SR-301-005-04 (3)
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO ITEM 8A
F:\A TTY\M U N I\STRPTS\ces\BB BMasterPlan2d .doc
City Council Meeting 8-12-03
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Supplemental Report Regarding Addendum to Big Blue Bus Master
Plan EIR
INTRODUCTION
Attached is an Addendum to the Big Blue Bus Facility Expansion Master Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Santa Monica Big Blue Bus dated
December 5, 2000 and certified by the City Council on February 27, 2001 This
Addendum was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15164 and should be
considered as part of the Council's deliberation on this matter. Copies of the Final EIR
will be available on the dais,
PREPARED BY: Andrew Agle, Assistant Director of the Planning and Community
Development Department
ATTACHMENT: Addendum
1
ADDEND
ADDENDUM TO THE
BIG BLUE BUS FACILITY MASTER PLAN
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
August 12, 2003
1. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires environmental review of all projects to
determine whether there may be a significant impact on the environment. This report is an Addendum to
the Final Environmental Impa~t Report (Final EIR) for the Big Blue Bus Facility Expansion Master Plan
Project which was certified on February 27, 2001 by the City of Santa Monica City Council (Lead
Agency). The Final EIR evaluated the potential environmental changes which would result from
implementation of the proposed Big Blue Bus Facility Expansion Master Plan. .
2. SUBJECT AND FOCUS OF THE ADDENDUM
The City of Santa Monica Big Blue Bus facility is a 8.5 acres site located at 1660 Seventh Street, just
southeast of downtown Santa Monica. (Figure 1) For the past several years, the Big Blue Bus has been
in the process of implementing the Transportation Service Improvement Plan which includes expanding
its services to alleviate overcrowding of buses and improve transit accessibility. With improved service,
the bus fleet is anticipated to grow from 160 (year 2000 number) to 200, and the need for additional work
space, maintenance repair facilities, and parking arises.
The Big Blue Bus purchased the 612 Colorado Avenue building, located at the southeast comer of its
facility site, and leases space in the building to the Ocean Park Community Center (OPCC) and various
city departments. According to the Master Plan, the 612 Colorado Avenue building is slated for
demolition, therefore, displacing OPCC and other tenants. This Addendum addresses the relocation of
OPCc. The certified EIR assumed that OPCC would be temporarily relocated and that the OPCC would
return to the Colorado Building following reconstruction. However, since all non-transportation uses are
considered temporary, OPCC has expressed an interest in finding a more permanent location.
Accordingly, in November 2002, with City assistance, OPCC began exploring an alternate location at
1751 Cloverfield Boulevard. In February 2003, the City issued a pre-development loan to OPCC to allow
OPCC to conduct due diligence on the property and to enter into a purchase option. In connection with
this limited activity, on February 22, 2003, the City issued a Categorical Exemption which was recorded
with the County Clerk.
While the site is currently vacant and has been so for a number of years, it houses a two-story building.
Historically, this building has been used for a variety of industrial, commercial and office uses. Most
recently, the building was used as the production and administrative facilities of a vitamin manufacturing
company. The existing OPCC facilities include clinic and counseling services, volunteer and staff
offices, and 20 beds, encompassing approximately 8,500 square feet. The facilities proposed at the new
location would provide the same services in a 28,700 square foot space and would accommodate 55 beds.
Figure 2 shows the proposed site plan for the relocated OPCC. Floor plans, building elevation and
building sections shown in Figures 3 - 6.
In assessing the impact of a proposed project on the environment, the lead agency should normally limit
its examination to changes in the existing physical conditions of the affected area as they existed at the
time of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR was filed. Here, the NOP was filed on April 2, 1998.
The City's records show that as of this date, the project site consisted of a vitamin
manufacturing/distribution facility. In addition, the site's current temporary vacant status is neither
indicative of its historic use or considered to be indicative of any future use. Accordingly, the City has
utilized the vitamin manufacturing/distribution facility as the baseline for analyzing the potential for any
environmental impacts to occur as a result of its conversion to congregate care, a homeless shelter, and an
access center. The following sections analyze the potential effects related to the relocation of the OPCC.
(
t::!.tHi 200j-56
FIGURE 1
REGIONAL LOCATION
-y--
3nN3f\1
II
~l
f;
~;
",.;
I
:'.1,,:,;.
;'-'(Y;;~
t"
. . ~
L..
~
(!)
it
..J
D...
