SR-402-004 (28)
City of Santa Monica
2834 Colorado Avenue
Project
Final
Environmental
Impact Report
SCH # 2003061052
January 2004
2834 COLORADO AVENUE PROJECT
Final
Environmental Impact Report
Prepared by:
City of Santa Monica
Planning & Community Development Department
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Contact: Mr. Bill Rodrigues
Prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
790 East Santa Clara Street, Suite 103
Ventura, California 93001
January 2004
This report is printed on 50% recycled paper with 10% post-consumer content
and chlorine-free virgin pulp.
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Table of Contents
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. ES-1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Background........................................................................................................... .1-1
1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority...........................................................................................1-1
1.3 Scope and Content .............................................................................................................1-1
1.4 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies ......................................................................1-2
1.5 Environmental Review Process .......................................................................................1-3
2.0 Project Description
2.1 Project Applicant................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.3 Existing Site Characteristics..............................................................................................2-1
2.4 General Project Characteristics ........................................................................................2-1
2.5 Projected Construction/Phasing Schedule ....................................................................2-2
2.6 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................... 2-2
2.7 Required Approvals .......................................................................................................... 2-2
3.0 Environmental Setting
3.1 Regional Setting.................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Project Site Setting...............................................................................................................3-1
3.3 Cumulative Projects Setting ..............................................................................................3-1
4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis .....................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Geology and Soils ...........................................................................................................4.1-1
4.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................4.2-1
4.3 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................4.3-1
4.4 Noise.................................................................................................................................. 4.4-1
4.5 Transportation/Traffic.................................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.6 Historic Resources............................................................................................................ 4.6-1
4.7 Aesthetics/ Shadow Effects............................................................................................. 4.7-1
4.8 Population and Housing.................................................................................................4.8-1
4.9 Public Services ..................................................................................................................4.9-1
4.10 Construction Services................................................................................................... 4.10-1
4.11 Neighborhood Effects...................................................................................................4.11-1
5.0 Growth Inducing Impacts
5.1 Economic and Population Growth...................................................................................5-1
5.2 Removal of Obstacles to Growth ......................................................................................5-1
rr
City of Santa Monica
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Table of Contents
6.0 Alternatives
6.1 No Project.............................................................................................................................6-1
6.2 Reduced Project................................................................................................................... 6-2
6.3 Commercial Project............................................................................................................. 6-4
6.4 Alternative Site Analysis.................................................................................................... 6-6
6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative ............................................................................6-7
7.0 References and Preparers
7.1 References ............................................................................................................................ 7-1
7.2 Report Preparers .................................................................................................................7-2
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process......................................................................... 1-4
Figure 2-1 Regional Location................................................................................................2-3
Figure 2-2 Project Location ...................................................................................................2-4
Figure 2-3 Existing Site Conditions .....................................................................................2-5
Figure 2-4 Surrounding Land Uses .....................................................................................2-7
Figure 2-5 Site Plan................................................................................................................ 2-9
Figure 2-6 Building Layout................................................................................................. 2-11
Figure 2-7 Stewart & East Elevations ................................................................................2-13
Figure 2-8 Colorado & South Elevations ..........................................................................2-15
Figure 4.1-1 Geologic Hazards .............................................................................................4.1-3
Figure 4.1-2 Regional Fault Map.......................................................................................... 4.1-4
Figure 4.1-3 Liquefaction Potential......................................................................................4.1-7
Figure 4.4-1 Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix.........................................................4.4-3
Figure 4.5-1 Project Location & Study Area .......................................................................4.5-2
Figure 4.5-2 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.............................................................4.5-3
Figure 4.5-3 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Project Only ................................................4.5-11
Figure 4.5-4 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Cumulative Base (2009).............................4.5-12
Figure 4.5-5 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - With Project (2009) .....................................4.5-13
Figure 4.7-1a Winter Solstice Shadows................................................................................4.7-7
Figure 4.7-1b Winter Solstice Shadows................................................................................4.7-9
Figure 4.7-2a Summer Solstice Shadows ...........................................................................4.7-11
Figure 4.7-2b Summer Solstice Shadows ...........................................................................4.7-13
List of Tables
Table ES-1
Table 2-1
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Table 4.1-1
Table 4.2-1
Table 4.2-2
Table 4.2-3
Table 4.2-4
Table 4.4-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts ............................................................ ES-3
Summary of Project Characteristics.................................................................. 2-2
Cumulative Projects in the City of Santa Monica........................................... 3-2
Cumulative Projects - Regionally Significant and Outside of City .............3-5
Liquefaction Zone Criteria ..............................................................................4.1-6
Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards .....................................4.2-2
Ambient Air Quality Data at the West Los Angeles-VA Hospital Station for
Ozone, CO & NOx and the Los Angeles-North Main Street Station
for PM10 ............................................................................................................ 4.2-4
Unmitigated Operational Emissions .............................................................4.2-6
One-Hour CO Level at Closest Sensitive Receptor .....................................4.2-7
Exterior Noise Standards for Onsite Noise Sources....................................4.4-2
rr
City of Santa Monica
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Table of Contents
Table 4.4-2 Noise Levels Associated with the Traffic on Area Roadways ...................4.4-5
Table 4.5-1 Existing City of Santa Monica Intersection Level of Service
Conditions......................................................................................................... 4.5-4
Table 4.5-2 Weekday Neighborhood Traffic Volumes....................................................4.5-5
Table 4.5-3 Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections
(H CM Method) ................................................................................................. 4.5-7
Table 4.5-4 Level of Service Definitions for Stop-Controlled Intersections
(H CM Method) ................................................................................................. 4.5-7
Table 4.5-5 City of Santa Monica Significant Impact Criteria ........................................4.5-8
Table 4.5-6 City of Santa Monica Significant Impact Criteria - Collector, Feeder, and
Local Streets...................................................................................................... 4.5-9
Table 4.5-7 Trip Generation Estimates ............................................................................4.5-10
Table 4.5-8 Cumulative Base and Cumulative + Project Intersection LOS for Santa
Monica Intersections ......................................................................................4.5-15
Table 4.5-9 Weekday Neighborhood Traffic Impact Analysis.....................................4.5-16
Table 4.5-10 Parking Requirements Analysis...................................................................4.5-17
Table 4.8-1 Worst-Case Daily Construction Emissions During Site Preparation........4.8-1
Table 4.8-2 Typical Noise Level Ranges at Construction Sites ......................................4.8-2
Table 4.9-1 School Enrollments for Schools in Santa Monica.........................................4.9-1
Table 4.9-2 Fire Service Characteristics for Fire Stations in Santa Monica...................4.9-3
Table 4.10-1 Worst-Case Daily Construction Emissions During Site Preparation......4.10-4
Table 4.10-2 Typical Noise Levels at Construction Sites ................................................4.10-6
Table 4.11-1 Summary of Neighborhood Effects .............................................................4.11-2
Table 6-1 Comparison of Project Alternatives Buildout Characteristics ...................... 6-1
Table 6-2 Impact Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................6-7
Table 7-1 Comparison of Project Alternatives' Buildout Characteristics ..................... 7-1
Table 7-2 Impact Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................... 7-10
Appendices
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Appendix G:
Appendix H:
Initial Study, Notice of Preparation, and Responses to Notice of
Preparation
Air Quality Data and Calculations
Peak Discharge Calculations
Noise Data and Calculations
Traffic Technical Report
Historic Resources Technical Appendix
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
rr
City of Santa Monica
iii
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project, the environmental
impacts, mitigation measures, and residual impacts associated with the proposed project.
PROJECT SYNOPSIS
Project Applicant
Colorado Creative Studios, LLC
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Project Description
The proposed project consists of the development of a 145-unit apartment complex at the
southeast corner of Colorado A venue and Stewart Street. One level of subterranean parking
containing 228 parking spaces would also be provided. The buildings onsite would be
demolished in association with project development.
The project would consist of 29 studio units, 109 one-bedroom units, and seven two-bedroom
units contained within 18 buildings varying in height from two to four stories. Fifteen of the
one-bedroom units would be deed-restricted for occupancy by very low-income residents. The
buildings would be arranged around three interior courtyards, the middle of which would
contain a pool, office, pool lounge, and community room. Buildings along the interior lot lines
would be oriented toward the courtyards, while buildings along Colorado A venue and Stewart
Street would be oriented toward the streets. Approximately 3,800 square feet of landscaping is
proposed along the street fronts and within the interior courtyards.
ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives to the proposed project were selected for consideration as follows:
. No Project
. Reduced Project (72 residential units)
. Commercial Project (production-related studios/offices)
The "no project" alternative would involve no change to the environment and is therefore
considered environmentally superior overall. It should be noted, however, that this
alternative would not preclude future development of the site.
The two remaining alternatives would be environmentally superior to the proposed project in
some respects. Both alternatives would incrementally reduce impacts in five issue areas and
could potentially avoid the project's Class I impact to temporary air quality impacts. The
Reduced Project alternative would generate less traffic than either the proposed project or the
Commercial Project alternative. The Commercial Project alternative would not involve a
Zoning Ordinance amendment but would not create additional housing in the City and would
not fulfill the objectives of the project. The Reduced Project alternative could be considered the
r
City of Santa Monica
ES-1
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Executive Summary
environmentally superior alternative among the development options, though it would require
a Zoning Ordinance text amendment.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table ES-1 includes a brief description of the environmental issues relative to the proposed
project, the identified environmental impacts, proposed mitigation measures, and residual
impacts. Impacts are categorized by classes. Class I impacts are defined as significant,
unavoidable adverse impacts which require a statement of overriding considerations to be
issued per Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines if the project is approved. Class II impacts
are significant adverse impacts that can be feasibly mitigated to less than significant levels and
which require findings to be made under Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Class III
impacts are considered less than significant impacts, and Class IV impacts are beneficial
impacts.
Class I - Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Traffic - deterioration of level of service at three intersections to below City thresholds; increase in trips on
two neighborhood street segments
Construction Effects - construction-related increase in air pollutant emissions
Class II -Significant Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less than Significant Levels
Geology and Soils - potentially unsafe conditions associated with construction and operation of the
subterranean parking structure
Aesthetics - increase in light and glare
Traffic - impacts to level of service at one intersection
Construction Effects - increased truck traffic and disruption of sidewalks and roadways; construction-
related noise impacts
Class III - Less Than Significant Impacts
Geology and Soils - seismically-induced groundshaking; liquefaction potential; expansion potential
Air Quality - emissions associated with operation of the project; potential for carbon monoxide hot spots
Hydrology and Water Quality - temporary water quality impacts due to erosion; reduction in quantity of
runoff; reduction in pollutants
Noise - increase in roadway noise levels; noise related to operation of the proposed project
Traffic - compliance with parking code requirements; site access and circulation; effects on CMP
monitored freeway mainline sections and arterials; effects on transit facilities
Historic Resources - impacts to historic resources
Aesthetics - impacts to visual resources; shadows cast by the proposed structures
Population and Housing - increase in population; consistency with Housing Element policies
Public Services - impacts to schools; fire services; police services
Construction Effects - construction-related water quality impacts
r
City of Santa Monica
ES-2
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Executive Summary
Table ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact
Impact GEO-1 Seismically-induced
ground shaking could destroy or
damage onsite structures, resulting in
loss of property and risk to human
safety. Provided that the design and
construction of the proposed project
complies with all applicable provisions
of the 1997 Uniform Building Code
and the 1998 California Building
Code, impacts are considered Class
III, less than significant.
Impact GEO-2 Seismic activity
could produce sufficient ground
shaking to result in liquefaction onsite.
This is considered a Class III, less
than significant impact.
Impact GEO-3 The project
involves the construction of a multi-
story apartment building and one
level of subterranean parking.
During construction, the sidewalls of
the excavation area could potentially
become unstable and fail. Once
constructed, groundwater and
surface water runoff may collect at
the base of the parki ng area and
require pumping. The existence of
potentially unsafe conditions
associated with the construction and
operation of the project is
considered a Class II, significant but
mitigable impact.
Impact GEO-4 Native soils in the
vicinity of the site consist of sandy to
clayey silt and silty to clayey sand,
which have a low potential for erosion
and expansion hazards. Impacts
from expansive soils at this site are
Mitigation Measures
None required.
None required.
GEO 3(a) Geotechnical Study. The
information obtained from the
Geotechnical study performed for the site
shall be used to design the excavation
and excavation shoring to prevent
destabilization of the excavation
sidewalls. Recommendations regarding
foundation design, retaining wall design,
excavations, shoring, and slabs on grade
contained in the geotechnical report shall
be fully implemented in order to comply
with Universal Building Code standards.
GEO 3(b) Groundwater Removal
Mechanism. The design for the one-
level underground parking garage below
the apartment building shall consider a
mechanism of removing groundwater, if
the geotechnical study shows it to be
present at this site. The groundwater
removal design shall consider historical
ranges in depth to groundwater. The
removal system shall be designed to
prevent the parking garage from flooding
and to comply with Universal Building
Code standards.
GEO-3(c) Waterproofing. All walls of
the parking garage shall be waterproofed
to protect against corrosive effects of
water contact following the
recommendations in the geotechnical
study.
None required.
Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
Less than significant.
Less than significant.
Less than significant.
r
City of Santa Monica
ES-3
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Executive Summary
Table ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
considered a Class III, less than
significant impact.
AIR QUALITY
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Impact AQ-1 The proposed project None required. Less than significant.
would incrementally increase air
pollutant emissions. However,
emissions would not exceed the
SCAQMD's daily thresholds.
Therefore, the project would have a
Class III, less than significant,
impact to regional air quality.
Impact AQ-2 Project-generated None required. Less than significant.
traffic, together with other cumulative
traffic in the area, would
incrementally increase carbon
monoxide levels in the site vicinity.
However, because concentrations
would remain below state and
federal standards, this impact is
considered Class III, less than
significant.
HYDROLOGY AND WA TER QUALITY
Impact HWQ-1 Project construction None required. Compliance with the City's Less than significant.
would involve the excavation and Urban Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance
grading of onsite soils. This would and implementation of a Storm Water
potentially result in topsoil loss and Pollution Prevention Plan as required
soil erosion, with temporary adverse under the National Pollutant Discharge
impacts to surface water quality. Elimination System would ensure that
This is considered a Class III, less impacts are less than significant.
than significant, impact.
Impact HWQ-2 The proposed None required. Less than significant.
project would be expected to
incrementally reduce the amount of
impervious surfaces onsite, which
would consequently result in a
reduction in the amount of storm
water runoff generated onsite. This
is considered a Class III, less than
significant, impact.
Impact HWQ-3 The proposed None required. Compliance with the City's Less than significant.
project could contribute urban Urban Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance
pollutants to runoff leaving the site, would ensure that impacts are less than
which could result in decreased significant.
water quality offsite. However, the
project is expected to generate
fewer pollutants than the current
land use on the site; therefore, this
is considered a Class III, less than
significant, impact.
NOISE
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Impact N-1 Project-generated traffic None required. Less than significant.
would incrementally increase noise
levels on Stewart Street and Colorado
Avenue. However, the change in
r
City of Santa Monica
ES-4
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Executive Summary
Table ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
noise levels would be inaudible.
Therefore, the effect of increased
traffic noise on off-site sensitive
receptors is considered a Class III,
less than significant, impact.
Impact N-2 Operation of the proposed None required.
project would generate noise levels
that may periodically be audible to
sensitive receptors near the project
site. However, noise levels are not
expected to exceed the City's noise
ordinance standards. This is
considered a Class III, less than
significant, impact.
TRANSPORTA T10NffRAFFIC
Impact T-1 The proposed project
would generate approximately 771 net
average daily trips during the weekday.
The increase in vehicles traveling on
the surrounding roadway network would
result in a Class II, significant but
mitigable, impact to one intersection in
the project vicinity, and a Class I,
significant and unavoidable impact to
three intersections.
Impact T-2 The proposed project
would increase the average daily traffic
on Yale Street and Nebraska Avenue
by more than one vehicle per day. This
would exceed the City of Santa Monica
significance criteria for local streets and
result in a Class I, unavoidably
significant, impact.
Impact T-3 The proposed project
would provide 228 parking spaces
onsite. This would fulfill the City of
Santa Monica parking code
requirement of 228 spaces for this
type and size of development. This is
considered a Class III, less than
significant, impact.
Impact T-4 Access to the project site
would be provided from a two-way
driveway on Stewart Street. An
additional one-way driveway on
Colorado Avenue would allow exiting
only. These driveways would provide
adequate site access; therefore,
impacts relating to site access and
circulation are considered Class III,
less than significant.
Impact T-5 Based on Los Angeles
County Congestion Management
T-1 Roadway Improvements. The
applicant shall be required to implement the
following physical and operational
improvements to increase the capacity of
the roadway system at the affected
intersection.
Stewart Street and Colorado Avenue.
Modify the traffic signal at this location to
provide a left-turn phase for the westbound
left-turn movement. Implementation of this
mitigation measure would necessitate the
provision of some combination of new
signage, controller cabinets, poles, mast
arms, detectors, and/or signal heads.
No measures are available to mitigate the
potential impacts to the affected segments
of Yale Street and Nebraska Avenue.
None required.
None required.
None required.
Less than significant.
Impacts to Stewart Street/Colorado
Avenue would be less than significant
after mitigation. Impacts to the
intersections of Centinela
Avenue/Nebraska Avenue, Stewart
Street/Olympic Boulevard, and Yale
Street/Colorado Avenue would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Impacts to Yale Street and Nebraska
Avenue would remain unavoidably
significant.
Less than significant.
Less than significant.
Less than significant.
r
City of Santa Monica
ES-5
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Executive Summary
Table ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
Program (CMP) criteria, the proposed
project would result in Class III, less
than significant, impacts to CMP
identified freeway monitoring
segments and arterial intersections.
Impact T-6 Although the proposed None required. Less than significant.
project would increase the use of
transit facilities in the project vicinity,
the location of the project near
numerous well-established transit
routes would likely result in a limited
increase in ridership on anyone line.
Therefore, impacts to transit facilities
are considered Class III, less than
significant.
HISTORIC RESOURCES
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Impact HR-1 The proposed project None required. Less than significant.
would result in the demolition of all of
the existing structures onsite.
However, the structures are not
considered historically significant.
Therefore, impacts to historic
resources are considered Class III,
less than significant.
AESTHETICS/SHADOW EFFECTS
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Impact AES-1 The proposed None required. Less than significant
project is consistent with the
guidelines set forth in the Zoning
Ordinance and Land Use Element
and would not substantially degrade
the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its
surroundings. Therefore, impacts to
visual resources are considered
Class III, less than significant.
Impact AES-2 The proposed AES-2(a) Shielded Exterior Lighting. Less than significant
project would increase light and The applicant shall design exterior
glare at the project site over current building lighting to ensure that no light
conditions. This is considered Class projects onto adjacent sites. Exterior
II, significant but mitigable. siding shall incorporate "cut-off" shields
as appropriate to prevent an increase in
lighting at adjacent residential uses.
AES-2(b) Shielded Landscape
Illumination. Landscape illumination
and exterior sign lighting shall be
accomplished with low level, unobtrusive
fixtures. Such lighting shall be shielded
to direct light pools away from off site
viewers.
AES-2(c) Low Glare Materials. Finish
materials, including glazing, shall be of a
low reflectivity to minimize glare.
Development shall include low reflective
r
City of Santa Monica
ES-6
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Executive Summary
Table ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
roofing materials to reduce glare potential
for nearby development that may have
downward views of the project's roof.
Impact AES-3 The proposed None required. Less than significant
residential buildings would cast
shadows onto adjacent buildings,
particularly in the wintertime.
However, affected buildings are
either not sun-sensitive or would not
be affected for a significant part of
the day. Impacts would be Class III,
less than significant.
POPULA TlON AND HOUSING
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Impact PH-1 The proposed project None required. Less than significant
would add 145 housing units and an
estimated 265 residents within the
City. Because these increases are
within citywide projections, this
impact is considered Class III, less
than significant.
Impact PH-2 The proposed project None required. Less than significant
could be found to be consistent with
applicable Housing Element policies.
Impacts relating to Housing Element
consistency are considered Class III,
less than significant.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Impact PS-1 The proposed project None required. Less than significant
would be expected to generate
additional school-age students.
However, with payment of required
school impact fees, impacts would be
reduced to a Class III, less than
significant, level.
Impact PS-2 The proposed project None required. Less than significant
would incrementally increase demands
on the Santa Monica Fire Department.
However, the increase would not
significantly affect service ratios,
response times, or other performance
objectives and would not require the
construction of new fire protection
facilities. This is considered a Class III,
less than significant, impact.
Impact PS-3 The proposed project None required. Less than significant
would incrementally increase demands
on the Santa Monica Police
Department. However, the increase
would not significantly affect service
ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives and would not
require the construction of new police
protection facilities. This is considered a
Class III, less than significant, impact.
r
City of Santa Monica
ES-7
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Executive Summary
Table ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Impact CON-1 Project construction CON-1 Construction Impact Mitigation Less than significant
would temporarily increase truck Plan. The applicant shall prepare and
traffic in the project area, which implement a Construction Impact Mitigation
could disrupt the normal use of Plan to provide for traffic and parking
sidewalks and roadways along the capacity management during construction.
project boundaries, and also affect This plan shall be subject to review and
parking availability. This is approval by the City and, at a minimum,
considered a Class II, significant but shall include the following:
mitigable impact.
. A public information program to advise
motorists of impending construction
activities (e.g., media coverage,
portable message signs, and
information signs at the construction
site);
. Approval from the City, or Caltrans if
required, for any construction detours or
construction work requiring
encroachment into public rights-of-way,
or any other street use activity (e.g.,
haul routes);
. Timely notification of construction
schedules to all affected agencies (e.g.,
Police Department, Fire Department,
Department of Public Works,
Department of Planning and
Community Development, Los Angeles
County Superior Court, Los Angeles
County Sheriffs Department, and
transit agencies);
. Coordination of construction work with
affected agencies five to ten days prior
to start of work;
. A traffic control plan for the streets
surrounding the work area, which
includes specific information regarding
the project's construction and activities
that will disrupt normal traffic flow;
. Minimizing dirt and demolition material
hauling and construction material
delivery during the morning and
afternoon peak traffic periods and
cleaning of streets and equipment as
necessary;
. Scheduling and expediting of work to
cause the least amount of disruption
and interference to the adjacent
vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow.
Weekday daytime work on City streets
shall primarily be performed between
the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM;
. Li miti ng of queui ng of trucks to on-site
and prohibition of truck queuing on area
roadways;
. Scheduling of preconstruction meetings
with affected agencies to properly plan
r
City of Santa Monica
ES-8
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Executive Summary
Table ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
methods of controlling traffic through
work areas;
. Storage of construction material and
equipment within the designated work
area and limitation of equipment and
material visibility to the public; and
. Provision of off-street parking
construction workers, which may
include the use of a remote location
with sh utile transport to the site, if
determined necessary by the City of
Santa Monica.
Impact CON-2 Project construction CON-2(a) Dust Minimization. Dust Implementation of the measures
would generate a temporary generated by the development activities would reduce construction-related
increase in air pollutant emissions. shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of emissions to the degree feasible.
Worst-case daily emissions would retaining dust on the site as follows: Emissions of NOx and fugitive dust
exceed established SCAQMD would be below SCAQMD
thresholds for ROC. Therefore, . During clearing, grading, earth significance thresholds. However,
impacts are considered Class I, moving, excavation, or transportation worst-case daily ROC emissions
significant and unavoidable. of cut or fill materials, water trucks or associated with the application of
sprinkler systems are to be used to architectural coatings would
prevent dust from leaving the site and continue to exceed the SCAQMD
to create a crust after each day's significance threshold for that
activities cease. pollutant. Therefore, the impact
. During clearing, grading, earth during the painting phase of
moving, excavation, or transportation construction would remain
of cut or fill materials streets and unavoidably significant.
sidewalks within 150 feet of the site
perimeter shall be swept and cleaned
a minimum of twice weekly.
. During construction, water trucks or
sprinkler systems shall be used to
keep all areas of vehicle movement
damp enough to prevent dust from
leaving the site. At a minimum, this
would include wetting down such
areas in the later morning and after
work is completed for the day and
whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per
hour.
. Soil stockpiled for more than two days
shall be covered, kept moist, or
treated with soil binders to prevent
dust generation.
CON-2(b) Construction Equipment
Conditions. Any construction
equipment used on the site must meet
the following conditions in order to
reduce NOx emissions:
. The number of pieces of equipment
operating simultaneously must be
minimized through efficient
management practices;
. Construction equipment must be
maintained in tune per manufacturer's
specifications;
. Equipment shall be equipped with 2 to
r
City of Santa Monica
ES-9
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Executive Summary
Impact CON-3 Project construction
could potentially result in the erosion
and sedimentation of soils offsite,
with temporary adverse impacts to
water quality. This is considered a
Class III, less than significant,
impact.
Impact CON-4 Project construction
would intermittently generate high
noise levels on and adjacent to the
site. This may affect sensitive
receptors near the project site. This
is considered a Class II, significant
but mitigable, impact.
Table ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
4-degree engine timing retard or
precombustion chamber engines;
. Catalytic converters shall be installed,
if feasible; and
. Diesel-powered equipment such as
booster pumps or generators should
be replaced by electric equipment, if
feasible.
. NOx emissions during construction
shall be reduced by limiting the
operation of heavy duty construction
equipment to no more than 5 pieces
of equipment at anyone time.
CON-2(c) Low-VOC Coatings. Low-
VOC architectural coatings shall be used in
construction whenever feasible and shall
coordinate with the SCAQMD to determine
which coatings would reduce VOC
emissions to the maximum degree
feasible.
None required. Compliance with the Less than significant.
City's Urban Runoff Pollution Control
Ordinance and implementation of a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
as required under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System would
ensure that impacts are less than
significant.
CON-4(a) Diesel Equipment Mufflers. Less than significant.
All diesel equipment shall be operated
with closed engine doors and shall be
equipped with factory recommended
mufflers.
CON-4(b) Electrically-Powered Tools.
Electrical power shall be used to run air
compressors and similar power tools.
CON-4(c) Additional Noise Attenuation
Techniques. For all noise generating
construction activity on the project site,
additional noise attenuation techniques
shall be employed to reduce noise levels
to City of Santa Monica noise standards.
Such techniques may include, but are not
limited to, the use of sound blankets on
noise generating equipment and the
construction of temporary sound barriers
between construction sites and nearby
sensitive receptors.
CON-4(d) Construction Sign Posting.
In accordance with Municipal Code
Section 4.12.210, the project applicant
shall be required to post a sign informing
all workers and subcontractors of the
time restrictions for construction
activities. The sign shall also include the
r
ES-10
City of Santa Monica
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Executive Summary
Table ES-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
City telephone numbers where violations
can be reported and complaints
associated with construction noise can
be submitted.
r
City of Santa Monica
ES-11
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 1.0 Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document is a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed 2834 Colorado
Avenue project. The proposed project involves the construction of a 145-unit apartment
complex with a one-level subterranean garage containing 228 parking spaces. This section
includes a discussion of the environmental impact report background, the legal basis for
preparing an EIR, the scope and content of the EIR, lead, responsible, and trustee agencies, and
the environmental review process required under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The project is described in greater detail in Section 2.0, Project Description.
1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BACKGROUND
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an environmental impact report was prepared for the
proposed project and distributed for agency and public review for the required 30-day review
period on June 10, 2003. The NOP and responses to the NOP are presented in Appendix A,
along with the Initial Study that was also prepared for the project.
1.2 PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY
The proposed project requires the discretionary approval of the City of Santa Monica Planning
Commission and City Council. Therefore, it is subject to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with Section 15121 of the State of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the purpose of this EIR is to serve as an
informational document that:
...will inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant
environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant
effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.
This EIR has been prepared as a Project EIR pursuant to Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines.
A Project EIR is appropriate for a specific development project. As stated in the CEQA
Guidelines:
This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would
result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project,
including planning, construction, and operation.
This EIR is to serve as an informational document for the public and City of Santa Monica
decision-makers. The process will culminate with Planning Commission and City Council
hearings to consider certification of a Final EIR and approval of the project.
1.3 SCOPE AND CONTENT
This EIR addresses the issues determined to be potentially significant by the City of Santa
Monica and responses to the NOP. The issues addressed in this EIR include:
r
City of Santa Monica
1-1
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 1.0 Introduction
. Geology and Soils
. Air Quality
. Hydrology and Water Quality
. Noise
. T ransporta tionfT raffi c
. Historical Resources
. Aesthetics/Shadow Effects
. Population and Housing
. Public Services
. Construction Effects
. Neighborhood Effects
This EIR addresses the issues referenced above and identifies the potentially significant
environmental impacts, including site-specific and cumulative effects of the project, in
accordance with the provisions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the EIR
recommends feasible mitigation measures, where possible, that would reduce or eliminate
adverse environmental effects.
In preparing the EIR, use was made of pertinent City policies and guidelines, certified EIRs and
adopted CEQA documents, and background documents prepared by the City. A full reference
list is contained in Section 7.0, References and Report Preparers.
The Alternatives Section of the EIR (Section 6.0) was prepared in accordance with Section
15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines. The alternatives discussion evaluates the CEQA-required "no
project" alternative and two alternative development scenarios for the site. It also identifies the
environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives assessed.
The level of detail contained throughout this EIR is consistent with the requirements of CEQA
and applicable court decisions. The CEQA Guidelines provide the standard of adequacy on
which this document is based. The Guidelines state:
An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers
with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account
of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of the
proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in
light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR
inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the
experts. The courts have looked not for perfection, but for adequacy, completeness, and a
good faith effort at full disclosure. (Section 15151)
1.4 LEAD, RESPONSIBLE, AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
The State CEQA Guidelines define lead, responsible and trustee agencies. The City of Santa
Monica is the lead agency for the project because it holds principal responsibility for approving
the project.
r
City of Santa Monica
1-2
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 1.0 Introduction
A responsible agency refers to a public agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary
approval over the project, and a trustee agency refers to a state agency having jurisdiction by
law over natural resources affected by a project. The Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) is a responsible agency for this project because the project requires a permit from
RWQCB for construction. There are no trustee agencies for this project.
1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The major steps in the environmental review process, as required under CEQA, are outlined
below and illustrated on Figure 1-1. The steps are presented in sequential order.
1. Notice of Preparation (NOP). After deciding that an EIR is required, the lead agency must
file an NOP soliciting input on the EIR scope to the State Clearinghouse, other concerned
agencies, and parties previously requesting notice in writing (CEQA Guidelines Section
15082; Public Resources Code Section 21092.2). The NOP must be posted in the County
Clerk's office for 30 days. The NOP may be accompanied by an Initial Study that identifies
the issue areas for which the proposed project could create significant environmental
impacts.
2. Draft Environmental Impact Report (DElR) Prepared. The DEIR must contain: a) table of
contents or index; b) summary; c) project description; d) environmental setting; e)
discussion of significant impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative, growth-inducing and
unavoidable impacts); f) a discussion of alternatives; g) mitigation measures; and h)
discussion of irreversible changes.
3. Notice of Completion. A lead agency must file a Notice of Completion with the State
Clearinghouse when it completes a Draft EIR and prepare a Public Notice of Availability of
a Draft EIR. The lead agency must place the Notice in the County Clerk's office for 30 days
(Public Resources Code Section 21092) and send a copy of the Notice to anyone requesting it
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15087). Additionally, public notice of DEIR availability must be
given through at least one of the following procedures: a) publication in a newspaper of
general circulation; b) posting on and off the project site; and c) direct mailing to owners
and occupants of contiguous properties. The lead agency must solicit input from other
agencies and the public, and respond in writing to all comments received (Public Resources
Code Sections 21104 and 21253). The minimum public review period for a DEIR is 30 days.
When a Draft EIR is sent to the State Clearinghouse for review, the public review period
must be 45 days unless the Clearinghouse (Public Resources Code 21091) approves a shorter
period.
4. Final ElR. A Final EIR must include: a) the Draft EIR; b) copies of comments received
during public review; c) list of persons and entities commenting; and d) responses to
comments.
5. Certification of FElR. Prior to making a decision on a proposed project, the lead agency
must certify that: a) the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) the Final
EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency; and c) the
decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to
approving a project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090).
r
City of Santa Monica
1-3
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 1.0 Introduction
Lead Agency (City of Santa Monica)
prepares Initial Study
.
City sends Notice of Preparation
(NOP) to responsible agencies
City prepares Draft EIR
City solicits input from Agencies & Public
on the content of the Draft EIR
City files Notice of Completion and gives
public notice of availability of Draft EIR -,
.
Public Review Period City solicits comment from Agencies &
(45 day minimum) I--
Public on the adequacy of the Draft EIR
City prepares Final EIR, including ...J
responses to comments on the Draft EIR
--------------- Responsible Agency decision-making bodies
consider the Final EIR
City prepares findings on the feasibility of
reducing significant environmental effects
.
City makes a decision
on the project
.
City files Notice of Determination
with County Clerk
Environmental Review Process
Figure 1-1
City of Santa Monica
~
1-4
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 1.0 Introduction
6. Lead Agency Project Decision. A lead agency may: a) disapprove a project because of its
significant environmental effects; b) require changes to a project to reduce or avoid
significant environmental effects; or c) approve a project despite its significant
environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are
adopted (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15043).
7. Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations. For each significant impact of the
project identified in the EIR, the lead or responsible agency must find, based on substantial
evidence, that either: a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the
magnitude of the impact; b) changes to the project are within another agency's jurisdiction
and such changes have or should be adopted; or c) specific economic, social, or other
considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091). If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant
environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations
that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency's
decision.
8. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. When an agency makes findings on significant
effects identified in the EIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation
measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant
effects.
9. Notice of Determination. An agency must file a Notice of Determination after deciding to
approve a project for which an EIR is prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15094). A local
agency must file the Notice with the County Clerk. The Notice must be posted for 30 days
and sent to anyone previously requesting notice. Posting of the Notice starts a 30-day
statute of limitations on CEQA legal challenges (Public Resources Code Section 21167[c]).
r
City of Santa Monica
1-5
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 2.0 Project Description
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT APPLICANT
Colorado Creative Studios, LLC
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90025
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located in the western portion of Los Angeles County, in the City of Santa
Monica. As shown on Figure 2-1 (Regional Vicinity), and Figure 2-2 (Project Location), the project
site is regionally accessible from Interstate 10 (the Santa Monica Freeway) and State Route 1
(Pacific Coast Highway). The site consists of an approximately 1.76-acre (76,800 square feet)
rectangular parcel located at the southeast corner of Colorado Avenue and Stewart Street.
2.3 EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The project site is occupied by two rows of one- and two-story warehouse buildings built
primarily between 1948 and 1969, with some smaller buildings and additions built through
1983. The buildings contain approximately 38,000 square feet of light industrial uses, including
auto repair shops, general contracting, welding, and machine shops. A parking area is located
between the rows of buildings. The site is zoned LMSD, Light Manufacturing and Studio District.
Surrounding land uses include single- and multi-family residential development to the
northwest across Colorado Avenue, studio-related commercial uses to the southwest across
Stewart Street, and light industrial and office uses to the northeast and southeast. Figures 2-3
and 2-4 show the existing site conditions and surrounding land uses.
2.4 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed project consists of the development of a 145-unit apartment complex at the
southeast corner of Colorado A venue and Stewart Street. One level of subterranean parking
containing 228 parking spaces would also be provided. The buildings onsite would be
demolished in association with project development. Table 2-1 summarizes the project
characteristics. The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2-5.
The project would consist of 29 studio units, 109 one-bedroom units, and seven two-bedroom
units contained within 18 buildings varying in height from two to four stories. Fifteen of the
one-bedroom units would be deed-restricted for occupancy by very low-income residents. The
buildings would be arranged around three interior courtyards, the middle of which would
contain a pool, office, pool lounge, and community room. The building frontages along Stewart
Street and Colorado Avenue would be enhanced with visually interesting features, including
patios and landscaping. The proposed building layout is shown on Figure 2-6 and building
elevations are shown on Figure 2-7 and 2-8.
rr
City of Santa Monica
2-1
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 2.0 Project Description
Table 2-1 Summary of Project Characteristics
Lot Size 1.76 acres (76,800 square feet)
Total Floor Area 115,150 sf
Floor Area Ratio 1.49
Maximum Building Height 45 feet
Number of Levels Above Grade 2 to 4 levels
Number of Levels Below Grade 1 level
Parking Spaces 228
Source: RTK & Associates, 2003.
Parking would be provided in a one-level, 228-space subterranean parking garage. Access to
the parking garage would be provided via a 20-foot wide, two-way driveway on Stewart Street.
A second 12-foot wide driveway on Colorado Avenue would be designated as exit only and
would be restricted to right-turn movements only. Of the 228 parking spaces to be provided, 29
spaces would be designated for visitors, 12 of which would be compact. A loading area would
be provided at the southern end of the project site and would be accessible from Stewart Street.
Approximately 3,800 square feet of landscaping is proposed along the street fronts and within
the interior courtyards.
2.5 PROJECTED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
It is anticipated that construction of the project would commence in late-2004. The site
preparation phase is anticipated to last about four months. Building completion is estimated for
early 2006. However, the construction schedule could be extended depending on weather
conditions and their effect on development. It is anticipated that the project would be
constructed in a single phase.
2.6 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
· To construct a viable multi-family housing development in the LMSD zone of the City
. To augment the low-income housing opportunities for City residents
. To create a housing complex with an architecturally unified development theme and attractive
open space areas
2.7 REQUIRED APPROVALS
The proposed project would require the discretionary approval of the City of Santa Monica
Planning Commission and City Council prior to initiating construction. Specifically, the
following approvals would be required:
. Certification of the Final EIR
. Approval of a Development Review Permit
rr
City of Santa Monica
2-2
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 2.0 Project Description
.
Moorpark
N
A
o 2.5 5
I I
10 Miles
I
Regional Location
Figure 2-1
City of Santa Monica
rr
2-3
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 2.0 Project Description
N
A
Source: National Geographic TOPO, Beverly Hills, CA 1995
o 1000 2000
~
Scale in Feet
Project Location
Figure 2-2
City of Santa Monica
r"
2-4
0:: c:
LlJ 0
-+---;
U c..
al .-
,~"-
o CJ
'- 1Il
0... Q)
ale
::J_
c CJ
al Q)
> .....
<( 0
"-
aD..
-0
CIle
'- .
ON
(5 c:
U 0
"<1":;:;
C") CJ
00 Q)
NCJ)
co
$:
"'0
C
co
Q)
~~
Ci5 ~
tE
co ::l
$: a
0) (/l
U)O)
'+- .~
a~
$: 8
0)-
:> 2-
, '00
N......
.8 ~
~.2'
0...0..
~
(/l
o
0)
B
L...
0..
0)
"'0
'00
U5
0)
$:
..c
::i
a
(/l
c
a
(/l
0)
c
"'0
::l
..0
'+-
a
$:
0)
:>
a
(5
..c
0...
u;
co
0)
E
L...
a
c
0)
c
'0
co
'+-
~
(/l
o.
0)8
'2'~
0.. "
,+-E:
a.~
t.=:
$:
0)-6'
s~
L........
a 0
";:: ::>..
0) IJ)
......0)
c"t::
-::,
'0
"<1"'-'
a "I-
......0
a-
..cO
0...6:
U5
0)
$:
..c
::i
a
(/l
0)
c
'0
co
'+-
2
'00
o.
0)8
'2'~
~ E:"
a.~
$:t.=:
.~ -6'
>~
L........
a 0
.~ ~
......0)
c"t::
-::,
'0
("f)'-'
aC')
(5.8
..cO
0...6:
cD ~
0-J 'i:
Q) 0
l-< ~
;:J .l!!
bOt:
...... III
f,I., ~
o
~
U
[/)
~
o
''''';
.........
''''';
""d
~
o
U
Q)
.........
''''';
r.J)
b.O
~
''''';
.........
[/)
''''';
><
~
L{)
N
Ia..
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 2.0 Project Description
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
rr
City of Santa Monica
2-6
0:: c:
LlJ 0
-+---;
U c..
al .-
.~"-
o CJ
'- 1Il
0... Q)
ale
::J_
c CJ
al Q)
> .....
<( 0
"-
aD..
-0
CIle
'- .
ON
(5 c:
U 0
"<1":;:;
C") CJ
00 Q)
NCJ)
o
-005
eo Q)
L- L-
.Q(;5
o
U Q)
~~
2 0)
o c
eo.Q
00 eo
~Ul
::l Q)
eo1
~6
:-g C
00 0)
Q) C
"-:.s2
>>0
-.Q
E
~~
:E en
::l E
~ 0
L-
'+-
N Q)
o ::l
(5 ~
ii~
o
-0
eo
L-
.Q
o
U
00
00
o
L-
o
eo
00
Q)
o
C
Q)
:-g
00
~ oj
~~
E 0
eo Q)
'+j-"CY
Q) L-
0,D..
"~ E
C/) 0
L-
'+-
Q)
o ::l
(5 ~
ii~
Q)
::l
C
00 Q)
~~
L- 0
0-0
eo eo
00 L-
Q) 0
000
::lU
eo 06
.~ L-
Q) eo
E $:
E2
OC/)M
0'+-0
-000
Q) L- C\j
m ~ EO"
- L- Ol
Q) 0";::
';- 0 f::
c......-s
:.2 eo_~
o Q).....
::l......O
-0 "00 ~
20gJ
0... Q) S
oo::i "2'8
o D..""I-
(5 E.8
..coo
0... .;:: is:
00
00
2
o
eo
05
Q)
L-
(;5
......
L-
eo
$:
Q)
(;5
C
o
0)
C
:g
EO"
Ol
~
"~ -s
L- ::,
Q) .-,
E2'O
E "00 ~
O......Ol
U ~s
('t) "2'8
o D..C"<"J
(5 E.8
..coo
0... .;:: is:
::l
..0
""i' III
I U
('.J . i:
Q) 0
l-< ~
;:J .l!!
bOt:
...... III
f,I., ~
o
~
U
[/)
Q)
[/)
~
""d
~
(Ii
~
b.O
~
''''';
""d
~
;::l
o
l-i
l-i
;::l
r.J)
t--
N
M
o
o
C\j
Ia..
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 2.0 Project Description
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
rr
City of Santa Monica
2-8
:~
~
0::
- "
LJ.J 0
~~
e u
"- <Il
Ql
!gO
~~
> --
<( 0
.ga:
i"o
.QN
o "
U 0
"<j"+::
'"' u
'" Ql
"''''
~.~
J 1111 1111111
~
II
'"
- ~
..,
"'1-~
~
ill
ill
~
(/)
~
ro
S
ill
~
(/)
~
~
.&'
8nU8^8
OP8JOIOJ
[
i::
<C
11:
Q)
.....
US
L!") ..
~ .~
"
ill 0
,.., :!!!
5bs
-~ "
~ ..
'"
...
o
~
U
cr>
N
'"
*
~
"
.,
~
.;'J
~
.
~
.
~
~
~
o
o
:g
'"
J...
\D ..
==t= ~ ' "
:~ C"J 'i::
CJ 0
-11-,9 ,.., :!!!
5bs
,~ '"
~ ..
'"
Illn I I I I I ..... ...
0
~ ~
0 u
>.
~ m
I .....l
~ I OJ) N
i::
1 -~ ~
'S
i=O
0::
- "
LJ.J 0
~~
e "
0.. <Il
Ql
Qle
~ti
Q) Ql
> '-
<( 0
00:
-0
"'0
ON
(5 "
u 0
"<j"+::
'" "
'" Ql
N'"
j
~
e
anua^e opeJOI08
---.
J^., ,,r
..
0::
- "
LJ.J 0
~~
e u
"- <Il
Ql
Qle
~ti
Q) Ql
> .-
<( 0
00:
-0
"'0
ON
"0 "
u 0
"<j"+::
'"' u
'" Ql
"''''
:~ t;- ..
.!,!
('oj "
CJ 0
,.., :!!!
'" 5bs
c c ~ .~ "
0 0 .8 ~ ..
'"
'@ '@ ..... ...
ro 0
> > :> ~
Q) Q) <lJ U
ill ill Gl
....... ..... '"'
Ci3 '"
ro N
S ~
Q) ~
t5 .....
....
ro
~
<lJ
.....
rJ'J
M
"
"
'"
I
~
.~
"
'"
1i
~
j
1"
I"
c
o
"
~
n:
"
~..
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 2.0 Project Description
ALUMINUM
o 15 30
~
Scale in Feet
Source: Robinson / Takahashi / Katz & Associates, January 2003
Colorado & South Elevations
Figure 2-8
City of Santa Monica
r
2-15
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 2.0 Project Description
. Approval of a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance by the City Council, as
described below
. Architectural Review Board Approval
. Review of a Demolition Permit by the Landmarks Commission
. Issuance of Building Permits
According to the City of Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance, the LMSD zone is "intended to
preserve existing light industrial uses, provide a location for studio-related uses such as film
and music production and post-production facilities, and provide opportunities for artist studio
live/work residential development." Various types of development are permitted in this zone,
including auto repair facilities, dance studios, manufacturing establishments, and congregate
housing. Multi-family residential housing is not currently permitted by right or conditionally
permitted. Therefore, the proposed project is requesting a text amendment to allow multi-
family residential uses in the LMSD zone subject to a conditional use permit. The amendment
would apply to all properties that are within the LMSD zone. The language proposed by the
applicant would allow multi-family dwelling units to be included with those uses that are
subject to a 45-foot height limit and a maximum floor to area ratio (FAR) of 1.5. No other
Zoning Ordinance changes are being proposed.
rr
City of Santa Monica
2-16
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 3.0 Environmental Setting
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the project. More
detailed descriptions of the environmental setting for each environmental issue area can be
found in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis.
3.1 REGIONAL SETTING
The project site is located in the City of Santa Monica in western Los Angeles County, within the
greater Los Angeles metropolitan area (refer to Figure 2-1, Regional Vicinity, and Figure 2-2, Project
Location). Santa Monica is approximately 10 miles west of downtown Los Angeles. The City is
bounded to the north, east, and south by neighborhoods within the City of Los Angeles and to the
west by the Pacific Ocean. Santa Monica is almost entirely developed, with only 1 % vacant land.
The Mediterranean climate of the region and coastal influence produce moderate temperatures year
round, with rainfall concentrated in the winter months. The region is subject to various natural
hazards, including earthquakes, landslides, and wildfires.
3.2 PROJECT SITE SETTING
The project site consists of an approximately 1.76-acre (76,800 square foot) rectangular parcel
located at the southeast corner of Colorado Avenue and Stewart Street. The site is currently
developed with several warehouse-type industrial buildings that house a variety of commercial
and light industrial businesses.
The project site is located in an urbanized setting. The general vicinity of the project is completely
developed and contains a mix of residential, office, and light industrial uses. Uses to the northwest
of the site across Colorado Avenue include single- and multi-family residential development. Uses
to the southwest of the site across Stewart Street include offices and production studios. Adjacent
to the site to the northeast and southeast are light industrial and manufacturing uses and some
commercial development. The Interstate 10 freeway is located approximately 1f2-mile southeast of
the project site.
3.3 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS SETTING
CEQA defines "cumulative impacts" as two or more individual events that, when considered
together, are considerable or will compound other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts
are the changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of
the proposed project and other nearby projects. For example, traffic impacts of two nearby
projects may be insignificant when analyzed separately, but could have a significant impact
when analyzed together. Cumulative impact analysis allows the EIR to provide a reasonable
forecast of future environmental conditions and can more accurately gauge the effects of a
series of projects.
Known planned and pending projects in the City of Santa Monica are listed in Table 3-1. Table
3-2 lists regionally significant projects and projects outside the City. These projects are
considered in the cumulative analyses in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis.
rr
City of Santa Monica
3-1
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 3.0 Environmental Setting
Table 3-1 Cumulative Projects in the City of Santa Monica
Project Name/Location Total Size Status
Affordable Apartments 44 du AA
2209 Main Street
Affordable Apartments 44 du PP
2601 Santa Monica Boulevard
Airport Park Expansion 6 acres (park) EIR
Douglas Loop
Assisted Living Facility 81 rooms UC
1312 15th Street
Auto Dealership Expansion 39,064 sf EIR
3300 Olympic Boulevard
Bubba Gump 9,020 sf restaurant PC
301 Santa Monica Pier
Commercial Bldg. 19,606 sf UC
1217 2nd Street
Commercial Bldg. 19,155 sf UC
1221-23 2nd Street
Condominium Complex 5 du PP
1032 3rd Street
Condominium Complex 5 du PP
944 5th Street
Condominium Complex 17 du CC
1544 ih Street
Condominium Complex 5 du PP
839 9th Street
Condominium Complex 5 du PC
1027 10th Street
Condominium Complex 5 du PC
1750 10th Street
Condominium Complex 5 du BP
911 1ih Street
Condominium Complex 12 du RC
1544-1548 1 ih Street
Condominium Complex 8 du RC
849-53 14th Street
Condominium Complex 6 du PC
1415 16th Street
Condominium Complex 5 du PC
1520 16th Street
Condominium Complex 5 du PP
1537 16th Street
Condominium Complex 10 du RC
1534-1538 1 ih Street
Condominium Complex 5 du BP
837 -39 18th Street
Condominium Complex 5 du BP
838 19th Street
Condominium Complex PC
923 20th Street 5 du
rr
City of Santa Monica
3-2
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 3.0 Environmental Setting
Table 3-1 Cumulative Projects in the City of Santa Monica
Project Name/Location Total Size Status
Condominium Complex 5 du PC
2031 21st Street
Condominium Complex 4 du PC
1254 24th Street
Condominium Complex 10 du CC
2512 28th Street
Condominium Complex 11 du PC
1513-1517 Berkeley Street
Condominium Complex 8 du PP
1311 Centinela Avenue
Condominium Complex 5 du PC
1234 Frankli n
Condominium Complex 6 du PP
2015 Idaho Avenue
Condominium Complex 9 du RC
934-938 Lincoln Boulevard
Condominium Complex 5 du CC
1719 Ocean Front Walk
Condominium Complex 8 du PP
1528-30 Princeton
Euclid Park 15,000 sf (park)
1525 Euclid
Hotel 75 rooms wi subterranean RC
1249-1255 20th Street parking
Lantana East 64,108 sf wi 438 parking PP
3030 Olympic Boulevard spaces
Lantana South 130,050 sf wi 520 parking PP
3131 Exposition Boulevard spaces
Library Expansion 66,000 sf with PC
1343 6th Street and 1340 ih Street 49,700 sf parking structure
Mayfair Theater Site 45,000 sf EIR
210 Santa Monica Boulevard
McDonald's Mixed Use 68,810 sf CC
1540 2nd Street
Mixed-Use Project 7,250 sf AA
430 Arizona Avenue 39 du
Mixed-Use Project
2012-2024 Main Street 107 du/11 ,549 sf PC
2021-2029 Main Street 26 du/6,553 sf
Mixed-Use Project 900 sf PP
1351 5th Street 16 du
Mixed-Use Building 1,947 sf AA
1411 ih Street 52 du
Mixed-Use Project 9,000 sf AA
212 Marine Street 24 du
Mixed-Use Project 5,086 sf AA
1410 5th Street 56 du
Mixed-Use Project 2,846 sf PP
1442 5th Street 50 du
rr
City of Santa Monica
3-3
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 3.0 Environmental Setting
Table 3-1 Cumulative Projects in the City of Santa Monica
Project Name/Location Total Size Status
Mixed-Use Project 3,860 sf AA
1450 5th Street 56 du
Mixed-Use Project 1,647 sf BP
1234 6th Street 48 du
Mixed-Use Project 1,881 sf BP
1528 6th Street 48 du
Mixed-Use Project 1,540 sf BP
1531 6th Street 48 du
Mixed-Use Project 2,527 sf BP
1540 6th Street 48 du
Mixed-Use Project 5,900 sf AA
606 Broadway 53 du
Mixed-Use Project 449 sf PP
1906 Broadway 32 du
Multi-Family Residential 26 du BP
1522 6th Street
Multi-Family Residential 26 du BP
1537 ih Street
New Roads School 115,300 sf EIR
3131 Olympic Boulevard
Pier Bridge Widening & Pier Ramp Widen pier bridge by 11 feet
Colorado Avenue/Santa Monica and construct ramp to Lot 1 EIR
Pier North
Production /Live-Work Building 34,000 sf live-work w/ parking PP
1818 Stanford Street garage
Production Office/Residential 9,438 sf office PP
1630 Stewart Street 9,534 sf residential
RAND 308,900 sf UC
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica College
Replacement Parking Structure "B" 60,300 sf/490 parking spaces UC
1900 Pico Boulevard
Civic Center Parking Structure 885 parking spaces EIR
1685 Main Street 12,500 sf retail
Santa Monica Public Safety Facility 118,700 sf UC
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica/UCLA Hospital 500,000 sf UC
1502 Wilshire Boulevard
St. John's Medical Center
& Master Plan 1,274,000 sf (max) ARB/UC
1328 22nd Street
Transportation Facility Master Plan 48,000 sf CC
Colorado Avenue
Virginia Avenue Park Expansion
Pico Boulevard/Cloverfield 3.65 acres (park) ARB
Boulevard
Status: AA = Administrative Approval; ARB = Architectural Review Board; BP = Building Permit (not yet under
construction); CC = City Council Approval; DA = Development Agreement; EIR = pending Environmental Impact
Report; PC = Planning Commission Approval; PP = Permit Pending (no approvals granted); RC = Recently
Completed; UC = Under Construction; du = dwelling unit; nla = not available; sf = square feet
Source: City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, June 2003.
rr
City of Santa Monica
3-4
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 3.0 Environmental Setting
Table 3-2 Cumulative Projects - Regionally Significant and Outside of City
Project Name/Location Total Size Status
Costco
Glencoe Avenue & Washington 181,000 sf CC
Boulevard
Mixed-Use Project 197,000 sf
1430 Lincoln Blvd. at California 280 du Proposed
Avenue
Lincoln/Fiji Apartments 500 du CC
4750 Lincoln Boulevard
Marina Point/Channel Gateway 812 du CC
4251 Lincoln Boulevard
Playa Vista Phases I 3,246 du
Lincoln Boulevard/Jefferson UC
Boulevard 3,354,900 sf
Retail/Office Building 146,700 sf Proposed
NE corner of Wilshire/Barrington
Office
Olympic Boulevard/Centinela 250,000 sf Proposed
Avenue
J. Paul Getty Museum/Getty Villa 600 seats Proposed
(theater)
UC = Under Construction CC = Construction Completed du = dwelling unit sf = square feet
Source: City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, 2003.
rr
City of Santa Monica
3-5
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
This section discusses the possible environmental effects of the proposed project for the specific
issue areas that were identified through the Initial Study and NOP process as having the
potential to experience significant impacts. "Significant effect" is defined by the State CEQA
Guidelines S15382 as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the
physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals,
flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or
social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment, but may
be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant."
The assessment of each issue area begins with a discussion of the setting relevant to that issue
area. Following the setting is a discussion of the project's impacts relative to the issue area.
Within the impact analysis, the first subsection identifies the methodologies used and the
"significance thresholds," which are those criteria adopted by the City, other agencies,
universally recognized, or developed specifically for this analysis to determine whether
potential impacts are significant. The next subsection describes each impact of the proposed
project, mitigation measures for significant impacts, and the level of significance after
mitigation. Each impact under consideration for an issue area is separately listed in bold text,
with the discussion of the impact and its significance following. Each bolded impact listing also
contains a statement of the significance determination for the environmental impact as follows:
Class I, Significant and Unavoidable: An impact that cannot be reduced to below the
threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an
impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is
approved.
Class II, Significant but Mitigable: An impact that can be reduced to below the
threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an
impact requires findings to be made.
Class III, Not Significant: An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the
threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation
measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily
available and easily achievable.
Class IV, Beneficial: An impact that would reduce existing environmental problems or
hazards.
Following each environmental impact discussion is a listing of recommended mitigation
measures (if required) and the residual effects or level of significance remaining after the
implementation of the measures. In those cases where the mitigation measure for an impact
could have a significant environmental impact in another issue area, this impact is discussed as
a residual effect.
The impact analysis concludes with a discussion of cumulative effects, which evaluates the
impacts associated with the proposed project in conjunction with other future development in
the area.
r
City of Santa Monica
4-1
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.1 Geology and Soils
4.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.1.1 Setting
The City of Santa Monica lies within the northwestern Coastal Plain of the Los Angeles Basin.
The landward portion of the Los Angeles Basin is bounded to the north by the Santa Monica
Mountains, Elysian Hills, and Repetto Hills, to the east by the Merced Hills, Puente Hills, and
Santa Ana Mountains, and to the south and west by the Pacific Ocean. The Santa Monica
Mountains are part of the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province, which is characterized by
east-west trending faults, folds and mountain ranges. The Santa Ana Mountains and adjacent
hills are part of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, which is characterized by
northwest-southeast trending faults, folds and mountain ranges. Both of these provinces are
considered seismically active.
The project site is located on the southeast corner of Colorado Avenue and Stewart Street.
Ground elevation is about 165 feet above mean sea level and the site slopes gently to the south
at an average gradient of 1-5% slope (Asbestos, Environment & Safety, January 6, 2000).
a. Regional Geology. The faulting and seismicity of Southern California is dominated
by the compressionary regime associated with the intersection of the San Andreas Fault Zone
and the Garlock Fault. The San Andreas Fault Zone separates two tectonic plates. The western
side of the fault is the Pacific Plate and the eastern side of the fault is the North American Plate.
The Pacific Plate is moving in a northwesterly direction relative to the North American Plate.
The San Andreas Fault generally trends northwest to southeast. However, north of the
Transverse Ranges Province, the fault trends more in an east-west direction, causing the fault's
right-lateral strike-slip movement to produce north-south compression between the two plates.
This compression has produced rapid uplift of many of the mountain ranges in Southern
California. North-south compression in southern California has been estimated at between 5 to
20 millimeters per year (SCEC, 1995).
Quaternary age (within the last 1.6 million years) unconsolidated and semi-consolidated
sediments are over 1,000 feet thick in some localities of the Coastal Plain. These sediments are
approximately 400 feet thick in the eastern Santa Monica area (SCDWR, 1988). The Quaternary
sediments are underlain by Tertiary (1.6 to 65 million years old) age rocks. The Tertiary
material is principally composed of marine sediments of the Pico, Repetto, Monterey and
Topanga formations that filled the basin when it was below sea level.
The Coastal Plain of the Los Angeles Basin is sub-divided into several groundwater basins. The
divisions of these groundwater basins are caused by geologic features such as non-water
bearing bedrock, faults and other features that impede the flow of groundwater. The project
site is within the Santa Monica sub-basin, which is bounded by the Santa Monica Mountains to
the north, the Ballona Escarpment to the south, the Inglewood Fault to the east and the Pacific
Ocean to the west (SCDWR, 1988). Groundwater extends from the Recent (within the last
10,000 years) alluvium down to the fractured Tertiary sediments (SCDWR, 1988). Groundwater
movement in the basin is generally toward the south, with some minor subsurface flow toward
the west near the City of Santa Monica (SCDWR, 1988).
rr
City of Santa Monica
4.1-1
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.1 Geology and Soils
b. Site Geology. The project site is located in the southern portion of the gently sloping
Santa Monica Plain (SCDWR, 1988). The plain was formed from several alluvial fans building
out from the Santa Monica Mountains to the north and is dissected by several streams draining
from the Santa Monica Mountains. According to the Geologic Map of the Beverly Hills-Van
Nuys (South 1f2) Quadrangle (Dibblee, 1991), the site is located on Quaternary-age alluvial
gravel, sand, silt, and clay derived mainly from the Santa Monica Mountains and also includes
gravels and sands of stream channels. These Quaternary-age sediments overlie Tertiary-age
marine bedrock units of the Monterey and Fernando formations. Geotechnologies, Inc. (August
9, 2000) completed exploratory soil borings for the site to depths between 30 and 60 feet below
grade. The material encountered in the boreholes was mainly comprised of silt and clay with
some lenses of silty sand and sand.
c. Seismic Hazards.
Seismic Potential. The 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) defines different regions of
the United States and ranks them according to their seismic hazard potential. Four regions
have been established. These are designated as Seismic Zones 1 through 4, with Zone 1 having
the least seismic potential and Zone 4 having the highest seismic potential. The project site is
within Seismic Zone 4.
The proximity of active faults is such that the project area has experienced and will continue to
experience strong seismically induced ground motion. The U.S. Geological Survey defines
active faults as those that have had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last
11,000 years). Surface displacement can be recognized by the existence of cliffs in alluvium,
terraces, offset stream courses, fault troughs and saddles, the alignment of depressions, sag
ponds, and the existence of steep mountain fronts. Potentially active faults are those that have
had surface displacement during the last 1.6 million years. Inactive faults have not had surface
displacement within the last 1.6 million years. Figure 4.1-1 depicts the geological hazards near
the site.
Several active and potentially active faults are located in the regional site vicinity (see Figure
4.1-2). These nearby faults include (Santa Monica Safety Element, Technical Appendices, 1995):
. San Andreas
. Newport-Inglewood-North Branch
. Santa Monica
. Malibu Coast
. Palos Verdes Hills
. Cabrillo
. San Pedro Basin
. Whittier
. Northridge
. San Fernando
. Raymond Hill
In addition to these faults, other seismic sources that could potentially affect the area include
the Torrance-Wilmington and the Elysian Park fold and thrust belts. These are named "buried
thrust faults" because they are not exposed at the surface.
rr
City of Santa Monica
4.1-2
0:::
W..!!!
13"iS
lllOO
0'
...."'C
0... C
I'll
III >.
:;l CI
c: 0
lll_
~ g
.gl!l
ro....
'- .
O'lt
15 C
o 0
'<1":;:::
C"J U
CO III
NOO
--
---
----
--.
- ==
J::::::l 0)-
g.E c:: ~
012 0- ~fB
-; ~ .2~,9'5 ~~
zE 0 r:: 't: c r:: E ID
_N .gO 012 CD:!;!
o lJ 0::: Z :2 Eg rn iij
11)'" 0""'" OJ:: 01:1
:= Ia - == -r:: 'S c:: c::
Eo r::::::l 0 0.,9
::J :I: bJ zE bJ ~ :E .I::
I 122 ~,
~a ......
~ 0 is
I :J:u..
---~fI--r-.J. -- ~ : .
-.J----- 1
..RI:. - -1
) -.. n - ~-,- --.'
-~- ....
""iii.\Y - -
~
~~
'D
I::
GI
E
I
I
J
/ ijli
_L 1 -r--
l71! J.J
.Jf j ~ --r--.._"
~~ _ II I --_w-
1': .':'P'Ooo oL J t ".
~ l/l ,-...~- ~
~:i~.JJ ~~ ~iJ ---..-
-..: ;:! j ~. ~,
~J ~ ~ ·
:""IIIIll """"" ..... ro-. !, 5
"'........ ~ ~-
!
J
-
!
..........
1
"
~
~ ,
- ---.:
t'
'!!II.
N !~I ~
-,
"
,. ,~
'. ~ ")~
5 '~~
D_
-
......
0)
5~
N'=
_'0
c:: c::
CD 0
E...J
11>1:1
mc::
cO
C::co
0=
:Ea..
>-
'Q.Q
20
o ...
:J:~
OIl
'D
A t
~ ~
~
~
6
i
.g
s
~J.--
{/}
111
--l
~
o
"!
In
"l
o
--...1
"'4W>'j
---
I
I
I
I
......
1
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/ - :
J; , :
JJ u!:
~
d
j
J
-"fDIl'AIlT
=~
-~,
'"
"
'"
"
on-.:--'i J t I J
". ~ ~~ :!l ~
J
i
.~y "I''''''I''Oj
...
"'"""""'"
t
~
j
~
I u."
~ on_ _.
~'J l )
:~_i~~
I
"
.!~ ."~;.~ 1 .
, ".~
" .'-
~.~
~~
..-
"""lwn ..
J
i
A'
~
~R"""'"
~ :
~
.....;
...
..
..... "11\_ ~. '
__-----~ ~Il\y-'
~, ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - Ii., .... " .
w.l(l PP1~
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
,
~ l3
rl 'i::;
-=::Ii 0
OJ ::E
~~
~~
'0
C
G
f/J
~
~
~
~
u
"50
o
.......;
o
OJ
C)
(!)
,
,--
..t
<:
'"
E
m
.0
.E!
c5J
10
Cl
Cl
,..
;,;
~ ..
~ ..
0::
w..!!l
t5 .0
.~ CI)
e"C
0... c:
Q) III
::J >-
c OJ
Q) 0
~o
o Q)
-0"
~.....
o .
_'I:t
o c:
U 0
'I:t:;:;
C") CJ
00 Q)
NCI)
en
':J
0-
o <(
~[JJ
---
~
Q)
c
~
en
Q)
'6
::J
ii5
ro
'u
Q)
CL
UJ
.Q
o
0::
Q)
,,,,
~
~
ro
'"
c
Q)
-0
[L
c
o
~
u
o
--'
tl
Q)
'0'
D::
Q)
,,,,
tl
<(
rn
@-
../
"';"",
h"
,<i)/~"'""
i r ~~
.... ~
'. . /i~'
,.. , ..'!;/
" . " , ' .11>,'
, , //"; .." ' ' ,.. Ii , ~--
:o:t' /8 I,' <!J. I' ,-----@.- ~f";-' ::!.l1 "" \, '
I.l; 1 .' , I ......--'-' ~... I' oz.\
. ,_' ,!.~ V.... ."'. \ · ,\ ..,
"",,,if' 1...-'" --- ",' II; ,i"'",
~ \ ' ",,' I . 1 ' .-
~4,.. ~ _.....""'..."t'/I'/1 ' .l t:: d
..~ /' ., . .=
...-,: /' ,.. I { < =
........... ~ ,I 5 ",l I ; 0 n
. ~,I < . ./ U, ,
. ~ ' ' I r.' I ".
" " · ..,
u ~ I. ~ ..~,'-' ::d,/'
< ~ < ,E< ,I
~ ~ ~ i '" ~ 17
~ ~. ,'-.}
~ III ~ II
" ~ ~ f
U !::! oq
~ ~ (fj
ii:l; ~
(fj 'l:
o
~"
'i
~'\).
"\,,:
z-<
:~
C"-l III
rl .!:!
. t:
"'i' 0
Q) :e
l-< III
;:J -
cot:
...... III
~ CI)
....
o
~
is
p..
(Ii
~
.........
......-l
;::l
(Ii "'t
f.,I., .....
......-l .."f
(Ii
~
0
''''';
b.O
~
CV)
Ol
;:.>
v)'
.!!J
.~
&l
V)
<(
t::
'"
~
t::
~
co
Q;
'"
..c:
."
~
~ ..
c55 ..
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.1 Geology and Soils
Faults generally produce damage in two ways: surface rupture and seismically induced ground
shaking. Surface rupture is limited to areas very near the fault and ground shaking can affect a
wide area.
Surface Rupture. Surface rupture along a fault is the surface expression of fault
displacement. Fault displacement occurs when material on one side of a fault moves relative to
the material on the other side of the fault. Surface displacement can range from a few inches to
tens of feet during a rupture event. This can have detrimental consequences, including injury
and loss of life, when buildings are located within the rupture zone. It is not practically feasible
(structurally or economically) to design and build structures that can withstand the rapid
displacement involved with surface rupture. The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act
establishes State criteria for identifying special zones for active faults considered to possess a
relatively high potential for ground rupture. Structures designed for human occupancy are
generally not permitted within these zones. No special studies zones are located within the
City of Santa Monica (Geotechnologies, Inc., August 9,2000).
Seismically Induced Ground Shaking. Ground shaking is a result of the seismic waves
produced by a fault rupture event. Ground shaking typically covers a wide area and is greatly
influenced by the distance of the site to the seismic source, soil conditions, and depth to
groundwater. Secondary hazards associated with seismically induced ground shaking include
liquefaction, seismically induced settlement, earthquake-triggered landslides, tsunamis and
seiches. Movement along any of the faults listed above could potentially generate substantial
ground shaking at the project site.
According to the California Geological Survey (Seismic Shaking Hazards in California Based on
the USGS/CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment (PSHA) Model, 2002) (revised April
2003), the area near the site has a 10% probability of experiencing 0.4-0.5 gravity (g) peak
horizontal ground acceleration within the next 50 years. The CGS has produced three maps
depicting ground acceleration in the west Los Angeles area (CGS, 2002). These maps are for
firm rock conditions, soft rock conditions, and alluvium conditions. The peak ground
accelerations in units of g expected at the site are 0.40-0.41 for firm rock conditions; 0.43-0.45 for
soft rock conditions; and 0.45-0.46 for alluvium conditions. The site is comprised
predominantly of alluvial soils; thus, the site could experience a peak ground acceleration of up
to about 0.46g.
The strength of ground shaking in an area is primarily a function of the distance between an
area and the seismic source, the type of material underlying a property, and the motion of fault
displacement. In addition, the Northridge (1994) earthquake showed how peculiarities in basin
effects can increase ground accelerations in particular areas. For instance, ground accelerations
exceeding 1.0g were recorded at areas far from the epicenter of the Northridge earthquake,
including the Santa Monica area. Because of the proximity to major active faults, such as the
San Andreas and Newport-Inglewood fault systems, it is possible that accelerations near or over
1.0g could occur anywhere within Santa Monica, including the project site.
d. Secondary Seismic Hazards and Soil Hazards.
Liquefaction. Liquefaction is a temporary, but substantial, loss of shear strength in
granular solids, such as sand, silt, and gravel, usually occurring during or after a major
rr
City of Santa Monica
4.1-5
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.1 Geology and Soils
earthquake. Liquefaction occurs when the shock waves from an earthquake of sufficient
magnitude and duration compact and reduce the volume of the soil; if drainage cannot occur,
this reduction in soil volume can increase the pressure exerted on the water contained in the
soil, forcing it upward to the ground surface. This process can transform stable granular
material into a fluid-like state. The potential for liquefaction to occur is greatest in areas with
loose, granular, low-density soil, where the water table is within the upper 40 to 50 feet of the
ground surface. Liquefaction can result in slope and foundation failure.
Other effects of liquefaction include lateral spread, flow failures, ground oscillations, and loss of
bearing strength. Liquefaction is intrinsically linked with the depth of groundwater below the
site and the types of sediments underlying an area. Table 4.1-1 lists the relationship between
liquefaction hazard and groundwater depth.
Table 4.1-1 Liquefaction Zone Criteria
Geologic Unit Depth to Groundwater
Greater than 40 feet Less than 40 feet
Quaternary alluvium Low High
(Qa)
All other Low Low
Source: CDMG, 1995.
The Seismic Hazard Evaluation of the Beverly Hills Quadrangle (CDMG, 1999) indicates that
the site is not in a liquefaction hazard area. However, the Safety Element of the General Plan
(1995) depicts the site as having a high liquefaction hazard (see Figure 4.1-3). Soil on site is
dominantly silty and clayey soils (native soils, not fill) and the anticipated depth to
groundwater (about 42 feet below grade, with a historic high groundwater level of 35 feet below
grade) underlying the site. Given the dense nature of the earth materials below the site to a
depth of 35 feet, the possibility of liquefaction affecting the subject site is considered remote
(Geotechnologies, Inc., August 9, 2000).
