos, clean environment and healthy communities) and it would not as fully incorporate the City’s Bicycle Plan (RDEIR at 5-19 to 5-22).

28

5.5 Alternative 5 – Increased Comprehensive Enhancements, Transit Only Lanes

Alternative 5 includes the same roadway enhancements as for the MP 2035 except that it assumes that all streets on the TEN have exclusive bus lanes for the whole day. Impact Analysis Circulation System. Daily VMT under Alternative 5 would be less than the proposed project. Alternative 5 would result in greater vehicle lane conversions and, therefore, in more potentially significant impacts related to the circulation system as compared to the proposed project. The conversion of lanes to all day bus only lanes on the TEN would likely increase vehicle congestion compared to the proposed project. This would result in more congestion and an increase in impacts to the circulation system compared to the proposed project.

Neighborhood Intrusion. Alternative 5 would cause increases in traffic congestion along roadways compared to the proposed project; therefore, increased diversion of trips could occur onto adjacent parallel routes and through neighborhoods. However, the model-estimated changes in circulation system conditions for the project, and alternatives that include increased facilities for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users, are conservative. They are vehicle-centric estimates based on historical travel behavior patterns and do not account for changes in demographics, vehicle ownership patterns, energy prices, and migration to alternate modes (pedestrian, bicycle and transit) that would lead to decreasing vehicular volumes. Transportation demand models are largely dependent on historical travel patterns and mode choices when forecasting future traffic projections and is not able to capture the benefits of a shift to multi-modal options. As with the proposed project, Alternative 5 would result in a potentially significant impact related to neighborhood intrusion (impacts would be greater than the proposed project).

Congestion Management Program. VMT under Alternative 5 would be less than the proposed project. However, the conversion of vehicle lanes to all day bus only lanes on the TEN would likely increase vehicle congestion compared to the proposed project. This would result in more congestion and an increase in impacts to the CMP compared to the proposed project.

Emergency Access. As with the proposed project, Alternative 5 would result in increased congestion, which could impede emergency access. It is likely that the all-day bus only lanes would provide additional movement opportunities for emergency vehicles. Therefore, the significant impacts related to emergency access for Alternative 5 would be less than the proposed project. Nonetheless, this impact could remain significant because of the number of areas of the city without bus only lanes.

Expose Persons or Generate Excessive Noise or Vibration Levels Above Standards. As with the proposed project, Alternative 5 would result in a potentially significant impact related to construction noise and construction vibration; with implementation of mitigation, these impacts could be reduced to less than significant. Increased transit enhancements could result in a greater impact on bus noise as compared to the proposed project and this impact would be significant as with the proposed project.

29

Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels. As with the proposed project, Alternative 5 would result in significant impacts related to a permanent increase in bus noise (the impact could be greater than the MP 2035 because of the increased bus facilities).

Adverse Effect on Sensitive Species, Sensitive Habitats, or Wetlands. As with the proposed project, Alternative 5 could require widening outside the right-of-way that could have to potential to affect sensitive species, sensitive habitats, and/or wetlands. Therefore, as with the proposed project, a significant impact related to an adverse effect on sensitive species, sensitive habitats, and/or wetlands could occur

FINDING ON ALTERNATIVE 5 – INCREASED COMPREHENSIVE ENHANCEMENTS, TRANSIT ONLY LANES

The City rejects this alternative for any and all of the following reasons:

1. Alternative 5 would not avoid any significant unavoidable impacts from theproject (RDEIR at 5-22 to 5-26). The primary difference between Alternative 5and the proposed project is that Alternative 5 includes mostly Comprehensiveenhancements to the TEN, which involves all-day lane conversions to bus onlylanes. Alternative 5 encompasses all of the multi-modal improvements as the MP2035 and has greater benefits to the project but also has greater adversesignificant impacts (greater congestion, neighborhood intrusion, CMP freewayimpacts and emergency access).

5.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative

Section 15126(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to identify an “environmentally superior alternative.” If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. Based on the Final EIR there are no alternatives that would eliminate the significant impacts associated with the MP 2035 and satisfy a majority of project goals and objectives. Even the No Project Alternative results in many of the same impacts as the project because of the anticipated increased development between now and 2035. The No Project Alternative may not have the noise impact associated with buses or the biological impact associated with widening of roadways, but it would have additional impacts related to inconsistency with land use and air quality plans.

The alternatives evaluated would satisfy project goals and objectives and vary incrementally in the intensity of environmental effects. The proposed project and Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would result in significant impacts to circulation, neighborhood intrusion, CMP, emergency access, bus noise, sensitive species, sensitive habitats, and wetlands. Although the impacts anticipated under Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, and the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in an incrementally lower level of effect due to the lower intensity of physical changes to the enhanced networks (reduced intervention with existing roadways) while at the same time achieving project objectives (albeit to a lesser degree than the project). Therefore, Alternative 2 is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative due to a lower level of environmental impacts.

It should be noted, however, that the model-estimated changes in circulation system conditions for the project, and alternatives that include increased facilities for bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users, are conservative with respect to vehicle impacts. That is, they are vehicle-centric estimates based on historical travel behavior patterns and do not account

30

for changes in demographics, vehicle ownership patterns, energy prices, and migration to alternate modes (pedestrian, bicycle and transit) that would lead to decreasing vehicular volumes. Transportation demand models are largely dependent on historical travel patterns and mode choices when forecasting future traffic projections and are not able to capture the benefits of a shift to multi-modal options. For example, the percentage of people traveling by bicycle have grown in the cities that have also invested in low stress bicycle network facilities that are similar in scale as proposed by the BEN in the MP 2035. An earlier analysis of the 2010 Bicycle Plan found that completion of the 1,684 miles of bikeways proposed in that Plan would be projected to achieve 3.6 percent bicycle commute mode share, which was based on a study of 43 large cities across the country that implemented standard bicycle facilities.3 However, this projection did not factor in the low stress facilities in the MP 2035, which would attract a much larger demographic than standard bicycle lanes. The experience of other U.S. cities show protected bicycle lanes results in faster adoption of bicycle commuting by a greater portion of the population than standard facilities. Bicycle commuting doubled in just five years (2008-2013) in New York City and Washington D.C., the two cities that first started building modern protected bicycle lanes,4 and the average protected bike lane shows bike counts increase by 75 percent in the first year.5 A protected bicycle lane in New York City saw 190 percent increase in weekday ridership, and 32 percent of those biking were under 12 years.6 In 2012, bicycle trips were 36 percent of commute trips in Copenhagen7, a city that has invested in a high-density network of protected bicycle lanes. The proposed project would achieve more multi-modal mobility improvements and, in the long run, it is anticipated that a more robust multi-modal network as would occur under the proposed project, could be more beneficial to the City. As more people choose alternative modes to vehicles, greater choice would be provided by the proposed project (as compared to Alternative 2) because alternative modes (transit, bicycles and pedestrian) would have more interconnected networks, potentially accelerating shifts to modes other than vehicles and thereby further reducing impacts (e.g. air emissions, GHG emissions) beyond those presented in the Final EIR.

3 Dill, Jennifer and Theresa Carr. 2003. Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major Cities: If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them.

Transportation Research Record 1828:116-123 4 People for Bikes website. http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/nyc-and-dc-protected-lane-pioneers-just-doubled-

biking-rates-in-4-years Accessed May 7, 2015 5 Monsere, C., et al., 2014. Lessons from the Green Lanes: Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the U.S.. National Institute for Transportation and Communities. http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/everywhere-they-appear-protected-bike-lanes-seem-to-attract-riders access on May 7, 2015 6 NYC DOT, 2012. Prospect Park West: Traffic Calming & Bicycle Path. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2012_ppw_trb2012.pdf accessed on May 7, 2015 7 Copenhagen Bicycle Account 2012, Cycling Embassy of Denmark. http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2013/06/03/6995/,

website accessed May 7, 2015

31

SECTION 6: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

The MP 2035 Final EIR identifies unavoidable significant impacts that would result from implementation of the MP 2035. Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provide that when a public agency approves a project that will result in the occurrence of significant impacts that are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or at least substantially lessened, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the certified Final EIR and/or other information in the record. Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines require that the decision maker adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations at the time of approval of a project if it finds that significant adverse environmental effects have been identified in the Final EIR which cannot be avoided or substantially mitigated to an insignificant level. These findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are based on substantial evidence in the record, including but not limited to the Final EIR, and documents, testimony, and all other materials that constitute the record of proceedings.

The MP 2035 Final EIR concluded that, despite the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, the MP 2035 would result in the following unavoidable significant adverse impacts that are not able to be mitigated to a less-than-significant level: transportation (circulation, neighborhood intrusion, congestion management plan and emergency access); noise and vibration (excessive noise from buses and permanent noise increase from buses); and biological resources (sensitive species/habitats, Wetlands).

Accordingly, the City Council adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City recognizes that significant and unavoidable impacts would result from implementation of the proposed project. Having (i) adopted all feasible mitigation measures, (ii) rejected alternatives to the MP 2035 for the reasons discussed above, (iii) recognized all significant, unavoidable impacts, and (iv) balanced the benefits of the Plan, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, against the Plan’s significant and unavoidable impacts, the City Council hereby finds that the benefits of the MP 2035 outweigh and override the significant unavoidable impacts for the reasons stated below.

The following reasons summarize the benefits, goals and objectives of the MP 2035, and provide, in addition to the adopted findings, the rationale for the City Council’s determination that the benefits of the MP 2035 outweigh its significant and unavoidable adverse impacts. These overriding considerations of the economic, social, aesthetic, and environmental benefits justify adoption of the MP 2035. Many of these overriding considerations individually would be sufficient to outweigh the adverse environmental impacts of the MP 2035 and justify its approval. In particular, achieving the underlying purposes for the MP 2035 would be sufficient to override the significant environmental impacts of the MP 2035.

The City Council, having considered all of the foregoing, finds that the following specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the MP 2035 outweigh the identified unavoidable significant adverse impacts on the environment. The City Council expressly finds that the following benefits would be sufficient to reach this conclusion:

1. The MP 2035 promotes a balanced transportation system that would

accommodate anticipated population growth and guide physical development towards a desired image that is consistent with the social, economic and aesthetic values of the City.

32

2. The Final EIR provides a programmatic mitigation framework to guidetransportation projects in order to reduce environmental impacts of future plansand projects.

3. The MP 2035 brings the City’s General Plan in to compliance with the CompleteStreets Act.

4. The MP 2035 supports the policies and goals of the 2012-2013 RTP/SCS and theGeneral Plan Framework, and allows the City to meet future needs for the growthin population projected for the year 2035 by the Southern California Association ofGovernments.

5. The MP 2035 would improve local mobility through development of a balanced,multi-modal transportation network.

6. The MP 2035 is consistent with SB 375. The MP 2035 focuses on multi-modalimprovements, consistent with SB 375 and the Sustainable Communities Strategy,and therefore would be expected to contribute to decreasing regional vehiclemiles traveled, vehicle trips, and greenhouse gas emissions.

7. The MP 2035 is designed to increase the person carrying capacity of City streets.This increase in multimodal network capacity is forecast (using a vehicle-centricmethod) to result in increased active transportation and transit travel compared toExisting Base levels: Bicycling +170 percent, Transit +56 percent, Walking +38percent. Forecast increases in transit boardings would be 32 percent greater thanthe Future No Project, which equates to over 400,000 more transit boardingsevery day.

8. The MP 2035 would convert over 560 miles of general purpose travel lanes toBEN or TEN lanes, resulting in (using a vehicle-centric analysis) an overallreduction in trips (219,00 per day) and VMT (1.7 million fewer miles per day)relative to Business as Usual (Future No Project). Per capita VMT would be 2.1percent lower than Business as Usual.

9. The MP 2035 would result in more than 95 percent of the City’s population andemployment being within one mile of a high-quality bicycle facility, serving anadditional 2 million residents and 780,000 jobs relative to the Future No Project.Approximately 70 percent of jobs and 65 percent of residents would be within one-quarter mile of a high-quality bicycle facility under the proposed project.

10. The MP 20135 would result in more than 80 percent of the City’s population and85 percent of its employment being within one mile of a high-quality transit facility.serving an additional 1.1 million residents and 370,000 jobs relative to the FutureNo Project. Accessibility to high-quality transit facilities within a quarter mile wouldincrease more than three-fold for population and would more than double foremployment between the Future No Project and Project conditions.

11. The MP 2035 promotes active transportation modes (i.e., bicycling and walking)by providing lanes for bicycles and pedestrian enhancements. In general in theregion (according to the 2012 RTP/SCS), active transportation spending is

33

expected to increase the region’s bikeways from 4,315 miles to 10,122 miles and bring significant portions of deficient sidewalks into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), along with implementing other safety improvements. The Plan’s emphasis on transit and active transportation will allow the City’s residents to lead a healthier and active lifestyle.

12. The MP 2035 provides air quality and public health benefits by reducing regional

trips, and therefore reducing regional air quality as compared to a mobility plan focused on single-occupancy vehicles. Compared to Existing conditions reactive organic gases (ROG), carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) would be substantially less than today (as a result of Statewide emission controls).

13. The MP 2035 promotes safety by designing city streets to prioritize the safety of

the most vulnerable road user. The Plan’s emphases on designing for target operating speeds and enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities will help achieve the objective to eliminate traffic-related pedestrian and bicycle fatalities by 2035.