W
I-
if)
o
w
if)
o
D...
o
n::
D...
8
-6
~
~
-=
-<e:
!!!
<.>
.l!!
:E
~
<(
'"
c:
'"
E
E
'"
u::
~
<U
~
~
..-(..)
. '-0
.-0
'-0
,-
i~}
'~.(~
.--0
u
.,...-.
UJ
a::
:::>
CD
u:
("j
)
I
o
";
VJ
Z
o
~
:>
w
.....J
W
UJ
a::
:::>
CD
u:
z
o
~
:>
w
.....J
W
~
en
w
S
~
oS!
~
~
Iii
u
a::
:>
o
II)
Vl
13
.l!!
:E
~
<(
Cl
c:
'"
E
E
'"
u::
t
'-11-
~ I fB I
II ~!
~I
O'
I~ 0 I
.....J .
I
I
I
"1
t
II
~.
JHiO
..
to
...
..
..
...
H I
::
~
..
I!'!
;.:
..
..
...
..
i I~
.' r....:...
[I" ~:"-
.lt~
.
VJ
.....
a:: 0
:::>
CD I-
u: U
w
if)
..,..
~
~
...
I
.. 1
14
II
1-.
g51
2,
rn !
~ i .
Z,
~ ! .Ii I'
0,
0:
.....J
II
~
.a#l t
D
.------
(!)
2
~
o
o
.....J
8
='
-=
~
<U
-=
~
~
<U
='
a:5
, ~ 0(
u
~ ~
-a ::;;
o ~
~ ~
1Il
.s u.
g e
CfJ t:::
~
3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
An Addendum to the Big Blue Bus Facility Expansion Master Plan Final EIR is permitted under CEQA for
projects where there are no substantial changes in the proposed project or in circumstances surrounding the
project, and where the project would not have new significant impacts or more severe impacts than those
previously disclosed in the previously certified Final EIR. The California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) provides in Sections 15162 and 15164 that an addendum to a previously
certified EIR can be prepared for a project if the criteria and conditions summarized below are satisfied:
No Substantial Changes. There are no substantial changes proposed in the project which will
require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
No Change in Circumstances. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
No Substantial New Information. There is no new information of substantial importance which was
not known or could not have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows:
The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;
Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
previous EIR;
Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the
project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternatives; and
Mitigation measures or alternatives which are substantially different from those analyzed in
the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
In assessing whether this Addendum was appropriate, the City reviewed, among other things, the certified
Final EIR, the architect plans for the proposed project~ the parking and zoning requirements for the proposed
use, the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment - Proposed Ocean Park Housing Project 1751 Cloverfield
Boulevard, Santa Monica, California, dated August 11, 2003, prepared on behalf of the applicant, the ITE
Manual for traffic trip generations and the Trip Generation Analysis.
The comprehensive environmental review in the following section finds that no new significant impacts and
no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to ~e relocation of
OPCC would occur.
1. Earth Resources
a) Will the proposal result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures?
No significant impact. The proposed project entails the rehabilitation of an existing building that
would not require excavation.
9
b) Will the proposal result in extensive disruptions, displacements, compaction or over
covering of soil?
No significant impact. The proposed projects entails the rehabilitation and renovation of an existing
building, no major ground-disturbing site work is anticipated. Minimal grading will be needed to
reconfigure and resurface the existing parking.
c) Will the proposal result in extensive change in topography of ground surface relief
features?
No significant impact. The proposed project will not require extensive grading.
d) Will the proposal result in the destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geological or physical features?
No significant impact. The project site is relatively flat and would not require major grading or
excavation of existing topography.
e) Will the proposal result in considerable increase in wind orwater erosion of soils, either
on or off the site?
No significant impact. The proposed project consists of a paved parking lot and an existing building.
No erosion of soil is expected during the resurfacing of the parking lot.
t) Will the proposal result in changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes
in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the bed of the ocean or any bay or
inlet?
No significant impact. The proposed project is not located adjacent to beach. The project is located
approximately 1.8 miles east of the Pacific Ocean.
g) Will the proposal result in exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
No significant impact. The proposed project is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Fault
Hazard Zone nor is it adjacent to an existing active fault. As a result, the proposed project would not
expose the residential population to hazards.