Subsidence and Settlement. Subsidence involves deep-seated settlement due to the
withdrawal of fluid (oil, natural gas, or water). The Safety Element (1995) states that there are
no areas within the City where subsidence has been a problem.
Seismically induced settlement occurs in loose to medium dense unconsolidated soil above
groundwater. These soils compress (settle) when subject to seismic shaking. The settlement can
be exacerbated by increased loading, such as from the construction of onsite buildings.
Settlement can also result solely from human activities, including improperly placed artificial
fill and structures built on soils or bedrock materials with differential settlement rates. This
settlement can be mitigated prior to development through the removal and recompaction of
loose soils. The Safety Element (1995) identifies most of the areas within the City, including the
project site, as having a low settlement hazard.
Expansive Soils. Expansive soils are generally clayey and swell when wetted and shrink
when dried. Wetting can occur in a number of ways (e.g., absorption from the air, rainfall,
groundwater fluctuations, landscape watering, broken water or sewer lines, etc.). Expansive
soils located beneath structures can result in cracks in foundations, walls, and ceilings, while
City of Santa Monica
rr
4.1-6
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.1 Geology and Soils
.
"lr"7
i
i
i
.
\
\ ~
\
.
h
;~
(
., "J:.
-, '"
-)
-
iII'~TII'I
1i:'flli'~~_:f
s.tA-rr;
~
~
i'
l
,
E
~
.
~
;
14i1M
~; ~
'" ..
~
"
"
s ~
~ =
" "
J liNC'OlN ~
!iTJlIf'n
~
~
:);
.
~
&
g
it 10)
c
a
c
5
-Si.YO v
Snlfff
~
,
g
t'"
D Very Low to None
~~
Low
o 1500 3000
~
Scale in Feet
...:-:-:-:-:-:.;.: .
.::::::::.::::::.:::... MedIum
........."iio...:...
High
Liquifaction Potential
Figure 4.1-3
City of Santa Monica
,.,
4.1-7
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.1 Geology and Soils
expansive soils located on slopes can cause slope failure. The California Department of Food
and Agriculture (CDF A) uses a soil classification system for agricultural and alternative uses.
The soils map for the City of Santa Monica, (CD FA, 1978), identifies the project site as being in
an area of Hanford soils. This type of soil is typically found on alluvial fans and alluvial plains
and is composed of sandy loams and loamy sands. Hanford soils are considered to have low
erosion and expansion hazard potential, and are well drained. Soil expansion tests show that
the soil at the site has a very low expansion range, with an expansion index of 13
(Geotechnologies, Inc. August 9, 2000).
Landsliding and Slope Instability. Landslides occur when slopes become unstable and
masses of earth material move downslope. Landslides are generally considered to be rapid
events, often triggered during periods of rainfall or by earthquakes. The City of Santa Monica
Safety Element (1995) identifies the project site as having a low potential for landslides and
slope instability.
Tsunamis and Seiches. Tsunamis are large ocean surges that are created as a result of a
sub-sea earthquake or landslide. A seiche is a wave or series of waves that are produced within
an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water (such as a lake or bay). The project site is not in
an area that could be affected by a tsunami or seiche (Safety Element of the General Plan, 1995).
4.1.2 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. An impact is considered potentially
significant if it will expose people or structures to major geologic hazards. Therefore, impacts
are considered significant if the proposed development would be exposed to a high potential
for such seismic hazards as ground shaking, liquefaction, and settlement, and soil hazards such
as expansive soils.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
Impact GEO-1
Seismically-induced ground shaking could destroy or
damage onsite structures, resulting in loss of property and
risk to human safety. Provided that the design and
construction of the proposed project complies with all
applicable provisions of the 1997 Uniform Building Code
and the 1998 California Building Code, impacts are
considered Class III, less than significant.
The strongest ground-shaking event at the site is calculated to occur from a rupture of the South
Branch of the Santa Monica Fault (City of Santa Monica Safety Element, 1995). As described
above, the California Geological Survey has modeled the site as having a 10% probability of
experiencing 0.4-0.5 g ground acceleration over the next 50 years. Earthquakes along the Santa
Monica fault and other faults in the region could produce potentially significant impacts to
structures on the site. In addition to the calculated expected ground accelerations, there is the
possibility that basin and sediment effects may amplify site ground accelerations. Although
nothing can ensure that structures do not fail under seismic stress, proper engineering can
minimize the risk to life and property.
rr
City of Santa Monica
4.1-8
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.1 Geology and Soils
The 1997 Uniform Building Code and the 1998 California Building Code include building
standards to ensure that the design and construction of new structures are engineered to
withstand the expected ground acceleration that may occur at this site. Earthquake resistant
designs include such measures as concrete framing, flexible building diaphragms, anchoring
concrete or masonry wall, framing below the base, building separation and collector elements for
seismic stresses. The calculated design base ground motion for the site should take into
consideration the soil type, potential for liquefaction, and the most current and applicable seismic
attenuation methods that are available. The proposed project would involve replacing industrial
structures constructed around the 1950's with a new structure built to current seismic standards
increasing the overall safety of buildings on the site.
Mitigation Measures. The project would comply with applicable provisions of the 1997
and 1998 Uniform Building Codes, as discussed above. No mitigation beyond this standard
requirement is necessary.
Significance After Mitigation. The probability of a larger than expected earthquake with
higher ground accelerations to occur is never zero. However, implementation of the most
recent industry standards for structural designs would reduce the potential for structural failure
due to seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level.
Impact GEO-2 Seismic activity could produce sufficient ground shaking to
result in liquefaction onsite. This is considered a Class III,
less than significant impact.
As discussed in the Setting, unconsolidated alluvial material underlies the project site. This soil
type is potentially susceptible to liquefaction. Given the soil type found on the project site and
the depth to groundwater (estimated at about 42 feet), there is moderate potential for
liquefaction to occur at the site. The possibility of liquefaction affecting the subject site is
considered to be remote based on the dense nature of the earth materials below a depth of 35
feet (Geotechnologies, Inc., August 9,2000). Therefore, the risk to structures and people at the
site due to liquefaction is considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. The project would comply with applicable provisions of the 1997
and 1998 Uniform Building Codes, as discussed above, and the recommendations of the
appropriate Geotechnical study. No mitigation beyond this standard requirement is necessary.
Significance After Mitigation. Appropriate structural designs would reduce the
potential for liquefaction to a less than significant impact.
Impact GEO-3 The project involves the construction of a multi-story
apartment building and one level of subterranean parking.
During construction, the sidewalls of the excavation area
could potentially become unstable and fail. Once
constructed, groundwater and surface water runoff may
collect at the base of the parking area and require pumping.
The existence of potentially unsafe conditions associated
with the construction and operation of the project is
considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact.
rr
City of Santa Monica
4.1-9
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.1 Geology and Soils
The proposed project includes below-grade excavation to accommodate a one-level
subterranean parking garage below the apartment building. Excavation for the parking
structure is anticipated to reach a depth of approximately 12-13 feet. The project site does not
appear to pose any unusual risks relating to soil stability or failure and the groundwater table
on the project site is estimated at 42 feet below grade. Thus, it is not anticipated that excavation
would encounter groundwater; however, because the groundwater level may fluctuate
seasonally, the potential to encounter groundwater is present.
During construction, the excavated area could potentially become unstable and fail, if not
properly engineered. Failure of the excavation could pose a safety risk for on site and offsite
personnel, the general public, and nearby buildings, streets, and utility lines. In addition,
although the subterranean portions of the proposed parking structure are anticipated to be
above the depth to groundwater, seasonal fluctuations in groundwater levels could potentially
cause groundwater to accumulate within the proposed structure and require periodic or
. .
ongomg pumpmg.
Mitigation Measures. The following measures would reduce hazard impacts associated
with project excavation and operation to a less than significant level:
GEO-3(a) Geotechnical Study. The information obtained from the Geotechnical
study performed for the site shall be used to design the excavation
and excavation shoring to prevent destabilization of the excavation
sidewalls. Recommendations regarding foundation design, retaining
wall design, excavations, shoring, and slabs on grade contained in the
geotechnical report shall be fully implemented in order to comply
with Universal Building Code standards.
GEO-3(b) Groundwater Removal Mechanism. The design for the one-level
underground parking garage below the apartment building shall
consider a mechanism of removing groundwater, if the geotechnical
study shows it to be present at this site. The groundwater removal
design shall consider historical ranges in depth to groundwater. The
removal system shall be designed to prevent the parking garage from
flooding and to comply with Universal Building Code standards.
GEO-3(c) Waterproofing. All walls of the parking garage shall be waterproofed
to protect against corrosive effects of water contact following the
recommendations in the geotechnical study.
Significance After Mitigation. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would
reduce potential impacts related to geologic hazards associated with the construction and
operation of the apartment building with one story underground parking garage to a less than
significant level.
rr
City of Santa Monica
4.1-10
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.1 Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-4
Native soils in the vicinity of the site consist of sandy to
clayey silt and silty to clayey sand, which have a low
potential for erosion and expansion hazards. Impacts from
expansive soils at this site are considered a Class III, less
than significant impact.
The City of Santa Monica Safety Element (1995) identifies the soil in the project vicinity as
having a low expansion potential. Classified as Hanford soils (CDFA, 1978), these soils are
considered to have low erosion and expansion hazard potential, and are well drained.
Furthermore, soils on site were found to have a very low expansion index (Geotechnologies,
Inc., August 9, 2000). Therefore, impacts relating to soil expansion and erosion are considered
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. Soils at the site were found to have a very low expansion
potential. No mitigation measures would be necessary.
Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without
mitigation.
c. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed development, in conjunction with other planned
and pending development in the City, would cumulatively increase exposure of people and
property to seismically related hazards similar to those present onsite. Cumulative impacts
related to seismically-induced ground shaking, liquefaction, and soil compaction would be
similar to what is described for project-specific impacts, and would be addressed on a
project-by-project basis. No guarantee against damage relating to seismic and geologic hazards
can be made for any development. However, adherence to Uniform Building Code
requirements on all development in the City would reduce cumulative impacts relating to
seismic hazards to a level considered less than significant.
rr
City of Santa Monica
4.1-11
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.2 Air Quality
4.2 AIR QUALITY
4.2.1 Setting
a. Climate and Meteorology. Santa Monica is on the western edge of the Los Angeles
Coastal Plain, immediately adjacent to Santa Monica Bay. The area is within the marine
microclimate zone and the fog belt. The climate of the City is heavily influenced by its
proximity to the Pacific Ocean, except during Santa Ana wind conditions. Winters are not cold,
and temperatures are above freezing. Spring and summer days are frequently cloudy,
particularly during May and June, due to the presence of high fog. Summers are cool, because
of the moderating effect of sea breezes. Humidity tends to be higher than in adjacent
communities further inland.
Average daytime temperatures range from highs of 75 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in July, August,
and September to 64 degrees (F) in January and February. Overnight low temperatures vary
from an average of 61 degrees (F) in January and February to 64 degrees (F) in August. The
lowest temperature recorded in Santa Monica was 33 degrees (F); the highest was 105 degrees
(F). The moderating effects of the Pacific Ocean keep winter temperatures above freezing along
the coastline and summer temperatures moderate. However, high temperatures occur when
there are Santa Ana wind conditions creating an offshore flow. Santa Ana winds are strong
northerly or northeasterly winds that originate from the desert of the Great Basin and
predominantly occur from September through March. Usually warm, always very dry, and
often full of dust, these winds are particularly strong in passes and at the mouths of canyons.
Sustained winds of sixty miles per hour, with higher gusts, are fairly common for these
conditions. On average, Santa Ana wind conditions occur five to ten times a year, with each
event lasting up to a few days.
Annual precipitation in Santa Monica averages around 12.5 inches, with maximum rainfall of
about 25 inches. Rainfall occurs almost exclusively from late October to early April.
b. Air Pollution Regulation. Federal and state standards have been established for six
criteria pollutants, including ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (N02), sulfur
dioxide (S02), particulates less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter (PMlO and PM2.5), and lead
(Pb). California has also set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and
visibility-reducing particles. On June 20, 2002, the California Air Resources Board (ARB)
adopted a stricter standard for PMIO, which lowered the annual arithmetic mean standard from
30 micrograms per meter cubed (ug/ m3) to 20 ug/ m3. The ARB also recommended adoption of
a new standard for PM2.5 of 12 ug/ m3. The new standards were approved by the Office of
Administrative Law on June 5,2003 and became effective on July 5,2003. Table 4.2-1 lists the
current Federal and State standards for criteria pollutants.
The local air quality management agency is required to monitor air pollutant levels to assure
that the above air quality standards are met and, in the event they are not, to develop strategies
to meet these standards. Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the local air
basin is classified as being in "attainment" or "non-attainment." The South Coast Air Basin
(Basin), in which the project site is located, is a nonattainment area for both the federal and state
r
City of Santa Monica
4.2-1
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.2 Air Quality
Table 4.2-1 Current Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Federal Standard California Standard
Ozone 0.12 ppm (1-hr avg) 0.09 ppm (1-hr avg)
0.08 ppm (8-hr avg)
Carbon Monoxide 9.0 ppm (8-hr avg) 9.0 ppm (8-hr avg)
35.0 ppm (1-hr avg) 20.0 ppm (1-hr avg)
Nitrogen Dioxide 0.053 ppm (annual avg) 0.25 ppm (1-hr avg)
0.03 ppm (annual avg) 0.04 ppm (24-hr avg)
Sulfur Dioxide 0.14 ppm (24-hr avg) 0.25 ppm (1-hr avg)
0.5 ppm (3-hr avg)
Lead 1.5 fLgtm3 (calendar qtr) 1.5 fLgtm3 (30-day avg)
Particulate Matter (PM1o) 50 fLgtm3 (annual avg) 20 fLgtm3 (annual avg)
150 fLgtm3 (24-hr avg) 50 fLgtm3 (24-hr avg)
Particulate Matter (PM25) 15 fLgtm3 (annual avg) 12 fLgtm3 (annual avg)
65 fLgtm3 (24-hr avg)
ppm = parts per million
fLg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: California Air Resources Board, www.arb.ca.gov/aqs/aaqs2.pdf. June 12, 2003.
standards for ozone and nitrogen dioxide, and the state standard for PM10. The Basin is also
classified as a nonattainment area for the federal and state standards of carbon monoxide, but
now qualifies for reclassification as an attainment area for the federal CO standard (AQMD
Advisor, 2003). The Basin exceeded the federal CO standard once in 2002. Added to a perfect
record in 2001 (no exceedances), this fulfills the compliance requirement of no more than one
day exceeding the standard in two consecutive years. Ozone, nitrogen dioxide, PMIO, and
carbon monoxide are described below.
Ozone. Ozone is produced by a photochemical reaction (triggered by sunlight) between
nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG). Nitrogen oxides are formed during
the combustion of fuels, while reactive organic gases are formed during combustion and
evaporation of organic solvents. Because ozone requires sunlight to form, it mostly occurs in
concentrations considered serious between the months of April and October. Ozone is a
pungent, colorless toxic gas with direct health effects on humans including respiratory and eye
irritation and possible changes in lung functions. Groups most sensitive to ozone include
children, the elderly, persons with respiratory disorders, and people who exercise strenuously
outdoors.
Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide is a local pollutant that is found in high
concentrations only near the source. The major source of carbon monoxide, a colorless,
odorless, poisonous gas, is automobile traffic. Elevated concentrations, therefore, are usually
only found near areas of high traffic volumes. Carbon monoxide's health effects are related to
its affinity for hemoglobin in the blood. At high concentrations, carbon monoxide reduces the
amount of oxygen in the blood, causing heart difficulties in people with chronic diseases,
reduced lung capacity and impaired mental abilities.
Nitrogen Dioxide. Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) is a by-product of fuel combustion, with the
primary source being motor vehicles and industrial boilers and furnaces. The principal form of
r
City of Santa Monica
4.2-2
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.2 Air Quality
nitrogen oxide produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but NO reacts rapidly to form
N02, creating the mixture of NO and N02 commonly called NOx. Nitrogen dioxide is an acute
irritant. A relationship between N02 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis may exist, and an increase
in bronchitis in young children at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm) may occur.
Nitrogen dioxide absorbs blue light and causes a reddish brown cast to the atmosphere and
reduced visibility. It can also contribute to the formation of PMIO and acid rain.
Suspended Particulates. PMlO is small particulate matter measuring no more than 10
microns in diameter, while PM2.5 is fine particulate matter measuring no more than 2.5 microns
in diameter. Suspended particulates are mostly dust particles, nitrates and sulfates. They are a
by-product of fuel combustion and wind erosion of soil and unpaved roads, and are directly
emitted into the atmosphere through these processes. Suspended particulates are also created
in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. The characteristics, sources, and potential health
effects associated with the small particulates (those between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter)
and fine particulates (PM2.5) can be very different. The small particulates generally come from
windblown dust and dust kicked up from mobile sources. The fine particulates are generally
associated with combustion processes as well as being formed in the atmosphere as a secondary
pollutant through chemical reactions. Fine particulate matter is more likely to penetrate deeply
into the lungs and poses a serious health threat to all groups, but particularly to the elderly,
children, and those with respiratory problems. More than half of the small and fine particulate
matter that is inhaled into the lungs remains there, which can cause permanent lung damage.
These materials can damage health by interfering with the body's mechanisms for clearing the
respiratory tract or by acting as carriers of an absorbed toxic substance.
PM2.5 is just beginning to be monitored. The attainment status of areas is unknown at this time,
though it is likely that the South Coast Air Basin will be a nonattainment area. Once data has
been collected and processed for several years, the USEP A will then designate attainment status
with the development of State Implementation Plans to reduce this pollutant, starting in the
year 2005.
c. Current Air Quality. The South Coast Air Basin monitoring station located nearest to
the site is the Veteran's Administration Hospital in West Los Angeles, approximately 2.5 miles
northeast of the site. However, no particulate matter data is available from the West Los
Angeles monitoring station; therefore, data for this pollutant has been taken from the Los
Angeles-North Main Street station, located in downtown Los Angeles. Table 4.2-2 provides the
number of days each of the standards has been exceeded at these stations. As shown, the ozone
concentration exceeded state standard at least one day per year, and the number of days that
the PMlO concentration exceeded state standards dropped from 20 in 2001 to 8 in 2002. No
exceedances of either the state or federal standards for N02 or CO have occurred at the West
Los Angeles Station since 1996.
d. Air Quality Management. Under state law, the SCAQMD is required to prepare an
overall plan for air quality improvement. The Governing Board of the SCAQMD adopted the
1997 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP or Plan) on November 15, 1996. The 1997 AQMP is
based on the 1994 AQMP, and carries forward most of the strategies crafted in that Plan. The
1997 Plan was amended in 1999 to provide revisions to the ozone portion of the Plan. The 1997
AQMP places a greater focus on particulate matter (PMIO), since this is the first plan required by
r
City of Santa Monica
4.2-3
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.2 Air Quality
Table 4.2-2 Ambient Air Quality Data
Pollutant 2000 2001 2002
aOzone, ppm - Worst Hour 0.104 0.099 0.118
Number of days of State exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 2 1 1
Number of days of Federal exceedances (>0.12 ppm) 0 0 0
aCarbon Monoxide, ppm - Worst 8 Hours 4.31 4.00 2.73
Number of days of State/Federal exceedances (>9.0 ppm) 0 0 0
aNitrogen Dioxide, ppm - Worst Hour 0.162 0.109 0.113
Number of days of State exceedances (>0.25 ppm) 0 0 0
bparticulate Matter <10 microns, !-!g/m3 Worst 24 Hours 80.0 97.0 65.0
Number of samples of State exceedances (>50 !-!g/m3 ) 15 20 8
Number of samples of Federal exceedances (>150 !-!g/m3) 0 0 0
Annual Geometric Mean (State standard = 30!-!g/m3 ) 37 40 37
Annual Arithmetic Mean (Federal standard = 50!-!g/m3 ) 40 44 36
a West Los Angeles-VA Hospital Monitoring Station
b Los Angeles-North Main Street Monitoring Station
Source: GARB, 2000, 2001, & 2002 Annual Air Quality Data Summaries available at http://www.arb.ca.gov
federal law to demonstrate attainment of the federal PMIO ambient air quality standards. The
Plan also updates the demonstration of attainment for ozone and carbon monoxide, and
includes a maintenance plan for nitrogen dioxide (N02), as the South Coast Air Basin now
qualifies for attainment of that federal standard.
The 1997 AQMP includes policies and measures to achieve federal and state standards for
healthful air quality in the Basin. It also addresses several state and federal planning
requirements and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated
emissions inventories, ambient measurements, and new models. The 1997 Plan is consistent
with the approaches taken in the 1994 AQMP for the attainment of the federal ozone air quality
standard, and shows that with refinements to the 1994 AQMP control strategy, sufficient
emission reductions are achieved to meet all federal criteria pollutant standards within the time
frames allowed under the federal Clean Air Act. Some notable regulatory actions have
occurred since the 1994 AQMP, all of which have been accounted for in the 1997 Plan. These
include new or amended rules which have been adopted since the release of the 1994 AQMP;
the implementation of Phase II reformulated fuels (California Cleaner Burning Gasoline) in
1996; the replacement of the Regulation XV rideshare program with an equivalent emission
reduction program under Rule 2202; and new incentive programs for generating emission
credits.
The 1997 AQMP is incorporated by reference and is available for review at the City of Santa
Monica Planning Department. The AQMP is also available to download at
http:j /www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/97aqmp.
While the 1997 AQMP remains the governing planning document within the SCAQMD, it
should be noted that the SCAQMD is in the process of preparing a comprehensive update to the
Plan. Like the 1997 revision, the 2003 AQMP incorporates new scientific data and notable
r
City of Santa Monica
4.2-4
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.2 Air Quality
regulatory actions that have occurred since adoption of the 1997 AQMP. The 2003 AQMP is
currently scheduled for adoption by the SCAQMD on August 1, 2003 and is available to
download at http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/03aqmp.htm.
4.2.2 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. This analysis conforms to the
methodologies recommended in the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air
Quality Handbook (1993). Pollutant emissions were quantified using the Air Resources Board's
URBEMIS 2002 computer model using the ITE and empirical trip generation rates discussed in
Section 4.5, Traffic/Circulation.
A significant adverse air quality impact may occur when a project individually or cumulatively
interferes with progress toward the attainment of the ozone standard by releasing emissions
that equal or exceed the established long term quantitative thresholds for pollutants, or causes
an exceedance of a state or federal ambient air quality standard for any criteria pollutant.
The following significance thresholds have been set by the SCAQMD for project operations
within the South Coast Air Basin:
55 pounds per day of ROC
55 pounds per day of NO x
550 pounds per day of co
150 pounds per day of PMlO
150 pounds per day of SOx
Impacts relating to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations are considered significant if the
additional CO from a project creates a "hot spot" where either the California one-hour standard
of 20 parts per million (ppm) carbon monoxide or the federal and state eight-hour standard of
9.0 (ppm) is exceeded. Emissions associated with the construction of the proposed project are
discussed in Section 4.11, Construction Effects.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
Impact AQ-1 The proposed project would incrementally increase air
pollutant emissions. However, emissions would not exceed
the SCAQMD's daily thresholds. Therefore, the project
would have a Class III, less than significant, impact to regional
air quality.
Long-term emissions associated with the proposed project, as presented in Table 4.2-3, are those
associated with vehicle trips (mobile emissions) and the use of natural gas and landscaping
maintenance equipment (area emissions) upon buildout of the project. The URBEMIS 2002
model was used to calculate emissions associated with the proposed project based on the
proposed land use and the number of trips generated by the new development, as discussed in
Section 4.5, Traffic/Circulation.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.2-5
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.2 Air Quality
Table 4.2-3 Unmitigated Operational Emissions
Emission Source Emissions (Ibs/day)
ROG NOx CO PMlO
Mobile Emissions 9.23 12.95 104.25 9.77
Area Emissions 7.31 1.83 1.31 0.00
Total 16.54 14.78 105.56 9.77
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150
See Appendix B for calculations.
Emissions associated with the increase in vehicle trips and the stationary emissions generated by
the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD's daily operational thresholds for any
pollutant. Therefore, operation of the project would not significantly affect regional air quality.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance after Mitigation. Emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for
operations and are therefore considered less than significant without mitigation.
Impact AQ-2 Project-generated traffic, together with other cumulative
traffic in the area, would incrementally increase carbon
monoxide levels in the site vicinity. However, because
concentrations would remain below state and federal
standards, this impact is considered Class III, less than
significant.
Areas with high vehicle density, such as congested intersections and parking garages, have the
potential to create high levels of CO, known as CO hot spots. A project's localized air quality
impact is considered significant if CO emissions create a hot spot where either the California
one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the federal and state eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm is
exceeded. This typically occurs at severely congested intersections (LOS E or worse). Of the 17
intersections analyzed by the traffic study in the project vicinity, 10 intersections would be
expected to operate at LOS E or lower during the weekday AM or PM peak hours under
cumulative plus project conditions. However, only three intersections would be significantly
affected by project-related traffic. These are the intersections of Stewart Street and Colorado
A venue, Stewart Street and Olympic Boulevard, and Centinela A venue and Nebraska A venue
(worst approach only).
A simplified screenline CO analysis was performed for the intersection of Centinela A venue
and Nebraska Avenue, and a CALINE4 analysis was done for the intersections of Stewart Street
and Olympic Boulevard and Stewart Street and Colorado A venue. The results of the models
are shown in Table 4.2-4.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.2-6
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.2 Air Quality
Table 4.2-4 Carbon Monoxide Modeling Results
Future + Project CO California Federal Standard*
Intersection Concentration* Standard* Significant
I m pact?
1-hou r 8-hour 1-hou r 8-hour 1-hou r 8-hour
Stewart/Colorado 10.3 7.2 20 9 35 9 NO
Stewart/Olym pic 11.8 8.3 20 9 35 9 NO
Centinela/Nebraska 9.4 6.6 20 9 35 9 NO
* All concentrations in parts per million (ppm).
As shown, future + project traffic would not cause an exceedance of either the state or federal
CO standards. Therefore, project-related CO impacts are considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance after Mitigation. Carbon monoxide concentrations would not exceed state
and federal thresholds and are therefore considered less than significant without mitigation.
c. Cumulative Impacts. Any growth within the Los Angeles metropolitan area
contributes to existing exceedances of ambient air quality standards when taken as a whole with
existing development. Cumulative development in the City of Santa Monica would add about
three million square feet of non-residential development and 900 residential units. This
development has the potential to create significant cumulative regional air quality impacts.
However, emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than SCAQMD
significance thresholds and the increase in housing created by the proposed project has been
envisioned with the overall planning process for the City. Therefore, the project would not
slow down or prevent the predicted attainment of standards under the 1997 AQMP and the
project's contribution to cumulative regional air quality impacts would not be cumulatively
considerable.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.2-7
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.3 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.3.1 Setting
a. Surface Water. The City of Santa Monica Utilities Division manages stormwater
collection for Santa Monica. The overall drainage flow pattern within the City is from the north
and east to the south and west. An underground storm drain system collects surface runoff
through a series of catch basins and carries the majority of the storm water west to the Hyperion
Wastewater Treatment Plant, after which it is discharged into Santa Monica Bay.
The local storm drain system is generally adequate, although localized deficiencies exist in
certain parts of the City. Specifically, the Kenter Canyon drain and a 48-inch drain in 26th Street
from Colorado to Wilshire have been identified as deficient. According the City of Santa
Monica staff, there has been some flooding along Colorado A venue near the project site, which
may be an indication that the storm drain within Colorado A venue is deficient (Buol, 2003).
The project site is not within a 100-year flood zone.
The quality of the storm water draining into Santa Monica Bay is a concern in Santa Monica.
The City has implemented urban runoff control programs to reduce contaminants discharging
into Santa Monica Bay, including street sweeping and the regular cleaning of catch basins. An
Urban Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance (#1642) adopted in December 1992 requires various
pollution prevention practices by new and existing development in the City.
A primary concern regarding storm drains and their impact on the quality of water in Santa
Monica Bay is the pollutants carried by the drains into the Bay during the dry weather months.
The water in these flows, referred to as low-flow or dry weather flows, comes not from rain but
from over-irrigation, wash-down of private property, emptying of swimming pools,
groundwater inflow and infiltration, and other non-regulated discharges. Until recently, dry
weather flow was diverted to the Pico-Kenter drain, where it subsequently traveled to the
Hyperion Treatment Plant for treatment and was then discharged into Santa Monica Bay.
Santa Monica's Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF) went online in April 2001. With
operation of this new facility, approximately 500,000 gallons per day (gpd) of urban runoff
generated in parts of the cities of Santa Monica and Los Angeles is now treated by conventional
and advanced treatment systems at the SMURRF. Runoff water is diverted from the Pico-
Kenter and Pier Storm Drains into the SMURRF and treated to remove pollutants such as trash,
sediment, oil, grease, and pathogens. Treatment processes include coarse and fine screening to
remove trash and debris, dissolved air flotation to remove oil and grease, degritting systems to
remove sand and grit, micro-filtration to remove turbidity, and ultra-violet (UV) radiation to kill
pathogens. Once treated, the water is safe for all landscape irrigation and dual-plumbed
systems (buildings plumbed to accept recycled water for the flushing of toilets) as prescribed by
the California Department of Health Services. In this way, the amount of water flowing into
Santa Monica Bay is reduced. The amount of water that the City needs to purchase for
landscaping and irrigation is also reduced.
b. Groundwater. The Santa Monica Groundwater Basin lies on the northwestern
section of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles County. Groundwater flow within the Coastal Plain
is restricted by geologic structures such as faults that denote the edges of basins within the
rr
City of Santa Monica
4.3-1
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.3 Hydrology and Water Quality
Plain. The Coastal Plain consists of two major groundwater basins that are divided along a
northwest-southeast axis by the Newport-Inglewood fault: the West Basin and the Main
Coastal Basin. The West Basin is further divided into two sub-basins by the Ballona Gap, a
stream-cut erosional gap filled by fluvial deposits. The sub-basin north of the Ballona Gap,
known as the Santa Monica Basin, is further divided by faults into the Arcadia, Olympic,
Coastal (South Santa Monica), Charnock and Crestal sub-basins. The Santa Monica Basin is also
vertically segmented into multiple aquifers separated by zones of low-permeability sediment
(silts and clays). Groundwater is extracted from the upper aquifers, which consist of younger
marine sediments and the overlying alluvial deposits. The City operates ten wells in three
groundwater well fields in the Olympic, Charnock, and Arcadia Sub-Basins.
The primary sources of groundwater recharge into the Santa Monica Basin are direct infiltration
from precipitation in the basin and subsurface inflows from the Santa Monica Mountains, the
upper unconfined aquifer from the east, and the upper unconfined and lower San Pedro
formation from the south. Water is discharged from the basin via surface runoff,
envirotranspiration, and subsurface outflow to the south. Until 1995, the City had historically
used over 10,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of groundwater from local wells (City of Santa
Monica, Water Efficiency Strategic Plan, 2002).
There are three general areas of groundwater quality concern in the City: (1) salinity; (2)
volatile organic compounds (VOC); and (3) Methyl tertiary Butyl Ether (MtBE). The
degradation of groundwater quality from saltwater intrusion and the introduction of VOCs and
MtBE limits the ability to use groundwater resources in both the Charnock and Coastal sub-
basins. After the detection of MtBE in groundwater in 1995, the City's use of local groundwater
declined to about 2,900 AFY in 2000.
As part of the July 2000 Geotechnologies, Inc. geotechnical report for the project, five test
borings were conducted on the project site. All five borings encountered groundwater at
depths ranging from 42 to 42.5 feet below ground surface. The historic high groundwater level
at the site, as reported by Geotechnologies, Inc., is on the order of 35 feet below the ground
surface. This is a sufficient depth to preclude any short or long-term interaction between the
proposed construction and the groundwater table.
4.3.2 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. This evaluation is based on a review of
existing information that has been developed for the project site and other available regional
sources. An impact is considered significant if the project would:
. Substantially degrade water quality
. Contaminate a public water supply
. Cause substantial flooding or siltation
. Substantially alter surface flow conditions, patterns, or rates
. Substantially degrade or deplete groundwater resources
. Interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
rr
City of Santa Monica
4.3-2
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.3 Hydrology and Water Quality
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
Impact HWQ-1 Project construction would involve the excavation and
grading of onsite soils. This would potentially result in
topsoil loss and soil erosion, with temporary adverse
impacts to surface water quality. This is considered a Class
III, less than significant, impact.
The proposed project would involve the development of 18 residential buildings arranged
around three interior landscaped, grassy courtyards. The landscaping would be maintained by
the property owner and would provide stabilization for the underlying soil; therefore,
operational activities are not expected to result in significant soil erosion. However, excavation
and grading associated with project construction could result in the temporary erosion and
sedimentation of material on the site, with consequent temporary impacts to surface water
quality. As discussed previously, the project involves the removal of up to 13 feet of soils from
the site for the construction of a subterranean parking garage. This would necessitate
temporary onsite storage of excavated soils. During grading and soil storage, there is a
potential for soil migration off-site via wind and/ or water erosion.
The City of Santa Monica's Urban Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance (Municipal Code Section
7.10) requires standard erosion control practices to be implemented for all new construction in
the City. Requirements of the Ordinance include: the use of drainage controls such as down
drains, detention ponds, filter berms, or infiltration pits; removal of any sediment tracked offsite
within the same day that it is tracked; containment of polluted runoff onsite; use of plastic
covering to minimize erosion from exposed areas; and restrictions on the washing of
construction equipment. Additionally, the applicant would be required to prepare and
implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the construction site in
accordance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and subject to the oversight of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP
must include best management practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate erosion and
sedimentation of material on the site and must be available on the project site at all times.
Implementation of these standard requirements would ensure that construction-related water
quality impacts are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. Compliance with the City's Urban Runoff Pollution Control
Ordinance and the NPDES would ensure that temporary water quality impacts are less than
significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without
mitigation.
Impact HWQ-2 The proposed project would be expected to incrementally
reduce the amount of impervious surfaces onsite, which
would consequently result in a reduction in the amount of
storm water runoff generated onsite. This is considered a
Class III, less than significant, impact.
rr
City of Santa Monica
4.3-3
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.3 Hydrology and Water Quality
The existing land use at the project site is light industrial and manufacturing, with almost 100%
of the site covered by impervious surfaces. In contrast, the proposed project is a residential
complex comprising 18 separate buildings with associated landscaping and green areas.
Development of the project would cover about 43% of the site with impervious surfaces. As
such, the amount of runoff that leaves the site as storm water would decrease due to the
increased potential for infiltration of storm water. Using a simplified rational approach for
runoff estimation, it is estimated that the project would reduce storm water flow leaving the site
by 20% to 25% as compared to the current condition (see Appendix C). Therefore, the project
would actually reduce offsite storm water flows and would not adversely affect the local storm
drain system.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required.
Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without
mitigation.
Impact HWQ-3 The proposed project could contribute urban pollutants to
runoff leaving the site, which could result in decreased
water quality offsite. However, the project is expected to
generate fewer pollutants than the current land use on the
site; therefore, this is considered a Class III, less than
significant, impact.
The current on site land uses include auto repair facilities, a paint shop, a general contractor, and
other businesses that potentially use industrial solvents and other chemicals. Long-term surface
water quality of runoff from the project site would be expected to improve with the removal of
these facilities and replacement with residential structures and associated landscaping. In
addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City's Urban Runoff
Pollution Control Ordinance, which outlines good housekeeping practices for all developments
in the City and runoff control requirements for all new development. Good housekeeping
practices include: (1) collection, storage, and minimization of urban runoff; (2) maintenance of
equipment; (3) removal of debris; and (4) prohibition of the use of any pesticides and fungicides
that are banned by the US Environmental Protection Agency. As part of the runoff control
requirements for new developments, all new developments in the City must prepare an Urban
Runoff Mitigation Plan that must address one or more of the following goals: (1) maximization
of permeable areas for infiltration of runoff; (2) maximization of the amount of runoff directed
toward permeable areas or stored for reuse; and (3) removal of pollutants through installation
of treatment control BMPs. Compliance with the City's Urban Runoff Pollution Control
Ordinance would ensure that the project does not adversely affect offsite water quality.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required.
Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without
mitigation.
c. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project, in conjunction with other cumulative
projects proposed in the City of Santa Monica, would add approximately three million square
feet of non-residential development and about 900 residential units (see Table 3-1 in Section 3.0,
rr
City of Santa Monica
4.3-4
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.3 Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Setting). This would potentially increase the amount of impervious surface area
within the City as the intensity of development increases. Cumulative development has the
potential to reduce surface water quality during construction, and could increase storm water
runoff and decrease groundwater infiltration due to increased imperviousness. Compliance
with federal requirements, including development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
for project construction, and adherence to the City of Santa Monica's Urban Runoff Pollution
Control Ordinance for construction and operation of new developments, would be expected to
mitigate these potential cumulative impacts by requiring on site detention, treatment, or other
best management practices for controlling urban runoff.
rr
City of Santa Monica
4.3-5
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.4 Noise
4.4 NOISE
4.4.1 Setting
a. Overview of Sound Measurement. Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in
decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an
adjustment to the actual sound power levels to be consistent with that of human hearing
response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz (about the highest note on a
piano) and less sensitive to low frequencies (below 100 Hertz).
The sound pressure level is measured on a logarithmic scale with the 0 dB level based on the
lowest detectable sound pressure level that people can perceive (an audible sound that is not
zero sound pressure level). Based on the logarithmic scale, a doubling of sound energy is
equivalent to an increase of 3 dB and a sound that is 10 dB less than the ambient sound level has
no effect on ambient noise. Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound must be about 10
dB greater than the reference sound to be judged as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dB change in
community noise levels is noticeable, while 1-2 dB changes generally are not perceived. Quiet
suburban areas typically have noise levels in the range of 40-50 dBA, while those along arterial
streets are in the 50-60+ dBA range. Normal conversational levels are in the 60-65 dBA range,
and ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA can interrupt conversations.
Noise levels typically attenuate (or drop off) at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from
point sources such as industrial machinery. Noise from lightly traveled roads typically
attenuates at a rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from heavily traveled
roads typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance.
In addition to the actual instantaneous measurement of sound levels, the duration of sound is
important since sounds that occur over a long period of time are more likely to be an annoyance
or cause direct physical damage or environmental stress. One of the most frequently used noise
metrics that considers both duration and sound power level is the equivalent noise level (Leq).
The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount
of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the
average noise level). Typically, Leq is summed over a one-hour period.
The actual time period in which noise occurs is also important since noise that occurs at night
tends to be more disturbing than that which occurs during the daytime. Two commonly used
noise metrics - the Day-Night average level (Ldn) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL) - recognize this fact by weighting hourly Leqs over a 24-hour period. The Ldn is a 24-
hour average noise level that adds 10 dB to actual nighttime (10 PM to 7 AM) noise levels to
account for the greater sensitivity to noise during that time period. The CNEL is identical to the
Ldn, except it also adds a 5 dB penalty for noise occurring during the evening (7 PM to 10 PM).
b. Sensitive Receptors. Noise exposure goals for different land uses reflect the varying
noise sensitivities associated with those uses. Residences, hospitals, schools, guest lodging, and
libraries are most sensitive to noise intrusion and therefore have more stringent noise exposure
targets than manufacturing or agricultural uses that are not subject to impacts such as sleep
disturbance. Potentially noise-sensitive land uses near the proposed project site include the
r
City of Santa Monica
4.4-1
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.4 Noise
single-family residences across Colorado A venue from the project site and a satellite branch of
Santa Monica College on Stewart Street.
c. Regulatory Setting. The City of Santa Monica adopted an updated General Plan
Noise Element in 1992. The Noise Element was updated to provide a description of existing
and projected future noise levels, and to incorporate comprehensive goals, policies, and
implementing actions. The City revised its Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code S 4.12) in July
1992 to support the goals and policies of the Noise Element. Consistent with the Noise Element,
Section 4320 of the revised Noise Ordinance requires that noise mitigation measures be
followed in the siting and design of new development. The Noise Element also includes a Land
Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix, shown on Figure 4.4-1, which identifies the compatibility of
different land uses with a range of noise levels, from less than 55 dBA CNEL to over 80 dBA
CNEL. For example, residential uses are considered compatible with mitigation in noise
environments up to 70 dBA CNEL, while schools are considered compatible with mitigation in
environments with noise levels up to 65 dBA.
The Noise Ordinance prohibits any unnecessary, excessive, or annoying noise in the City. The
Ordinance does not control traffic noise, but applies to all noise sources located on private
property. As part of this ordinance, properties within the City are assigned a noise zone based
on their corresponding zoning district. Residential districts are designated as Noise Zone I;
commercial districts are designated Noise Zone II; and manufacturing or industrial districts are
designated as Noise Zone III. The Ordinance also limits the amount of noise generated by uses
during normal operation that may affect the surrounding areas. Table 4.4-1 shows the
allowable noise levels and corresponding times of day for each of the three identified noise
zones. The project site is within Zone III.
Table 4.4-1 Exterior Noise Standards for
Onsite Noise Sources
Time Period ZONE I ZONE II ZONE III
Monday through Friday
7 AM to 10 PM 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA
10 PM to 7 AM 50 dBA 60 dBA 70 dBA
Saturday and Sunday
8 AM to 10 PM 60 dBA -- * 70 dBA
10 PM to 8 AM 50 dBA -- * 70 dBA
*These noise levels and time periods apply to all days of the week.
Source: City of Santa Monica Municipal Code 9 4. 12.050(a).
The noise standards shown in Table 4.4-1 apply to any noise-generating activity that exceeds
the applicable level for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any half-hour. The
standards plus 20 dB (i.e., 90 dBA for Zone III) apply to maximum instantaneous noises
occurring for any period of time.
It should be noted that the City is currently in the process of updating the Noise Ordinance.
The revised Noise Ordinance went to the City Council for approval in July 2003, but has been
continued until the November Council meeting. If the revised Ordinance is approved, it will go
into effect in late 2003 or early 2004. The proposed project would be required to comply with
r
City of Santa Monica
4.4-2
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.4 Noise
Proposed land Use Categories Compatible land Use Zones (in CNEl)
Categories Uses <60 60-65 >65
RESI DENTIAl Single Family, Duplex, A B B
Multiple Family
RESI DENTIAl Mobile Home A B C
COMMERCIAL Hotel, Motel, Transient lodging A B B
Regional, District
COMMERCIAL Commercial Retail, Bank, A A A
Regional, Village Restaurant, Movie Theater
District, Special
COMMERCIAL Office Building, Research A A B
INDUSTRIAL and Development, Professional
I NSTITUTI ONAl Ofiices
COMMERCIAL Amphitheater, Concert Hall, B C C
Recreation Auditorium, Meeting Hall
I NSTITUTI ONAl
Civic Center
COMMERCIAL Children's Amusement Park, A A B
Recreation Miniature Golf Course, Sports
Club
COMMERCIAL Automobile Service Station, Auto A A A
General, Special Dealership
INDUSTRIAL, INSTITUTIONAL Manufacturing, Warehousing,
Wholesale, Utilities
I NSTITUTI ONAl Hospital, Church, Library, A B C
General Schools' Classroom, Day Care
OPEN SPACE Parks A A B
OPEN SPACE Golf Course, Cemeteries, A A A
Nature Centers
ZONE A - Clearly Compatible: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved
are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.
ZONE B - Compatible with Mitigation: New construction or development (i.e., substantial remodels and additions
representing 50% or more of existing square footage, including garage square footage), should be undertaken
only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise insulation features
in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems
on air conditioning, will normally suffice. Note that residential uses are prohibited with Airport CNEl
greater than 65.
ZONE C - Normally Incompatible: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new
construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made.
Source City of Santa Monica Planning and Zoning Division, May 1995.
Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix
Figure 4.4-1
City of Santa Monica
r"
4.4-3
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.4 Noise
the most current approved version of the Noise Ordinance at the time that project approval is
granted.
d. Existing Noise Conditions and Sources. The most common sources of noise in the project
vicinity are transportation-related, such as automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles. Motor vehicle
noise is of concern because it is characterized by a high number of individual events, which
often create a sustained noise level, and because of its proximity to areas sensitive to noise
exposure. The primary sources of roadway noise near the project site are Colorado A venue and
Stewart Street. A weekday morning noise measurement taken from the sidewalk on Stewart
Street near the project site in July 2003 indicated a noise level of 63.8 dBA Leq.
4.4.2 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Noise levels associated with existing
and future traffic along Stewart Street were calculated using the California Vehicle Noise
Emission Levels (Caltrans, January 1987) and standard noise modeling equations adapted from
the Federal Highway Administration noise prediction model (see Appendix D for calculations).
The model calculations are based on traffic data from the EIR traffic study (see Appendix E).
For traffic-related noise, impacts are considered significant if project-generated traffic results in
exposure of sensitive receptors to unacceptable noise levels. Where existing noise levels
currently exceed the normally acceptable level, the project's impact would be significant if
project-related noise would generate an audible (3 dBA or greater) change in noise levels.
Impacts relating to onsite activities are considered significant when project-related activities
create noise exceeding the standards as identified by the applicable noise zone for the project
site.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
Impact N-1 Project-generated traffic would incrementally increase noise
levels on Stewart Street and Colorado Avenue. However, the
change in noise levels would be inaudible. Therefore, the effect
of increased traffic noise on off-site sensitive receptors is
considered a Class III, less than significant, impact.
Development of the proposed project would increase the amount of vehicle trips to and from
the site, which has the potential to generate an increase in traffic noise on area roadways. The
project could therefore increase noise at neighboring noise-sensitive uses, such as the existing
residences along Colorado Avenue and the nearby satellite campus of Santa Monica College.
Estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) values from the traffic study were used to model the
change in noise level resulting from increased traffic on Stewart Street and Colorado Avenue.
As shown in Table 4.4-2, model results indicate that the noise level along Stewart Street is
currently about 65.7 dBA CNEL. This is slightly higher than the actual measured level at
Stewart Street. The modeled noise level along Colorado is 65.0 dBA CNEL. The increase in
noise due to project-related traffic on both streets is estimated at 0.2 dBA CNEL, which would
not be audible. Therefore, project-generated traffic would not significantly affect noise in the
project area. It should be noted that although the project would not significantly increase noise
r
City of Santa Monica
4.4-4
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.4 Noise
levels in the project area, the future noise environments on both roadways would exceed the
compatibility guidelines for schools.
Table 4.4-2 Noise Levels Associated with Traffic
on Area Roadways* (dBA CNEL)
Existing + Existing + Existing + Project Cumulative
Roadway Existing Cumulative +
Project Cumulative Project Change Change
Stewart Street between 65.7 65.9 66.3 66.5 0.2 0.8
Colorado and Nebraska
Colorado Avenue between 65.0 65.2 66.1 66.3 0.2 1.3
Harvard and Yale Streets
* At a distance of 50 feet from roadway centerline.
See Appendix 0 for calculations.
Mitigation Measures. Mitigation is not required.
Significance After Mitigation. The project's impact to traffic noise levels on Stewart
Street and Colorado A venue would be less than significant without mitigation.
Impact N-2 Operation of the proposed project would generate noise levels
that may periodically be audible to sensitive receptors near the
project site. However, noise levels are not expected to exceed
the City's noise ordinance standards. This is considered a Class
III, less than significant, impact.
Sensitive receptors near the project site may periodically hear noises associated with operation
of the proposed project, including noise that is typical of residential developments such as
music, conversations, doors slamming, children playing, etc. However, noise from onsite
activities would generally be lower than the existing traffic noise levels in the area and would
not be expected to exceed the City's Noise Ordinance standards. Consequently, impacts would
not be significant. Furthermore, the proposed residential use would replace the existing onsite
light industrial uses, which typically generate higher noise levels. Thus, the project would
actually be expected to result in an overall reduction in onsite noise generation.
Noise associated with parking lot activity, such as slamming car doors and squealing tires, is
also common at residential developments. However, parking lot noise from the proposed
project would not be audible, as the parking garage would be contained on a subterranean level
beneath the proposed buildings. Therefore, operational noise associated with project-related
activities would not be significant.
Mitigation Measures. Mitigation is not required.
Significance After Mitigation. The project's impact to traffic noise levels on the site and
at nearby sensitive receptors would be less than significant without mitigation.
c. Cumulative Impacts. The traffic noise impacts associated with cumulative
development within the City, which would add approximately three million square feet of non-
r
City of Santa Monica
4.4-5
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.4 Noise
residential development and about 900 residential units, would incrementally increase noise
levels along roadways and could potentially subject sensitive receptors to noise exceeding City
standards. As shown in Table 4.4-2 above, the estimated noise increase resulting from
cumulative development in the City would be less than 3.0 dB and would not be audible.
Cumulative development would be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance, which
restricts the level of noise that can be generated on a property according to its designated noise
zone. Compliance with the Noise Ordinance would ensure an acceptable noise environment for
City residents.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.4-6
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.5 TransportationlTraffic
4.5 TRANSPORT A TIONfIRAFFI C
4.5.1 Setting
a. Existing Street System. The project site is located at the southeast corner of Stewart
Street and Colorado Avenue in the eastern portion of the City of Santa Monica. Regional access
to the project site is provided by the Santa Monica Freeway (1-10) and the San Diego Freeway (1-
405). The Santa Monica Freeway, located about one-half mile south of the project site, provides
east-west access across Santa Monica and to the City of Los Angeles to the east. The San Diego
Freeway is located about one mile east of the project site and provides north-south access
through the region, connecting the Westside with the San Fernando Valley to the north and the
South Bay area to the south.
Access to and from the Santa Monica Freeway is primarily provided by the Centinela A venue
interchange. Other interchanges in the vicinity are located at Bundy Drive, Cloverfield
Boulevard, and 20th Street. Access to and from the San Diego Freeway is available either via the
Santa Monica Freeway or directly via the Santa Monica Boulevard and Olympic
Boulevard/Pico Boulevard interchanges on the San Diego Freeway.
Arterial streets carry the majority of traffic traveling through the City and are generally
commercial corridors. Arterial streets within the study area include Santa Monica Boulevard,
Olympic Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, Cloverfield Boulevard, Colorado Avenue (west of
Cloverfield Boulevard), and 26th Street. Collector streets are intended to provide movement of
traffic between arterials and neighborhoods. Within the study area, collector streets include
Broadway and Stewart Street.
b. Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service. Seventeen intersections were
chosen for analysis for the proposed project. Figure 4.5-1 shows the location of each of the
studied intersections in relation to the project site. Traffic volume count information for the
morning and evening peak periods for typical weekdays for 15 of the 17 intersections was
collected by the City in October and November 2002. Base traffic data for the intersection of
Centinela Avenue and Nebraska Avenue was collected in October 2002, while new traffic
counts were conducted in July 2003 for the intersection of Yale Street and Colorado A venue.
Figure 4.5-2 illustrates the existing weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the 17
study area intersections.
Table 4.5-1 summarizes the existing weekday AM and PM peak hour level of service (LOS) at
each of the analyzed intersections. The methodology used to determine existing intersection
operation conditions is described in Section 4.5.2a. As shown in Table 4.5-1, all but five of the
17 analyzed intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during the weekday AM and PM
peak hours.
Neighborhood Street Segments. Existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on six
street segments in the project vicinity were collected in November 2002 and July 2003 for a
typical weekday. The following street segments were analyzed:
· Princeton Street, north of Colorado Avenue
· Harvard Street, north of Colorado Avenue
r
City of Santa Monica
4.5-1
~!
,....., III
I 0
~ 'i::
"1" 0
(l) :iE
;..., ,l!!
~~
~~
o
~
U
cO
Q)
l-l
<r::
:>-.
""d
;::i
-I-'
Cf)
~ N
~ ..0
0 '<t
''''';
-I-'
cO
U
0
~
-I-'
U
Q)
'0'
(/) l-l
C p...,
0)
E
0)
0)
U)
"'0 ~\
0)-
NU)
:>. :>.
- "'0
co ~
c _
<(U)
0 e.
0:: it: "-
W III
...
t5 I- '"
Q) "2 <>
.~ 0 <>
o ,_ '"
~ - ~
0... III
- "
Q) ... ....,
::l 0 of
c Co ~
Q) II) .S1
~ c '-'
III 0
o ... ~
-01- <(
~ :::>
:.:
0 ~
0
0 Q;
'<t ~ ~
C"0 "
OJ 0
N CI)
o
O::iE
- III
w...
01::
Q) r:::
B,Q
0:10
-
Q) ...
::l 0
C Co
Q) II)
> r:::
<( ~
01-
-0
roll)
o..,f
or:::
o 0
"'=f":.i:I
C'0 0
OJ Q)
N(/)
~~
~;
~
~t\
'0\
'l,~
....
::J
o
~~~
-
i:I5~
Oe:..
~
"0' :2
c: <(
~~
N III
I 0
~ 'i::
"1" 0
(l) :iE
;..., ,l!J
5b~
..... CI)
~'C5
~
U
rJ)
Q)
S
;::i
......-l
o
>
u
''''';
'4-;
'4-;
cO
;....
~
;....
;::i
o
~
~
cO
Q)
p...,
be
~
''''';
-I-'
rJ)
''''';
><
~
C'0
u1
'<t
'"
<>
<>
'"
<-
'"
...,
~~
co
"g
'"
'"
<(
:::>
:.:
~
Q;~
~
'"
o
CI)
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.5 TransportationlTraffic
Table 4.5-1 Existing City of Santa Monica Intersection Level of
Service Conditions
Intersection Peak Hour Existing Conditions
V/C Delay* LOS
1. Cloverfield Blvd & Colorado AM 0.725 26 C
Avenue PM 0.743 28 C
2. Cloverfield Blvd & Olympic AM 0.918 37 0
Blvd PM 0.903 38 0
3. 26th Street & Santa Monica AM 0.923 26 C
Blvd PM 0.966 26 C
4. 26th Street & Broadway AM 0.640 16 B
PM 0.687 17 B
5. 26th Street & Colorado AM 0.558 15 B
Avenue PM 0.675 16 B
6. 26th Street & Olympic Blvd AM 0.776 27 C
PM 0.830 29 C
7. Yale Street & Santa Monica AM 0.558 11 B
Blvd PM 0.795 19 B
8. Yale Street & Broadway [1] AM 0.650 14 B
PM 0.969 36 E
9. Yale Street & Colorado AM N/A 3 A
Avenue [2] PM N/A 2 A
[worst approach only] AM N/A 18 C
[worst approach only] PM N/A 18 C
10. Stewart Street & Colorado AM 0.650 17 B
Avenue PM 1.093 42 0
11. Stewart Street & Olympic AM 0.972 30 C
Blvd PM 1.087 60 E
12. Stewart Street & Pico Blvd AM 0.734 13 B
PM 0.891 19 B
13. Centinela Avenue & Santa AM 1.006 39 0
Monica Blvd PM 0.383 ** F
14. Centinela Avenue & AM 0.521 12 B
Broadway PM 0.831 20 B
15. Centinela Avenue & AM 0.683 17 B
Colorado Avenue PM 1.282 79 E
16. Centinela Avenue & AM N/A 5 A
Nebraska Avenue [2] PM N/A ** F
[worst approach only] AM N/A 54 F
[worst approach only] PM N/A ** F
17. Centinela Avenue (west) & AM 0.703 11 B
Olympic Blvd PM 0.924 22 C
* Average stopped delay per vehicle in seconds.
** Indicates oversaturated conditions. Delay cannot be calculated.
[1J Intersection is controlled by stop signs on all approaches.
[2J Intersection is controlled by stop signs on the minor approaches.
Source: Kaku Associates, Traffic Study for the 2834 Colorado Apartment Project Environmental
Impact Report, July 2003.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.5-4
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.5 TransportationlTraffic
· Yale Street, north of Colorado Avenue
· Stanford Street, north of Colorado Avenue
. Nebraska Avenue, between Stewart Street & Centinela Avenue
. Stewart Street, between Exposition Boulevard & Virginia Avenue (collector street)
The existing average daily traffic volumes for each of the above street segments are shown in
Table 4.5-2.
Table 4.5-2 Weekday Neighborhood Traffic Volumes
Location Street Existing (2003)
Classification ADT
Princeton Street
north of Colorado Local 873
Harvard Street
north of Colorado Local 1,075
Yale Street
north of Colorado Local 3,382
Stanford Street
north of Colorado Local 2,149
Nebraska Avenue
west of Franklin Local 4,291
Stewart Street
between Exposition Blvd. & Virginia Ave. Collector 8,618
c. Existing Public Transit Service. The project site is served by public transportation
facilities, consisting primarily of bus service from the Santa Monica Big Blue Bus and the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The bus routes operating in
the study area are described below.
. Big Blue Bus Line 1 (Santa Monica Boulevard) - Line 1 runs from Venice
Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard through downtown Santa Monica to UCLA.
Line 1 operates on Santa Monica Boulevard within the study area, about one-half
mile from the project site.
. Big Blue Bus Line 2 (Wilshire Boulevard/Venice Boulevard) - Line 2 runs from
Venice High School through downtown Santa Monica to UCLA via Wilshire
Boulevard. In the vicinity of the project site, Line 2 provides service along Wilshire
Boulevard.
. Big Blue Bus Line 5 (Olympic BoulevarcVCentury City) - Line 5 runs from
downtown Santa Monica to Century City and the Rimpau Transit Center via
Colorado Avenue, Olympic Boulevard, and Pico Boulevard. Within the study area,
Line 5 operates on Olympic Boulevard adjacent to the project site. Service headways
of about 20 minutes are provided during weekday peak periods and about 30 minutes
during weekday off-peak periods and on weekends.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.5-5
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.5 TransportationlTraffic
. Big Blue Bus Line 7 (Pico Boulevard) - Line 7 runs from Downtown Santa
Monica to the Rimpau Transit Center via Pico Boulevard. Line 7 operates on Pico
Boulevard within the study area, about one-half mile south of the project site.
. Big Blue Bus Line 10 (Santa Monica Freeway Express) - Line 10 runs from
Ocean Park through downtown Santa Monica to downtown Los Angeles. In the
vicinity of the project site, Line 10 operates on Santa Monica Boulevard west of
Bundy Drive and on Bundy Drive between Santa Monica Boulevard and the Santa
Monica Freeway.
. Big Blue Bus Line 11 (14th Street/20th Street Crosstown) - Line 11 provides
service in a clockwise loop along 20th Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, 17th Street, Pearl
Street, 14th Street, and Montana Avenue. Within the study area, Line 11 operates on
20th Street.
. MTA Lines 4 and 304 - Lines 4 and 304 run from downtown Santa Monica to
downtown Los Angeles via Santa Monica Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard. Line 4
provides local service, while Line 304 provides peak period limited-stop service.
These lines operate on Santa Monica Boulevard within the study area, about one-half
mile north of the project site.
. MTA Line 20 - Line 20 provides local service between Colorado Avenue and Ocean
Avenue in Santa Monica and downtown Los Angeles via Wilshire Boulevard. This
line operates on Wilshire Boulevard within the study area.
. MTA Line 720 - Line 720, the Metro Rapid bus, provides limited-stop service
between Ocean Avenue/Colorado Avenue in Santa Monica, downtown Los Angeles,
and East Los AngelesjMontebello via Wilshire Boulevard and Whittier Boulevard.
This line operates on Wilshire Boulevard in the study area.
4.5.2 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. To evaluate the potential impacts of the
proposed project on the street system, estimates of future traffic conditions in the project area
both with and without project-generated traffic were developed. Estimates of traffic growth
were first developed for the study area to forecast future conditions without the project. These
forecasts include traffic increases due to both general regional growth as well as traffic that
would be generated by other specific developments in the vicinity of the project (referred to as
"related projects"), through Year 2012. These projected traffic volumes represent the
Cumulative Base conditions. The amount of traffic generated by the proposed project was then
estimated and separately assigned to the surrounding street system. The sum of the
Cumulative Base and project-generated traffic represents the Cumulative plus Project
conditions. Details of the assumptions and methodologies used to develop each of these future
traffic scenarios during weekday AM and PM peak hours are described in Appendix E.
Intersection Operation. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to describe
the condition of traffic flow, ranging from excellent conditions at LOS A to overload conditions
at LOS F. In accordance with policies established by the City of Santa Monica, the "Operational
r
City of Santa Monica
4.5-6
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.5 TransportationlTraffic
Analysis" method from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board,
2000) was used to perform the intersection level of service analyses for each of the 14 signalized
study intersections. The remaining three unsignalized intersections were evaluated using stop-
controlled methodologies from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Table 4.5-3 provides the LOS
definitions under the HCM method for signalized intersections, while Table 4.5-4 provides LOS
definitions under the HCM method for unsignalized intersections.
Table 4.5-3 Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections
(HCM Method)
Average Stopped
Delay per Vehicle
Level of Service (seconds) Definition
A ::::10.0 EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red
light and no approach phase is fully used.
B >10.0 and ::::20.0 VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully
utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat
restricted within groups of vehicles.
C >20.0 and ::::35.0 GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait
through more than one red light; backups may develop
behind turning vehicles.
0 >35.0 and ::::55.0 FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of
the rush hours, but enough lower volume periods
occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing
excessive backups.
E >55.0 and ::::80.0 POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection
approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of
waiting vehicles through several signal cycles.
F >80.0 FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross
streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles
out of the intersection approaches. Tremendous
delays with continuously increasing queue lengths.
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.
Table 4.5-4 Level of Service Definitions for
Stop-Controlled Intersections (HCM Method)
Level of Service Average Stopped Delay Per
Vehicle (seconds)
A ::::10.0
B >10.0 and ::::15.0
C >15.0 and ::::25.0
0 >25.0 and ::::35.0
E >35.0 and ::::50.0
F >50.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual,
2000.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.5-7
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.5 TransportationlTraffic
The "Operational Analysis" method from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) determines the
average control delay incurred per vehicle and the volume to capacity (V /e) ratio. These
characteristics are based on the amount of traffic traveling through the intersection, the travel
lane geometries, and other factors affecting capacity, such as on-street parking, bus operations
near the intersection, and pedestrian volumes at the street crosswalks. The average stopped
delay per vehicle and the V /C ratio are used to evaluate the operational effectiveness of each
intersection, which is described generally in terms of level of service.
Intersection Operation Thresholds. The City of Santa Monica has designated LOS D as
the minimum acceptable level of service at arterial intersections and LOS C as the minimum
acceptable level of service at collector intersections. The City has also established significance
criteria for assessing the level of significance of project-related impacts on the operating
condition of intersections. The significance criteria vary depending upon whether the subject
intersection is on an arterial or collector street and upon the projected base operating condition
prior to the addition of project traffic. The potential significance of a proposed project's impact
is measured by either a change in the LOS to an unacceptable condition or the change in the
average vehicular delay depending on the base LOS. However, if the base LOS is F, significance
is defined in terms of a change in V /C ratio (as calculated by the HCM operational method).
This difference in methodology is due to the fact that average vehicular delay cannot be
calculated using the HCM operational method if the intersection exhibits over-saturated
conditions.
Using the criteria identified in Table 4.5-5 below for the City of Santa Monica, a project's impact
at an intersection would not be considered significant if, for example, it is an arterial
intersection operating at LOS D both with and without the addition of project traffic and the
incremental change in the average vehicle delay is less than 15 seconds. However, if the
intersection is operating at LOS E after the addition of project traffic and the average vehicle
delay increases by any amount, the project impact is considered significant. All impacts in LOS
F are based on the V /C ratio, with project-related increases of 0.005 or greater considered
significant.
Table 4.5-5 City of Santa Monica Significant Impact Criteria
Future Base Scenario Future Plus Project Scenario
If LOS = A, 8, or C Significant I mpact If:
and is a collector street intersection Average vehicle delay increase is ~ 15
seconds or LOS becomes 0, E, or F
and is an arterial intersection Average vehicle delay is ~ 15 seconds or
LOS becomes E or F
If LOS = 0 Significant I mpact If:
and is a collector street intersection Average vehicle delay increases by any
amount
and is an arterial intersection Average vehicle delay increase is ~ 15
seconds or LOS becomes E or F
If LOS = E Significant I mpact If:
and is a collector or arterial intersection Average vehicle delay increases by any
amount
If LOS = F Significant Impact If:
and is a collector or arterial intersection HCM V/C ratio net increase is ~ 0.005
r
City of Santa Monica
4.5-8
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.5 TransportationlTraffic
Neighborhood Street Segment Thresholds. The City of Santa Monica impact criteria
applied to evaluate potential traffic impacts on street segments are based on the existing ADT and
the level of increase that can be attributed to the project. The significant impact criteria for
collector, feeder, and local streets are provided in Table 4.5-6.
Table 4.5-6 City of Santa Monica Significant Impact Criteria
Collector, Feeder, and Local Streets
COLLECTOR STREETS
Greater than 13,500 and there is a net increase* of one trip or more in
A transportation impact is ADT due to project related traffic
significant if the Base Average Greater than 7,500 but less than 13,500 and the project related traffic
Daily Traffic Volume (ADT) is: increases* the ADT by 12.5% or the ADT becomes 13,500 or more
Less than 7,500 and the project related traffic increases* the ADT by 25%
FEEDER STREETS
Greater than 6,750 and there is a net increase* of one trip or more in
A transportation impact is ADT due to project related traffic
significant if the Base Average Greater than 3,750 but less than 6,750 and the project related traffic
Daily Traffic Volume (ADT) is: increases* the ADT by 12.5% or the ADT becomes 6,750 or more
Less than 3,750 and the project related traffic increases* the ADT by 25%
LOCAL STREETS
Greater than 2,250 and there is a net increase* of one trip or more in
A transportation impact is ADT due to project related traffic
significant if the Base Average Greater than 1,250 but less than 2,250 and the project related traffic
Daily Traffic Volume (ADT) is: increases* the ADT by 12.5% or the ADT becomes 2,250 or more
Less than 1,250 and the project related traffic increases* the ADT by 25%
* Average Daily Traffic Volume "increase" denotes adverse impacts; "decrease" denotes beneficial impacts.
Parking Impact Thresholds. Significant impacts to parking supply would occur if: a) the
proposed project does not meet the City code requirements for on-site parking; or b) the
proposed project would result in a deficiency in parking in the project vicinity that could not be
accommodated by surplus available parking.
Congestion Management Plan Traffic Impact Criteria. The CMP traffic impact analysis
guidelines indicate that a significant project impact occurs when the following threshold is
exceeded:
. The increase in traffic demand generated by a proposed project at a monitoring intersection
exceeds 2 percent, i.e., the increase in the V /C ratio is equal or greater than 0.02 with the
addition of project traffic, causing or worsening LOS F conditions (i.e., the V /C ratio is
greater than 1.00 with the addition of project traffic).
r
City of Santa Monica
4.5-9
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.5 TransportationlTraffic
These criteria are based on an intersection capacity analysis methodology that computes
volume-to-capacity ratios using an overall intersection capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour per
lane and by adding a factor of 0.10 for vehicle clearance.
b. Project and Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
Impact T-1 The proposed project would generate approximately 771 net
average daily trips during the weekday. The increase in vehicles
traveling on the surrounding roadway network would result in a
Class II, significant but mitigable, impact to one intersection in the
project vicinity, and a Class I, significant and unavoidable, impact
to three intersections.
As shown in Table 4.5-7, the proposed project would generate approximately 771 new net daily
trips on a typical weekday, of which approximately 57 would occur in the AM peak hour and 70
would occur in the PM peak hour. Figure 4.5-3 shows the project-added peak hour traffic
volumes. The methodology used to determine the weekday trip generation rate for the
proposed project is included in Appendix E. The project-generated traffic estimate accounts for
the trips currently generated by the existing light industrial uses on the site, which are
estimated at 190 trips per day.
Table 4.5-7 Trip Generation Estimates
Daily Trip AM Peak PM Peak
Land Use Size Generation Rate Daily Trips Hour Trips Hour Trips
[a]
New Use: 145 units 6.63 per unit 961 74 90
Apartment Units
Existing Use: 38,400 sf 4.96 per 1,000 sf 190 17 20
-20 Businesses [b]
Net New Trips 771 57 70
sf = square feet
a. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, 1997.
b. Lot is currently occupied by two rows of warehouse buildings with approximately 20 businesses, including general
contractors, auto repair facilities, cabinet, welding, and machine shops, arts and crafts shop, and a firearms shop.
38,400 sf assumes half of 120' x 640' lot is occupied by single-story buildings.
Growth in traffic is expected to occur in the area regardless of whether or not the proposed
project is approved. Consequently, a projection of future traffic volumes without the project is
used as the baseline against which the project's impacts are compared. For the proposed
project, this "Cumulative Base" consists of the projected traffic volumes in the year 2012. The
Cumulative Base traffic conditions without the proposed project for the morning and evening
peak hour on weekdays are shown in Figure 4.5-4. The Cumulative Plus Project peak hour
traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4.5-5.
Nine of the 17 study area intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS
E or F) during one or both of the weekday peak periods under Cumulative Base conditions,
without implementation of the project. The intersections that would operate at unacceptable
conditions are listed below:
r
City of Santa Monica
4.5-10
CJ
Cl:::E
- III
LlJ ...
~I-
u_
Q) c:
.0' .Q
0:1ii
-
Q) ...
::J 0
C c..
Q) 1Il
> c:
<( E!
01-
-0
CIlLn
'- .
O'l:t
(5 c:
U 0
'I:t:;:;
C") CJ
00 Q)
NCJ)
~~
~
~t\
~4
~~
R
L...
::l
o
2~~
U5 ~
o 0...
Q) ~
"O~
~ 0: ~
w
~~~
cD ~
I ._
If) s::
. 0
"'i':e
Q) III
l-< _
;:J s::
00 III
...... CI)
j:.L.,....
o
~
is
[/)
Q)
S
;::l
......-l
o
>
u
''''';
~
l-i
~
l-i
;::l
o
~
~
Q)
p..,
>-,
~
q
.........
U
Q)
'0'
l-i
p..,
..--
..--
.;.,
'I:t
~
CJ
O:::E
- III
LlJ ...
~I-
u_
Q) c:
.~ 0
0._
'--
0... III
-
Q) ...
::J 0
C c..
Q) 1Il
> c:
<( E!
01-
-0
CIlLn
'- .
O'l:t
(5 c:
U 0
'I:t:;:;
C") CJ
00 Q)
NCJ)
~!
~
-~\
.....
:J
o
ID~~
.............
W:i'
t) D-
ID __
'0' ::!E
CI .... <(
Z D-
W, . I
C> ~i~
UJ. ._
-I.. .::t:t
"'i' ~
I ._
If) s::
. 0
"'i':e
Q) III
l-< _
;:J s::
00 III
...... CI)
j:.L.,....
o
~
is
[/)
Q)
S
;::l
......-l
o
>
u
''''';
I...!-<
~
l-i
~
l-i
;::l
o
~
~
(Ii
Q)
p..,
Q)
[/)
(Ii
~
Q)
:>
''''';
.........
(Ii
......-l
;::l
S
;::l
u
N
..--
o
'I:t
~
CJ
O:::E
- III
LlJ ...
~I-
u_
Q) c:
.~ 0
0._
'--
0... III
-
Q) ...
::J 0
C c..
Q) 1Il
> c:
<( E!
01-
-0
CIlLn
'- .
O'l:t
(5 c:
U 0
'I:t:;:;
C") CJ
00 Q)
NCJ)
~)!