14. The MP 2035 would reduce GHG emissions, and would be consistent with

policies included in the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS promoting alternative transportation that would reduce VMT as compared to what could occur without the MP 2035.

15. The MP 2035 encourages and creates incentives for energy efficiency by reducing

VMT and therefore consumption of transportation fuel. 16. The MP 2035 could reduce annual household costs associated with driving. 17. The MP 2035 balances the policy goals and objectives of the City better than the

alternatives, as discussed in Section 5, Feasibility of Project Alternatives.

For the above-mentioned reasons, the City of Los Angeles City Council hereby concludes that the benefits of the MP 2035 outweigh and override any adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed project.

EXHIBIT C.3: Mitigation Monitoring Plan


For consideration by the City Planning Commission May 28, 2015

City of Los Angeles MP 2035 Mitigation Monitoring Plan

EXHIBIT C.3: Mitigation Monitoring Plan

Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15097 require adoption of a Mitigation & Monitoring Plan (MMP) for all projects for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared. This requirement was originally mandated by Assembly Bill (AB) 3180, which was enacted on January 1, 1989 to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the CEQA process. Specifically, PRC Section 21081.6 states that “…the agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment…[and that the program]…shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.”

AB 3180 provided general guidelines for implementing monitoring and reporting programs, which are enumerated in more detail in CEQA Guidelines Section 15097. However, specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements to be enforced during project implementation shall be defined prior to final approval of the City of Los Angeles Mobility Plan 2035 (MP 2035 or proposed project) by the decision-maker. In response to established CEQA requirements, the MMP shall be submitted to the City of Los Angeles (Lead Agency) for consideration prior to certification of the EIR. Although the Lead Agency may delegate monitoring responsibilities to other agencies or entities, the Lead Agency “…remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with the program.”

The MMP describes the procedures for the implementation of the mitigation measures to be adopted for the proposed project as identified in the Draft and Recirculated EIR and identified in the Final EIR. The MMP for the proposed project will be in place through the planning horizon of the Plan (2035) or until the Plan and EIR are updated again. The City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning (DCP) shall be responsible for administering the MMP activities or delegating them to staff, other City departments (e.g., Department of Building and Safety [DBS], Department of Public Works [DPW], etc.), consultants, or contractors. The City will also ensure that monitoring is documented through reports (as required) and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The City may choose to designate one or more environmental monitor(s) (e.g. City building inspector, project contractor, certified professionals, etc., depending on the provision specified below).

Each mitigation measure is identified in Table 1 below (Table 4-1 of the FEIR) and is categorized by environmental topic and corresponding number, with identification of:

• The Implementing Agency;

• The Enforcement Agency and Monitoring Agency – this is the agency or agencies that willmonitor the measure and ensure that it is implemented in accordance with this MMP.

• Monitoring Phase and Action – this is the criteria that would determine when the measurehas been accomplished and/or the monitoring actions to be undertaken to ensure themeasure is implemented.

All agencies and departments are in the City of Los Angeles, unless otherwise noted.

taha 2012-095 3


TABLE 1: MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN

No. Mitigation Measure Implementing

Agency Enforcement and

Monitoring Agency Monitoring Phase

and Action

TRANSPORTATION, PARKING, & SAFETY

T1 Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) will adjust traffic signal timing after the implementation of the proposed project (both along project routes and parallel roadways if traffic diversions have occurred as a result of the proposed project). This adjustment would be necessary, especially at the intersections where roadway striping would be modified. Signal timing adjustment could reduce traffic impacts at impacted intersections. (LADOT routinely makes traffic signal timing changes and signal optimization on an as-needed basis to accommodate the changes in traffic volumes to reduce congestion and delay in the City.)

DCP, LADOT LADOT, Pre-construction, Coordination between DCP and LADOT to identify and implement appropriate signal timing based on the characteristics of the mobility improvement.

T2 The City shall implement appropriate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures in the City of Los Angeles including potential trip-reducing measures such as bike share strategies, bike parking, expansion of car share programs near high density areas, bus stop improvements (e.g. shelters and “next bus” technologies), crosswalk improvements, pedestrian wayfinding signage, etc.

DCP DCP, LADOT As applicable, the City shall require of development projects, prior to construction, preparation of a TDM report describing TDM trip-reducing measures and procedures for implementation.

T3 In areas where implementation of the proposed project could potentially result in diversion of traffic to adjacent residential streets, LADOT shall monitor traffic on identified residential streets, upon request submitted through the Council Office, to determine if traffic diversion occurs. If traffic on residential streets is found to be significantly impacted, in accordance with LADOT’s Traffic Study Policies and procedures, LADOT will work with neighborhood residents to identify and implement appropriate traffic calming measures.

DCP, LADOT LADOT, Periodic Monitoring during operation; Conduct traffic counts and assess whether traffic diversion triggered by the proposed mobility improvements requires traffic calming measures to reduce significant impacts into residential neighborhoods.

T4 In areas where the implementation of the proposed project could potentially affect transportation systems managed by other agencies, such as Caltrans or Metro, or neighboring jurisdictions, the City of Los Angeles shall coordinate with these entities to identify transportation improvements in accordance with the goals and policies of Mobility Plan 2035 and seek opportunities to jointly pursue funding. Mobility solutions shall be focused on safety, enhancing mobility options, improving access to active modes, and implementing TDM measures to achieve both local and regional transportation and sustainability goals.

DCP LADOT Pre-construction, Coordination and Identification of Improvements that could be implemented through joint funding agreements.

T5 LADOT, Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) and Department of City Planning (DCP) shall coordinate and review design plans involving lane reallocation to ensure that emergency response access is adequately maintained (for example by expanding the Fire Preemption System).

DCP DCP, LADOT, LAFD Pre-construction; Coordination to implement design plans that maintain emergency access.

taha 2012-095 4






and Action

T6 Construction activities will be managed through the implementation of a traffic control plan to mitigate the impact of traffic disruption and to ensure the safety of all users of the affected roadway. The plan will address construction duration and activities and include measures such as operating a temporary traffic signal or using flagmen adjacent to construction activities, as appropriate.

DCP DCP, LADOT Pre-construction; Preparation of traffic control plan to identify potential construction traffic impacts, and the identification of mitigation measures to minimize construction impacts and ensure the safety of proposed improvements.

LAND USE AND PLANNING

LU1 Prior to the decision to remove on-street parking, the City of Los Angeles shall meet with the affected business and property owners to discuss the potential for the removal of on-street parking to affect the economic viability of the affected businesses. The City shall identify parking replacement options to businesses that do not have off-street parking and would be substantially affected by the permanent removal of on-street parking.

DCP DCP During project construction. City to meet with all affect businesses and property owners who would have parking removed as a result of a mobility enhancement and develop suitable parking replacement options to sustain the economic livelihood of affected businesses and property owners.

NOISE AND VIBRATION

N1 Construction activity that would last more than a day, that could increase ambient noise by more than 5 dBA, and would be located within 500 feet of a sensitive land use shall incorporate measures to reduce noise levels at sensitive receptors including, but not limited to, sound walls, sound blankets on impact equipment, and engine mufflers to reduce noise levels to acceptable levels. The noise reduction levels achieved by the measures shall limit noise increases to less than 5 dBA over the exiting ambient levels.

DCP DCP Construction; Preparation of a Noise Control Plan (prepared to professionally accepted acoustical engineering standards) to identify sensitive receptors within 500 feet of the proposed enhancement, conduct ambient noise measurements, and identify the increases in construction noise based on the required equipment to implement the mobility enhancement. The Noise Control Plan would identify measures to reduce noise increases at sensitive receptors within 500 feet to less than 5 dBA over ambient.

N2 A project-specific vibration analysis shall be completed if the City determines that construction equipment would be located within 11 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (typical of residential buildings and institutional buildings). Potential vibration impacts shall be mitigated such that vibration levels do not exceed 0.3 inches per second at 11 feet. Methods to reduce vibration include, but are not limited to, choosing to use light weight equipment when an option between equipment types is available and avoiding impact equipment (e.g., jackhammers).

DCP DCP Pre-construction; Preparation of a Vibration Control Plan (prepared to professionally accepted acoustical engineering standards) for the operation of construction equipment within close proximity to buildings (11 feet).

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

taha 2012-095 5






and Action

B1 Special-Status Species and Habitat. For future enhancements occurring within 200 feet of a Significant Ecological Area designated by the County of Los Angeles or within 200 feet of areas containing native vegetation, such as open space and undeveloped areas, a project-specific biological resource survey and assessment shall be conducted and prepared that discloses any potential impacts to special status species and habitats, and mitigates, to the extent feasible, the impacts of the mobility improvements. In addition, prior to implementation of mobility improvements, all required permits must be obtained; permits for work in wetland and riparian habitats frequently require project-specific measures to preserve resources.

DCP DCP, During pre construction; Biological Resource Survey, prepared by a qualified biologist, for all enhancements within 200 feet of Significant Ecological areas or areas containing native vegetation, such as open space and undeveloped areas and adherence to mitigation measures identified in survey.

B2 Wetland Habitat. For mobility improvements that extend into the Ballona wetlands, all applicable wetland permits shall be acquired. These permits include, but would not be limited to, a Section 404 Wetlands Fill Permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, or a Report of Waste Discharge from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWCQB. Additionally, a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) would be required for development that would cross or affect any stream course. Where feasible, the maximum amount of existing wetlands shall be preserved and minimum 25- to 50-foot buffers around all sides of these features shall be established. In addition, the final project design shall not cause significant changes to the pre-project hydrology, water quality, or water quantity in the wetland that is to be retained. This shall be accomplished by avoiding or repairing any disturbance to the hydrologic conditions supporting these wetlands, as verified through wetland protection plans. Where avoidance of the Ballona Wetlands is not feasible, then mitigation measures shall be implemented for the project-related loss of any existing wetlands on site, such that there is no net loss of wetland acreage or habitat value. Wetland mitigation shall be developed as a part of the Section 404 Clean Water Act permitting process, or for nonjurisdictional wetlands, during permitting through the RWQCB, CDFW and/or USFWS. Mitigation is to be provided prior to construction related impacts on the existing wetlands. The exact mitigation ratio is variable, based on the type and value of the wetlands affected by the project, but agency standards typically require a minimum of 1:1 for preservation and 1:1 for construction of new wetlands. In addition, a Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be developed that includes the following:

DCP DCP, CDFW, RWQCB

During preconstruction; Preparation and completion of permitting applications/process.

taha 2012-095 6






and Action • Descriptions of the wetland types, and their expected functions and

values. • Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success

of the mitigation wetlands over a period of five to ten years. • Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of

wetlands to be created or restored. • An implementation schedule showing that construction of mitigation

areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with the initiation of construction.

• A description of legal protection measures for the preserved wetlands (i.e., dedication of fee title, conservation easement, and/ or an endowment held by an approved conservation organization, government agency or mitigation bank).

B3 Migratory Birds. To prevent the disturbance of nesting native and/or migratory bird species, the City shall require that clearing of street trees or other vegetation should take place between September 1 and February 14. If construction is scheduled or ongoing during bird nesting season (February 15 to August 31), the City of Los Angeles shall require that a qualified biologists conduct a nesting bird survey within 250 feet of the construction activity, no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the commencement of construction activities. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with CDFW protocols, as applicable. If no active nests are identified on or within 250 feet of the construction activity, no further mitigation is necessary. A copy of the pre-construction survey shall be submitted to the Department of City Planning. If an active nest is identified, construction shall be suspended within 100 feet of the nest until the nesting cycle is complete, as determined by a qualified ornithologist or biologist.

DCP DCP Pre-construction; biological survey of street trees by qualified biologist for construction during nesting season.

SOURCE: TAHA, 2015.

taha 2012-095 7


EXHIBIT D: Proposed LAMC Technical Amendments


For consideration by the City Planning Commission May 28, 2015

1


2

ORDINANCE NO. _________________

An ordinance amending Sections 12.03, 12.37 and 17.05 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code and repealing previous ordinances establishing street designations for arterial streets and arterial street segments in order to implement modifications to the General Plan’s Transportation Element.

THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Those portions of any and all ordinances, including specific plans that establish street designations for any arterial street or arterial street segment are hereby repealed. Such designations shall be replaced by the designations set forth in the Citywide Circulation System Map located in Council File No. _____________.

Sec. 2. The last sentence of the first paragraph of subsection A of Section 12.37 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read:

As used in this section the Center/Control line of the highway or collector street shall mean the center of those highways or collector streets as are shown on the Citywide Circulation System Map of the Mobility Element of the General Plan or, with respect to collector streets, on the adopted community plans of the Land Use Element of the General Plan on file in the offices of the Department of City Planning.

Sec. 3. Paragraph 5 of subsection A of Section 12.37 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read:

5. Regardless of the location of the Center/Control Line of the street andits distance from each abutting property, the maximum required dedication shall equal one half of the right of way standard street dimension minus one half of the existing right of way dimension.

Sec. 4. Subsection A of Section 12.37 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to add new subparagraphs 6 and 7 to read:

6. No dedication shall be required where the existing right of way is equalto or greater than the street standard, even where the improved sidewalk does not meet the standard dimension. This section does not require the narrowing of the existing roadway in order to widen the sidewalk to meet the standard.

7. Nothing herein shall preclude the decision maker on a discretionaryentitlement from requiring a dedication or improvement greater than what is set forth in this section, if the decision maker determines that a greater dedication or improvement bears an essential nexus and rough proportionality to a project impact.