2. Air Quality
a) Will the proposal result in considerable air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
No significant impact. The proposed project would result in less vehicular trips than the prior light
industrial and office use of the project site. In addition, according to the City Transportation
Management Division, it is expected that the proposed project would produce approximately 179
trips per day. This level of trip making would produce less than 20 pounds per day of emissions and
would not result in daily emissions that would exceed that South Coast Air Quality Management
District daily emission thresholds.
10
b) Will the proposal result in the creation of objectionable odors?
No significant impact. The project includes two areas for the preparation of food (one on the first
floor and one on the second floor). Adjacent uses include a body shop, and other industrial uses. It
is not expected that food preparation odors would be considered objectionable in this area.
c) Will the proposal result in substantial alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally?
No significant impact. The proposed project would re-use an existing two-story industrial building.
It would not alter air patterns, moisture levels or climate in general.
d) Will the proposal result in or expose the project residents to severe air pollution
conditions?
No significant impact. The proposed project would provide a homeless center and up to 55 beds of
congregate housing and homeless shelter. The residential portions of the project would not be
located adjacent to Cloverfield Boulevard The project would be located approximately 470 feet north
of the 1-10 freeway where there would be sufficient distance for freeway-related carbon monoxide
levels to disperse to levels below state standards.
3. Water
a) Will the proposal result in changes in currents, or the course of direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
No significant impact. The proposed project is not adjacent to the Pacific Ocean ~or is it adjacent
to any surface water body. As a result, the proposed project would no change the course or direction
of water movements.
b) Will the proposal result in extensive changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff!
No significant impact. The proposed project would re-use an existing developed and paved site. It
would not increase the amount of impervious surface nor change the overall grade of the site. As a
result, there would be no significant change to drainage patterns.
c) Will the proposal result in alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
No significant impact. The proposed project is not located within a 1 OO-year or 500-year floodplain
as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
d) Will the proposal result in substantial change in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
No significant impact. The project site is not adjacent to any surface water body and would not
surface water bodies in any way.
e) Will the proposal result in discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity?
No significant impact. The proposed project would provide 35 surface parking spaces compared to
54 spaces in the prior use. Thus, the proposed project would not result in any increase in run off and
discharge of surface pollution from parked vehicles.
f) Will the proposal result in alteration of the direction or rate of flo w of groundwaters?
No significant impact. The proposed project would not require excavation and would not affect
ground water flow.
g) Will the proposal result in change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts and
excavations?
No significant impact. The proposed project would not require excavation and thus would not have
the potential to affect ground aquifers.
h) Will the proposal result in considerable reduction in the amount of water otherwise
available for public water supplies?
No significant impact. The proposed project would not considerably reduce the City's public water
supply. The proposed project does not include any water-intensive uses such as swimming pools or
fountains. The facility would be equipped with water conserving shower fixtures and toilets in
accordance with City conservation programs.
i) Will the proposal result in exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding or tidal yvaves?
No significant impact. The project site is not located within a floodplain or flood zone and would
not expose residents to a flood hazard. The project site is located 1.8 miles from the Pacific Ocean
and would not expose project residents to tidal wave hazards.
4. Plant Life
a) Will the proposal result in change in the diversity of species or number of any species
of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
No significant impact. The project site is paved. The site is not landscaped nor are there any natural
areas on the site.
b) Will the proposal result in reduction in the number of any unique, rare or endangered
species of plants?
No significant impact. The project site is paved. There are no areas on the site that would constitute
habitat for any threatened, rare or endangered plant or animal species.
c) Will the proposal result in introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result
in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?
No significant impact. The proposed project would introduce landscaping to the project site. This
change is considered a beneficial effect of the project.
12
5. Animal Life
a) Will the proposal result in change in the diversity of species, or number of any species
of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms
or insects)?
No significant impact. The project site is paved. The site is not landscaped and does not contain
areas that would be suitable habitat for animals.
b) Will the proposal result in reduction of the number of any unique, rare or endangered
species of animals?
No significant impact. See 5a.
c) Will the proposal result in introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result
in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
No significant impact. The proposed project would introduce new landscaping to the project site.
This landscaping could provide habitat for urban type animals. Since the project is located in an
industrial area, the re-use of the site and building would not create a barrier to the migration or
movement of animals.
d) Will the proposal result in deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitats?
No significant impact. The project is not located adjacent to any surface water body and would not
result in the deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitats.
6. Energy
a) Will the proposal result in use of considerable amounts of fuels or energy?