~
~"\
j!il.
W:i'
t) Cl.
Q) --
Cl .~ :!
z Cl. <(
~~~
~..~~
If) III
I (,)
If) .1:
. 0
"'i':e
~ ,5
;:J s::
.~~
~'O
~
is
[/)
Q)
S
;::l
......-l
o
>
u
''''';
tt::
(Ii
l-i
~
l-i
;::l
o
~
~
Q)
p..,
.........
U
Q)
'0'
l-i
p..,
[/)
;::l
......-l
p..,
Q)
:>
''''';
.........
(Ii
......-l
;::l
S
;::l
u
C")
..--
o
'I:t
~
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.5 TransportationlTraffic
1. Clover field Boulevard/Colorado Avenue
2. Clover field Boulevard/Olympic Boulevard
3. 26th Street/Santa Monica Boulevard
4. Yale StreetjBroadway
5. Stewart Street/Colorado Avenue
6. Stewart Street/Olympic Boulevard
7. Centinela Avenue/Santa Monica Boulevard
8. Centinela Avenue/Colorado Avenue
9. Centinela AvenuejNebraska Avenue
The addition of project-generated traffic to the Cumulative Base traffic volumes would create a
significant impact at four of the 17 intersections based on application of the City of Santa
Monica significance criteria. Table 4.5-8 compares the intersection operating conditions
projected to occur under the Cumulative Base traffic volumes with those projected to occur as a
result of the Cumulative plus Project traffic volumes for each of the 17 study area intersections.
The four intersections that would experience significant impacts as result of the project during
one or both of the peak hours are:
. Yale Street and Colorado Avenue (worst approach only);
. Stewart Street and Colorado A venue;
. Stewart Street and Olympic Boulevard; and
. Centinela Avenue and Nebraska Avenue (worst approach only).
Mitigation measures, both physical and operational, were identified that could potentially
reduce the significance of impacts at the above intersections. It is the City's policy to avoid
widening streets; therefore, mitigation measures were sought that could be executed within the
existing road right-of-way. For the intersection of Stewart Street and Olympic Boulevard, no
mitigation was identified that could be carried out within the existing right-of-way. Thus,
impacts to this intersection are considered to be unavoidably significant.
Impacts to the intersection of Yale Street and Colorado A venue could be mitigated by
installation of a traffic signal, which would be the only effective way of reducing delay for
southbound stop-controlled movements on Yale Street. Installation of a traffic signal at this
location, however, could adversely affect the adjoining residential neighborhood by
encouraging motorists to travel along Yale Street through the neighborhood, resulting in a more
detrimental impact to the neighborhood than the existing stop-controlled delay condition.
Therefore, impacts to this intersection are also considered to be unavoidably significant.
Impacts to the intersection of Centinela A venue and Nebraska A venue could also be fully
mitigated by the installation of a traffic signal at this location and the coordination of the new
signal with the existing signal at Centinela Avenue (west)/Olympic Boulevard. However, the
intersection of Centinela A venue and Nebraska A venue is within the jurisdiction of the City of
Los Angeles and implementation of any improvements to this intersection would be dependent
on factors that are outside the control of the City of Santa Monica. Impacts to this intersection
are thus also considered to be unavoidably significant.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.5-14
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.5 TransportationlTraffic
Table 4.5-8 Cumulative Base & Cumulative Base Plus Project Intersection LOS
For Santa Monica Intersections
Intersection Peak Cumulative Base Cumulative + Project V/C or Delay Significant
Hour V/C Delay* LOS V/C Delay* LOS Change I m pact?
1. Cloverfield Blvd & AM 1.026 45 0 1.027 45 0 0 No
Colorado Avenue PM 1.082 64 E 1.082 64 E 0 No
2. Cloverfield Blvd & AM 1.191 ** F 1.192 ** F 0.001 No
Olympic Blvd PM 1.202 ** F 1.203 ** F 0.001 No
3. 26th Street & Santa AM 1.146 64 E 1.146 64 E 0 No
Monica Blvd PM 1.337 54 0 1.337 54 0 0 No
4. 26th Street & AM 0.770 19 B 0.771 19 B 0 No
Broadway PM 0.816 22 C 0.818 22 C 0 No
5. 26th Street & AM 0.716 17 B 0.723 17 B 0 No
Colorado Avenue PM 0.839 19 B 0.840 19 B 0 No
6. 26th Street & Olympic AM 0.862 30 C 0.864 30 C 0 No
Blvd PM 0.916 35 C 0.919 35 C 0 No
7. Yale Street & Santa AM 0.716 12 B 0.716 12 B 0 No
Monica Blvd PM 0.949 31 C 0.949 31 C 0 No
8. Yale Street & AM 0.850 22 C 0.852 22 C 0 No
Broadway [1] PM 1.604 ** F 1.608 ** F 0.004 No
9. Yale St. & Colorado AM N/A 3 A N/A 3 A 0 No
Ave. [2] PM N/A 3 A N/A 3 A 0 No
[worst approach only] AM N/A 25 C N/A 25 C 0 No
[worst approach only] PM N/A 27 0 N/A 28 0 1 YES
10. Stewart Street & AM 0.763 19 B 0.771 19 B 0 No
Colorado Avenue PM 1.431 ** F 1.455 ** F 0.024 YES
11. Stewart Street & AM 1.385 ** F 1.403 ** F 0.018 YES
Olympic Blvd PM 1.313 ** F 1.337 ** F 0.024 YES
12. Stewart Street & AM 1.145 30 C 1.147 30 C 0 No
Pico Blvd PM 1.025 35 0 1.026 35 0 0 No
13. Centinela Avenue & AM 1.229 ** F 1.231 ** F 0.002 No
Santa Monica Blvd PM 1.539 ** F 1.539 ** F 0 No
14. Centinela Avenue & AM 0.628 14 B 0.630 14 B 0 No
Broadway PM 1.050 44 0 1.050 44 0 0 No
15. Centinela Avenue & AM 0.809 20 C 0.809 21 C 0 No
Colorado Avenue PM 1.765 ** F 1.767 ** F 0.002 No
16. Centinela Ave. & AM N/A 26 0 N/A 26 0 0 No
Nebraska Ave. [2] PM N/A ** F N/A ** F 0 No
[worst approach AM N/A ** F N/A ** F N/A YES
only]
[worst approach PM N/A ** F N/A ** F N/A YES
only]
17. Centinela Ave. AM 0.931 15 B 0.932 15 B 0 No
(west) & Olympic
Blvd PM 1.013 32 C 1.016 32 C 0 No
* Average stopped vehicle delay in seconds.
** Indicates oversaturated conditions. Delay cannot be calculated.
[1J Intersection controlled by stop signs on all major approaches.
[2J Intersection controlled by stop signs on the minor approaches.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.5-15
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.5 TransportationlTraffic
Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure addresses the significant traffic
impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed project at the intersection of Stewart Street
and Colorado A venue.
T-1 Roadway Improvements. The applicant shall be required to implement
the following physical and operational improvements to increase the
capacity of the roadway system at the affected intersection.
Stewart Street and Colorado A venue. Modify the traffic signal at this
location to provide a left-turn phase for the westbound left-turn
movement. Implementation of this mitigation measure would
necessitate the provision of some combination of new signage,
controller cabinets, poles, mast arms, detectors, and/ or signal heads.
Significance After Mitigation. The effectiveness of the mitigation measure above was
analyzed by re-evaluating the intersection where improvements have been proposed. The
results of this analysis (see Appendix E) indicate that the impacts at Stewart Street and
Colorado A venue could be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of the
proposed measure. Impacts at the intersections of Centinela Avenue/Nebraska Avenue,
Stewart Streetj Olympic Boulevard, and Yale Streetj Colorado Avenue would remain
unavoidably significant.
Impact T-2
The proposed project would increase the average daily traffic on
Yale Street and Nebraska Avenue by more than one vehicle per
day. This would exceed the City of Santa Monica significance
criteria for local streets and result in a Class I, unavoidably
significant, impact.
As described above, the project's potential impacts to six neighborhood street segments were
analyzed using the existing average daily traffic on each segment and assigning the daily
project-related trips to each segment. The existing and forecast daily street segment traffic
volumes are shown in Table 4.5-9.
Table 4.5-9 Weekday Neighborhood Traffic Impact Analysis
Street Existing Existing Plus Project
Location Classif. ADT ADT % Significance Significant
ADT Change Change Threshold I m pact?
Princeton Street Local 873 881 8 0.9% +25% NO
north of Colorado
Harvard Street Local 1,075 1,083 8 0.7% +25% NO
north of Colorado
Yale Street Local 3,382 3,405 23 0.7% + 1 tri p YES
north of Colorado
Stanford Street Local 2,149 2,157 8 0.4% + 12.5% NO
north of Colorado
Nebraska Avenue Local 4,291 4,295 4 0.1% + 1 tri p YES
west of Franklin
Stewart Street
between Exposition Collector 8,168 8,214 46 0.6% + 12.5% NO
Blvd. & Virginia Ave.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.5-16
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.5 TransportationlTraffic
Application of the City of Santa Monica significance criteria for neighborhood traffic impacts
indicates that that the project would create significant traffic impacts on segments of Yale Street
and Nebraska Avenue. For local streets such as these, if the current ADT is greater than 2,250 and
there is a net increase of one trip or more, the proposed project's impact is considered significant.
The proposed project would exceed this threshold on Yale Street north of Colorado Avenue and
Nebraska Avenue between Stewart Street and Centinela Avenue.
Short of full closure of the affected street segments, which would not be acceptable since they
serve adjacent land uses and carry substantial traffic that would then need to shift to other nearby
streets, there are no mitigation measures that would eliminate the need for even one trip to be
added to these segments. Therefore, neighborhood street impacts are considered significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures. No measures are available to mitigate the potential impacts to the
affected segments of Yale Street and Nebraska A venue.
Significance After Mitigation. Impacts to Yale Street and Nebraska Avenue would
remain unavoidably significant based upon City of Santa Monica criteria.
Impact T-3
The proposed project would provide 228 parking spaces onsite.
This would fulfill the City of Santa Monica parking code
requirement of 228 spaces for this type and size of development.
This is considered a Class III, less than significant, impact.
Table 4.5-10 shows the parking analysis for the proposed project. The number of spaces
required by the City of Santa Monica parking code requirements for residential developments
was compared to the amount of parking proposed by the applicant to determine whether it is
sufficient.
Table 4.5-10 Parking Requirements Analysis
Land Use Size of Unit Number of Units City Code Parking Spaces
Ratio [a] Required [b]
Low-I ncome Residential 1 Bedroom 15 1 space per unit 15
Multi-Family Residential o Bedroom 29 1 space per unit 29
(studio)
Multi-Family Residential 1 Bedroom 94 1.5 spaces per unit 141
Multi-Family Residential 2 Bedroom 7 2 spaces per unit 14
Residential Parking 199
Subtotal
Visitor Spaces N/A 145 1 space per 5 units 29
Total Parking Required 228
Parking Spaces to be 228
Provided
[a] Source: City of Santa Monica Municipal Code, Section 9.04.10.08.040
[b] Required parking spaces are rounded.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.5-17
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.5 TransportationlTraffic
The project would meet the City parking code requirements by providing 228 parking spaces,
including 29 spaces designated for visitors. City code also stipulates that a maximum of 40% of
visitor spaces may be built to compact standards. The project plans indicate that 12 of the 29
visitor parking spaces (40%) would be compact. Therefore, parking impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required.
Significance After Mitigation. Parking impacts would be less than significant.
Impact T-4 Access to the project site would be provided from a two-way
driveway on Stewart Street. An additional one-way driveway
on Colorado Avenue would allow exiting only. These
driveways would provide adequate site access; therefore,
impacts relating to site access and circulation are considered
Class III, less than significant.
Vehicular access to the project site is proposed via a two-way driveway on Stewart Street. A
second driveway is proposed on Colorado A venue to allow egress from the parking garage.
This driveway would be restricted to right-turns only, which would prevent safety hazards
associated with vehicles trying to turn left out of the project site. No potential operational
issues have been identified with regard to the proposed access scheme; therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required.
Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without
mitigation.
Impact T-5 Based on Los Angeles County Congestion Management
Program (CMP) criteria, the proposed project would result in
Class III, less than significant, impacts to CMP identified
freeway monitoring segments and arterial intersections.
This section presents the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Congestion Management Program (CMP) transportation impact analysis (TIA). This analysis
was conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in 2002 Congestion Management
Program for Los Angeles County (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority,
June 2002). The CMP requires that, when an environmental impact report is prepared for a
project, traffic and transit impact analyses be conducted for select regional facilities based on the
quantity of project traffic expected to utilize these facilities.
The CMP guidelines require that the first issue to be addressed is to determine the geographic
scope of the study area to be analyzed. The criteria for determining the study area for CMP
arterial monitoring intersections and for freeway monitoring locations are:
.
All CMP arterial monitoring intersections where the proposed project will add 50 or
more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours of adjacent street traffic.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.5-18
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.5 TransportationlTraffic
.
All CMP mainline freeway monitoring locations where the proposed project will add
150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the AM or PM weekday peak
hours.
The CMP arterial monitoring intersections nearest to the project site are the intersections of
Santa Monica Boulevard/Bundy Drive, Santa Monica Boulevard/Cloverfield Boulevard, and
Wilshire Boulevard/26th Street. Based on the incremental project trip generation estimates
previously presented, the proposed project is not expected to add more than 50 vehicles per
hour (vph) to any of these intersections; therefore, a CMP analysis is not required.
The nearest mainline freeway monitoring locations to the project site are 1-10 at Lincoln
Boulevard, 1-10 east of Overland Avenue, and 1-405 north of Venice Boulevard. Based on the
incremental project trip generation estimates, the proposed project is not expected to add
sufficient new traffic to exceed the freeway analysis criteria at these locations. Since
incremental project-related traffic is less than the minimum criteria of 150 vph, no further
analysis of CMP freeway monitoring stations is required.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would remain less than significant without
implementation of mitigation measures.
Impact T-6 Although the proposed project would increase the use of
transit facilities in the project vicinity, the location of the
project near numerous well-established transit routes would
likely result in a limited increase in ridership on anyone line.
Therefore, impacts to transit facilities are considered Class III,
less than significant.
The methodology discussion included in Appendix E includes the CMP methodology for
estimating the number of transit trips expected to result from the proposed project based on the
number of vehicle trips. Using this methodology, the proposed project could add
approximately four new transit trips in the AM peak hour and five new transit trips in the PM
peak hour. Given the existing headways of approximately 20 minutes (three buses per hour) in
each direction during the peak periods on Olympic Boulevard to the south and the more
frequent service on Santa Monica Boulevard to the north, this would translate into an average
increase of one rider or less per bus during the peak hours. The potential impact of this increase
in ridership on the regional transit system is considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without
mitigation.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.5-19
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.6 Historic Resources
4.6 HISTORIC RESOURCES
This section contains information that has been summarized from a historic resources report
prepared for the proposed project by San Buenaventura Research Associates in July 2003. This
report is provided in its entirety as Appendix F in the EIR.
4.6.1 Setting
a. Property Description and History. The 1.76-acre project site, located at the
southeast corner of Stewart Street and Colorado Avenue, is currently occupied by two rows of
buildings facing each other with a surface parking lot between them. The site contains a
collection of buildings with common walls, but built at different times with a variety of building
materials, including stucco, concrete block, metal siding, and plywood siding. The buildings
are primarily one story in height with flat composition roofs and are connected at the rear with
concrete masonry walls. Presently, the buildings house 50 individual storefronts or bays, with
some businesses occupying more than one storefront or bay.
A brief history of the development of the site follows. Site photos are provided on Figure 2-3 in
Section 2.0, Project Description, and in the historical report in Appendix F.
The existing buildings on the project site were constructed primarily between 1948 and 1969,
with a few smaller buildings and additions built through 1983. The first building permit for this
property in 1937 indicates that a four-room, 20'-by-20' dwelling was to be constructed by the
owner. The permit showed that greenhouses already existed on the site. However, none of
these buildings remain today.
Construction began on the present buildings in April 1948, when a steel and masonry building
was constructed for use as a materials yard. The owner and contractor was Building Center
Corporation, a construction business. In November 1948, a storage shed and incinerator were
built, as were a washroom building and storage shed.
In April 1949 a steel cement silo was built for use as a concrete mixing plant. This structure no
longer remains. In April 1951 a seven-foot high masonry wall was constructed along the
Stewart Street side of the project site. In September 1951 an additional storage shelter was
constructed, and in 1957 a two-story building made of wood frame stucco with a composition
roof was constructed.
A one-story masonry and stucco storage building was constructed on the east side of the site in
December 1960, followed by a one-story stucco building at the rear west side of the site in
December 1965. In November 1969, two concrete block one-story buildings were built along
Colorado Avenue for use as warehouses. In August 1971, two concrete block one-story
buildings with composition roofs were constructed on the west side of the parcel. Finally, in
1983, a three-sided addition containing 315 square feet was added to the building at the rear
eastern corner of the site.
The property has been used for a variety of commercial and industrial operations. Bay Screens
and Shades appears to be one of the oldest businesses on the site, operating since 1953. The
development appears to have started out as a construction business with a small concrete
,..
City of Santa Monica
4.6-1
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.6 Historic Resources
mixing plant that was eventually removed. Numerous other small companies occupied the
buildings during their history. Today, the site houses businesses like general contractors, a
print shop, and a plumbing service.
b. Regulatory Setting. A property may be designated as historic by National, State, or
local authorities. In order for a building to qualify for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or as a locally significant property in the
City of Santa Monica, it must meet one or more identified criteria of significance. The property
must also retain sufficient architectural integrity to continue to evoke the sense of place and
time with which it is historically associated. An explanation of these designations follows.
National Register of Historic Places. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP),
which is administered by the National Park Service, is "an authoritative guide to be used by
federal, state, and local governments, private groups, and citizens to identify the nation's
cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from
destruction or impairment." However, the federal regulations explicitly provide that National
Register listing of private property" does not prohibit under federal law or regulation any
actions which may otherwise be taken by the property owner with respect to the property."
Listing in the National Register assists in preservation of historic properties through the
following actions: recognition that a property is of significance to the nation, the state, or the
community; consideration in planning for Federal or federally assisted projects; eligibility for
Federal tax benefits; consideration in the decision to issue a federal permit; and qualification for
Federal assistance for historic preservation grants, when funds are available.
Properties may qualify for NRHP listing if they:
A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or
that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack
individual distinction; or
D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
According to the NRHP guidelines, the essential physical features of a property must be present
for it to convey its significance. Further, in order to qualify for the NRHP, a resource must
retain its integrity, or the" ability to convey its significance." The seven aspects of integrity are:
1. Location (the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where
the historic event occurred);
2. Design (the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and
style of a property);
3. Setting (the physical environment of a historic property);
4. Materials (the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a
particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a
historic property);
,..
City of Santa Monica
4.6-2
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.6 Historic Resources
5. Workmanship (the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people
during any given period of history or prehistory);
6. Feeling (a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular
period of time); and
7. Association (the direct link between an important historic event or person and a
historic property).
The relevant aspects of integrity depend upon the NRHP criteria applied to the property. For
example, a property nominated under Criterion A (events) would be likely to convey its
significance primarily through integrity of location, setting, and association. A property
nominated solely under Criterion C (design) would usually rely primarily on integrity of
design, materials, and workmanship. The California Register procedures include similar
language with regard to integrity.
California Register of Historic Resources. The California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) requires evaluation of project impacts on historic resources, including properties "listed
in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historic Resources [or]
included in a local register of historical resources." The California Register is an authoritative
guide in California used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the
State's historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent
prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change. A resource is eligible for listing on the
California Register if it meets any of the following criteria for listing:
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
C. Embodies the distinctive work of an important creative individual, or possesses high
artistic values; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The California Register may also include properties listed in "local registers" of historic
properties. A "local register of historic resources" is broadly defined in Section 5020.1(k) as" a
list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local
government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution." Local registers of historic properties
come in two forms: (1) surveys of historic resources conducted by a local agency in accordance
with Office of Historic Preservation procedures and standards, adopted by the local agency and
maintained as current, and (2) landmarks designated under local ordinances or resolutions
(Public Resources Code Sections 5024.1, 21804.1, 15064.5).
By definition, the California Register of Historic Resources also includes all "properties formally
determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register of Historic Places," (NRHP) and
certain specified State Historical Landmarks. The majority of formal determinations of NRHP
eligibility occur when properties are evaluated by the State Office of Historic Preservation in
connection with federal environmental review procedures (Section 106 of the Historic
Preservation Act of 1966). Formal determinations of eligibility also occur when properties are
nominated to the NRHP, but are not listed due to owner objection.
,..
City of Santa Monica
4.6-3
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.6 Historic Resources
The minimum age criterion for the NRHP and the California Register is 50 years. Properties
less than 50 years old may be eligible for listing on the NRHP is they can be regarded as
"exceptional", as defined by the NRHP procedures, or in terms of the California Register, if "it
can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance."
City of Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic Districts. The City of Santa Monica has
the ability to designate properties within the City boundaries as Landmarks for the purpose of
protecting and safeguarding historic resources, fostering civic pride, enhancing the City's
aesthetic and historic attractions, and promoting the education, pleasure, and welfare of the
people of the City. City Landmarks are determined by the Landmarks Commission and
designation is based on whether or not a property meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic,
political, or architectural history of the City.
2. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.
3. It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or
national history.
4. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a
period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or
craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail, or
historical type valuable to such a study.
5. It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable
builder, designer, or architect.
6. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and
familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City.
An historic district is defined by the City of Santa Monica as "any geographic area or
noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties which the City Council has
designated as and determined to be appropriate for historical preservation pursuant to the
provisions of this [ordinance]." In order to be designated an historic district, an area must meet
one of the following criteria, outlined in Section 9.36.100(b):
1. Any of the criteria identified in items (1) through (6) above.
2. It is a noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties or a definable area
possessing a concentration ofhistoric, scenic, or thematic sites, which contribute to
each other and are unified aesthetically by plan, physical development, or
architectural quality.
3. It reflects significant geographic patterns, including those associated with different
eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive
examples of park or community planning.
4. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and
familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City.
4.6.2 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Under CEQA, a project that may cause
a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may
,..
City of Santa Monica
4.6-4
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.6 Historic Resources
have a significant effect on the environment. For the purposes of this analysis, potentially
significant impacts to historical resources are defined as project impacts that would:
1) Cause substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource by
physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its
immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be
materially impaired; or
2) Demolish or materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an
historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion
in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or
3) Demolish or materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that
account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section
5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources
survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code,
unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a
preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally
significant; or
4) Demolish or materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a
historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility
for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a
lead agency for purposes ofCEQA.l
The State CEQA Guidelines identify the Secretary of the Interior's Standards as the measure to be
used in determinations of whether or not a project adversely impacts an "historical resource."
Section 15064.5(b)(3) states:
Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995),
Weeks and Grimer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant
impact on the historical resource.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
Impact HR-1 The proposed project would result in the demolition of all of
the existing structures onsite. However, the structures are not
considered historically significant. Therefore, impacts to
historic resources are considered Class III, less than significant.
Development of the proposed project would require the removal of all structures currently on
the project site. Of the buildings on the site that are at least 50 years old, none appear to be
eligible for the NRHP and CRHR under Criterion A (significant historical events). While they
are generally associated with the industrial and commercial development of Santa Monica, the
1 State CEQA Guidelines, 15064.5(b)(2).
,..
City of Santa Monica
4.6-5
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.6 Historic Resources
available evidence does not suggest that they played any notable role in that development. The
property also does not appear to be potentially eligible under Criterion B (lives of persons
significant in our past). The property changed hands frequently and housed an even larger
number of lessees.
The property does not appear to be potentially eligible under Criterion C (design and
construction). The buildings are sheds and offices built of various materials, including concrete
block, metal siding, and stucco and have been subject to numerous additions and alterations.
They are especially unremarkable within the overall context of Santa Monica, which generated
many architecturally notable commercial and industrial buildings during the 1940s and 1950s.
Properties less than 50 years of age may be eligible if they can be found to be "exceptiona1."
While there is no hard and fast definition of "exceptional" provided by the NRHP, the special
language developed to support the nomination of these properties was clearly intended to
accommodate properties that demonstrate a level of importance such that their historical
significance can be understood without the passage of time. In general, according to NRHP
literature, eligible "exceptional" properties may include "resources so fragile that survivors of
any age are unusua1. [Exceptionalness] may be a function of the relative age of a community
and its perceptions of old and new. It may be represented by a building or structure whose
developmental or design value is quickly recognized as historically significant by the
architectural or engineering profession [or] it may be reflected in a range of resources for which
the community has an unusually strong associative attachment." None of the subject buildings
appear to rise to the exceptionalleve1.
The buildings on the project site do not appear eligible for designation as a local landmark
under City of Santa Monica criteria. First, they do not exemplify elements of the cultural, social,
economic, political, or architectural history of the City. As described above, although they are
part of the commercial and industrial development of the City, they do not exemplify that
history. Second, the buildings are not of aesthetic or noteworthy interest. Third, they have not
been identified with any historic persons or with important events in local, state, or national
history. Fourth, they do not embody distinguishing architectural characteristics and are not
rare examples of an architectural design, but are rather commonplace buildings used for
commercialj industrial purposes. Finally, no notable builders or architects are associated with
the construction of these buildings, nor are any unique locations or singular physical
characteristics.
The site itself does not meet any of the criteria for designation as an individual landmark.
Further, it does not meet the criteria for designation as an historic district, because most of the
manufacturing businesses that once existed in the project vicinity no longer remain.
Thus, the project site does not appear to be eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or the City of Santa Monica
historic landmarks or districts list. Therefore, the property should not be regarded as an
environmental resource for purposes of CEQA.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are required.
,..
City of Santa Monica
4.6-6
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.6 Historic Resources
Significance After Mitigation. None of the on site structures meet the criteria for
designation as historically significant on either the National or California Registers and none
are eligible for designation as local landmarks based on City of Santa Monica criteria.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project, in conjunction with other planned and
pending development in the City of Santa Monica, would cumulatively increase the potential to
alter historic resources by adding about three million square feet of new commercial and retail
development and nearly 900 residential units (see Table 3-1 in Section 3.0, Environmental
Setting). Thus, cumulative historic resource impacts are considered potentially significant.
However, because the potential to adversely affect such resources depends upon the specific
site and nature of an individual development, historic resource issues must be addressed on a
case-by-case basis. Compliance with CEQA requirements, including any recommendations in
site-specific historic resource studies, on all new developments would reduce cumulative
impacts to a level considered less than significant.
,..
City of Santa Monica
4.6-7
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.7 Aesthetics/Shadow Effects
4.7 AESTHETICS/SHADOW EFFECTS
4.7.1 Setting
a. Existing Aesthetic Character. The project site is located on a 76,800 square foot
rectangular parcel at the southeast corner of Stewart Street and Colorado Avenue. The site is
currently occupied by about 38,400 square feet of light industrial uses housed in two rows of
one- and two-story warehouse-style buildings. Figures 2-3 and 2-4 in Section 2.0, Project
Description, show the current aesthetic character of the project site and the character of the
surrounding development, respectively.
The project site is located within an urbanized setting characterized by a mix of land uses and
architectural styles. The immediate neighborhood is a mixture of commercial, light industrial,
and residential development. A five-story modern commercial building that houses film studio
and production operations sits across Stewart Street from the project site, facing Colorado
A venue. Further to the southwest along Stewart Street and opposite the project site are multi-
story commercial buildings and a satellite campus of Santa Monica College. Directly adjacent to
the project site on Stewart Street is a facility of the Southern California Gas Company. Adjacent
to the project site to the northeast along Colorado Avenue is a mix of light industrial and
commercial buildings that are similar in size and scale to those that currently occupy the project
site. Directly across Colorado A venue from the project site are single-family homes, with
additional single- and multi-family housing further to the northwest on Yale Street.
b. Light and Glare. The existing buildings on the project site contain few sources of
nighttime lighting, as the businesses do not operate at night. There is minimal lighting on the
exterior of buildings to provide safety. Sources of light immediately surrounding the project
site include lighting on the exterior of adjacent buildings and from interior offices and homes,
and street lighting. Primary glare sources onsite and in the project vicinity include the sun's
reflection from metallic or glass surfaces on vehicles and some glare from the windows of
surrounding commercial buildings. Light- and glare-sensitive uses include the residential uses
across Colorado A venue from the site.
c. Shadows. The project site contains a mix of one- and two-story buildings, which
currently generate shadows throughout the day. Because most of the existing buildings are one
story in height, the shadows cast by the buildings do not extend significantly onto adjacent
properties. Adjacent developments also cast shadows onto the project site. In the morning
hours during winter, the single-story light industrial buildings directly adjacent to the project
site on Colorado Avenue cast limited shadows on the site. During the afternoon in winter, the
multi-story commercial building south of the site across Stewart Street casts shadows on a
portion of the site. In the morning hours of the summer, very limited shadows are cast on the
project site by the commercial building on Stewart Street. During summer afternoons, the
shadows cast by adjacent developments do not encroach onto the project site.
d. Regulatory Setting. The issue of neighborhood aesthetics and character is addressed
in several City policies, especially those contained in the Urban Design Objectives and Policies
section (3.0) of the Land Use Element. Aesthetics is further addressed in the City's Zoning
Ordinance through a range of development standards that are applied by district.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.7-1
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.7 Aesthetics/Shadow Effects
The policies most applicable to the proposed project include the following:
3.1.2 Encourage the maintenance of high aesthetic standards and architectural
innovation consistent with the surrounding community and encourage large
buildings to be of predominantly light color and materials that fit in with the
existing context. Prohibit large expanses of highly reflective materials such as
black glass or mirrored metals.
3.3.2 Ensure continuing of the sidewalk by limiting curb cuts; locating parking behind
buildings or below grade; (and) encouraging vehicular access from alleys and side
streets. Encourage alley and side street access only when the potential traffic
intrusion into adjacent residential neighborhoods is minimized.
3.3.4 Encourage design articulation of building facades.
3.4.5 Consistent with legitimate safety concerns, all exterior lighting shall be
unobtrusive and constructed or located so that only the intended area is
illuminated, long-range visibility is reduced, and off-site glare is minimized.
The massing of buildings in the project area is governed by the requirements of the LMSD, Light
Manufacturing and Studio District in the Zoning Ordinance (9.04.08.35). The development
standards for the LMSD zone generally restrict the height of buildings in the district to no more
than two stories and 30 feet in height, with several exceptions. The LMSD zone allows heights
of up to four stories and 45 feet for the following uses: school expansions, entertainment-
related facilities, and theaters. If the proposed text amendment to the zoning ordinance, which
is part of the proposed project, is approved, multi-family housing would be one of the specific
uses that would be subject to a four-story, 45-foot height limit. General development standards
that apply to the proposed project include the requirement that any portion of a building
between 31 and 45 feet in height to be set back an average of nine feet.
4.7.2 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. The assessment of aesthetic impacts
involves qualitative analysis that is inherently subjective in nature. Different viewers react to
viewsheds and aesthetic conditions differently. This evaluation measures the existing visual
resource against the proposed action, analyzing the nature of the anticipated change. The
project site was observed and photographically documented, as was the surrounding area. The
City's General Plan was reviewed for policy instruction relative to visual resources and design
policy.
An impact is considered significant if the proposed project would cause:
· Loss of a major open space resource
· Obstruction of existing ocean views from a public area such as a park
· Loss of a major public scenic view
· Substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings
· Generation of excessive nighttime lighting that is out of character with the land uses
surrounding the project site
. A substantial increase in ambient lighting in residential areas
· Generation of excessive glare
r
City of Santa Monica
4.7-2
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.7 Aesthetics/Shadow Effects
. Substantially increased shadows cast on public open spaces, residences, or other light
sensitive land uses (see further discussion below for what constitutes a substantial increase in
shadow)
The project site is not located in an area with ocean or other scenic views, or significant open
space resources. Therefore, the first three criteria are not applicable.
In discussing shadow effects, there are several important factors that are considered, including:
· Affected land use (importance of direct sunlight for the use)
. Duration (hours per day in shadow)
· Time of day (critical time period for direct sunlight)
· Season (time of year use would be shadowed)
· Extent (percentage of use that would be shadowed)
. Type (solid or dappled shadow)
. Pre-existing condition (shadow condition due to existing buildings, landscaping, or
other features)
With these criteria as a basis for shadow impact analysis, shadow impacts are considered
significant when shadows would be cast upon potentially sensitive uses during a substantial
portion (greater than 50%) of the main daylight hours (9:00 AM to 3:00 PM during the fall,
winter and spring seasons, and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM (daylight savings time) during the summer
season). Sunlight-sensitive uses include public open space, residences, and other light-sensitive
uses.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
Impact AES-1 The proposed project is consistent with the guidelines set
forth in the Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Element and
would not substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings. Therefore, impacts
to visual resources are considered Class III, less than
significant.
Development of the proposed project would result in the conversion of the site from a light
industrial use to a multi-family residential use. The introduction of multi-family development
on the site would be consistent with the residential development across Colorado Avenue from
the site, and would be compatible in scale with the commercial developments across Stewart
Street. The project includes two-, three-, and four-story buildings. The building layout plan
(see Figure 2-6 in Section 2.0, Project Description), indicates that the shorter buildings would be
located along the street frontages, while the four-story buildings would be located along the
interior property line. This would function to minimize the effect of project massing and would
provide visual interest with the varied building heights. In addition, in compliance with the
general development standards in the Zoning Ordinance, portions of the buildings that are
between 31 and 45 feet in height would be stepped back to further reduce the appearance of
mass. The project also includes a one-level subterranean garage for resident and guest parking,
and thus complies with that recommendation of the Urban Design Guidelines.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.7-3
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.7 Aesthetics/Shadow Effects
Development of the proposed project would generally improve the visual conditions of the
project site. As shown on Figure 2-3 in Section 2.0, Project Description, the existing buildings
onsite are typical warehouse-style buildings with no unifying architectural theme. The flat-
roofed buildings are functional, rather than aesthetic, and the project site lacks any landscaping
or items of visual interest. The parking lot between the two rows of buildings contains various
mechanical and construction equipment, and is used as an area where auto repair activities can
occur. The proposed project, in contrast, would provide a cohesive development comprised of
multiple residential buildings with landscaped areas within the interior courtyards and along
the street frontages. Parking would not be visible, as it would be located within a subterranean
garage. As described above, the incorporation of different heights and setbacks would help in
breaking up the mass of the project.
In general, development of the site with multi-story, visually interesting residential
development would improve the aesthetic character of the project site over current conditions,
would be compatible with surrounding development, and would be consistent with the design
guidelines of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant.
Impact AES-2 The proposed project would increase light and glare at the
project site over current conditions. This is considered Class
II, significant but mitigable.
Implementation of the proposed project would increase light and glare on a site currently
occupied by low-intensity industrial uses. All of the residential buildings, which range in
height from approximately 20 to 45 feet, would incorporate outdoor lighting for security
purposes and visibility. In addition, the windows of the residential units would shed light from
interior activities, and lighting may be used to accentuate landscaping features. Parking
structure ingress and egress points would be lighted and vehicles exiting the garage to Stewart
Street and Colorado Avenue would also cast light. Because new sources of nighttime light
could be visible at adjacent residences, impacts are considered potentially significant.
Potential sources of glare would consist of glazing (windows) and other reflective materials
potentially used in the faGade of the structure. These would be similar to glazing for other
structures in the vicinity, and would not be a substantial source of glare compared to overall
development in the area. Nevertheless, impacts are potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures would reduce potential light
and glare impacts associated with the proposed project.
AES-2(a)
Shielded Exterior Lighting. The applicant shall design exterior
building lighting to ensure that no light projects onto adjacent
sites. Exterior siding shall incorporate "cut-off" shields as
appropriate to prevent an increase in lighting at adjacent
residential uses.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.7-4
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.7 Aesthetics/Shadow Effects
AES-2(b)
Shielded Landscape Illumination. Landscape illumination and
exterior sign lighting shall be accomplished with low-level,
unobtrusive fixtures. Such lighting shall be shielded to direct light
pools away from off-site viewers.
AES-12(c)
Low Glare Materials. Finish materials, including glazing, shall be
of a low reflectivity to minimize glare. Development shall include
low-reflective roofing materials to reduce glare potential for
nearby development that may have downward views of the
project's roof.
Significance After Mitigation. With incorporation of above mitigation measures,
impacts would be less than significant.
Impact AES-3 The proposed residential buildings would cast shadows onto
adjacent buildings, particularly in the wintertime. However,
affected buildings are either not sun-sensitive or would not be
affected for a significant part of the day. Impacts would be
Class III, less than significant.
The proposed structure would range in height from two to four stories, with a maximum height
of 45 feet. Figures 4.7-1A and 4.7-1B illustrate the shadow patterns for the proposed project
during the winter solstice (December 21), and Figures 4.7-2A and 4.7-2B illustrate the shadow
patterns for the summer solstice (June 21). The two scenarios are given to illustrate both the
best case situation, during the summer solstice, and the worst case situation, during the winter
solstice.
As shown on Figure 4.7-1A, morning shadows cast by the proposed project at the time of the
winter solstice would extend to the northwest across Colorado A venue and partially onto
residential property across the street. The shadow would then gradually recede until, during
the noon hour, the project's shadow would fall to the north onto the industrial buildings
directly adjacent to the site. The shadow would continue to move to the east during the
afternoon hours, until in the late afternoon, the shadows would extend almost completely over
the adjacent industrial lot, as shown on Figure 4.7-1B.
The adjacent industrial buildings are only one story in height and would therefore be
completely covered by the project's winter shadow. However, industrial land uses are not
light-sensitive; therefore, this impact is not considered significant. The morning shadow in
winter would partially extend onto the residential properties across Colorado A venue, but
would only shade portions of the front yards and would last for less than three hours.
Therefore, this impact is also considered less than significant.
Figures 4.7-2A and 4.7-2B show the shadows that would result from the project during the
summer solstice. As shown, summer morning shadows cast by the proposed project would be
relatively short and would fall partially onto Stewart Street. Noontime shadows during the
summer would be very limited and would fall predominantly within the project site. The
afternoon shadows would shift to the east and extend onto small portions of the adjacent
industrial development and the Southern California Gas Company property. Summer shadows
would not affect any light-sensitive uses and therefore would not be significant.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.7-5
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.7 Aesthetics/Shadow Effects
Other than public sidewalks along Colorado A venue and Stewart Street, no public open space
would be affected by shadowing. Impacts to public open space as a result of shadowing on
sidewalks are not considered significant.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant.
c. Cumulative Impacts. This project, combined with other planned and pending
projects in the City, would add approximately three million square feet of non-residential
development and about 900 residential units, and would contribute toward creating a more
intense urban environment. Given the City's current policies on the scale and design of new
projects, the cumulative impact of the proposed project and other projects in the surrounding
area is to further the City's goal of a slightly more urban environment with a stronger
pedestrian orientation. The overall visual effect of cumulative development in the area is
considered beneficial.
Cumulative development of buildings of greater height would generally increase shadowing
throughout the City. The shadow effects of individual buildings would need to be addressed
on a case-by-case basis since shadowing is dependent upon building height, massing, and
location, as well as the immediately surrounding uses. In any event, shadow impacts associated
with individual buildings are isolated in nature and do not contribute to additive effects on
particular geographic location. Because the project's shadow impact is not considered
significant, its contribution to the general increase in shadows throughout the City would not be
cumulatively considerable.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.7-6
n OJ OJ
OJ OJ
~ .::
-
Ul Ul
-:::: -::::
co co
~ ~
OJ OJ
- -
~i Ul Ul
I I I I I I I I I I I
)
~
,
j-'
o
o
so
~I
II I I I I I I I I I I I I
)
:~
< .~
,.... "
~ ~
~ '"
ell 11)-
6 ~ ~
"g~~
Ui 0
Q)
u
:t:i
ell
a
CJ)
....
Q)
.s
~
:2
<i
.!!l ~ ~
u
~ p..;
o::l1J ~
-;: 0
l1Jo 0 0
t)"tl 0 N
" '" 6'
0''<:: "'",' "'"" ,....
~Ul
ll.- - ,.... rl
" fl N anuaAE OPEJOIO:J N
;:J+:l '" '"
c: " II) OJ
".<:: 'S 'S
>-
<(l!j II 1I1
.g<( OJ OJ
~~ U U
OJ OJ
0" r--- 0 II 0
(Jo
v;:; ....
O)U
co"
NUl
fii~
.
Ll:
~ C
N _
~
'"
o
~
.!!l
u
IE
o::l1J
ill~
t)"tl
" '"
'e'~
ll.-
" fl
:J+:
c: "
".<::
>-
<( I/)
"
.g<(
!"....
.9.~
o c
(J 0
v:;:;
'" u
CO "
NUl
J
J 1111] 11II11111111
)
c
$"
anuaAE
OPEJOIO:J
--
~, ,~
OJ
OJ
~
-
Ul
-::::
co
~
OJ
-
Ul
~
p..;
o
o
ci"i
~
'"
OJ
'S
OJ
u
OJ
o
"'",'
ell
;s:
o
'"d
ro
Ui
Q)
u
:t:i
ell
a
CJ)
....
Q)
.s
~
p:l '"
~ .~
~ ~
OJ J!!
~~
..... ...
p:.. 0
~
o
Q)
,.:.
..,:
~
~
i
.!j
g
i'l
~
"
..
.tl
~
j
JJ!
~
~
.E
~
.
J....
~
~
-
-1~b
111111111111
~
~
~
o::l1J
-;:
I1JO
~~
0''<::
~Ul
ll.-
I/)
" U
,,'"
C "
".<::
>-
<(I/)
"
.g<(
"'....
..Q~
o c
(JO
v=
"'u
CO"
NUl
:~
~i
,
i'
o
o
~i
!ll.
,1"
i!jf
(
j
anU8AE OPEJOIO:J
~
-
";.:,."
1111111111111
~
anuaAE OPEJOIO:J
~ .~
I "
~ ~
CI) ~ .m
6 ~ ~
""0 '.-4 Q
ro p:.. ~
Ui 0
Q)
u
.oC
ell ....
'0 ~
CJ)
j
~
p..;
o
o
N
,....
~
!
~
i
.!j
"
-'!
.~
~
"
..
.tl
i
~
~
c
o
"
~
&
~1lL
cjj~
L- ----.J
';-"'b
:~
111111111111
~
.!!l
u
~
OCI1J
-;:
I1J 0
i~
eUl
D-"0
" u
;:J+:l
<= "
".<::
>-
<(I/)
"
.g<(
~!;
o c
(JO
v'"
"'u
CO"
NUl
anuaAE OPEJOIO:J
~ .~
~ "
~ ~
CI) OJ J!!
6 ~ ~
'1J ~ 't5
ro ~
Ui 0
Q)
u
.oC
ell
a
CJ)
j
~
....
..,:
OJ
OJ
-
Ul
-
~
m
~
OJ
-
'"
~
p..;
o
o
ci"i
~
!
....
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.8 Population and Housing
4.8 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.8.1 Setting
a. Projected Population and Housing. Future population and housing growth for
Santa Monica is shown in Table 4.8-1. The City's 2003 population is estimated at 89,333
(California Department of Finance, 2003) and is projected to grow to 92,521 by 2005 and 95,277
by 2020. This represents an average annual growth rate of about 0.8% over this time period.
The City is projected to add about 1,380 housing units between 2005 and 2020, representing
about a 1 % average annual increase in housing growth.
Table 4.8-1 Projected Population and Housing
2005 2010 2020
Households 46,330 46,790 47,710
Population 92,521 93,440 95,277
Source: City of Santa Monica, 2000.
b. Regulatory Setting. The 2000-2005 Housing Element of the Santa Monica General
Plan, adopted in December 2001, is the City's primary regulatory tool with respect to housing.
The Housing Element includes several policies that are potentially relevant to the proposed
project. These policies are discussed under Impact PH-2, beginning on page 4.8-3.
4.8.2 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Impacts to population are generally
social or economic in nature. Under CEQA, a social or economic change generally is not
considered a significant effect on the environment unless the changes can be directly linked to a
physical change. Impacts related to the project's potential to induce growth are discussed in
Section 5.1.
Population impacts are considered potentially significant if growth associated with the
proposed project would exceed projections for the area and if such an exceedence would have
the potential to create a significant physical change to the environment.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
Impact PH-1 The proposed project would add 145 housing units and an
estimated 265 residents within the City. Because these increases
are within citywide projections, this impact is considered Class
III, less than significant.
Buildout of the proposed project would add 145 multi-family residences. Based on the current
citywide average of 1.83 persons per household (2000 US Census), the project would add
about 265 residents. Completion of the proposed project is estimated for late 2005 or early 2006.
Therefore, based on the estimated 2005 population of the City of 92,521 residents, an increase of
rr
City of Santa Monica
4.8-1
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.8 Population and Housing
265 residents would account for about a 0.15% increase in population. The addition of 145 units
of housing would represent an increase of about 0.3 % in the number of households within the
City.
Table 4.8-2 compares project-generated population and housing growth to growth projections
for Santa Monica. The City is projected to add about 2,750 residents through 2020. The 265 new
residents associated with project buildout would therefore make up almost 10% of projected
citywide population growth over that time period. Based on the City's growth forecasts, Santa
Monica is projected to add about 1,380 housing units through 2020. The 145 units associated
with buildout of the proposed project would account for about 10.5% of projected citywide
housing growth.
Table 4.8-2 Comparison of Project Population and Housing Growth
to City Projections
Projected Citywide Growth Project Growth as a % of
Through 2020 Overall Growth
Project Site City of Santa Monica City of Santa Monica
Housing 145 1,380 10.5%
Population 265 2,750 9.6%
Project site population estimate is based upon the current citywide average of 1.83 residents per
household. City projections are taken from Table 4.8-1.
Project-generated growth in population and housing are within growth forecasts for the City of
Santa Monica. Therefore, project buildout would not create any additional impacts relating to
population or housing growth beyond those envisioned by the City in its future planning. No
significant impacts relating to population or housing growth are anticipated.
Mitigation Measures. None required.
Significance After Mitigation. Impacts relating to growth in population and housing
would be less than significant without mitigation.
Impact PH-2 The proposed project could be found to be consistent with
applicable Housing Element policies. Impacts relating to
Housing Element consistency are considered Class III, less than
significant.
As discussed in Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, several goals of the Housing Element of the
Santa Monica General Plan are potentially applicable to the proposed project. Relevant policies
are listed below.
· Goal 1.0 - Provide for the construction of new housing within the City;
· Goal 1.2 - Provide incentives for the development of housing in non-residential
zones;
. Goal 2.0 - Increase the supply of housing that is affordable to very low-income
households;
rr
City of Santa Monica
4.8-2
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.8 Population and Housing
. Goal 2.7 - Encourage the distribution of housing for low-income households
throughout the City.
The proposed project meets all of the above goals. It would provide 145 multi-family units, ten
percent of which (15 units) would be reserved for very low-income households. The proposed
project would address an existing Citywide deficiency in housing, and particularly in affordable
housing, that has resulted in rapidly rising prices and the need for employees who work in
Santa Monica to live outside the City and commute, sometimes for considerable distances. The
affordable units would also help the City achieve its housing needs goals for low-income
households. The project would develop housing in the Pico neighborhood, which is
predominantly characterized by industrial and commercial development. Therefore, the
proposed project would meet the goal of providing low-income housing throughout the City.
While the project does not respond directly to an incentive for the development of housing in
non-residential zones, it does address the City's apparent intention to encourage such
development. The lack of vacant land in Santa Monica has resulted in the need to re-use
existing parcels to address the City's housing needs. Thus, the re-use of the project site for
construction of multi-family and affordable housing is consistent with the current trend of
housing development in the area.
For the reasons discussed above, the project could be found to be consistent with applicable
policies of the Housing Element of the Santa Monica General Plan. No impact with respect to
Housing Element consistency is anticipated.
Mitigation Measures. None required.
Significance After Mitigation. No inconsistencies with City Housing Element policies
are anticipated.
c. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project, in combination with other development
in and around the City, will continue to alter the demographic character of the area. As shown
in Table 3-1 in Section 3.0, Environmental Setting, cumulative buildout of Santa Monica in
accordance with the City General Plan would add an estimated three million square feet of non-
residential development and 900 residential units. The proposed project would incrementally
contribute to such growth by adding 145 residences. As discussed above, the City does not
have an adequate supply of housing to meet projected housing demand. Thus, the project
responds to the need to increase the stock of housing and would contribute to a cumulative
benefit with respect to housing.
rr
City of Santa Monica
4.8-3
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.9 Public Services
4.9 PUBLIC SERVICES
This section addresses the project's potential impacts to schools, police services, and fire
protection.
4.9.1 Setting
a. Educational Facilities. The project site is within the boundaries of the Santa Monica-
Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD). The SMMUSD operates 11 elementary schools
(eight in Santa Monica), four middle schools (three in Santa Monica), and three high schools
(two in Santa Monica). Table 4.9-1 compares enrollment for schools in Santa Monica for the
2002-03 and 2003-04 school years. The total district (K-12 enrollment) enrollment is estimated at
approximately 12,308 students for the 2003-2004 school year (SMMUSD, January 24,2003).
McKinley Elementary (2401 Santa Monica Blvd.), Edison Elementary (2425 Kansas Ave.), and
Lincoln Middle School (1501 California Ave.) are the schools closest to the project site.
Table 4.9-1 School Enrollments for
Schools in Santa Monica
2003-04 Current
Schools Capacity* Enrollment Capacity
Utilization
E/ementary Schools
Edison Elementary 347 419 120%
Franklin Elementary 594 795 133%
Grant Elementary 468 653 139%
McKinley Elementary 414 436 105%
Muir Elementary 234 346 148%
SMASH (K-5) 108 118 109%
Will Rogers Elementary 513 662 129%
Roosevelt Elementary 504 779 155%
Secondary Schools
John Adams Middle School 882 1,193 135%
Lincoln Middle School 1,037 1,368 132%
SMASH (6-8) 71 52 73%
High Schools
Santa Monica H.S. 2,926 3,409 117%
Olympic Continuation H.S. 164 147 91%
Source: Enrollment Projection for 2003-04 from the Superintendent's Office of
SMMUSD, January 30, 2003.
* Operating capacity is based on traditional school calendar year.
As shown in Table 4.9-1, all schools in the SMMUSD except SMASH and Olympic Continuation
HS are operating over capacity. Approximately 18%of the City's student population is
comprised of transfer students originating from outside the District (Enrollment Projection for
2003-04 from the Superintendent's Office of SMMUSD, January 30,2003). In order to attend
schools in the District, each transfer student must file an annual application for enrollment with
,..
City of Santa Monica
4.9-1
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.9 Public Services
the District. The District grants or denies these applications, based on the classroom availability
for that school year. California Education Code has allowed parents with school-aged
dependents to request enrollment of his or her child in the school district where the parent
works.
b. Funding for Public Education. Operating revenue provided to school districts is
funded by local property tax revenue accrued at the state level and then allocated to each school
district based on the average daily student attendance. Because state funding for capital
improvements has lagged behind enrollment growth, physical improvements to accommodate
new students come primarily from assessed fees on development projects. In 1986, the State
Legislature approved AB 2926 (Chap. 887), which authorized school districts to levy school
impact fees on new development projects and at the same time placed a cap on the total amount
of fees that could be levied. California Government Code (s 65995) School Facilities Legislation
was enacted to generate revenue for school districts for capital acquisitions and improvements.
This legislation allows a maximum one-time fee of $2.05 per square foot of residential
development and $0.33 per square foot of commercial development. This fee is divided
between the primary and secondary schools and is termed a "Level One" fee.
The SMMUSD has been determined eligible for and collects funding under Senate Bill 50 (SB
50). In addition, Proposition lA, approved by the voters in 1998, provided a bond measure for
$9.2 billion for school facilities improvements. Under the provisions of SB 50, school districts
may collect Level Two and Level Three fees to offset the costs associated with increasing school
capacity in response to student enrollment increases associated with residential developments.
Level Two fees require the developer to provide one-half of the costs of accommodating
students in new schools, while the state would provide the other half. Level Three fees require
the developer to pay the full cost of accommodating the students in new schools and would be
implemented at the time the funds available from Proposition 1A are expended. School
districts must demonstrate to the state their long-term facilities needs and costs based on long-
term population growth in order to qualify for this source of funding. Once qualified, the
districts may impose fees as calculated per SB 50.
c. Fire Department Services. The Santa Monica Fire Department (SMFD) provides
Fire protection services in the City of Santa Monica and maintains an Automatic Aid
Agreement with the City of Los Angeles Fire Department, as well as a Mutual Aid Agreement
with other fire departments in the region. The SMFD maintains four fire stations and is staffed
with approximately 89 uniformed firefighters, including paramedics and captains (Esparza, July
2003). The four stations are staffed 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Based on the 2000 Census
population data, there is currently about 1 firefighter for every 1,000 persons in the City, which
is consistent with the State average. Table 4.9-2 summarizes information on existing fire
fighting facilities within Santa Monica. In addition, there is a Training Facility & Support
Services center located at 2500 Michigan Ave where the Division Chiefs for Training and
Support Services, Staff Captain, Education specialist, and Disaster Preparedness Coordinator
are located. In recent years, firefighters have averaged about 1.75 hours of training per day
(SMFD website, July 2003).
,..
City of Santa Monica
4.9-2
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.9 Public Services
Table 4.9-2 Fire Service Characteristics for Fire Stations in Santa Monica
Fire Facility Equipment Response
Distance
Fire Station 1 One Paramedic Engine Company with a crew of four, one Paramedic
1444 7th Street, Rescue Squad with a crew of two, one 100' ladder Truck with a crew 1.8 miles
between Santa Monica of five, one Air/Light/Rescue unit, one Command Vehicle with a
Blvd & Broadway Battalion Chief
Fire Station 2 One Engine Company with a crew of four, one Paramedic Rescue
222 Hollister Avenue, Squad with a crew of two, one Heavy Urban Search & Rescue 2.9 miles
at 2nd St Vehicle, one Reserve Engine
Fire Station 3
1302 19 Street, Two Paramedic Engine Companies, each with a crew of four, one
Heavy Hazardous Materials Squad, one reserve engine, one reserve 1.1 miles
between Santa Monica engine squad
Blvd & Wilshire Blvd
Fire Station 5
2450 Ashland Ave, One Paramedic Engine Company, with a crew of four, one Aircraft 1.8 miles
south of Ocean Park Rescue, one reserve engine, one reserve ladder truck
Blvd at the Airport
Source: http://santamonicafire.org/su ppression/stations.htm, 2003.
The maximum allowable response time to emergency calls is 5 minutes. The average response
time is 3 minutes for emergency calls to the SMFD (Esparza, July 2003). The two fire stations
closest to the project are Station #3, located at 1302 19th Street, approximately 1.1 miles from the
site, and Station # 5, located at 2045 Ashland, approximately 1.8 miles from the project site.
Other stations would respond to emergencies at the project site as needed.
d. Police Services. The City of Santa Monica Police Department (SMPD) provides
police protection services to the City and maintains mutual assistance programs with the Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the City of Los Angeles Police Department. The
SMPD is located at 1685 Main Street in Santa Monica, approximately 2-l/2 miles from the project
site. The SMPD divides the city into eight beats and operates these beats on a 24-hour basis.
The SMPD is currently staffed by 215 uniformed police officers (Cbeyich, July 2003). Based on a
total population of 85,686 persons for Santa Monica, there are 2.5 officers per 1,000 individuals.
The Office of Operations is the largest unit of the SMPD and provides the first response to calls
for police assistance. The office is divided into the Uniform Patrol Division and the Directed
Resource Division. There are three patrol watches - the Day Watch, Night Watch, and Morning
Watch. Among the three watches, officers responded to 80,671 calls for service to the SMPD
over the 2000-2001 fiscal year (2001 Annual Report, SMPD). The maximum allowable response
time to emergency calls is 5 minutes, and the average response time for the SMPD is
approximately 2-3 minutes (Cbeyich, July 2003).
4.9.2 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Information from the Santa Monica -
Malibu Unified School District was used to characterize existing conditions related to
,..
City of Santa Monica
4.9-3
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.9 Public Services
educational facilities current enrollment and student generation rate. Information from the
Santa Monica Fire Department and Police Department was used to characterize existing
conditions related to Fire and Police protection.
Public service impacts are considered potentially significant if the project would result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response time, or other performance objectives for:
. Schools
. Police protection
. Fire protection
b. Project Impacts.
Impact PS-1 The proposed project would be expected to generate additional
school-age students. However, with payment of required school
impact fees, impacts would be reduced to a Class III, less than
significant, level.
To assess the impacts of the proposed project, a student generation factor of 0.157 K-12 students
per household (taken from the SMMUSD School Facility Fee Study, 1997) was applied to the
proposed development. Based on this factor, the 145-unit apartment building would generate
an estimated 23 school-age students. Given this small number of students and that the
enrollment of the SMMUSD is projected to remain steady or slightly decline over the next
school year, the Superintendent's office at the SMMUSD has indicated that this increase in
additional students would not significantly affect school operations at the SMMUSD (Wells,
July 2003). The applicant would be required to pay the applicable required State mandated
school impact fees under the provisions of SB 50. Pursuant to Section 65995 (3)(h) of the
California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27,1998), the payment of
statutory fees "...is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative
or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of
real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization."
Mitigation Measures. No measures would be required. The applicable required State
mandated school impact fees would be collected at the time of building permit issuance. No
mitigation beyond this standard requirement is needed.
Significance After Mitigation. The payment of the applicable State mandated school
impact fees is considered full mitigation for the proposed project's impacts under CEQA.
Following payment of these fees, impacts to schools would be less than significant.
Impact PS-2 The proposed project would incrementally increase demands on
the Santa Monica Fire Department. However, the increase
would not significantly affect service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives and would not require the
,..
City of Santa Monica
4.9-4
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.9 Public Services
construction of new fire protection facilities. This is considered
a Class III, less than significant, impact.
Development of the proposed project would incrementally increase demand for fire protection
services due to the addition of 145 residential units at the project site. However, the SMFD has
indicated that the proposed project would not require additional personnel or equipment
(Esparza, July 2003). The site's proximity to Fire Stations #3 and #5 (less than two miles away)
would ensure an adequate response time by the Fire Department in emergency situations.
Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to place a significant additional burden on fire
department services. In addition, the Fire Department would review site plans, site
construction, and the actual structure prior to occupancy in order to ensure that the required
fire protection safety features, including building sprinklers and emergency access, are
implemented. The City of Santa Monica also allocates funding to the fire department during
the annual budget process, the amount of which is based on cumulative development and the
changing needs of the City. Through this process, funding for additional staffing or equipments
needs would be addressed as the needs arise.
Mitigation Measures. As described above, the developer is required to incorporate
applicable Fire Code standards into final site and building plans. The SMFD would review
plans and inspect construction of the project. No mitigation beyond these standard
requirements is necessary.
Significance After Mitigation. Impacts to fire protection service are considered less than
significant without mitigation.
Impact PS-3 The proposed project would incrementally increase demands on
the Santa Monica Police Department. However, the increase
would not significantly affect service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives and would not require the
construction of new police protection facilities. This is
considered a Class III, less than significant, impact.
The proposed project would provide infill development in an urban area where service is
already established. The project would involve a change in the land use on site from industrial
to residential, which has the potential to incrementally increase the number of police service
calls to the site. However, the SMPD has indicated that the incremental increase in police
service calls would not significantly affect police protection service or require the construction
of new police protection facilities (Cbeyich, July 2003). Funding for additional staffing and
equipment is allocated to the Police Department through the City's budget process and is not
directly tied to individual development projects. The growth of the City over time will require
that increased funding be allocated to the Police Department to maintain adequate levels of
serVIce.
Mitigation Measures. No mitigation beyond the standard requirements is necessary.
Significance After Mitigation. Impacts to police protection service are considered less
than significant without mitigation.
,..
City of Santa Monica
4.9-5
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.9 Public Services
c. Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative development in the City would add approximately
900 residential units, which would increase enrollment by an estimated 140 students in the
Santa Monica- Malibu School District. As noted in the Setting, all schools except two in the
SMMUSD are operating over student capacity. However, as projects are approved, they would
be required to pay the full statutory fee allowed by the provisions of SB 50. With the payment
of these fees, cumulative impacts to schools would be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Projected population and employment growth in the City would result in the addition of new
residents and workers to the existing population in Santa Monica. Based on a cumulative
development of approximately 900 residential units, and a city-wide average of 1.83 persons per
household (2000 US Census), population in Santa Monica would increase by 1,620 persons.
The rise in population would increase the demand for protection services from the Fire and
Police Departments. The ratio of Fire and Police uniformed personnel per 1,000 persons
discussed in the Setting above, would not be altered. Compliance with building and site
development standards required by the City of Santa Monica for new residential development
would mitigate impacts to Fire and Police Department services to less than significant levels.
,..
City of Santa Monica
4.9-6
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.10 Construction Effects
4.10 CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS
4.10.1 Setting
Construction effects are related to the site preparation and development components of a
project's implementation. These include potential impacts relating to air quality, noise, and
water quality, as well as construction-related traffic, parking, and staging issues that may
disrupt circulation during the construction period.
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to construction-related air pollution than others
due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups
include children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill, especially those with cardio-
respiratory diseases. Residential uses are also considered sensitive to air pollution because
residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time,
resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Industrial and commercial areas are
considered the least sensitive to air pollution, because exposure periods are relatively short and
intermittent as the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition,
the working population is generally the healthiest segment of the public.
Similarly, some land uses are considered more sensitive to construction-related noise levels
than others, due to the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure time and insulation
from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. Residences, motels and hotels,
schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, parks and outdoor
recreation areas are generally considered more sensitive to noise than are commercial and
industrial land uses.
As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.4, Noise, sensitive receptors in the project
area include the single- and multi-family residential uses to the northwest across Colorado
A venue and a satellite campus of Santa Monica College across Stewart Street.
4.10.2 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. The major impacts associated with
project construction include temporary changes in traffic patterns, air quality, water quality,
and noise. Traffic impacts associated with construction activities are considered significant
when project construction would interfere with the existing traffic flow or causes unsafe
conditions, or if it would introduce truck traffic through a residential area.
Temporary construction-related air quality emissions were estimated using the California Air
Resources Board's (ARB's) URBEMIS 2002 computer model. Construction-related air quality
impacts are considered significant if emissions associated with construction would exceed
adopted South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds. Temporary
construction emission thresholds have been set by the SCAQMD on a daily basis as follows:
· 75 pounds per day of ROC
. 100 pounds per day of NO x
· 550 pounds per day of co
· 150 pounds per day of PMlO
r
City of Santa Monica
4.10-1
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.10 Construction Effects
· 150 pounds per day of SOx
In addition to the above thresholds, if quarterly construction emissions would exceed 2.5 tons
for ROC or NOxt 24.75 tons for CO, or 6.75 tons for PM10, or SOxt air quality impacts relating to
construction are considered significant.
Construction-related water quality impacts are considered significant if construction would
cause erosion or siltation such that surface water quality is substantially degraded.
Noise associated with construction activity was evaluated using construction equipment noise
level estimates contained in the USEP A report Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations,
Building Equipment, and Home Appliances (1971). The City's Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code S
4.12) prohibits noise associated with demolition and other construction activities from
exceeding the allowable exterior noise level for any noise zone by more than 10 dB. The
Ordinance applies to all noise sources located on private property. As part of this ordinance,
properties within the City are assigned a Noise Zone based on their corresponding zoning
district. Residential districts are designated as Noise Zone I; commercial districts such as the
project site are designated Noise Zone II; and manufacturing or industrial districts are
designated as Noise Zone III. The Noise Ordinance also restricts the hours during which
construction may occur. Refer to Table 4.4-1 in Section 4.4, Noise, for exterior noise standards.
The City's Noise Ordinance also restricts construction activity to the hours between 8:00 AM
and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday, between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturday, and does not
allow construction activity to occur on Sunday or major national holidays.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
Impact CON-1 Project construction would temporarily increase truck traffic
in the project area, which could disrupt the normal use of
sidewalks and roadways along the project boundaries, and
also affect parking availability. This is considered a Class II,
significant but mitigable impact.
Project construction is anticipated to last about 24 months, with site preparation occurring over
about five months. Construction activity may temporarily re-route traffic, the majority of which
would be expected to utilize Colorado A venue or Stewart Street. During construction staging,
the storage of construction equipment may require the use of street parking and temporary
closure of some of the surrounding roadways. Construction activity may also require the
temporary closure of the sidewalks adjacent to the site, thus disrupting pedestrian activity in
the area.
In addition to the reduction in on-street parking capacity during construction of the proposed
project, construction site workers would temporarily compete with other users of parking
facilities during the construction period, thus temporarily reducing the available supply of
public parking.
Impacts to pedestrian and vehicular flow in the area and the temporary reduction in on-street
parking capacity are considered potentially significant temporary impacts.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.10-2
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.10 Construction Effects
Mitigation Measures. The following is required to mitigate temporary traffic impacts
during construction.
CON-1
Construction Impact Mitigation Plan. The applicant shall prepare
and implement a Construction Impact Mitigation Plan to provide for
traffic and parking capacity management during construction. This
plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City and, at a
minimum, shall include the following:
· A public information program to advise motorists of impending
construction activities (e.g., media coverage, portable message signs, and
information signs at the construction site);
· Approval from the City, or Caltrans if required, for any construction
detours or construction work requiring encroachment into public rights-
of-way, or any other street use activity (e.g., haul routes);
· Timely notification of construction schedules to all affected agencies (e.g.,
Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Public Works,
Department of Planning and Community Development, Los Angeles
County Superior Court, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, and
transit agencies);
· Coordination of construction work with affected agencies five to ten days
prior to start of work;
. A traffic control plan for the streets surrounding the work area, which
includes specific information regarding the project's construction and
activities that will disrupt normal traffic flow;
. Minimizing dirt and demolition material hauling and construction
material delivery during the morning and afternoon peak traffic periods
and cleaning of streets and equipment as necessary;
· Scheduling and expediting of work to cause the least amount of
disruption and interference to the adjacent vehicular and pedestrian
traffic flow. Weekday daytime work on City streets shall primarily be
performed between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM;
· Limiting of queuing of trucks to on-site and prohibition of truck queuing
on area roadways;
· Scheduling of preconstruction meetings with affected agencies to
properly plan methods of controlling traffic through work areas;
· Storage of construction material and equipment within the designated
work area and limitation of equipment and material visibility to the
public; and
· Provision of off-street parking construction workers, which may include
the use of a remote location with shuttle transport to the site, if
determined necessary by the City of Santa Monica.
Significance After Mitigation. With implementation of the required Construction Impact
Mitigation Plan, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.10-3
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.10 Construction Effects
Impact CON-2 Project construction would generate a temporary increase in
air pollutant emissions. Worst-case daily emissions would
exceed established SCAQMD thresholds for ROC.
Therefore, impacts are considered Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
Construction would involve demolition, site preparation, and construction of the residential
buildings, and would result in temporary air quality impacts due to the generation of fugitive
dust (PMIO) and exhaust emissions associated with heavy construction vehicles. In particular,
the operation of heavy construction equipment would result in emissions of the ozone
precursors, reactive organic compounds (ROC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), as well as carbon
monoxide (CO).
Because the demolition and grading phases of construction use substantial heavy-duty
construction equipment and generate the largest amount of fugitive dust, these phases are used
to gauge the potential impact of project construction upon local and regional air quality. Also,
during project grading, the soils that underlie the site would be turned over and pushed
around, exposing the soil to wind erosion and dust entrainment by on site operating equipment.
In addition to the emissions associated with construction equipment, construction worker
vehicles traveling to and from the site would contribute a small amount of emissions.
Table 4.10-1 shows the worst-case daily construction emissions during site preparation. The
greatest contributions to temporary impacts would be from the generation of fugitive dust
during demolition and the operation of heavy-duty construction equipment during grading.
However, emissions during demolition and grading would not exceed SCAQMD daily
significance thresholds.
Table 4.10-1 Worst-Case Daily Construction Emissions
During Site Preparation
(Ibs per day)
Emission Source ROC NOx CO PMlO
Demolition --- --- --- 7.35
Equipment Emissions 9.64 79.02 71.67 3.41
Construction Worker Trips 0.04 0.02 0.52 0.01
Totals 9.68 79.04 72.19 10.77
Threshold (peak day) 75 100 550 150
See Appendix B for calculations
The highest emissions of ROC would occur during application of architectural coatings. Worst-
case daily emissions of ROC during this phase of construction are estimated at about 140
pounds per day (see Appendix B for calculations). This exceeds the SCAQMD daily
significance threshold of 75 pounds per day; therefore, impacts are considered significant.
Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are required to minimize ROC
emissions and recommended to minimize dust and NOx emissions for the proposed project.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.10-4
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.10 Construction Effects
CON-2(a) Dust Minimization. Dust generated by the development activities
shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on the site
through implementation of the following:
. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation
of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used
to the extent necessary to prevent dust from leaving the site and to
create a crust after each day's activities cease.
. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation
of cut or fill materials, streets and sidewalks within 150 feet of the site
perimeter shall be swept and cleaned a minimum of twice weekly.
. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to
keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from
leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down
such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day
and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.
. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or
treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
CON-2(b) Construction Equipment Conditions. Construction equipment
used on the site shall meet the following conditions in order to
minimize NOx and ROC emissions:
· The number of pieces of equipment operating simultaneously must be
minimized through efficient management practices;
. Construction equipment must be maintained in tune per
manufacturer's specifications;
. Equipment shall be equipped with 2- to 4-degree engine timing retard
or pre-combustion chamber engines;
. Catalytic converters shall be installed, to the extent feasible;
. Diesel-powered equipment such as booster pumps or generators should
be replaced by electric equipment, to the extent feasible; and
. The operation of heavy-duty construction equipment shall be limited to
no more than 5 pieces of equipment at anyone time.
CON-2(c) Low-VOC Coatings. Low-VOC architectural coatings shall be used
in construction whenever feasible and shall coordinate with the
SCAQMD to determine which coatings would reduce VOC
emissions to the maximum degree feasible.
Significance After Mitigation. Implementation of the above measures would reduce
construction-related emissions to the degree feasible. Emissions of NOx and fugitive dust
would be below SCAQMD significance thresholds. However, worst-case daily ROC emissions
associated with the application of architectural coatings would continue to exceed the
SCAQMD significance threshold for that pollutant. Therefore, the impact during the painting
phase of construction would remain unavoidably significant.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.10-5
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.10 Construction Effects
Impact CON-3 Project construction could potentially result in the erosion
and sedimentation of soils offsite, with temporary adverse
impacts to water quality. This is considered a Class III, less
than significant, impact.
As discussed in Section 4.3, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project involves
excavation and grading for construction of the parking structure and residential buildings.
During site preparation, soil erosion could occur and could contribute to a decrease in water
quality offsite. However, compliance with the applicable requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the City's Urban Runoff Pollution
Control Ordinance for construction activities would ensure that construction does not
significantly affect water quality.
Mitigation Measures. Compliance with the requirements of the NPDES and the City's
Urban Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance for construction activities would ensure that
construction-related water quality impacts are less than significant. No mitigation measures are
required.
Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant without
mitigation.
Impact CON-4 Project construction would intermittently generate high
noise levels on and adjacent to the site. This may affect
sensitive receptors near the project site. This is considered a
Class II, significant but mitigable, impact.
The grading/ excavation phase of project construction tends to create the highest noise levels
because of the operation of heavy equipment. As shown in Table 4.10-2, noise levels associated
with heavy equipment typically range from about 78 to 88 dBA at 50 feet from the source.
Continuous operation of this equipment during a nine-hour workday can cause noise levels
onsite and at adjacent receptor locations that are well above ambient levels and could exceed
applicable noise standards.
Table 4.10-2 Typical Noise Levels at Construction Sites
Average Noise Level at 50 Feet
Construction Phase Minimum Required All Pertinent
Equipment On-Site Equipment On-Site
Clearing 84 dBA 84 dBA
Excavation 78 dBA 88 dBA
F oundation/Conditioni ng 88 dBA 88 dBA
Laying Subbase, Paving 78 dBA 79 dBA
Finishing and Cleanup 84 dBA 84 dBA
Source: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, "Noise from Construction Equipment and
Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances," prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971.
The City's Noise Ordinance prohibits noise associated with demolition and other construction
activities from exceeding the allowable exterior noise level for any zone by more than 10 dB. As
r
City of Santa Monica
4.10-6
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.10 Construction Effects
discussed in Section 4.4, Noise, the project site is within Noise Zone III, which prohibits onsite
noise from exceeding 70 dB (see Table 4.4-1). Therefore, construction-related noise on the
project site would not be permitted to exceed 80 dB. The sensitive uses closest to the project site
are the residences across Colorado A venue, approximately 65 feet away. At that distance,
construction-related noise could be as high as 86 dBA. Therefore, mitigation is required.
The project would also be required to comply with restrictions in the Noise Ordinance that limit
the times when construction may occur. The Ordinance restricts construction activity to
between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM on
Saturday, and does not allow construction activity to occur on Sunday or major national
holidays.
Mitigation Measures. The following measures are recommended to reduce construction
noise impacts at the site to the degree feasible.
CON-4(a)
CON-4(b)
CON-4(c)
CON-4(d)
Diesel Equipment Mufflers. All diesel equipment shall be
operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with
factory-recommended mufflers.
Electrically-Powered Tools. Electrical power shall be used to run
air compressors and similar power tools.
Additional Noise Attenuation Techniques. For all
noise-generating construction activity on the project site,
additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed to
reduce noise levels to City of Santa Monica noise standards. Such
techniques may include, but are not limited to, the use of sound
blankets on noise generating equipment and the construction of
temporary sound barriers between construction sites and nearby
sensitive receptors.
Construction Sign Posting. In accordance with Municipal Code
Section 4.12.210, the project applicant shall be required to post a
sign informing all workers and subcontractors of the time
restrictions for construction activities. The sign shall also include
the City telephone numbers where violations can be reported and
complaints associated with construction noise can be submitted.
Significance After Mitigation. Implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures would be expected to reduce construction-related noise to below the maximum levels
allowed under the City Noise Ordinance. For example, construction of a 10-foot high barrier
wall at the edge of the project site would reduce construction noise at adjacent sensitive
receptors from 86 dB to about 74 dB (see Appendix D). At a minimum, this level of noise
reduction could be accomplished. With mitigation, temporary construction-related noise
impacts would be less than significant.
c. Cumulative Impacts. Individual construction projects located throughout the City
would add a total of about three million square feet on non-residential development and about
r
4.10-7
City of Santa Monica
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.10 Construction Effects
900 residential units. This development would create temporary traffic, air quality, and noise
impacts similar to those described for the project. However, the effects of construction activity
would be localized in nature and would not contribute to any cumulative citywide impacts.
Consequently, compliance with standard construction mitigation requirements similar to those
described for the project on a case-by-case basis would mitigate any potential impacts from
individual construction projects.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.10-8
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.11 Neighborhood Effects
4.11 NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS
4.11.1 Setting
a. Regulatory Setting. The City of Santa Monica Land Use Element of the General Plan
requires the completion of a neighborhood impact statement, with public input. This
requirement details the assessment of neighborhood impacts associated with all proposed
projects in the character and cohesiveness of each neighborhood in the City. The principal
objective stated under the Neighborhood Participation in the Land Use Elements is to
encourage citizen and neighborhood participation in the City planning process to ensure
realization of the goals of the Element.
b. Existing Neighborhood Characteristics. The project site is located in the western
portion of the City of Santa Monica on the northern edge of an irregular-shaped block bounded
by Colorado Avenue, Stewart Street, Nebraska Avenue, and Stanford Street. The area's historic
development as a manufacturing district began in the 1930s when it was located outside of the
original city boundaries, and continued commercial and industrial development in the area may
be attributed to its accessible location as well as a nearby railway line that runs south of
Nebraska A venue. At present, the area around the project site contains a number of commercial
and industrial buildings including warehouses, small manufacturing shops and design studios,
a cafe, a mobile home park, a religious center, production offices, and several parking lots.
Adjacent to the project site across Stewart Street is a recent development of two-story and taller
office and industrial buildings. To the northeast is a grouping of manufacturing buildings and
design studios with a layout similar to that of the project site. These buildings were probably
constructed at the same time as those of the project site, circa 1940s and later. Across Colorado
A venue is a mix of one-story single-family residences and apartment buildings from the 1910s
through the 1950s. To the southeast is a storage and distribution facility operated by the
Southern California Gas Company. While most of the manufacturing businesses that once
existed in the vicinity no longer remain, most of the older buildings are occupied by commercial
enterprises.
4.11.2 Summary of Neighborhood Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Project impacts that would affect the surrounding neighborhood are summarized in Table 4.11-
1. A discussion of the project's effects on the surrounding neighborhood follows. Included in
the criteria for neighborhood effects are impacts that would affect the surrounding community,
such as aesthetics, air quality, construction, noise, and traffic. The significance criteria for each
impact listed below are described in their respective sections (Section 4.2, Air Quality, Section
4.4, Noise, Section 4.5, TransportationfTraffic, Section 4.7, Aesthetics/Shadow Effects, and Section
4.10, Construction Effects). Please refer to individual report sections for detailed analysis of
project impacts and mitigation measures for each issue area.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.11-1
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.11 Neighborhood Effects
Table 4.11-1 Summary of Neighborhood Effects
Section 4.2, Air Quality
I m pact Mitigation Measures
Impact AQ-1 The proposed project would incrementally No mitigation measures are required.
increase air pollutant emissions. However, emissions would not
exceed the SCAQMD's daily thresholds. Therefore, the project
would have a Class III, less than significant, impact to regional
air quality.
Impact AQ-2 Project-generated traffic, together with other No mitigation measures are required.
cumulative traffic in the area, would incrementally increase
carbon monoxide levels in the site vicinity. However, because
concentrations would remain below state and federal standards,
this impact is considered Class III, less than significant.
Section 4.4, Noise
Impact Mitigation Measures
Impact N-1 Project-generated traffic would incrementally No mitigation measures are required.
increase noise levels on Stewart Street. However, the change in
noise levels would be inaudible. Therefore, the effect of
increased traffic noise on off-site sensitive receptors is considered
a Class III, less than significant, impact.
Impact N-2 Operation of the proposed project would generate No mitigation measures are required.
noise levels that may periodically be audible to sensitive
receptors near the project site. However, noise levels are not
expected to exceed the City's noise ordinance standards. This
is considered a Class III, less than significant, impact.
Section 4.5, Transportationffraffic
Impact Mitigation Measures
Impact T-2 The proposed project would increase the average No measures are available to mitigate the
daily traffic on Yale Street and Nebraska Avenue by more than potential impacts to the affected
one vehicle per day. This would exceed the City of Santa segments of Yale Street and Nebraska
Monica significance criteria for local streets and result in a Avenue.
Class I, unavoidably significant, impact.
Section 4.7, Aesthetics/Shadow Effects
Impact Mitigation Measures
Impact AES-1 The proposed project is consistent with the No mitigation measures are required.
guidelines set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and Land Use
Element and would not substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
Therefore, impacts to visual resources are considered Class III,
less than significant.
Impact AES-2 The proposed project would increase light and AES-2(a) Shielded Exterior Lighting.
glare at the project site over current conditions. This is
considered Class II, significant but mitigable. AES-2(b) Shielded Landscape
Illumination.
AES-2(c) Low Glare Materials.
See pages 4.7-4 and 4.7-5 for full text of
mitigation measures.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.11-2
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.11 Neighborhood Effects
Table 4.11-1 Summary of Neighborhood Effects
Impact AES-3 The proposed residential buildings would cast No mitigation measures are required.
shadows onto adjacent buildings, particularly in the wintertime.
However, affected buildings are either not sun-sensitive or
would not be affected for a significant part of the day. Impacts
would be Class III, less than significant.
Section 4.10, Construction Effects
Impact Mitigation Measures
Impact CON-1 Project construction would temporarily CON-1 Construction Impact Mitigation
increase truck traffic in the project area, which could disrupt the Plan.
normal use of sidewalks and roadways along the project
boundaries, and also affect parking availability. This is See page 4.10-3 for full text of mitigation
considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact. measure.
Impact CON-2 Project construction would generate a CON-2(a) Dust Minimization.
temporary increase in air pollutant emissions. Worst-case daily
emissions would exceed established SCAQMD thresholds for CON-2(b) Construction Equipment
ROC. Therefore, impacts are considered Class I, significant Conditions.
and unavoidable.
CON-2(c) Low-VOC Coatings.
These measures would reduce impacts
somewhat, but would not fully mitigate
construction-related air quality impacts.
See page 4.10-5 for full text of mitigation
measures.
Impact CON-3 Project construction could potentially result in No mitigation measures are required.
the erosion and sedimentation of soils offsite, with temporary
adverse impacts to water quality. This is considered a Class
III, less than significant, impact.
Impact CON-4 Project construction would intermittently CON-4(a) Diesel Equipment Mufflers.
generate high noise levels on and adjacent to the site. This
may affect sensitive receptors near the project site. This is CON-4(b) Electrically-Powered Tools.
considered a Class II, significant but mitigable, impact.
CON-4(c) Noise Attenuation Techniques.
CON-4(d) Construction Noise Hotline.
See page 4.10-7 for full text of mitigation
measures.
Air Quality. As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, long-term emissions resulting from
the proposed project would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds and concentrations of
carbon monoxide (CO) near study area intersections are anticipated to remain below state and
federal standards. This is considered a less than significant impact.
Noise. In the long term, the proposed project would incrementally increase noise along
local roadways as a result of project-generated traffic. However, the increased noise associated
the proposed project would not be significant, as the resultant noise level increases would be
inaudible (less than 3 dB). Noise from onsite activities during operation of the project is not
expected to significantly affect offsite users.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.11-3
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.11 Neighborhood Effects
Transportation/Traffic. The project's potential to impact neighborhood streets was
evaluated for six street segments in the project vicinity using the existing average daily traffic on
each street and assigning the daily project-related trips to each street. Table 4.5-9 in Section 4.5,
TransportationfTraffic, summarizes the impact analysis for these streets, which indicates that the
project would significantly affect Yale Street north of Colorado Avenue and Nebraska A venue
between Stewart Street and Centinela Avenue. Due to the existing high volumes of traffic on
these local streets, the addition of even one daily trip is considered a significant impact.
Therefore, outside of closing the affected street segments, which is not a viable option due to the
secondary effects associated with that action, there are no mitigation measures that would fully
eliminate the potential for even a single trip to be added to these street segments.
Aesthetics/Shadow Effects. Implementation of the proposed project would introduce
new light and glare sources on a site that has historically been occupied by low-profile
structures with little or no nighttime activity. Parking and other common areas within the
proposed development would be lighted, and light would also be shed from windows of the
residential units. In addition, vehicles exiting the development onto Colorado A venue and
Stewart Street would cast light onto adjacent areas. Mitigation measures have been identified in
Section 4.7, Aesthetics/Shadow Effects, to reduce potential impacts from lighting.
New sources of glare would be introduced by the proposed project, specifically glazing
(windows) and other reflective materials that could potentially be used in the facade of the
buildings. The existing onsite buildings produce minimal glare; therefore, impacts relating to
glare are considered potentially significant. Mitigation measures have been identified in Section
4.7, Aesthetics/Shadow Effects, to reduce potential impacts from glare.
Shadows cast by the proposed project would be longest during the winter solstice. As shown
on Figures 4.7-1A and 4.7-1B in Section 4.7, Aesthetics/Shadow Effects, in the morning hours of the
winter solstice, the proposed project would cast shadows to the northwest across the interior
courtyards of the project and onto Colorado Avenue. The shadows would extend partially onto
the residential properties across Colorado Avenue from the project site; however, the extension
onto these properties would be minimal, as shown on Figure 4.7-1A. During the noon hour, the
development's shadow would fall onto the existing industrial and commercial development
directly adjacent to the site to the north and would continue to move northward into the
afternoon, as shown on Figure 4.7-1B. Thus, during the afternoon hours near the time of the
winter solstice, the adjacent development to the north would be mostly shaded by the proposed
project. However, the adjacent industrial development is not a sun-sensitive use. Therefore,
impacts relating to shadows generated by the proposed project would not be significant.
As shown on Figure 4.7-2A, summer morning shadows cast by the proposed project would be
relatively short and would fall onto the inner courtyards of the project and Stewart Street.
Noontime shadows during the summer would be very limited and would remain mostly within
the project site. Figure 4.7-2B shows that the afternoon shadows would shift to the east and
extend onto the adjacent buildings and the parking lot of the Southern California Gas Company
facility. Summer shadows would be short and would not affect any sun-sensitive uses.
Therefore, summer shadow impacts are considered less than significant.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.11-4
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 4.11 Neighborhood Effects
Construction Effects. Construction activity may temporarily re-route traffic, the
majority of which would be expected to utilize Stewart Street or Colorado A venue. Project
construction may also disrupt pedestrian activity and parking availability in the area. A
Construction Impact Mitigation Plan is required to be developed and would mitigation
construction-related traffic impacts.
Construction of the proposed project would generate high noise levels on and adjacent to the
site. The expected average noise levels associated with the use of heavy equipment, estimated
at about 86 dB at the nearest residential use, would exceed the City Noise Ordinance standard
of 80 dB for construction-related noise in Noise Zone III. This would be a temporary significant
impact, which would cease upon completion of construction activities. However, mitigation
measures to reduce noise levels to within the Noise Ordinance standard are recommended in
Section 4.10, Construction Effects.
Project construction would also result in temporary significant impacts, which would cease at
completion of construction activities. As discussed in Section 4.10, Construction Effects,
emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROC) would exceed the SCAQMD's daily
construction threshold for that pollutant. Mitigation measures to reduce construction-related
air emissions are included in Section 4.10, Construction Effects; however, impacts would remain
significant even after implementation of these measures. Therefore, construction impacts are
considered unavoidably significant.
r
City of Santa Monica
4.11-5
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 5.0 Growth Inducing Impacts
5.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
The State CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of a proposed project's potential to foster
economic or population growth, including ways in which a project could remove an obstacle to
growth. Growth does not necessarily create significant physical changes to the environment.
However, depending upon the type, magnitude, and location of growth, it can result in
significant adverse environmental effects. The proposed project's growth-inducing potential is
therefore considered significant if it could result in significant physical effects in one or more
environmental issue areas. The most commonly cited example of how an economic effect might
create a physical change is where economic growth in one area could create blight conditions
elsewhere by causing existing competitors to go out of business and the buildings to be left
vacant.
5.1 ECONOMIC AND POPULATION GROWTH
The proposed project involves the construction of a 145-unit apartment complex with a one-
level subterranean parking garage. The project would generate short-term employment
opportunities during construction, which would be expected to draw workers from the existing
regional work force. The project would not create any new employment opportunities over the
long-term. Therefore, the proposed project would not be considered growth-inducing from an
employment standpoint.
The project would provide 145 residential units, which could accommodate about 265 people
(based on the average household size in the City of 1.83 people per unit) (City of Santa Monica
Housing Element, 1998). As described in Section 4.8, Population and Housing, the current (2002)
population of the City is estimated at 85,686 (City of Santa Monica Official Web Site, 2003). The
projected future population of the project represents less than half of one percent of the total
population in the City, and is within the 0.82% annual growth rate projected for the City over
the next 20 years (City of Santa Monica Housing Element, 1998). Furthermore, the project is
intended to provide new housing opportunities for people who already reside in the City as
well as those who are moving into the City from elsewhere; therefore, not all of the residents of
the project would be new to the City. Thus, the potential increase in population attributable to
the proposed project is not considered significant.
Mitigation Measures. None required.
Residual Impacts. No significant environmental impacts relating to economic or
population growth are anticipated
5.2 REMOVAL OF OBSTACLES TO GROWTH
The project site is located in a fully urbanized area that is well-served by existing infrastructure.
Minor improvements to water, sewer, circulation system, and drainage connection
infrastructure could be needed, but would be sized to specifically serve the proposed project.
No new roads or significant expansions of road capacity would be required to serve the project.
Because the project constitutes infill development within an urbanized area and does not
r
City of Santa Monica
5-1
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 5.0 Growth Inducing Impacts
require the extension of new infrastructure through undeveloped areas, project implementation
would not remove an obstacle to growth.
Mitigation Measures. None required.
Residual Impacts. No significant environmental impacts relating to the removal of
obstacles to population growth are anticipated.
r
City of Santa Monica
5-2
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 6.0 Alternatives
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
As required by Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this EIR examines a range of
reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Included in this analysis are two alternatives
that involve different development configurations on the site and the CEQA-required "no
project" alternative. The alternatives are listed below:
. No Project
. Reduced Project (72 residential units)
. Commercial Project (production-related studios/offices)
Table 6-1 provides a summary comparison of the development characteristics of the proposed
project and the three alternatives. A more detailed description of the various alternatives is
included in the impact analysis for each alternative.
Table 6-1 Comparison of Project Alternatives' Buildout
Characteristics
Alternative
Characteristic Proposed No Project Reduced Commercial
Project Project Project
Use Residential Light Industrial Residential Commercial
Building Area 145 units -38,400 sf 72 units 76,800 sf
(115,150sf) (57,575 sf)
Building Height 45 ft 12 ft 45 ft 45 ft
Parking Spaces 228 NA 119 192
(Total)
Building heights and number of parking spaces are approximate.
NA = not applicable; sf = square feet; ft = feet
This section also evaluates the feasibility of similar development at alternative locations and, as
required by CEQA, includes a discussion of the "environmentally superior alternative" among
those studied.
6.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
6.1.1 Description
This alternative assumes that the project is not constructed and that the site continues to house
light industrial development.
6.1.2 Impact Analysis
Because no development would occur under this alternative, no change in environmental
conditions would occur. Thus, the project's significant and unavoidable construction-related air
quality impacts and impacts to the local circulation system would be avoided, as would the
r
City of Santa Monica
6-1
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 6.0 Alternatives
potentially significant but mitigable impacts in the areas of light and glare, geology, noise,
traffic, and construction.
No change in the aesthetic condition of the site would occur under this alternative. Some may
consider the existing industrial use visually preferable to the proposed project. However, the
current aesthetic condition of the site could also be considered less pleasing than a
well-conceived and designed residential project, which would provide an architecturally
coherent infill development that meets the City's objectives for increasing the stock of housing.
Overall, this alternative's impact would be less than that of the proposed project. It should be
noted, however, that implementation of the no project alternative at this time would not
preclude the future redevelopment of the site.
6.2 REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
6.2.1 Description
In order to evaluate the potential impacts of a project of the same land use as that proposed but
smaller in size, this alternative considers the development of 72 residential units, or half of the
145 units that are proposed. It is assumed that the number of each type of unit (low income,
studio, I-bedroom, 2-bedroom) would roughly be divided in half. This alternative would
require 119 parking spaces, all of which would be provided in a one-level subterranean garage.
The building heights would still vary between two and four stories, but this alternative would
involve the construction of fewer than 18 buildings.
6.2.2 Impact Analysis
a. Geology and Soils. This alternative would be subject to geologic and seismic issues
similar in nature to those of the proposed project. As with the proposed project, this
development would be subject to potentially significant impacts relating to possible intrusion of
groundwater and excavation failure. All mitigation measures recommended for the proposed
project would apply.
The level of impact for all geologic issues would be incrementally reduced as compared to the
proposed project because of the reduced number of buildings. However, as discussed in
Section 4.1, all project impacts can be reduced to a level considered less than significant.
Consequently, though the potential for geologic and seismic impacts would be slightly lower
under this alternative, the magnitude of impact would be similar to that of the proposed project.
b. Air Quality. This alternative would generate about 50% less weekday traffic than the
proposed project. Consequently, air pollutant emissions associated with project operation and
overall impacts to local and regional air quality would be similarly lower. As with the
proposed project, overall operational air pollutant emissions would be less than the SCAQMD
thresholds for all criteria pollutants, including carbon monoxide.
c. Hydrology and Water Quality. This alternative would have approximately the same
impact as the proposed project with respect to hydrology and water quality. Potential impacts
related to water quality would be the same in this alternative, and as with the proposed project,
r
City of Santa Monica
6-2
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 6.0 Alternatives
all impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. Therefore, this alternative's
potential impact to hydrology and water quality is considered similar to that of the proposed
project.
d. Noise. This alternative would generate about 50% less weekday traffic as the
proposed project and would therefore incrementally reduce traffic noise on the local circulation
system. Though the overall traffic-related noise energy would be slightly less than under the
proposed project, traffic-related noise would not be audibly different than under the proposed
project. As with the proposed project, the noise impact along area roadways would be less than
significant.
e. Transportation[Iraffic. This alternative would generate about 50% fewer trips as the
proposed project. The net daily traffic generation for this alternative is estimated at about 386
trips. The reduction in traffic associated with this alternative would reduce the level of impact
at all study area intersections; however, it could still result in unavoidably significant impacts at
study area intersections and on neighborhood street segments.
The parking requirement for this alternative would be 119 spaces, which could be met with a
one-level subterranean parking garage similar to that planned for the proposed project.
Therefore, this alternative, like the proposed project, would not significantly affect parking
supply.
f. Historic Resources. This alternative's impacts to potential historic resources would
be the same as those of the proposed project because the alternative would require removal of
all existing on site structures. However, as with the proposed project, impacts are not
considered significant because the existing buildings are not considered important historic
resources. No mitigation would be required.
g. Aesthetics/Shadow Effects. This alternative could potentially create lighting and
glare impacts similar to those of the proposed project; thus, the mitigation for light and glare
impacts required for the project in Section 4.7, Aesthetics/Shadow Effects, would apply to this
alternative. This alternative's visual impact would be slightly less than that of the proposed
project because of its reduced size and are considered less than significant without mitigation.
Because this alternative would contain fewer buildings than the proposed project, the overall
shadow impact created by this alternative would be less. Though this alternative's impact
would be incrementally lower, neither this alternative nor the proposed project would create
any significant shadow effects.
h. Population and Housing. This alternative would provide half as much new housing
in the City; therefore, it would have less benefit than the proposed project in terms of increasing
the stock of housing. However, it would not generate as much population growth as the
proposed project, which could be considered positive. Nevertheless, this alternative, like the
proposed project, would not create significant population or housing impacts.
i. Public Services. As this alternative would contain fewer residential units and
therefore generate less population growth, its impacts to public services would be somewhat
r
City of Santa Monica
6-3
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 6.0 Alternatives
less than those of the proposed project. However, the project's impacts to public services are
considered less than significant without mitigation.
j. Construction Effects. Because this alternative involves fewer buildings and less
overall development, the duration of construction activity would be somewhat less under this
alternative. Therefore, construction-related noise, traffic, and water quality impacts associated
with this alternative would be slightly lower than for the proposed project, though all
mitigation measures recommended for the project would apply. Similar to the proposed
project, implementation of the recommended measures would reduce these impacts to less than
significant. This alternative could also avoid the proposed project's unavoidably significant air
quality impacts during the application of architectural coatings. Therefore, this alternative
could be considered superior to the proposed project in that respect.
k. Neighborhood Effects. This alternative's temporary construction-related
neighborhood effects would be similar to those of the proposed project, with the exception of
air quality, where this alternative's impact could be less than significant with mitigation.
Long-term neighborhood effects would also be similar. As with the proposed project, the
residential development that would occur under this alternative would generally be compatible
with the character of the neighborhood. The smaller number of buildings proposed in this
alternative would incrementally reduce shadow effects, although both this alternative and the
proposed project are expected to have generally positive aesthetic impacts. Traffic-related
impacts would be slightly lower due to the reduction in trip generation as compared to the
proposed project. Nevertheless, similar to the project, unavoidably significant traffic impacts
would occur on Yale Street and Nebraska A venue in the project vicinity, and could occur at area
intersections. This alternative, like the proposed project, would potentially allow housing
development to occur on other parcels within the LMSD zone. However, this would not result
in significant environmental effects beyond those associated with other development projects in
the City.
6.3 COMMERCIAL PROJECT
6.3.1 Description
This alternative involves development of a 76,000 square foot building containing production-
related studio and office uses on the project site. This type of project would be consistent with
the current LMSD zoning on the site and would not require an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance. The building proposed under this alternative would be subject to a 45-foot, four-
story height limit and a maximum floor-area ratio of 1.0. A total of 192 parking spaces would
be provided in a one-level subterranean parking garage.
6.3.2 Impact Analysis
a. Geology and Soils. The footprint and height of the structure that would be built
under this alternative would be similar to the proposed project. As such, geologic and seismic
impacts would be the same as for the project. The mitigation measures recommended for the
project for control of possible groundwater intrusion and excavation failure would apply.
Implementation of these measures would reduce impacts to a level considered less than
r
City of Santa Monica
6-4
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 6.0 Alternatives
significant. However, the overall level of risk for this alternative would be less than that of the
proposed project because this alternative would not involve any residential development.
b. Air Quality. This alternative would generate about 11 % less weekday traffic than the
proposed project. Air pollutant emissions associated with project would therefore be similarly
lower. As with the proposed project, overall operational air pollutant emissions would be less
than the SCAQMD thresholds for all criteria pollutants. Like the proposed project, this
alternative would not create any CO hot spots at area intersections. Overall air quality impacts
of this alternative would be slightly less than those of the proposed project.
c. Hydrology and Water Quality. This alternative would have approximately the same
impact as the proposed project with respect to hydrology and water quality and no mitigation
would be required. Therefore, this alternative's potential impact to hydrology and water
quality is considered equal to that of the proposed project and would not be significant.
d. Noise. This alternative would generate about 11 % less traffic than the proposed
project and would therefore incrementally reduce traffic noise on the local circulation system.
Though the overall traffic-related noise energy generated by the project would be slightly less
than under the proposed project, traffic-related noise along area roadways would not be
audibly different. Similar to the proposed project, roadway noise impacts would be less than
significant.
e. Historic Resources. This alternative's impacts to potential historic resources would
be the same as the proposed project, since it would require demolition of all of the existing
buildings. As with the proposed project, impacts are considered less than significant and no
mitigation is required because the existing buildings are not considered historic resources.
f. Traffic and Parking. This alternative would generate about 11 % fewer weekday trips
than the proposed project. Overall net daily traffic generation is estimated at 699 trips. The
reduction in traffic associated with this alternative would reduce the level of impact at all study
area intersections. Nevertheless, significant impacts at the one intersection and two street
segments that would be affected by the proposed project may occur under this alternative as
well. The parking requirement for this alternative would be 192 spaces, which would be
provided below-ground. Therefore, this alternative's parking demand could be met with a
similar configuration of parking as the proposed project and impacts would be less than
significant. Overall traffic impacts would be slightly less under this alternative.
g. Aesthetics/Shadow Effects. This alternative would involve less square footage than
the proposed project; thus, its visual impact may be slightly lower. However, project-related
visual impacts would not be significant, and this alternative, like the proposed project, could be
considered to improve the aesthetic condition of the project site. The mitigation recommended
for the proposed project relating to lighting and glare would apply to this alternative and
would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This alternative could have less impact
relating to shadows than the proposed project because of the reduced development size. As
with the proposed project, shadow impacts would not be significant. Overall, this alternative's
visual impacts are considered similar to those of the proposed project.
r
City of Santa Monica
6-5
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 6.0 Alternatives
h. Population and Housing. This alternative would not involve the development of any
housing; therefore, it would be less beneficial than the proposed project because it would not
increase the stock of housing. It would provide a benefit of additional jobs in the City; however,
since the City is rich in jobs and poor in housing, the creation of new jobs may be considered
less beneficial than creating additional housing opportunities.
i. Public Services. As this alternative would not contain residential development and
therefore would not increase the population, its impacts to public services would be somewhat
less than those of the proposed project. However, the project's impacts to public services are
considered less than significant without mitigation.
j. Construction Effects. Construction-related noise, traffic, and water quality impacts
associated with this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed project. Because the
amount of excavation needed would be about the same as the proposed project, the duration of
construction effects would also be similar. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of
the recommended measures would reduce these impacts to less than significant. This
alternative would also avoid the proposed project's unavoidably significant air quality impacts
during the application of architectural coatings. Therefore, this alternative could be considered
superior to the proposed project in that respect.
k. Neighborhood Effects. This alternative's temporary construction-related
neighborhood effects would be similar to those of the proposed project, with the exception of
air quality, where this alternative's impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Long-term neighborhood effects would also be similar. The commercial development that
would occur under this alternative would generally be compatible with the character of the
existing neighborhood, which includes similar production-related uses and other commercial
uses. The smaller building area proposed in this alternative could incrementally reduce
shadow effects, although both this alternative and the proposed project are expected to have
generally positive aesthetic impacts. Traffic-related impacts would be slightly lower due to the
reduction in trip generation as compared to the proposed project. Nevertheless, similar to the
project, unavoidably significant traffic impacts would occur on Yale Street and Nebraska
A venue in the project vicinity, and could occur at area intersections. This alternative would not
involve an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and therefore would not have the potential to
allow housing to occur on other LMSD-zoned parcels.
6.4 ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS
The evaluation of alternative sites is subject to special consideration under CEQA. The
California Supreme Court, in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990), indicates that
a discussion of alternative sites is needed if the project "may be feasibly accomplished in a
successful manner considering the economic, environmental, social, and technological factors
involved" at another site.
As suggested in Goleta, several criteria form the basis of whether alternative sites need to be
considered in detail. These criteria take the form of the following questions:
1. Could the size and other characteristics of another site physically accommodate the
project?
r
City of Santa Monica
6-6
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 6.0 Alternatives
2. Is another site reasonably available for acquisition?
3. Is the timing of carrying out development on an alternative site reasonable for the
applicant?
4. Is the project economically feasible on the alternative site?
5. Is the land use designation of the alternative site compatible with the project?
6. Does the lead agency have jurisdiction over the alternative site?
7. Are there any social, technological, or other factors that may make the alternative site
infeasible?
Numerous sites located throughout Santa Monica would potentially meet several of the criteria
outlined in the Goleta decision. However, no other sites that would meet the size, cost, and land
use designation criteria needed to accommodate the project are known to be available for
acquisition at this time. Moreover, given the time and expense that have already been invested
in the proposed project site, implementing the project at another site may not be feasible from a
timing or economic standpoint. Consequently, other sites that could potentially meet some
criteria may not meet criteria 2, 3, or 4. Additionally, because of the scale of the proposed
project, significant impacts related to traffic and circulation, construction-related air quality and
noise, and neighborhood effects would occur even if the proposed project were located at an
alternate site within the City. Therefore, discussion of alternative sites does is not warranted.
6.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
As required by CEQA, this section identifies the environmentally superior alternative. Table 6-2
provides a summary comparison of the impacts of the various project alternatives.
Table 6-2 Impact Comparison of Alternatives
Issue Proposed No Project Reduced Commercial
Project Project Project
Geology and Soils = + = =
Air Quality = + + +
Hydrology/Water Quality = + = =
Noise = + + +
Historic Resources = + = =
T ra nspo rtati 0 nIT raffi c = + + +
Aesthetics/Shadow Effects = - = =
Population and Housing = +/- +/- +/-
Public Services = + + +
Construction Effects = + + +
Neighborhood = = = =
Effects
+ Superior to the proposed project
- Inferior to the proposed project
+/- Characteristics both better and worse than the proposed project
= Similar impact to the proposed project
The No Project alternative would involve no change to the environment and is therefore
considered environmentally superior overall. It should be noted, however, that this alternative
r
City of Santa Monica
6-7
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 6.0 Alternatives
would not preclude future development of the site with another project. Additionally, this
alternative fails to achieve the stated project objectives.
The two remaining alternatives would both be environmentally superior to the proposed
project in some respects. Both alternatives would incrementally reduce impacts in five issue
areas and could potentially avoid the project's Class I impact to temporary air quality impacts.
The Reduced Project alternative would generate less traffic than either the proposed project or
the Commercial Project alternative. The Commercial Project alternative would be consistent
with the existing zoning on the project site and therefore would not involve a Zoning Ordinance
amendment. However, this alternative would not create additional housing in the City and
would not fulfill the objectives of the project. Thus, the Commercial Project alternative could be
considered inferior to the proposed project from that perspective. The Reduced Project
alternative could be considered the environmentally superior alternative among the
development options, though it would require a Zoning Ordinance text amendment. However,
it should be noted that because of its smaller size, this alternative would meet the City's goal of
providing additional housing to a lesser degree than the proposed project, and would have
reduced benefits with respect to the amount of affordable housing it would provide.
r
City of Santa Monica
6-8
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 7.0 References
7.0 REFERENCES AND REPORT PREPARERS
7.1 REFERENCES
7.1.1 Bibliography
Asbestos, Environment & Safety, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 2834 Colorado
Boulevard, Santa Monica, California, 2000.
California Air Resources Board Official Homepage, www.arb.ca.gov. 2003.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, Seismic Hazards
Zones Map, Beverly Hills Quadrangle.
California Geological Survey, Probablistic Seismic Hazard Assesment Maps, web site:
www.consrv.ca.govjCGS. 2003.
California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, CGS web site:
www.consrv.ca.govjCGS. 2003.
Dibblee, T. W. Jr., 1991, Geologic Map of the Beverly Hills and Van Nuys (South 1f2)
Quadrangles, Los Angeles County, California, Dibblee Geological Foundation.
Geotechnologies, Inc., Geological Engineering Investigation, Proposed Production Facility,
Southeast Corner of Stewart Street and Colorado A venue, Santa Monica, California, August
2000.
Kaku Associates, Traffic Study for the 2834 Colorado Apartment Project Environmental Impact
Report, August 2003.
San Buenaventura Research Associates, Historic Resources Report, 2834 Colorado A venue,
Santa Monica, California, July 2003.
Santa Monica, City of, Civic Center Parking Structure Final EIR, February 2003.
Santa Monica, City of, Environmental Programs Division, 2003 Adopted Sustainable City Plan,
February 2003.
Santa Monica, City of, Fire Department web page, www.santamonicafire.org, 2003.
Santa Monica, City of, Land Use and Circulation Element, 1984, as revised April 1998.
Santa Monica, City of, Municipal Code, May 2003.
Santa Monica, City of, Official Homepage, www.santa-monica.org, 2003.
r
City of Santa Monica
7-1
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Section 7.0 References
Santa Monica, City of, Police Department, 2001 Annual Report, SMPD web site,
www.santamonicapd.org, 2003.
Santa Monica, City of, Public Safety Facility Final EIR, September 1997.
Santa Monica, City of, RAND Corporation Building Headquarters Final EIR, August 2000.
Santa Monica, City of, Safety Element of the General Plan, Technical Background Report, 1995.
Santa Monica, City of, Sustainable City Plan, 2003.
South Coast Air Quality Management District Official Homepage, www.scaqmd.gov, 2003.
Southern California Association of Governments Official Homepage, www.scag.ca.gov. 2003.
Uniform Building Code, 1997, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier,
California.
7.1.2 Persons Contacted
William Buol, City of Santa Monica Public Works, Engineering Department
Mike Cbeyich, Santa Monica Police Department, Community Relations
Maria Esparza, Santa Monica Fire Department, Administration Office
Jeanne Wells, Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, Superintendent's Office
7.2 REPORT PREPARERS
This EIR was prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc., under contract to the City of Santa Monica
Planning Department. Consultant staff involved in the preparation of the EIR are listed below.
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Joe Power, AICP, Planning Manager
Stephen Svete, AICP, Principal
Walt Hamann, RG, CEG, CHG, Principal
Melissa Mascali, MESM, Environmental Analyst
Tessa Clark, MESM, Environmental Analyst
Ned Thomas, MUP, Senior Planner
Ed Miller, Biologist
Joanne Dramko, MESM, Graphics Manager
Kathy Babcock, Graphics Technician
Kaku Associates
Thomas Gaul, Vice President, Kaku Associates
Sean Mohn, Associate, Kaku Associates
San Buenaventura Research Associates
Judy Triem, Historian
Mitch Stone, Historian
r
City of Santa Monica
7-2
rr
Appendix A
Notice of Preparation, Initial Study, and
Responses to the NOP
PatrIck Clarke
Associate Planner
Planning & Community
Development Department
1685 Main street
P. O. Box 2200
City of Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200
Santa lUonica~
1
;h
r,
~. i
,
'i
!
I
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ON THE PROPOSED
2834 COLORADO AVENUE PROJECT
,
i
j
....~.'li.
"~
~,.
.;!.,j ,
The City of Santa Monica, Planning and Community Development Department,
will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report (EIR)
for the project identified below, in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires that the Lead Agency send a Notice of
Preparation (NaP) to responsible, trustee and involved federal agencies to
obtain their input regarding the determination of the scope of the EI R (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15082). We need to know the views of your agency as to the
scope and content of the environmental information that is germane to your
agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your
agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your
permit or other approval for the project. The City of Santa Monica is also sending
this Nap to other interested agencies and persons, whom may also provide input
regarding the scope of the EI R.
"
J
'C'!
.i!
,t
"
,
'~j
""i!
:~(~~
Project Title:
2834 Colorado Avenue Project
Project Applicant: Colorado Creative Studios, LLC
Project Location: The project site consists of one lot totaling approximately
76,800 square feet at the southwest corner of the intersection of Colorado
Avenue and Stewart Street in the City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles County.
The attached map illustrates the location.
Project Description: The proposed project involves the demolition of existing
onsite structures and the construction of 145 units of residential development in
several buildings on an approximately 1. 76-acre site in the City of Santa Monica.
The development will include seven two-bedroom units, 109 one-bedroom units,
and 29 studio units. Ten percent of the proposed units (i.e., 15 units) will be
deed-restricted to occupancy by very low-income households. The buildings will
range from two to four stories in height, with a maximum height of 45 feet, and
will be arranged around three central courtyards. A community room, pool,
office, and pool lounge will be located in the middle courtyard. The floor-to-area
ratio of the project will be 1.5. The project will provide 228 parking spaces in a
one-level subterranean garage. Twenty-nine of the 228 spaces will be for guest
use; the remainder will be dedicated to use by the residents of the project.
tel: 310 458-8341 0 fax: 310458-3380
Notice of Preparation
2834 Colorado Avenue Project
Page 2
The project is requesting the following entitlements: a Development Review
Permit because it exceeds 7,500 square feet in floor area; a Text Amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance to allow multi-family housing in the LMSD zoning district by .
Conditional Use Permit; and approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the project.
. Planning Commission and City Council approval of the Zoning Ordinance
Amendment would be required.
Environmental Issues: The EIR will examine all of the issues in the state-
recommended issues checklist, with a focus on the following issues:
Aesthetics/Shadow Effects, Air Quality, Construction Effects, Geology and Soils,
Historic Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Neighborhood Effects, Noise,
Population and Housing, Public Services, and Transportation/Traffic. The EIR
will also analyze three alternatives.
HOW TO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED NOTICE OF PREPARATION
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment on this and other projects.
Comments, questions, or information on potential environmental impacts that
should be included in the EIR should be sent to Patrick Clarke, Associate
Planner, City Planning Division, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA, 90407-
2200, telephone 310-458-8341. Due to the time limits mandated by State law,
your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but must be received by
the City bv Ju Iv 6, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. (30 days from issuance of the NOP).
MORE INFORMATION
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is
subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those
issues raised at the Public Hearing for this project, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the Public Hearing.
ESPANOL
Esta es una noticia sabre la preparaci6n de un reporte de los posibles efectos
ambientales en la construcci6n propuesta de un edificio de cinco pisos paraesta
cionamiento publico, 10 cual puede ser de interes a usted. Para mas
informaci6n, lIame a Elsa Kapsinow al numero (310) 458-2275.
Jay Trevino, AICP
Planning Manager
City Planning Division
Date
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall. 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
EIRNo.
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY
AND
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT STATEMENT
DATE FILED
This checklist is to be completed for all projects which are not exempt from environmental
review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The information, analysis
and conclusions contained in the checklist form the basis for deciding whether an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a Negative Declaration (ND) or a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) is to be prepared. Additionally, the checklist shall be used to focus an
EIR on the effects determined to be potentially significant.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Project Title: 2834 Colorado Avenue Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Planning and Community Development
Department, City of Santa Monica, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica,
CA 90401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Patrick Clarke, (310) 458-8341
4. Project Location: 2834 Colorado Avenue, on the northeast corner of
Colorado Avenue and Stewart Street.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Colorado Creative Studios, LLC.
11601 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1900, Los Angeles, CA 90025
6. General Plan Designation: Industrial
7. Specific Plan Designation: None
8. Zoning: LMSD - Light Manufacturing and Studio District
9. Description of Project: The proposed project consists of the
development of a 145-unit apartment complex at the northeast corner of
Colorado Avenue and Stewart Street. One level of subterranean parking
containing 228 parking spaces would also be provided. The buildings
onsite would be demolished in association with project development.
1
eff3
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
EIRNo.
The project would consist of 29 studio unitsf 109 one-bedroom units,
and seven two-bedroom units contained within 18 buildings varying in
height from two to four stories. Fifteen of the one-bedroom units would
be deed-restricted for occupancy by very low-income residents. The
buildings would be arranged around three interior courtyards, the
middle of which would contain a pool, office, pool lounge, and
community room. Buildings along the interior lot lines would be
oriented toward the courtyards, while buildings along Colorado Avenue
and Stewart Street would be oriented toward the streets.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding land uses include
single- and multi-family residential development to the northwest
across Colorado Avenue, studio-related commercial uses to the
southwest across Stewart Street, and light industrial and office uses to
the northeast and southeast.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impactrt as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
X Geology/Soils
X Shadows
X Public Services
X Construction Effects _ Hazards/Hazardous Materials II Air Quality
_Biological Resources X HydrologylWater Quality
Economic and
Social Impacts
X Population/Housing _Land Use/Planning
Recreation
X Cultural Resources X Aesthetics
X Noise
X Transportation/ Mineral Resources
Traffic
Uti I ities/Service
Systems
X Mandatory Findings of _ Agriculture Resources
Significance
X Neighborhood
Effects
2
eID
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall. 1685 Main Street. Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
EIRNo.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
In completing this checklist, keep in mind the following:
1} A brief explanation is required for all answers except uNo Impact" answers
that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites
in the parentheses following each question. A UNo Impacf' answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the
project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,
based on a project-specific screening analysis). All explanations should be
contained in a "Discussion of Environmental Evaluation" which should be
attached to this checklist.
2} All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site
as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as
direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3} Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may
occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is
potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial
evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more
"Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an
EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect
from IIPotentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The
lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures
from "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or
other CEQA process an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
3
eff3
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall. 1685 Main Street. Santa Monica. California 90401-3295
EIRNo.
a) Earlier analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above
checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with
Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures
which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning
ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other
sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
7) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each
question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less
than significance.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pat.
Slgnlf.
Impact
Less Than
Signif.
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Signif. Impact
Impact
1. Geology and Soils. Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse
4
eff3
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall. 1685 Main Street. Santa Monica. California 90401-3295
effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i)
Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication (
x
ii)
Strong seismic ground
shaking? ( )
.lL
iii)
Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? ( )
L
Iv)
Landslides? ( )
b)
Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil? ( )
.lL
c)
Be located on a geologic unit
or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off
-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse? ( )
.lL
d)
Be located on expansive soil,
as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
x
5
EIRNo.
x
eff3
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
Pot. Less Than
Signif. Signif.
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of
waste water?
2. Air Quality - Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan? () ..x
b) Violate any air quality standard
or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation? () X
c) 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
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone
precursors)? () .lL
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
6
EIRNo.
Less Than
Signif.
Impact
No
Impact
x
eff3
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
Pot.
Signif.
Impact
concentrations? (
L
e)
Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number
of people? ( )
3. Hydrology and Water Quality -
Would the project:
a)
Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements? ( )
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been
granted)? ( )
c)
Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site? ( )
7
Less Than
Sign If.
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
l
l
x
EIRNo.
Less Than
Signif.
Impact
No
Impact
1-
eff3
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
Pot. Less Than
Signif. Signif.
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
d)
Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or
substantially in.crease the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on-
or off-site? ( )
-X.
e)
Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? ( )
-X.
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality? ( )
-X.
g)
Place housing within a 1 DD-year
flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other hazard delineation map?
h)
Place within a 1 DO-year flood
hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood
flows? ( )
i)
Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam? ( )
8
EIRNo.
Less Than
Signlf.
Impact
-X.
No
Impact
x
x
eff3
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 9Q401-3295
Pot. Less Than
Slgnlf. Slgnlf.
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
j)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami,
or mudflow? ( )
4. Biological Resources - Would the project:
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species in
local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. fish and Wildlife Service?
b)
Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service? ( )
c)
Have a substantial adverse effect
on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife
9
EIRNo.
Less Than
Signlf.
Impact
No
Impact
L
...x
...x
x
eff3
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
EIRNo.
Pot. Less Than Less Than No
Slgnif. Slgnif. Signif. Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites? 1L
e) Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or
ordinance? ( ) 1L
f) Conflict with the provisions of
an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan? - 1L
,
5. Noise R Would the project result in:
a)
Exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? ( )
L
b)
Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise
levels? ( )
x
c)
A substantial permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
L
10
eff3
CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIRNo.
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
Pot. Less Than Less Than No
Signlf. Signif. Slgnlf. Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) A substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project? ( ) ..lL
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? .K...
6. Shadows. Will the proposal produce
extensive shadows affecting
adjacent uses or property? ( ) .K...
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials -
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? ( ) -X
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials
into the environment? ( ) X
11 eft3
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
c)
Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed
school? ( )
d)
Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials .sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e)
For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the
project area? ( )
f)
For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working
in the project area? ( )
g)
Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan? ( )
12
Pot.
Signif.
Impact
Less Than
Signif.
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
EIRNo.
Less Than
Signif.
Impact
No
Impact
x
.lL
x
.lL
.lL
eff3
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
EIRNo.
Pot.
Signif.
Impact
Less Than
Signif.
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Slgnif.
Impact
No
Impact
h)
Expose people or structures
to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving
wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent
to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed
with wildlands? ( )
x
8. Population and Housing.
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? L
b) Displace substantial numbers
of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? ( ) L
c) Displace substantial number of
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? ( ) .lL
9. land Use and Planning. Would
the project:
a)
Physically divide an established
community? ( )
.lL
13
eff3
CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIRNo.
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
Pot. Less Than Less Than No
Signif. Signif. Signif. Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including,
but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect? ( ) l
c) Conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan
or natural community
conservation plan? ( ) L
10. Transportation/Traffic -
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic
which is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system
(Le., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads; or
congestion at intersections)? .x
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the
county congestion management
agency for designated roads
14 eff3
CITY OF SANi A MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
11. Utilities and Service System -
15
EIRNo.
eff3
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
Would the project:
a)
Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality
Control Board? ( )
b)
Require or result in the
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects? ( )
c)
Require or result in the
construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant environmental
effects? ( )
d)
Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements
needed? ( )
e) Result in a determination by
the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve
the project's projected demand
16
Pot.
Slgnif.
Impact
Less Than
Slgnif.
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
EIRNo.
Less Than
Signif.
Impact
l
l
~
x
No
Impact
eff3
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
in addition to the provider's
existing commitments? ( )
f)
Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs?
g)
Comply with federal, state, and
local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? ( )
12. Public Services
a) Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios,
response times or other
performance objectives for any of
the public services:
Fire protection? ( )
Police protection? ( )
Schools? ( )
Parks? ( )
Other public facilities? ( )
17
Pot.
Signif.
Impact
-X
X
-X
-X
-X
Less Than
Signif.
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
EIRNo.
Less Than
Signif.
Impact
.lL
-X
.lL
No
Impact
eff3
CITY OF SANTA MONICA EIRNo.
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
Pot. Less Than Less Than No
Slgnif. Signif. Slgnif. Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
13. Recreation
a) Would the project increase the
use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration
of the facility would occur or
be accelerated? ( ) l
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect
on the environment? ( ) l
14. Cultural Resources -
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance
of a historical resource as
defined in '15064.5? ( ) ...x
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance
of an archaeological
resource pursuant to
'15064.5? ( ) X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological
resource or site or unique
geologic feature? ( ) 1
18 eff3
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
d)
Disturb any human remains,
including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
15. Aesthetics - Would the project:
a)
Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista? (
b)
Substantially damage scenic
resources, incfuding, but
not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state
scenic highway? ( )
c)
Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of the site and its
surroundings? ( )
d)
Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Pot.
Signif.
Impact
)
lL
..x
16. Construction Effects. Would the
proposal have considerable construction-
period impacts due to the scope, or
location of construction activities? ( ) ..x
17. Economic and Social Impacts.
Does the project have economic or
social effects which would result in
19
Less Than
Signif.
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
EIRNo.
Less Than
Signlf.
Impact
No
Impact
~
x
-L
eff3
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
Pot.
Signif.
Impact
additional physical changes (e.g. if
a new shopping center located away
from a downtown shopping area would
take business away from the down-
town and thereby cause business
closures and eventual physical
deterioration of the downtown)? ( )
18. Agriculture Resources: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources
are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by
the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Would the Project:
a)
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
b)
Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of farmland,
20
Less Than
Sign if.
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
EIRNo.
Less Than
Signlf.
Impact
L
No
Impact
L
L
eff3
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
Pot. Less Than
Signlf. Slgnlf.
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
to non-agricultural use?
19. Mineral Resources - Would the project:
a)
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?
b)
Result in 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?
20. Neighborhood Effects. Will the
proposal have considerable effects
on the project neighborhood? .lL
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the poten-
tial 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 commun-
ity, 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
pre-history? () .lL
21
EIRNo.
Less Than
Signif.
Impact
No
Impact
.lL
1
1
eff3
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
EIRNo.
Pot. Less Than
Signif. Slgnlf.
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Slgnlf.
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts
that 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)? () .x...
c)
Does the project have environ-
mental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly
or indirectly? ( )
.lL
IV. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Several factors have potentially significant impacts on the environment and require
further analysis.
V. DETERMINATION
An environmental impact report (EIR) must be completed to adequately analyze
these environmental factors.
VI. SOURCES
Asbestos, Environment) & Safety, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for
2834 Colorado Boulevard, Santa Monica, California, 2000.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances
Control Official website, www.dtsc.ca.gov. 2003.
California Integrated Waste Management Board Official website,
22
eft3
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City Hall. 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
Pot.
Signlf.
Impact
Less Than
Signif.
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
EIRNo.
Less Than
Signif.
Impact
www.ciwmb.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenratesIWGCommer.htm. 2003.
City of Santa Monica, Draft Urban Water Management Plan, 2000.
City of Santa Monica Official website. www.cLsanta-monica.ca.us. 2003.
City of Santa Monica Public Safety Facility EIR, 1997.
City of Santa Monica Safety Element, 1995.
City of Santa Monica, Sustainable City Program, Status Report. 2002.
City of Santa Monica, Sustainable City Plan, 2003a.
23
No
Impact
eff3
Initial Study
and
Neighborhood Impact Statement
Discussion a/Environmental Evaluation
1. Geology and Soils
A detailed discussion of this topic is included in Section 4.1, Geolog1j and Soils, of the ElR.
2. Air Quality
A detailed discussion of this topic is included in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the ElR.
3. Hydrology and Water Quality
A detailed discussion of this topic is included in Section 4.3, Hydrolog1J and Water Qualittj, of the ElR.
4. Biological Resources
a-f. Due to the highly urbanized character of the City of Santa Monica, there are very few areas of
native terresuial habitat (California Department of Fish & Game, TIle Status ofRnre, TIlreatened, and
Endangered Animals and Plants of CaZifomia - Annual Report for 2000). The only native terresuial habitat
is located along the Palisades Bluff, and this area is highly disturbed. As a consequence, vegetation
resources within the City are those that are capable of surviving in urban conditions. Important
biological resources (sensitive species and relatively undisturbed habitats) are generally relegated to
the coastal (beach and intertidal) and marine enVITonments.
The site of the proposed project is currently occupied by several warehouse-type buildings used in
light manufacturing operations and contains very little landscaping. The project site is surrounded by
urban development, including industrial operations, and does not provide habitat for animal life.
Therefore, this issue will not be fuither discussed in the ElR.
5. Noise
A detailed discussion of this topic is included in Section 4.4, Noise, of the EIR.
6. Shadows
A detailed discussion of tltis topic is included in Section 4.7, Aesthetics/Shadow Effects, of the ElR.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a-c. The proposed project consists of a residential aparbnent building and a one-level subterranean
parking garage. The project is not expected to inuoduce any unusual hazardous materials to the area.
IV-1
15#
Attachment to Part IV
As the project would have to comply with CalOSHA (California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration) requirements and other State and local requirements during construction and
operation of the facility, no significant hazard impacts are expected from the project.
d. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment performed by Asbestos, Environment & Safety (AE&S)
Ganuary 2000) for the project site found no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in
connection with the property. There are no National Priority Listing (Superfund) sites or solid waste
transfer and disposal facilities within a one-mile radius of the subject property. There are 12 listed
leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites located within one-half mile of the subject site;
however, due to the distance from the project site and the expected direction of groundwater flow in
the vicinity, these pose no threat to the project site (AE&S 2000). The project site is not listed on the
State's Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (CORTESE List) from the California Environmental
Protection Agency (Cal EP A), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) (DTSC, 2003).
e,f. The proposed project is located approximately 2.6 miles northwest of the Santa Monica Municipal
Airport. At this distance from the airport, implementation of the proposed project is unlikely to expose
people in the project area to airport-related safety hazards in excess of what currently exists.
g. Vehicular access to the project site is proposed via a two-way driveway on Stewart Street. A second
driveway is proposed on Colorado Avenue to allow egress from the parking garage. This driveway
would be restricted to right-turns only, which would prevent safety hazards associated with vehicles
trying to turn left out of the project site. No potential operational issues have been identified with
regard to the proposed access scheme; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Site
improvements will be required to comply with the Uniform Building Code. Therefore, the proposed
project would not affect any established existing evacuation routes or plans. No significant impacts
would occur.
h. The project site is surrounded by urbanized paved streets and developed lots. There are no
significant areas of flammable brush, grass, or trees on the site or in the viscinity of the project site that
could result in a wildland fire or expose people or structures to such a fire. No significant impacts
would occur.
8. Population and Housing
A detailed discussion of this topic is included in Section 4,8, Population and Housing, of the EIR.
9. Land Use and Planning
a. The project site is located in a developed area and is surrounded by residential, commercial, and
light industrial uses. It would not divide an established community.
b. The project proposes residential development on the project site, which currently is not a permitted
or conditionally permitted land use in the LMSD zone. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a text
amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow multi-family residential development in this zone,
subject to a conditional use permit. The language proposed by the applicant would allow multi-family
dwelling units to be included with those uses that are subject to a 45-foot height limit and a maximum
floor to area ratio (FAR) of 1.5. No other Zoning Ordinance changes are being proposed.
IV-2
18#
Attachment to Part IV
If the text amendment were approved, the proposed project would comply with the height and FAR
standards of the LMSD zone. The LMSD zone already requires a Development Review Permit for
projects over 30,000 square feet in floor area, such as the proposed project, and also requires
architectuIal review. In addition, the inclusion of multi-family housing as a conditionally permitted
use in the LMSD zone under the proposed text amendment would add another layer of control over
the approval of such projects. This would help to ensure that the projects are sensitively designed and
compatible with surrounding land uses.
Objective 1.9 of the General Plan Land Use Element calls for the preservation of existing industrial and
manufacturing uses. Since the proposed project, if approved, would directly remove an existing
industrial development, it could be considered in conflict with this General Plan objective. However,
the Zoning Ordinance currently permits artist live/ work studios and other kinds of housing, including
homeless shelters, transitional housing, and single-room occupancy housing, in the LMSD zone.
Therefore, the allowance of multi-family housing would not be a significant departuIe from the uses
already allowed in this zone.
The Housing Element of the General Plan includes several policies that would be fulfilled by the
proposed project, including:
.
Goal 1.0 - Provide for tlle construction of new housing within the City;
Goal 1.2 - Provide incentives for the development of housing in non-residential zones;
Goal 2.0 - Increase the supply of housing that is affordable to very low-income households;
Goal 2.7 - Encourage the distribution of housing for low-income households throughout the
City.
.
.
.
Thus, the proposed project addresses the need for increased housing supply in the City, particularly
with respect to affordable housing, and would be subject to several review processes to ensure that the
project meets the level of quality of other residential developments in the City. Provided that the
proposed text amendment is approved, the project would generally be consistent with applicable land
use policies. This issue will not be further discussed in the EIR.
c. The project site is currently developed with light industrial uses and is located in an urban area. It is
not subject to a habitat conservation plan or a natural communities conservation plan.
10. Trans'{Jortation/Circulation
A detailed discussion of this topic is included in Section 4.5, Transportatiol1fI'raffic, of this EIR.
11. Utilities and Service Systems
a, b, e. The local sewer collection system is owned by the City of Santa Monica and is managed,
operated, and maintained by the Utilities Division of the City's General Services Department. Sewer
flow is treated at the City of Los Angeles' Hyperion Treatment Plant located approximately four miles
southeast of Santa Monica, along the Santa Monica Bay coastline. Wastewater in the City flows
primarily by gravity in a southerly direction, and is delivered to the treatment plant via the Coastal
Interceptor Sewer. The City has an agreement with the City of Los Angeles for Wastewater Disposal
servicesl which does not set an upper limit on the amount of wastewater that the City can discharge
IV-3
15#
Attachment to Part IV
into the Hyperion system. Instead, the agreement provides consistency with State Water Resources
Guidelines, and sets rates based on sewage flow and strength (RAND Corporation Headquarters
Building EIR, 2000). .
The project involves the development of 145 units of residential development and a one-level
subterranean parking garage. City records indicate that the typical sewer demand for residential uses
is 100 gallons per day (gpd) per unit. Therefore, the proposed project would generate about 14,500
gpd. This increase in wastewater would be within the City's contractual entitlement (unlimited flow)
for flows to the Hyperion Treatment Plant. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to
significantly affect the City's wastewater conveyance system.
c. The existing land use at the project site is light industrial and manufacturing, with almost 100% of
the site covered by impervious surfaces. In contrast, the proposed project is a residential complex
comprising 18 separate buildings with associated landscaping and green areas. Development of the
project would cover about 43% of the site with impervious surfaces. AE such, the amount of runoff that
leaves the site as storm water would be reduced by 20-25% over the current conditions due to the
increased potential for infiltration of storm water. In addition, new development in the City is required
to comply with the Urban Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance (Santa Monica Municipal Code S
7.10.010), which is intended to decrease the volume and improve the quality of runoff from residential
and non-residential development. Compliance with this Ordinance would further reduce runoff from
the project site. Therefore, impacts to storm water quality conveyance facilities are considered less than
significant.
d. Water for the Santa Monica service area is supplied from both groundwater and imported sources.
Presently, the City owns and operates 11 water wells. Six wells are in the Santa Monica Subbasin, and
the remaining five wells are in the Charnock Subbasin. The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of
Southern California delivers imported water from the Colorado River and State Water Project to the
City.
The City of Santa Monica requires various Best Management Practices (BMPs) for all new construction
as part of the plan review process. These BMPs include, but are not limited to, installation of water
efficient plumbing fixtures, drought tolerant landscape water conservation requirements, and water
demand mitigation fees to offset estimated total project water demand.
The potable water supply for the proposed project would be delivered by the City of Santa Monica
water system, Based on a water demand factor of 140 gallons per day (gpd) per person and an average
of 1.8 persons per household (2000 Census), the project would result in an increase of about 36,540 gpd
of water demand at the site (City of Santa Monica, 2000 Urban Water Management Plan). This increase
in demand on City water supplies could be accommodated by existing supplies of water (City of Santa
Monica, 2000 Urban Water Management Plan). In addition; new construction is required to comply
with the Water Consumption Limits and Fees for New Development (Santa Monica Municipal Code S
7.16.050), which would mitigate the impacts of the water demanded by the project. Therefore,
significant impacts on the City's water supply would not occur.
f, g. The City of Santa Monica provides refuse collection service to all Santa Monica residents and
approximately 50% of commercial and industrial establishments (City of Santa Monica, 2003). The
Solid Waste Management Division of the Environmental and Public Works Management Department
IV"4
15#
Attachment to Part IV
operates the solid waste management system. Solid waste from Santa Monica is disposed of at the
following four different facilities on a regular basis: Puente Hills Landfill, West Landfill, Simi Valley
Landfill, and Long Beach's Waste to Energy Incinerator.
The City has completed a comprehensive waste reduction and recycling plan in compliance with State
Law AB 939, which required every city in California to reduce the waste it sends to landfills by 50% by
the year 2000. As of 2000, the City was recycling 55% of its solid waste, thereby complying with the
standards established by AB 939 (City of Santa Monica, 2002). The City has also set a goal of increasing
the amount of solid waste diverted from landfills to 70% by the year 2010 (City of Santa Monica, 2003a).
Based on a generation factor of 3.7 pounds per resident per day (California Integrated Waste
Management Board, 2003) and 1.8 residents per household(2000 Census), the proposed project's 145
residential units would generate approximately 965 pounds of solid waste per day. This incremental
increase in solid waste generation could be accommodated by the City's Transfer Station and by the
existing landfills in the area. However, State law and the City's waste reduction and recycling program
require that at least 50% of solid waste be diverted from landfills. It should be noted that the proposed
project would be required to comply "With the Design Standards for Refuse and Recycling Rooms and
Outdoor Enclosures (City of Santa Monica Municipal Code 9.04.10.02.151). This section of the
Municipal Code requires that large residential developments (with more than 40 units) include the
design and placement of a refuse and recycling room or outdoor enclosures onsite to provide adequate
and accessible areas for storage and collection of refuse and recyclable materials.
Because the project would generate a minimal increase in solid waste generation, and provided that the
project complies "With local regulations regarding solid waste reduction, significant impacts on the
City's solid waste collection and disposal system are not anticipated.
12. Public Services
A detailed discussion of this topic is included in Section 4.9, Public Seruices, oj-the ElR.
13. Recreation
a, b. The proposed project involves the development of a 145-unit apartment building with one level of
subterranean parking. Both private and common open space areas, including a pool, would be
provided on the project site for residents' use. The increase in population resulting from the proposed
project has the potential to increase demand for recreational areas in the City. As required by the City,
the project would pay a Parks and Recreation Facilities tax of $200 per residential unit. Payment of this
tax would mitigate the project's potential impacts to recreation to a less than significant level.
Therefore, this issue will not be discussed further in the Em..
14. Cultural Resources
a. A detailed discllssion of the project's potential impacts to historical resources is included in Section 4.6,
Historic Resources, of the EIR.
b-d. The proposed project is designed to serve the housing needs of Santa Monica and is in an area that
has been disturbed by past grading and development. The project will not cause a substantial adverse
IV-5
15#
Attachment to Part IV
change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5, directly or
indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, or disturb any human remains. Therefore, these
issues will not be discussed further in the EIR.
15. Aesthetics
A detailed discussion of this topic is included in Section 4.7, Aestl1eticsjSlzadows, of the EIR.
16. Construction Effects
A detailed discussion of this topic is included in Section 4.10, Constnlction Effects, of the ElR.
17. Economic and Social Impacts
The project involves the development of a 14S-unit multi-family apartment complex. The project
would provide additional housing opportunities in the City as well as increase the amount of
affordable housing units for area residents. Development of the project would displace approximately
20 small light industrial and manufacturing businesses that currently operate onsite. However, the
project would not have economic or social effects that would result in additional physical changes or
deterioration of the surrounding area, as the area is currently developed in residential and commercial
uses. Therefore, this issue will not be discussed further in the EIR.
lB. Agriculture Resources
a-c, The project site is located in an urban area and is currently occupied by several warehouse-type
buildings. The project site is not in the general vicinity of any existing or planned agricultural land.
The proposed project would not convert farmland or conflict mth any land zoned for Agriculture. The
project also would not result in any indirect effects that could result in conversion of farmland to non-
agricultural use. Therefore, this issue will not be discussed further in the EIR.
19. Mineral Resources
a, b. The project site is located in a developed urban area that does not provide any mineral resource
value. Development of the proposed project would not result in the loss of the availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value locally, regionally, or to the State. Therefore, this issue will not
be discussed further in the EIR.
20. Neighborhood Effects
A detailed discussion of this topic is included in Section 4.11, Neighborhood Effects, of the ElR.
IV-6
18#
Attachment to Part IV
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Based on the analysis in this Initial Study, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality
of the enviIonment or to cause substantial effects to human beings, either directly or indirectly.
However, it may significantly contribute to cumu1ativ~ impacts. Therefore, the EIR includes analysis of
potentially significant cumulative impacts.
IV-7
Jun-ZG-03 08:50am
From-TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT
3105769170
T-419 P.OZ/08 F-578
.OJ
, I." 1 .'
r,,; l!
:~ ~: ::. :~
#..nF ~~~
f~~\
~.~.G
..~ ~$
'f'~arCl\'vr
'f;;.1 Fiunl;:Y
I m~rilTl DITt.:Clll"
S TAT E OF C A L I FOR N J A
{;',l}' [)~\I;~
(l\lIoCmllr
Guvern()r:~ iQf1'ice. of Planning and Research
..~ ' .
'.1 "
"Stale CI eal'illghouse
Notice ofPrcparatiun
June 10.2003
To: R;;:.vh:wing Agcm::ies
Re: 2&34 Colorado Avenue
SCH# 2003061052
Attached for your review and comment is the NCHice of Preparation (NOP) for the 2834 Colorado Avenue drafr
Environmentallmpac( Repol{ (EIR),
Responsible agencies must trammit theiJ' comments On the scope and comenr of the NOP, focu~illg on specifi~
infcmmlfion related TO their Own smlutory rcspOll!jibiHty, within 30 days of recl!.ipr oub.e NOP from [he Lead AglW.~J:.
This is a courte!iY notice provided by the Slale Clearinghouse with a reminder fur you to commenl in a timely
manner, We l:nCOurllgc other agencle!i [(I also responcllo this nmice and express their t:Clnccms early in tile
l!.lwil'Onmenlal review proct.:ss.
PlcIDle direct your comments to:
Patrick Clarke
City of Santa MUDica
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, CA 90407
with a copy 10 "[he StilLe Clearinghuusc in [he Office of Planning and Reseurch. Please refer to the SCH number
nUled above 111 all corr'esponden~e concerning thi.~ proJecl.
It' you have any questions about the environmental document review process, please call the Smre Clearinghuuse at
t916) 445-0613.
Sincerely.
/,< c~-'11./ ~
scot~gn;l Z -
Project Analyst, Sllue Clearinghousc
Aunchmcnts
Cc; Lead Agency
1'100 T1?N l"H STRFFT r 0 BOX 1(l,I~ SI\('!tM.1r.Nl'(). {ALlh)RNIA LJ'iK 12-JU44
l\lI(,)~4).\l(iIJ FAX(LJI6p.H-JuIK ",......; IIPL"~~.ll(\V
. - ': 1"1 ~Q
Jun-l6-03 08:50am
From-TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT 3105769170
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
T-419 P.03/0B F-57B
SCH# 2003061052
Projec:r Title 2634 Colorado Avenue
Lead Agency Santa Monica, City of
Type NOP Nolice of PreparaUon
Description 145 unit apartmenl building with 228 parking spaces in subterranean garage.
Lead Agency Contact
Name PatrIck Clerke
Agency Cily of Santa Mcnlca
Phone 310-458-8341
email
Address 1685 Ml:jln Stre Ell , Room 212
City Santa Monica
Fax
State CA Zip 90407
Project Location
County Los Angeles
c/ry Sanla Monica
Region
Cross Streets Slewerl
Parcel No.
Township Range
Section
Base
Proximity to:
Highways
Airports
Railways
Waterways
Schools
Land Use
Light Manufacturing and Sludlo District
Pro;ect Issues
AastheHo!Vlsual; Air Quality; Archaeologic-Hlslorlc: Geologic/Seismic; POPlllaUon/Houslng Balance;
Public ServIces; Traffic/Circulation: Water Quality: Landuse; Cumulative Effects
Reviewing
Agencies
Resources Agency; California Coastal Commission; Department or Conservation; Departmenl of Parks
and Reoreation; Department of Water Resources; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Native
American Herllage Commission; Caltrans, District 7; Department of Housing and Communlly
Development; California HIghway Patrol; Regional Waler QlJalfty Cor1trol Board, RegIon 4
Dare Received 06/09/2003
srarr of Rel/iew 06/09/2003
End Df Review 07/08/2003
NOle: Blanks in dala fields result from Insuffioient information provided by lead agenoy,
.!::
e. -~ E I;;; E
iil 8 ..... iii'
E ::; "E ~ e III l:
0 cJ 0 ~ .Iii lJ .....Q;l .....~ 0
!,) t: t: '-' C.
.. I:.) c c .- ~~
~ s ,g J!l c: ... Cl ~ In eo 0>
111 ~ .!!l OJ DI ..... ...... grlE 0:
~ m .c: g ell c: ~ e:: c:O Cll 5-5 S ~
.=) Cl fIl- a: 0 D::.c: c:
::I 0 :J c: .o!;; I;;; 0 c ~ >.13 >00 s: '61~ "in
0 Q :l III 0 0 >- os. ,E II: J!: ~ <ll e ~
ID c :a c"" cnU ~~ 8 I'/l OJ B-~ 1I.J!:~ t: >lll~ I:Q 0
v-~ m II:
_I!! _llI u t>l 0:: ~ cu ~~~ 0 cclI:ClJ .... 1 'OJ
~-
II; E::;J$ c:: ~~ iX~ ~~ m 0 ~ oI;;a:. >- ClJ>m '51 aJ:a~ ,~ '"
... ~ c....fil .!! t4 Ul~ t:lliiO g]~ ell gr~ l!:
OJ ~B'- w- ~ ~ .,....J:: Nlll.91i ~o '<l"a1-9l 19lij c~!: (I;) II: ,..0:: co~ 0)&
ro _=0 ID "" 0 lIll::O aJ E l"lI ~ .a:lU llla~ m> :::c:~ ~ I;;"D m~ ~ 12 tllO
~ -eBe ~"D;f5 -f- Will tll<<: 1lI III
~C5 C,J gp,,) CJ~:Bu.. gg U:sl:. g] c:~tt a:(.HI: C,J ~ .II: ;:- u~ U.!!l 0'-
OJ 'E III ~.g .!!~~~ CJ;5::2 f2 's ::: c c~< 00 c~ ~ ~ CO
-ru'C ...!!! g-w ....c: ~:iiO C1 ;1;:J::O ~8 ::: c
So.3m~ mJil~a ;=JO iE c: II) :!-lll s:,,1g
.~ lIlQ:ltf,lUCl CCJ a: z Wt;JUl .a:CJ C:,-l U::u 0::3 IJ:UJ c:Jl
l,
0 0 0 0 0 r:J II 0 0 C] 0 0
....