1

Sec. 5. Paragraph 3 of Subsection F of Section 12.37 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read:

3. A nonrefundable fee of $250 for processing waiver requestspursuant to the provisions of Subsection I. of this Section.

Sec. 6. Paragraph 4 of Subsection F of Section 12.37 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read:

4. A nonrefundable fee of $1,000 for processing appeals pursuant tothe provisions of Subsection I. of this Section.

Sec. 7. Paragraph 1 of Subsection H of Section 12.37 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read:

1. All major and secondary highways and all collector streets shall beconstructed and improved in accordance with the standards adopted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to LAMC 17.05 B.

Sec. 8. Subsection I of Section 12.37 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read:

I. Waivers And Appeals

1. This subdivision shall constitute the exclusive mechanism forwaivers and appeals of dedication and improvement requirements under this section. Waivers of dedication or improvement requirements may not be granted by City Council motion.

2. Waivers for by-right projects. Any person seeking a waiver ofthis section’s dedication or improvement requirements for a project that does not require a discretionary entitlement shall file an application for a waiver with the City Engineer.

a. Notice. Within five calendar days of the receipt of anapplication for a waiver, the Bureau of Engineering shall mail notice of the requested waiver to:

i. Owners of property across the street or alley from thesubject property;

ii. Owners of property with frontage along the same street thathas a common corner with or that abuts the subject property;

2

iii. Owners of property with frontage along the same street thathas a common corner with or that abuts any properties listed in (i) and (ii) above;

iv. The Council member of the district where the subjectproperty is located; and

v. The department of City Planning and Transportation.

b. Findings. The City Engineer may waive, reduce, or modify therequired dedication or improvement as appropriate after making any of the following findings based on substantial evidence in the record:

i. The dedication or improvement requirement does not bear areasonable relationship to any project impact.

ii. The dedication or improvement is not necessary to meet theCity’s mobility needs for the next twenty years based on guidelines the Streets Standards Committee has established.

iii. The dedication or improvement requirement is impractical orwill create an undue hardship.

c. Written Determination. The City Engineer shall issue adetermination regarding the request within fifteen (15) working days of mailing of the notice described above, or within any additional period mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall mail the determination letter to the applicant, the General Manager of the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, and to all individuals to whom notice of the application was provided.

d. Appeal. Any person required to dedicate land or makeimprovements pursuant to this section may appeal the City Engineer’s decision to the City Planning Commission. The appeal shall be filed within 15 days of the date of mailing of the City Engineer’s determination letter. Such appeal shall be made in writing, shall be filed at the Department of City Planning’s public counter, shall state in clear and concise language the grounds for the appeal, and shall be accompanied by a filing fee in the amount specified above.

i. Before acting on any appeal, the City PlanningCommission shall set the matter for a hearing, giving at least 15 days’ notice to the individuals identified in paragraph 3 above.

ii. On appeal, the City Planning Commission shallconsider the waiver request de novo based on the findings set forth

3

in subdivision 2.b. above. The City Planning Commission shall act to approve or deny the appeal within 75 days after the expiration of the appeal period or within any additional period mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the City Planning Commission.

3. Waivers for discretionary projects. For projects that require adiscretionary entitlement, an applicant shall file a waiver request as part of the master land use application or subdivider’s statement for the project. In such case, the decision maker for the discretionary entitlement shall process the waiver request pursuant to the procedures established for the discretionary entitlement, but may only grant a waiver after making one of the required findings set forth in subdivision 2.b. above. The waiver request must be set forth in the master land use application, and may not be raised for the first time at the hearing on the entitlement, or at any entitlement appeal hearing. The applicant may appeal the waiver determination pursuant to the same procedures that govern the entitlement, except in the case of projects that include a tentative map, the waiver determination is subject to only one level of appeal. On appeal, the decision maker shall consider the waiver request de novo based on the findings set forth in subdivision 2.b. above.

Sec. 9. Subsection A. of Section 17.05 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read:

A. Street Standards Committee. There is hereby created a Street Standards Committee (Committee) to be composed of the Director of Planning, as Chair, the City Engineer and the General Manager of the Department of Transportation.

This Committee shall:

1. Recommend to the Commission minimum width and improvementstandards for all classes of public and private streets and alleys. TheCommission shall adopt such minimum width and improvementstandards as it determines are necessary for the safe and adequatemovement of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit service and vehiculartraffic, the increased retention and detention of stormwater, theinstallation of necessary utilities and for reasonable and proper accessto abutting properties. Such standards shall not be applicable to anystreet or alley for which the City Council, by ordinance, adopts specificstandards.

2. Modify the Complete Street Design Guide (CSDG) on an as-neededbasis to alight the CSDG with current and innovative street designpractice.

Sec. 10. Subsection B of Section 17.05 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read:

4

B. Adoption Of Standards. All standards adopted by the Commission shall remain in effect for at least one year. A public hearing shall be conducted by the Commission prior to the approval of any change in the standards.

Sec. 11. Subdivision 1 of Subsection D of Section 17.05 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code is amended to read:

1. Right of Way and Roadway Widths. All streets and alleys shall be

designed to conform with the Commission’s adopted standards. Regardless of the location of the Center/Control Line of the street and its distance from each abutting property, the maximum required dedication shall equal one half of the right of way standard street dimension minus one half of the existing right of way dimension. No dedication shall be required where the existing right of way is equal to or greater than the street standard, even where the improved sidewalk does not meet the standard dimension. This section does not require the narrowing of the existing roadway in order to widen the sidewalk to meet the standard.

Sec. 12. Subdivisions 6 and 7 of Subsection D of Section 17.05 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code are amended to read:

6. Intersections. Street intersections shall be at as near to a right angle as

possible. No jogs shall be allowed in the continuity of an arterial street. Jogs in a non-arterial street where crossing an arterial street shall be held to a minimum. Multiple intersections of more than four approaches should be avoided. In hillside areas special conditions may be required.

7. Cul-de-sac Streets. Cul-de-sac streets should be avoided except in

locations where physical constraints prohibit the continuation of the street (such as where a river or railroad infrastructure is present) or where made necessary by historical development patterns. Where cul-de-sac streets are approved, they shall be terminated by a turning area conforming to the latest standards approved by the Commission. Where feasible, existing cul-de-sacs should be modified, and new cul-de-sacs should be designed to include a passageway for bicycles and pedestrians to access the surrounding area.

Sec. 13. Subsections E, F and G of Section 17.05 of the Los Angeles

Municipal Code are amended to read: E. Alleys.

1. Alleys shall be not less than 20 feet in width. Alleys serving industrial zones shall be 30 feet wide, unless otherwise approved by the Advisory Agency. All dead-end alleys shall be constructed with adequate turning areas. Whenever practicable alleys shall be required at the rear of all lots that are in

5

residential zone and that front an arterial street; alleys may also be required at the rear of lots in commercial and industrial zones.

2. Alley Intersections. Where two alleys intersect, a triangularcorner cut-off of not less than ten feet along each alley line shall be provided.

F. Pedestrian Walks. If the Advisory Agency determines that inner-block pedestrian walks are necessary for the public health, safety or welfare they shall be dedicated to a width of not less than 12 feet. The Advisory Agency, however, shall only impose such a dedication requirement after finding that the dedication bears an essential nexus and rough proportionality to a project impact.

G. Blocks. Blocks in residentially and industrially zoned areas shall not exceed 1,700 feet in length, except in hilly areas. Commercial blocks shall not exceed 800 feet in length except in locations where the prevailing block lengthy (within ½ mile) is less than 800 feet; in such instance the new block shall not exceed the average prevailing block length.

6

Sec. 14. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and have it published in accordance with Council policy, either in a daily newspaper circulated in the City of Los Angeles or by posting for ten days in three public places in the City of Los Angeles: one copy on the bulletin board located at the Main Street entrance to the Los Angeles City Hall; one copy on the bulletin board located at the Main Street entrance to the Los Angeles City Hall East; and one copy on the bulletin board located at the Temple Street entrance to the Los Angeles County Hall of Records.

I hereby certify that this ordinance was passed by the Council of the City of Los Angeles, at its meeting of .

, City Clerk

By Deputy

Approved ________________________

Mayor

Approved as to Form and Legality , City Attorney

By_______________________________ MICHAEL J. BOSTROM Deputy City Attorney

Date _____________________________

File No(s). _

Pursuant to Charter Section 559, I approve this ordinance on behalf of the City Planning Commission and recommend that it be adopted . . . . .

October ___, 2011

See attached report.

________________________________

Michael LoGrande Director of Planning

7

EXHIBIT E: Street Standard Plans- S-470-1


For informational purposes

May 28, 2015

136'

18' 100' 18'

50' 50'

110'

80'15' 15'

40' 40'

15' 15'70'

100'

35' 35'

86'

56'15' 15'

28' 28'

72'

46'13' 13'

23' 23'

P

L

ARTERIAL STREETS

P

L

P

L

P

L

P

L

P

L

P

L

P

L

P

L

P

L

BOULEVARD I (MAJOR HIGHWAY CLASS I)

BOULEVARD II (MAJOR HIGHWAY CLASS II)

AVENUE I (SECONDARY HIGHWAY)

AVENUE II (SECONDARY HIGHWAY)

AVENUE III (SECONDARY HIGHWAY)

℄

℄

℄

℄

℄

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

STANDARD PLAN

SUPERSEDES REFERENCES

VAULT INDEX NUMBER:

SHEET 1 OF 4 SHEETS

DATE

APPROVEDSUBMITTED

PREPARED

DATE

BUREAU OF ENGINEERING


CHECKED


D-22549

--- DRAFT --- STANDARD STREET DIMENSIONS

HAMID MADANI, P.E.

RAFFI MASSABKI, P.E.

BUREAU OF ENGINEERING CITY OF LOS ANGELES

S-470-1

DATE

Exp.

No. C-49446

C I V I L

ST A T E

O F C A L I F O RNI A

REG

ISTE

RED PROFESS IONAL

ENGINEER

S-470-0

THIS STANDARD PLAN BECOMES EFFECTIVE CONCURRENT WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE MOBILITY PLAN 2035.

DATE

DATEDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

GENERAL MANAGER

GARY LEE MOORE, P.E., ENV. SP.

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

66'

40'13' 13'

20' 20'

68'

48' 10'10'

24' 24'

10'10' 44'

64'

22' 22'

60'

36' 12'12'

18' 18'

10'10' 30'

50'

15' 15'

NON-ARTERIAL STREETS

P

L

P

L

P

L

P

L

P

L

P

L

P

L

P

L

P

L

P

L

COLLECTOR STREET

INDUSTRIAL COLLECTOR STREET

INDUSTRIAL LOCAL STREET

LOCAL STREET - STANDARD

LOCAL STREET - LIMITED

℄

℄

℄

℄

℄

50'

40'5' 5'

20' 20'

2

:

1

M

A

X

2

:

1

M

A

X

2

:

1

M

A

X

2

:

1

M

A

X

44'

4' 36' 4'

18' 18'

2' MIN.

3' BERM ON

PRIVATE PROPERTY

2

:

1

M

A

X

2

:

1

M

A

X

36'

28'

14' 14'

4' 4'

1' MIN.

1' MIN.

1' MIN

5' MIN.

10' MIN.

VAR. VAR.

CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH

BUREAU OF ENGINEERING STANDARD PLANS

P

L

P

L

P

L

P

L

P

L

P

L

P

LP

L

HILLSIDE STREETS

HILLSIDE LOCAL

HILLSIDE LIMITED STANDARD

PUBLIC STAIRWAY

HILLSIDE COLLECTOR

2%

MAX

2%

MAX

2%

MAX

2%

MAX

3'

3'

2' MIN.

2%

MAX

2%

MAX

℄

℄

℄

SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS

STANDARD PLAN NO.

VAULT INDEX NUMBER

S-470-1

B-

ARTERIAL STREET

ARTERIAL STREET

10' MIN

17' MIN.

VAR. 5' MIN

10'

12' OR

18' (W/ PARKING

ON ONE SIDE)

26' OR

32' (W/ PARKING ON ONE SIDE)

10'20' OR


34' OR


P

L

P

L

P

L

P

L

P

L

P

L

OTHER PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY

SHARED STREET

PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY

ONE-WAY SERVICE ROAD

BI-DIRECTIONAL SERVICE ROAD

4'

4'

R=25'

R=25'

P

L

X

30X 150'

P.I. OF PL

P.I. OF PL

STANDARD FLARE SECTION

TRANSITIONAL EXTENSIONS

ALLEYS

R

=

2

0

'

R

=

2

0

'

20' 60'

20'

STANDARD TURNING AREA

R

=

2

0

'

R

=

2

0

'

20'

25'

30'

20'

MINIMUM TURNING AREA

20'

20'

STANDARD CUT CORNERS

FOR 90° INTERSECTION

10'

10'

10'

10'

(PLAN VIEW)

(PLAN VIEW)

(PLAN VIEW)

(PLAN VIEW)

STANDARD CROSS-SECTION

(PLAN VIEW)

P

L

1

4

.

1

4

'

1

4

.

1

4

'

20'

⅊

⅊

⅊

⅊

⅊

P

L

P

L

RED WOOD

HEADER OR

JOIN EX

CONCRETE

AT ⅊

CUL-DE-SAC

VA

RIA

BLE

VA

RIA

BLE

R=50'

R=50'

VARIABLE

VARIABLE

R

=

3

5

'

M

I

N

I

M

U

M

NOTE: FOR FIRE TRUCK CLEARANCE, NO OBSTRUCTION TALLER

THAN 6" SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHIN 3FT. OF THE CURB.