No significant impact. The proposed project would rely on the use offossil fuels to power equipment
used during the renovation process and provide the facility with heat and electricity. All on site
facilities would comply with State and City energy requirements. Energy requirements of the
proposed project are not considered to be significant due to the limited size and nature of the facility.
b) Will the proposal result in considerable increase in demand upon existing sources of
energy, or require the development of new sources of energy?
No significant impact. The proposed project is a community service facility. It would not inordinately
increase the demand for energy resources from meal service, counseling and overnight residential
care.
7 . Natural Resources
a) Will the proposal result in considerable increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
No significant impact. The proposed project would require use of various natural resources during
the renovation and rehabilitation process, and it would rely on fossil fuels to power construction
equipment and provide the facility with heat and electricity. Natural resource requirements for the
proposed project are not considered to be significant due to the limited size and nature of the facility.
13
b) Will the proposal result in considerable depletion of any nonrenewable natural
resources?
No significant impact. Natural resource requirements for the proposed project are not considered to
be significant due to the limited size and nature of the facility.
8. Noise
a) Will the proposal result in considerable increase in existing noise levels?
No significant impact. Because of the limited number of vehicular trips generated by the project, it
would not result in discernible increase in existing noise levels. Moreover, there are no other
activities or use on the project site that would constitute a significant noise source.
b) Will the proposal result in exposure of people to severe noise levels?
No significant impact. The proposed project would not expose residents or employees to significant
noise levels. The residential portion of the project is located on the south and east side of the project
building away from Cloverfield traffic noise as well as Santa Monica Freeway traffic noise.
9. Light and Glare
Will the proposal produce considerable light or glare from street lights or other sources?
No significant impact. Lighting of the proposed project would be contained on site and would not
spillover onto adjacent properties. The facility would not have any inordinately bright lighting. The
project would not have extensive exterior glazed surfaces and as a result would not be a source of
glare.
10. Shadows
Will the proposal produce extensive shadows affecting adjacent uses or property?
No significant impact. The proposed project entails the reuse of an existing building. The project
would not alter the height or massing of the building in a manner that would create significant new
shadows.
11. Risk of Upset
a) Will the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to; oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an
accident or upset conditions?
No significant impact. The proposed project would not crate any significant risk of upset No
hazardous materials would be generated on site.
b) Will the proposal involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
No significant impact. There are no elements of the proposed project that would inhibit emergency
access into or out of the site or any adjacent uses.
14
12. Human Health
a) Will the proposal result in creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard
(excluding mental health)?
No significant impact. The proposed project would not result in the creation of health hazards or
potential health hazards. This project provides restroom facilities to homeless persons and courtyards
and waiting areas where homeless persons can queue before meals or before they receive service.
The creation of this staging area would greatly limit the potential for homeless persons creating
hazards on nearby properties.
b) Will the proposal result in exposure of people to potential health hazards?
No significant impact. The Phase II Environmental Assessment prepared by ECS-Environmental
Services, August 1,2003 concluded that the site "pose[s] no significant impacts on human health or
the environment."
c) Will the proposal result in considerable adverse impact on health care services?
No significant impact. The proposed project would not have a considerable adverse impact on health
care services. The proposed project would help meet an existing demand for services and living
facilities for the homeless.
13. Population
a) Will the proposal result in considerable change in the distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population of an area?
No significant impact. The proposed project would provide a homeless shelter and up to 55 beds for
congregate housing and homeless shelter. These beds (when fully occupied) would increase the
residential population of Census Tract 7018.0 by 0.1 percent. This change is not considered to be
significant.
b) Will the proposal result in the relocation of any persons because of the effects upon
housing, commercial, or industrial facilities?
No significant impact. The proposed project would not result in the relocation of any person. The
current project site is not used for residential purposes.
c) Will the proposal result in the relocation or dislocation of employment or business?
No significant impact. The proposed project would rehabilitate and renovate an existing building.
The building to be improved is currently vacant and as a result, the project would not displace
employment.
14. Land Use
a) Will the proposal result in a considerable alteration ofthe present or planned land use
of an area?
No significant impact. The proposed project would renovate an existing building. The proposed use
is consistent with existing zoning of the Light Manufacturing Studio District.
15
b) Will the proposal result in demolition, relocation, or remodeling of residential,
commercial or industrial buildings or other facilities?