. I I;;;
. 1Il
) E ill
u
) C. ;;:l e
0 :! e ell
Qj ltl 0 '2 0
:> C => J!l OJ I;;:
c .... C'I l:: lU 0 ~ t.l iii' 8 .l!I
T'" ,..... .... Q ~ '0 ell u
'iij (f) I'll Ul
.... In ell 'tij
C C !;; ko iV C u '[ S: III
.9. ,S! B ::J C ~ g 'E ill .!!'l ~
'iii 0 ~ c '0 g. III 0.. ~'E! E
iii ~ ::r: ~ E f! DI '-' .J!! t.l
=:l C >- '~ l: u, .!l!.c. ~ m
1: "t: S :- Q ID c.. CI !II '-' 111 N 0 TI
0 0 0 o!l E i5 - 0 C III "D lb ge 92 ... 0
c. CI. 0. ~'tl ~ C. 'j; I! In '- III it.ffi
.c: Ol .. D ~ ~1lI tl.- Clm
f/I f/I III CIJ o =ffi B' :> w Cl ,- ~ ff !a III ~'itI ra ~1Il 1il~ .!... c: "IlIc
c: I: l::; C U ~= ,- ro X ~ijj 0 c..E o i:- .5li:i~ ... J;llI:
ll! l;:l ll! ~.c ro oIlUlO t:I i:: roo.. ~~o:: ~ c."1: 1Il "t::1Il Q,tU :s~ J!I !il-
l- E C f-Ql1""" I- c.t\l '- 1lICI. I :!l ,!!! o..fI) F- Cl ' C!J1ll1ll III C1....l "':.:: ~!Y ,!!! E ill
--m-r- I- ~o gt ~:r: -t? E g.~ Ct:: III .u 0
-::I'- o m= E.mo --ill !:! tlI~ ]i.= CIIl....l ~"I:l 8 6
goo 00'" o m c 0-=15 ~ll:: .. tll"
..:~~ ..: ....,.~ rJl - >- l!!~ D - ID ...IX'll "'- - .:: alVD
...I 'C ~:6!9 _::Ju rL~..!::: ::I ~...J;-
n.E- g.fL~ CIJ =0: c..r;:.!:::: ~O =I::m IP JQ
IlJ o I!!! ~:::;~ OJ Oltlo 8~ ~:!i: !&~ III CI ~ 0 [J .. ra ::J _ 0 E ,2:
OFO CalO oeco t: :J:DJ: u::io OO::Ul CJ::SCll cnm..,o
I Iii ,n:
)0 0 0 ;:l g 0 13 0 0 ... 0 0
II] :<i;
~
fll i::
CI
U Uj
Ol .~ ..'!! III C'I l'l '<I" In III ,.. <0 CI)
!: 1IJ E I: i:: J:: .e i:: I: I: 1= I:: I::
'E tnlll E S ,2 oS 0 ,S! .E .9: ,g 0 g
I:: ;"0 iD ii =r 1ii iii ~ ~= ~
III U ", 8 l:; ~ ~
a: .c:;l:. :l 1:: 1: t: 'I: 1::
&~ 0 0 0 c 0 D 0 o DI 0 0
ii:i? ~ ;2l c. D. CI. C. 0. C. c.;;: Co C1.~
... .2 III f/I C III ~ In III f/I E III fll :!! - In III
~Q. III - g:-. ~ >0 l::; C C III l:; tii~ C ::l C-C
. e 51 lii CI C ::J ~~ ", :il ~~
-~~ ._ U III III C ~~ III 1lI ID
... ~ QI ~] e~ ec.s t=", ....I!!. t=lll ~= ~.r:l F.g
. 1-1lI
. Ir. >. E a ~ III _ 01_ .....n["\j -:-~ 'C:cv ....='Lll 'C ,E ID -I::"'" _DOl
C 0 :!: " C tU o:iE.... OeJ~ Q II:_
III U ra' ilia: 0.>, oc.... 0"5- -1m~ ClJ- 0.,_
l IlI",W . w:y ...I oCt,g . 1I. U ..J" ,g ...: U'~ ..J~~ ..J Ill,g ..,:QJ.,.Q
) D I;;; III .HE 1tI..o ec'3 - III' ii:c:S i~i
.:Ills. :::..0 g-~~ frB~ lirE.!!! g.~~ g.:u~ :Q.mUi i"D -
) ~~....l :t:c GI III III 0 III m Dl'~ G1__ c;.!!l
0.., 00 MUll. Q~a ceo o..,c CFo ceo C:::5Q Ofl)Q c::ic CC;lo
0 0 0 0 0 Ql 0 0 0 0 0 0 II 0 0
C)
..
I)
j
:
;:I
:i
::I
::l:
~
j
2
:1
L.
,
:1'
nl
E
rn
CJ
-0
C
ltl
J::
fIl
IT:
C
o
0;
Z
o
..,
1lI
o
'~
III
(f)
~
'" 0:
Ii:_lll
_,$ E
o n:: l5
'E. ;;: 's
cir B c
CfI)!lJ
ill
E
<1l
c:l
<tl
.I::.I::.
!!u
U. 0
..:i:l::-
OUI:
...:<ij.Q
c.~ OJ
III (\l
Q a:
C>I
1Il
E
nr
C!l"
<tl
,cUl
11I-
-t::
U-::I
ot)~
...: ~.Q
D.I;;01
1\1 m III
o III 0:
fI1
CI
E
l'lI
G
011 Ql
.c-I!;
.!!! 1lI
11.0
_Q:C'J
Q"t::C
..J Q1.2
0..D 01
m 0 CIl
00:0:
QI
E
1\I
(!;l
011
.c
[]
o
r:J
LJ
o
c
Cll
<::(
Ul
nl
e
:l
o
Ul
nl
rr
>0
'-I
I::
III
m
q;::l
m ~
f:!.C!l"
::l-
ow
ro~
It:;;:
!i
~
III
1;j
~
oll
01
t:
;=
I'll
o ...
co!l
_!:I
o OJ
..;ll:I
~~
q(l)
j] 1!
~ g
85~
~'i1
C-OJ
iSE.o
==s~
88m
c
o
:::I
~ ....
1Il 0
VI"$;
gl~
Um
~c
o ffi
"':lll
C.Ul
QI 0
00:
III
...
l:i;
oil
:0-
,::J C
e ~
lfsil
Cin&
E..s! c
w~.s!
co..<i:
. n
BLS-~
iii
BO/vO.d
II n
6lv-l
m .
O!(89!90l~
"Il'
III
E
tU,:,:.
(!]=
<<1E
J: QI
f/I'C
,_ ::J
~j'V
Q E I::
...:",.2
D-~ en
11- III
C5:n::
r:J
'-I
'i: 01
S di
1IIl;;.f1
,- 0 J:j
::c=='
-PIlE!
o~~
~ Cl '"
:c~a
Oo.:x:
c
.2
<ij
L1'l ~
QI ~
E c
~ ~
III
oll 'li:=.
'5l ''- 'fil
u:~:r:
-l1lll'lE
::5!3S!
la- ~ .@' e
oetIc..
B
C
.2 ,Eo
re {ij
-.; "E
U III
III ~
C:lijs
oIlS E UJ
1!.cj!i
- Dl c:
~i=~
--SCt:
~ 0: ~.o
c.z 's: :=
III ,l: &J
CI1IWfIl
0:
,lil
~
lD ~
ill C
~ 8
Cl -
oIl"iil~
.e,c{iJ
1II..Y:I:
u: c'H .
-nrtDE:
~'E:5 I!!
g.~ ~ e
c(!]a:n.
o
'E
111
o
lI:l
c
8-e
tlI 0
5'3
"'tel
tS'C
~.9
oil
!:
o
di
~
Gl
In '~
5E-q
uE",
>.ClO
ntC.J::
ID...:rQl
u::.:>
lliJ!:m
n
n
- ]i
~ :a:
(g tU
III :':E
E a fi!
{B SOl
o/l ~E'
"OQ.
.cc>-c
.!!!.!!!..s,g
~<i:<<il!l
c:..c~
...: E,Q :!l
C.EOl!:
III iii m c
QI-'O::O
:iE
QI
5
ID
~
oll
.c ~
II) t_"OJ
u: 8. III
-tlIo;
'::2:~
C1.E>=
~,l2~
o
o
tIJ
l::
o
(jj"
CIJ
'E
E
o
o
C
QJ
"C
t:'
OJ
nl
"tl
c
C
Q
u;
S
E
E
8m
>o~
CIa
tl_
m{!
III III
-E
Ec
o E!
i~
uw
!II
on
~
...
11/
:I:
l:: >-
G ~
w I
& I-
D1E.!!l
:55:8
N Q <Il
zuc
CJ
.
S
m
~
Ol
t:
':::l
"2
't: nl
m ~"O~:s
_Iii :::::lV- :;:
III ..0 ra ::J
Qi s= J;I QI 0
~ a1I:fJ;;-.::
;; .J;;lIlQ <:(
i~a ~
.::; ~:>>~
tti ;> "C
~ r-1 I?
Mnllllllll'UN1\111I_lIIn u
Kl
u
~
o
~:,...
a;O
....Iff
.! C'I ~
tlI <t 0
.::=. UI iii'
"'~C!J
05=
":OID
C.Ul"D
III III ID
C1a::z
lit
IM~:iIl\lM\lW
'"
Q
'ijj C
1II Q
B ]i
e E
8 e
CI
~ ~ 0
5'~ l~
.!! ~ 1Il Cf.l
:is I: -la
:l &. S III
ll._ /i)""J
m
s:;
'2
c:
PI
s::
~
OJ
I::
i::
Ell
a:
III
IJI
::l
o
.;;:
o Cl
En ..= .E
'I.. r: III
O",J!!
E>>:o
1Il111.!!/
Ejlr:.!!J
C!I..-rUl
o
rl
:s
LJ
o
to)
.a
"5
,g
e ~
:E ~
:l III
~ w-g
~2~
oiSW'Q
"CI~,.J
OIllQ.
~i'i5~
n
1II~",...ft....
..n ..."" u..",
Jun-26-03 OB:50am From-TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT
3105788170
T-418 P.05/0B F-57B
STAT!:: m' CALll"ORN1A BUSlNb:SS, 'rRAlIISflORTATION AND HOuSINO AGI;:NCY
OIlAY DAVIS. OOYt!:l'nor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7, REGIONAL PLANNING
IGRjCEQA BRANCH
120 SQ, SPRING ST.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
PHONE (213) 897-6536
FAX (213) 897-1337
E-Mail;NersesYerjanian(("JJd(..lt.ca.gov
~. ; ... . I .
'03 ,.:!!:i 1~;, P :: : 16
Flex YOIlr power!
Be energy e.Oicienr!
Mr. Patrick Clarke, Associate Planner
Office of Planning
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main St. Room 2] 2
Santa Monica, CA. 90401
RE: IGR/CEQA# 030634NY
ISt:MND .,.145 Unit Apanmem
LNl 0/3 ,20
June 17, 2003
Dear Mr. Clarke:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the
environmental review process forthe 145 Unit Apanment Buildings.
Based on the in1ormation received, and to assist us.in our efforts to completely evaluate
and assess the impacts ofmis project on the State transportation system, a traffic study in
advance oftheDETR should be prepared to analyze the following information:
Please reference the DepanmemTs Traffic Impact Study Guideline on the Internet at
http :!fwww.doLca.gov/hq/traffQflslclevelapsorv!opcl.ationalsystem sh:.ep.arts/tisgui de. pdf
] . Presentations of assumptions and methods used to develop trip generation. trip
distribution, choice oftrave1 mode, and assignments oftrips to Freeway 10.
2. Consistency of project travel modeling with other regional and local modeling
foreca.'){S and with travel dala. The IGRfCF.QA office may uSe indices to check
results. D.ifferences or inconsistencies must be thoroughly e;q>lained.
3. Analysis of ADT, AM. and PM peak-hour volumes for both existing and future
conditions in the affected area, This should include fi'eeways. interchanges, and
l1;ltersections, and all HOV facilities. Tnterchange Level of Service should be
Jun-ZG-G3 OB:51am From-TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT
3105769170
T-419 P.OG/OB F-57B
Mr. Clarke
June 17, 2003
specified (HCM2000 method requested). Utilization of transit lines and vehicIes,and
of all facilities, should be realistically estimated. Futl-lre conditions would include
build-out of all projects (see next item) and any plan-horizon years.
4. Inclusion of all appropriate traffic volumes. Analysis should include naffic from the
project, cumulative traffic generated from aU specific approved developments in the
area., WId traffic growth other than from the project and developments. That is,
include: existing + project + other projects + other growth.
5. Discussion ofmirigation measures appropriate to alleviate anticipated traffic impacts,
These mitigation discussions should include. but not be limitcd to, the following:
[J description oftransporration infrastructure improvements
CJ 1inancial costs, funding sources and financing
Cl sequence and scheduling considerations
Q implementation responsibilities, controls and monitoring
Any mitigation involving transit, HOV. or TDM must be rigorously juslified and its
effects conservatively estimated.. Improvements involving dedication of land or
physical construction maybe favorably considered.
6. Specification of developer's percent share of the cost, as well as a plan of realistic
mitigation measures under the control ofthe developer. The following ratio should be
estimated: Additional traffic volume due to project implementation is divided by the
total increase in the traffic volume (see Appendix Hn" of the Guidelines). That ratio
would be the project equitable share responsibility_
We note for purposes of determining project share of costs, the number of lrips fTom
the project on each traveling segment or element is estimated in the context of
forecasted traffic volumes which include build-out of all approved and not yet
approved projects, and other sources of growth. Analytical methods such as seJect~
link travel forccast modeling might be used,
We look forward to reviewing me DEIR. We expect to rccei\'e a copy from the
State Clearinghouse. Howevcr, to expedite the review process. you may send two
copies in advance to the undersigned at the following address:
Stephen Buswell
IGRlCEQA Branch Chief
Caltrans District 07
Regional Transportation Planning Office
120 S. Spring St., Los Angeles. CA 90012
Jun-26-03 08:51am From-TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT
~-
c;- c:..- _
3105769170
T-419 P.OT/OS F-578
Mr. Clarke
June 17. 2003
If you have any questions regarding this response. pleac;e can the Project Engineer/Coordinator
Mr. YeIjanian at (213) 897-6536 and refer to IGRlCEQA it 030634NY.
Sincerely, L: - \
~
C"-u-:.Y-e.1. '-Z ~ _~'l"~
STEPHEN j. BUS ELL r '
IGRlCEQA Branch Chief
Transponation Planning Office
.Callmns irnpTVlIflS rnobilily (lcross California'
Jun~Z8~03 OS:51am
SOUTHERN CALifORNIA
~.;.'/j.
'..}d"'~
\.1'4' ~ ~~
.'-iw~
I:': "i~1~~
" ',;~..,~.
.t:
~ .'
ASSOCIATION of
GOVERNMENTS
MaIn Office
B~B West Seventh Street
12lh floor
Los Angeles, California
90017.3~35
t (2'3) ~3G'1BoD
r(~'J) <36.,B25
www,~ca&.m gD~
JlJitTnl rrl"'\j~1.:111 Mlr'L1r!C'Y I\.'tl t. Rt..:.. . f-U:I[
Itu rn'l~dtlll ":upc:rdJlor CJurlo.:. 5uulI.,
'In.ll~l. 1:,1"'111" . :il!t")I~ VIL~ rr:r.....II~..e
.OIllICltmtmb't!r P.nLL R"b'l:fl" Tl"'m.,.~l.t .
Inln-;'rlIJlf; P.1U ..IL....HI~'1 a...........h'l~.IUI~f'f l-{JI
l!rn\lIn. hh ^n!cl~.i
ntptr'..tl Ca.udYI H...ll~ 1(\'l(1t:r [J~'pd13J
~lhtlll) . JlI 'slurlm. n~...-I""r
.01 ^dtc.1:cJ: Cuun!}1 'hl,nh,. Uf1lh....:.U$; B1-\f.':+
..D1 Au!:!:h:... Cn"tll ~ . 'C:~. htu.f""'''f. Ulo
II.C:~I.:. c....tIL.) .. M"l~lIIL' ^nd.rn-.. C"u,lIph.... I
t.lrt B.lldM.n, .ll.Iil~ ...,I'lnz:l . Plut SU'l'IIt;ll.
<'''ttUI-4I ~ H II nl"J"ll"',n. I U, 1'111101:.11:1. . CCni:"
1~lIh=I.. l".t..n..ulIl' ~ ....I~t'" 11h1l'.:n;1, P.Jlllu:1JI~ -
,Id~ [)UlIIJI', ~j~):lrw~~o4'l . 1'1'111 Gli~nIU. Ln,
.nidc1 ' E1IL C..~.......h+. l.:I.. -"l1tll)l, .. "*rrn-rl"t
~Le~'C1. u~ ^1'Ll:-lc ... Fr.Jlll: clllf'l,lt. CvdHLt ~
Im~ H~Jtn, z'Ll, ^:l~t:~'J.'1 , r:l../\~~t ['hhn. L"'"
.1IJr:"r.:, . N~tc HLlIDc." u,~ "J~J::l;'t!Cc .. );jllllr;!.
linin. m ~'C~Undll . -n~lh L.8ulllI:l".II'I...I'l"Il'l:ln ,
-UlI'1I.. LlJ"'ooenll\ll. WilLi Sr..11I .. r;C:.11\
~'.l:mh)- Ulnvne) -llC"nch, II M.llrr l'1:U'~rnllI11
'~tTllh MU"llr.u'n-:IIII:J, LL. n.n":I'Ir-. . '-111
ju,.,....lh. Tutr,l,m:c . PIJ~l 0 r'lnnnr. ,$",1,1111
1.1I1h.1 ... l'llr;:k t'3the.r;:o. La, n....:.,t.'. .. ,\I.o:a.
hUilJl l,t'.. M~JdL., .. JJ~r,.olJlJ P.r.t._. r..... An.:.:I.:-.
rtn PcrT)'. :'\11 A11[:l:lc_ - n,',un,,,: 1':n(1. Plt'l
I",,=r:, , .1:1;1 Jt.::(n. t.m. ^'l.:t'I~'. .. [II'Ll. :mnlatl1.
,~,~ t 7lJhl- S~u:;i.. W.ln.., .. PlLiL T.\lbl1l.
llnntotJ. .. 511j.,~ 1)'1; t I,. IInntr:n:a" TunlJ
-c~t:~ Ut:&nJ,l.. tn;,.: 'R.',1Lh . tJcnl~b WUlJbuJll,
.C1h_..~ ... J1~~ WIt'I.'. llh ^n~c:lc. . BljD"
::'.:i.l.~II....m".l1rU.I.:. UUUlI.Ii P 21111:, Lu.Ao'L:,lc_
'-"IIRe- Cnllm tr Cll:'rL~1 !illlUhl OrJIl~t" WlLflll,
Aim ~Lr1o tn. ~1~111lre:.. nil BUMI.. h.Z~I;..
uL .. lu. "'IlI,.~ 'n.~IIT1 . !\L':nJ.:a Chn-c:J.,
11:111"':'." , r~.;llh'l: l.'tll~t, Hullt.lIl!lIIll fl....cl~ .
1IIIrtl1 ('l~n.I+Ut L..I-~l.IU I',u)llll'j .. flltn.i1'l1
lZI,II, uk.. In/~d ' Alll Dlia.u. L. 1'..llUt . h~
!rl t. 8rc.l .. rM nl~I:'"""l'" Nq....~,.. B~....h
ivmlde C:.oulIlrl !nh hmn:r :J';llt":;:l.HI~ C\l''\"Bt~
{\1n LFi\ClLdl."C' Jtncr-..d. "'1~'1l M~1~l::r, CorlJn4.
."1( 1l'~111I' CJlnclJL.1 Colt . ItDIl i\~b~r1.,
nl.I\I,1I .. C.hnlc" Wllllc, Man::nt~ 'hl'.,.
Jl Icrllllr.dinn aq.~tnt')~ Ph.. Bhll':, s..u
:.In.IJ.*~ f'hlll'l" . l+~U 1\1e.Jj"lIkr. n..~lo'II.1
.:;lUtlI.Ill:. . \,I.'tfJ~lIr~ L.\,),I~, B,lfLh"", , In' AI'"
lr~... Cnll~ TI:rr.m: ' Su..1t lIhl:ll:"llIt~ ~~I
fll.UDula . r...] I hill, UnElhlJ .. f.l..lmuh
,hcrunn. nll~n1
nJ\J:-", CQUIIt~: JUD} M,uJ_ Vo:nlulit C:QU~nl t
+"11 "1'(,ln:.. ~unl Vlll-=) . C",l.rl Mt1rchalJ~1:1 nil
f'1I;t1t'TH1ITa. . T~nl 'tl.u+'t: l\lrI r1jJ-cnl;llll;'
Iocntdr CctmWD',1n;p.ate..tlE,l;R CQmmluh)n~
IWIL.=II'llt;".f1~IJI.1
IU\.lU C'.IUlill~ T\"II"Ii'~ttlluc:n l:nr""'I1Udfln:t
I L"IJVh I$Uh\ VJII.,.
From~TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT
3105789170
T~419 P.DS/OS F~57S
June 19, 2003
Mr. Patrick Clark
Assocfate Planner
City of Santa Monica
Planning and Community Development Department
1685 Main street, p, O. Sox 2200
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200
RE:
SCAG Clearinghouse No. I 20030318 2834 Colorado Avenue Project
Oear Mr. Clark:
Thank you for SUbmitting the 2834 Colorado Avenue Project for review and
comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG
reviews the consistency of focal plans, projects and programs with regional plans.
This activity is based on SCAG's responsJbillties as a regional planning organization
pursuant to state and federal Jaws and regulations. GUidance prOVided by these
reviews is intended to assist focal agencies and project sponsors to take actions that
contrIbute to the attainment of rr~gional9oals and policies.
We have reviewed the 2834 Colorado Avenue Project, ::Ind have determined thar the
proposed Project is not regionaily signiflc.:l:"lt per SCAG Intergovernmental Review
(IGR) CriJeria and Califoiflia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section
15206). The proposed project Is n:lt a residential development of more than 500
dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed Project does not warrant comments at this
lime, Should there be a change In the scope of the proposed Project, we would
appreciate the opportunity to rEview and comment at that time.
A description of the proposed Project was published In SCAG's June 1-15, 2003
Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and comment
The project title and SCAG CleEiringhouse number should be used in all
correspondence with SCAG concerning thIs Project. Correspondence should be sent
to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any questions, please
ClJlllClct Ine at (2: 3) 23fi- i 067., TI;ank ;0.... .'
Sincerely, ., /1
:.~>t1:lt(r 7/:- W!1Ir~'~
I J lr=t~y M.:,.SMJTH, AICP
, enior ReglonaJ Planner
Intergovernmental Review
, .
rr
Appendix B
Air Quality Data and Calculations
?age: 1
URBEMIS 2002 For Windows
'ile Name:
?roject Name:
?roject Location:
)n-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions
7.4.2
C:\program Files\URBEMIS 2002 For Windows\projects2k2\2B34 Colorado Avenue Project.urb
2B34 Colorado Ave Apts.
South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area)
Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2
SUMMARY REPORT
[Pounds/Day - Summer)
~ONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
*** 2004 ***
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated)
TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated)
*** 2005 ***
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)
TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated)
*** 2006 ***
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)
TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated)
~REA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
.TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated)
PMI0 PMIO PMlO
ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
9.68 79.04 72.19 0.40 10.77 3.31 7.46
9.68 79.04 72.19 0.40 10.77 3.31 7.46
PMI0 PM10 PMlO
ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
6.22 41.16 50.6B 0.00 1. 83 1. 77 0.06
6.22 41.16 50.6B 0.00 1.83 1. 77 0.06
PM10 PMlO PMIO
ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST
144.35 39.88 51.03 0.00 1.67 1.61 0.06
144.35 39.88 51. 03 0.00 1.67 1.61 0.06
ROG
7.31
NOx
1. 83
CO
1.31
S02
0.00
PMI0
0.00
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigatedl
TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated)
)PERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG
9.23
9.23
PM10
9.77
9.77
NOx
12.95
12.95
CO
104.25
104.25
S02
0.10
0.10
lUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigatedl 16.54 14.7B
Both Area and Operational Mitigation must be turned
CO S02 PMlO
105.55 0.10 9.7B
on to get a combined mitigated total.
~age: '2
URBEMIS 2002 For Windows
?ile Name:
?roject Name:
?roject Location:
)n-Road Motor Vehicle
7.4.2
C:\program Files\URBEMIS 2002 For Windows\Projects2k2\2834 Colorado Avenue Project.urb
2834 Colorado Ave Apts.
South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area)
Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2
DETAIL REPORT
(Pounds/Day - Summer)
~onstruction Start Month and Year: June, 2004
~onstruction Duration: 24
rotal Land Use Area to be Developed: 1.7 acres
~aximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 0.25 acres
3ingle Family Units: 0 Multi-Family Units: 145
~etail/Office/Institutional/Industrial Square Footage: 0
~ONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (lbs/day)
Source
*** 2004***
~base 1 - Demolition Emissions
?ugitive Dust
)ff-Road Diesel
)n-Road Diesel
~orker Trips
Maximum lbs/day
?hase 2 - Site Grading
?ugitive Dust
)ff-Road Diesel
)n-Road Diesel
qorker Trips
Maximum Ibs/day
Emissions
~hase 3 - Building Construction
3ldg Const Off-Road Diesel
31dg Const Worker Trips
\rch Coatings Off-Gas
;rch Coatings worker Trips
\sphalt Off-Gas
\sphalt Off-Road Diesel
\sphalt On-Road Diesel
\sphalt Worker Trips
Maximum Ibs/day
Max 1bs/day all phases
*** 2005***
?hase 1 - Demolition Emissions
~ugitive Dust
)ff-Road Diesel
In-Road Diesel
~orker Trips
Maximum lbs/day
?hase 2 - Site Grading
~ugitive Dust
)ff-Road Diesel
3n-Road Diesel
10rker Trips
Maximum Ibs/day
Emissions
'hase 3 - Building Construction
~ldg Const Off-Road Diesel
31dg Const Worker Trips
\rch Coatings Off-Gas
l.rch Coatings Worker Trips
\sphalt Off-Gas
\sphalt off-Road Diesel
~sphalt On-Road Diesel
\sphalt Worker Trips
Maximum Ibs/day
Max lbs/day all phases
*** 2006***
RaG
5.66
1.40
0.07
7.13
9.13
0.51
0.04
9.6B
5.B7
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.26
9.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.B7
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.22
6.22
NOll:
49.48
2B.Bl
0.13
78.42
67.54
11.4B
0.02
79.04
42.25
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
42.46
79.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
40.96
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
41.16
41.16
37.20
5.26
1.74
44.20
69.71
1.90
0.52
72.19
45.90
4.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.47
72.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
46.48
4.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.68
50.68
CO
S02
0.40
0.00
0.40
0.15
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
PM10
TOTAL
7.35
2.3B
0.74
0.01
10.4B
2.50
3.0B
0.27
0.01
5.B6
1.93
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.99
10.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1. 77
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.83
1. 83
PM10
EXHAUST
2.3B
0.64
0.00
3.02
3.0B
0.23
0.00
3.31
1.93
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.93
3.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1. 71
1. 77
PM10
DUST
7.35
0.00
0.10
0.01
7.46
2.50
0.00
0.04
0.01
2.55
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
7.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.06
Page: 3
Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions
~ugitive Dust
jff-Road Diesel
3n-Road Diesel
ilorker Trips
. Maximum Ibs/day
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
phase 2 - Site Grading
l"ugitive Dust
3ff-Road Diesel
3n-Road Diesel
lIorker Trips
: Maximum Ibs/day
Emissions
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
phase 3 - Building Construction
Bldg Canst Off-Road Diesel
Bldg Canst Worker Trips
~ch Coatings Off-Gas
~rch Coatings worker Trips
n.sphalt Off-Gas
~sphalt Off-Road Diesel
~sphalt On-Road Diesel
~sphalt Worker Trips
Maximum lbs/day
5.87
0.33
139.92
0.33
0.06
4.00
0.01
0.03
144.35
Max Ibs/day all phases
144.35
phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions
Start Month/Year for phase 1: Jun '04
phase 1 Duration: 1 months
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 384000
Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 17500
3n-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 972
3ff-Road Equipment
No. Type
2 Crawler Tractors
1 crushing/Processing Equip
1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes
Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions
Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Jul '04
~hase 2 Duration: 4 months
)n-Road Truck Travel [VMT): 352
3ff-Road Equipment
No. Type
1 Excavators
1 Graders
1 Rollers
1 Rubber Tired Dozers
1 Trenchers
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
39.69 47.04
0.19 3.99
0.19 3.99
24.60 33.99
0.26 0.05
0.01 0.31
39.88 51. 03
39.88 51. 03
Horsepower
143
154
79
Horsepower
180
174
114
352
82
phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions
Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Noy '04
phase 3 Duration: 19 months
start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Nay '04
SubPhase Building Duration: 16 months
off-Road Equipment
No. Type Horsepower
1 Cranes 190
1 Other Equipment 190
1 Rubber Tired Loaders 165
1 Trenchers 82
Start Month/Year for Subphase Architectural Coatings:
SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 2 months
Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: May '06
SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 1 months
Acres to be Paved: .50
off-Road Equipment
No.. Type
1 Graders
1 Pavers
1 Rollers
Horsepower
174
132
J.l4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Load Factor
0.575
0.780
0.465
Load Factor
0.580
0.575
0.430
0.590
0.695
Load Factor
0.430
0.620
0.465
0.695
Apr '06
Load Factor
0.575
0.590
0.430
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
1.60 1. 60 0.00
0.06 0.00 0.06
0.06 0.00 0.06
0.95 0.95 0.00
o.n 0.01 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
1.67 1.61 0.06
1.67 1.61 0.06
Hours/Day
8.0
8.0
8.0
Hours/Day
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Hours/Day
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Hours/Day
8.0
8.0
8.0
~age : 'l
\REA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ( Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated)
Source ROG NOx CO S02 PM10
Natural Gas 0.14 1. 82 0.78 0.00
Wood Stoves - No summer emissions
Fireplaces - No summer emissions
Landscaping 0.07 0.01 0.53 0.00 0.00
Consumer Prdcts 7.09
TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigatedl 7.31 1.83 1.31 0.00 0.00
!,'age: :J
UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
~partments low rise
ROG
9.23
NOx
12.95
CO
104.25
S02
0.10
PM10
9.77
rOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day)
9.23
12.95
104.25
0.10
9.77
Joes not include correction for passby trips.
Joes not include double counting adjustment for internal trips.
JPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES
~alysis Year: 2005 Temperature (F): 75
Season: Summer
~MFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002)
3ummary of Land Uses:
Jni t Type
Trip Rate
Size Total Trips
~partments low rise
6.63 trips / dwelling units
145.00 961.35
vehicle Assumptions:
Pleet Mix:
vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel
wight Auto 56.10 2.30 97.10 0.60
wight Truck '" 3,750 lbs 15.10 4.00 93.40 2.60
wight Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.50 1.90 96.80 1.30
'led Truck 5,751- 8,500 6.80 1.50 95.60 2.90
wite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 80.00 20.00
wite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30
'led-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 10.00 20.00 70.00
'leavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.80 0.00 12.50 87.50
wine Haul :> 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
Jrban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00
'lotorcycle 1.60 87.50 12.50 0.00
3chool Bus 0.30 0.00 0.00 100.00
'lotor Home 1.40 14.30 78.60 7.10
rravel Conditions
Jrban Trip Length (miles)
~ural Trip Length (miles)
rrip Speeds (mph)
k of Trips - Residential
Home-
Work
11.5
11.5
35.0
20.0
Residential
Home-
Shop
4.9
4.9
40.0
37.0
Commercial
Home-
Other
6.0
6.0
40.0
43.0
Commute
10.3
10.3
40.0
Non-Work
5.5
5.5
40.0
Customer
5.5
5.5
40.0
'age: ~
~hanges made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages
~hanges made to the default values for Construction
~he user has overridden the Default phase Lengths
'hase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly
has been changed from off to on.
'hase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 2x daily
has been changed from off to on.
'hase 2 mitigation measure Stockpiles: Cover all stock piles with tarps
has been changed from off to on.
'hase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Reduce speed on unpaved roads to < 15 mph
has been changed from off to on.
~hanges made to the default values for Area
~he wood stove option switch changed from on to off.
~he fireplcase option switch changed from on to off.
~he natural gas residential percentage changed from 60 to 100.
~he landscape year changed from 2004 to 2005.
~hanges made to the default values for Operations
~he operational emission year changed from 2004 to 2005.
~he operational winter selection item changed from 3 to 2.
~he operational summer temperature changed from 90 to 75.
~he operational summer selection item changed from 8 to 5.
~he travel mode environment settings changed from both to: residential
litigation measure Provide Sidewalks and/or pedestrian paths:l
has been changed from off to on.
litigation measure Provide Direct pedestrian Connections:l
has been changed from off to on.
Stewart_cola fut+proj.txt
CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL
JUNE 1989 VERSION
PAGE 1
JOB: 2834 colorado Avenue
RUN: Hour 1
POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide
I. SITE VARIABLES
U:::: 1. 0 M/ S
BRG:::: 30.0 DEGREES
CLAS:::: 7 (G)
MIXH:::: 1000. M
SIGTH:::: 25. DEGREES
zo:::: 100. CM
VD:::: .0 CM/S
VS:::: .0 CMls
AMB:::: 6.0 PPM
TEMP:::: 75.0 DEGREE (C)
ALT::::
o. (M)
II. LINK VARIABLES
LINK .* LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W
DESCRIPTION * Xl v1 X2 VZ * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M)
----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------
A. Link B
B. Link C
C. Link D
*
*
o
o
o
o 30 0 * AG
o 0 -30 * AG
o -30 0 * AG
1080 40.0
750 40.0
1415 40.0
.0
.0
.0
9.8
9.8
9.8
III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
1. Recpt 1
2. Recpt 2
3. Recpt 3
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
------------*---------------------
*
*
*
5
5
-12
-5
5
-5
.5
.5
.5
IV. MODEL RESULTS ePRED. CONC. INCLUDES AMB.)
* PRED * CONC/LINK
* CONC * (PPM)
RECEPTOR * (PPM) * ABC
-------------*-------*---------------
1. Recpt 1 * 9.4 * 3.2 .2 .0
2. Recpt 2 * 6.1 * .1 .0 .0
3. Recpt 3 * 10.3 * .1 .0 4.1
DO
page 1
Stewart_olympic fut+proj.txt
CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL
JUNE 1989 VERSION
PAGE 1
JOB: stewart_olympic
RUN: Hour 1
POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide
I. SITE VARIABLES
U=
BRG;;:;
CLAS=
MIXH=
SIGTH;;:;
1. 0 M/S
30.0 DEGREES
7 (G)
1000. M
25. DEGREES
zo;;:; 100. CM
VD=. .0 CMIS
VS= .0 CMls
AMB;;:; 6.0 PPM
TEMP= 75.0 DEGREE
ALT=
O. (M)
(C)
II. LINK VARIABLES
LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W
DESCRIPTION ,'r Xl y1 X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH ( G/MI) (M) (M)
----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------
A. Link A ,'r 0 0 30 0 * AG 1575 40.0 .0 9.8
B. Link B * 0 0 0 30 * AG 1180 40.0 .0 9.8
c. Link C * 0 0 -30 0 ... AG 1280 40.0 .0 9.8
D. Link 0 * 0 0 0 -30 * AG 690 40.0 .0 9.8
III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
* COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z
....
------------..---------------------
1. Recpt 1 * 5 -5 1.8
2. Recpt 2 * 5 5 1.8
3. Recpt 3 * -5 5 1.8
4. Recpt 4 ,'r -5 -5 1.8
IV. MODEL RESULTS (PRED. CONC. INCLUDES AMB.)
* PRED * CONC/LINK
* CONC * (PPM)
RECEPTOR * (PPM) * ABC 0
-------------*-------*--------------------
1. Recpt 1 * 9.9 * 3.5 .3 .0 .1
2. Recpt 2 * 6.7 * .2 .5 .0 .0
3. Recpt 3 * 9.1 * .0 3.0 .1 .0
4. Recpt 4 * 11.8 * 1.2 2.2 1.9 .6
00
page 1
Transportation Project~Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol
Methodology Source: UCD, Institute of Tranportation Studies, December 1997
Project 2834 Colorado Date: 08/01/03
Intersection: Nebraska/Centinela
Analysis Year (1996-2012) 2012
Location: Coastal Valle' SCAQMD? yes
Percentage of trips in cold start mode: 20% (Note: If cold start >50%, protocol not appUcable)
Worst case wind speed (0.5 or 1.0 m/sec): 1 m/sec
Ambi~nt Concentration: 6 ppm
8-Hour Persistence Factor. 0.7 (Rural/suburban=O.6, urban=0.7, congested/stagnant urban:
ANALYSIS CONDITIONS: PM Peak Cumulative Base
E-W Roadway:
:lway type (arterial [lor II], collector [II or III]):
# of approach lanes:
# of departure lanes:
WB approach volume:
EB approach volume:
WB free flow speed (20-50 mph):
EB free flow speed (20-50 mph):
Highest % of red time per through approach:
RECEPTOR 1 LOCATION
Distance (10-165 ft) from E-W Road:
Distance (10-165 ft) from N-S Road:
RECEPTOR 2 LOCATION
Distance (10-165 ft) from E-W Road:
Distance (10-165 ft) from N-S Road:
RECEPTOR 3 LOCATION
Distance (10-165 ft) from E-W Road:
Distance (10-165 ft) from N-S Road:
RECEPTOR 4 LOCATION
Distance (10-165 ft) from E-W Road:
Distance (10-165 ft) from N-S Road:
MODEL RESULTS:
Receptor
1
2
3
4
Nebraska N-S Roadway:
collectoradway type (arterial [lor II], collector [II or III]):
1 # of approach lanes:
1 # of departure lanes:
85 NB approach volume:
310 SB approach volume:
30 NB free flow speed (20-50 mph):
30 SB free flow speed (20-50 mph):
50.0% Highest % of red time per through approach:
Receptor nearest to Approach or Departure fanes
10 EB Approach
10 SB Departure
Receptor nearest to Approach or Departure lanes
10 EB Departure
10 NB Approach
Receptor nearest to Approach or Departure lanes
10 WB Approach
10 NB Departure
Receptor nearest to Approach or Departure lanes
10 WB Departure
10 SB Approach
1-Hr Concentration
Local Total
3.2 9.2
3.4 9.4
3.2 9.2
3.4 9.4
8-Hr Concentration
Total
6.4
6.6
6.4
6.6
Page 1
Centinela
collector
1
1
770
865
30
30
50.0%
rr
Appendix C
Peak Discharge Calculations
SIMPLIFIED RATIONAL APPROACH *
Q=cIA
where:
Q = peak flow in cfs
c = runoff coefficent
I = storm peak intensity
A = acreage of watershed (Dr site)
Runoff Coeficients (c-Factor)
Land Use low c
Apartment 0.5
Downtown Business 0.7
Heavy Industry 0.6
Light Industry 0.5
Multi-family, attached 0.6
Multi-family, detached 0.4
Neighborhood Business 0.5
Suburban Residential 0.25
Urban Single-family 0.3
Vacant, park, cemetery 0.1
Project Details
Existing Land Use:
Proposed Land Use:
Rainfall Intensity, in/hr
light industrial
multi-family
2-year
25-year
50-year
100-Year
4
5
a
7
Acreage:
2 acres
high c
0.7
0.95
0.9
0.8
0.75
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.25
LOW 2-Year 25- Year 50-Year 100-Year
Existing Post-Project Existing Post-Project Existing Post-Project Existing Post-Project
c= 0.60 0.50 0.69 0.58 0.72 0.60 0.75 0.63
J= 4.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 8.00 8.00 7.00 7.00
A= 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Q= 5 4 7 6 12 10 11 9
HIGH 2-Year .25. Year 50- Year 100- Year
Existing Post-Project Existing Post-Project Existing Post-Project Existing Post-Project
c= 0.90 0.80 1.04 0.92 1.08 0.96 1.13 1.00
1= 4.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 8.00 8.00 7.00 7.00
A= 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Q= 7 6 10 9 17 15 16 14
SUMMARY Existing Post-Project Increase, cfs Percentage Increase
Low High Low High Low High Low High
2-Year 5 7 4 6 -1 -1 83% 89%
25- Year 7 10 6 9 -1 -1 83% 89%
50-Year 12 17 10 15 -2 -2 83% 89%
100-Year 11 16 9 14 -2 -2 83% 89%
"Note: Only for rough estimate within small urba!l areas (<40 acres)
rr
Appendix D
Noise Data and Calculations
ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE
Project:
Date:
2834 Colorado Avenue Project
30~Jul~03
Project No.
03~54260
Roadway:
Colorado Ave. between Harvard and Yale Streets
PROJECT DATA and ASSUMPTIONS
Vehicle Reference Energy Mean Emission Levels (FHWA 1977, TNM@, or CALVENO): TNM
Distance to Receptor: 50 feet
Site Condition (Hard or Soft): Soft
Upgrade longer than 1 mile: 0 %
Existing Total Traffic Volume (ADT): 13,750 vehicles
Ambient Growth Factor: 0.8%
Future Year: 2012
Total Project Volume (ADT): 771 vehicles
Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): 3,200 vehicles
Source of Traffic Data: Kaku Associates, July 2003
Daily Vehicle Mix
Existing
Project
Future
97.5% 99.0%
1.8% 0.5%
0.7% 0.5%
Soume: Assumed given land use and road characlerlsllc:s
Automobile
Medium Truck
Heavy Truck
97.6%
1.7%
0.7%
Percentage of Daily Traffic
Existing and Future
Evening (7-10 pm) Night (10 pm ~ 7 am)
12.9% 9.6%
4.9% 10.3%
2J% 1~8%
Day (7 am-7 pm)
77.5%
84.8%
86.5%
Source: Default Assumpllon
Automobile
Medium Truck
Heavy Truck
Project
Evening (7-10 pm)
12.9%
4.9%
2.7%
Day (7 am-7 pm)
77.5%
84.8%
86.5%
Source: Default Assumption
Night (10 pm ~ 7 am)
9.6%
10.3%
10.8%
Automobile
Medium Truck
Heavy Truck
Average Speed
Existing
Evening (7-10 pm)
30
30
30
Day (7 am-7 pm)
30
30
30
Night (10 pm - 7 am)
30
30
30
Automobile
Medium Truck
Heavy Truck
Source: Speed Limit
Future
Evening (7-10 pm)
30
30
30
Day (7 am~7 pm)
30
30
30
Night (10 pm - 7 am)
30
30
30
Automobile
Medium Truck
Heavy Truck
Source: Speed Limit
Rincon Consultants
Page 1
ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE
Project:
Date:
2834 Colorado Avenue Project
30-Jul-03
Roadway:
Project No. 03.54260
Colorado Ave. between Harvard and Yale Streets
TNM
Vehicle Noise Emission Levels*:
RESUL TS
DAY.NIGHT AVERAGE LEVEL (Ldn)
Existing
ExIsting + Project
Future wlth Ambient Growth
Future wlth Ambient Growth and Project
Future with Ambient Growth and Cumulatlve Projects
Future with Ambient, Cumulative, and Project Growth
Change In NoIse Levels
Due to Project
Due to AmbIent Growth
Due to AmbIent and Cumulative
Due to All Future Growth
COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL)
ExIsting
ExlsUng + Project
Future with AmbIent Growth
Future with AmbIent Growth and Project
Future with AmbIent Growth and Cumulative Projects
Future with AmbIent, Cumulative, and Project Growth
Change In Noise Levels
Due to Project
Due to Ambient Growth
Due to Ambient and Cumulative
Due to All Future Growth
Ldn at Sile Distance to dBA Contour Une
50 feet from roadway cenlerlfne, feet
from road centerlIne 75 70 65 60 55
64.5 dBA #N/A #N/A 44 100 215
64.7 dBA #N/A #N/A 47 103 222
64.8 dBA #N/A #N/A 48 104 225
65.0 dBA #N/A #N/A 50 108 232
65.6 dBA #N/A 18 55 119 256
65.8 dBA #N/A 19 57 122 263
0.2 dBA
0.3 dBA
1.2 dBA
1.3 dBA
CNEL at Site Distance to dBA Contour Une
50 feet from roadway centerline, feet
from road centerline 75 70 65 60 55
65.0 dBA #N/A #N/A 50 107 232
65.2 dBA #N/A #N/A 52 111 239
65.3 dBA #N/A #N/A 52 113 243
65.5 dBA #N/A 18 54 116 250
66.1 dBA #N/A 21 60 128 277
66.3 dBA #N/A 21 61 132 284
0.2 dBA
0.3 dBA
1.2 dBA
1.3 dBA
*NOTES: Based on algorithms From the Federal Highway Administration "Traffic
Noise Model@", FHWA-PD-96-010, January, 1998.
#N/A '" Not Applicable
Page 2
Rincon Consultants
ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE
Project:
Date:
Roadway:
2834 Colorado Avenue Project
25-Jul-03
Stewart St. S of Colorado
Project No.
03-54260
PROJECT DATA and ASSUMPTIONS
Vehicle Reference Energy Mean Emission Levels (FHWA 1977, TNM@, or CALVENO): TNM
Distance to Receptor: 50 feet
Site Condition (Hard or Soft): Soft
Upgrade longer than 1 mile: 0 %
Existing Total Traffic Volume (ADT): 16,100 vehicles
Ambient Growth Factor: 0.8%
Future Year: 2012
Total Project Volume (ADT): 771 vehicles
Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): 1,500 vehicles
Source of Traffic Data: KOIku Assodates, July 2003
Daily Vehicle Mix
Existing Project Future
Automobile 97.5% 99.0% 97.6%
Medium Truck 1.8% 0.5% 1.7%
Heavy Truck 0.7% 0.5% 0.7%
Source: Assumed given land use and road characteristics
Percentage of Daily Traffic
Automobile
Medium Truck
Heavy Truck
Automobile
Medium Truck
Heavy Truck
Average Speed
Automobile
Medium Truck
Heavy Truck
Automobile
Medium Truck
Heavy Truck
Page 1
Day (7 am-7 pm)
77.5%
84.8%
86.5%
Source: Defau It Assu mptlon
Day (7 am-7 pm)
77.5%
84.8%
86.5%
Source: Default Assumption
Day (7 am-7 pm)
30
30
30
Source: Speed Limit
Day (7 am-7 pm)
30
30
30
Source: Speed limn
Existing and Future
Evening (7-10 pm) Night (10 pm - 7 am)
12.9% 9.6%
4.9% 10.3%
2.7% 10.8%
Project
Evening (7-10 pm)
12.9%
4.9%
2.7%
Existing
Evening (7-10 pm)
30
30
30
Future
Evening (7-10 pm)
30
30
30
Night (10 pm - 7 am)
9.6%
10.3%
10.8%
Night (10 pm - 7 am)
30
30
30
Night (10 pm - 7 am)
30
30
30
Rincon Consultants
ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE
Project:
Date:
2834 Colorado Avenue Project
25-Jul-03
Roadway;
Stewart SI. S of Colorado
Vehicle Noise Emission Levels*:
RESUL TS
DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE LEVEL (Ldn)
Existing
Existing + Project
Future with Ambient Growth
Future with Ambient Growth and Project
Future with Ambient Growth and CumulaUve Projects
Future with Ambient, Cumulative, and Project Growth
Change In Noise Levels
Due to Project
Due to Ambient Growth
Due to Ambient and Cumulallve
Due to All Future Growth
COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL)
Exlsllng
Exlsllng + Project
Future with Ambient Growth
Future with Ambient Growth and Project
Future with Ambient Growth and CumulaUve Projects
Future with Ambient, Cumulatlve, and Project Growth
Change In Noise Levels
Due to Project
Due to Ambient Growth
Due to Ambient and Cumulative
Due to All Future Growth
Project No. 03-54260
TNM
Ldn at Site Distance to dBA Contour Line
50 feet from roadway centerline, feet
from road centerline 75 70 65 60 55
65.2 dBA #N/A #N/A 51 111 238
65.4 dBA #N/A #N/A 53 114 245
65.5 dBA #N/A 18 54 116 250
65.7 dBA #N/A 18 55 119 257
65.8 dBA #N/A 19 57 123 264
66.0 dBA #N/A 20 58 126 271
0.2 dBA
0.3 dBA
0.7 dBA
0.8 dBA
CNEL at Slle Distance to dBA Contour Line
50 feet from roadway centerline, feet
from road centerline 75 70 65 60 55
65.7 dBA #N/A 18 55 119 257
65.9 dBA #N/A 19 57 123 264
66.0 dBA #N/A 20 58 125 270
66.1 dBA #N/A 21 60 129 277
66.3 dBA #N/A 22 61 132 285
66.5 dBA #N/A 22 63 136 292
0.2 dBA
0.3 dBA
0.7 dBA
O.B dBA
*NOTES: Based on algorithms from the Federal Highway Administration "Traffic
Noise Model @", FHWA-PD-96-010, January, 199B.
#N/A = Not Applicable
Page 2
RIncon Consultants
SOUND BARRIER LOSS ESTIMATION*
Scenario: IT No. 45901 - 2834 Colorado Ave. Project
DATA
Barrier Top Elevation, feet
Source Ground Elevation, feet
Height of Source above Ground, feet
Observer Elevation at ground or floor
Distance from source to barrier, feet:
Distance from barrier to observer, feet:
INPUT
10
o
o
o
10
65
BARRIER EFFECT RESUL T
Infinite Barrier Attenuation:
Is Observer at Ground Level (yes or no):
Adjustment for Loss of Ground Attenuation:
Infinite Barrier Insertion Loss:
Finite Barrier Adjustment
Enter angle subtended by barrier:
-16.5 dBA
yes
4.0 dBA
-12.5 dBA
180 degrees
Enter Noise Level Without Barrier:
Enter Reference Distance for Noise Level:
Noise level including insertion loss of Barrier:
Noise Level of barrier gaps:
88 dBA
50 feet
73.7 dBA
0.0 dBA
SUMMED AVERAGE LEVEL:
73.7 dBA
* Assumes a sound wavelength of 2 feet (about 550 Hz).
Methodology Source: Harris, C.M. (1979), Handbook of Noise Control, 2nd. Ed.
Page
Contour
TO DETERMINE NOISE CONTOURS FOR A GIVEN NOISE LEVEL
___"'cc ,....._..._-,--_._.,-~,,-,----~ I -.- -------- --~"c..~,.c,...".-l---.-.---.---...!-.""~--..-------.------- ! ."............-."...--....-.....-.-..--..i-........
----ATTENUATION RA TE-:I--....- .... --------SldBNOOUBLlNGoi=-jjfsTANgE--l-- -....-
--......-.--...-~~{Choj"NceO:-j3S'E..~-~L-~El..VorE6L): r===~- _ - -- ---i-nun Note: .Wffhfn-O~-10 feetfrom---- ---
.--8BidBA n the sourc-e;There is --T-------~
!3gi=~I3~~gE:-r:>I~If\89g:-r- ........ -:~-:_-__-___:=_:_ 50 I FEET . vfifuany-noatlenuation.l. . ._--
-. . ............--------------------.. ....j 0 I ST AN cE-j-==:-----.T-~~~CTj=~~-rN~I~~.--1-----. - ..........--
NoIsE-CONTOUR .... - Ii=Ro~T SOURCE]. ....-- ---j. D[sTANc"ET-CEVEC.'
~~! ... ..... ..... ... ----~~jl~::~ ' .. .f~-~-l-----~~:gj!
-....... .... ------------------65;----"- -- -706 -Ife"sf .------.1-- .1"50[--78.5. .-------
--------- -- n------661---- --1256 Ifeet- ! ------.-26or----76~OI
==~~:~-:-:it~~;~;I~~-f-:=--;~-~i~
----72T-----.. .. - 31-5 !feet -r ... .....- ------ ..... _ ....-r-
-----~===..:=. __ . .... ___?1]______===___~4]Ieef-===L _ .... - n -- -~ I_______ .... __ .. .]-:=:~=___
==-::=::-_. ~~ :=-_==~~~ j~::t__-:=I=---==--- .._______=~_!__:---------
68 SOO ~t I I
..:==~::-----------.-~-~- :---..---====~~~-:I~:-~.....::==-: .. -=-~:...-------..-=~~----- ...::-1.==-=--=
- - -- - -65 ...----70Ei"lfest.. .r--... - 1 .------
----:======1== -~ilfii~-f=:::=~F:--:'-----
---------Eff!"------ --1f19feetn--n--r .......-:r---- Ln_ n_
--------------------- EfoT---~~n 125Sfeet---- --T-------- .1______
Page 1
rr
Appendix E
Traffic Technical Report
TRAFFIC STUDY
FOR THE
2834 COLORADO APARTMENT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
JAN UARY 2004
PREPARED FOR
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
PREPARED BY
~<IU<U^SSOCI^TES
A Corporation
TRAFFIC STUDY
FOR THE
2834 COLORADO APARTMENT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
January 2004
Prepared for:
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Prepared by:
KAKU ASSOCIATES, INC.
1453 Third Street, Suite 400
Santa Monica, California 90401
(310) 458-9916
Ref: 1629
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction.............................................................................................. .................. 1
Project Description ............................................................................................ 1
~~~~...................................................................................................... 4
Organization of Report...................................................................................... 5
II. Existing Highway Conditions ......................................................................................... 6
Existing Highway and Street System................................................................. 6
Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service................................................. 7
Existing Public Transit Service .............................................................. ............ 14
III. Future Traffic Projections.............................................................................................. 16
Cumulative Base Traffic Projections.................................................................. 16
Project Traffic Projections.............................................................. .................... 20
Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Projections....................................................... 23
IV. Traffic Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 26
Criteria for Determination of Significant Traffic Impact...................................... 26
Cumulative Base Operating Conditions............................................................. 28
Project Traffic Impact Analysis .............................................................. ............ 28
Traffic Mitigation Measures .............................. ................................................. 30
V. Neighborhood Street Segment Analysis.............................................................. .......... 32
Criteria for Determination of Significant Neighborhood Traffic Impact .............. 32
Neighborhood Impact Analysis.......................................................................... 35
Neighborhood Mitigation Measures................................................................... 35
VI. Congestion Management Program Analysis ................................................................. 36
CMP Traffic Impact Analysis ............................................................................. 36
CMP Transit Impact Analysis ............................................................................ 37
VII. Parking and Site Circulation Analysis ............................................................................ 39
Parking Code Analysis .............................................................. ........................ 39
Site Access Evaluation...................................................................................... 41
VIII. Summary and Conclusions............................................................................................ 42
References
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Intersection Lane Configurations
2002 and 2003 Traffic Count Data
AM and PM Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements
Cumulative Projects List
Traffic Signal Warrant Worksheets
LIST OF FIGURES
N.Q.
1 Project Location and Study Area................................................................................... 2
2 Site Plan ................................................................................................................ 3
3 Existing Peak Hour Volumes ......................................................................................... 9
4 Cumulative Base Peak Hour Volumes .......................................................................... 19
5 Generalized Project Trip Distribution ............................................................................. 22
6 Project Only Peak Hour Volumes.............................................................. .................... 24
7 Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Volumes .............................................................. 25
LIST OF TABLES
N.Q.
1 Existing Surface Street Characteristics......................................................................... 8
2 Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections ............................................... 11
3 Level of Service Definitions for Stop-Controlled Intersections....................................... 12
4 Existing Intersection Levels of Service .......................................................................... 13
5 Trip Generation Estimates............................................................................................. 21
6 City of Santa Monica Significant Impact Criteria-
Arterial and Collector Intersections.............................................................. ...... 27
7 Future (Year 2012) Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................ 29
8 Neighborhood Traffic Impact Analysis........................................................................... 33
9 City of Santa Monica Significant Impact Criteria-
Collector, Feeder, and Local Streets ................................................................. 34
10 Parking Requirements Analysis.............................. ....................................................... 40
I. INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of a study conducted by Kaku Associates, Inc. to evaluate the
potential traffic and parking impacts of the proposed 2834 Colorado Avenue apartment project in
the City of Santa Monica. This report identifies the base assumptions, describes the methods,
and summarizes the findings of the study, which was conducted as part of the environmental
impact report (EIR) being prepared for the proposed project. The analyses used in this study
draw upon base data and analyses included in the Santa Monica Traffix database.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located at 2834 Colorado Avenue in the eastern portion of the City of Santa
Monica (see Figure 1). The site covers approximately 1.76 acres and is generally bounded by
Colorado Avenue to the north, Stewart Street to the west, and commercial/light industrial uses
to the east and south. Primary vehicular access to the existing site is obtained from Colorado
Avenue, with vehicles entering and exiting via a driveway approximately 60 feet to the east of
Stewart Street. Existing uses on the site consist of approximately 38,000 square feet of
commercial warehouse development.
The proposed project, shown in Figure 2, would completely redevelop the 1.76-acre site. The
existing 38,000 square feet of commercial space would be demolished and replaced with a 145-
unit residential apartment development. The project would provide a total of 228 parking
spaces located within a subterranean garage. The subterranean parking would be accessed
via a driveway located on Stewart Street, providing direct access to the parking supply. This
driveway would accommodate both entering and exiting vehicles. An additional one-way right-
turn only driveway located on Colorado Avenue would accommodate exiting vehicles only.
1
~!
(/)$
c c
o ID
'B E
ID 0>
(/) ID
L-Cf)
ID__\
-- ID
..s ID
"O,p
IDCf)
N >-
~"O
ro ~
C__
<(Cf)
"
<(
W
0:::
<(
>-
o
::::)
I-
CJ)
o
~z
W<(
O:::z
~O
- I-
LL<(
o
o
--.J
I-
o
W
--,
o
0:::
a...
~~
~~
"-
~ ~'~-
~1111111111.rt++++i...
(()
w
<
U
o
(()
(()
<
::::I
~
<
~
#OPOJOIO::>
'PJOAelnOq
NZ
w::S
0::: a..
=>w
c.9~
--
LLCf)
II'-YI
STUDY SCOPE
The study analyzed the potential project-generated traffic and parking impacts on the street
system surrounding the project site. Traffic impacts for the project were evaluated for typical
weekday morning (7:00 to 10:00 a.m.) and evening peak periods (4:30 to 7:30 p.m.). The
following traffic scenarios were analyzed in the study:
. Existing Conditions - The analysis of existing morning and evening peak hour traffic
conditions provided a basis for the assessment of future traffic conditions. The existing
conditions analysis included a description of key area streets and highways, traffic
volumes, and current intersection and roadway operating conditions.
. Cumulative Base (Year 2012) Conditions - This scenario projected the future traffic
growth and intersection operating conditions that are expected from regional growth and
known related projects in the vicinity of the project site by year 2012. These analyses
provided the baseline conditions by which project impacts were evaluated.
. Cumulative Plus PrQject (Year 2012) Conditions, Proposed PrQject - This analysis
identified the potential incremental impacts of the proposed project on future traffic
operating conditions by adding the traffic expected to be generated by the project to the
cumulative base traffic forecasts.
This study examined 17 intersections in the vicinity of the project site for each of the three traffic
scenarios. In addition, the study evaluated the potential for neighborhood traffic intrusion impacts
on six street segments in the vicinity of the project. The study intersections, selected in
consultation with the City of Santa Monica, are listed below and shown in Figure 1.
Analyzed Intersections
1. Cloverfield Boulevard & Colorado Avenue
2. Cloverfield Boulevard & Olympic Boulevard
3. 26th Street & Santa Monica Boulevard
4. 26th Street & Broadway
5. 26th Street & Colorado Avenue
6. 26th Street & Olympic Boulevard
7. Yale Street & Santa Monica Boulevard
8. Yale Street & Broadway
9. Yale Street & Colorado Avenue
10. Stewart Street & Colorado Avenue
11. Stewart Street & Olympic Boulevard
12. Stewart Street/28th Street & Pico Boulevard
13. Centinela Avenue & Santa Monica Boulevard
14. Centinela Avenue & Broadway
4
15. Centinela Avenue & Colorado Avenue
16. Centinela Avenue & Nebraska Avenue
17. Centinela Avenue & Olympic Boulevard (West)
Analyzed Neighborhood Street Segments
.
Princeton Street north of Colorado Avenue
Harvard Street north of Colorado Avenue
Yale Street north of Colorado Avenue
Stanford Street north of Colorado Avenue
Nebraska Avenue west of Franklin Street
Stewart Street between Exposition Boulevard & Virginia Avenue (collector street)
.
.
.
.
.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
This report is divided into the following seven chapters:
. Chapter I consists of the introduction.
. Chapter II describes the existing circulation system, traffic volumes, and intersection and
roadway operating conditions of the street system as well as the existing public transit
service within the study area.
. Chapter III describes the methodologies used to develop future cumulative traffic forecasts
and project traffic volumes.
. Chapter IV presents an assessment of potential project traffic impacts on intersection
operations, discusses potential mitigation measures, and provides an assessment of those
measures' effectiveness.
. Chapter V presents an assessment of potential project traffic impacts on residential
streets.
. Chapter VI contains the results of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) regional
transportation system impact analysis for the project.
. Chapter VII contains a discussion of parking and site access issues related to the project.
. Chapter VIII summarizes the conclusions of the study and the recommendations intended
to address significant impacts of the proposed project.
5
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A comprehensive data collection effort was undertaken to develop a detailed evaluation of existing
transportation conditions within the study area. The assessment of existing conditions in the
project study area includes a description of the street and highway system, traffic volumes on
these facilities, operating conditions of the selected intersections, and public transit services.
EXISTING HIGHWAY AND STREET SYSTEM
The project site is located at the southeast corner of Stewart Street and Colorado Avenue in the
eastern portion of the City of Santa Monica. Regional access to this area is provided by the
Santa Monica Freeway (1-10), and the San Diego Freeway (1-405). The Santa Monica Freeway,
which is located approximately half a mile south of the project site, provides east-west access
across the City of Santa Monica and to the City of Los Angeles to the east. Located
approximately one mile east of the project site is the San Diego Freeway, which provides north-
south access through the region and connects the Westside with the San Fernando Valley to
the north and the South Bay area to the south.
Primary access between the project site and the Santa Monica Freeway is via the Centinela
Avenue interchange. Other interchanges in the vicinity are located at Bundy Drive, Cloverfield
Boulevard, and 20th Street. Access to the project site from the San Diego Freeway is available
either via the Santa Monica Freeway or directly via the Santa Monica Boulevard and Olympic
Boulevard/Pico Boulevard interchanges on the San Diego Freeway.
Arterial streets carry the majority of traffic traveling through the city and are generally developed
as commercial corridors. Arterial streets within the study area include Santa Monica Boulevard,
Olympic Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, Cloverfield Boulevard, Colorado Avenue (west of Cloverfield
Boulevard), and 26th Street. Collector streets allow movement of traffic between arterials and
neighborhoods. Within the study area, collector streets include Broadway, and Stewart Street.
6
Table 1 provides further descriptions of the physical characteristics of key streets within the study
area. Lane configurations at the study intersections are illustrated in Appendix A.
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE
The following sections describe the peak hour traffic volumes, the methodology used to analyze
the intersection operating conditions, and the resulting levels of service for the study intersections
under existing conditions.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Of the 17 study intersections, 15 are analysis locations in the City of Santa Monica Traffix
database. Traffic volume count information for these locations was collected by the city in
October and November of 2002 for the morning and evening peak periods for typical weekdays.
Base traffic data for one of the remaining study intersections (Centinela Avenue & Nebraska
Avenue) was collected in October of 2002. New traffic counts were conducted at the other
remaining study intersection (Yale Street & Colorado Avenue) in July 2003 as part of this study.
These additional traffic counts are included in Appendix B. The existing weekday morning and
evening peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections are presented in Figure 3.
Level of Service Methodology
Fourteen of the 17 study intersections are controlled by traffic signals. In accordance with policies
established by the City of Santa Monica, the "Operational Analysis" method from the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 1 was employed to perform the intersection level of service
analysis for each of the signalized locations.
The HCM operational method determines two key operating characteristics of signalized
intersections: average control delay experienced per vehicle and volume/capacity (V/C) ratio.
1 _ _ _
Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000_
7
(/)
u
i=
(/)
c::
W
I-
U
~
<(
:::c
u
.....1-
WW
...JW
ma::
<(I-
I-(/)
W
U
<(
l.L
a::
::::l
(/)
C)
z
i=
!Q
><
W
j~
)::::i
000000
C')C')C')C')C')C')
[]J
S
in
(/)
E
a.
C')
N
~
(/) E
Z ~
E E E c
m a.a.O
LQ,?,?g
I-I-~NNN
<I:<I:~~~~
(/)(/)(/)0..0..0..
ZZZZZZ
(/)
Z
o
i=
g
0::
I--
(/)
UJ
0::
CJ
Z
~
0::
<I:
0..
[]J
UJ
in
Z
.J:::
N
E
E a.
'" C')
L{) C
E g
a. c
I--I--~ N
<I:<I:~ ~
(/)(/)0..<1:<1:0..
ZZZo..o..Z
Z
<l:UJ
-0..
0>-
~I--
1-->->-1-->->-
0l000l5l5l
[]J
S
in
UJ(/)
Z
<I:
--'[]J
UJ
in
Z
N~~~~~
o
I--
ai
'"
.i(.i( _!,1
.i( ai '" 6
() -'" 0 > 2
.~ "a. ~ -g <(
.~ E l... (; 0 ~
.~ ~ ~ 0 :.c ~
>OzOO(/)
2
o
0::
LL
> >
>-<1:<1:
<I:[]J",
o ~ 0 >
CO .~ "a. ~ ~ <(
o "m ~..c ..Q .2
.~ .: _ Q) o..c
o..>OZOO
I--
UJ
UJ
0::
I--
(/)
.i(
'"
Q;
c
~
<3
0000
C')C')C')C')
E
a.
<0
E
'"
0()
1:
N
-E
Q;
a.
>-
-"
15.
Q)
()
~ .c
E ~
& E-
E Jl
'" 1--'
0() <l:C')
0..<1:(/)0..
Zo..ZZ
E
a.
<0
E
'"
0()
-~
Q)
a.
>-
-"
15.
Q)
()
><
Q)
E
a.
(J)
E
'"
0() C')
0..<1:<1:0..
Zo..o..Z
>->->->-
0000
~ ~ ~ N
~ ~ ~ N
> >
><1:-<1:
<I: ~ ~ 0
~ ~ "a. -g
~JQ~.Q
m Q) - 0
~OOO
>
><1:-
<l:Q)[]J
~ ()
- (/) m.-
[]J '" ;: a.
of/)", E
uc->.
._ m Q)-
o..~OO
.i(
t::
'"
;:
Q)
Ci5
000
C')C')C')
E
a.
<0
r-.:.
~~
0..0..<1:
ZZo..
E
a.
<0
r-.:.
.J:::
o
E
'"
II?
1--1--
<1:<1:
0..0..<1:
ZZo..
1--1--1--
...I --'...I
N N N
N ~ ~
N ~ ~
ai
'"
.i( _!,1
>-6
.g~2
~ "'C m
~ e ~
O[]J(/)
>
ai <I: >-
.~ .g ~
E~-g
~o e
oO[]J
Ci5
.J:::
cD
N
0000
C')C')C')C')
-~ -~
Q) Q)
a. a.
>->-
-" -"
0..0..
Q) Q)
() ()
>< ><
Q) Q)
:E:E
.~.~
c c
-0-0
-E -E
N N
E E
I-- '" '"
<1:0()0()
(/)0..0..<1:
ZZZo..
iL
6
E
a.
<0
a,
1:
N
E
a.
<0
."r
(/) E
Z a.
~~
<I:(J)
I-~..c
<l:t--~
(/)(/)0<1:
ZZo::o..
1--1--1--1--
....J....J....J ....J
N N N N
N ~ ~ ~
N ~ ~ ~
- >
~Ci5Ci5~
~"Et:~
g ~ ~ ~
"C m 2 Q)
CLI(/)O
ai_
-0(/)--
]!5~~
~ Q) m m
> g <: ;:
c3it~c75
.i(
o
-0
~
o
8
L{)L{)L{)L{)L{)
'<t'<tC')C')C')
iL
6
E
a. ~.J:::
<0 o..~
a, 2;::;'
<I: ~o..
0.. E 2
1: <9E
N
E ~c?-
'" 0() 0()
II?I--I--<I:<I:
C')<I: <1:0.. 0..
a...a...a.....c..c
ZZZNN
iL
6
E
a.
<0
a,
<I:
0..
iL
6
E
a.
.J::: <0
N E
E '"
'" 0()
II?I--I-- <I:
C')<I:<I: 0..
0..0..0..<1:1:
ZZZo..N
221--1--1--
~~~~~
NNMMM
NNMMM
~~
!!
.i(.i( .i(
+-'"*"*O~
(f) :a :a -6' .~
~cccm
~c3t)~c>
~~
!~
.i(.i(
'" '" ~
--0
+-' +-' Q) Q)
(/) (/) c c >-
:';:::;:';:::;""0
..c ..c c c c
~~t)t)~
ai
()
-0.
E
>-
o
iL
6
E
a.
<0
ro
<I:
0..
o
C')
iL
6
E
a.
<0
E
'"
(J)
<I:
0..
1:
N
E
'"
L{)
c0
(/)
Z
iL
6
E
a.
<0
E
'"
(J)
<I:
0..
.J:::
N
E
'"
L{)
c0
(/)
Z
I--
...I
N
N
N
.i(
'"
Q;
c
~
Q)
o
Ci5
.J:::
cD
N
ai
'"
()
-c
o
2
'"
c
d'l
Q)
_!:
-;::
Q)
c
Q)
Q) 0 Q)
~ ;: :;;
Qi..Q....J
~ ~ ~
()"'O~~
3: ~ 'ai m c
..Q (/) ....J ....J .~
~t3 ~-g-g
Q)~S~2
:g ~ b :0 .~
oU5~:s~
o II
II >- II II II
>-0~02
o (/)N:::>O::
UJ
Z
...I
0::
UJ
I--
Z
UJ
o
Z
<I:
15
UJ
2
c
o
Q) U
~ E ~
>.:.;:::; Q)
~ ~ 0::
-0 C)<I: g>
~ .~ ~ :g
..Q ~:.s2 en m
<( .s m .~ ..Q a...
~(j) a... ~ ::;.~
:g~~D-~ ~
m II II 0 Q) C
o..l--l--Zo::jg
II <I: <I: II II 0
<1:(/)0..0..011
o..ZZZo::_
CJ
Z
~
0::
<I:
0..
f/)
Q)
c
.!!l
'0
C)
c
:g
f/) '"
Q)o..
l... "5 ID
:J .~ Q)
~22
II II II
o::~o..