ON-STREET PARKING SHALL BE PROHIBITED.

MAY BE UNSYMMETRICAL

(PLAN VIEW)

10'WALK

SHEET 3 OF 4 SHEETS

STANDARD PLAN NO.

VAULT INDEX NUMBER

S-470-1

B-

8. FOR INTERSECTIONS OF STREETS, THE FOLLOWING DEDICATIONS SHALL APPLY;

NOTES

1. CITY COUNCIL MAY, BY ORDINANCE, ADOPT SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR INDIVIDUAL STREETS THAT DIFFER FROM THESE OFFICIAL STANDARD STREET

DIMENSIONS. COMMUNITY PLANS AND SPECIFIC PLANS SHOULD BE REVIEWED FOR FOOTNOTES, INSTRUCTIONS AND/OR MODIFIED STREET

DIMENSIONS THAT WOULD REQUIRE STANDARDS DIFFERENT THAN THOSE INDICATED ON THIS STANDARD PLAN.

2. FOR ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE AS TO THE USE OF THE ROADWAY AND SIDEWALK AREA, PLEASE REFER TO THE COMPLETE STREET DESIGN GUIDE AND

MANUALS.

3. FOR DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS REQUIRING ACTION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING (PLANNING), PLANNING MAY INCLUDE SPECIFIC

INFORMATION AS TO THE DESIGN AND UTILIZATION OF THE SIDEWALK AREA.

4. WHERE A DESIGNATED ARTERIAL CROSSES ANOTHER DESIGNATED ARTERIAL STREET AND THEN CHANGES IN DESIGNATION TO A STREET OF LESSER

STANDARD WIDTH, THE ARTERIAL SHALL BE TAPERED IN A STANDARD FLARE SECTION ON BOTH SIDES, AS ON SHEET 3, TO MEET THE WIDTH OF

LESSER DESIGNATION AND PROVIDE AN ORDERLY TRANSITION.

5. PRIVATE STREET DEVELOPMENT SHOULD CONFORM TO THE STANDARD PUBLIC STREET DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE SHEET, WHERE APPROPRIATE.

VARIATIONS MAY BE APPROVED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BY THE CITY.

6. FIFTY-FOOT CURB RADII (INSTEAD OF THE STANDARD 35' CURB RADII) SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR CUL-DE-SACS IN INDUSTRIAL AREAS. SEE CUL-DE-SAC

ILLUSTRATION FOR FURTHER DESIGN STANDARDS.

7. ALLEYS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 20' IN WIDTH AND INTERSECTIONS AND/OR DEAD-END TERMINUSES SHALL BE DESIGNED TO CONFORM TO THE

ALLEY ILLUSTRATIONS INCLUDED HEREIN.

A. INTERSECTIONS OF ARTERIAL STREETS WITH ANY OTHER STREET: 15' X 15' CUT CORNER OR 20' CURVED CORNER RADIUS.

B. INTERSECTIONS ON NON-ARTERIAL AND/OR HILLSIDE STREETS: 10' X 10' CUT CORNER OR 15' CURVED CORNER RADIUS.

9. STREETS THAT ARE ACCOMPANIED BY A PARALLEL FRONTAGE AND/OR SERVICE ROAD ARE DEEMED TO MEET THE STREET STANDARDS SET FORTH

HEREIN AND THE DEDICATION REQUIREMENT SHALL BE NO MORE THAN IS NECESSARY TO BRING THE ABUTTING SIDEWALK DIMENSION INTO

COMPLIANCE WITH THE STREET STANDARD.

10. DUE TO THEIR UNIQUE CHARACTER AND DIMENSIONS ALL STREETS DESIGNATED AS DIVIDED ARE CONSIDERED TO HAVE MET THEIR STREET

STANDARD AND THE DEDICATION SHALL BE NO MORE THAN IS NECESSARY TO BRING THE ABUTTING SIDEWALK DIMENSION COMPLIANT WITH THE

STREET STANDARD.

11. THE DIMENSION OF ANY MEDIAN, DIVIDED STRIP AND/OR TRANSIT WAY SHALL BE INCLUDED WHEN DETERMINING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DIMENSION.

12. THE LOCATION OF THE DRAINAGE GUTTER IS NOT RESTRICTED TO THE CENTER OF THE SHARED STREET AND CAN BE PLACED WHERE NECESSARY

AS APPROVED BY THE CITY.

13. A SHARED STREET SHALL PROVIDE A DEDICATED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE.

SHEET 4 OF 4 SHEETS

STANDARD PLAN NO.

VAULT INDEX NUMBER

S-470-1

B-

EXHIBIT F: Five Year Implementation Strategy


For informational purposes

May 28, 2015

Mobility Plan Five Year Implementation Strategy

Program

No.Program Dept. Policy Topic Implementation Strategy

S.1 Active Transportation Education.

Coordinate with LAUSD to incorporate mobility education (for children ages 4‐18) into regular physical education curriculum.

DOT, LAUSD, bicycle non‐profits

1.3, 1.2 Schools Continue to serve 175,000 students each year through the Safe Moves program.

ENG.1 ATSAC. Continue to implement and update as needed the City's signal management program (ATSAC) to monitor and manage the traffic flows.

DOT 4.11, 4.2 Engineering DOT to earmark $10 million in funding for construction of new ATSAC Center. Design, build and transition to the new center.

C.1 Bicycle Ambassador Program. Develop a Bicycle Ambassador program to attend public events including health fairs and communitiy bike rodeos to broaden awareness of bicycling and provide safety information.

DOT, bicycle nonprofits.

3.5, 2.5 Communi‐cation

LAPD to continue to support and expand participation via grant funding. Non‐profit organizations to continue to provide 600 ambassadors at various events annually.

SF.28 Bicycle Friendly Businesses. Continue to support Bicycle Friendly Business Program

DOT 2.5 Support Features

Establish five bicycle friendly districts. Install 25 repair stations and 100 bike corrals based on outcome of pilot.

SF.2 Bicycle Parking at Existing Major

Destinations. Work with special event facilities’ managers to provide convenient, secure, good quality and well‐lit bicycle parking facilities at special event venues such as Dodger Stadium, the Staples Center/LA Convention Center, and the LA Memorial Coliseum/Sports Arena.


Continue to provide bicycle parking at major events.

SF.5 Bicycle Path Mile Markers. Continue to install and retrofit mile markers along bike paths; work with LAPD and LAFD to facilitate emergency response on paths.

DOT, LAPD, LAFD, BOE

2.5, 2.9 Support Features

LAPD to develop an emergency response system on bicycle paths utilizing mile markers.

SF.8 Bicycle Valet. Work with special event providers, employers and community‐based organizations to provide bicycle valet services at large public and private special events.

DOT, bicycle non‐profits.

3.8 Support Features

Non‐profit organizations to continue to support 50 events/year. Explore the feasibility of adopting an ordinance to require events that do not have sufficient permanent bicycle parking to provide a bicycle valet.

ENG.2 Bicycle‐Sensitive Detectors. Continue to install bicycle sensitive detectors at all actuated signal controlled intersections, including pavement markings for bicyclists.

DOT/BSS 2.1, 1.2 Engineering Implement expanded LADOT design standards for bicycle facilities including pavementn markings.

CONTINUING PROGRAMS

1


Program


CONTINUING PROGRAMS

C.3 Bike to Work Week. Expand the regional effirts of Bike‐to‐Work Week by providing City sponsored events and pit stops in every council district and supporting bicycling to school for students. Provide information, support services and incentives for bicyclists to bicycle to work and school. Distribute materials and post information on Bicycle Program Websites.

Mayor, Council, LAUSD, DOT, SCAG, Metro

5.1, 2.5, 1.3

Communi‐cation

Expand outreach

S.2 Bike, Walk, and Roll Weeks. Support Metro's Bike, Walk, and Roll Week by providing City sponsored events and pit stops in every council district and supporting bicycling to school for students. Provide information, support services and incentives for bicyclists to bicycle to work and school. Distribute materials, post information, and evaluate the progress of the program.

DOT, LAPD, Council, Mayor, LAUSD, Metro, SCAG

1.3, 1.4, 3.1, 4.10

Schools Support open street events (e.g., CicLAvia) and safety and education events. LAPD to continue to support Bike, Walk and Roll Weeks.

ENG.4 Bridge Design Program. Consider bicycle and pedestrian facilities when designing new or retrofitting bridges. Particular attention to bridge underpasses that cross existing or future bicycle/walking paths to ensure design integration.

DOT, BOE 2.1 Engineering Ensure that all new or retrofits undertaken in 2015‐20 accommodate persons who travel by bicycle or walking.

O.1 City Fleet. Develop, fund, and implement an actionable strategic plan with accompanying timeline for converting the City's, including proprietary departments, fleets into low and zero‐emission vehicles, and include alternative transport such as transit passes and a City bicycle fleet.

GSD 5.3, 5.4 Operations General Services Division Fleet to convert their three major alternative fueled groups (Autos/Sedans only, Street Sweepers and Refuse Collection Vehicles) to alternative fuels by 2020.

C.7 Citywide Bicycle Transportation Website.

Continue to maintain the BicycleLA.org website to provide bicyclists with current information about safety, future improvements, events, network maps, route information and suggestions, maintenance and other relevant information.

DOT 4.14, 1.6 Communi‐cation

Launch revamped website Spring 2015.

2


Program


CONTINUING PROGRAMS

D.4 Collision Monitoring and Analysis. Annually identify locations with high levels of auto, pedestrian, and bicycle collisions and develop and implement strategies to improve the safety of these areas and reduce overall collision rates. Analyze bicycle crash data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and other sources to evaluate the impacts of prior improvements. Use collision data to produce hot zone maps (GIS maps that reflect crash data citywide) and to conduct case studies of potential improvments to reduce collisions. Coordinate engineering and enforcement reporting systems to avoid duplication and/or overlooked emergency room data; with support and data from LAPD, LAFD and LAUSD.

DCP, DOT, LAPD, LAFD

1.1, 4.11 Data & Analysis Use existing databases to identify the top five high‐crash locations (based on three year trends) for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers in each council district. Develop data collection program and identify funding to implement. Identify other data users/collectors and work cooperatively on program development. Release first "safety report" that documents, Establish an interagency task force. LAPD to continue to work with LADOT to provide updated traffic collision statistics. Goal is to eliminate the reliance on traffic statistics provided by the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System.

MT.2 Crosswalk Maintenance. Implement a crosswalk upgrade and maintenance program to ensure all crosswalks are kept to City standards. See Street Design Manual.

DOT 3.2, 1.7 Maintenance Install crosswalks in all resurfacing and restriping porjects. Implement crosswalks within 10 days of repaving. Identify and implement 100 new priority locations for continental crosswalk treatments. Fund and begin implementation of asset management system. Use system for operational efficiencies in prioritizing work activities, managing staff and financial resources, proactively addressing infrastructure maintenance, and mitigating safety risks.

C.14 CSTAN. In collaboration with Metro support efforts to promote goods movement traffic to the CSTAN and identify funding to maintain corridors.

DOT Communi‐cation

Information pending.

ENF.2 Enforcement Stings. Target enforcement efforts against unsafe behavior by roadway users, especially in school and commercial loading zones. Publicize the stings to encourage healthy interaction among all roadway users.

LAPD 1.1 Enforcement Continue to conduct weekly traffic enforcement task forces. Seek grant funding to increase commercial enforcement. Increase the number of pedestrian task forces around schools. Focus stings on the top five high crash locations in each council district (see D 4 above).

3


Program


CONTINUING PROGRAMS

O.5 Flyaway Shuttle. Continue the Flyaway Shuttle service from Westwood, Van Nuys, Expo, La Brea and Union Station locations, and evaluate other regional locations, such as San Pedro, for expanded service.

Metro 3.4, 3.6, 3.7

Operations

PS.2 Great Streets. Continue to support the Mayor's Great Streets Initiative by creating a comprehensive matrix of project elements and associated costs, outlining an implementation timeline, tracking project impacts, evaluating funding strategy, and strategizing the coordination of city services to Great Streets.

DOT, BOE, BSS, LASAN, RAP, DCP, DCA, DPW, BSL, EDD

2.13, 3.11 Public Space Continue short‐term improvements to all 15 Great Street segments and implement long‐term improvements in line with identified implementation strategies. Establish flexible installation standards and update DOT's MPP. Establish before and after data. Install 90 continental crosswalks.

ENG.9 Green Streets and Alleys Program. Continue the Green Alleys program to introduce low‐impact development stormwater features and improve the overall quality and safety of neighborhood alleys.

BOS, DOT, LASAN

3.9 Engineering Coordinate with Green Streets Committee to prioritize optimum streets and alleys for pilot GRASS improvements and implement South LA Green Alleys Master Plan.

MG.3 Green Streets Committee. Continue the Green Streets Committee to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of existing green street features and to continue to identify funding and location options in which to upgrade with green street features.

DOT, DCP, BOE, BSS< LASAN

5.5, 4.7, 2.13

Management Continue meeting on a regular basis to support green street improvements.

PK.4 LA Express Park. Continue LA Express Park system using reak‐time technology to increase awareness of the availability of parking spaces.