No significant impact. The proposed project would renovate an existing industrial building. The
renovation would provide for a community service center and temporary housing which is considered
a beneficial impact.
15. Housing
a) Will the proposal create a considerable demand for additional housing?
No significant impact. The proposed project would not create a demand for additional housing. The
proposed project is in part a residential facility which would help meet the critical demand for
housing and shelter for persons at the lowest income level.
b) Will the proposal have a considerable adverse impact on the available rental housing
in the community?
No significant impact. The proposed project would not remove rental housing units from the local
market. The proposed project would provide congregate housing and homeless shelter for persons
that cannot afford rental housing.
16. Right-of-Way
a) Will the proposal result in reduced lot area?
No significant impact. The proposed project would not reduce the existing lot area.
b) Will the proposal result in reduced access?
No significant impact. The proposed project would not result in reduced access. Currently the only
access to the site is from 26th Street. The proposed project would continue to use this access point.
c) Will the proposal result in reduced off-street parking?
No significant impact. A minimum of 35 parking spaces will be provided on the project site. These
spaces are sufficient to meet the required parking for the project, and will not require project
personnel to park off site at curb spaces. Most (if not all )of the demand for parking spaces is
expected to come from staff and volunteers at the project site. No parking demand is expected from
homeless patrons being served by the project.
d) Will the proposal result in creation of abrupt grade differential between public and private
property?
No significant impact. The proposed project would generally conform to existing topography and
would not result in the creation of an abrupt grade differential between public and private property.
17. Transportation ICirculation
a) Will the proposal result in generation of considerable additional vehicular movement?
16
No significant impact. The City has determined that the appropriate baseline for comparison of
potential traffic impacts is the prior use of the project site as an industrial use. In this regard, the prior
use consisted of approximately 10,629 square feet of office space and 10,629 square feet oflight
industrial space. According to the City Transportation Management Division, the prior use generated
almost 200 daily trips. In comparison, the City Transportation Management Division estimates that
the project use would generate 6 percent fewer daily trips than the prior use.
b) Will the proposal result in substantial effects on existing parking facilities or demand
for new parking?
No significant impact. See 16c.
c) Will the proposal result in considerable adverse impact upon existing bus transit
systems?
No significant impact. Relocation of the OPCC to ~he proposed project site would not likely have
an adverse on the bus transit system. In fact, the relocation of the OPCC from their current location
would allow to the Big Blue Bus to improve bus maintenance, and introduce lower emissions buses
into the Santa Monica area.
d) Will the proposal result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement
of people and/or goods by changes to roadways?
No significant impact. The proposed project would not physically change the geometry of
Cloverfield Boulevard or 26th Street.
e) Will the proposal result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
No significant impact. The project does not contain any element that have the potential to alter
waterborne, rail or air traffic.
f) Will the proposal result in considerable adverse impact on traffic safety to motorists,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
No significant impact. The proposed project would likely increase pedestrian activity within the
project vicinity. All areas serving the project site have sidewalks of adequate width. In addition,
there are traffic signal controls at major intersections surrounding the project site such as
Olympic/Cloverfield, MichiganlCloverfield, 1-10 RampslCloverfield, 26th/Olympic, and
Pico/Cloverfield. Painted crosswalks exist in all areas.
18. Utilities
Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or major alterations to the following
utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
No significant impact. The proposed project would be Jocated in an developed industrial area with
existing power and gas service systems and other infrastructure in place. No substantial alterations
to these existing systems would be needed.
b) Communications systems?
No significant impact. See 18a.
c) Water?
No significant impact. The proposed project would not result in the need to alter existing local and
regional water treatment or distribution facilities. Water demand for proposed project is estimated
to be 2,750 gallons per day.l City-wide water use in Santa Monica currently averages about 12
million gallons per day.2 The project's water demand represents approximately 0.02 percent of the
total daily demand for the City. The proposed project would comply with City water Conservation
programs.
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
No significant impact. The proposed project would not result in the need to alter the City's existing
sewer system.
e) Storm water drainage?
No significapt impact. The proposed project would not significantly alter the existing site drainage
pattern and flows into existing sewers.
1) Solid Waste and disposal?
No significant impact. The proposed project would generate approximately 75 pounds (0.03 tons)
per day solid waste.3 This project's contribution to solid waste would be approximately 0.01 percent
of the City's 93,178 tons of solid waste per year.
19. Public Services
a) Fire Protection?