I22
o
~
2
Q)
-"
E
:J
Z
II
'It
(/)
UJ
Z
<I:
...I
JI
~)
\W;
\0>
#<%,
\Y
L-
~
o
i~
1:5
Q)
"0'
L-
a...
----
~
e::-
~
<(
~~
Cf)
w
<
o
o
Cf)
Cf)
<
::::I
~
<
~
(f)
w
:2:
:::::>
--.J
o
>
0:::
:::::>
o
O::::r:
:::::>~
(9<(
-w
LLa...
(9
Z
I-
(f)
><
W
C")
W
These characteristics are based on the amount of traffic traveling through the intersection, the
travel lane geometries, and other factors affecting capacity such as on-street parking, bus
operations near the intersection, and pedestrian volumes at the street crosswalks. These
characteristics are used to evaluate the operational effectiveness of each intersection, described
generally in terms of level of service (LOS).
Three of the study intersections (Yale Street & Colorado Avenue, Yale Street & Broadway, and
Centinela Avenue & Nebraska Avenue) are currently unsignalized. Levels of service at these
intersections were evaluated using stop-controlled methodologies from the 2000 Highway
Capacity Manual.
Level of service categories range from excellent, nearly free-flow traffic at LOS A to overloaded,
stop-and-go conditions at LOS F. Level of service definitions are provided in Tables 2 and 3 for
signalized intersections and unsignalized intersections, respectively. The LOS definitions, ranges
of delay, and ranges of V/C ratio shown in these tables represent average conditions for all
vehicles at an intersection across an entire hour. Delays longer than the average condition are
experienced by motorists on certain movements and/or during peak times within the peak hour.
The City of Santa Monica has designated LOS D as the minimum acceptable level of service at
arterial intersections and LOS C as the minimum acceptable level of service at collector street
intersections. Santa Monica has numerous thriving commercial areas. Although the city invests
heavily in improvements to encourage the use of sustainable trip modes (e.g., bus, walking, and
cycling), a certain level of automobile congestion is expected in an area of this nature. The
minimum acceptable level of service-the design condition-allows for substantial queuing and
delays at intersections during peak periods.
Existing Levels of Service
The results of the analysis of existing weekday morning and evening peak hour conditions at each
of the study intersections are summarized in Table 4. Detailed level of service calculations are
presented in Appendix C. As shown, using the City of Santa Monica analysis methodology, all but
five of the 17 study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during both the morning
10
TABLE 2
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
(2000 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL OPERATIONAL METHOD)
A verage Control
Delay per Vehicle
Level of Service (seconds) Definition
A <10.0 EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red
light and no approach phase is fully used.
B >10.0 and <20.0 VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully
utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewha
restricted within groups of vehicles.
C >20.0 and <35.0 GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through
more than one red light; backups may develop behind
turning vehicles.
0 >35.0 and <55.0 FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions 0
the rush hours, but enough lower volume periods
occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing
excessive backups.
E >55.0 and <80.0 POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection
approaches can accommodate; may be long lines 0
waiting vehicles through several signal cycles.
F >80.0 FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross
streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles
out of the intersection approaches. Tremendous
delays with continuously increasing queue lengths.
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000
TABLE 3
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR
STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS
Average Stopped Delay
Level of Service (seconds/vehicle)
A ~10.0
B >10.0 and ~15.0
C >15.0 and 95.0
D >25.0 and ~35.0
E >35.0 and ~50.0
F >50.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.
TABLE 4
EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
PEAK EXISTING
No. INTERSECTION HOUR VIC Delay' LOS
1 Cloverfield Boulevard & AM 0.725 26 C
Colorado Avenue PM 0.743 28 C
2 Cloverfield Boulevard & AM 0.918 37 D
Olympic Boulevard PM 0.903 38 D
3 26th Street & AM 0.923 26 C
Santa Monica Boulevard PM 0.966 26 C
4 26th Street & AM 0.640 16 B
Broadway PM 0.687 17 B
5 26th Street & AM 0.558 15 B
Colorado Avenue PM 0.675 16 B
6 26th Street & AM 0.776 27 C
Olympic Boulevard PM 0.830 29 C
7 Yale Street & AM 0.558 11 B
Santa Monica Boulevard PM 0.795 19 B
8 Yale Street & AM 0.650 14 B
Broadway [2] PM 0.969 36 E
9 Yale Street & AM nla 3 A
Colorado Avenue [1] PM nla 2 A
[worst approach only] AM nla 18 C
[worst approach only] PM nla 18 C
10 Stewart Street & AM 0.650 17 B
Colorado Avenue PM 1.093 42 D
11 Stewart Street & AM 0.972 30 C
Olympic Boulevard PM 1.087 60 E
12 Stewart Street & AM 0.734 13 B
Pica Boulevard PM 0.891 19 B
13 Centinela Avenue & AM 1.006 39 D
Santa Monica Boulevard PM 1.383 .. F
14 Centinela Avenue & AM 0.521 12 B
Broadway PM 0.831 20 B
15 Centinela Avenue & AM 0.683 17 B
Colorado Avenue PM 1.282 79 E
16 Centinela Avenue & AM nla 5 A
Nebraska Avenue [1] PM nla .. F
[worst approach only] AM nla 54 F
[worst approach only] PM nla .. F
17 Centinela Avenue (west) & AM 0.703 11 B
Olympic Boulevard PM 0.924 22 C
Notes:
Average control delay per vehicle, in seconds.
.. Indicates oversaturated conditions. Delay cannot be calculated.
[1] Intersection controlled by stop signs on the minor approaches.
[2] Intersection controlled by stop signs on all approaches.
and afternoon peak hours on weekdays. Although the average control delay per vehicle at LOS D
intersections can last up to 55 seconds, drivers making certain movements can expect to wait
longer than the average during peak periods. The five locations operating at LOS E or F during
one or both peak hours are:
.
Yale Street & Broadway (unsignalized)
Stewart Street & Olympic Boulevard
Centinela Avenue & Santa Monica Boulevard
Centinela Avenue & Colorado Avenue
Centinela Avenue & Nebraska Avenue (unsignalized)
.
.
.
.
EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE
The study area is well served by public transportation facilities. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Line 5
serves Olympic Boulevard near the project site. Additional routes operated by the Big Blue Bus
and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) provide service within
the study area. The existing bus routes operating in the study area are described below.
. Big Blue Bus Line 1 (Santa Monica Boulevard) - Line 1 runs from Venice and Ocean Park
through downtown Santa Monica to UCLA. Line 1 operates on Santa Monica Boulevard
within the study area, about one-half mile north of the project site.
. Big Blue Bus Line 2 (Wilshire Boulevard-Venice) - Line 2 runs from Venice High School
through downtown Santa Monica to UCLA via Wilshire Boulevard. Line 2 provides service
along Wilshire Boulevard.
. Big Blue Bus Line 5 (Olympic Boulevard-Century City) - Line 5 runs from downtown Santa
Monica to Century City and the Rimpau Transit Center via Colorado Avenue, Olympic
Boulevard, and Pico Boulevard. Within the study area, Line 5 operates on Olympic
Boulevard adjacent to the project site. Service headways of about 20 minutes are
provided during weekday peak periods and about 30 minutes during weekday off-peak
periods and on weekends.
. Big Blue Bus Line 7 (Pico Boulevard) - Line 7 runs from downtown Santa Monica to the
Rimpau Transit Center via Pico Boulevard. Line 7 operates on Pico Boulevard within the
study area, approximately one-half mile south of the project site.
. Big Blue Bus Line 10 (Santa Monica Freeway Express) - Line 10 runs from Ocean Park
through downtown Santa Monica to downtown Los Angeles. Within the study area, Line
10 operates on Santa Monica Boulevard west of Bundy Drive and on Bundy Drive between
Santa Monica Boulevard and the Santa Monica Freeway.
14
.
Big Blue Bus Line 11 (14th Street-20th Street Crosstown) - Line 11 provides service in a
. fu fu fu
clockwise loop along 20 Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, 17 Street, Pearl Street, 14
Street, and Montana Avenue. Within the study area, Line 11 operates on 20th Street.
.
Big Blue Bus Line 14 (Bundy-Centinela) - Line 14 provides service between Culver City,
Mar Vista, and Brentwood. Line 14 operates on Bundy Drive within the study area.
.
MTA Lines 4 and 304 - Lines 4 and 304 run from downtown Santa Monica to downtown
Los Angeles via Santa Monica Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard. Line 4 provides local
service, while Line 304 provides peak period limited-stop service. These lines operate on
Santa Monica Boulevard within the study area, about one-half mile north of the project
site.
.
MTA Line 20 - Line 20 provides local service between Colorado Avenue and Ocean
Avenue in Santa Monica and downtown Los Angeles via Wilshire Boulevard. This line
operates on Wilshire Boulevard within the study area.
.
MTA Line 720 - Line 720, the Metro Rapid bus, provides limited-stop service between
Ocean Avenue/Colorado Avenue in Santa Monica, downtown Los Angeles, and East Los
Angeles/Montebello via Wilshire Boulevard and Whittier Boulevard. This line operates on
Wilshire Boulevard within the study area.
When transfer opportunities are considered, the project site is accessible from most of Santa
Monica and the Los Angeles metropolitan area via bus and other mass transit systems.
15
III. FUTURE TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
To evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding street system
properly, it was necessary to develop accurate estimates of future traffic conditions in the area,
both without and with the proposed project's traffic. First, estimates of traffic growth were
developed for the study area to forecast future conditions without the project. These forecasts
included traffic increases due to both general regional ambient traffic growth as well as to traffic
generated by specific developments in the vicinity of the project (related projects). These
projected traffic volumes, identified herein as the cumulative base conditions, represent the future
study year conditions without the development of the proposed project. The traffic generated by
the proposed project was then estimated and assigned to the surrounding street system. The
project traffic was added to the cumulative base to form the cumulative plus project traffic
conditions, which were analyzed to determine the incremental traffic impacts attributable to the
project itself.
The assumptions and analysis methodologies used to develop each of the future traffic scenarios
discussed above are described in more detail in the following sections.
CUMULATIVE BASE TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
The City of Santa Monica's Traffix model was used to prepare the cumulative base traffic
forecasts for use in this study. The traffic volume growth reflected in the development of the
cumulative base conditions reflects the expected growth in traffic over existing conditions from two
primary sources: (1) ambient growth in the existing traffic volumes due to the effects of overall
regional growth and development outside the study area, and (2) traffic generated by specific
development projects located within, or in the vicinity of, the study area. The methods used in the
Santa Monica Traffix database to account for these two factors are described below.
16
Areawide Traffic Growth
The ambient growth rate to the future analysis year 2012 is estimated to be approximately 0.8%
per year compounded annually. For the 15 study intersections contained in the Traffix database,
and the additional intersection at which counts were conducted in 2002 (Centinela Avenue &
Nebraska Avenue), this results in an ambient growth factor of approximately 8% over the ten-year
study period from 2002 to 2012. For the intersection at which counts were conducted in 2003
(Yale Street & Colorado Avenue), this results in a factor of approximately 7.4% over the nine-year
period from 2003 to 2012. Therefore, the areawide ambient traffic growth was developed by
factoring the existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at each of the study intersections
upward by 8% or 7.4%, as appropriate.
Traffic Generation of Cumulative Development PrQject5;
Traffic expected to be generated by specific development projects within or with the potential to
affect the study area was also considered in addition to the ambient areawide traffic growth
discussed in the preceding section. The City of Santa Monica Planning Division provided a
current list of approved and/or planned development projects throughout the City of Santa
Monica.2 For the purposes of this traffic study, the proposed 2834 Colorado Avenue project
was eliminated from the list of cumulative projects. Regionally significant projects located
outside the City of Santa Monica are also contained in the city's Traffix model. Information was
also obtained from the City of Los Angeles regarding related projects in the Los Angeles portion
of the study area.
Trip generation estimates were prepared for the related projects using either the Traffix trip
generation program or standard trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE),3 or were obtained from relevant traffic studies and/or EIRs for specific
projects. The list of related projects included in this analysis, including trip generation estimates
for each, is included in Appendix D.
2 City of Santa Monica, City Planning Division, Cumulative Development Projects List, July 1,2003.
3 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, 1997.
17
Cumulative Development PrQject Traffic Distribution
The geographic distribution of traffic generated by developments such as those included in the
list of cumulative projects depends on several factors. These factors include the type and
density of the proposed land use, the geographic distribution of the population from which
employees and potential patrons of the proposed development are drawn, the location of the
project in relation to the surrounding street system, the location of any peak hour turning
movement restrictions along the roadway network, the extent of the roadway network (e.g., is it
continuous), and other factors, such as any known changes to the existing roadway network.
The traffic distribution patterns for traffic generated by the related projects are contained in the
City of Santa Monica's Traffix forecasting model.
Cumulative Base Traffic Volumes
Using the trip generation estimates and trip distribution patterns contained in the Traffix
database, traffic generated by the cumulative projects was assigned to the street network using
the Traffix traffic assignment model. The resulting future year 2012 cumulative base traffic
volumes are shown in Figure 4 for both weekday peak hours.
Baseline Street System Improvements
Several key roadway improvements in or near the study area are expected to be completed by the
year 2012 future study year. These improvements, whether the result of local or regional Capital
Improvement Programs or as mitigation for ongoing or entitled related projects, would result in
capacity changes at various locations throughout the study area. These changes would affect the
operations of one study intersection and could result in changes to the existing traffic patterns in
the study area. The street network improvement listed below is assumed to be in place by the
study horizon year of 2012:
. Modify the eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection of Yale Street &
Broadway to provide only a single shared lane to accommodate all turning movements.
The existing configuration on these approaches provides a left-turn lane and a shared
through-right turn lane. This work was completed after the 2002 traffic counts were
taken.
18
@!
\0>
#<%,
\Y
L..
~
o
i~
----
~
t:5e::-
w
"0' ~
a: <(
~~
Cf)
w
<
o
o
Cf)
Cf)
<
::::I
~
<
~
"""""
w
0::
::::)
(9
u..
(f)
w
:2:
::::)
--.J
o
>
0::
::::)
o
:r:
::::e::::
<(
w
a...
w
(f)
<(
co
w
>
I-
<(
--.J
::::)
:2:
::::)
o
PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
The traffic projections for the proposed project were developed using the following three steps:
estimating the trip generation of the project, determining trip distribution, and assigning the
project traffic to the roadway system.
Project Trip Generation
The Institute of Transportation Engineers' (lTE's) Trip Generation manual (6th Edition), a
national standard used universally by the traffic engineering profession, was used to estimate
the number of trips generated by the existing and proposed land uses. Due to the nature of the
project, no adjustments were made for non-motorized trips or passerby trips.
Existing Uses. Currently the site is estimated to generate approximately 190 trips per day, of
which approximately 17 occur in the a.m. peak hour and 20 in the p.m. peak hour. ITE trip
generation rates for "Industrial Warehouse (Land Use 150)" were used to develop estimates of
existing trip generation.
Proposed Uses. The proposed project would provide 145 apartment units. ITE trip generation
rates for "Apartment (Land Use 220)" were used to develop estimates of future project trip
generation. The proposed project is estimated to generate a total of approximately 961 trips
per day, including 74 a.m. peak hour trips and 90 p.m. peak hour trips.
The net increase in site-generated traffic would be 771 trips per day, of which about 57 would
occur in the a.m. peak hour and 70 in the p.m. peak hour, as shown in Table 5.
PrQject Traffic Distribution
The distribution pattern of the proposed project traffic was developed based on the location of
the project relative to the project's location within the surrounding street network. The resulting
distribution pattern is illustrated in Figure 5.
20
I-
U
W
....,
o
0::
(/)a.
wI-
I-Z
e::(W
2:2:
f=b::
(/)e::(
IOWa.
WZe::(
...JOW
Illf=::::l
;::~~
W>
Ze::(
Wo
C)c
~~
0::0
I-...J
o
U
'Ot
M
co
N
en-
0..2 010 010 0
~ 0 OJ OJ NN I'-
I-
'-
::l
0....
I ::l 010 L!)IL!) L!)
~ 0 (") (") ..- ..- ..-
e ell
Q)
0 0..
~ 2: E 010 L!)IL!) L!)
Q) 0.. COCO L!)
e
Q)
C) en ell
0.. 0.. -0 'Ot1'Ot 1'-11'- I'-
~ ~ l- I'- I'- ..- ..- L!)
-a '-
::l
Q) 0 ....
ro I ::l NIN (")1(") OJ
E ~ 0 coco L!)
:;::::; ell
en Q)
W 0..
2: E NIN 'Ot1'Ot ~
<( ..- ..- ..- ..-
~~ "-1"- 010 ..-
CO "C coco OJ OJ I'-
01- OJ OJ ..- ..- I'-
.,..:
2 .... vi
ell.... e 0
0:: .c ::l 0
0..:J '- 0
.>:: Q) ..-
I- 0.. '-
Q)
0..
....
::l ;:R ;:R
0 0 0
'- (") co
~~ (") I'-
I
~ e ;:R ;:R
ell 0 0
;:R I'- 'Ot
~ Q) CO N
0.. 0
en
Q) 2:
ro 0.. 2 N ..-
0:: ell CO L!)
e 0:: 0 0
0
~ ....
::l ;:R ;:R
0 0 0
Q) '- 'Ot OJ
e ~~ OJ ..-
Q)
C) I
0.. ~ E ;:R ;:R
~ ell 0 0
;:R CO N
Q) ..- OJ
0.. 0
2: 2
<( ..- L!)
ell L!) 'Ot
0:: 0 0
>-Q) (") CO
=-= +-' CO OJ
ell ell
00:: CO 'Ot
w~ 0 0
I- 0 N L!)
-0 N ..-
~ c
W .,..:
e >
Q) ::l en
.t::,! 0
(f) L!) 2: 0 (/)
'Ot 0
..- W 'Ot a.
0:: OJ c::
I- W (") I-
U III ...J
W
...., 0 :c e::(
0 I- Q) I-
0:: ~ ~en Z
Q) en W en :J W
en a. e Q) (/) Q) 2:
:J C :J:g ::::l en OJ
en e W
-a W .... 5: C) Q) :;::::; 0::
e (/) e e en
ell 0 Q) Q) Z .(jj .x U
...J a. EZ f= ::l W Z
0 t- (/) ..c -
ell 2 ell I-
0:: >< 0 -0 W
0..0 N
a. <(I- W I I- Z
-a
e
ell
en
t
ell
en-
0..
o
J::.
en
Q)
e
E
U
ell
E
-0
e
ell
Ol
e
'5
Qj
5:
of
e
i'i
ell
U
en-
Q)
~
.0
.jll
"-
.m
0..
~
o
:5
ell
en-
e
1:5
~
C
o
U CJi
~g>
~~
Q) .S
Ol..c
Ol>-
e "-
.- 0
~<r
U Q)
.~ OJ
en .~
Q) en
~1ll.E'
OJ Q)
OJ .~ al
~-E "g-
00 U
;;;; N g
;jj ~.!!1
..erne
~ E:-
en .x 5:f
- e CD
.~ 8::_x
~~~
Q):!::::::T"""
~ 5: 'Q
(D ~~
0.. .~ ~
~'= 32 en
.- .S Q)
----,..cE
W Q) :::l
~ ~ ~
enOro
w-mu>
Q)"-o
.~ ~ 5:f
g> b o::f
W en (")
e Q) .
o ";;:: c..
:;:; Q) 0
ro en J::.
troen
8.. >- en
en ..c E
c "'C Co
~Q)Q)
r- "0.. ~
b a co
2 g-g
..a ~ co
~ C w-
e Q) 0..
t: 0
Qj [l-{ij
Uenen
:s .- 4=
o 15 ~
en ...J U
~ ro ..ci
(5
z
~!
";::
I-
-;::!2.
o
=1:1::
Cf)
Cf)
<
::::I
~
<
~
:z
o
I-
:::::>
co
0:::
I-
CJ)
o
a...
L!")g:
WI-
0:::0
:::::>W
(9----,
-0
LLo:::
a...
o
W
N
--.J
<(
0:::
W
:z
W
(9
PrQject Traffic Assignment
The data described above was used to assign the project-generated traffic to the study
intersections. The net incremental project trips were assigned to the street system using the
Traffix assignment model. All inbound vehicles were assigned to the driveway located off
Stewart Street. Outbound vehicles were assigned to the driveway located off of Stewart Street
and to the right-turn only exit driveway to be located off of Colorado Avenue. The effect of the
turn restriction at the Colorado Avenue driveway was taken into consideration in the
assignment, as were the peak hour eastbound left-turn restrictions at the intersections along
Colorado Avenue between 26th Street and Centinela Avenue. The net new project trip
assignments are presented in Figure 6.
CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
The project-generated traffic volumes were then added to the cumulative base traffic
projections to yield the cumulative plus project traffic forecasts. The projected year 2012 traffic
volumes with the proposed project are presented in Figure 7. These volumes are the basis for
the analysis of the project's traffic-related impacts as described in the following chapters.
23
~)
\W;
\0>
#<%,
\Y
L-
~
o
~~
1:5
Q)
"0'
L-
a...
----
~
e::-
~
<(
~~
Cf)
w
<
o
o
Cf)
Cf)
<
::::I
~
<
~
(f)
W
~
::::)
--.J
o
>
0:::
::::)
o
<D:r:
W::::s;::::
0:::<(
::::)W
(9 a...
LL>-
--.J
Z
o
l-
t.)
W
--,
o
0:::
a...
~)
\W;
\0>
#<%,
\Y
L..
~
o
i~
----
~
e::-
~
<(
~~
Cf)
w
<
o
o
Cf)
Cf)
<
::::I
~
<
~
(f)
w
:2:
:::::>
--.J
o
>
0:::
:::::>
o
:r:
::::e::::
e:::(
w
r- a...
W I-
0:::0
:::::>w
(9--'
-0
LLo:::
a...
(f)
:::::>
--.J
a...
W
>
l-
e:::(
--.J
:::::>
:2:
:::::>
o
IV. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The Year 2012 cumulative base and cumulative plus project traffic forecasts projected in the
previous chapter and shown in Figures 4 and 7 were analyzed to determine the potential
impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding street system. The following sections of the
report provide a discussion of the criteria and methodologies used, summarize the results of the
analysis including the identification of potentially impacted locations, and describe suggested
mitigation measures for these locations.
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC IMPACT
City of Santa Monica Significance Criteria
The City of Santa Monica has established criteria for assessing whether project-related traffic
increases result in significant impacts on operating conditions of intersections. The significance
criteria are summarized in Table 6 and depend on the classification of the streets at the
intersection (i.e., arterial or collector street) and the operating conditions of the intersection
under cumulative traffic conditions. The potential significance of a project's impact is measured
by either the change in average vehicular delay or by a change in the intersection LOS to an
unacceptable condition. If the base LOS is F, however, significance is defined in terms of a
change in V/C ratio (as calculated by the HCM operational method), since the average vehicular
delay cannot be calculated using the HCM operational method if the intersection exhibits over-
saturated traffic conditions.
Using the criteria summarized in Table 6, a project would not be considered to have a significant
impact if, for example, an arterial intersection operating at LOS 0 with the addition of project traffic
and the incremental change in the average vehicle delay is less than 15 seconds. If, however, the
intersection is operating at LOS E after the addition of project traffic and the average vehicle delay
increases by any amount, this would be considered a significant project impact. All impacts in
26
TABLE 6
CITY OF SANTA MONICA SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA
ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR INTERSECTIONS
I FUTURE BASE SCENARIO I FUTURE PLUS PROJECT SCENARIO I
IF LOS = A, B, OR C SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IF:
==> and is a collector street Average vehicle delay increase is.:: 15 seconds
intersection or
LOS becomes D, E, or F
==> and is an arterial Average vehicle delay increase is.:: 15 seconds
intersection or
LOS becomes E or F
IF LOS = D SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IF:
==> and is a collector street Any net increase in average seconds of delay per vehicle
intersection
==> and is an arterial Average vehicle delay increase is.:: 15 seconds
intersection or
LOS becomes E or F
IF LOS = E SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IF:
==> and is a collector or Any net increase in average seconds of delay per vehicle
arterial intersection
IF LOS = F SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IF:
==> and is a collector or HCM V/C ratio net increase is.:: 0.005
arterial intersection
LOS F are based on the VIC ratio, with project-related increases of 0.005 or greater considered
significant.
CUMULATIVE BASE OPERATING CONDITIONS
The Year 2012 cumulative base (without project) traffic volumes shown in Figure 4 were
analyzed using the level of service methodologies described in Chapter II to develop estimates
of levels of service at the study intersections for the weekday morning and evening peak hours.
These analyses assumed implementation of the baseline improvement described in Chapter III.
The results of this analysis are summarized in the first columns of Table 7. Detailed level of
service calculations are presented in Appendix C.
As shown in Table 7, poor operating conditions (LOS E or F) are projected using the City of
Santa Monica analysis methodology at nine of the 17 study intersections during one or both of
the weekday peak periods. The study intersections projected to operate at unacceptable levels
of service under future Year 2012 cumulative base conditions during one or both peak periods
include the following:
.
Cloverfield Boulevard & Colorado Avenue
Cloverfield Boulevard & Olympic Boulevard
26th Street & Santa Monica Boulevard
Yale Street & Broadway
Stewart Street & Colorado A venue
Stewart Street & Olympic Boulevard
Centinela Avenue & Santa Monica Boulevard
Centinela Avenue & Colorado Avenue
Centinela Avenue & Nebraska Avenue
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The Year 2012 cumulative plus project traffic volumes shown in Figure 7 were analyzed to
determine potential future operating conditions at the study intersections and were compared to
cumulative base conditions to identify specific traffic impacts resulting from the addition of
project-generated traffic. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 7.
28
w
()
~
w
en
LL
0
en
...J
W
>
W
...J
Z
0
I"- j:::
W ()
...J W
lJl en
i:!: 0::
w
I--
~
N
....
0
N
0::
<I:
w
(:.
w
0::
~
I--
~
LL
ell ('.
:J-
"'C 0 0 0 0 0
'iij ~ ZZ ZZ
Q) E
0::-
- -
.... >- ~ L{)
o ell c: "<t ~~
~Q)~ c: "<tM c:
~ c: c:
>ClU 0 0
.~ ~
0> - 0> -
.-'" ""
I-- m ~ ~
U 0 E2: E2: E2: E2: E2: E2: E2: E2: CD UW CD E2: E2: E2: E2: <(Cll -."'l E2:
~Z...J :0 :0 c
.(ii .(ii
00 ell ell
0::- CD CD
c..!;( LL LL
+ ~ I'?; 0 0
Wj:::..!!! z M L{) Z <o;!
>-Q) N I'-
j::::!:Cl
<(::C
...JI--
::J-
:!::5:U ~ <0 L{)<O
CO CO "<to
13 > 1'-0 . I'-
6~ o .
0
.... >- ~Q)
o ell
u"Q)ell
>Cl6
m
::J
...J
0..1--
W U1'_
::: ~I ca
!;(O"Q)
...Jo::Cl
::Jc..
:!:
::J
U
W~
>N
i= ;:; 1'_
:5 ~I~
::JWQ)
:!:mCl
::J<(
UCll
1: ('.
ell_
.~ goo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0
~gzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz~z~~~zzzzzzzzzzz~zz
OlE
00-
"<t "<tCO"<t NO 0
OO~~OOOOOOOOOO~~OOO~O~~~OO~~OO~~O~~~OO
00 0 000 00 0
m
OOWLLLLWOCllUCllCllUUCllUULL<(<(UOCllLLLLLLUULLLLCllOULLOLLLLLLCllU
...J
L{) "<t ,
"<t <0 '
~ o:::to:::to)Nl'-o)OLONT"""C")~
~ <OLOT"""NT"""T"""C")C")T"""C")N~
MM~~~t
~~OLO~
~ ~ C") C") ~
~ o:::t o:::t T""" ~
~ T""" o:::t N ~
<O~ ~ ~
N ~ ~ ~
L{)N
~M
I'-NNM(OI'-T"""OOMO":::!"'Q(OQNOO ~LOMI'-I'-<OT"""O)OOo)LO NW
UNroo)Oo:::tMI'-T"""No:::t<OT"""T"""o:::tLOOrorororoI'-LOOMo:::tNMMMLOO<ororororoM~
>~;~~~~666666666~CCCC6~~~~;~~~;6~CCCC6;
m
OOWLLLLWOCllUCllCllUUCllUULL<(<(UOCllLLLLLLUULLLLCllOCllLLOLLLLLLCllU
...J
L{) "<t ,
"<t <0 '
~ o:::to:::to)Nl'-o)OLONT"""N~
~ <OLOT"""NT"""T"""C")C")T"""C")N~
MM~~~t
~~OLO~
~ ~ C") C") ~
~ o:::t o:::t 0 ~
~ T""" o:::t N ~
<0,
N'
~ ~ LON
~ ~ T""" C")
<ONT"""N<OI'-O<O<Oo)N<O<Oo)O":::!'" MT"""LOMLOLOo)o)OOOo)LO T"""M
UNroo)Oo:::tMI'-T"""T"""M<OT"""T"""o:::tLOOrorororo<OMOOT"""o:::tNNMNLOO<ororororoM~
>;;~~~~666666666~CCCC6~~~~;~~~;6~CCCC6;
~o::
<(::J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WO<(~<(~<(~<(~<(~<(~<(~<(~<(~<(~<(~<(~<(~<(~<(~<(~<(~<(~<(~
c..::c
>->- >->-
CC CC
o 0 0 0
~~ ~~
() () () ()
2 2 2 2 o1l
z~ ~] ] 8:8: ] 8:8:(j)
0"'2"E > > coco > COCO~
~co ~~ W "E W ~~~ "E ~~~ ~ ~~~~-~
~~Wwro ~ W ro ~ WOO_xW_xro_x ~5~ ~W~~OO~ro
m~E~~ Cll :J > Cll :J55~:J~>~~cCllc CECC~~C~
o::OCD>~~~ro()~ ~ffi~~~ro~ ~ffi~~wffiw~wrowrow www~ w_
wCll ~- > :J () ~ > !3!~!>~.9~ ~3~<( ~~
~~<~~w.~w-w<w~w.~w~w< _~_~_w C ~ ~
wow~wOWrowow~wOWrowo ~o~~()~~~O~~~o~~ ~~()
~ ~ ~ ~ () 1-:2: I- 5 I- ~ I- () 1-:2: I- 5 I- ~ t:: ~ t:: .0.. t:: S ~ :2: ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '0..
~~~.~~ro~~~~~.~~ro~~~~ ~o~E~ ~S~~~o~~ ~E
6 0 6 >-..c C ..c ~ ..c 0 ..c >- w C w ~ w 0 .$ (5 .$ ~ .$ .~ ffi ~ ffi e ffi (5 ffi ~ ffi ~
u8uo~~~m~8~o~~~m~8 mUmOm~UmUCllUUUZ uo
ci ~
z
o
~
N
~
M
~
"<t
~
L{)
~
<0
~
I'-
~
N
M
"<t
L{)
<0
I'-
co
(J)
~ .
CD <J)
- CD
ell..c
~ ()
() ell
Cii 0 .
() c. ~
CD c...c
-" ell ()
15 0 ~
. c.!: C. .
{l~EC.-g
c () W ~.::
8~-=co5-
~ Ci5 5 5 ~
.!: ~ ~ ~ 5
~- ~ .2>.2>.~
()o~~o>
:..c :-e c.. c..:-e
w-g.8.8E
> 0 ~ ~
~()>->-~
c..~..Cl..Cl
>-W~~~
rolOwwc
Ci5::;oo~
~-l::;l::;~
- ro c C.-
e~oog,
c w () ().-
o > c c ~
() ~.Q.Q 15
WwooC
~~~~~
w.- w w c..
. .1 ~ ] .E .E E
~ ;::'NM
15~ t~~~
Z
Using the City of Santa Monica's traffic impact significance criteria, the results indicate that the
proposed project would have a significant impact at four of the 17 study intersections:
. Yale Street & Colorado Avenue (unsignalized worst approach)
. Stewart Street & Colorado A venue
. Stewart Street & Olympic Boulevard
. Centinela Avenue & Nebraska Avenue (unsignalized worst approach)
TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES
The traffic impact analysis described above determined that development of the proposed
project would create significant traffic impacts during one or more of the weekday peak periods
at four of the study intersections using the City of Santa Monica analysis methodology and
significant impact criteria. Mitigation measures were developed to address these impacts and
their effectiveness was analyzed.
Description of Mitigation Measures
The mitigation program for the project includes measures to increase the capacity and/or
efficiency of the roadway system at the impacted locations. The emphasis was to identify physical
and/or operational improvements that could be implemented within the existing roadway right-of-
way. The suggested intersection improvement measures for the significantly impacted
intersections are described below.
. Yale Street & Colorado Avenue - No feasible physical or operational mitigation measure
has been identified for this intersection. Installation of a traffic signal would be the only
effective means to reduce delay for the southbound stop-controlled movements on Yale
Street. Installation of a signal, however, could negatively impact the adjoining residential
neighborhood by encouraging more motorists to travel along Yale Street through the
neighborhood, resulting in a more detrimental impact to the neighborhood than the stop-
control delay at the intersection if the mitigation measure is not implemented.
. Stewart Street & Colorado Avenue - Modify the traffic signal at this location to provide a
protected-permitted phase for the westbound left-turn movement. Implementation of this
mitigation measure would necessitate the provision of some combination of new signage,
controller cabinets, poles, mast arms, detectors, and/or signal heads.
30
. Stewart Street & Olympic Boulevard - Due to physical constraints in light of the City's
policy to avoid widening streets, no feasible project mitigation measures have been
identified at this location.
. Centinela Avenue & Nebraska Avenue - Install a traffic signal and coordinate the new
signal with the existing signal at Centinela Avenue (west)/Olympic Boulevard. The
projected traffic volumes at the intersection satisfy standard traffic signal warrants (see
Appendix E). The City of Los Angeles, however, has control over this location.
Implementation of any improvements at this location would be dependent on factors
outside of the control of both the City of Santa Monica and the project applicant, and the
impact is therefore considered to be significant and unavoidable.
Effectiveness of Traffic Mitigation Measures
The effectiveness of the suggested mitigation measures was analyzed by re-evaluating the
significantly impacted intersections where improvements have been proposed. Projected
intersection operating conditions with the proposed mitigation measures are shown in the final
columns in Table 7.
Table 7 indicates that the project impacts would be fully mitigated at two of the four impacted
intersections with the suggested mitigation measures: Stewart Street & Colorado Avenue and
Centinela Avenue & Nebraska Avenue. Though an effective mitigation measure is proposed for
the intersection of Centinela Avenue & Nebraska Avenue, the intersection falls under the control
of the City of Los Angeles. Any improvements to the intersection would have to be made by the
City of Los Angeles; therefore the impact to the intersection is considered to both significant and
unavoidable.
The mitigation measures proposed for the intersection of Stewart Street & Colorado were
suggested to mitigate potential traffic impacts resulting from the proposed 2834 Colorado Avenue
apartment project. The mitigation measure proposed for the intersection of Centinela Avenue &
Nebraska Avenue was also previously suggested in the environmental impact report for the New
Roads Educational Village to mitigate potential traffic impact resulting from the proposed New
Roads Educational Village and would be sufficient to mitigate the combined incremental impact of
both proposed projects.
31
V. NEIGHBORHOOD STREET SEGMENT ANALYSIS
This chapter presents an analysis of the proposed project's potential impacts on neighborhood
street segments in the project vicinity. The analysis was conducted for the following street
segments:
.
Princeton Street north of Colorado Avenue
Harvard Street north of Colorado Avenue
Yale Street north of Colorado Avenue
Stanford Street north of Colorado Avenue
Nebraska Avenue west of Franklin Street
Stewart Street between Exposition Boulevard & Virginia Avenue (collector street)
.
.
.
.
.
Existing weekday average daily traffic (ADT) volume data was collected at each of these locations
in November 2002 and July 2003. The daily traffic counts are provided in Appendix B.
New incremental daily project-generated trips were assigned to the street network using the same
geographic distribution pattern described in Chapter III. The existing and forecast daily street
segment traffic volumes are presented in Table 8.
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC IMPACT
City of Santa Monica Significance Criteria
The City of Santa Monica impact criteria applied to evaluate potential traffic impacts on street
segments are based on the existing ADT and the projected level of increase that can be attributed
to the project. The significant impact criteria for collector, feeder, and local streets are provided in
Table 9.
32
!Q
en
co~
w<C
...JZ
al<C
<CI-
I-u
<C
a..
2:
U
u::
LL
<C
c:::
l-
e
o
o
J:
c:::
o
al
J:
"
W
Z
W
::::l
Z
W
>
<C
o
e
<C
c:::
o
...J
o
U
-.:t
M
co
N
+-' ('-.
c t5 (/) (/)
Cll 0 0 0 0
.g ~ W W
Z Z >- Z >- Z
.c E
0)-
(f.i
Q)
U -0
C 0 ::R ::R 0.. ::R 0.. ::R
Cll 0 0
.c 0 0 E L[) E L[)
u (/) L[) L[)
~ Q.) N N ~ N ~ N
c '- + + + ~ + ~
O).c + +
t5 (f.il-
Q)
B
0:: ~
(/) ::R ::R ::R ::R ::R ::R
:::l ::R C 0 0 0 0 0 0
0:: o Cll (J) I'-- L[) C') ~ co
.c 0 0 0 0 c:i 0
0) 0
C
~
.x
w
Q)
I- g. I'-- co
o Cll OJ OJ ~ co "<t "<t
<(.c
0
I- C') (J) L[) L[) "<t
~ OJ (J) L[) (J) ~
0 OJ 0 C') ~ N N
<( OJ C') N "<t OJ
~
0)
.~ I- C') L[) N (J) ~ OJ
I'-- OJ "<t (J) co
wO I'-- 0 C') ~ N ~
.x <( OJ C') N "<t OJ
W ~
C
0 0
ID 15
u ro ro ro ro ro t5
~ <;::: U U U U U Q)
0 0 0 0 0
U5 .w ..J ..J ..J ..J ..J 0
(/)
Cll 0
0
Q)
:::l
C
Q)
>
<(
Cll
C
.e
:>
C -0
0 C
15 Cll
-0
U Co
0
..J >
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
:::l :::l :::l :::l :::l
C C C C ID 0
Q) Q) Q) Q) III
> > > > ~
<( <( <( <( C
0 0 0 0 U5 0
:;::;
-0 -0 -0 -0 C .w
Cll Cll Cll Cll Q) :s2 ~
ID 0 0 0 0 :::l C
0 ID 0 0 ID 0 C Cll IDt.b
~ Q)
0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 > U:
U5 - - ID - U5 - <( ~ C
0 U5 0 0 0 - U5 Q)
C ~ Cll 0 Q)
0 .c -0 .c .c -0 .c .:.t. W t Z
ID t Co t U5 t 0 t (/)
0 0 0 - 0 Cll Q) Cll Q)
U C C: C Q) C C C ..c 5 5 ..c
C
(t Cll ro Cll Q) Q)
I >- U5 z U5
TABLE 9
CITY OF SANTA MONICA SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA
COLLECTOR, FEEDER, AND LOCAL STREETS
COLLECTOR STREETS
A transportation impact is significant if greater than 13,500 and there is a net increase* of one
the Base Average Daily Traffic Volume trip or more in ADT due to project related traffic
(ADT) is:
greater than 7,500 but less than 13,500 and the project
related traffic increases* the ADT by 12.5% or the ADT
becomes 13,500 or more
less than 7,500 and the project related traffic increases*
the ADT by 25%
FEEDER STREETS
A transportation impact is significant if greater than 6,750 and there is a net increase* of one trip
the Base Average Daily Traffic Volume or more in ADT due to project related traffic
(ADT) is:
greater than 3,750 but less than 6,750 and the project
related traffic increases* the ADT by 12.5% or the ADT
becomes 6,750 or more
less than 3,750 and the project related traffic increases*
the ADT by 25%
LOCAL STREETS
A transportation impact is significant if greater than 2,250 and there is a net increase* of one trip
the Base Average Daily Traffic Volume or more in ADT due to project related traffic
(ADT) is:
greater than 1,250 but less than 2,250 and the project
related traffic increases* the ADT by 12.5% or the ADT
becomes 2,250 or more
less than 1,250 and the project related traffic increases*
the ADT by 25%
Note:
* Average Daily Traffic Volume "increase" denotes adverse impacts; "decrease" denotes beneficial
impacts.
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT ANALYSIS
As shown in Table 8, the application of the City of Santa Monica significance criteria for
neighborhood traffic impacts indicates that the project would create a significant traffic impact on
Yale Street north of Colorado Avenue and on Nebraska Avenue west of Franklin Street (local
streets) .
For local streets, such as the impacted sections of Yale Street and Nebraska Avenue, if the
current ADT is greater than 2,250, the proposed project is considered to create a significant
impact if there is a net increase of one trip or more. As indicated in Table 8, it is anticipated that
the proposed project would exceed the thresholds on these street segments.
NEIGHBORHOOD MITIGATION MEASURES
As discussed above, a significant neighborhood traffic impact is projected for both Yale Street and
Nebraska Avenue using the City of Santa Monica criteria. The magnitude of the existing traffic
levels is such that the addition of even a single daily trip is considered significant.
Short of full closure of the affected street segments, which would not be acceptable since they
serve adjacent land uses and carry substantial traffic volumes that would then need to shift to
other nearby streets, there are no mitigation measures that would fully eliminate the potential for
even a single project trip to be added to these street segments. Therefore, these impacts are
considered significant and unavoidable.
35
VI. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ANALYSIS
This section presents the CMP transportation impact analysis for the proposed project. This
analysis was conducted in accordance with the transportation impact analysis (TIA) procedures
outlined in the 2002 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County (Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, June 2002). The CMP requires that, when an
environmental impact report is prepared for a project, traffic and transit impact analyses be
conducted for select regional facilities based on the quantity of project traffic expected to use
these facilities.
CMP TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The CM P guidelines require that the first issue to be addressed is the determination of the
geographic scope of the study area. The criteria for determining the study area for CMP arterial
monitoring intersections and for freeway monitoring locations are the following:
. All CMP arterial monitoring intersections where the proposed project will add 50 or more
trips during either the morning or evening weekday peak hours of adjacent street traffic.
. All CMP mainline freeway monitoring locations where the proposed project will add 150
or more trips in either direction during either of the weekday peak hours.
The CMP arterial monitoring intersections nearest to the project site are the intersections of
Santa Monica Boulevard & Bundy Drive, Santa Monica Boulevard & Cloverfield Boulevard, and
Wilshire Boulevard & 26th Street. Based on the project trip generation estimates previously
presented and a review of the project traffic volumes shown in Figure 6, the proposed project is
not expected to add more than 50 vehicles per hour (vph) to any of these three locations during
either peak hour. Therefore, a CMP arterial intersection analysis is not required.
The nearest mainline freeway monitoring locations to the project site are 1-10 at Lincoln
Boulevard, 1-10 east of Overland Avenue, and 1-405 north of Venice Boulevard. Based on the
36
incremental project trip generation estimates developed in Chapter III, the proposed project is
not expected to add sufficient new traffic to exceed the freeway analysis criteria at these
locations. Neither would the added project traffic exceed the CMP freeway analysis criteria on
the segments of the 1-10 or 1-405 freeways closer to the project site that are not CM P
monitoring locations but are more likely to be affected by the proposed project (e.g., 1-10
between 20th Street & Cloverfield Boulevard and Centinela Avenue, 1-10 between Centinela
Avenue and 1-405, 1-405 north and south of Olympic Boulevard). Since incremental project-
related traffic in any direction during either peak hour is projected to be less than the minimum
criteria of 150 vph, no further CMP freeway analysis is required.
CMP TRANSIT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Potential increases in transit person trips generated by the proposed project were estimated as
follows. Section 0.8.4 of the CMP provides a methodology for estimating the number of transit
trips expected to result from a proposed project based on the projected number of vehicle trips.
This methodology assumes an average vehicle ridership (A VR) factor of 1.4 in order to
estimate the number of person trips to and from the project and then provides guidance
regarding the percent of persons trips assigned to public transit depending on the type of use
(commercial/other versus residential) and the proximity to transit services. The nearest
designated CMP transit corridor is Santa Monica Boulevard. Since the project site is located
approximately one-quarter mile from these services, the CMP guidelines estimate that
approximately 5% of project person trips may use public transit to travel to and from the site.
As discussed in Chapter III and shown in Table 8, the proposed project is expected to generate
a net increase of approximately 57 vehicles during the a.m. peak hour and 70 vehicles during
the p.m. peak hour. Applying the A VR factor of 1.4 to the estimated vehicle trips results in an
estimated increase of 80 and 98 person trips during the morning and evening peak hours,
respectively. Finally, assuming the 5% transit mode split suggested in the CMP, this results in
the conclusion that the project could add approximately four new transit person trips in the
weekday a.m. peak hour and five in the p.m. peak hour.
37
Given the existing headways of approximately 20 minutes (three buses per hour) in each
direction during peak periods on Olympic Boulevard to the south and more frequent service on
Santa Monica Boulevard to the north, this would translate to an average increase of one rider or
less per bus during the peak hours. At this level of increase, project-related impacts on the
regional transit system are not expected to be significant.
38
VII. PARKING AND SITE CIRCULATION ANALYSIS
This chapter presents analyses of the adequacy of the proposed project parking supply to
satisfy applicable City of Santa Monica code requirements and issues related to the project's
proposed site access scheme.
PARKING CODE ANALYSIS
A parking code analysis was conducted for the proposed project. This analysis compared the
proposed parking supply to City of Santa Monica code requirements to assess the ability of the
project's proposed on-site parking supply to satisfy these requirements. Table 10 presents this
analysis.
Number of Parking Spaces
The code analysis was conducted based on strict application of City of Santa Monica Municipal
Code requirements4 to each of the individual elements of the proposed project, including the
number of residential units by type (number of bedrooms). As shown in Table 10, this results in
an estimated requirement for 228 parking spaces.
The project is proposing to provide 228 parking spaces, which is the number required according
to this analysis. These spaces would be located in the subterranean garage.
4 . .. . .
City of Santa Monica Municipal Code, Section 9.04.10.08.040.
39
I-
U
W
.,
(/)0
(j)g:
~I-
<l:Z
ZW
<I:~
~o::
OZ~
.....W<I:
w2:
...JWW
mo:::::l
....-Z
~:::lW
0>
W<I:
0::0
~c
~~
~o
O::...J
<1:0
a.u
"It
M
co
C\I
.e..
(/) -0
Gl
U ~ L[) (J) ..... "It (J) co co
Cll .- ..... C'\I "It ..... C'\I C\I C\I 0
o..:::l ..... ..... C\I C\I
(/) 0-
Gl
0:::
+-' +-' ~
ro +-' +-' C
..::: C C :::l C C
:::l :::l Qj :::l :::l
Gl 0 Qj
-0 15 Qj Qj 0.. L[)
0 0.. Qj
00::: 0.. 0.. (/)
,E'g Gl Gl Gl (/) 0..
U U U Gl Gl
Cll Cll Cll U
0 :52 0.. Cll U
0.. 0.. Cll
Co (/) (/) (/) 0..
(/) 0..
(L ..... ..... L[) C'\I (/)
..... .....
~
c
:J
- L[)
0 L[) (J) "It
Qj ..... C'\I (J) I'-- "It
.....
..c
E
:::l
Z
0'
'6
+-' E :::l E E
c ~
:J 0 0 0
0 0 0
- -0 E -0 -0 ~
0
Gl 0 Gl Gl C
Gl III 0 III III
.~ -0
(/) ..... Gl ..... C'\I
III
0
-0
Gl
-0
':;:
0
...
ro ro ro a.
Gl
:;::; :;::; :;::; ..c
Gl c C c
(/) Gl Gl Gl 0 ~
:J -0 -0 -0 - Ji!
-0 .w .w .w l/)
Gl Gl Gl Glt::
c 0::: 0::: 0::: (/) u 0
Cll Gl lll..c
...J Gl ~ ~ ~ U Q.(/)
E .E .E .E Cll (/)~
0 - 0..
U Cll Cll Cll (/) OIl/)
c U, U, u, .8 c :::l
1 E E E (ij :i:c..
.w - ... ...
0 :::l :::l :::l ~ III :::l
...J 2: 2: 2: ;; a.(/)
o
"It
o
OJ
o
o
"It
o
(J)
c
o
t5
Gl
(/)
Gl
-0
o
o
ro
0..-0
:~ ~
c C
:::l :::l
2: e
Cll Gl
.~ Co
o (/)
2: ~
2 Cll
C 0..
Cll (/)
(/) g>
0:52
~Co
.- 0..
0-0
Q) ~
~ .s
:::l 0-
~I~ ~
~~;e:
Compact Spaces
The city code stipulates that 40% of visitor parking spaces may be built to compact stall
standards. The project site plan indicates that 12 of the 29 visitor parking spaces (40%) would
be compact spaces.
SITE ACCESS EVALUATION
The subterranean parking garage for the 2834 Colorado Avenue Apartment Project would be
accessed via a driveway located on Stewart Street, providing direct access to the parking
supply. This driveway would accommodate both entering and exiting vehicles. An additional
one-way right-turn only driveway located on Colorado Avenue would accommodate exiting
vehicles only. No potential operational issues have been identified with regard to this access
scheme.
41
VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This study was undertaken to analyze the potential for traffic and parking impacts resulting from
the proposed 2834 Colorado Avenue apartment project located on the eastern edge of the City
of Santa Monica. The key findings and conclusions of the study are summarized below.
. Project Description - The existing site currently contains approximately 38,000 square
feet of industrial warehouse on approximately 1.76 acres of land. The proposed project
consists of the demolition of the existing structures and the redevelopment of the project
site to accommodate a 145-unit apartment complex and a subterranean garage. The
project would provide a total of 228 parking spaces.
. Study Area and Existing Traffic Conditions - Detailed intersection capacity and operation
analyses were conducted at 17 intersections in the vicinity of the project site for weekday
a.m. and p.m. peak hour conditions. Five of the study locations (Yale Street & Broadway,
Stewart Street & Olympic Boulevard, Centinela Avenue & Santa Monica Boulevard,
Centinela Avenue & Colorado Avenue, and Centinela Avenue & Nebraska Avenue)
currently operate at LOS E or F during the weekday a.m. and/or p.m. peak hours using the
City of Santa Monica analysis methodology. This level of operation is unacceptable under
City of Santa Monica standards.
. Cumulative Base Traffic Conditions Without Project - Future traffic conditions in the
study area were forecast for the year 2012 based on related projects data provided by
the City of Santa Monica using the city's Traffix model. The cumulative base analyses
indicated that nine of the 17 study intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable
LOS E or F conditions during one or both of the peak hours prior to development of the
proposed project.
. Project Trip Generation - The proposed project is expected to generate approximately
961 daily trips, 74 morning peak hour trips, and 90 afternoon peak hour trips on
weekdays. When the existing uses on the project site are considered, the net
incremental increase in trips generated by the project is estimated at approximately 771
net new daily trips, 57 net new trips during the a.m. peak hour, and 70 net new trips
during the p.m. peak hour.
. Project Traffic Impacts - Based on significance criteria used by the City of Santa Monica,
this level of net trip generation is projected to result in four significantly-impacted
intersections near the project site: Yale Street & Colorado Avenue, Stewart Street &
Colorado Avenue, Stewart Street & Olympic Boulevard, and Centinela Avenue &
Nebraska Avenue. No significant CMP intersection, freeway, or transit impacts are
anticipated.
42
. PrQject Traffic Mitigation Measures - Mitigation measures were identified to fully mitigate
two of the four intersections significantly impacted by the proposed project (Stewart
Street & Colorado Avenue and Centinela Avenue & Nebraska Avenue). The
intersection of Centinela Avenue & Nebraska Avenue, however, falls under the
jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles, and it is therefore considered significant and
unavoidable since implementation of the mitigation measure is not under the control of the
City of Santa Monica. No feasible mitigation was identified for the intersections of Yale
Street & Colorado Avenue and Stewart Street & Olympic Boulevard, so impacts at these
locations are also significant and unavoidable.
. Neighborhood Traffic Impacts - Based on significance criteria used by the City of Santa
Monica, the project is projected to create significant impacts on two neighborhood street
segments: Yale Street north of Colorado Avenue, and Nebraska Avenue west of Franklin
Street. No mitigation measures have been identified that would mitigate these impacts to
a less than significant level, and these impacts are therefore considered significant and
unavoidable.
. Parking - City of Santa Monica code requires that the project provide a total of 228
parking spaces on site, based on the proposed uses. The project would provide 228
parking spaces, satisfying the code requirement.
43
REFERENCES
City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica Municipal Code, November 2001.
EIP Associates, New Roads Educational Village Draft Environmental Impact Report, January
2003.
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Sixth Edition, 1997.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2002 Congestion Management
Program for Los Angeles County, June 2002.
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 1994.
44
rr
Appendix F
Historic Resources Report
Historic Resources Report
2834 CoLorado Avenue,
Santa Monica, CaLifornia
8 July 2003
Prepa red for:
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
790 East Santa Clara Street
Ventura CA 93001
Prepa red by:
SIISAN BUENAVENTURA
Dill RESEARCM ASS9CIATES
5 5 I'IISTOR.1C . R.ES~UR.CES . CONSULTING
1132l. WOODLAND DRIVE I SANTA rAULA CA ~30GO I
1. Introduction
This report was prepared for the purpose of assisting the City of Santa Monica, California, in their
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it relates to historic resources, in
connection with the construction of a 145 unit apartment complex with 228 parking spaces. The buildings
extant on the 1.76-acre project site at 2834 Colorado Avenue include two rows of industrial buildings
with a common rear wall and two separate buildings at the front of the property. The proposed project
will result in the demolition of all of these buildings. [Figure 1]
This report will assess the historical and architectural significance of this property in accordance with the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) Criteria
for Evaluation and the criteria for City of Santa Monica historic landmark designation. A determination
will be made as to whether adverse environmental impacts on historic resources may occur as a
consequence of the proposed project, and mitigation measures recommended, as appropriate.
This report was prepared by San Buenaventura Research Associates of Santa Paula, California (Judy Triem,
Historian; Mitch Stone, Preservation Planner), for Rincon Consultants, Inc., of Ventura, California, and is
based on a field investigation and research conducted in June and July, 2003.
2. Administrative Setting
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires evaluation of project impacts on historic
resources, including properties "listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of
Historic Resources [or] included in a local register of historical resources." A resource is eligible for listing
on the California Register of Historical Resources if it meets any of the criteria for listing, which are:
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California's history and cultural heritage;
B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The California Register may also include properties listed in "local registers" of historic properties. A
"local register of historic resources" is broadly defined in ~5020.1 (k), as "a list of properties officially
designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or
resolution." Local registers of historic properties come essentially in two forms: (1) surveys of historic
resources conducted by a local agency in accordance with Office of Historic Preservation procedures and
standards, adopted by the local agency and maintained as current, and (2) landmarks designated under
local ordinances or resolutions. (Public Resources Code ~~ 5024.1, 21804.1, 15064.5)
By definition, the California Register of Historic Resources also includes all "properties formally
determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register of Historic Places," and certain specified State
Historical Landmarks. The majority of "formal determinations" of NRHP eligibility occur when properties
are evaluated by the State Office of Historic Preservation in connection with federal environmental
review procedures (Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966). Formal determinations
of eligibility also occur when properties are nominated to the NRHP, but are not listed due to owner
objection.
The criteria for determining eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) have
been developed by the National Park Service. Properties may qualify for NRHP listing if they:
A. are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history; or
B. are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a
FIGU RE 1. Location Map.
Source: USGS 7.5' Quadrangle: Beverely Hills, 1995.
San Buenaventura Research Associates
Historic Resources Report: 2834 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica (2)
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
According to the National Register of Historic Places guidelines, the "essential physical features" of a
property must be present for it to convey its significance. Further, in order to qualify for the NRHP, a
resource must retain its integrity, or "the ability of a property to convey its significance."
The seven aspects of integrity are: Location (the place where the historic property was constructed or the
place where the historic event occurred); Design (the combination of elements that create the form, plan,
space, structure, and style of a property); Setting (the physical environment of a historic property);
Materials (the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and
in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property); Workmanship (the physical evidence
of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period of history or prehistory); Feeling (a
property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time), and; Association
(the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property).
The relevant aspects of integrity depend upon the National Register criteria applied to a property. For
example, a property nominated under Criterion A (events), would be likely to convey its significance
primarily through integrity of location, setting and association. A property nominated solely under
Criterion C (design) would usually rely primarily upon integrity of design, materials and workmanship.
The California Register procedures include similar language with regard to integrity.
The minimum age criterion for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register
of Historic Resources (CRHR) is 50 years. Properties less than 50 years old may be eligible for listing on
the NRHP if they can be regarded as "exceptional;' as defined by the NRHP procedures, or in terms of the
CRHR, "if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance"
(Chapter 11, Title 14, ~4842(d)(2))
3. Impact Thresholds and Mitigation
According to PRC ~21084.1, "a project that may cause a substantial change in the significance of an
historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment." The Public
Resources Code broadly defines a threshold for determining if the impacts of a project on an historic
property will be significant and adverse. By definition, a substantial adverse change means, "demolition,
destruction, relocation, or alterations," such that the significance of an historical resource would be
impaired (PRC ~5020.1(6)). For purposes of NRHP eligibility, reductions in a resource's integrity (the
ability of the property to convey its significance) should be regarded as potentially adverse impacts.
Further, according to the CEQA Guidelines, "an historical resource is materially impaired when a project...
[d]emolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical
resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion
in the California Register of Historical Resources [or] that account for its inclusion in a local register of
historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an
historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code,
unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence
that the resource is not historically or culturally significant."
The lead agency is responsible for the identification of "potentially feasible measures to mitigate
significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource." The specified methodology for
determining if impacts are mitigated to less than significant levels are the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring,
and Reconstructing Historic Buildings and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), publications of the National Park Service. (PRC
~ 15064. 5 ( b) (3-4))
Historic Resources Report: 2834 CoLorado Avenue, Santa Monica (3)
4. HistoricaL Setting
The area which is now the City of Santa Monica was originally a part of the Rancho San Vicente, a land
grant given to Francisco Sepulveda in 1828 for his services as a soldier for the Mexican government and
confirmed in 1839 by Governor Alvarado. Sepulveda built three houses on his rancho which also contained
an orchard and 500 head of cattle, along with 50 head of sheep. He died in 1853 having willed his rancho
to his wife Ramona.
Prior to the establishment of Santa Monica, a trail crossed the site of what would eventually become
Santa Monica to the foot of what is now Colorado Avenue. This trail was used by teams of oxen hauling
brea from Hancock Ranch tar pits to a small wharf extending into Santa Monica Bay.
In 1872 Colonel R.S. Baker of San Francisco, a "forty-niner," purchased Rancho San Vicente from the
Sepulveda heirs for $55,000 in order to establish a sheep ranch. He later purchased adjoining property to
the northwest and southeast which he stocked with sheep.
A wealthy Nevada senator, John P. Jones, purchased two-thirds interest in the Baker ranch in 1875 and a
wharf and railroad to Los Angeles were initiated. The town of Santa Monica was laid out and recorded on
July 10, 1875, and was bounded on the northwest by Montana Avenue, on the southeast by Railroad
Avenue (now Colorado) on the northeast by 26th Street and on the southwest by the Pacific Ocean.
A lively auction of lots followed with people coming from all over to purchase land. The Santa Monica
Outlook began publication in November of 1875 announcing that "Santa Monica continues to advance. We
now have a wharf... two hotels, one handsome clubhouse... two private schools." Jones built the Los
Angeles and Independence railroad from Santa Monica to Los Angeles.
Santa Monica, residents believed, was destined to become a great port city, but events in 1876 dashed
those hopes, when the Southern Pacific Railroad was completed to Los Angeles. Awarded the Los Angeles
to San Pedro narrow gauge railroad as a bonus, SP began a rate war that resulted in the sale of Jones'
Santa Monica-Los Angeles railroad to Southern Pacific, who immediately increased rates and diverted
business to San Pedro.
Following this loss, Santa Monica continued to have problems, including a smallpox epidemic and a
severe drought that brought an end to the local sheep industry. Baker and Jones tried to stem the tide of
a dwindling population by encouraging tourism and making Santa Monica a resort community. These first
efforts were not very successful and by 1880 lots that once brought hundreds of dollars were selling for as
little as ten cents down.
The boom of the late 1880s in Southern California had some revitalizing effect on Santa Monica with a
revival of home building and new hotels. In 1890-91, Collis P. Huntington, president of Southern Pacific,
attempted to transform Santa Monica into a regional port city, building a large new wharf for the purpose
and aggressively lobbying the U.S. Congress for improvement funding. Ultimately, however, the City of
Los Angeles won the long battle, and the federal port improvement funds went to San Pedro.
Santa Monica fell back upon tourism and began a campaign to advertise itself as a residential and resort
community. In 1892 an amusement park was built in Ocean Park, known as South Santa Monica, along
the beach, and the Santa Fe and Santa Monica Railroad built a line and station to encourage tourists and
advertised excursions to "the Coney Island of the Pacific." Visitors were also attracted to the new golf
courses and race tracks that staged automobile races between 1909 and 1916. Santa Monica incorporated
as a charter city in 1907.
Although Santa Monica had been growing steadily since the late 1880s, it was the boom of the 1920s
when the greatest growth occurred. People from the East and Midwest were attracted to Santa Monica's
mild climate and graceful residential areas. Within easy commuting distance of Hollywood, Santa Monica
became a favorite among actors, who built elaborate summer beach houses there.
Historic Resources Report: 2834 CoLorado Avenue, Santa Monica (4)
Also during the 1920s, Donald W. Douglas began his small aircraft company that eventually became the
Douglas Aircraft Company, one of the world's largest aircraft manufacturers during the 1940s and 1950s.
The main plant was located on eighteen acres on Ocean Avenue.
Other manufacturing plants were built in Santa Monica during this time period, some on land outside of
the original city boundaries. Such was the case with the small incubator buildings on the project site. The
irregular shaped block bounded by Colorado Avenue, Stewart Street, Nebraska Avenue and Stanford Street
contained numerous commercial and industrial buildings including an airplane parts warehouse, a printing
shop, sign manufacturer, a trailer park and several parking lots.
5. Property History and Description
History of site development
The existing buildings on the project site were constructed primarily between 1948 and 1969 with a few
smaller buildings and additions built through 1983. The first building permit for this property at 2834
Colorado Avenue in September of 1937 indicates that a four room 20 by 20 foot dwelling was to be
constructed by owner, applicant, S. Maeda. The permit showed that greenhouses already existed on the
site. These buildings are no longer extant.
Construction began on the present buildings in April of 1948, when a steel and masonry building was
constructed for use as "material yards". The owner and contractor was Building Center Corporation, a
construction business. In November of 1948 a storage shed and incinerator were built measuring 22 feet
by 40 feet, a 9 foot by 10 foot washroom building, and another 24 feet by 120 feet storage shed with a
metal roof. [Photos 1-8]
In April of 1949 a steel cement silo, measuring 10 feet by 6 feet 6 inches was built for use as a concrete
mixing plant by owner Tomb Concrete Company. This structure no longer exits. In April of 1951 a 7 foot
high masonry wall was constructed apparently along the street side of the project site. [Photo 12]
In September 1951 an additional storage shelter was constructed measuring 20 feet by 28 feet for W. P.
Harding, lessee. In February 1957 a two-story office over garage of wood frame stucco with composition
roof was constructed measuring 22 feet by 32 feet. [Photo 11 ]
A one story masonry and stucco 40 foot by 22 foot storage building was constructed on the east side of
the parcel in December 1960 for owner Building Center Corporation. In December 1965 a one story 30 foot
by 50 foot stucco building was added at the rear west side of the parcel for commercial use by then owner
M. Brock. In November 1969 the two one-story concrete block building facing Colorado Avenue were built
for use as warehouses by owner Bay Building Exchange. [Photos 9-10]
In August 1971 two 20 foot by 20 foot concrete block one story buildings with composition roofs were
constructed on the west side of the parcel for Bay Builders Exchange. Finally, in April 1983 a three-sided
addition containing 315 square feet was made to the building at the rear eastern corner.
The property has been used for a wide variety of commercial and industrial operations. Bay Screens and
Shades appears to be one of the oldest businesses on the property, operating since 1953. The
development appears to have started out as a construction business with a small concrete mixing plant
which was eventually removed. The owners from 1948 through the 1960s were the Building Center
Corporation. Numerous other small companies occupied the buildings during their history, including more
recently general contractors, auto repair facilities, cabinet making, welding, machine shops, arts and
crafts shops and a firearms shop.
Physical Description
The deep, narrow parcel (120 feet by 640 feet) contains two rows of buildings facing each other with a
Historic Resources Report: 2834 CoLorado Avenue, Santa Monica (5)
parking lot between. This is a collection of buildings with common walls built at different times and
using a variety of materials. The buildings are primarily one story in height with flat composition or
metal roofs. Some buildings have aluminum frame windows, while others feature large openings with
sliding doors. The buildings are connected at the rear with concrete masonry walls. The buildings are
constructed of various materials including concrete block, metal siding, stucco, and plywood siding. A few
small freestanding buildings were constructed within parking area during the last 20 years.
The two large buildings fronting onto Colorado Avenue are concrete block with flat roofs and aluminum
frame windows. Presently the buildings house 50 individual storefronts or bays with some businesses
occupying more than one storefront or bay.
Description of Surrounding Neighborhood
Adjacent to the project site across Stewart Street are recently constructed two-story and taller office and
industrial buildings. Adjacent to the project site on the northwest is a grouping of manufacturing
buildings with a layout similar to that of the project site. These buildings were probably constructed at
the same time as those on the project site, circa 1940s and later. Across Colorado Avenue are a mixture
of one story single family residences and apartment buildings from the 1910s through the 1950s.
6. ELigibility of Historic Resources
National and California Registers: Significance, Eligibility and Integrity
Of the buildings on the subject property which are at least 50 years of age, none appear to be eligible for
the NRHP and CRHR under Criterion A (significant historical events). While they are generally associated
with industrial and commercial development in Santa Monica, the available evidence does not suggest
that they played any notable role in that development.
The property does not appear to be potentially eligible under Criterion B (lives of persons significant in
our past). The property changed hands frequently, and housed an even larger number of lessees.
The property does not appear to be potentially eligible under under Criterion C (design and construction).
The buildings are sheds and offices built of various materials including concrete block, metal siding and
stucco and been subject to numerous additions and alterations. They are especially unremarkable within
the overall context of Santa Monica, which generated many architecturally notable commercial and
industrial buildings during the 1940s through the 1950s.
Properties less than 50 years of age may be eligible if they can be found to be "exceptionaL" While no
hard and fast definition for "exceptional" is provided in the NRHP literature, the special language
developed to support nominating these properties was clearly intended to accommodate properties which
demonstrate a level of importance such that their historical significance can be understood without the
passage of time. In general, according to NRHP literature, eligible "exceptional" properties may include,
"resources so fragile that survivors of any age are unusual. [Exceptionalness] may be a function of the
relative age of a community and its perceptions of old and new. It may be represented by a building or
structure whose developmental or design value is quickly recognized as historically significant by the
architectural or engineering profession [or] it may be reflected in a range of resources for which the
community has an unusually strong associative attachment." None of the subject buildings appear to rise
to the exceptional level.
Local Significance and Eligibility
The California Environmental Quality Act defines as historically significant all properties listed in "local
registers" of historic properties. Local registers include lists "of properties officially designated or
recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution,"
and surveys of historic resources maintained as current by the local agency. These properties are
Historic Resources Report: 2834 CoLorado Avenue, Santa Monica (6)
"presumed to be historically or culturally significant... unless the preponderance of the evidence
demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant." (PRC ~~ 5024.1, 21804.1,
15064.5)
According to Section 9.36.100 of the Santa Monica City Code, Landmark or Historic District designation
criteria, (a) ... the Landmarks Commission may approve the landmark designation of a structure,
improvement, natural feature or an object if it finds that it meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or
architectural history of the City.
2. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.
3. It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national
history.
4. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style,
method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare
example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.
5. It is a significant or representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer
or architect.
6. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar
visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
(b) ... a geographic area or a noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties may be
designated a Historic District if the City Council finds that such area meets one of the following criteria:
1. Any of the criteria identified in Section 9.36.100(a) 1 through 6.
2. It is a noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties or a definable area possessing a
concentration of historic, scenic or thematic sites, which contribute to each other and are unified
aesthetically by plan, physical development or architectural quality.
3. It reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of
settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or
community planning.
4. It has unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual
feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
The grouping of buildings at 2834 Colorado Avenue do not (1) exemplify elements of the cultural, social,
economic, political or architectural history of Santa Monica. Although they are part of the commercial-
industrial development of the city, they do not exemplify that history.
The buildings are not of (2) aesthetic or noteworthy interest. They have not been (3) identified with any
historic persons or with important events in local, state or national history. They do not (4) embody
distinguishing architectural characteristics or are rare examples of an architectural design, but are rather
commonplace buildings used for commercial-industrial purposes. No notable builders or architects (5) are
associated with the construction of these buildings, nor are any (6) unique location or singular physical
cha racteristics.
This property by itself does not meet any of the criteria as an individual landmark. Further, it does not
appear to meet the criteria as a historic district, because most of the manufacturing businesses that once
existed in the vicinity no longer remains.
Conclusion
The subject property does not appear to be eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR or for inclusion on the
City of Santa Monica historic landmarks or districts list. Therefore, the property should not be regarded as
an environmental resource for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Historic Resources Report: 2834 CoLorado Avenue, Santa Monica (7)
7. Project Impacts
This project will not result in an adverse environmental impact on historic resources.
Historic Resources Report: 2834 CoLorado Avenue, Santa Monica (8)
8. SeLected Sources
City of Santa Monica building permits, 1937 through present.
Gebhard, David and Robert Winter. Architecture in Los Angeles, A Compleat Guide. Salt Lake City: Gibbs M.
Smith, 1985.
Heumann, Leslie. City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Survey, Phase 3, 1994.
Los Angeles. A Guide to the City and its Environs. New York: Hastings House, 1951.
National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Department
of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, nd.
National Register Bulletin 22: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that have Achieved
Significance within the Last Fifty Years. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency
Resources Division, nd.
Parkinson Field Associates. Historic Resources Inventory Update for the City of Santa Monica. Final Report,
September 30, 1995.
Robinson, W.W. Ranchos become Cities. Pasadena, CA: San Pasqual Press, 1939.
Sanborn Maps: 1960.
Spalding, William A. History and Reminiscences Los Angeles City and County California, Vol. I. Los Angeles,
CA: J.R. Finnell & Sons Publishing Company, 1930.
PHOTO 1. 2834 Colorado Avenue, project site, facing south (18 June 2003).
PHOTO 2. Project site, facing southwest (18 June 2003).
San Buenaventura Research Associates
PHOTO 3. Project site, facing southwest (18 June 2003).
PHOTO 4. Project site, facing south (18 June 2003).
San Buenaventura Research Associates
PHOTO 5. Project site, facing west (18 June 2003).
PHOTO 6. Project site, facing south (18 June 2003).
San Buenaventura Research Associates
PHOTO 7. Project site, facing east (18 June 2003).