DOT, BIDS, Chambers of Commerce

4.13 Parking/ Loading Zones

ED.4 5 LAPD Officer Training. Train officers on the rights and responsibilities of all roadway users and improve their ability to evaluate conflicts and collisions between different modal users.

LAPD 1.2 Education LAPD to seek funding to work with Community Based Organizations to provide training in the rules of the road regarding bicyclists and pedestrians. Expand use of CHP form #555 to report collissions.

SF.12 LED Street Lighting. Continue to retrofit existing street lighting infrastructure with energy‐efficient LEDs.

BSL 1.7, 2.3, 3.2

Support Features

Continue.

ENF.3 Local Truck Use. Target enforcement efforts against truck use on local streets where cut‐through traffic has been expressly forbidden.

DOT, LAPD 1.8 Enforcement Seek grant funding to increase commercial traffic enforcement on local streets that prohibit commercial vehicles.

4


Program


CONTINUING PROGRAMS

MT.3 Mandeville Canyon Park. Maintain off‐road bicycle trails in Mandeville Canyon.

RAP 1.9 Maintenance Feedback pending.

MT.4 Notification System. Develop a coordinated interdepartmental maintenance and response program for the City's network of roads and bikeways; continue to utilize DPW service request forms and the 311 System for the public to directly inform the City.

Mayor's Office, BSS, BOE

4.1, 4.2 Maintenance Continue to test and build upon the notification system

SF.16 On‐Street Bicycle Corrals.Develop bicycle parking corrals in on‐street parking spaces as a public‐private partnership.

DOT, BSS, BOE


Secure appropriate funding and contracts to install 50 corrals and 1,200 racks citywide by end of 2017.

PS.6 Open Streets. Establish procedures and protocols to support and expand non‐profit efforts to coordinate and plan frequent and predictable events.

Mayor's Office, City Council, RAP, DOT, DPW, LAPD, LAFD

3.11 Public Space Support monthly open streets events (e.g., CicLAvia) and other events.

PK.16. Park and Ride. Expand the park and ride network.

Dot, Caltrans, Metro

Parking/ Loading Zones

Increase the existing park and ride network by 20%.

MT.5 Pavement Preservation Program. Annually fund a baseline pavement preservation program that provides for major rehabilitation (resurface and reconstruction) and preventive maintenance (crack and slurry seal). Make annual schedule public and easily accessible on the BSS website. Prioritize bikeways and other areas of high need. BSS to Coordinate non‐emergency resurfacing with other departments one year in advance.

BSS 1.7, 4.6 Maintenance Continue

PS.4 People Street. Continue the People Street program for community partners to repurpose underused portions of streets (below the curb) using cost effective materials into temporary plazas, parklets, bike parking, and other public spaces.

DOT, BOE, LASAN, BOS, RAP

4.10, 3.11 Public Space Collaborate with community partners as need and interest warrants.

PS.5 Recreational Rides. Organize and lead local and citywide recreational rides ranging from 5‐30 miles. Prioritize routes that include the Green, Bicycle Enhanced or Neighborhood Networks.

RAP, LAPD, Mayor's Office, City Council, DOT, BOE, Bicycle non‐profits

2.5 Public Space LAPD to continue and increase participation in citywide recreational rides. Bicycle non‐profits to continue to lead Sunday Fun Day and annual River Ride each June.

5


Program


CONTINUING PROGRAMS

MG.7 Regional Cooperation. Work cooperatively with adjoining jurisdictions and agencies to coordinate transportation related planing and implementation activities to ensure regional connectivity.

DOT, DCP, Metro, Mayor's Office, SCAG

3.7, 4.11 Management On‐going‐ supports multiple activities.

ED.6. 7 Roadway Safety Education. Educate law enforcement, heavy duty bus and truck operators, taxis, motorists, all City employees, and roadway users on the rights of, and need for safe motoring skills, around non‐motorized active transportation uses. Develop educational/promotional materials to inform roadway users about the benefits of active transportation facilities.

DOT, POLA, LAUSD, GSD, LAPD

1.1, 1.2, 1.4

Education Continue to educate LAPD personnel on traffic safety and rules of the road and develop educational materials. Seek grant funding to increase education.

ED.7. Roadway Safety Public Service

Announcements. Continue to produce a series of Roadway Safety Public Service Announcements (PSA's) for distribution on television, radio, and outdoor signage.

DOT, LAPD, ITA

1.5 Education Continue to develop a series of Public Service Announcements with focus on pedestrians and bicyclists.

S.3 Safe Routes to School. Continue to work/partner with LAUSD, (with support from PTAs and traffic officers) to develop an education program, develop and implement a safe routes to school program and maps and a Comprehensive SRTS Strategic Plan to calm traffic in communities surrounding all elementary, middle and high schools to maximize pedestrian and bicycle convenience and safety. Refer to the Citywide Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan

DOT, DPW, LASAN, support from LAPD, and LAUSD

1.3 Schools Prepare scope of work and start developing school safety plans for the remaining top 50 schools in most need of safety improvements. Conduct outreach and identify short and long‐term imprveoments. Pursue funding for implementing safety plans. LAPD to continue to work in partnership with LAUSD and LADOT. Coordinate with LASAN to incorporate stormwater capture elements into traffic calming BMPS (curb bumpouts, etc) Addition of sidewalks and other hardscape elements should be designed so they do not increase stormwater runoff.

SF.19 Sidewalk Bicycle Parking Program. Continue to install and maintain City‐standard bicycle racks on sidewalks. Identify areas with demand for bicycle racks and implement an installation schedule. Prioritize the installation of racks on streets.


Secure appropriate funding and contracts to install 1,200 racks citywide by end of 2017.

ENF.4 Speed Limit Enforcement. Execute speed limit enforcement checks 48 hours prior to calculating prevailing speeds in Engineering and Traffic Surveys used for adjusting speed limits.

LAPD, DOT 1.4 Enforcement Continue to conduct speed enforcement task forces. Seek grant funding to increase the number of task forces.

6


Program


CONTINUING PROGRAMS

MG.9 State Highway Management continued.

Cooperate with Caltrans to identify State highway deficiencies and associated improvement plans, to be used in the City’s long range planning and individual project review.

DOT, DCP, Caltrans

2.11, 4.11 Management On‐going

MG.8 State Highway Management. Collaborate with Caltrans on any modifications to the State highway system necessary to accommodate new development or on any modifications to City’s transportation network.

DOT, DCP, Caltrans

2.11 Management On‐going

MT.8 Street Services Budget Allocation Formula.

Continue to utilize the Bureau of Street Services’ Budget Allocation Formula that allows for the equalization of pavement conditions citywide.

BSS 1.7 Maintenance On‐going

C.12 Timely Information. Provide timely information on current roadway work, including scheduled maintenance, work in progress and completed projects. Use temporary signage, social media, and web banners to warn users and provide detour strategies for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. Promote the State‐wide 511 Real Time Travel Information System.

DOT, BOE, BSS, Council

4.2, 1.6, 4.14

Communi‐cation

Continue program.

MG.10 Transportation Management

Organizations. Continue to work with businesses and future development projects to establish geographically and/or industry based Transportation Management Organizations throughout the City for the purposes of implementing a coordinated transportation demand management program.

DCP, DOT 4.9 Management Pursue the formation of TMOs in Hollywood, Downtown and West LA.

SF.26 Tree Canopy. Continue to expand the City’s tree canopy using tree species that are appropriate for the location, climate, water supply, planting conditions and existing street infrastructure.

LASAN, BSS, BOE, DWP, Tree People, NCs

1.7, 3.2, 2.3, 3.1

Support Features

Continue integration of placemaking on Great Streets projects. Formalize public and private partnership roles and program elements. Provide funding to City Plants to install street trees. Street plantings should consider grade of planting to allow for future stormwater capture. Consider use of

SF.27 Turnstile Design. Work with Metro and local transit agencies to ensure that all turnstiles can accommodate a bicycle.

DOT, City Council, Mayor's Office, BAC


Work is on‐going.

7


Program


CONTINUING PROGRAMS

O.15 Zero Emission Truck Collaborative (ZETC).

Promote consistency among public agencies in working to catalyze the development and deployment of zero emission trucks in the region.

POLA, Metro, AQMD, POLB, Caltrans, SCAG and Gateway Cities COG.

5.4 Operations Establish a common definition of zero‐emission trucks, establish performance standards, coordinate infrastructure policies/standards and seek funding for demonstration projects.

8


Program


MG.1 Five Year Mobility Plan Implementation

Report. Develop and submit a report every five years detailing accomplishments of prior five years and prepare a proposed work plan for the next five year cycle.

DCP, DOT, BOE, BSS, BSL, BOS,

4.7 Management Prepare report on effectiveness and accomplishments of Five Year Implementation Strategy.

ENG. 12 Complete Street Design Guide (CSDG). Utilize the CSDG to guide decisions about specific complete street enhancements and potential cross‐section designs of streets on the BEN, Bicycle Lane, TEN, PED, and VEN networks.

DCP, BOE, DOT, LASAN, LAPD, LAFD

2.2 Engineering Update the CSDG every two years or as needed.

PL.1 Driveway Access. Require driveway access to buildings from non‐arterial streets or alleys (where feasible) in order to minimize interference with pedestrian access and vehicular movement.

DCP 3.9, 3.10 Planning & Land Use

re:code: Using the CASP as one model, incorporate design guidelines related to driveway access into appropriate zones.

PK.3 Individualized Parking Requirements.

Permit businesses to identify their respective parking demand and establish criteria whereby projects can reduce on‐site parking through the inclusion of a package of transportation demand management strategies.

DCP, DOT 4.8, , 4.9 Parking/ Loading Zones

re:code: minimum parking requirements based solely upon use are being revisited to include form and area context into the equation; The possiblility of removing all parking requirements in Downtown to incentivize centralized parking is being reviewed.

PL.2 Local Access. Explore opportunities to incorporate community assets (food, retail) in locations immediately adjacent to residential areas to promote local walking and biking trips and reduce VMT.

DCP 3.3, 1.2, 5.1

Planning & Land Use

re:code: Develop new base zones for centers and corridors that address the existing and future needs of communities.

PL.3 Mixed‐Use. Encourage mixed‐use residential, employment and commercial serving uses where appropriate to facilitate increased utilization of walking, bicycling, and transit use.

DCP 3.3, 1.2 Planning & Land Use

re:code: Develop building form standards to encourage pedestrian activity and mixed uses.

PLANNING PROGRAMS

9


Program


PLANNING PROGRAMS

SF.13 Mobility Hubs/Multi‐Modal Transit Plaza.

Facilitate the implementation of multi‐modal transportation support activities and services in proximity to transit stations and major bus stops, including but not limited to: adequate bus stop and layover space, transit shelters with real‐time bus arrival information, bike share docking stations, car share facilities, taxi‐waiting/call areas, Wi‐Fi service, public showers/toilets, bicycle storage and repair facilities, and food and beverage providers.Develop a coordinated permitting proceess for the installation of the support features identified above.

DOT/Metr

o, City Council, DCP, Office of the Mayor, DPW

3.5, 4.1, 4.2

Support Features

Develop a clear permitting and approval process for the installation of mobility hub amenities. Install 15 bicycle corrals and 400 bicycle racks citywide in FY 15/16, with priority near transit stops. Secure appropriate funding and contracts to install 50 corrals and 1,200 racks citywide by end of 2017. Facilitate the installation of mobility hub amenities (convenience store, bicycle storage/repair, showers, electric vehicle charging stations) at a rate of five stations over five years.

PL.4 Network Additions. Identify and designate bicycle, and transit enhanced streets and pedestrian enhanced designation areas in Community Plan updates to provide local complements to the Citywide Transit and Bicycle Enhanced Networks, and Pedestrian Enhanced Destinations and increase access to area amenities including medical facilities through continuous, predictable and safe sidewalks, intersections, bikeways, and transit support facilities.

DOT, DCP 3.3, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 1.2

Planning & Land Use

Incorporate into future community plan updates.

PK.7 Off‐Street Loading. In non‐industrial areas, require off‐street dock and/or loading facilities for all new non‐residential buildings and for existing non‐residential buildings andundergoing extensive renovations and/or expansion, whenever practical.

DCP 2.8 Parking/ Loading Zones

re:code: Amend 12.21.C.6, which requires loading spaces for new buildings in C and M zones, to also apply to residential zones.

PK.9 Pedestrian Design Features in Parking

Areas. Update zoning code to require the inclusion of pedestrian design features into all parking lots and provide safe, clear paths of travel from parking lots and/or structures to the associated buildings and/or uses. Ensure that all features are ADA compliant.

DCP 3.1, Parking/ Loading Zones

re:code: prohibiting surface parking lots in Downtown is under review; although re:code will be considering removing parking requirements from Downtown, design standards for new parking garages with pedestrian friendly features will be analyzed to incentive centralized parking with integrated pedestrian amenities.

10


Program


PLANNING PROGRAMS

PS.3 Pedestrian Loops. Explore the development of a connected network of walking passageways utilizing both public and private spaces, local streets and alleyways to facilitate circulation.

DOT, BOE, BSS, RAP, DCP, DPW

3.9, 3.10, 3.11

Public Space Discuss as part of a community plan update.

PK.11 Reduced Size Parking. Develop parking, design, and replacement parking standards for reduced size vehicles (e.g. sub‐compact cars, scooters, motorcycles, bike corrals) in residential and non‐residential developments as well as public parking facilities and public rights‐of‐way.


re:code: will revisit parking space design standards for alternative vehicles in the new Code.