No significant impact. The proposed project would be built in accordance with all City and State fire
protection codes.
b) Police protection?
No significant impact. The proposed project would not result in the need for new or physically
altered police protection facilities.
IBased on 50 gallons per person per day for boarding homes. Standard of Environmental Engineering, Robert A.
Corbitt.
2City of Santa Monica Puiblic Works Website: http://pen.ci.santa-monica.ca.uslenvironment/policy/water/back.htm.
3Based on 1.37 pounds per person per day for administrative housing. Standard of Environmental Engineering, Robert
A. Corbitt.
18
c) Schools, including pre-schools or child care?
No significant impact. Because the proposed project is a community service facility providing shelter
and services on a temporary basis, it is not expected to have a substantial effect on existing schools
and childcare.
d) Parks or other recreational facilities?
No significant impact. The proposed project would not result in the need for new recreational
facilities. The project plan includes recreational facilities for project patrons on site.
e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
No significant impact. The proposed project would encourage and attract persons in need of food,
shelter and services to the project area. The project shall institute an aggressive patron education
program regarding public areas as well as commit to cleaning areas of debris within 500 feet of the
project site.
f) Other governmental services?
No significant impact. The proposed project as a community service center is not expected to have
an adverse affect on any additional government services.
20. Construction Effects
Will the proposal have considerable construction-period impacts due to the scope, or location
of construction activities?
No significant impact. The proposed project would not have significant construction effects due to
the fact that most of the improvements would occur on the interior of the existing buildings. Site
work to reconfigure parking and add landscaping would be minimal. The applicant will be required
to comply with the City's noise ordinance.
21. Fiscal
Will the proposal have a considerable adverse effect on the City?
No significant impact. The proposed project requires the use of City funds for acquisition and
development ofthe site. The City has identified sources to adequately fund this project. The housing
loan portion of the City funding will be funded by TORCA and HOME housing trust funds, while
the grant portion will receive funding from the Redevelopment housing trust fund.
22. Recreation
wm the proposal result in a considerable impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
No significant impact. The proposed project would provide recreational facilities on site and would
not place increased demands on existing City parks and recreation areas.
19
23. Cultural Resources
a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
No significant impact. The proposed project would renovate a building would renovate an existing
industrial building and not require excavation that would potentially disturb archaeological resources.
b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object?
No significant impact. The proposed project would renovate an industrial building constructed in
the 1960's. The building to be renovated is not considered historic due to its age or other
architectural characteristics.
c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
No significant impact. The proposed project would be located in a developed industrial area of the
City. This area is not known to have any unique ethnic cultural value. Although located near to the
Bergamot Station art gallery area, the proposed project would have not direct physical impact on this
area.
d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area?
No significant impact. The project would have no affect on any existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area.
24. Aesthetics
a) Will the proposed project result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public?
No significant impact. The project would renovate an existing 2-story building. It would not obstruct
a scenic vista.
b) Will the proposed project result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
No significant impact. The proposed project would not create an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view due to the fact that the perimeter of project site would be screened by landscaping.
The proposed renovation of the building and site also would be an improvement over the existing site
condition.
c) Will the proposed project result in the destruction of a stand of trees, a rock
outcropping or other locally recognized desirable aesthetic natural feature?
No significant impact. The proposed project would re-use an existing industrial site and building.
No significant landscaping would be removed, and no other aesthetic natural feature would be
affected.
20
d) Will the proposed project result in any substantial negative aesthetic effect?
No significant impact. See 24b.
25. Neighborhood Effects
Will the proposal have considerable effects on the project neighborhood?
No significant impact. While this project has generated neighborhood controversy, Guidelines
15064( e) provides that "economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as
significant effects on the environment." Accordingly, any social or economic impacts resulting from
the project are outside the scope of CEQA analysis.
26. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
No significant impact. The proposed project is located in a developed area, and does not have the
potential to adversely affect natural or ecological resources
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage oflong-
term, environmental goals?
No significant impact. The proposed project is located in a developed area, and does not have the
potential to adversely affect natural or ecological resources
c) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
No significant impact. Because the proposed project generates less vehicular trips than the prior use,
provides adequate parking, and includes site design and service measures to reduce or eliminate
impacts to adjacent areas, the project has little or no cumulative impact potential.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No significant impact. The proposed project is a community service facility. It would have no
environmental effects which would cause direct or indirect adverse effects on humans.
21