PHOTO 8. Project site, facing east (18 June 2003)8
San Buenaventura Research Associates
PHOTO 9. Project site, front building on Colorado Ave., facing southwest (18 June 2003).
PHOTO 10. Front building along Colorado Avenue, facing northeast (18 June 2003).
San Buenaventura Research Associates
PHOTO 11. Project site, facing south (18 June 2003).
PHOTO 12. Project site, exterior wall along Stewart Street, facing east (18 June 2003).
San Buenaventura Research Associates
rr
Appendix G
Responses to Comments on the Draft EI R
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
ON THE DRAFT EIR
INTRODUCTION
This appendix to the Envil"onmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed 2834 Colorado Avenue
Project is the response to the comment letters submitted to the City of Santa Monica on the Draft
EIR. The Draft EIR was ch'culated for a public review period that began on September 26~ 2003 and
concluded on November 10, 2003.
Each written comment that the City received is included in this section. Responses to these
comments have been prepared to adch'ess the environmental concerns raised by the
commentors and to indicate where and how the EIR addresses pertinent environmental issues.
The Draft EIR and this Resp01l5es to Comments section collectively comprise the Final Ern. for the
proposed project. Any changes made to the text of the Draft Ern. correcting informationJ data or
intent, other than minor typographical corrections, are noted as changes from the Draft EIR.
Each comment letter has been numbered sequentially and each sepamte issue raised by the
commentor, if more than one, has been assigned a letter. The responses to each comment identify
first the number of the comment letter, and then the letter assigned to each issue (Response lA, for
example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in commentletter 1).
COl\tIl\1ENTORS on the DRAFT EIR
Commentors on the Draft Ern. include public agencies, a law finn, a business owner, and local
residents. The City received nine comment letters on the Draft EIR within the public comment
period. Commentors and the page number on which each comment letter can be found are listed
below.
Commentors
Page No.
1. Terry RobertsJ Du'ector, Governor's Office of Planning and Research,
State Clearinghouse
2. Stephen Buswell, IGRj CEQA Branch Chief, California Department
of Transportation, District 7
3. Esther Tam, Transportation Engineer, City of Los Angeles
Department of Transportation
4. Natalie Lewis, Resident, Colorado Avenue
5. Hal"old Bil"thJ President, Princeton Villas Homeowners Association
6. Greg Amato, Owper, Bay Screens, 2834 Colorado Avenue #32
7. A. Micl1elle Page and Dan Adams, Residents, Yale Street
8. M. Ariel Malek, Resident, Yale Street
9. Kenneth 1. Kutcher, Attorney, Harding, Larmore, Kutcher, & Kozal
3
6
11
13
19
22
24
28
32
r
City of Santa Monica
- 1 -
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
TEXT CHANGES TO DRAFT EIR
No changes to the text of the Draft EIR were required based on the comment letters received
during the public comment period. However, upon further review of the Draft EIR by City
staff, the following minor change was made to Section 2.0, Project Description.
Page 2-1 of Section 2.0, Project Description, the following change is made to the text:
Building:::; ~or:_g the interior lot line:J 'would be orier.tcd tov:md the courtyrrrdo, while
buildingo along Colorado Avenue nr:.d Stc'i\Tart Street ,,:ould bc oriented toward the
ctrecto. The building frontages along Stewart Street and Colorado Avenue would be
enhanced with visually interesting features, including patios and landscaping.
,..
City of Santa Monica
-2-
"'. J.L.I'&'.UI.
Gray Davis
Govemor
S TAT ~ OF C A L I FOR N I A
Governor's Office of Plannjng and Research
State Clearinghouse
~ut.
~~
(~~
~oru~
Tal FlnllBj'
lnlerim Direotor
:\!ovember 12, 2003
J-
.?atrick Clarke
':ity of Sanra Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 212
,3anta Monica, CA 90401
:3ubject: 2834 Colorado Avenue
.,CH#: 2003061052
:')ear Patrick Clarke:
'rhe State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft Em. to selected state agencies for review. The
l-cview period closed on November 10, 2003. and no state agencies submitted commelJ,~ by tl1at date. 11rls
fetter acknowledges that you bave complied with me State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
unvironmentaJ documenUl, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
jllease caU the State CleELrlnghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any que$tions regarding the
I :nviromneotal review process. If you have a question about the above-namlld proj ect, please refer to the
I en-digit Srate Clearinghouse number when coutacting this office.
: Hncerely,
...~~
'LCrry Roberts
i)irector, State Clearinghollse
lO: [d L l l\OIJ (OJ
': I I '1
. ~. ~~.
I , II, I" IJ"
I t I' ~ . I
1400 TENTH STRF.ET P,O. BOX 3044 SACRAM!:NTO, CAl.IFORNIA 95812-3044
(9 J 6)4'15.0613 FAX(916)n3.30 I g I'/wlV.~pr.ca.Bnv
or!'W:'. - 3 -
d.' n"_ --:'-::':.;;\lnt Details R~port
state Clearinghouse Data Base
S.'H# 2003061052
I
frOject -ritfe 2834 Colorado Avenue
Lpad Agtncy Santa Monica, CIty of
lype EIR Draft EIR
DescrTl"Uon The project involves development of 145 multi-family resldenUal units arranged In 16 separate
I buildings arourld three oentral courtyards. The proJect IMludes a one.level subterranean parkIng
garage containing 226 spaces. Driveways would be provided on Colorado Avenue and Stewart Street,
~ead A'.Jency CQntact
, N ime PatrIck Clarke
A9l ncy City of Santa Monica
PI; one 310-458-8341
SiT/ail
Add, 'ass 1685 Main Stree~ Room 212
CIty Santa Monica
p.roject L.ocation
County Los Angeles
CTty Santa Monica
I ReUion
Cr.oss S~ tets Stewart & Colorado Avenue
: Parr;el No. 4268-002-001
I Towmhlp Range
I
Fax
Statle CA Zip 90401
Secfion Base
IPrroximty to:
. HighHays 1
A/rF orts
RallHays
WawnrllYs
Sch oo's
, Land Use LIght ManUfacturing and Studio Dlstrlet
Pr'pjer;t ISlIues AeslhetlcNisval; AI( Quality; Archaeologlo.Hlslcrlc; Drainage/AbsorptIon: GeologiclSeismlci NoIse:
PopulatlonfHousing Balance; Public Ser/lces; Schools/Unlvafsltl!;!s;Sol1 Erosion/Compaction/Grading;
Traffic/Circulation; Water Qualily; Water Supply, Growf.h InducIng; Cumulalive Effects
Revie'v'ng Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Depadment of .Fhh and Game, Regh;m 5: Office of
Ager eTes Historic Preservation: Department of Parks and Rec:re~rion; Departmenl ofWQller R.eso~rce$; Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Region 4; Department of ,oxic Substances Control; CalifornIa Highway
Flatrol; Callrans, Dlstrlct 7; Department of HousIng and Community DevelopmeJ'lI;; Native American
Heritage CommissIon; state Lands Commission
1
I
D~te Ref;e;ved 09/2.6/2003
Stert of Review 09/26/2003
End ofRevlew 11/1012.003
Note: Blanks in dale fields result frorr . - _4 :cil;!nt inforf1l"llion provided by lead agency.
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Letter 1
CONll'vIENTOR:
Teny Roberts, Director, GovaTIor's Office of Planning and Research, State
Clearinghouse
DATE:
November 12, 2003
RESPONSE:
The cornmentor states that the State Cleaxinghouse submitted the EIR to selected state agencies
for review, that no state agencies submitted COlllil1ents to the Cleminghouse, and.that State
Clearinghouse requixements pursuant to CEQA have been met. No response is necessary.
r
City of Santa Monica
-5-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUStNESS TRAblSPORTATION ANn HOTJBrNG AGENCY
GM Y Dt\ VIR. Gnvernor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7, REGIONAL PLANNING
IGRJCEQ~ BRANOH
120 SQ. SPRING ST.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
PHONE (213) 897-6536
FAX (213) 897-1337
E.Mail:NereeI3Yerjanian@dllt.ca . gov
'2
Flex your power!
Be energy efficient!
Mr. Patrick Clarket Planner
Planning Department
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main St., Room 212
Santa Monica, CA 90401
IGR/CEQA# 031001NY
DEIR/145 Unit Apartments
2834 Colorado Blvd.
S CH#2 003 06 1052
LA!lOtOOll
October 3,2003
Dear Mr. Clarke:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the
environmental review process for the proposed 145 Unit Apartments at 2834 Colorado
. Blvd. in Santa Mornca.
The Department as a commenting agency under CEQA has jurisdiction superceding that
of MT A in identifYing the freeway analysis needed for this project. Caltrans is
responsible for obtaining measures that will off-set project vehicle trip generation that
worsens Caltrans facilities and hence, it does not adhere to the eMP guide of 150 or more
vehicle trips added before freeway analysis is needed. MTA's Congestion Management
Program in acknowledging the Department's role, stipulates iliat Caltrans must be
consulted to identify specific locations to be analyzed on the State Highway System.
fH: 6 ~ g- lDD roo
'/',., Y~lJ . .-, 1 '
" '.: ~,! i,no!,' 10 ,1.,1/8
I J' I. ),., 'f f L oJ " ..
. ,,. '" ~~ '. W j iU A.U;)
-6-
Mr. Clarke
October 3,2003
, Please provide additional Traffic Impact Analysis as follows:
1. Traffic impacts on State Highways 1 & 10 and all significantly impacted ramps,
streets, crossroads and controlling intersections, as well as analysis of existing and
future conditions.
I 2. Traffic volume counts to. inctude anticipated AM and PM peak-hour volumes.
3. Level of service (LOS) before and after development.
4. Future conditions, which include both, project and project plus cumulative traffic
generated up to the completion year.
5. Discussion of mitigation measures appropriate to alleviate anticipated traffic
impacts, including sharing of mitigation costs.
Please reference the Department's Traffic Impact Study Guideline on the Internet at
http://www.dot.ca. govlhq/traffops/devel opserv/operationalsvstems/reportsltiSLrui de.pdf
Apply the equitable share responsibility formula on page 2 of Appendix B
(Methodology for Calculating Equitable Mitigation Measures) and set aside a
portion of transportation Impact Fees generated for the future State Highway
improvement projects. To expedite the review process, you may send two copies to the
Wldersigned at the following address~
Stephen Buswell
IGRlCEQA Branch Chief
Caltrans District 07
Regional Transportation Planning Office
1208. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012
If you have any questions regarding this response, please call the Project Engineer/Coordinator
Mr. Yerjanian at (213) 897-6536 and refer to IGRlCEQA # 03100lNY.
Sincerely,
TEPHEN J. BUSWELL
IGRlCEQA Branch Chief
Transportation Planning Office
"Cal/rem; improves mobility oerosa California"
-7-
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Letter 2
COMMENTOR: Stephen BuswelL IGR/ CEOA Branch Chief, California Deparhnent of
Transportation, District 7
DATE: October 3,2003
RESPONSE:
The comment letter states that Caltrans has jurisdiction superceding that of MTA in identifying
freeway analysis requirements. The letter requests that additional traffic impact analysis be
provided for State Highways 1 and 10 and all significantly impacted ramps, streets, crossroads
and controlling intersections, including analysis of existing and future h'affic conditions and
mitigation measures appropriate to mitigate anticipated traffic impacts. TIle comment letter
also references Caltrans' Traffic Impact Study guidelines, requests that sharing of mitigation
costs be discussed, and requests that a portion of Transportation Impact Fees generated be set
aside for future state highway improvement projects. Each of these issues is discussed below.
· Caltrans Jurisdiction - It is acknowledged that Caltrans has jurisdiction over tlle freeway
system and does not necessarily adhere to the C1vIP guideline of 150 or more vehicle
h'ips added before a freeway analysis is needed. Regardless of the C1vIP 150 trip
analysis threshold, however, it is not reasonable under CEQA to study locations
(whetller or not they are state highway facilities) where it is clear that no significant
impacts could reasonably be anticipated. In this instance, the amount of project trips
that may be added to the state highway system are sufficiently small that they would
not come close to triggering a significant impact (see the three follo~g bullets for
further discussion in support of this conclusion), and no further analysis was
determined to be necessary in the Draft EIR.
· State Highway 10 - As discussed in the Draft EIR the proposed project is projected to
generate a net increase of only about 57 trips during the AM peak hour and 70 trips
during the PM peak homo Based on the trip dishibution patterns developed in the
traffic study prepared as part of the Draft EIR, approximately 40% of these b:ips are
projected to use Interstate Highway 10 (I-10) (the Santa Monica Freeway) east of
Centinela Avenue and only about 5% are projected to use 1-10 west of 20th Street. TIus
h'anslates into a net increase of only about 23 trips during the AM peal< hour (negligible
westbound and 23 eastboun~) and 28 trips during tlle PM peak hour (22 westbound and
six eastbound) added to 1-10 east of Centinela Avenue and about three h'ips during the
AM peak haUl" (negligible eastbound and three westbound) and four trips during the
PM peak hoUl" (three eastbound and one westbound) added to 1-10 west of 20th Street.
The 1-10 freeway provides,four mainline lanes in each direction east of Centinela
Avenue and three mainline lanes in each dh'ection west of 20th Street (not including
auxiliary lanes). Assuming a capacity of 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl), the
freeway provides a mainline capacity of approximately 8,800 velucles per hour (vph) in
each direction east of Centinela Avenue and 6,600 vph in each direction west of 20th
Street.
r
City of Santa Monica
-8-
2834 Colorado Avenue Project E1R
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
The net new project h"affic would thus increase demand/ capacity (D / C) ratios on the
freeway mainline by less than 0.003 east of Centinela Avenue and less than half of 0.001
west of 20lh Street. The Calh"ans Traffic Impact Study Guidelines referred to in the
comment do not set significance standards. This level of D / C increase would,however,
be far less than any typical stand8.l'd of signilicculce. (As an example, the Los Angeles
County Congestion Management Progr'am considers an impact to be significant on the
regional highway system if the D / C ratio is increased by 0.02 or more when a facility is
operating at LOS F). The following table summcu'izes this analysis:
IM10 Freeway Impact Assessment
Peak Freeway Net Project- Mainline Increase In
Location . Hour Direction Added Trips Capacity (vph) DIC Ratio
1-10 elo Centinela AM WB . 8,800 .
EB 23 B,800 0.003
PM WB 22 B,800 0.003
EB 6 8,800 <0.001
1-1 0 WID 20m Street AM WB 3 6,600 <0.001
EB . 6,600 .
PM WB 1 6,600 <0.001
EB 3 6,600 <0.001
. negligible
· State Highwav 1- In regards to Route 1, the closest part of Route 1 to the project site is
over 1.5 nilles west of the project site, The traffic study analyzed numerous intersections
west of the project site and did not find signiliccu1t impacts at any intersections west of
Stewart Street. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the project could create
sigrillicant impacts at intersections along Route I, over a nille nom the study area and
. over 1.5 miles from the project site.
· Ramps, Sh'eets, Crossroads and Controlling Intersections - In regards to "all significantly
impacted ramps, sh"eets, crossroads and controlling intersections," tl1e traffic study
evaluated 17 intersections closer to the project site tl1an any freeway ramp intersections
and only f~und significant impacts at foUl' (all fOUT of which are quite close to the project
site itself and not adjacent to tl1e freeway). There is no reason to believe tl1at
intersections farther away, whicl1 would handle even less project traffic (u1cluding ramp
intersections), could be sigrilliccu1tly affected by tl1e proposed project.
· Level of Service and Existing and Future Traffic Analvses - The comment letter requests
analysis of existing h"affic conditions and future traffic conditions with cu1d without tl1e
project, including level of service analysis, on tl1e aforementioned elements of the state
. highway system. As discussed in tl1e precedh1g paragraphs, given the size and location
of the project, tl1ere is no reasonable basis to conclude that the project could have
signilicant impacts at tl1ese locations. Therefore, no fmtller analysis is necessaxy.
· Traffic Impact Study Guidelu1es - The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation afTraffic Impact
Studies referenced in the conunent letter provides guidance on items such as study area,
age of traffic counts, traffic scencu"ios to be studied (e.g., existing, cumulative base,
cumulative plus project),level of service methodologies, etc. The Caltrans guide also
requhes that mitigation measmes be identified if a project impact is determined to be
significant. The guide specifies that a full h'affic study or some lesser analysis nmy be
City of Santa Monica
"
- 9--
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR ,
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
required (emphasis added) if a project is expected to add 1 to 49 h'ips to a state highway
facility experiencing unstable or forced-flow h'affic conditions (LOS E or F). It goes on to
say that studies can range from simple to complex depending on the particulars of the
project and prevailing conditions. As concluded in the analysis presented above, the
amount of project trips that may be added to the state highway system are sufficiently
small tllat they are not expected to h'igger significant impacts, and no further analysis
was determined to be necessary ill the Draft EIR.
The h'affic study conducted as part the Draft EIR analyzed the potential for project
impacts on surface streets closer to the project site and was conducted in accordance
with traffic study procedures established by the City of Santa Monica.
· Mitigation Measures, Sharing of Mitigation Costs, and TTansportation Impact Fee Set-
Aside - As discussed above, given the relatively modest size of the proposed project and
its distance from the nearest state highway facilities, no significant impacts are
anticipated to these facilities. As such, no mitigation measures are necessary to mitigate
project impacts to the state highway system and no sharing of mitigation costs aTe
required.
,..
City of Santa Monica
-10-
Melissa Mascali
3
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Esther Tam [ETam@dot.lacity.org]
Tuesday, October 21,20032:13 PM
patrick-clarke@santa"monica.org
Beth Rolandson; George Zordllla; Jay Kim; Mohammad Slorfroshan
2834 Colorado Avenue 145-unit Apt Project
Dear Patrick,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR for the above referenced project
located in the City of Santa Monica.
.
The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADDT) has reviewed Section 4.5 pertaining
to 'the Transportation/Traffic portion of the document.
The propos~d construction of a new traffic signal to fully mitigate the significant
impacts at the intersection of Centinela Avenue and Nebraska Avenue is acceptable to the
City of Los Angeles. The improvement must be guaranteed through the City of Los Angeles
B-permit process, with construction of the signal completed and approved prior to the
issuance of any certificate of occupancy of the development. In addition, prior to
setting the bond amount for the B-permit, the developer'S engineer shall be required to
contact Mr. George Zordilla of LADDT's Signal Design Section at (213) 580-5301 to arrange
a pre-design meeting and finalize the design for the'required transportation improvement.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (213) 485-1062.,
Sincerely,
Esther
Esther Tam, P.E.
Transportation Engineer
WLA/Coastal Development Review
-11-
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Letter 3
COMMENTOR: Esther Tam, Transportation Engineer, Los Angeles Department of
Transportation
DATE: October 21, 2003
RESPONSE:
The cornmentor states that installation of a traffic signal as mitigation for the project's
significant impact at the intersection of Nebraska Avenue and Centinela Avenue would be
acceptable to the City of Los Angeles. She notes that the improvement must be guaranteed
through the City of Los Angeles B-permit process and must be constructed and approved prior
to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, and that consultation between the applicant and the
Los Angeles Department of Transportation's Signal Design Section would be required for
design of the signal.
The ultimate approval authority for tI"le recommended traffic signal lies with the City of Los
Angeles. However, in light of the fact that Los Angeles is agreeable to tile installation of a
traffic signal at the affected intersection, the following shall be required as a Condition of
Approval for tile proposed project:
The applicant shall construct a signal at the intersection of Centinela Avenue and Nebraska Avenue,
if approved by the Cih} of Los Angeles. The applicant shall file and complete a Class B Permit with
the Cift} of Los Angeles jor both the design (BD-Permit) and construction (BC-Permit) of tlte tmffic
signal improvements.
111111eeting this condition, the applicant shall:
1) Coordinate efforts with the Cities of Santa Monica and Los Angeles relative to the BD-Permit.
The applicant shall contact Mr. George Zordilla of the Los Angeles Department of
Transportation's (LADOT) Signal Design Section at (213) 580-5301 to arrange a pre-design
meeting and any additional meetings that my be necessary regarding finalizing the design of the
intersection.
2) File a BC-Permit application, which will include bonding of the pennit and providing appropriate
liabiliftJ, all prior to the issuance of n building permit from the Cift} of Santa Monica for the 2834
Colorado Avenue development project.
3) Coush'uef the signal. This will include interconnecting the new signal with, for example, the
existing signal at Centinela Avenue (west) and OlYl/lpic Boulevard and may include other
intersections as deemed necessary by the Cities of Santa Monica and Los Angeles.
4) Preparing and delivering the as-built drawings of the intersection to the Cift} of Los Angeles.
The applicant wi11need to complete the BD-Permit process and provide a bond and appropriate
insurance for the BC-Penllit prior to receiving a building permit from the Cit}l of Santa Monica. The
Certificate of OccllpanClJ for the project may be obtained from the Cift} of Santa Monica only after the
signal is consh'llcted and final approvals have been given by the Cities of Santa Monica and Los
Angeles.
rr
City of Santa Monica
-12-
H.,..,......~I" .
I.
- ~_'.......,T ,.!,w--;;'P--"II~
,Lt'
:
. "I~ I .. .
.
0_ ton... I.
'\
I
..
&:l7,,~ fk:tr,c t Cftf. (' k,
~_ t. : NATALIE LEWIS
a Snnta~onI~~
~ ;0) Jfr~ ..s..a '}
./lq:]o C. h ...... t:!.o ttlll.e ' ,
~ItS ·
,I
" '
."
t. I~'
Ir'lf'1"d,1
.h.'I{~ .
,
I.... ~.1 I
.rl'"~."'1
. .
I.~
.:; ~ . ?
".L.~~3 '~ ~~<~ ~1-a~
} ~... 51) '7 tI...AJo ~..o r s C--("~~fJ~'-< L
.; - ~ ~ pn~. ~-~(,..
I .
~
./-, '
j...,-~
\ \ '
,
. ~
,
,
,
-
/-,
,,~
1..-;-)
II '"
;~~ :~ ~:a'-rl0,~a~
-~t... 1l--- -1>(4' 1^7f;'
b-,.... c.",..p -..,..). D -_1_3 - ~-- - .......,€,-'7
,.-........f'II'"'~11\;
.
. , '
",
I>
1,01",
,-
.'
.....,......,..~
, .1 (
, ..
..,.
.f~~'t.111
.,
\'
:~~!'I
'I
oJ
L
,--....."):
~/
IK.--....
-~ -......... .... ~ .. ..--
I
I'IL....,~ ....;i\.'~ .....~
....,.J . ..~~i-
I....,..'
.
.
. I
"
. '\
..
, I
.
II, ,
,'1 ~ C-.LLfl..~. -tb o..}./.~ ~ -; tl
t=--f'" .J .....1"1"11 V" <- r-> f-t.' vy l.L ^ ~
:~ ~v;-;"Ar:, ~;JJt::
:~ ~ ~ ~~h '--1 ~
,\:~ ~~~ ~~.~
I,L-~ I,-/O.~ ~ =:lW~-
, ~ u~ ~ Q....V".'l ~ ~ ~l .:c..
J_ . } .-J....J
:'_ J.. 6- V ~/,... , r .JL,.>t4--.- ~...,.1: W"'-P--c JJ J ~
i.~ ~:~ ~~:n:~~/~:?_':fl
. .
I,
1 ,
e-
I
I
I
I
i 'f ....ri _
t. '\...--.- J Ivt.. $r:AA-:J I S. ~ b IJ S I ~ ~
\ ,~_~~ ~~A~...L -.e--ft/:.,-j J~W
\ :......rI ; 7 cr- ...
. : 'r--..:....! ~ ~ar'~ j . ~~ ~ ~
\ I,il k' ---. ----J
\ 1- br.... ~ ~- ...
I I
'-
: :r--~,V r-- ~ tt-:ftJ ('1 () C:L r... ~'V>
. t- ---.5 L..- J r-f Q ~ ~W k 1...-m IJ;F f;" ..
~-J L · ] #
~V,~ c:.., I"r-~ t..w>~ ,
.0 f: _5.. ~ r f~ t'l> CD mtn.e."" C Ld
L f1~~ ~ i~a~J $~
1 I , )
t--~ ~~~-t...; J Ct C.OIlV~..f1..~'
.. -14- ...
II
~ I ~ t ~l"" II'"' r~.... ' ~~ft4
. I ~ !: ~ t ~ Ill' ,I,
r
.f"
\
~ t I ~
~-11
_ _ _..' .. V I T "'~ LL'~ .
: I TY' n, ': \ ,
\"l't1... r.......-~ .--, . T' ,. I~~ tV' ~~~
11.
~;.....~~.
'.'
, ,
... I "
1 t.. ~J~~
'1
I
~ ~
'I
"
.'
, ,
~
.
.
r, \ ~l.tQ
~~ . -l ~Tt 1"\ t r- Srr ~~~ J -,
~ --h:r-u... __
Ir"
Ilrrt'..,
,
"
.j~
..J...-
I
~
. a
'j--
i-
, '1'\........
.:::(1..a. n." ~ J..p~u~ I f\ ...
. nib ofT1 b
L . -- 1.-.... (' .r"'f!'.D --aJ~
jlL-. tl^~ - ~ - ..4-..
J . .d I"\. ~ """ ~T"'"vU 1 ~ ;'1' . J "0
.~ - ,. ~. ,?, o-
f ~ ~-€:. . . ,
:E ~~ ~~;~:~~~A- T;-tL
1 1 n f ~C) \ty \, Lt' It ~. .
'-- f sa.,}, ~ -n-. 11"....,"'.$ I ~ 11 k',
-'----- -F -..oJ" 'Y 1'}..., A!> , Q1lr -, -(}.... O;;:.t-..I
r -r 1h PI Jet I.q -h> ')--1UI ~-' .
~.....--...J- I d..., ~ ~ rr-- ~
.'5r~€ C-L.-, (..~. ~t) , ~
I--- . ~. 1b q I..lp
::-- ~~ '5 p~ -pl......:::r' n 1I ch,
: \..J'tlc" \. .li..~'7 ~
~~'1IIIJ
L1 ~ ~~ J::-. ~-
~lJe --<, ~ -, .: -:A;- )~
~ .\ 1 \ I ~ t(" t'I.O n..(.l ~, ;.
'\ ('0 ----ore.. c. ~.. "
..
--., ,
./
\\ .
~
~f '
II ,
II ~ l ", 'f J I
, .l ""1 .'11
, ,
01' . ..
" ~.' . """ ... "l:J ~ : I
'I ,
I 'I .. I' ~ _\
I II " . ~
,
i""""
"'--
,
,
!---
'\ ., \ l.(L\..u Ld ~ ---;2 (' I. V .Jo
s 'Q~ QJ Q ,
~ ok" t..-~~ '" " , '1 t t11 ~--4p~o.-/. &- < J '
51\"\t~.-_~5-~~ ~~
I "I
i
----
2834 Colorado Avenue Project E1R
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Le ttel' 4
COMMENTOR: Natalie Lewis, Resident, Colorado Avenue
DATE: October 2, 2003 (date received; letter is undated)
RESPONSE:
Response 4A
The commentor states that she is opposed to the project and questions the need for more
housing. She also states that rents are too high in recently completed apartments, leaving them
unoccupied, and tllat 15 affordable housing units is going to malce little dent in tlle City's need
for low-income housing. These comments are noted. City decision malcers will consider these
issues as they evaluate the proposed project. The purpose of the EIR is to provide information
about the possible environmental consequences of the project tllat has been proposed.
Response 4B
The commentor expresses a general concern about potenti~y hazardous b.'affic conditions at
the intersection of Yale Street and Colorado Avenue. This conunent is noted. It should be
noted tllat the project would provide an exit-only, right-turn only driveway on Colorado
Avenue, which would eliminate the potential hazards associated with vehicles trying to turn
left into or out of the driveway. TIle main project chiveway on SteWal't Street would be tlle only
entrance to the complex and would also allow vehicles to exit. TIle traffic analysis for the
proposed project (Section 4.5 of tlle Draft EIR) found that this configuration presented no b.'affic
haz8.1'ds.
The conunentOl' also notes that traffic on Colorado Avenue is fast and that delivelY trucks stop
in tlle middle of Colorado Avenue to unload. Development of the proposed project would
remove the existing businesses from the project site and replace them vvith residential
apal'b.nents. H truck deliveries are cUlTently being utade to the project site, development of the
proposed project would eliminate that situation. It would not, however, have any effect on
truck deliveries tllat may be serving otller businesses in the project vicinity, Trash pickups and
deliveries at the proposed project would occlli' in the designated loading area off of Stewart
Sb.'eet.
Response 4C
TIle commentor states that she inquired about why a pedesb.'ian crossing was removed from the
cornel' of Yale and Colorado, and,states tllat she was told it was because the b.'affic was more
important. TIus comment is noted. The purpose of tlle ErR is to provide information about the
possible environmental consequences of the project that has been proposed.
The COllunentor also expresses concern about project-related h'affic exiting onto Colorado
Avenue. Traffic exiting onto Colorado Avenue from the project site would be resh'icted to
right-turn-only movements, and, as discussed in Section 4.5, Tml1SpOl'taHon/Tmffic, this
configuration would not present any h'affic hazards. Vehicles exiting the project site vwuld also
,.
City of Santa Monica
-16-
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
have the option of exiting onto Stewart Street. Vehicles intending to head west on Colorado
Avenue would be required to exit onto Stewart Sh'eet since left rurns would be prohibited from
the Colorado Avenue driveway.
Response 4D
The conunentor expresses concern over the availability of parking on Colorado Avenue and
adjacent streets for visitors and states that schools and businesses fill the parking meters during
the week TIus conmlent is noted. As described in Section 4.5, Tml1sp01'tatiol1jTraffic, of the
Draft ErR the proposed project includes ??8 parking spaces in a subterranean garage, which
meets the City's parking requirements for a project of this size and type. The 228 parking
spaces include 29 visitor spaces for residents of the project. Therefore, the proposed onsite
parking is adequate to serve residents and theu" guests. The project would result Ul the loss of
only one metered parking space on Stewart Street for placement of the driveway and would not
otheJ.wise affect sh"eet pill:king.
Response 4E
TIle conunentor questions whether Santa Monica is meeting its affordable housing needs, This
comment is noted. TIle purpose of the EIR is to provide information abo~t the possible
environmental consequences of the project that has been proposed. The proposed project
would provide 15 wuts of affordable housing, which satisfies the City's onsite affordable
housing requirement as identified in Section 9.56 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
Response 4F
TIle conunentor states an opinion that a gallery, convenience store, or drug store would be
preferable on the project site because it is designated for commercial development. This
comment is noted. The purpose of the EIR is to provide information about the possible
envirorunental consequences of the project that is proposed, Section 6.0 of the Draft EIR
addresses potential alternatives to the proposed project, ulcluding a reduced project with 72
residential muts and a commercial project consisting of studio and other production-related
uses. The commercial project alternative would be consistent with the cmrent LMSD zoning on
the project site.
Response 4G
TIle conunentor states an ophlion that noise in the project area has increased 100% and the
project will add more noise. TIus comment is noted. As described in Section 4.4, Noise, of the
Draft EIR, project-related traffic would conh'ibute incrementally to an ino.'ease in noise on
Stewart Sh'eet and Colorado Avenue. However, the noise u1crease ath'ibutable to the project is
estimated at 0.2 dB and would not be audible. Therefore, noise impacts associated with
operation of .the proposed project were determined to be less than significant and mitigation is
not required.
As described in Section 4.10, Construction Effects, consh'uction of the proposed project would
generat~ temporalY consh'uction-related noise, which could exceed the maximum allowable
noise level on the project site. Thus, mitigation is required to reduce the noise unpacts of
,..
City of Santa Monica
-17-
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
consh-uction. With this mitigation, construction-relate(i noise impacts would be less than
significant.
Response 4H
TI1e commentor makes a reference to a movie that is not related to the proposed project or the
Draft ElR. The purpose of the EIR is to provide information about the possible envimnmental
consequences of the pmject that is proposed. The comment is noted and will be passed on to
City decisiomnakers for consideration in their review of the proposed project.
Response 4I
The commentor questions where children will play if they reside at the proposed project and
suggests that they will have to play in traffic or in their apartments. This comment is noted.
The project includes a pool, a lounge, a commmuty mom, and passive outdoor recreational
areas. It should be noted that 138 of the 145 apartments would be studio or one-bedroom units.
Response 4T
TI1e conunentor states an opinion that projects being built by plivate developers are
"appalling," wIllie the City is constructing beautiful acconunodations for itself. This corrunent
is noted. The purpose of the EIR is to provide information about the possible enVil"Ollmental
consequences of the project that is proposed.
J'
City of Santa Monica
-18-
r.,
'}
\'-,
~
u
PRINCETON VILLAS /r,trWs/ 1: ~
Homectwne..- A.~clatlon. Inef /'
2703 COlorado Avenue~. .' '\.'\'~'A- MONICA E:/ It.;
==-~(c;~l; ::.~:::'P'l ANW~~G'OFFICE ~
September 23, 2003
'OJ SEP 29 All :34
5
,
I
To.: City of Santa Monica
, Planning and Community Development
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200
Subject: Rebuttal to tbe Proposed Project at 2834 Colorado Ave. Santa Monica, CA 90404
!
A~ president of Princeton Villas Homeowners Association, I represent homeowners at:
I 2703, 2905,2707, 2709, 2711 Colorado Ave. Santa Monica CA 90404 and
1551,1553,1555,1557, 1559 PrlncetonSt. Santa Momca CA 90404,
P$ceton Villas are located nearly across the street from the subject property. Following are our
ob~ections to the proposed project:
,
]. rIle whole project is too large. The plan of 145 units in 18 buildings up to 4 stories is much too
large. The rest ofllie block and adjoining areas consists of only 2 story buildings. We don't need
ant more high.rise buildings across the street from OUI residential neighborhood.
,
c '
2. rarking for 228 vehicles is fur too few for the proposed 145 units. Two people could occupy each
unit, each with a vehicle. As in our complex every adult has at least one car, which means there
sh~uld be at least ~90 parking spaces for the 145 units. The over flow would wind up on the street.
As1 it is now we have Restricted Parking because there are not enough parking spaces available on
the street.
!
In bonclusion) our recommendation is to limit the structures to 2 stones. reduce the project to 114
units and the pl'oposed 228 parking spaces would be sufficient. The main vehicle entrance on
Stewart Street would also help disperse traffic in and out of the complex more easily.
I
,
H~old C. W. Birth
P~sident
cc:i State of California, Office of Planning and Research
-19-
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Letter 5
COMMENTOR: Harold C. W. Birth, President, Princeton Villas Homeowners Association,
Inc.
DATE: September 23,2003
RESPONSE:
Response SA
The commentor states an opinion that the project is too laJ:ge and that the maximum height of
four stories is too tall. These comments al'e noted. As described in Section 4.7, Aesthetics/Shadow
Effects, the existing LMSD zoning classification for the project site already allows certain types
of buildings (school expansions, theaters, and entertairunent-related facilities) to be consh-ucted
1-vith a maximum height of 45 feet. While the City Comlcil will determine whether to approve
the proposed text amendment and allow multi-family housing to extend to 45 feet in height, the
. aesthetfcs analysis in the Draft EIRhas determined that no adverse shadow impacts would
result from buildings that height on the project site, During the winter season when shadows
are the longest, the shadow analysis in the Draft Em. concluded that the proposed project's
shadow would fall onto residential properties across Colorado Avenue, but would be limited to
the yards only and would not shade any buildings. Furthermore, the yards would be shaded
for less than tluee hours. TIlese impacts aTe not considered significant. Summer shadows
would be very limited and would not affect any residential properties.
The change in zoning proposed as part of the project would add multi-family housing to the list
of uses that would be subject to the 45-foot height limit. 11ms, the proposed project would not
be any taller than the maximmn height of structures containing certain types of uses that are
ah'eady permitted on the site. In addition, the building layout plan shown on Figure 2-6 in
Section 2.0, Project Description, shows that the building proposed on Colorado Avenue would
only be two stories in height, wIllie most of the buildings that front onto Stewart Street would
be tlu'ee stories tall. These height variations would serve to reduce tlle overall mass of the
project. Fmtl1ermore, as required by the existing zoning aJ1d discussed in Section 4.7 of the
Draft EIR, ailY portion of the proposed buildings tllat is between 31 feet and 45 feet in height
would be stepped back from tl1e building envelope to further minimize the appearance of mass
of tl1e structtu'es.
Response 5B
The conIDlentor states aJ1 opinion tllat the 228 pal'king spaces proposed for the project are not
enough for 145 units. Section 4.5, Transportation(Tmfftc, of tlle Draft EIR, identifies that tlle
proposed amount of parking (228 spaces) meets the amount of parking required in the City's
Municipal Code for a project of this size and type. As identified in Section 9.04.10.08.010 of tl1e
Santa Monica Municipal Code, off-street pmking requirements are intended to provide parking
in proportion to the needs generated by different land uses, reduce b:affic congestion and
hazaJ:ds,and provide accessible, ath'active, and well-maintained off-sh'eet pal'king facilities.
Table 4.5-10 in Section 4.5 shows tbat the Municipal Code requires one parking space for each
low-income unit and each studio unit, 1.5 spaces for each market-rate one-bearoom unit, and
r
City of Santa Monica
-20-
2B34 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
two spaces for each market-rate two-bedroom unit. According to the Code, visitor parking is
also required at one space for every five units. The 228 parking spaces proposed provide
exactly the amount of parking required, inducting visitor parking. Therefore, potential impacts
relating to parking were determined to be less than significant according to 'the City's parking
code requirements.
Response 5C
The C0llU11entor recommends that the project be limited to two stories and 114 units. He also
states that a main vehicle entrance on Stewart Street would help disperse traffic in and out of
the complex more easily. The corrunentor's recommendation is noted. Please see Responses 5A
and 5B above. As described in Section 2.0, Project Description, and Section 4.5, Transportationl
Traffic, the proposed project provides a main driveway on StewaJ:t Sh'eet and an exit-only, right-
tunlonly dJ:iveway on Colorado Avenue. The driveway on Colorado Avenue was limited to
exit-only and right-trn:n only in response to concerns about h'affic movements raised by the
City's Transportation Management Division dming the early stages of project development. An
exit-only, right-turn only driveway on Colorado Avenue would eliminate the potential hazaJ:ds
associated with vehicles u:ying to turn left into or out of the illiveway. The main driveway on
StewaJ:t Street would be the only entrance to the complex and would also allow vehicles to exit.
The h'affic analysis for the proposed project (Section 4.5 of the Draft EIR) found that this
configuration presented no h'affic hazards.
r
City of Santa Monica
-21-
Co
November 10, 2003
City Panning Division
Attn: Patrick Clarke, Associate Planner
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica CA 90401-3295
sent via e-mail
Project Location: 2834 Colorado Avenue
Dear Mr. Clarke,
r am Greg Amato. I own and operate Bay Screens at 2834
Colorado Avenue, #32. And have been here since 1985. The company
bas operated at this location since 1953. We currently employ six people.
Our site was originally developed as a place for local contractors
to have an office and a place to park their trucks at night. Othenvise, we
would be parking in front of our homes. There are approximately 54
l,lffices here. Currently there are about 30 full time companies working
out of offices here, representing about 100 people, more or less.
I am a building contractor and a specialty contractor. I believe ill
the light to build and develop property. But I am perplexed, there is no
place to go. Manufachrring, that is the manufacturing zone, is
disappearing. That is our current zoning. This development will change
the zoning and put us out on the street. The city has long tried to keep a
balance of affordable housing for residents, but it is losing its local, tax
paying and convenient businesses in to this kind of change.
r will do what I can to help create a solution while maintaining my
business.
Sincerely,
Greg Amato
President
-22-
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Responses to Comments on the Draft E1R
Letter 6
COMMENTOR: Greg Amato, Business Owner, 2834 Colorado Avenue
DATE: November 10/2003
RESPONSE:
Response 6A
TI1e commentor notes that his business has been in operation at the project site since 1953 and
currently employs six people. He states that development of the project would change the
zoning on the site and would l"equire the removal of the businesses that cUlTently operate there.
He also states an opinion that the change in zoning will put his company out of business and
that the City is losing its local businesses. TI1ese comments are noted. TIle proposed project
would displace the existing businesses onsite. According to Section 15131 of the State CEQA
Guidelil1es/ social and economic effects of a project are not considered significant environmental
effects under CEQA. Nevertheless/ removal of tl1e existing businesses from the project site and
the potential social and economic impacts on business owners and employees are factors that
decision malcers will consider in their review of the project. It should be noted that the text
amendment does not eliminate any of tlle uses already authorized in this zone/ including
manufactUIing uses and other housing-related uses that are currently allowed in the zone;
rather/ it adds multi-family housing as a conditional use allowed in the LMSD zone.
r
City of Santa Monica
-23-
I
Melissa Mascali
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
a. michel1e page [amichellepage@hotmail.com]
Monday, November 10, 2003 7:10 PM
patrick-clarke@santa-monica.org
2834 Colorado
Dear Mr. Clarke:
We would like to comment on the re-zoning of 2834 Colorado from light
industrial to residential.
'[ This area is already full of traffic most times of the day and night. I
don't understand how 145 units will only add 771 new trips per day, 57 in
the a.m. and 70 at night (these figures per the EIR). The City of Santa
Monica has been spending a lot of money trying to mitigate traffic in this
neighborhood, and is soon to add islands similar to the ones on Broadway.
It would be a shame to have all this mitigation go to waste.
1 2834 Colorado is directly across the street from a pre-school. According to
. the EIR, during construction the daily emissions from this construction will
be double the acceptable air standards. This will be especially hard on the
children. Many children also live in the area, as well as senior 'citizens.
Not to mention that this area has been light industrial for many years, and
the dirt that will be dug up will most likely contain many heavy metals,
which would be better left undisturbed, much as asbestos is better left
undisturbed.
As it stands, this.property has many small shops and a great local
restaurant that the neighbors all use. Bay Screen has been a good neighbor
far many years, as have many mechanics, plumbers and other useful, necessary
businesses.
We have lived in this neighborhood for almost 20 years, and this
neighborhood has always had a stable population and a mix of businesses and
residents.
According to the ElR, my street (1500 block of Yale) would have
ltunmitigatible and significant impactslt.
Please do not allow this to happen.
Please feel free to e-mail us at any time about our concerns. We feel that
this rezoning could change our lives on Yale Street forever, for the worse.
Please, we need light industrial and the businesses this zone includes.
Thank you for your consideration.
A. Michelle Page and Dan Adams
1532a Yale Street
Santa Monica
Ca 90404
MSN Messenger with backgrounds, emoticons and mare.
http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/cdp_customize
-24-
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Responses to Comments on the Draft EJR
Letter 7
COMMENTOR: A. :Michelle Page and Dan Adams, Residents, Yale Street
DATE: November 101 2003
RESPONSE:
Response 7 A
The commentors question the Draft EIR's conclusion that the project would only generate 771
daily hips, 57 trips in the morning, and 70 trips at night. As discussed in Section 4.5,
TransportationfTmffic, the net increase in traffic associated with the proposed project takes into
account the traffic cunently generated by existing businesses on the project site. These trips
would be removed if the project were built; therefore, as shown in Table 4.5-7, the net amount
of traffic generated by the proposed project is equal to the trips associated with the projectl less
the trips from the existing businesses. Thus, the project would generate a net increase of 771
daily trips, 57 AM peak hour h'ipsl and 70 PM peak hour hips. As described in the traffic report
prepared by Kaku Associates for the proposed project (see Appendix E), the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' Trip Gemration manual, a national standard used universally by the
b"affic engineering professionl was used to estimate the average daily trips and the number of
AM and PM peal< hour trips for the existing and proposed uses.
Response 7B
The commentors refer to traffic mitigation that tl1e City has been h'ying to complete in the
project area and note that tl1e Oty is going to add traffic islands similar to those on Colorado
Avenue. They express concern that the mitigation willI/go to waste." These conunents are
noted. The mitigation to which the commentors are refening is related to tl1e new office
development to the west. The traffic islands would function as h"affic-calming measures to slow
the traffic on Broadway to a more moderate pace.
Response 7C
The commentors note that during construction, emissions would exceed the applicable air
quality standards and could affect children and elderly in tl1e project area. Section 4.10,
Construction Effects, of tl1e Draft EIR identifies an unavoidably significant, temporary air quality
impact during the application of ru."chitectural coatings because emissions of reactive organic
compounds (ROC) would exceed the air quality standard for that pollutant. :Mitigation is
reconunended to reduce emissions of ROC during construction, but emissions would remain
above significance thresholds during painting. Therefore, the City would need to adopt a
Statement of Oveniding Considerations outlining why the project's benefits outweigh this
environmental concern before it could approve the proposed project.
Response 7D
The commentors suggest that given that there have been light indush"ial uses on the project site
for many years, the soil underlying the project site may contain heavy metalsl which would be
,..
City of Santa Monica
-25-
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Responses to Comments on the Draft EJR
"better left undisturbed." As discussed in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project
(contained in Appendix A of the Draft EIR), a Phase I Envh"onmental Site Assessment was
completed for the project site in January 2000. That report did not identify any recognized
environmental conditions on the project site. Based on this finding, hazards at or underlying
the site aJ.'e not expected. In the event that stained or otherwise suspect soil is encountered
dming site preparation activities, soil sampling would be conducted and would determine
whether the past uses of the site have affected the enviromnental integrity of the site. If
contaminants are detected, the results of the soil sampling would be forwarded to the
applicable local regulatory agency (City.of Santa Monica Environmental Program Division, Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Conb."ol Board, or the State of California Environmental
Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control), which would then review the data
and either sign off on the property or determine if any additional investigation or remedial
activities are deemed necessaJ.'Y.
Response 7E
The conunentors note that the area has many small businesses and a local restaurant that the
neighbors use, and that the businesses on the project site have been good neighbors. They also
note that they have lived in the neighborhood for almost 20 yeai's and the aJ.'ea has always had a
stable population aJ.ld good mix of residents alld businesses. These comments are noted and
will be considered by City deCision-ma1eers as they review the project. TIle purpose of the EIR
is to provide information about the possible environmental consequences of the project that is
proposed.
It should be noted that the project site does not contain a restaurant. Although the commentors
do not name the restaurant they are concerned about, there is a restaurant ("Le Petit Cafe")
directly adjacent to the project site. However, since it is not located on the project site itself, the
restaurant would not be removed as a result of the proposed project.
Response 7F
The commentors note that the EIR identifies a significant and lmavoidable impact on Yale Street
and ask that the City not allow this to happen. Table 4.5-9 of tlle Draft ErR identifies all
unavoidably significant impact on Yale Sh'eet. The proposed project would generate an
estimated 23 daily trips on the segment of Yale Street north of Colorado Avenue. The project
wouldadd a negligible amount of hips to this segment of Yale Sh'eet during the AM peak hour,
and would add two h'ips during the PM peale hour. TIle City's significance threshold for local
sh-eets ,vhere the average daily traffic volume is greater than 2,250 h'ips (such as this segment of
Yale Sh-eet) is one h'ip_ Thus, the project-added traffic on Yale Sh'eet would exceed Hus
threshold and the impact is classified as unavoidably significant. The City would need to adopt
a Statement of Overriding Considerations stating why the project's benefits outweigh this
environmental concern before it could approve the proposed project.
Response 7G
The conU11entors express an opiItion that the proposed rezoning could II change their lives on
Yale Sh-eet forever,Jor the worse, II and that they need light indush'ial uses and the businesses
that the LMSD zone includes. The proposed text amendmenf does not eliminate light industrial
r
City of Santa Monica
-26-
2834 CDloradD Avenue Project EIR
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
as an authorized use in this zone; it adds multi-family residential as an authorized use. This
comment is noted and will be considered by decision-makers as they review the proposed
project. The pm-pose of the EIR is to provide information about the possible environmental
consequences of the project that is proposed.
rr
City of Santa Monica
-27-
I', I .
.~
I "1 '
'I. l ~.), .
/'11 V," 'I ',i~f' JtI~fIJ. .I.L!l '""}~
, ,h, (i~.'T". .,".." .1.V6;r;vliW'fA..';;'l..q:r(J~
, .. . L . ,~~.' . . .. ~ _. '~'~iO:..!.~ ~ 2:Q7._n~: .:.:.~~ - ':. . _".. . ._.
,
','Th .W~ -.tt ~.~J.. """ '" ............ u_...,....... " ..,,~ .
" 'I ..
,
~ ~. .." ~ u . ...." " 1 III,""" .... ~ "01'_ ."'11" ...._ _a .... .... 4 _.... _ "'i11 I t oil 11";
. '. .. f~.J." ~.t 'If J.,~.J<D'it If'" ~.f:,h:bW41_~g .
./~"lhLW' .1AmAfj d ..;;l.&;,.'t ~. .~.,. Ou-:t-.
PI I ./i~ ~.~~ ~ ~-!o~..MM..dJA#'C';I ,
. ".. :.. /;fUJfL_~ ~t41"" ~,,~.h1 ~...~JJw:.
.4~. W ~M~S.. .i!ie.,ifIWd...~(t/~~. .. ""
: .G~.~'/N.aMrf;tm.t..~~,.... .
e~.d~~/, ~S . all.?l1J rI4. ~-U7~h'._' "'"~'''''
. . .X ~d~. .Affa.-tf,f ~~ .
J~~w.. frfu~ -1'~" wk., ~..)fwj 'r<.f#cp:( d.
e .Oi~ "') ..( k~ r-r tof""f. m %i.k: .~
/I~ ~.M.e.?~& (,0/\'/1 ~ M '1'''i<.:~.'~.~.
_1t~V~., u_.... ... ...
. ..W,- ~ ~J:1r i ~s~(~.~lJ1..C~)
. . 1-' . 'fi~,.trY1 O"UA ,/tt~, kul?'V'\ .b~.. .,,'".,....__.~ . ~ ~
( , D' -
J 0"",,^ ~ fJl vJ.., ~ ,{)rlA" ~1J {.0;W11hiA~ . .....
}.IV>- ~. ().,.-. ~- t 't b.. (J.~...... ..... .,. h' '.
':. :r.~ ~.~ ~k1F...~dQh ,I
., Ik~ ~ ~ ~ 10 ~ Ik... ;f7-.<A"d...t~.~.. . .. \
. ,V . , O. J # / "UJ _ f4 r j Ii I ~ _ IJ . I
\) I . VI. ~ IN..<~ 6V>c ~ ~ IV....IlP.~c ~
. ~~ o. i /f!~ ./vtlJ..~. 1v.,.~ hUf.
fi-~~-
Clll-o I ~'M H -b~ ~hlj /& ftd ~
.- 28-
\ '
. !
I
.1
I
I
. I
I
I
.
,I, .
~
,
I ,f'1'
,
~,.
, ,
r' "L' " .
'. ,,1"1"'11 "'r-
, .
,
. :
. I
I
. ,
, ,
I .. I
I ,.tt,lll "I t'" tf~"'~
, . I 1
\ .
,
.
I
t
I
1
1 ' .
: .fw<.. flV\k.~ ~ f' 'lfAu'f- ~J.,~~ ~
1;.' i~' f.rw,.iF 'jk.i 'ct:do (}WrI/M- ~,n4 <>>-J. .4P-L .
.. r~(~'~ W!:/IItuWi-r~7 h ~.,
~ ,.' ~ r#:n:r&~ yk. .-, .
. i .. .. I
, ,~tt,'(f't ~ ~h.~~..~_..
~!. J:: .~J,4 r ~(.(f)dJ,. .,i-~
fr~m,,' " ",.. .' ". . .....
1
" . I ..... t ....
. ~ "..g~ I"" .. ....... .-.. . ....
i . . . , 7h, MJ fIl!L~. .
I?U .Wle $1.1!i! .
~~~~ Q{jLf4.f
\
)
,
,.
, "
, . -
,I .
~
_. ._.4 oi._
.
~ . It . t I ~ .. .
,
1
,
., .
,
,
.,..,- . - .
r .., Ull>l ....
. .~,. \.
I
,
\
\' .
\
I
'I 4 -. ....__.. I" .
I
I '
,
I,
I
,J
,
,
\
\
--29-
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Letter 8
COMMENTOR: M. Ariel Malek, Resident, Yale Srreet
DATE: November 10, 2003
RESPONSE:
Response 8A
TIle conunentor expresses concern about U"affic, parking, noise, and over-crowcliJ.lg in her
neighbmhood. TIlese concerns are noted and will be considered by decision-malcers in their
review of the proposed project. Traffic and p8J.'king issues are discussed in Section 4.5 of the
Draft EIR, while noise is addressed in Section 4.4.
Response 8B
TIle commentor states that she finds it difficult to accollunodate guests because of a shmtage of
parking, and often cliJ.'ectspeople to park on Colorado Avenue. She expresses an opinion that
this will become more difficult with the development of the proposed project. As described in
Section 4.5/ Trrmsportation/Traffic, of the Draft ErR, the proposed project includes 228 parking
spaces in a subterrane8J.l garage/ which meets the City's parking requirements for a project of
this size and type. The ??S parking spaces include the required amount of parking for visitors
as well as for residents of the project. Therefore, the proposed onsite parking is considered
adequa~e to serve residents and their guests.
RespOhse Be
The conunentor states concern about u'ash thrown on sidewalks in her neighborhood from
businesses on Santa Monica Boulevard and restates an opinion that overcrowding is an issue of
concern in the neighborhood. These concerns 8J.'e noted. The purpose of the EIR is to provide
information about the possible environmental consequences of the currently proposed project.
Potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project (such as h'affic, noise,
8J.ld other effects) are discussed tIu'oughout the Draft EIR.
Response 8D
The conunentor states 8.11 opinion tIlat /I ten times as much" building has OCCUlTed in her 8J.'ea
compared to the north of Wilshire 8J.ld north of Montana neighborhoods and that tIlis is "not
fair." These conmlents 8J.'e noted and will be considered by City decision malcers as tIley review
the project. The pmpose of tile EIR is to provide information about the possible envn'01U11ental
consequences of the project tllat is proposed.
Response BE
The conunentor suggests that the project should provide two parking spaces per unit to
acconU11odate residents and then' guests. This C0l1U11ent is noted. As discussed in Section 4.5,
- Tmnsportntiol1/Trnffic, of the Draft EIR, the proposed ??8 parldng spaces fulfill the 8J.TIOtll1t of
"
City of Santa Monica
. - 30-
2834 Colorado Avenue Project ErR
Responses to Comments on the Draft ErR
parking required in the City's Municipal Code for a project of this size and type. As shown in
Table 4.5-10 in Section 4.5, the Municipal Code requires one parking space for each low-income
unit and each studio unit, 1.5 spaces for each market-rate one-bedroom unit, and two spaces for
eaq.1 mal'ket-rate two-bedroom unit. According to the Code, visitor parking is also required at
one space for every five units. The ??8 parking spaces proposed provide exactly the amount of
parking required, including 29 visitor parking spaces. Therefore, potential impacts relating to
parking were determined not to be significall.t.
r-
City of Santa Monica
. - 31-
HARDING, LARMORE, KUTCHER & KOZAL
^ "I\OF.;;:;IOI'I^~ C:OFlPORt'lTION
,
'::H"ISTQPttER M. HARDING
THlllolAS Fl. l....FlIolDRI!:
KE~NET~ L KVTCHCR
I!'~IN V. K02:...1.
L....URII!: LIEBERMAN
VALERIE L. S....CKS
AT'rOFlHEV5 AT LAW
o
12!50 SIXTH $TRIiO&:T, SUITJ; 300
S"'NT" 1'101'11.:...., ep,I.''"ORNlp, Q0-401-HilOlt
Tl::Ll:I"I'lO....e: l~rOJ ~\Il;1-IQO?
PAOSIMILE 113.101 ",sa-rSSB
\If"lITI:R'= I;'IR;;.:T I;'IAI.]
November 10, 2003
(310) 451-3.669 _:..:..:
o \ 1-'
.-:C. .....
"'oPU ..,If'1.
VilA ME SSENGER DELIVERY
~atrick Clarke
ft\ssocii:lte Planner
CIty of ;5anta Monica
1685"Main Street, Room 212
Santa ~~Dnica. CA 90401-3295
DIRECT E-MAIL ACCAESS~ ':.
kutcher@hlk@Iiw.com '
~ "
I
--"
o
-0
l,..Ll
o
.0..
He: Draft EIR
SCH No. 2003061052
Project Address: 2834 Colorado Avenue
Our File No.1 816.1
dear Mr. Clarke:
This letter is written on behalf of New Visions Foundation, the owner of the
propertV located at 3131 Olympic Boulevard which contains New Roads School. This
letter constitutes a formal comment letter on the Draft EIR issued for the proposed
project at 2834 Colorado Avenue. These comments are being submitted pursuant to
State C EQA Guidelines Section 15204(a). We request that these comments be
carefully evaluated pursuant to State CEQA GuIdelines Section 15088 and that these
cfJmments and the accompanying materials be incorporated into the Final EIR pursuant
to Section 15132(b).
-~he purpose of this letter is to suggest that the 145-unlt apartment complex
propoSI~d for development at the southeast corner of Colorado Avenue and stewart
Street Bhould be required to bear its fair share of the cost for certain Intersection
improvnments that will otherwise be borne by our nonprofit client, New Visions
Foundation. In this regard, enclosed is an analysis of the September 2003 Traffic Study
attached as Appendix E to the Draft EIR. This report dated November 5,2003, was
prepamd by David Shender of Linscott, Law & Greenspan,
J~. The New Roads Educational VillaQe Proiect Aoorovals Should Be
Considered In The DEIR.
On July 2,2003, the Santa Monica Planning Commission certified FEIR No. 02-
002 and approved DR No. 02-006, CUP No. 02-008, and V AR No, 02-021 for expansion
of New Roads School. Enclosed is a copy of the Statement of Official Action ("STOATI)
confirming these results and reciting the applicable conditions of approval. We hereby
requesl that the Final EIR and STOA for the New Roads Educational Village Project be
~incorporated by reference in their entirety)nto these comments.
-32-
HARPING. LWI0RE. KUTCHER & KOlAL
...~It"lil.O;IRPOFW1gH
A.1TO:r-IHCYtS AT LAw
Patrick Clarke
Novemher 10, 2003
Page 2
Condition Nos, 361 37 and 38 of the Statement of Official Action read in full as
follows:
"36. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-7a: Prior to
issuance of an occupancy permit for the proposed project.
the applicant shall provide funding for the modification of the
traffic signal at 20th Street & Olympic Boulevard to provide
a protected phase for the westbound left-turn movement.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would necessitate
the provision of some combination of project design, new
signage, controller cabinets, poles, mast arms, detectors,
and/or signat heads. If these" conditions are Imposed only
upon the applicant, then the applicant alone shall pay for
these improvements. However. if the conditions reaardinc
these imorovements are imposed upon other develooment
oroiects as well. and such proiects are approved orior to the
Certificate of Occuoancy of this oroiect. the aoolicant shall
only pay its fair share for such improvements and shall be
reimbursed by the subsequent developer. as reasonablV
determined bv the City's Transoortatlon Manaoement
Manager.
1137. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-7b; Prior to
issuance of an occupancy permit for the proposed project,
the applicant shall provide funding for the modification of the
traffic signal at 26th Street & Colorado Avenue to provide a
protected.permltted phase for the eastbound left-turn
movement. Implementation of this mitIgatIon measure would
necessitate the provision of some combination of new
signage, controller cabinets, poles, mast arms, deteotors,
and/or signal heads. If these conditions are imposed only
upon the applicant. then the applicant alone shall pay for
these improvements. However. if the conditions reqardino
these improvements are Imposed upon other development
projects as well. and such projects are approved prior to the
CertIficate of Occupancy of this proiect. the applicant shall
only pay its fair share for such improvements and shall be
reimbursed bv the subsequent developer, as reasonablY
determined bv the Citv's Transportation Management
Manaaer.
"38. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5~7d: Prlorto
issuance' of an occupancy permit for the proposed" project,
-33-
lIARblNG. LARMORE, KUTCHER & KOZAL
A~IOr""-~
.A.l'l'OIIINIMlATUW
Patrick Clarke
November 10,2003
~age .3
the applicant shall provide funding for the modification of the
traffic signal at Stewart Street/28th Street & Pica
Boulevard to provide a protected phase for the southbound
left-turn movement. The applicant shall al$O provide funding
for the adequate new slgnage. If these conditIons are
imposed only upon the applicant, then the applicant alone
shall pay for these improvements. However. IT the conditions
reQarding these improvements are imposed upon other
development profects as well. and such proiects are
approved prior to the Certlficate of Occupancy of this project.
the applicant shall onlv nay Its fair share for such
improvements and shall be reimbursed bv the subseauent
developer. as reasonablv determined bv the Citv's
Transportation Management Manager," (Emphasis added,)
I~. The Shender Report Demonstrates The. Flaws Of The DEIR's Traffic
Analvsis.
As Indicated in the enclosed report from Mr. Shender, we assume It was an
Qversig ht that the proposed 145-unit apartment project - which Is no farther away than
i~ New Roads School from the affected intersectIons -- was not found to be a contributor
t'? any i3dverse traffic impacts at these intersections otherwise requiring mitigation. In
t~is re~ard, we note that the same traffic engineer prepared the traffic studies for both
the Ne1l1J Roads Educational Village project and the 2834 Colorado Avenue apartments
pr~ect, .
These traffic studies are separated in time by a mere nine months (January 2003
and September 2003, respectively). It is highly unlikely that future traffic projections
change d favorably In such a short time wIthout any intersection Improvements, let alone
t~et theJ projected improvements in these intersectIons are so dramatically better. The
Shendnr report concludes that if the same CumulatIve Projects future traffic proJeotions
Had bean used in the 2834 Colorado Avenue Draft EIR as appear in the certified EIR for
New Rl)ads School, then it is "reasonable to expect that the Draft EIR for the 2834
Coloral1o Avenue Project would have identified significant traffic Impacts for this project
at the ~:6th Street! Colorado Avenue and Steward Street-28th Street/Pico Boulevard
iMterSeGtions." (Shender Report at p. 3,)
I=or the reasons described in the attached Shsnder report, we respectfully
rEJlques': that the traffic analysIs contained In the Draft EIR for this 145-unlt apartment
complex be recalculated for the relevant Intersections and that the 2834 Colorado
AvenUE! project be required to bear its fair share of the cost of required improvements
for at l€last two of these Intersections, If not all three.
-34-
HARDING, :LARMORE. KUTCHER & KOZAL
A~IpORRJRQ1DW
....-rcPtH!:TS ^T IJ\W
Ratrlck Clarke
November 10, 2003
F!age 4
Alternatively. the Conditions of Approval for New Roads School should be
amendr~d to eliminate Condition Nos, 36, 37 and 38 if in fact these intersections are not
p'rojectl3d to operate at unfavorable levels of service.
(::. The DEIR Fails To Analvze The Potentiallv Significant land Use Effects
Of The Pro~osed Text Amendment.
We have additional concerns that the Draft EIR for this proposed housing project
fails to evaluate the potentially significant land use effects of the corresponding Text
Amendment (GPA No. 03-001) needed to allow multi-family housing by Conditional Use
PermIt In the LMSD Zoning District. While New Visions Foundation has no objection to
aHowin!~ multi-family housing in the LMSD District by conditional use permit. it does not
make sense that this change to the Zoning Ordinance can be determined with certainty
to be a "less than significant Impact" per the Draft Initial Study attached as Appendix A
at Item 9(b) of the Draft EIR without any study.
Multi-family housing is a use that has not previously been allowed in the LMSD
District In fact, there was substantial debate over this question approximately a deoade
a'go. At that time. the City Council chose not to allow (nor conditionally allow) multi-
family housing in this zone for adjacency and compatibility reasons. Given that the
p'ropos.;d use requires a Text Amendment that Is substantive ~ rather than "clarifying" _
in natul'e, more careful study of the impacts of this proposed Text Amendment should
be und 3rtaken and provided within the EIR before it is certified,
CONCLUSION
[=or the reasons stated above, the EIR's traffic analysis of the following
iAterse,~tions -- 26th Street/Colorado Avenue and Stewart Street-28th Street/Pico
Boulevard - should be re-calculated and the for-profit housing developer proposing to
constn. ct 145 units on this site should be required to bear its fair share of the cost of
improving thOSe intersections, Just as was our non-profit client, New Visions Foundation,
The EII~ should also have studied the intersection of 20th street/Olympic Boulevard to
determine whether the proposed project will have a significant impact at that
intersel::tlon as well.
, l'lease do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss these matters.
None of these comments should be construed as opposition to the proposed project.
Rather, they are intended to be constructive comments aimed at ensuring the
consistency and fairness of processing project applications and studying their potential
.-35-
'n'
1
HARDING, ILARMORE, KUTCHER & KazAL
A~KAL.CD.R~DH
ATTORNEYS /I:r I.AW
Patrick Clarke
November 10, 2003
Rage 5
environl1ental effects and ensuring that appropriate mitigation measures are considered
and adopted,
I
Very truly yours,
1:Jrt~
Kenneth L. Kutcher
J<iLK;sn--;;
BncloslI res
cc: SI.:zanne Frick (wI encls.)
Lucy Dyke (wi encls.)
Ananda Schachter (wI enels,)
BHry Rosenbaum (wI enels.)
PG,ul Cummins (wI encls.)
All/a Llbuser (wI encls.)
, David Shender (wI encls.)
1 816/COl/Clarke.1 001.KLKdoG
-36- ~
1
-
1D
...
--=:l
City of
SaD~ a MOllica'"'
.
. ,
ORlt,rof1. )
- -::. --
--
City of Santa Monica
City Planning Qivision
PLANNING COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
! PRo.JECT
CASE NUMBER:
LOCATION:
,AI:lpLlCANT:
Development Review Permit 02-006; Conditional Use
Permit02-Q08; Variance 02-021; and Envfronmentallmpact
Report 02-012
3131 Olympic Boulevard
New VIsions Foundation
PROPERlY OWNER: New Visions Foundation
CASE PLANNER:
RI:QUEST:
CEQA STATUS:
Laura Beck. Ale?
Application for Development Review Permit 02DR-006,
Conditional Use Permit 02CUP.008 and Variance 02VAR-
021 to allow constructioh of three. 3-story structures
totaling approximately 115,000 square feet to house the
following uses above a 172-space subterranean garage: a
5.000 square foot preschool, six elementary school
classrooms, @ multi-purpose room, 10 middle school
classrooms, 14 high school classrooms, 13 specialty
classrooms (i.e" classrooms not continuously occupied by
students during the school day), a library, a gymnasium. a
350-seat peoiorming arts theater. a leadership
centerlfaculty room, janitor facilities, workshop rooms, two
specialty dance/music rooms. restrooms, storage facilities
and administrative offices. Outdoor recreational facilities
for the schools are also proposed.
An EnvIronmental Impact Report was prepared for the
project in compliance with the, Califomia Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA): The Environmental Impact Report was
certified by the Planning Commission on July 2, 2003 by
Resolution No. 03-006. A Statement of Overriding
Considerations and a MitiQation Monitoring Program was
. - 37-
,
c
also adopted by the Planning Commission by Resolution
03-007. '
P.LANNING COMMISSION ACTION
July '2, 2003
X
Date.
Approved based on the following findings and subject to the
conditions below.
Denied.
Other.
I
I
EFFECTIVE DATES OF ACTIONS IF NOT APPEALED:
.Iuly 17, 2003
,
EXPIRi\TION DATE OF ANY PERMITS GRANTED:
.Iuly 17, 2010
LlENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES: ·
Any rec!Uest for an extension of the expiration date must be received in the City Planning
Division prior to expiration of this permit
f) months
~ach a nd all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and
substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the
Project All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are. based on the
substantial evidenoe in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such
summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based In part on that fact.
, fiNDINGS;
I
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS
1:, The physicallocatloni size. massing. and placement of proposed structures on the
~ite and the location of proposed uses within the project are compatible wIth and
ralate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods, in that the proposed
~'roject provides open spaoe along the majority of the eastern edge of the property
-38-
which abuts the Santa Monica Commerce Park buildings. The western edge of the
property abuts a driveway/parking lot associated with Santa Monica Studios and
other commercial uses. The 45 ft. high buildings proposed at the northern edge of
1he property are separated from the one story buildings on neighboring parcels by
1he roadway, Nebraska Avenue, thus reducing the visual impact of building mass.
Additionally, the ground floor of the northern elevation of the building along
I~ebraska Avenue includes a 20 foot wide fire access lane and the garage entry
which serve to breakup the building mass; the upper floor of the building is setback
. approximately 9 feet, reducing the building mass along Nebraska Avenue.
2. ~-he rights-of-way can accommodate autos and pedestrians, including parking anti
flccess, in that vehioular access to and from the project site is provided via Olympic
Boulevard and Nebraska Avenue. As conditioned. the project will accommodate
vehicles dropping off and picking up students in accordance with a Transportation I
Parking Management Plan that will ensure that vehicles do not queue onto Olympic
BQulevard. Pedestrian access is provided via a sidewalk along Nebraska Avenue.
3, The health and safety service$ (pollee. fire, etc.) and public infrastructure (e.g.
Lltilities) are sufficient to accommodate the new development, in that the Final
Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project did not report any significallt
impacts to health and safety services or public services and utilities and in that the
~mject is accessible to emergency vehicles_
4: tIny on-site provision of housing or parks and public open space, which are part of
Ule project mitigation measures required in Part 9.04.10.12 (Project Mitigation
Measures) of the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive land Use and Zoning
Ordinance, satisfactorily meet the goals of the mitigation prograrn. in that no
mitigation is required for a proposed school. ~
5. 1 he project is generally consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan, in
that, with approval of the variance fortandem parking spaces, the project complies
with the provisions of the Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning OrdInance. The
project is consistent with the Land Use Element, particularly land Use Element
POlicy 1.8.3 that encourages preservation of existing schools and permits new
s::hools and the expansion of existing private schools with a Conditional Use Permit.
In additIon, the proposed project is consistent with Land Use Policy 3.3.16 of the
land Use Element to "encourage 5 to 20 foot setbacks from the streetfront... in
order to allow room for landscaping and usable open space" in that the buildings are
s'~tback more than 20 feet from the front property line. The project is also cpnsistent
with Policy 3.3.15 ofthe Land Use Element which calls for the reduction of visibility
o,r surface parking from major arterials in that all required parking for the project is in
a subterranean garage, As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with
Policy 4.1.3 that states that land use .,. should be located and designed for
clmvenient access and efficient transport of all Intended users" since the student
loading zone at grade and within the subterranean garage will be utilized in
compliance with an approved ParkinglTransportation Management Plan and this will
eJlsure that the queue of car~ will not willl;>ack up onto Olympic Boulevard during
s1udent drop-off and pick~up hours.
-
,- 39-
,
6. Reasonable mitigation measures have been included for most adverse impacts
identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations has been adopted in co'nsideration of those significant Impacts that
cannot be mitigated to a level of Insignificance.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1. The proposed use Is one conditionally pennitted within the subject district and
,:ompli$s with all of the applicable provisions of the "City of Santa Monica
Gomprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance", in that new public or priVate
Behaals are permitted by conditional use permit in the lMSD Ught Manufacturing
District. .