PL.6 Regional Transportation Plan. Coordinate with Metro and SCAG on the development of the Regional Transportation Plan, Sustainable Communities Strategy, and the Long Range Transportation Plan.

DCP, DOT,LASA

N, Metro, SCAG

4.11 Planning & Land Use

Complete 2016 RTP and Sustainable Community Strategy.

D.10 Revised Traffic Analysis

Methodology. Establish a revised Traffic Analysis Methodology (TAM) that takes into consideration a project's location, design and density, based on CEQA revisions, OPR guidelines, and other state/regional authorities

DOT, DCP 5.3 Data & Analysis Underway in 2015‐ expected completion 2017.

S.4 School Locations. Work with LAUSD and other school providers to site new schools in appropriate locations that can be easily accessed and integrated into the surrounding community.

DCP 1.3, 3.3 Schools Incorporate into future community plan updates.

PL. 13 Special Street/Alley Treatments. Promote consistency among public agencies in working to catalyze the development and deployment of zero‐emission trucks in the region.

DCP, DOT, DPW

2.1 Planning Develop and adopt three street "non‐standard" improvement templates, along with associated costs and maintenance strategies, for development projects to incorporate into specific street segments.

11


Program


PLANNING PROGRAMS

PK.13 Transit Area Parking Reductions. Reduce parking requirements for developments that locate near transit (e.g. within a half‐mile of a transit stop)or a major bus stop and provide facilities to enable pedestrian, bicycle and disabled access.


re:code: Tailor parking requirements to context within the city; Eliminate parking requirements in Downtown and examine parking strategies in TNPs. re:code: minimum parking requirements based solely upon use are being revisited to include form and area context into the equation; The possiblility of removing all parking requirements in Downtown to incentivize centralized parking is being reviewed.

PL.8 Transit Neighborhood Plans. Adopt and implement Transit Neighborhood Plans that enhance access to transit stations and set new zoning regulations to effectuate appropriate mixes and scales of uses as well as site design.

DCP 3.3 Planning & Land Use

Adopt Exposition Corridor, Valley/Orange Line, Wilshire Corridor/Purple Line and Downtown Regional Connector Transit Neighborhood Plans.

PL.9 Transportation Demand Management

Ordinance Revision (TDM). Update the TDM ordinance (LA Municipal Code 12.26.J) to expand the number and type of projects required to incorporate TDM strategies and expand the number and variety of available TDM strategies. Include bicycle parking and other bicycle use incentives as a TDM measure to mitigate traffic/vehicle trips for purposes of CEQA compliance for commercial, residential and mixed‐use development projects. Continue to require eligibile projects to provide work‐trip reduction plans and parking cash‐out programs in compliances with ACMD's Regulation XV.

DCP, DOT 4.8 Planning & Land Use

Adopt and implement new TDM ordinance by 2020.

PK.14 Unbundled Parking Options. Develop regulations to promote the unbundling of parking from rental or purchase options for all new multi‐family development.


re:code: Zoning Code cannot mandate cost or contracts for parking within private structures. However, unbundling off‐site parking for multiple projects is being reviewed.

12


Program


NEW PROGRAMS

ENG. 6 Bicycle Enhanced Network. Create and maintain an interconnected bicycle network of 150 miles of bicycle paths and 300 miles of protected bicycle lanes to provide a regional low‐stress bicycle system.

DOT, DCP 1.4, 2.5, 4.14

Engineering Continue to expand the quality and connectivity of the bicycle networks. Install the 3 miles of My Fig Bikeway improvements by 2016. Install 10 miles of protected bicycle lanes. Install a bicycle lane on all (1501 miles) segments of the BEN‐Protected Bicycle Lane network that have not yet received a bicycle lane. Secure funding and begin implementation of major gaps in LA River bicycle path, on target for completion in 2025. See LA River Greenway program.

ENG. 17 Bicycle Lane Network. Implement and maintain an interconnected 700 mile bicycle lane system 300 of which are intended to be upgraded to protected bicycle lanes. See above BEN.

DOT, DCP 1.4, 2.5, 4.14

Engineering Focus improvements on installing bicycle lanes that are included in the BEN. See above.

ENG. 14 Neighborhood Enhanced Network.

Implement the NEN, an approximately 800 mile system of collector and local streets designed to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle activity. A subset of this network has been priortized to fill gaps in the protected bicycle lane system defined by the Bicycle Enhanced Network.

DOT, DCP, LASAN

3.1, 3.2 Engineering Design and implement improvements to ensure that at least 50 miles of roadway, within the NEN , provide a safe and comfortable experience for person who travel by walking or bicycling. Incorporate stormwater management into traffic calming strategies.

ENG. 18 Pedestrian Enhanced Districts. Implement pedestrian improvements on targeted intersections and arterial street segments.

DOT, DCP, LASAN

3.1, 3.2 Engineering Determine list of priority projects and match to funding sources. Establish detailed cost estimates and identify funding sources to implement improvement projects. Leverage work of Mobility Matrix. Update map by 2020 to reflect current conditions.

ENG.3 Transit Enhanced Network. Collaborate with transit providers to implement the TEN, an approximately 300 mile network ofroadway improvements to provide a frequent and reliable bus system that interfaces and supports the fixed‐transit lines.

DOT, DCP, Metro, Mayor's Office

2.5 Engineering Identify funding and capacity necessary to create dedicated staff within the City to work on TEN implementation. Implement ten miles of new bus rapid transit corridors that provide bus service at five to ten minute intervals. Open Wilshire peak hour bus lane by 2016. Open Vermont peak hour bus lane by 2020.

13


Program


NEW PROGRAMS

ENG. 15 Vehicle Enhanced Network (VEN).

Implement the VEN, an 80 mile roadway system of existing city streets that have been prioritized for vehicular movement due to their ability to improve vehicular access to the regional freeway system.

DOT, DCP, BOE, BSS

2.7 Engineering Identify specific street improvement projects as part of an advanced planning effort to improve traffic flow. Establish detailed cost estimates and identify funding sources to implement street improvement projects.

PK.15. Accessible Parking in Residential Areas.

Update policies and guidelines for accessible parking in residential areas.

DOT, DCP, City Attorney


Develop upgraded accessible parking policies. Implement accessible parking plan.

L.1 Advocacy for Funding Multi‐Modal

Infrastructure Projects. Aggressively advocate for continued and expanded Federal, State, Regional, and Local funding for multi‐modal transportation programs and infrastructure projects in transportation legislation. Ensure representation of issues with City's lobbyists in Sacramento and Washington DC.

Mayor's Office, City Council, CLA

3.5, 2.13, 4.6

Legislation This is a priority in 2015‐2020.

D.2 Annual Counts of Bicyclists and Pedestrians

(Active Transportation). Initiate a long term strategy to count the number and type (by sex, age, disability, income and geography) of bicyclists and pedestrians traveling for all trips on the Networks and other City streets each year . Identify a specific date and locations for the annual count. The number of locations that are included each year should increase as funding increases. Utilize the locations, date, and time of the count conducted by the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coaliton (LACBC) in 2009 as the baseline; implement a methodology that is consistent with SCAG and Metro/UCLA Luskin Center.

DOT, DCP, Mayor's Office of Technology

, LAPD

4.11, 3.1, 1.4, 2.3, 2.13

Data & Analysis Institute uniform process of data collection on walking and bicycling. Conduct annual counts on walking and bicycling and improve processes for manual and automated counts. Investigate technologies that will support automated data collection and determine resources needed for use and consistent implementation.

F.10 Bicycle Funding. Update Mobility Plan every five years to stay competitive for state funding of bicycle transportation grants.

DCP, DOT

2.5 Funding Update Mobility Plan in 2020.

ED.1 Bicycle Parking Training. Develop a Bicycle Parking Requirement Training Presentation and Handbook and post on the Bicycle website. Provide training sessions to the Departments of Building and Safety, Planning, Engineering, and all other public counter staff on the LAMC bicycle parking requirements.

DBS, DOT, DCP

3.8 Education Complete training presentation and handbook for developers.

14


Program


NEW PROGRAMS

SF.3 Bicycle Path Landscaping. Incorporate drought tolerant and low maintainence plant materials along bicycle paths.

DOT, DPW, MRCA

2.5, 5.4, 5.5

Support Features

Seek partnerships to identify funding to install and maintain landscaping.

SF.4 Bicycle Path Lighting. Adopt and install standard lighting designs for bicycle paths and grade separated bikeways.

DOT, BSL 2.8, 2.5 Support Features

Continue to install lighting on new paths. Lighting for older, existing paths such as Ballona and Arroyo Seco are most likely deferred till after 2020.

MT.1 Bicycle Path Maintenance Program.

Regulary inspect and maintain Class I bicycle paths.

DOT, BOE 1.7 Maintenance This is a priority but milestones are currently undetermined.

SF.7 Bicycle Sharing Network. Work with Metro and other area jurisdictions to launch a Bicycle Share Program. Identify a strategy to enable city staff to access the bicycle share system as a "fleet" option for work related tasks.

Metro, DOT, DCP, City Council, Office of the Mayor


Phase one planning, fundiing and siting of Metro bike share stations. Develop operating and business plan for Integrated Mobiity Hubs program and issue RFP. Expand bike share system to targeted areas citywide.

C.4 Bus Arrival Information. Work with Metro, municipal transit providers, and local businesses and organizations to provide bus arrival information near station and stop areas.

Metro, DOT, Mayor's Office, BSS


Coordinate with Metro to install signs at 25‐50 stop locations

SF.9 Bus Bike Racks (on/off‐board). Work with transit providers to provide solutions for additional bike storage, such as bike rack systems to accommodate at least three bicycles on‐board the bus, or permitting bicyclists to board with their bicycles at the rear of the bus.

DOT Transit, Metro, regional transit providers

3.8, 3.5, 4.11

Support Features

All new DASH buses are ordered with bike racks. 75 new DASH buses with racks in service. Support lobbying for a dding bike rack capacity on buses. All LA buses equipped with racks.

ENG.5 Caltrans Design. Work with Caltrans to develop and implement design improvements to freeway entrances and exit ramps to transition motorists from freeways speeds to an urban environment that includes vulnerable roadway users.

DOT, Caltrans

1.1, 6.6, 1.4

Engineering On‐going as development projects occur.

O.2 City Work‐related Trips. Instruct departments to establish protocols to facilitate the use of transit for short trips (< 5 miles during work hours when the employee does not need to transport materials). Facilitate non‐vehicular alternatives to City employees for work‐related trips.

Mayor's Office, GSD

4.8, 4.9 Operations Establish city employee bike fleet and improve bike storage in Civic Center.

15


Program


NEW PROGRAMS

C.6 Citywide Active Transportation Map.

Provide and distribute physical and electronic copies of the City's existing bikeway facilities, neighborhood greenways and safe routes to school along with information about public bicycle parking facilities and mobility hub facilities.

DOT Systems, Planning, DOT Bikeways, Metro

4.14 Communi‐cation

This is a priority for 2015‐2020

ENF.1 Commercial Loading Zones. Target enforcement efforts against parking by vehicles not in the act of loading/unloading in Commercial Loading Zones.

DOT 2.8 Enforcement Meter 1,000 commercial loading zone spaces annually, starting in Downtown and Hollywood.

F.2 Congestion and Cordon Pricing. Evaluate potential revenues and performance improvements in congestion relief from the implementation of congestion or cordon pricing. Identify the boundaries of, and access points in and out of cordon pricing districts on which to implement congestion pricing.

DOT, DCP, Mayor's Office, CLA, SCAG

4.6, 4.8 Funding Continue to work with regional partners to identify innovative solutions to traffic congestion, including pricing strategies.

O.3 Construction Zone Standards. Implement and expand upon standard procedures as defined in the MUTCD to ensure safe bicycle and pedestrian travel through construction zones and detours.

DOT, BSS, BOE, DWP, POLA, Utilities

1.6 Operations Develop safe bicycle and pedestrian detour standards through construction zones.

PK.1 Creative Parking Solutions. Work with communities, businesses, and organizations to identify and implement creative strategies to resolve parking conflicts in areas with high‐parking demand.

DCP, DOT 4.13, 4.10 Parking/ Loading Zones

Increase the availability of parking and the efficiency of its use.

PK.2 Curb Parking Conversion. Standardize processes to facilitate the conversion of curb parking spaces for other uses such as parklets, plazas, bike corrals and docking stations for bicycle sharing, especially in high volume areas of pedestrians and bicyclists.

DOT, BOE, DCP, LASAN

3.8, 3.11 Parking/ Loading Zones

re:code: the Bicycle Parking Ordinance currently allows bike corrals in the ROW to be used for required short term bicycle parking. The re:code effort will review the ordinance to possibly expand other locations for required bicycle parking. LASAN will coordinate with Green Streets Committee to develop strategies for incorporating stormwater elements in to parklets, plazas and bike corrals within the Flex Zone.

16


Program


NEW PROGRAMS

D.5 Data Collection Protocols. Establish before and afer data collection protocols for all projects.

DOT, DCP 1.2, 2.1 Data & Analysis Develop evaluation measures, determine gaps in data, identify resource needs and implementation protocols. Continue to use data collection to evaluate effectiveness of implementation strategies.

ED.2 Design Workshops. Host/participate in workshops on active transportation facility design.

