Loading...
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