DOT 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 2.2

Education Conduct 5 to 10 workshops.

ENF. 6 Enforcement Program. Utilize LAPD and LADOT Traffic Officers to identify bicycle lane parking violations and issue citations.

LAPD, DOT, DPW

1.1 Education Increase parking enforcement and education regarding bicycle lane violations

SF.10 Essential Transit Components. Include short‐term and long‐term bicycle parking and way‐finding as essential components of all stations.

Metro, DOT


Install 15 bicycle corrals and 400 bicycle racks citywide in FY 15/16, with priority near transit stops. Secure appropriate funding and contracts to install 50 corrals and 1,200 racks citywide by end of 2017.

O.4 Feeder Network/Transit Circulator (DASH

System and Commuter Express). Coordinate local bus transit services so as to provide neighborhoods with local feeder buses where the roadway system permits.

DOT 3.4 Operations Complete update of community DASH needs assessment study, including evaluation of potential to substitute low‐ridership Metro buses with DASH neighborhood feeder service. Complete a comprehensive line by line analysis of all LADOT transit services. Implement modifications to existing services.

ENG. 19 First Mile/Last Mile Transit Connectivity

Program. Install pedestrian and bicycle connectivity improvements at every major Metro transit station by providing enhanced sidewalk amenities such as landscaping, shading, lighting, directional signage, shelters, curb extensions and mid‐block crosswalks where feasible, ADA rampos, lead pedestrian interval signal phases, secure bike parking, etc.

DOT 3.5 Operations Establish prioritization criteria and establish funding sources for critical path projects.

17


Program


NEW PROGRAMS

ENG.7 Flexible Installation Standards. Use engineering judgement and the approval of the City transportation engineer or designee, in lieu of warrants, to install facilities that will improve safety and comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians.

DOT, City Attorney, Caltrans, BOE, BSS, BSL

1.4, 2.2 Engineering Establish process for implementing design exceptions to Highway Design Manual. Incorporate new standards into regular geometric and planning review of all projects. Identify the related safety countermeasures and funding to implement countermeasures in top 10 (highest number of severe injuries and fatalities) corridors. Complete update of policies and procedures with pedestrian‐friendly urban street design standards. Identify critieria for turn improvements at locations with high numbers of pedestrians, children or older adults. Implement 30 turn improvements per year.

F.5 Funding Needed. Identify the total amount of funding needed to design, construct and maintain transportation related priority projects on an on‐going basis. Identify existing sources of funds and evaluate funding gaps.

CAO, DOT, BOE, BSS, BOS

1.7, 4.6 Funding Establish detailed cost estimates and identify funding sources to implement street projects.

ENG.8 Grade Crossing Elimination. Work with Southern California Regional Railroad Association (Metrolink) as well as with freight rail operators to eliminate rail/ street at‐grade crossings on regional passenger rail and freight lines.

BOE, Port of LA, DOT, FRA, FTA, FHWA, CPUC, Metro, Expo Authority, City Attorney, Railroad Owners and Operators.

1.5 Engineering DOT to spearhead creation of master cooperative agreements between the City, external agencies, and railroad partners to identify priority locations and jointly‐implement projects. Actively participate in Rail Industry endeavors to pursue emerging technologies that enhance safety at highway‐rail at‐grade crossings.

D.7 Greenhouse Gas Emission Tracking

Program. Quantify total reduction in GHG from vehicle miles traveled reductions. Include data in the Citywide Climate Action Plan and the Climate Action Registry. Maintain a database of completed infrastructure projects; track and apply offset credits (resulting from GHG and VMT reductions) towards the city’s compliance with SB 375, AB 32 and the region’s Sustainable Community Strategy.

Mayor's Office on Environme

nt and Sustainabili

ty, DCP, Council, SCAQMD

5.1, 5.4, 5.4, 4.11

Data & Analysis Establish an Annual Transportation Based GHG inventory.

PL.12 Greenways to Rivers Arterial Stormwater

System (GRASS). Establish a stormwater greewnay planning network and an intergrative planning tool for Los Angeles' One Water Plan.

DCP, DOT, Mayor's Office


Release draft GRASS plan by July 2015. Release One Water DEIR by July 2017 and Adopt GRASS as part of One Water by July 2018.

18


Program


NEW PROGRAMS

O.13 Improve the Flow of Freight Traffic.

Identify and implement strateigies to facilitate the flow of freight traffic.

DOT 2.7 Operations Research and design program to explore off‐peak freight delivery incentives. Convene working group in partnership with POLA and evaluate best practices from New York City and Washington, D.C. Identify key bottlenecks and prioritize them for implementation in coordination with Caltrans.

d Increase Publicly Available Bicycle Parking.

Review all City‐owned, operated, and leased facilities for compliance with the City's bicycle parking standards. Increase bicycle parking to meet LAMC requirements where deficiencies are present.Continue to implement bicycle parking and corrals at major destinations, especially where demand is already high. Encourage the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), local four‐year universities, and the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) to install quality bicycle parking at public schools within the City of Los Angeles.

All 3.8, 1.3, 2.5

Support Features

O.15 Improve the Flow of Passenger Traffic.

Identify and implement strategies to provide reliable travel times during peak hours and during special events.

DCP, DOT Operations Complete parking evaluation on five corridors and make appropriate changes to parking regulations, minimizing impact to transit travel time reliability and to traffic safety. Implement simulation system and provide user training to staff. Evaluate system and refine as needed.

ENG.10 Industrial Street Infrastructure. Provide adequate street infrastructure in established industrial areas; revise geometric design standards for intersections in/around industrial areas with high truck volumes.

DOT, DCP, BOE

1.7, 1.8 Engineering Identify and include projects in Metro call.

L.2 Legislation Monitoring. Continually monitor and develop state and federal legislation to support or oppose legislation that could impact plan/project implementation.

DOT, DCP, Mayor's Office, CLA

4.11, 4.6 Legislation On‐going review of state legislation.

19


Program


NEW PROGRAMS

ENG. 16. Los Angeles River. Implement Greenway 2020 (a locally led effort to complete the

bicycle path along the entire 32 mile stretch

of the Los Angeles River by 2020.) and Los Angeles River Greenway Trail to provide a multi‐generational trail and provide active transportation options to disadvantaged communities.

RiverWorks Team and local non‐profit partners

F. 15. Engineering Complete Greenway 2020 and plant over 4,000 native shrubs and trees.

F.6 Maintenance Options. Establish procedures and protocols to facilitate partnerships with community groups and the private sector to provide maintenance of street investments; encourage the utilization of assessment districts by local non‐profits or businesses to fund and maintain specific infrastructure improvements

DOT, BOE, BSS, LASAN

4.10, 4.6 Funding Formalize public and private partnership roles and program elements. Identify organizations that have specific skillsets for specific improvements such as stormwater enhancements.

ENG.11 Manual of Policies and Procedures. Update LADOT Manual of Policies and Procedures to incorporate innovative engineering standards and traffic control devices (for all modes of transportation) included in the City's Complete Street Design Guide. Regularly update both manuals as new standards and devices are adopted by the California Traffic Control Devices Committee in the MUTCD and/or the CA Highway Esign Manual and/or Federal Highway Administration.

BOE, DOT, DCP, LASAN

2.2, 1.4 Engineering Establish process for implementing design exceptions to CA MUTCD and Highway Design Manual. Incorporate new standards into regular geometric and planning review of all projects.

PK.5 Meter Pricing. Establish demand based meter pricing to maximize efficient use of on‐street meters.

DOT 4.13 Parking/ Loading Zones

Complete LA Express Park expansion to Hollywood, Westwood Village, and Venice, release early results of Express Park evaluation.

PK.6 Neighborhood Parking Districts. Explore modifying some Neighborhood Parking Districts to permit the utilization of residential streets for metered commercial parking and direct revenue to specific neighborhood improvements.



Reassess use of SPRF surpluses to reinvest net revenue in improvements. Revise existing Preferential Parking District policies.

ENG.13. Neighborhood Traffic Calming and Slow

Zones. Establish a procactive neighborhood traffic management program and institute "slow zones" in targeted areas. Support and advocate for 20 new zones.

DOT, DCP, CLA, LAPD

3.1, 3.2 Engineering Develop selection criteria, request process, and launch an application‐based program. Scope and identify funding for program. Identify criteria and guidelines for neighborhoods. Establish 3‐5 reduced speed zones/ year

20


Program


NEW PROGRAMS

MG 11. Non‐Ownership Models for Vehicle

Mobility. Support existing and future innovations that support access to vehicle mobility without the cost and responsibility of ownership.

DOT, Metro, BIDS, Chambers of Commerce, Departments of Aging and Disability, User Groups

Management Provide an assessment of major transit hubs and junctions to ensure taxi service availability from and to other forms of public transit. Map taxi zones/stands to major transit connection locations. Expand hail a cab program to additional 4 pilot business districts with highest taxi usage and partner with business community. Identify taxi potential permitting methodologies taxi service and enhance quality of life for customers and drives. Scope and identify funding for citywide rollout of carshare program, including point‐to‐point and traditional fixed point service.

MG.5 Off‐Peak Deliveries. Identify and Implement incentives to encourage off‐peak hour delivery operations.

DOT, DCP, Mayor's Office

2.8 Management Secure funding and begin implementation. Establish condition that would require deliveries to occur during off‐peak hours.

D.9 Off‐Road and Park Trail Bicycle Database.

Develop a database and create maps of mountain and park bicycling trails within and adjacent to the City of Los Angeles.

RAP, DCP, DOT, LAPD

1.9 Data & Analysis LAPD to continue to deploy off road motorcycle detail in the San Fernando Valley. Expand off road patrol throughout the City's off road and park trails.

SF.14 Off‐Street Alternative Energy Charging.

Continue to support off‐street alternative energy charging and fueling stations within privately and city‐owned parking and/or fueling facilities.

DOT, DCP, Mayor's Office, DWP


Install 50 electric vehicle chargers in city‐operated parking facilities. Install additional chargers in city‐operated parking facilities subject to grant funding and budget availability.

PK.8 On‐Street Loading. Encourage the designation of on‐street loading areas, through removal of curb parking, in established industrial areas where off‐street loading facilities are lacking. Update the Commercial Loading Zone Ordinance (see B‐2, page 6, 2‐14 of Mayor’s Task Force‐Mar 2004)



Draft ordinance for metered commercial loading zones. Meter 1,000 commercial loading spaces annually, starting in Downtown and Hollywood.

21


Program


NEW PROGRAMS

O.6 Operational Efficiencies. Establish and strengthen public/private partnerships (with the goods movement industry) to coordinate and improve operational efficiencies for the movement of goods. Work could include the implementation of incentives to encourage off‐peak and extended hour Port operations, an appointment system, the consideration of short‐haul intermodal rail operations, and the establishment of an Advanced Transportation Management and Information System (ATMIS) which would include changeable message signs and video surveillance.

DOT, POLA, Mayor's Office

2.7, 4.10 Operations Research and design program to explore off‐peak freight delivery incentives. Convene working group in partnership with POLA.

SF.18 Parking Meter Posts. Develop pilot project to install bicycle parking mechanism on parking meter posts.

DOT Parking


Implement pilot program in 2016.

PL.5 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan for that enhances mobility and accessibility for pedestrians.

DOT, Mayor

3.1, 2.3 Planning & Land Use

Complete Pedestrian Action Plan and begin implementation.

PS.1 Plazas/Paseos. Identify temporary and/or permanent opportunities to establish car free zones and/or plazas/paseos in select locations around the City.

DCP, DOT 3.11 Public Space Convert Sunset Triangle to a permenent plaza by the end of 2017. Incorporate stormwater capture and conservation measures into future plaza and paseo designs whenever feasible.

C.10 Poster Campaigns. Promote awareness of the various networks, streetscape, and green or "great street" improvements through the installation of posters and/or banners. Installation could be either temporary or permanent and could be used to inform the community about the Networks as well as focus on a variety of topics including safe driving practices and/or bicycling encouragement.

DOT, Mayor's Office, Council


City will work with community partners as needed.

F.7 Priority Grading System (PGS). Pursue funding for projects based upon the criteria established by the PGS as defined by the Strategic Capital Planning Group.

DOT, DCP, BOE, BSS, BSL, LASAN

1.7, 4.6 Funding Secure funding and begin implementation, Establish detailed cost estimates and identify funding sources to implement street improvement projects

22


Program


NEW PROGRAMS

ED.5 6 Rail Crossing Safety. Work with local and regional passenger and freight services to educate all users about safe at‐grade crossing practices.

DOT, Mayor's Office

1.5 Education Continue to scope and identify funding for the work plan.

O.7 Region‐Wide Traffic Control Center. Link all of the traffic control centers in region on a 24 hour basis.

Mayor's Office, ITA, DOT, Metro, Caltrans.

4.1, 4.2 Operations Improve event management coordination with Metro and Caltrans especially on days with multiple events.

C.11 Roadway Safety Campaigns. Conduct outreach citywide to advance vision zero goal.

DOT, LAPD, Caltrans, OHS, LAUSD, LASPD


Launch 2 individualized neighborhood safety campaigns each year, analyze impact of campaigns, fully fund additional resources for strategic communications and education/outreach, identify and implement campaign w/ partnerships. Utilize data analysis to prioritize outreach efforts.

D.3 Semi‐Annual Survey. Conduct in‐person and on‐line interviews annually about active transportation implementation. In particular, identify on‐going concerns and listen to suggested improvements. Collect data on problem areas (not just where collisions have occurred but where “near‐misses” frequently occur) and identify solutions.

DOT, DCP 4.11, 4.10 Data & Analysis Complete the Survey every two years.

PK.12 Shared Off‐Street Parking. Facilitate the shared utilization of privately owned off‐street parking facilities.

DOT, City Attorney, BIDS, DCP


Identify and implement shared parking opportunities. re:code will examine development of by‐right shared parking solutions.

O.8 Shuttle Bus. Work with special event providers, employers and community‐based organizations to identify and implement shuttle bus programs to serve as a first‐mile, last‐mile solution between transit stations and special events and/or specific populations. Continue programs like Cityride, to provide transportation assistance for senior citizens and individuals with disabilities.

DOT, Mayor's Office, DOA

3.2, 3.4, 3.5

Operations Scope and identify funding. Secure funding and implement. Implement commuter incentive programs utililzing smartphone technology. Expand existing programs as widely as possible.

MT.6 Sidewalk Cleaning. Work with local businesses and community organizations to maintain sidewalks, along arterials, free of debris

Mayor's Office, BSS

1.7, 4.10 Maintenance Create pilot partnership program in all 15 Great Street areas.

23


Program


NEW PROGRAMS

MT.7 Sidewalk Repair. Implement a sidewalk improvement program to bring up all existing degraded sidewalk sections to City standards and implement a program to ensure that future degraded sidewalk sections are promptly identified and repaired in a timely manner.

BSS 1.7 Maintenance Develop a repair strategy for identifying, prioritizing, and repairing the City's broken and cracked sidewalks.

O.9 Signal Timing. Identify opportunities to re‐time street signals to provide safer speeds, improve safety for all, and create smoother traffic throughput. Identify opportunities to re‐time street signals to allow longer crossing times for bicyclists and pedestrians in large intersections.

DOT

1.4

Operations Re‐time 400 traffic signals per year. Identify criteria for using LPI, including locations with high numbers of pedesrians, older adults and children, or areas in proximity to transit. Implement " leading pedestrian intervals" (LPI) at targeted locations in first year. Evaluate effectiveness of LPI and expand to additional intersections based on analysis.

F.8 State Highway Control. Identify funding, and initiate process with Caltrans to transfer oversight of, and improve State Highways within the City limits including Lincoln, Santa Monica, Venice and Topanga Canyon Boulevards.

Mayor's Office, DOT, DCP

2.11, 4.6, Funding Transfer Venice Boulevard to city control.

D.12 Strategic Capital Planning Group. Establish an inter‐departmental Group to determine , using data and prioritization criteria,a list of priority projects and match to funding sources.

CAO, DCP. BPE. BSS. BSL, BOE

4.6, 4.11, 4.6. 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6

Data & Analysis Determine list of priority projects and match to funding sources. Establish detailed cost estimates and identify funding sources to implement improvement projects. Leverage work of Mobility Matrix.

SF.20 Street Furniture Definition. Include bicycle racks in the definition of street furniture to utilize streetscape funding opportunities

City Attorney, BSS

1.7, 3.8, 2.13

Support Features

Within two years include "bicycle racks" in the definition of street furniture.

SF.21 Street Lighting. Support equitable distribution of funds for appropriate street and/or pedestrian lighting, especially in areas of high crime rate and high volume of pedestrian activities.

BSL, DCP, DOT

1.7, 2.3, 3.2

Support Features

Set up coordination plan with appropriate partners and identify high‐volume stop locations in need of amenities such as lighting, concrete sidewalks, benches and trees. Expand the number of targeted bus stops through continued coordination.

O.11 Transit Coordination. Actively collaborate with regional transit partners to achieve seamless transfers between systems, including scheduling, ticketing, shared fare systems, and stops and loading areas.

DOT, IT, and other transit providers, Mayor's Office

3.4, 4.11 Operations Implement a mobile ticketing demonstration for LADOT transit services. Coordinate with Metro to implement mobile ticketing program pilot on a countywide level.

24


Program


NEW PROGRAMS

PL.7 Transit Coordination. Continue to work with Metro and various Construction Authorities on station location, portal siting, station access, support features and parking strategies that maximize ridership and transit revenue.

DCP, DOT, Metro, other bus providers

4.11, 3.7, 4.11

Planning & Land Use

Work continuing especially on Exposition LRT, Regional Connector, Westwide Subway and Crenshaw.

SF.22 Transit District Curbside Management.

Manage curb areas adjacent to transit stops to facilitate the loading and unloading of buses, para transit, smart shuttles, van/car pools and taxi queuing. Include curb areas for bicycle parking and car share facilities where space warrants.

DCP, DPW, DOT, Metro & other transit providers

3.5, 3.8, 3.2

Support Features

Establish an Intra‐agency coordination team to design, allocate and manage the curb area adjacent to transit stations and high‐frequency stops.

SF.23 Transit Furniture. Transit furniture shall be prioritized on corridors with the highest rates of public transit ridership; design features shall incorporate aesthetic, comfort, and protection from the elements (sun and rain) considerations. Target the equitable provision of transit furniture throughout the City. Evaluate and pursue all possible alternatives to increase transit furniture in underserved corridors.

DPW 1.7 Support Features

Set up coordination plan with appropriate partners and identify high‐volume stop locations in need of amenities such as lighting, concrete sidewalks, benches and trees. Expand the number of targeted bus stops through continued coordination.

SF.24 Transit Pass. Collaborate with Metro to encourage schools, employers, and residential developers to provide monthly or annual transit passes for their respective students, employees, and residents.

DOT, DCP, LAUSD, Metro

4.8, 4.9, 4.11

Support Features

Work with Metro to enable colleges and large employers to subsidize transit use. Explore the possibilities of large entities to support transit ridership and ease their own parking obligations for students and employees.

O.12 Transit/Event Coordination. Facilitate collaboration between regional transit partners and event providers to provide and promote awareness of additional and timely transit service before and after large events.

DOT 4.2, 3.4 Operations Scope and identify funding. Secure funding and implement. Implement commuter incentive programs utililzing smartphone technology. Expand existing programs as widely as possible.

SF.25 Trash Facilities. Increase the number of trashcans on sidewalks. Work with local business and community organizations to develop an adopt‐a‐trash can program.

DPW‐BOS 1.7 Support Features

Utilize Great Streets projects to formalize public and private partnership roles in the development of an adopt‐a‐trash can program.

ENF.5 Truck Inspection Areas. Develop a Truck Inspection Program in coordination with Highway Patrol and Port of Los Angeles.

DOT, POLA, LAPD

1.8 Enforcement Seek grant funding to conduct commercial vehicle inspections along roadways utilized by commercial vehicles.

25


Program


NEW PROGRAMS

PL.10 Truck Staging Facilities. Identify locations within the City where regional truck staging and service facilities are permitted and address solutions to illegal freight staging practices.

DOT, DCP 1.8, 2.8 Planning & Land Use

Develop targeted solutions to illegal freight staging practices. Scope and secure funding for implementation.

PL.11 Union Station Master Plan. Continue to work with Metro to complete the Union Station Master Plan and implement Connect US. Connect US is a strategy to improve active transportation options to and from Union Station.

DCP, DOT, Mayor's Office


Adopt Connect US and establish a formal partnership between Metro and the City for the design, funding and implementation of Stage 1 Perimeter Improvemenys of the Master Plan and an analysis of the impacts of Connect US Action Plan adoption.

C.13 Wayfinding. Develop and install a comprehensive way‐finding program throughout the City to provide information about transportation routes, schedules, bikeways urban trails, and area amenities including schools, parks, cultural and retail activities.

DOT, DCP, Mayor's Office, BSS


Prepare bid within one year and undertake construction by end of 2016.

26


Program


DEFERRED PROGRAMS

D.1 Analysis of Existing Paths. Identify and map paved paths within City parks suitable for bicycling. Emphasize opportunities for gap closures in the active transportation network.

RAP 2.5 Data & Analysis

SF.1 Artist Designed Bicycle Parking Standards.

Support and develop creative bicycle parking solutions in the public rights‐of‐way and adopt as city standard guidelines.

DOT/BOE 3.8, 3.11 Support Features

SF.6 Bicycle Racks on Taxis. Investigate the integration of bicycles with taxi service by adding bicycle racks on to all of the taxi cabs that are permitted through DOT.

DOT 3.5, 3.8 Support Features

C.5 Car Free Days. Coordinate a Car‐Free Day on a regular basis each month. Provide information and incentives for drivers to leave the car behind for a day. Work with Metro and City Council offices to provide incentives and disseminate materials to event participants.

DOT, DPW, Council, Mayor, SCAG, Metro


F.1 Commercial Vehicle Related Revenue:

Dedicate revenues generated by commercial vehicle fees to roadway‐related purposes

DOT 1.7, 4.6 Funding

F.3 Coordinated Grant Application. Establish a coordinated effort to apply for and administer federal, state, and local transportation grants to provide additional funding to support transportation and streetscape efforts.

Mayor's Office

1.2, 4.6 Funding

ED.3 Goods Movement Awareness. Develop and implement strategies to increase coordination of issues relating to goods movement and increase awareness of economic role of goods movement.

POLA 4.12, 2.7, 1.8

Education

D.6 Goods Movement Information. Compile goods movement data from the Port of Los Angeles, Los Angeles World Airport and regional goods movement providers to monitor and assess economic fluctuations.

Port, LAWA

4.12 Data & Analysis

L.7 Local Street Speed Limit. Advocate for and support for a 20 mph speed limit on all local streets within California.

DOT, City Attorney

1.5 Legislation

27


Program


DEFERRED PROGRAMS

D.8 Mountain Trail Spillover and Conflict

Resolution Analysis. Conduct a spillover analysis to determine the extent to which mountain biking use spills over onto trails where biking is prohibited. Examine other jurisdictions to understand how they accommodate mountain biking and how they have managed conflicts.

RAP, DPW 1.9 Data & Analysis

C.8 Multi‐Modal Access Campaign. Develop a Multi‐Modal Access Campaign, in collaboration with Metro, SCAG and other transportation providers, to highlight the availability (all day, every day) of multiple transportation options (transit, vanpool, car share, bikeshare, bicycling, walking, etc.) across the region.

Metro, SCAG, DOT, BBB, Culver City Bus, Metrolink, Foothill Transit, Orange Transit, Gardena Transit


C.9 Neighborhood Network and Business

District Maps. Work with local Business Improvement Districts, Neighborhood Councils, Homeowner Associations and Chambers of Commerce to develop, fund, and distribute physical and electronic maps of localized portions of the existing bikeways, neighborhood network streets, and bicycling supportive businesses.

DOT 4.14 Communi‐cation

SF.15 On‐Board Storage. Work with transit providers to provide an on‐board location for the storage of shopping bags and/or luggage.

Metro, DOT


SF.17 Operator Judgement of Bicycles on Buses.

Work with Metro and local transit operators in the City of Los Angeles to allow operators to make decisions regarding allowing bicycles on buses when space on bus allows, racks are full, service is last of the day or in inclement weather

DOT, City Council, Mayor's Office, BAC, Metro

3.5, 3.8, 4.11

Support Features

PK.10 Pedestrian Improvement Incentives.

Establish an incentive program to encourage projects to retrofit parking lots, structures and driveways to include pedestrian design features.

DCP 2.3, 3.1, 4.13,

Parking/ Loading Zones

28


Program


DEFERRED PROGRAMS

L.3 Posted Speed Limit Reductions. Develop and advocate for state legislation to support reducing posted traffic speeds. Revised methodology should account for all roadway users (including pedestrians and bicyclists), adjacent land uses, and street user demand.

Mayor's Office, CLA

1.4, 1.2, 3.2

Legislation

L.4 Resetting Speed Limits. Evaluate the effectiveness of the State’s speed limit requirements on street safety and performance.

DOT, City Attorney

1.4 Legislation

F.9 State Highway Funding. Coordinate with Caltrans, other local, regional, state and federal agencies, and the private sector to identify and implement funding alternatives for the City’s transportation network including the State highway system.

Mayor's Office, DOT, DCP

2.11, 4.11, 4.6

Funding

MT.9 Street Trees. Implement a tree trimming cycle for all street trees within the public ROW. Use Priority Grading System to prioritize streets.

BSS‐UF 1.7, 3.2, 2.1, 2.3

Maintenance

L.5 Tailpipe Emission Legislation. Support legislation to reduce tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks.

Mayor's Office, CLA, SCAQMD

5.3, 5.4 Legislation

O.14 Truck Inspections and Service Patrol. Identify locations for temporary and long‐term truck inspection stations and Implement a Truck Service Patrol Program to remove disabled commercial trucks from freeway lanes.

DCP 2.7 Operations

D.11 Unimproved/Off‐Road Database. Inventory all unimproved roads and determine their suitability for mountain biking and off‐road facilities.

RAP, DCP, DOT, LAFD

1.9 Data & Analysis

L.6 Vehicular Travel Safety Training. Work with the Los Angeles County Superior Court to develop a program that offers training on driving behavior around other users of the roadway to motorists receiving citations and/or involved in collisions with non‐auto modes.

DOT, City Attorney

1.5 Legislation

29

DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING · West Adams-Baldwin Hills-Leimert Park ... Hollywood, Mission...

Documents

Transcript of DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING · West Adams-Baldwin Hills-Leimert Park ... Hollywood, Mission...