2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district in
which it is to be established or located, in that the proposed school is an expansion
of an existing school that is located. on a site that has been used for school uses
Hinee 1973 and in that usual traffic problems associated with dropping off and
picking up students will be mitigated by implementation of an approved
I)arkingffransporlation Management Plan that will be resubmitted and reviewed by
the City annually and revised if necessary to ensure ongoing effectiveness in
avoiding traffic problems on Olympic Boulevard and neighboring streets.
~- The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed, In
that the propose site is a 116;957 square foot parcel, and in that as conditioned the
)lotential for exposure to hazardous materials associated with the former landfill will
he mitigated prior to construction ofthe school.
~
4. The proposed use is compatible with any of the land uSes presently on the subject
parcel if the present land uses are to remain, in that the existing automobile storage
bt will be removed and the existing high school wlll be demolished and replaced
within the proposed development on the site.
5'. The proposed use would be compatible with 8YJsting and permissible land uses
within the district and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located. in
flat the proposed school is an expansion of an existing school that is located on a
site that has been used for school uses since 1973 and in that the usual traffic
. ~Iroblems associated with dropping off and picking up students will be mitigated by
implementation of an approved ParkinglTransportation Management. The
~'roposed community use of the school facilities, including the theater and the
S ymnasium, will be compatible wl'h the existing and permitted uses within the Light
Manufacturing Studio District and with the nearby residential uses since it will occur
Efter school hours and when the facl!lties are not in use by. students of the school.
6: "here are adequate provisions for water. sanitation, and public utilitiE?;.s and services
trl ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to publio health and
safety, in that the Final.Environmentallmpact f{eport prepared for the development
did not identify any significant impacts to water, sanitation, and public utilities and
...
-40-
'ndicated that existing systems could serve the proposed school.
7. Public access to the proposed use will be adequate, in that vehicular access to and
'from the sitewilf be available from Olympic Boulevard and Nebraska Avenue and
Jedestrian access Is provided via a sidewalk along Nebraska Avenue.
,
8. 'The physical location or placement .of the use on the site is compatible with and
~'elates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood, in that the proposed project
:Jrovldes open space along the majority of the eastern edge of the property which
,abuts the Santa Monica Commerce Park buildings. The western edge of the
,oroperty abuts a driveway/parking lot associated with Santa Monica Studios and
IJther commercial uses. The 45 ft. high buildings proposed at the northern edge of
'::he property are separated from the one story buildings on neighboring parcels by
';he roadway, Nebraska Avenue, thus reducing the visual impact of building mass.
Additionally. the ground floor of the' northern efevation of the building along
l"Jebraska Avenue includes a 20 foot wide fire access lane and the garage entry
which serve to breakup the building mass; the upper floor of the building Is also
!3-stbaak approximately 9 feet, reducing the building mass along Nebraska Avenue.
9. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
General Plan, in that Policy 1.8.3 oftha Special Office District designation under the
Iwand Use Plan encourages preservation of existing schools and permits new
nchools and the expansion of existing private schools with a Conditional Use Permit.
1'0. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
l;onvenience, or general welfare, in that that the proposed school is an expansion of
im existing school that is located on a site that has been used for school uses since
'1973 and in that usual traffic problems associated with dropping off and picking tip
ntudents will be mitigated by implementation of an approved ParkinglTransportation
Management Plan that will be resubmitted and reviewed by the City annually and
revised If necessary to ensure ongoing effectiveness in avoiding traffic problems on
Olympic Boufevard and neighboring streets. In addition" the proposed public use of
ihe school facilities, including the theater, community meeting rooms and the
uymnaslum after school hours will benefit the community and provide much needed
mts, recreational and meeting facilities to residents of the City.
,
1'1. The proposed use conforms precisely to the applicable performance standards
contained in Subchapter 9.04.12 and special conditions Outlined in Subchapter
0,04.14 of the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning
Ordinance, in that there are no special conditions contained in SMMC Section
~1.04.14 that apply to schoofs.
12. ---he proposed use will not result in an over-concentration of such uses in the
immediate vicinity, in that there are no schools within the immediate vicinity.
vtt\RIAHCE FINDINGS
1 , Yhere are special circumstances or exceptional charal?teristics applicable to the
5
, -41-
property involved, including size, shape, topography, locatIon, or surroundings. orto
t,e intended use or development of the property that do not apply to other
properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification, in that tandem
parking spaces used by employees within subterranean garages that are operated
by parking management plans will enable the project to more efficiently use the
hndem spaces which in turn will maximize the number of parking spaces available
tl) visitors to the site and eliminate the need for an excavation depth greater than
8pproximately 15 feet below grade. This avoids any further excavation of potentially
hazardous materials associated with former uses of the site per Section 4-7 of the
Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project.
2. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental or injurious tathe property or
improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located~ in
tllatthe tandem parking spaces will be utilized only by employees working within the
~mject site and will be operated by a parking management plan approved by the
t>irector of Planning and Community Development
3. The strict application of the provisions of this Chapter would result In practical
{ifficulties Or unnecessary hardships, not including economic difficulties or economic
~'ardships, in that the only feasible means of providing required parking within a
standard parking design is to add an additional floor of subterranean parking Dr
::ignificantly reduce the size of the proposed project by eliminating one or more of
the schools in its entirety, and in addition possibly eliminating or reducing the non-
school administrative offices and the number of olassrooms i~ the remaining
schools. None of these options would be COnsistent with the objectives of the
~ roposed project which is to consolidate the New Roads campuses and New
Visions Foundation onto a single site. In addition. the approval of a variance for the
t~ndem parking will eliminate the need for an excavation depth greater than
6' pproximately 15 feet below grade. This avoids any further excavation of potentially
hazardous materials associated with former uses of the site per Section 4-7 of the
Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project
4. 1'he granting of a variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general
purposes' and intent of this Chapter. or to the goals, objectives and pOlicies of the
General Plan. in that Circulation Element Policy #4.7.3 states: nMost efficient use of
parking facilities should be ~ncQuraged, Including provisions for compact cars,
tandem parking in conjunction with free valet service." The parking management
plan required for the project will provide for the efficient use of the tandem spaces.
5~ 1 he variance would not Impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is
to be located, in thatthe tandem parking spaces will only be utilized by employees
~'orking within the project site and will be operated by a parking management plan
approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development.
6., T he subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance, in that the tandem
parking spaces will be located within a subterranean parking garage built as part of
a 114,870 square foot development on a 116,958 square foot parceL
. - 42-
7. Tllere are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services
to ensure that the proposed variance would not be detrimental to public health and
s~lfety. in that the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the development
did not identify any significant Impacts to water, sanitation, and public utHitles and
indicated that existing systems could selVe the proposed project.
8. There will be adequate provisions for public access to serve the subject variance
proposal, in that the 1andem parking spaces will be located within a subterranean
parking garage which is accessed from Olympic Boulevard and Nebraska Avenue
and pedestrian access is provided via a sidewalk along Nebraska Avenue.
9. I Fl)r the reduction of the automobile parking space requirements) the reduction is
bused and conditioned upon an approved parking reduction plan that incorporates
tmnsportation control measures that have been demonstrated to be effective In
re ducing parking needs and that are monitored. periodically reviewed for continued
effectiveness, and enforced by the City as contained in Section 9.04.10.08.050 of
this Chapter in that a parking management plan, approved by the Director of
Planning and Community Development and monitored by the City on an annual
basis is required as part of project approval.
1 O~. TIle strict application of the provisions of Article IX of the City of Santa Monica
Municipal Code would result In unreasonable deprivation ofthe use or enjoyment of
the property. in that the only feasible means of providing required parking within a
standard parking design is to add an additional floor of subterranean parking or
si~nificantly reduce the scope of the project by eliminating one or more of the
schools in its entirety, and in addition possibly eliminating or reducing the non-
s(:hool administrative offices and the number of classrooms in the remaining
schools. None of these opU.ons would be consistent with the objectives of the
proposed project which is to consolidate the New Roads campuses and New
Visions Foundation onto a single site.
C(}NDITIONS:
,
Plans
, 1.: Tills approval is for those plans dated April 23, 2003 as modified by plans dated
June 17. 2003, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the City Planning
o vision. Project development shall be consistent with such plans, except as
otherwise specified in these conditions of approval.
2. Tile Plans shall comply with all other provisions of Chapter 1, Article IX of the
Municipal Code. (Zoning Ordinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and General
Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica. '
3. FInal parking lot layout and specifications shall be subject to the review and
I approval of the Transportation Management OivisIon.
4. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of
7
,- 43-
Planning'. . A significant change in the approved concept shall be subject to Planning
Commission Review. Construction shall be in confonnance with the plans
s'Jbmitted or as modified by the Planning Commission. Architectural Review Board
or Director of Planning.
Architectural Review Board
5. Prior to consideration of the project by the Architectural Review Board, the applicant
shall review disabled access requirements with the Building and Safety Division and
make any necessary changes in t~e project design to achieve compliance with such
mquirements. The Architectural Review Board. in its review, shall pay particular
attention to the aesthetic. landscaping, and setback impacts of any ramps or other
fnatures necessftated by accessibility requirements.
6. Prior to submittal of landscape plans for Architectural Review Board approval. the
applicant shall contact the Department of Environmental and Public Works
flJlanagement regarding urban runoff plans and calculations.
7. C:onstruction period signage shall be subject to the approval of the Architectural
R.eview Board_
8. Flans for final design, landscaping. screening, trash enclosures, and signage shall
be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board.
9.. The Architectural Review Board, In its review. shall pay particular attention to the
project's pedestrian orientation and amenities; scale and articulation of design
elements; exterior colors, textures and materials; window treatment; glazing: and
Iclndscaping. ~
9. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall also pay particular attention to
ttle project's proposed sound waf) along the Olympic Boulevard frontage to reduce
the visual impact of the sound wall on the adjacent streetscape~
10. As appropriate, the Architectural Review Board shall require the use of anti-graffiti
materials on surfaces likely to attract graffiti.
11. L3ndscaping plans shall comply with Subchapter 58 (Landscaping Standards) of
file zoning ordinance including use of water~conselVin9 landscaping materials,
le:ndscape maintenance and other standards contained in the Subchapter.
Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.04.10.04.110(a) higher percentages of turf may be
parmitted when turf is an essential part ofthe development such as playing fields for
s(:hools or parks, or as determined by the Architectural Review Board.
12. Refuse areas. storage areas and mechanical equipment shall screened in
a ;cordance with SMMC Section 9.04.1 O.02.13Q-R04.1 0.02.150. Refuse areas
sllall be of a size adequate to meet on-site need, including recycling. The
ArchJtectural Review Board in its review shall pay particular attention to the
$(:reening of such areas and equipment. Any rooftop mechanical equipment shall be
-44-
minimized in height and area, and shall be located in such a way as to minimize
noise and visual impacts to surrounding properties. Unless othelWise approved by
the Architectural Review Board, rooftop mechanical equipment shall be located at
1138St five feet from the edge of the 'roof. Except for solar hot water heaters. no
residential water heaters shall be looated on the roof.
Demoli1ion
13. Until such time as the demolition is undertaken, and unless the strucwre is currently
ill use, the existing structure shall be maintained and secured by boarding up all
(lpenings, erecting a security fence, and removing all debris, bushes and planting
f1at inhibit the easy surveillance of.the property to the satisfaction of the Building
~Ind Safety Officer and the Fire Department. Any landscaping material remaining
~,hall be watered and maintained until demolition occurs.
14. fitreet trees shall be maintained; relocated or provided as required in a manner
(.onsistent with the City's Community Forest Management Plan 2000, per the
~pecifications of the Open Space Management Division of the Community and
Cultural Services Department and the City's Tree Code (SMMC Section 7.40). No
street trees shall be removed without the approval of the Open Space Management
Division.
15. Illmediately after demolition (and during construction). a security fence, the height
(If which shall be the maximum permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be
r:'Jaintained around the perimeter of the lot. The I~t shall be kept clear of all trash.
\/feeds, etc. '
16. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit. applicant shall prepare far Building DivisiOn
e,pproval a rodent and pest control plan to ensure that demolition and construction
edivities at the site do not create pest control impacts on the project neighborhood.
17_ No demolition of buildings or structures 40 years of age or older shall be permitted
rntil the end of a 60--day review period by the landmarks Commission to detennine
whether an application for landmark designation shall be filed. If an application for
landmark designation is filed, no demolition shall be approved until a final
c etermination is made by the Landmarks Commission on the application.
16. Prior to issuance of any demolition permitsl a demorition materials recycling plan
shall be filed for approval by the Department of Environmental and Public W.orks
~1anagement which seeks to maximize the reuselrecyc;:ling of existing building
materials.
Construction
19. Unle$s otherwise approved by the Departmentof EnVironmental and Public Works
~ 1anagement, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable during the grading and
C Dnstruction phase of the project.
q
-45-
2(1). Sidewalks, curbs, gutterS, paving and driveways which need replacing orremoval as
a result of the project as determined by the Department of Environmental and Public
Works Management shall be reconstructed to the satisfaction ofthe Department of
Environmental and Public Works ,Management. Approval for this work shall be
obtained from the Department of Environmental and Public Works management
prior to issuance of the building permits.
21. Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from the site shall cover any open
load with a tarpaulin or other secure covering to minimize dust emissions.
Immediately after commencing dirt removal from the site, the general contractor
shall provide the City of Santa Monica with written certification that all trucks leaving
the site are covered in ac~rdance with this condition of approval.
22. /J, construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by the applicant for approval
by the Department of Environmental and Public Works Management prior to
is:suanoe of a building permit. The approved mitigation plan shall be posted on the
c :Jnstruction site for the duration of the project construction and shall be produced
upon request. As applicable, this plan shall 1) Specify the names, addresses,
tHlephone numbers and business license numbers of all contractors and
subcontractors as well as the developer and architect; 2) Describe how demolition
of any existing structures is to be accomplished; 3) Indicate where any cranes are to
be located for erection/construction; 4) Describe how much of the public street,
a lIeyway. or sidewalk is proposed to be used In conjunction with construction; 5} Set
forth the extent and nature of any pUe-driving operations; 6) Describe the length and
number of any tiebacks whiCh must extend under the property of other persons; 7)
Specify the nawre and extent of any dewatering and its effect on any adjacent
buildings; 6) Describe anticipated construction-related truck routes. number of truck
tl ips, hours of hauling and parking location; 9) Specify the nature and extent of ahy
helicopter hauling; 10) State whether any construction activity beyond normally
permitted hours is proposed; 11) Describe any proposed construction noise
mitigation measures; 12) Describe construction-period security measures including
any fencing, lighting. and security personnel; 13} Provide a drainage plan; 14)
F rovlde a construction-period parking plan which shall minimize use of public streets
for parking; i5} List a designated on-site construction manager; 16) Provide a
c:mstruction matefials recycling plan which seeks to maximize the reuse/recycling of
c:Jnstruction waste; 17) Provide a plan regarding use of recycled, and low~
environmental-impact materials in building construction; 18) provide a construction
period water runoff control plan.
2~. /J sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consistent with the public
hearing sign requirements. which shall identify the address and phone number of
tIle owner and/or applicant for the purposes of responding to questions and
c'Jmplaints during the construction period. Said sign shall also indicate the hours of
permissible construction work.
24. The property owner shall insure any graffiti on the site is promptly removed through
c)mpliance with the City's graffiti removal program.
~-46-
,
25. 1\ copy of these conditions shall be posted in an easily visible and accessible
location at all times during construction at the project site. The pages shall be
hminated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the copy.
, .
Environmental Mitigation
26. lJltra~low flow plumbing fixtures are required on all new development and
remodeling where plumbing is to be added. (Maximum 1,6-gallon toilets and 1.0-
~lallon urinals and. low flow showerhead.)
27_ To mitigate solid waste impacts, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
~Irojectowner shall submit a recycling plan to the Department of Environmental and
Public Works Management for its' approval. The recycling plan shall include 1} list
(If materials such as white paper, computer paper, metal cans. and glass to be
recycfed; 2) location (If recycling bins; 3) designated recycling coordinator; 4) nature
filnd extent of internal and external pick-up service; 5) pick~up schedule; 6) plan to
infonn tenantsl occupants of service.
26. To mitigate storm water and surface runoff from the project site, an Urban Runoff
Mitigation Plan may be required by the Department of Environmental and Public
Works Management (EPWM) pursuantto Municipal Code Chapter7.10. Applicant
~ hall contact EPWM to determine applicable requirements, which include the
f.:>lIowing:
· Non-storm water runoff. sediment and construotion waste from the
construction site and parking areas is prohibited from leaving the site;
· An sediments or materials which are tracked off-site must be removed the
same day they are tracked off-site; ~
· Excavated soil must be located on the site and soU piles should be covered
and otherwise protected so that sediments do not go into the street or
adjoining properties;
· Washing of construction or other vehicles shall be allowed adjacent to a
construction site. No runoff from washing vehicles on a construction site
shall be allowed to leave the site;
· Drainage controls may be required depending on the extent of grading and
topography of the site.
· New development is required to reduce projected runoff pollution by at
least twenty percent through incorporation of design elements or principles,
such as increasing permeable surfaces, diverting Dr catching runoff via
swales, berms, and the like; orientation of drain gutters towards permeable
areas; modification of grades; use of retention structures and other
methods.
29. F'ursuant to Mitigatio'1 Measure 4.1 ~ 1: Recommendations outlined in the
geotechnical investigation prepared for the project site shall be incorporated into the
design and construction of the proposed project.
1"'
. - 47-
36.
37.
,
30.
?ursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-1: Tandem spaces shall be used by faculty,
,staff, and educational partner employees.
Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-2: Provide a parking attendanVvalet during after
:;chool periods when community or publio events are scheduled that are expected to
:attract more than 150 vehIcles to facilitate community/publio uSe of the tandem spaces.
31.
,
32_
Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-3: Community use of the perfonnfng arts
theater. gymnasium, or dance/yoga classrooms shall be prohibited during school
hours,
I
33.
Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.54: The start and end times for the elementary,
middle. and high school grade levels shall be separated from each other l:.ly at least
30 minutes.
34.
Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-5: The applicant shall implement operational
measures such that adequate queuing capacity is provided to the satisfaction of the
City staff- Operational measures shall be outlined in a plan that is approved by City
staff, and distributed to students of the proposed project. Any modifications to the
plan shall be approved by the City.
Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-6: The applicant shalf physicalry redesign the
proposed Olympic Boulevard driveway area, which shall be done to the satisfaction
;)f City staff to mitigate vehicular ConflIcts between outgoing vehicles to/from the
subterranean garage.
35.
Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-7a: Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit
For the proposed project, the applicant shall provide .funding for the modification of
~he traffic signal at 20th Street & Olympio Boulevard to provide a protected phase
'for the westbound left-turn movement. Implementation of this mitigation measure
would necessitate the provision of some combination of project design, new
;i~nage, controller cabinets. poles. mast arms. detectors, and/or signal heads. If
'lhese conditions are imposed only upon the applicant, than the applicant alone shall
Jay for these improvements. However. if the conditions regarding these
-mprovements are Imposed upon other development projects as well, and such
Jrojects are approved prior to the Certificate of Occupancy of this project. the
.3pplicant shall only pay its fair share for such improvements and shall be
j'elmbursed by the subsequent developerr as reasonably determined by the City's
Transportation Management Manager.
?ursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.5-7b: Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit
~br the proposed project. the applicant shall provide funding for the modification of
i:he traffic signal at 26th Street & Colorado Avenue to provide a protected-permitted'
phase for the eastbound left-turn movement. Implementation of this mitigation
measure would necessitate the provisIon of some combination of new signage,
l;ontroller cabinets, poles, mast arms, detectors~ and/or signal heads. If these
I~onditions are imposed only upon the applicant. then lhe applicant alone shall pay
FOr these improvements. Howevet~ if the conditions regarding these improvements
-48-
41.
4?
are imposed upon other development projects as well, and such projects are
approved prior to the Certificate of Oooupancy of this project, the appficant shall
only pay its fair share for such improvements and shall be reimbursed by the
subsequent developer, as reasonably determined by the City's Transportation
Management Manager.
38.
F'ursuant to Mitigation Measure 4_5-7d: Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit
fllr the proposed project, the applicant shall provide funding for the modification of
the traffic signal at Stewart Street/28th Street & Pico Boulevard to provide a
~ rotected phase for the southqaund left-turn movement. The applicant shall also
provide funding for the adequate new signage. If these conditions are imposed only
upon the applicant, then the applicant alone shall pay for these improvements.
However, if the conditions regarding these improvements are imposed upon other
development projects as well, and such projects are approved prior to the Certificate
cf Occupancy of this project, the applicant shall only pay its fair share for such
improvements and shall be reimbursed by the subsequent developer, as reasonabJy
detennined by the City's Transportation Management Manager.
,
39.
Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.6~ 1: Exterior lights shall only shed light poa's on
tile project site, incorporating "cut-off" shIelds as appropriate to prevent an increase
in I!ghtingat adjacent properties.
40.
Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4_6 -2: Landscape illumination and exterior
sign lighting shall be accomplished with low-leveJ, unobtrusive fixtures. Such
lighting shall be shielded to direct light pools away from off-site viewers.
. ~
F'ursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.7-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permJt, the
a pplicant shall retain a qualified consultant to prepare a comprehensive Phase II
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), for review and approval by the City
Environmental Programs Division or its qualified designee, and shall
demonstrate, to the City's satisfaction. that the applicant has implemented all
applicable recommenaations of the PI1ase II ESA. Testing to be required under
the Phase II shall include but not be limited to ~e following:
1. Soil borings to confirm lateral and vertical extent of refuse including a refuse
analysis. to the extent possible, characterization of the type and extent of
contamination, and assessment of the landfill cap, if any.
2. Soil gas sampling to confirm soil vapor composition.
3. Surface air monitoring to investigate the potential for hazardous emissions On
the project site and surrounding areas.
Fursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.7~2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
applicant shall submit for approval, and' in consultation with the City of Santa
Monica. DTSC. the Los Angeles RWQCB. arid other regulatory agencies as
mquired, formulate a remediation plan in the event that groundwater or soil
c:mtamination exists on the project site. The applicant shall implement the
a pproved remediation efforts to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Monioa, OTSC,
the Los Angeles RWQCB and other regulatory agencies. as required. Qualified and
--4 9 -
licensed professionals shall perform the remediation activities and all work shall be
performed under the supervision of the City of Santa Monica Envir~mmental
Programs Division_
43. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.7-3: A landfill gas control plan and monitoring
flystem shall be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of school
flctivities on site. to ensure that risks do not excf:ed acceptable regulatory levels. If
methane or other landfill gasses are detected above regulatory levels, use of the
area where gasses are detected shall cease untif a remediation strategy that
assures landfill gasses are within acceptable concentrations is developed and
i rnplemented.
44. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.7-4: In the event that previously unknown soil or
{]rOundwater contamination is encountered during construction. construction
nctivities shall immediately stop, and appropriate health and safety procedures shall
be implemented. Where site contamination is identified, an appropriate remediation
~;trategy (i.e., a Health and Safety Plan that meets OSHA requirements) approved
by the City, and DTSC and the Los Angeles RWQC8, as required, shall be
i',nplemented_ Qualified and licensed professionals shall perform the remediation
~lctivities and all work shall be perfonned under the supervision of the City of Santa
Monica Environmental Programs Division_
45. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.8-1: The applicant shaJl prepare a Construction
Inpact Mitigation Plan to be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a building
~'ermit, and shall implement all identified measures during the construction period.
46. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.8-2: The applicant'contractor shall submit a plan,
~Irior to issuance of a building permit. to demonstrate that construction traffic Shall
avoid using residential streets in the project vicinity for construction activities.
47. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.8-3: The applicant/contractor shall submit a plan,
rrior to issuance of a building permit, that demOnstrates the provision of all
r,ecessary off-site parking for construction workers during Phase II of construction.
so as to avoid impacts on parking in the project neighborhood and surrounding
r~sidential streets.
Miscellaneous Conditions
, ,
48. lhe building address shall be painted on the roof of the building and shall measure
four feet by eight feet (32 square feet).
49_ T he operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to
surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights. noise. activities. parking or
other actions.
,
50. 11 any archaeologiCal remains are uncovered durtng excavatIon or construction, work
in the affected area shall be suspended and F.l recognized specialist shall be
c :>ntacted to conduct a survey of the affected area at projecfs owner's expense. A
. - 50-
cletermination shall then be made by the Director of Planning to determine the
::,ignificance of the survey findings and appropriate actions and requirements, if any,
b address such firidings.
51. Btreet and/or alley lighting shall be provided on public rights-of-way adjacent to the
project if and as needed per the specifications and with the approval of the
Department of Environmental and Public Works Management
52. Automotive repair facilities and d~alershlps. parking areas and structures,
~Iutomotive paint shops, gas stations. equipment degreasing areas, and other
hcilities generating wastewater with significant oil and grease content are required
tl) pretreat these wastes before discharging to the City sewer or storm drain system.
Pretreatment will require that a clarifier or oil/water separator be installed and main~
t:3ined on site. In cases where settleable solids are present (or expected) in greater
flmounts than floatable oil and grease, a clarifier unit will be required. In cases
where the opposite waste characteristics are present. an oil/water separator with
Elutomatic oil draw-off will be required instead. The Environmental and Public
Works Management Department will set specific requirements. Building pennit
~llans shall show the required instaflation.
53. Mechanical equipment shall not be located on the side of any building which is
edjaceot to a residential building on the adjoining lot. Roof locations may be used
v then the mechanical equipment is installed within a soundrated parapet enclosure.
54. Final approval of any mechanical equipment installation wifl require a noise test in
compliance with SMMC section 4.12.040. Equipment for the test shall be provided
ty the owner or contractor and the test shall be conducted by the owner or
contractor. A copy of the noise test results on mechanical equipment shall be
:s ubmitted to the Community Noise officer for review to ensure that noise levels do
not exceed maximum allowable levels for the applicable noise zone.
55. F'inal building plans submitted for approval of a building permit shall include on the
~ lans a list of all permanent mechanical equipment to be placed outdoors and all
permanent mechanical equipment to be placed indoors which may be heard
outdoors.
56_ Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit, the applicant shall post a
notice at the building entry stating that the site is regulated by a Development
Fleview Permit, Conditional Use Permit and Variance and the Statement of Official
fl\ction, which includes the establishment's conditions of approval, is available Upon
n3quest. This notice shall remain' posted at all time the establishment is in
operation. '
,
Validity of Permits
57. ,In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any,conditions of approval of
this permit, ,no further permits. licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy shall
be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.
-51-
58_
,
Within ten days of Planning Division transmittal of the Statement of Official Action.
project applicant shall sign and return a copy of t~e Statement of Official Action
prepared by the Planning Division. agreeing to the Conditions of approval and
acknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute grounds
for potential revocation of the permit approval. By signing sam~, applicant shall not
thereby waive any legal rights applicant may possess regarding said conditions.
The signed Statement Shall be returned to the City Planning Division. Failure to
cJmply with this condition shall constitute grounds for potential permit revocation.
,
59. .lhis determination shall not become effective for a period of fourteen (14) days
ffOm the date of determination or. if appealed. until a final determination is made on
the appeal. Any appeal must be made hi the form required by the Zoning
,lldminlstrator. The approval of this permit shall expire if the rights granted are not
exercised within seven (7}years from the permifs effective date. Exercise of rights
shall mean issuance of a building permit to commence construction. However. the
permit shall also expire if the building permit expires, if final inspection is not
C Jmpleted or a Certificate of Occupancy is not issued within the time periods
specified in SMMC Section 8.08_060~ or ifthe rights granted are not exercised within
eighteen (18) months following the earliest to occur of the following: issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy Of, if no certificate of Occupancy is required, the last
mquired final inspection for the new construction. One six-month extension may be .
permitted If approved by the Director of Planning. Applicant is on notice that time
eldensions may 'not be granted if development standards or the development
process relevant to the project have changed since project approval. Additionally.
tlle rights associated with this approval shall expire if the establishment ceases
operation for a period of one year or longer.
~
Monitoring of Conditions
,
60. Fursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21061.6, the City
F lanning Division will coordinate a monitoring and reporting program regarding any
mquired changes to the project made in conjunction with project approval and any
cJnditions of approval, including those conditions intended to mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment. This program shall include, but is not limited
to, ensuring that the Planning DIvision itself and other City divisions and
departments such as the Building Division, the Environmental and Public Works
f\lanagement Department. the Fire Department, the Police Department, the
Community and Economic Development Department and the Finance Department
are aware of project requirements which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a
Euildlng Permit, Certificate of Occupancy, or other permit, and that other.
msponslble agencies are also informed of conditions relating to their
msponslbillties. Project owner shall demonstrate compliance with conditions of
approval in a written report submitted to the Planning Director and Building Officer'
prior to issuance of a Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy, and, as
applicable, provide periodic reports regarding compliance with such conditions.
-52-
VOTe
'\ .
A~opt the Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report:
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain.'
Absent:
Brown. Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson, Moyle, Olsen
None .
None
None
Attopt Ule Resolution making findings necessary to approve the development project at
3131 Olympic Boulevard. adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. and adopt a
Mitigation Monitoring Program:
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Brown, Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson. Moyle. Olsen
None
None
None
Adopt the findings and condition$: of approval for Development Review Pennlt 02..008.
Conditional Use Permit 02-008 and Variance 02-021 for the project as amended:
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
NOTICI~
Brown. Clarke, Dad, Hopkins, Johnson. Moyle, Olsen
None
None
None
If.thls i~: a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica
Comprehensive land Use and Zoning Ordinance. the time within which judicial review of
this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, which
provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.16.010.
I herebJ certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final
determination of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica.
C~
Darrell Gierke, Chairperson
S(6;a3
Date
,.
>53-
I hereb:r agr~e to the above conditions of approval and aCknowledge that failure to
comply with such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the
p~rmit ;approval.
~-~-
.'
f~ L r: CI/f"v\1~. ~Vfl Jiftft2.CJZIJ(,
Print Name and Title ' fo/ll1 f,N \/\S'h1/liJ" F'CW,..1,p-'T71nrJ
F:\plan\shme\pc\stoas'02deOoa .dol;
rev: 05/:W03
,.
1""
_-54-
'I.
ENGINEERS
MEMORANDUM
DATl~:
November 5,2003
TO:
Ken Kutcher
Harding, ,Larmore. Kutcher & Kozal
FROM:
David Shender
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
I SUBJECT:
Commen,ts tf,) the Draft Environ~entallmpact Report Prepared for the
2834 Colorado Avenue Project
City of Santa Monioa
REFl;RENCE:
1..023289-1
This memorandum has been prepared to provide comments to the traffic study contained in the Draft
Enviri)nmental hnpact Report (Draft EIR) prepared for the proposed residential project at 2834
Colomdo Avenue in the City of Santa Monica. The Draft EIR, dated September 2003, was prepared
by Rincon Consultants and the traffic study was prepared by Kaku Assooiates.
ltis cC Deluded that there are substantial incDn$stencies contained jn the traffic study provided in the
Draft EIR for tbe 2834 Colorado Avenue Project as compared to data published several months
earlieI' by the same traffic consultant in the EIR prepared for the New Roads School project (Draft
, EIR d:lted January 2003 and Final EIR dated April 2003) for two of the common study intersections
evaluated in both documents. Specifically. Table J below provides the V olume-to-Capacity ratios
(VIe) and Levels of Service (LOS) at the intersections of 20th Street/Colorado Avenue and Stewart
Street.28th StreetlPico Boulevard. .
Table 1
ComparisQn ofV/C and LOS Values
:PM Peak Hour w Future Cumulative Plus Project Condition
2834 ColQrado DEIR New Roads School DEIR
Se}?tember 2003 Janulll'Y 2003
Intel"sedion vIe LOS vIe LOS
261h :1treetlColorado Ave 0.840 B 1. 793 F
Stewart-28th StreetIPioo Blvd. 1,026 D 1.539 F
234 East CClIGrado Bl)ul~"lIrll, Suite 40D . Plmu)enr.l. Clillfornin9!101
Telepb1Joe 626.796.2322 · F8X 626.79M941 · E.mail ~helld1,!r@lIgel1gi11een,tom
--55-
";j
I..
Ken Kutcher
November 5, 2003
Page Two
'ENGINEERS
As shm\'ll in Table l~ the two traffic studies, prepared only months apart by the same consultant,
, have reached substantially different conclusions regarding the operations at two Common study
intersfx;tions in the futUre Cumulative Plus Project condition in the PM peak hour. At the 26m
Street'Colorado Avenue interseotion, the vIe ratio in the PM peak hour was forecast to be 1.793
(LOS F) in the New Roads School Draft EIR while the 2834 Colorado Avenue Draft EIR analyzed
the same conditioD, but yet reported a 53% improvement in the vie ratio to 0.840 (LOS B).
, Similarly, the Stewart Street-28th StreetIPico Boulevard intersection was forecast in the New Roads
Schoel Draft Em. to operate with a V/C ratio at 1.539 (LOS F). but'is now forecast in the 2834
o Color.!do Avenue Draft EIR to operate with a VIe ratio at 1.026 (LOS D), a 33% improvement.
In ow: experience, it is common that forecasts of future operating conditi~ns at common study
inters,~tions between two traffic studies will have some differences (generally where the vie ratios
vary ,vithin a range of 5-10%), potentially due to different data such as existing traffic counts,
analy: :ed cumulative projects, ambient growth rates, etc, However, in comparing the forecasts in the
Draft Ems for the New Roads School and the 2834 Colorado Avenue Project. we have never seen
a situ ation where a study intersection was forecast to change by such a substantial margin,
particlllarly when the forecast is for an improvement in operatio:os' (as opposed to a degradation),
The fi tct that the reports were published by the same traffic consultant over a span of a few months
maken it even more difficult to comprehend.
Table 2 on the following page provides a comparison of the Existing traffic volumes and the
Cumdative Plus Project traffic volumes at the tWo common study intersections. Also provided for
infornation purposes are the Project-Only trips forecast to travel through the intersections. Based
on thfl comparison, following conclusions are noted:
· Tbe Existing traffic counts used in the 2834 Colorado Avenue Draft EIR are about 10%
higher a.t the two study intersections as compared to' the Existing traffic counts used in the
New Roads School EIR.
" The forecast of Cumulative Plus ~.roject traffic volumes are about 9% lower in the 2834
Colorado Draft Em for the 26lh Street/Colorado Avenue intersection as compared to the
fOl'ecast in the New Roads School EIR: The forecasts of CWnulative Plus Project ttaffic
volumes at the Stewart Street-28th StreeVPico Boulevard intersection are nearly identical
between the two studies.
Therefore, it is cODcluded that the signmc!illt changes in the calculated vIe ratios and LOS values
, betwe en the two traffic studies are not attributable to potential variations in the traffic volume data,
but is likely due to ulCousistent applications of intersection analysis methodologies utilized by the
, consultant between the two studies. .
Z34 EBBt Colorado BoulRvllrd. Suite 400 . PnS!ldeDB, California 91101
Telepllonc 626.796.2312 · Fu 626.792.(1941 . E-mail ahemler@Ugengineer~.com
-56- -
I.
Ken Kutcher
November 5t 2003
Page Tm-ee
ENGINEERS
Table 2
Comparison ofIntenectio~ 'fraffic:: Volumes ~ PM Peak Hou:r
2834 Colorado DEm New Roads' School DEIR
September 20D3 January %003
Cumulative Project ComulaCive Project
Intersection Existing + Project Only Existing + Project Only
Traffic Traffic Trame Traffic Trame T:rnmc
2611I :;freetlColorado 3,228 .3,738 14 2,862 4,087 9
Ave.
Stewart-28th 3,505 4,009 4 3.235 4,112 9
StretrrJPioo Blvd.
, As yeu are aware. a significant issue is raised due to the differences in the reported traffic data for
; the OClmDlOn study intersections and the conditions of approval for the New Roads School project
as set forth by the City of Santa Monica Planning Commission on July 2p 2003. Specifically.
Condition Nos. 37 and 38 require the New Roads School projeotto fund traffic signal improvements
at the 2~ Street/Colorado Avenue and Stewart Street~28th StreetIPico Boulevard futersections,
respe,~tively. primarily in response to significant traffic impacts reported in the Draft and Final EIR
docwnents prepared for the school project. The cOXlditiQns further state that if the traffic signal
impt(lvements at the affected intersections are imposed on other development projects, and such
proje';ts are approved by the City prior to the receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy for the sohool,
then 1he school is only obligated to pay its fair share towards the traffic signal improvements as
detenmned by the City.
, It wo',dd be reasonable to expect that the D~aft EIll for the 2834 Colorado Avenue :Project would
: have identified sigtiifioant traffic impacts for this projeot at the 26 Street/Colorado Avenue. and
Stewart Street-28th StreetIPlco Boulevard intersections due to:
· The forecast cfLOS F operations in the Cumulative Flus Project condition at the two
intersections as previously identified in the New Roads 5'Jhool ElK
D The highly sensitive City of Santa Monica traffic impact significanoe thresholds
whereby a change in the calculated vIe ratio of 0.005 or more due to project traffic
at an LOS F intersection is deemed to be as significant impact (in many cases, one
new trip through the intersection is sufficient to cause this impact).
234 ElISt CohmllJo BlIulevard, Suite 400 . Pasadellil, Clllifllrnla 91101
Telephone 626.796.2322 · Fu 626.791.0941 I E-m!ll shender@!lgeoglneen.eom
. - 57-
, ,
,
II.
'-
EIIlOINEERS
Ken Kutcher
November 5,2003
Page FOlk
" The fact that the 2834 Colorado Avenue Project is forecast to oontribute an
incremental number of new trips through the affected intersections in a range
equi'Valentto the New Roads School project (aee Table 2), which was deemed by the
City to cause significant traffic impacts at these locations.
· Appropriately, the traffic signal improvements conditioned to the New Roads School
project do not appear to have been included in the Cumulative Plus Project traffic
impact analysis prepared for the 26M StreerlColorado Avenue and Stewart Street-28th
Street/Pico Boulevard intersections in the 2834 Colorado Avenue Draft EIR.
It is in terestingto note that had the EIR for the New Roads School project been prepared in a manner
, similar to the 2834 Colorado Avenue Projec~ it is likely that a finding of no significant traffic
, impacts would have occurred for the 26lh Street/Colorado Avenue and Stewart Street-28th
StreetPico Boulevard intersections related to the school project. A finding of no significant traffic
impac 1s may have also been detennined for the 20th Street/Olympic Boulevard intersection using the
traffic impact analysis methodology ~ployed in the 2834 Colorado Avenue Project Oraft Ellt, for
whicb the New Roads School is also obligated by the City to fund traffio signal improvements
, (Condtlon No. 36 of the New Roads School project approval). The 201b Street/Olympic Boulevard
, inters'~ction was not evaluated in the 2834 Colorado Avenue Project Draft ElR.
. In cOLclusion) it is recommended that the City of Santa Monica take one of the following actions in
conjunction with its review of the Draft Em prepared for the 2834 Colorado Avenue project:
1. Revise the Draft EIR for the 2834 Colorado Avenue Project utilizing the same base
data and traffic im,llact analysis prm;edures used in the New Roads School EIR for
purposes of assessingpoteotial tJ:affic impacts at the 26m Street/Colorado Avenue and
Stewart Street-28th Street/Pico Boulevard intersections. Based on the assumption
that signifi cant traffic impacts are identified atthese locations, the potential fair share
oontnoution towards the improvements previously conditioned to the New Roads
School projeot should be identified for the 2834 Colorado Avenue Project.
2. Rescind the prior Condition Nos. 36, 37 and 38 applied to the New Roads School
project based on the traffic impact analysis methodology used in the 2834 Colorado
Avenue Project Draft EIR, which has shown the study interseotions in the area to
operate at a substantiaUy improved Level of Service. thereby eliminating the prior
findings of significant traffic impacts related to the school project.
,-
234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 4011 . FIlllRdena, ClllifQmill 9110J
Telephone 6Zu.796.Z322 . Fu 616.792.0941 · E-mall sbender@llllcnglneen,etlm
. - 58-
I.
Ken Kutche);'
November 5. 2003
Page Four
~NOll'l~E~S
Pleasu call if you have any questions regarding our comments to the Draft EIR prepare for the 2834
Colondo Avenue Project in the City of Santa Monica,
O:I/OB.I1/.F.\J2/J911HJ41m.J:Mtdr.r."p<J
234 iEsit Colorado Boulevllrd, Suite "DO · PRStldeni, CRllfornla 91101
Telephone 67.6.796.%311 · FaI 62.6.792,.D!141 .' E-mlllI sbender@lIgCDgineel'll.com
. - 59-
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
'., _-h:,
Letter 9
COMMENTOR: KelUleth 1. Kutcher, Attorney, Harding, Larmore, Kutcher, & Kozal
DATE: November la, 2003
RESPONSE:
Response 9A
The conm1ent letter points out that the traffic study conducted as pm:t of the 2834 Colorado
Avenue Draft EIR reports substantially better projected cumulative conditions at the 26th
Street/ Colorado Avenue and StewaTt Street/Pico Boulevard intersections than were projected
in the traffic study conducted as part of the New Roads School EIR. The letter requests that
either the 2834 Colorado Draft EIR traffic analysis be revised to show a significant impact at
these two intersections, with the cost of mitigation shared between the New Roads School and
the 2834 Colorado project, or that the conditions of approval requiring the New Roads School to
implement mitigation at these two locations be eliminated.
The letter also suggests that the intersection of 20th Street/Olympic Boulevard should have been
studied in the 2834 Colorado Avenue Draft EIR to determine whether the proposed 2834
Colorado project may have a significant impact at that location for which the cost of mitigation
could be shared with New Roads School.
Each of these items is discussed below.
Cumulative Forecasts at 26th Street/Colorado Avenue and Stewart Street/Pico Boulevard
The conm1ent letter questions how the forecasts of cumulative traffic conditions at the two
intersections of interest could be so different between the two studies. In the intervening period
between preparation of the b'affic study for the New Roads School EIR and the b'affic shIdy for
the 2834 Colorado Avenue Draft EIR, the City of Santa Monica updated the citywide Tmffix
model used as the basis for b:affic studies in the city. As part of the update, a series of changes
were made to the Tmffix model to reflect updated conditions and methods. There were four
basic types of changes made to the model that affected the subject intersections, in pa.rticulal':
new ground counts (conducted in fa112002 as opposed to the older 1999 counts); a change in the
background b"affic growth factor; an updated set of future development projects included in the
cumulative forecasts; and a change in the level of service analysis methodology from the 1994
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operational method to the 2000 HCMoperationalmethod.
For reference, the following tables sunul1Crrize the existing and projected PM peak hour volumes
and the existing and cumulative plus project PM peak hom levels of service at the above
intersections, as reported in the two shldies.
,.
City of Santa Monica
. - 60-
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Comparison of PM Peak Hour Total Intersection Traffic Volumes
Existing Cumulative Cumulatfve Project Only
Intersection (2009) Plus
(1999) Base (2009) Project Traffic
26th S1. & Colorado Ave. 2,862 4,078 4,087 9
Stewart St. & Plea Blvd. 3,235 4,102 4,111 9
Volumes from New Roads Traffic Study
Existing Cumulative Cumulative Project Only
Intersection (201.2) Pius
(200.2) Base (201.2) Project Traffic
26th SI. & Colorado AVe. 3,228 3,724 3,738 14
Stewart St. & Plea Blvd. 3,505 4,005 4,009 4
Volumes from 2834 Colorado Traffic Study
Cumulative Cumulative
Intersection Existing Base Plus
Project
26th St. & Colorado AVe. +13% -9% -9%
Stewart S1. & PIca Blvd. +8% -2% -2%
Percent Difference
Comparison of PM Peak Hour Levels of Service Results
Using 1994 HCM Methodology & Volumes from New Roads Traffic Study
Cumulative (2009) Plus
Existing Conditions (1999) Project Conditions
Intersection VIC Delay LOS VIC Delay LOS
26th SI. & Colorado Ave. 0.581 10 B 1.793 H F
Stewart St. & Plco Blvd. 0.813 12 B 1.539 ... F
Using 20DO HCM Methodology & Volumes from 2834 Colorado Traffic Study
Cumulative (2012) Plus
Existing Condltfons (2002) Project Conditions
Intersection VIC Delay LOS VIC Delay LOS
26th St. & Colorado AVe. 0.675 16 B. 0.840 19 B
Stewart S1. & Plco Blvd. 0.891 19 B 1.026 35 C
** Indicates oversaturated conditions; delay cannot be calculated.
As indicated in the first table, the 2002 existing counts are 13% and 8% higher at 26th
Street/Colorado Avenue and Stewart Sb.'eet/Pico Boulevard, respectivelYr than the 1999 counts.
Comparison of the existing level of sendee calculations presented in the second table indicates
that the existing levels of service as reported in the two studies seem, to have changed
appropriatelYr with increases in V Ie and delay but stiU resulting in LOS B (1"lith the 2000 HCM
method).
,.
City of Santa Monica
--61-
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Even though the 2002 existing counts are higher than the 1999 counts, the cumulative h'affic
volumes as projected in the 2834 Colorado study are lower than those projected in the New
Roads study at the two intersections (9% less at 261h Street/Colorado Avenue and 2% less at
Stewart Street/Pica Boulevard). TIus differential is caused by two factors, TIle first is the '
change in the background b:affic growth rate used in the Tmffix model. The earlier Tmffix
model had assumed 1.5% per year, or 16% compounded over 10 years. Based on research into
historical growth b:ends over the past decade within the City of Santa Monica, the upgraded
Tmffix model assumes 0.8% per year, 01' 8% componnded over 10 years, half of the earlier factor.
TIle second reason for the difference in the projected cumulative traffic increases at the hvo
intersections relates to differences in the amount of h'affic added by related projects. The list of
development projects tlu'oughout the City of Santa Monica and beyond was updated as p8.1t.of
the Tmffix model update. TIle 18.1'gest difference affecting the subject intersections relates to the
treahnent of the AI'boretum project located generally between Cloverfield Boulevard, Olympic
Boulev8.1~d, 20th Street, and Colorado A venue in the model. Because tlle Arboretum project had
not been completed at the time of the 1999 counts used In tlle earlier version of tlle Tmffix
model, the Arboretum project was included in the list of future projects and its h'affic was
estimated and assigned to tlle street system as part of tlle future traffic forecasts in the earlier
model (and hence for the New Roads study). The Arboretum project was subsequently
completed and was therefore b:eated as a completed project in the Tmffix model upgrade (8.1ld
hence in the 2834 Colorado study), wluch is to say that its trips were assumed to be a part of the
existing trips connted in the 2002 existing counts and no additional future b:affic was added to
the cumulative forecasts for the Al'boretum project.
Finally, tlle 2000 HCM operational metI-lOd of intersection level of service calculation was used
in the updated Tmffix model (and hence for the 2834 Colorado study) rather th8.1l the older 1994
HCM operational method. TIle 2000 HeM method incorporates a number of en1l8.11Cements
over the 1994 HCM method, including modification of tlle delay algoritluns to include
deceleration and acceleration delay in addition to stopped delay, improved h8.1ldling of
oversaturated conditions, and improved handling of intersections Witll actuated signal conh'oI.
The 2000 HCM metllOd is generally recognized as providing better estimates of an intersection's
operating condition than 'the eaJ.-lier method.
In conclusion, the results cram the updated Trnffix model8.1'e believed to represent a reasonable
approximation of existing 8.1ld future h'affic conditions based on the updated data and methods
as known at the time of prep8.1'ation of the 2834 Colorado h'affic study.
20th Street/Olympic Boulevard
FoUl' intersections located between tlle project site and the 20th Sh'eet/Olympic Boulevard
intersection were studied in tlle h'affic study for tlle 2834 Colorado Avenue Draft EIR (26U,
Street/ Colorado Avenue, 26th Street/ Olympic Boulevard, Cloverfield Boulevmd/ Colorado
Avenue, 8.1ld Cloverfield Boulev8.1'd/Olympic Boulev8.1'd). Based on application of the City of
S8.1lta Monica's significance thresholds, it was determined tllat the proposed project would not
have a significaJlt impact at any of these foUl' intersections, Since project h'ips would continue
to disperse farther from the project, the project would not have a significant impact at 8.11
intersection such as 20lh Sb:ee tj Olympic Boulevard that is even farther from th~ project site and
to ,.vhich the project would add fewer h'ips.
r
City of Santa Monica
_ - 62-
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
As a point of comparison, the traffic study for the New Roads School EIR projected that the
New Roads School project would add approximately 76 trips to the 20th Street/Olympic
Boulevard intersection during the AM peak hour and about 34 trips during the PM peak hour.
Based on a review of projected project trips at the closest study intersections, the 2834 Colorado
project may only add about two to three incremental new h"ips during each peak hour.
It should also be noted that once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project
approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required.
Information appearing after approval of a project does not require re-opening of that approval.
A lead agency is not required to go back and Ie-do prior EIRs whenever the lead agency
updates methodologies or statistics. Moreover, the City canno~ in the context of its review of
the 2834 Colorado Avenue project amend conditions of approval for a wholly unrelated project.
Response 9B
The commentor expresses an opinion that the Draft EIR fails to evaluate the potentially
significant land use effects of the proposed text amendment to the LMSD zoning designation.
The commentor also questions the classification of the proposed text amendment as a "less than
significant" impact "without any study," per the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft EIR).
The commentor also notes that there was substantial debate over allowing multi-family housing
in the LMSD zone a decade ago and the City Council chose not to allow, conditionally or by
right, multi-family housing in the zone at that time because of adjacency and compatibility
issues.
As discussed in Item 9(b) of the Initial Study, the changes that are proposed to the LMSD zone
designation involve the inclusion of multi-family housing as one of the conditionally permitted
uses subject to a 45-foot height limit and a floor to area ratio (FAR) of 1.5. The inclusion of
multi-family housing as a conditionally permitted use in the LMSD zone is consistent with the
other types of housing (such as artist live/ work studios and transitional housing) already
allowed within the LMSD zone. Multi-fanilly housing in general would not generate
environmental impacts that are greater than those that would be generated by these other types
of housing.
Also, as discussed in Item 9(b), projects proposed in the LMSD zone are subject to architectural
review and those over 7,500 square feet (housing is an exemption with affordable units) require
a Development Review Permit. These additional levels of review, in combination with the fact
that multi-family housing would be subject to a conditional use permit, would ensure that such
projects are sufficiently reviewed for corripatibility with adjacent land uses. Furthermore, each
individual development proposal would be subject to environmental review under CEQA.
r
City of Santa Monica
-63-
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Comparison of Trip Generation for Various Uses Allowed in the LMSD Zone
Allowed Per Acre Dally Trip Average Dally
Land Use Development Generation
FARD Potential Rateb Traffic Per Acre
Light ManufacturIng 1.0 43,560 sf 6.97/1,000 sf 303
School 1,5 65,340 sf 13.27 / 1,000 sf 867
Auto Dealer 1.0 43,560 sf 2.21 / 1,000 sf 96
Restaurant 1.0 43,560 sf 130,34/1,000 sf 5,677
Multf-Famlly Residential 1.5 65 unllsc 6.6 / unit 429
· Per Section 9,04,08.35.050 ofthe Santa Monica Municipaf Code. The FAR of 1.5 for mufti-famify residentiaf uses
is proposed by the project app{(cant.
b From fnslitute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997,
C Assumes an average unit size of 1,000 square feet.
In addition, residential uses would have environmental impacts that are less than other uses
allowed in this zone. For instance, residential uses have less impact on the environment than
manufacturing uses with respect to such issues as noise, air quality, and hazardous materials.
The only exception is traffic, which may have a greater impact than manufacturing uses. The
above table provides a comparison of the estimated trip generations for several different uses
that are currentIy allowed within tile LMSD zone.
As shown, multi-family residential uses would generate more traffic than standard light
manufacturing uses, but would generate less traffic than other types of uses that are already
permitted within tile LMSD zone. It is not possible to anticipate the location and magnitude of
traffic impacts associated with possible future development proposals on other LMSD-zoned
properties without project-specific information, such as the number of total trips generated by
the development and the estimated distribution of traffic.
In addition, the h'affic study prepared for tile proposed project assumed an ambient growth rate
in tile City of 0.8% per year compounded annually, or a grOWtIl rate of about 8% over the
cumulative buildout period (2002 to 2012). Given the lack of vacant land in tile City, this rate is
assumed to encompass the growth that would be expected from the gradual change of non-
residential parcels to i'esidential uses. TIms, the cumulative traffic analysis presented in the
Draft EIR provides a reasonable estimate of future traffic conditions that could arise from the
development of residential uses on non-residential parcels, including HlOse within tile LMSD
zone. As discussed above, more specific quantification of tile environmental impacts resulting
from development of housing in the LMSD zone would be undertaken on a case-by-case basis
with each individual development proposal submitted to the City.
Finally, the fact tIlat the City Council rejected the idea of multi-family housing in the LMSD
zone ten years ago has no bearing on whether this is a viable optiqn for the City today. The
inclusion of multi-family housing as a conditionally permitted use in this zone would respond
to the City's growing need to provide housing, including affordable housing, for its residents.
Furthermore, tile proposed zone change responds directly to a goal of the Housing Element
(Goal 1.2), which specifically identifies the need to provide incentives for housing development
in non-residential zones, Implementation Program lA of tile Housing Element is also achieved
with this text amendment.
r
City of Santa Monica
-64-
rr
Appendix H
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
2834 Colorado Avenue Project
Prepared for:
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, California 90401
Prepared by:
Rincon Consultants, Ine.
790 East Santa Clara Street
Ventura, California 93001
January 2004
r
2834 Colorado Avenue Project EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the 2834
Colorado A venue Project proposed in the City of Santa Monica, California. Public Resources
Code Section 21081.6(a) requires that a Lead Agency adopt an MMRP prior to approving a
project in order to mitigate or avoid significant impacts that have been identified in an
Environmental Impact Report. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the required
mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report are implemented as part of
the overall project implementation. In addition to ensuring implementation of mitigation
measures, the MMRP provides feedback to agency staff and decision-makers during project
implementation, and identifies the need for enforcement action before irreversible
environmental damage occurs.
The following table summarizes the mitigation measures for each issue area identified in the
Environmental Impact Report for the 2834 Colorado A venue Project. The table identifies each
mitigation measure; the action required for the measure to be implemented; the time at which
the monitoring is to occur; the monitoring frequency; and the agency or party responsible for
ensuring that the monitoring is performed. In addition, the table includes columns for
compliance verification. These columns would be filled out by the monitoring agency or party
and would document monitoring compliance. Where an impact was identified to be less than
significant, no mitigation measures were required.
This MMRP will be used by City staff or the City's consultant to determine compliance with
permit conditions. Violations of these conditions may cause the City to revoke the operating
permit.
rr
City of Santa Monica
E
III
...
01
o
...
a.
01
r:::
o:::~
- 0
Wo.
t5 CLl
CLlD::
.~"C
e r:::
0... III
CLl 01
::l r:::
C ,-
CLl ...
>.9
<( ,-
r:::
o 0
-g2:
~ r:::
.2 0
o ,_
01ij
'<tCl
(Y):.i:i
OJ ,-
N2:
!:
o
'.;::::;
C'Cl
U
i;:::
.;::
CI>
>
CI>
U
!:
.!!!
c..
E
o
u
CI>
:c C5
'iij >- >-
!:ut::
o !: C'Cl
g. ~a.
~<C
Cl>-
!: U
.- !:
... CI>
.s ::::l
.- CT
!: CI>
o ...
2:LL.
o
-
!: ~...
CI> .- ::::l
.c:::C5u
:>_u
:> '-0
!:
o
2:
"C
!: f!:!
o ._
'.;::::; ::::l
UCT
<C CI>
0:::
iij
>
e
c..
c..
<C
....
o
!:
o
E
"C
!:
o
U
-
f!:!
::::l
1Il
C'Cl
CI>
2:
!:
o
~
Cl
E
2:
III
-
r:::
Q)
E
E
o
o
-
Q)
-
III
Cl
-
(ij
E
r:::
c
ro 0
.~ -g :~
o ro .;:::
2: 010
ro.!:: ~
...."CCLl
c:":'+-
ro ::l ro
(j)[JJ(j)
....
Cl'E
.~ ill c "'0 ~"S
:s 0.2 ~ ~ ~ .
"Cg>~5:iSClg>
~ is is.. CLl .Q ~ is
c co 0.."::;: ill lo.... co
o C>> co ~ 0.. E C>>
Q)~
u E
c ~
ro CLl
::l a.
.~ g>.~ .
.8i5:sg>
l..... co ""0 .-
.Q OJ"C -g
l..... If- C l.....
o...OroCl
"C
_ c
roroCl.
~ en.~ g>
-o'+-~OiJ
~~o.~ ~
5: ro 010 01
CLl 6.!:: E g>
.:;: 0.. "C "C .-
m 0.. ~ ill :s
0:: ro 01 <;::: "C
CLl - c
5eooe
E .~ 5 iii 0
o (/J .- "C
~Q)roc~ Q)
"C "C .~ ::l ro is
Q).815.2Cii 0
.!::"C ro 0l"C >- Ol
roQ)(j)CC'Sc
:E~Q)iSro_iS
o "Crod)Q)=
CQ)....OlC..Q::l
0..Q C Q) 'i:: = [JJ
:.+:::i=Q)l.....oro-
ror(5)(/J.r::..r::.ro
E-ljj~c(/J(/Jf!!
o Q) 0.2 (/J-t ~
1: ~ .8 co c 8...c
.- (/J Ol"C.Q Q) :J
~ ~ .~ ~ 10 ~ .c
l-....oE~~:!:::
o .r::. E U .- 5:
:>._ (/J 0 x C >-
"C"CCuQ)"5o..
~.aQ)2~C-2E
cnEro 0100
O - 0 > .'w Q) U
lll_ro(/JQ)OlO
en ,!,! Qj ~ 'ffi "C Q) ::
Cl r::: o.Q) 5:'ffi:5 Q)
.r::. >-"C Q) 5: c"C
Z O"C c"C .- 0
<( 2 .3 ro'w 0l"C
>- 0 (/J C C .!:: Q) .!::
CLl ro 0 0 .!:: .!:: "C
C) (!) .~ ~ ~ 19 19 2 .
Ol?E~~~5~{l
...JM'uuuc-uEro
o Q)XXOlQ)Q)"C
o 0 Q) Q) .- "C - C
WWQ)Q)Q)(/Jroo.ro
(!) C) CJ :5 :5 .gJ OJ.~ (j)
C
ro 0
.~ -g :~
o ro.;:::
2: 010
ro.!:: ~
...."CQ)
c:":'+-
ro ::l ro
(j)[JJ(j)
....
OlE c
.~ ~ 5 -g ~ ~ 2
::l .- ro ro 0 u
"C g>1O 5:~-a,2
Q)iS,gQ)O::l(j)
g ~ ~ s: .~ e 5
O..Q ro ~ 0.:5 u
Q)
u
C
ro
::l Ol C
(/J C"C 0
.~ is c 1:5
o=ro ::l
+-'E~ Ol.p
o co E.~ ~
(to~-@8
"C
C
ro Ol
(/J C
C ";;::
"C_roo 5
~ _0 o..:!:::c
\U t5
5:roOlO ::l
Q) 6.!:: E Ol.t:;
"> 0. ~ :Q .~ ~
~ 2-E~-@ 8
C
ro 0
.~ -g :~
o ro .;:::
2: 010
ro.!:: ~
...."CQ)
c:":'+-
ro ::l ro
(j)[JJ(j)
....
OlE c
.~ ~ 5 -g ~ ~ 2
::l .- ro ro 0 u
"C g>1O 5:~-a,2
Q)iS,gQ)O::l(j)
g ~ ~ s: .~ e 5
O..Q ro ~ 0.:5 u
Q)
u
C
ro
::l Ol C
(/J C"C 0
.~ is c 1:5
o=ro ::l
+-'E~ Ol.p
o co E.~ ~
(to~-@8
"C
C
ro Ol
(/J C
C ";;::
"C_roo 5
~ _0 o..:!:::c
\U t5
5:roOlO ::l
Q) 6 .!:: E Ol.t:;
"> 0. ~ :Q .~ ~
~ 2-E~-@ 8
Q) Ol
-5 .~ Q)
l..... l:J 0 ..0 t)
0= .... =ro
If- E .~ -a ~ C
a,....Q) (/J~.r::. (/JO
.- C..c Q) Q) 0) 3: Q) ~ .
ffl Q)E::::.r::. g>.w > Ol Qj >-
"C .- I- ro Q) >- ro .... "C
Q)tl.....-.l.....""oo.l.....CO:::J
.r::. ~2 Q)ro Q) E ~5:(j)
~ co ~ ~ .g :: 8 0) 0 co
E. 1! "C .~ .8 ro 0 .!:: (/J .52
+-'C..ccn..c+-' ~t)c
,!!! 5: ~ .... E (/J"C ~ & "5Q)
C:Ol.....rol.....EC
lll-Q) Ol.... Q) Q) ro Q) Q)....
.r::.~OlC"C....Ol .r::.Q)0
o ~ c 0)"00 (/) c ~.~ ~
CLl Q).:;: (/J C ~ is 0 ~ Q)
2:g>0~0_0 (/J~.r::.
-~Eo.uro.2ui ....
Ctlrn >'+-"'T"'Irooc
> Ol ~ ~ 'ffi 0 E ~ 5: u .-
o _ .r::.E ro ....(/J
EOloo(/JQ)o"C=(/Jc
Q,) .~ +-' C l..... ~ C <(.~ 0
""~ E:!::: 0lQ) Q)2 . roOl~
..... ro (/J r[J .- .r::. Ol (/J 01 w
:;; o.'c 5 ffll- ~ Q) r::: ro "C
.;: "'0 co 0 "'0 co "'0 &;: t) ~
~ c"5-ljjro <ri 010 02 E
.;:: ~ Q) >- > ~ 010 !:! 0 E
....~E~O~COlo.~o.
r::: Ol .... E >.- C'" 0
::J l..... co .3 l:J ~.- Q,) 0 ()
oQ)l.....(/)~cro:Q....+-'~
... "C Q) _ ~ ::l 0.'5 lll"C
C)3:-Q~2eQ)[JJ$21!
- (/) .- co O)..c - - 0 +-'
..QQjcc:> ....roOOOl
-> o..c > O+-, C/) -l..... C
('I) ~ u al -g ~ ~ Qj C? e-.:::;
o ,=....::l....>>OQ)
W Q) ro 0 0 a. Q) '1': W 10 .2
C) 5 -ljj gJ, OJ.gJ o..:J C) 5: :2
C06+-'
U ._ C
.- +-' Q)
5 ~ E
2:OQ)c
o.OlO
ro (/J ro .-
+-'ccC/)
~ ~ ro :~
(j)1-2:0
<Ii
u
C
o
~o
~2
::l ro
~.g ~
.- 'E C
.8~~
o co a
.;;:: If- ()
0...00
10
:5
2
C
C Q)c-o
o E Q) Q)
~ >- Q) Q) +-'
uro>..Q~
<;:::5:eQ)o.
.~ -g a. > E
> e .~ ~ 8
C
o
tj
.8.8~
"C(/JQ)
~cc
.- Q)'-
~E"C
Q)Q)2
~ > u
Q)o~
..Q 0.. ro
mEQ)
.r::.=.r::.
(/Jro....
c6ro
~i\lE
:"=l.....Q)
~ ~ en
Uroo~
LL Q)"c >-
LL~~~
<( -"C
0::: .l!i .~ ~
I- r::: (/J ~
-CLl>-Q)
Z E -5..:6
o CLl Ol-
- > C 0
I- !:!'5 ~
<(I- a. 6 T5
E = ro
0:::-.22-
O~Q)u
5::6Q)
~"Cc:6
"'. III Q) Q)
Z & E (/J
<( ~~
0::: ...... a. ~
I- ~ .~ .~
III
o
'i::
o
:iE
,l!J
c::
III
Vl
.....
o
~
U
N
Q)
10 _
~ C/)
C/) ~ ill
~ Q)C
10 al~
roEc~
C::l:!2Q)
.Q> ~ ~ =0
~~5:-E
iE"C~O
ro C ::l U
~~~Q)-.
Q)..Q Q) Ol (/J
:6(j)E~-g
~Q)cOlQ)
is 5: O'w.r::.
~E~~~
l..... :+::::i C 0)
<Ii .2 'E a 'w
~ ~ .~ C Q
Q)ro.r::.o"C
<(>.r::.;:::i\l C
o.Ocro
.g E 6 15 ~-
ro.3""Eo
.Q~J98~
0~~Q)Q)
oroEE"C
"CQ)Q)O _
~ :-Q o..~ ~
.... 6 E 0 ~
Q)l.....-cCO
~a. .O+-'
+-' 0 c .00 ~
(j) .... Q)'- E
~5Ee _
5:i\l~o.ffl
2uOQ)(5
(j).2 E:6 a.
~
E
III
...
0)
o
...
a.
0)
c
o:::~
- 0
Wo.
t5 CLl
CLlD::
'~"C
e c
0... III
CLl 0)
::l C
C ,-
CLl ...
>.9
<( ,-
c
o 0
-g2:
~ c
.2 0
o ,_
01ij
'<to)
(Y):.i:i
OJ ,-
N2:
!:
o
'.;::::;
C'Cl
U
i;:::
.;::
CI>
>
CI>
U
!:
.!!!
c..
E
o
u
CI>
:c C5
'iij >- >-
!:ut::
o !: C'Cl
g. ~a.
~<C
Cl>-
!: U
.- !:
... CI>
.s ::::l
.- CT
!: CI>
o ...
2:LL.
o
-
!: ~...
CI> .- ::::l
.c:::C5u
:>_u
:> '-0
!:
o
2:
"C
g ~
'.;::::; ::::l
UCT
<C CI>
0:::
iij
>
e
c..
c..
<C
....
o
!:
o
E
"C
!:
o
U
-
~
::::l
1Il
C'Cl
CI>
2:
!:
o
~
Cl
E
2:
III
-
c
Q)
E
E
o
o
-
Q)
-
III
Cl
-
(ij
E
c
c
ro 0
.~ -g :~
o ro .2::
2: 0)0
ro.!:: ~
...."CCLl
c:":'+-
ro ::l ro
(j)[JJ(j)
c CLl
~ U c'
o.C
l..... 0 .Q
J2.--o-ro
5 - U
~.~ ~ ~
c > l..... ill
O~.2>
:i:::q5 c
roE:;::::; ro
:> _~ro _
[; OCLlu 0
> CLl a.,!:: CLl
CLlOUOlWOU
l.....+-,cc>+-,c
co~~-ao~
~ "L: ~ ":i ill "L: ~
0... 0.._ ..Q <;::::: 0.._
o .
"C....~
CLl c Ol c
..c:roCro
+-' ";;:: .-
"C_~oo..
cO~:!:::E
ro-o.co
5~0l~U
.~ e.!:: ~
> 0..1: :Q ";;::
~ 2-,g>~ ~
c ooro
0) co :.j::i
.~ 00 ~
"C ~"C
ro .8 ~ .~
..c c (/) l.....
cnoG.-c
+--(/),+-O)
ct)ou
roQ)~ro
,gB~iJ
o..l.....:: co
2-~2ro
(/)Q)-a,~0l
..c:.- 0 c
I- I- -;; e-:E
U .COOl
W 0).... U =
LL :S ~ .!:: .!::
WLL..c:~roQ)
C)l......!: (/)
:>0 :.:i 1il 00 ~
>....cg>t>
o 0 Q) .- c
Cl '~ .8 ~ .~
<(><Ol~ro
:::c w .!:: .g c
(/) "C 1: Q) Q)
- CLl Ol.... >
(/)"C=ti:j~
U]ig> .0.
1-..c:'6~.8
W en '5 115 2
J: ~ ~ c .~
~ ~.g ~ g- .
W ~ 2 .~ 0. ~
<(<(~-g2-~
c
ro 0
.~ -g :~
o ro.2::
2: 010
ro.!:: ~
...."CQ)
c:":'+-
ro ::l ro
(j)[JJ(j)
c Q)
~ U c'
o.c
l..... 0 .Q
J2.--o-ro
5 - U
~.~ ~ ~
c > l..... ill
O~.2>
:i:::q5 c
roE:;::::; ro
5 _~ro -
G' Q) OQ)u 0
c '>- Q) a. '!:: Q)
UOll..... ()
~~~.8cc~.8c
::lEc~ro'6 ~ro
u~~o::l-"Co::l
() Q) ~ ";;:: ~ "::i ill";;:: ~
o a. 0... o.._..Q <;::::: 0.._
o .
"C....~
Q)COlc
..c:roCro
+-' ";;:: .-
"C_~oo..
cO~:!:::E
ro-o.co
5~0l~U
.~ e.!:: ~
> o..1::Q";;::
~ 2-,g>~ ~
5....
o u
~ ~
~iJ
5 0
Q)"C....
o.Q)"C
ro ..c: Q)
UOO"C
{l '5. ~
cE..c:
ro 0 00
-lUQ)
. g..Q
c -
OQ)ro
;..o..c
III = 00
croOl
'-..c: c
E 00.-
-= 0) 1:: ~
_ c.~ Q)
-:;::::;-5
CLl..c:..c:Q)
a. Ol U ._
lll=::l>
Oc(j)Q)
III Ol :!:::
"C 'w en 00
cl.....Q)tt::
III 0 ~ 0
-l 'C .3 E
"C 2 .~ 0
Q,) X If- l.....
"CQ)Q)-
Qj "C .2:: >-
,- c 00 ro
..c: ro ::l 5
enc:Ero
:o2g~
-CO:::JO
Nc a.
rh 'E Qj- ....
W ::l >..c:
<(:=~,g>
c
ro 0
.~ -g :~
o ro .2::
2: 010
ro.!:: ~
...."CQ)
c:":'+-
ro ::l ro
(j)[JJ(j)
c Q)
~ U c'
o.c
l..... 0 .Q
J2.--o-ro
5 - U
~.~ ~ ~
c > l..... ill
O~.2>
:i=- 5 c
roE:;::::; ro
5 _~ro -
G' Q) OQ)u 0
c > Q)o.,!:: Q)
ro . Q) 0 U Ol W 0 U
o..:t::: l..... +-' C C > +-' C
::JEcl.....coi) l.....CO
U~~o::l-"Co::l
() Q) ~ ";;:: ~ ":i ill ";;:: ~
o a. 0... 0.._ ..Q <;::::: 0.._
~0<Ii
~.... U
Q)cOlc
..c:rocro
+-' c ";;:: :..=
"C_rooo.
~~0..'E E
5~g>08
.~ e '6 E ~
> a. - "C 'C
~ 2-E ~ ~
Ol 00
.~ - 0 t>
~ co ~ .~
OJ ~.~ e
0) +-' C a.
c c Q) Q)
.- Q) +-' ..c
-g E 8.;:::
(3o.Q)o
c 0 ~
.- Qj ro ~
.Q1- 5i OJ Q)
.~ 0 ~.:;:
ill .::J"E
....Q)"Cro
~ Co ~ 5
..c:OJ.8~
.~ ~ 00 0
c .- ro "C
u:: E.c Q)
.:~ 2 ~
..!!!Ero..c:
,!!;! 0 E >-
.... +-' 0) co
2~.!:: E
CO .- If- +-'
2:,s8ro
u~..c:
~~Q)::::
..!!! Qj.2:: ~
C)~t5E
5~~o.
o-Q).2
-l ro ~ Q)
~o~5i
o -"C
~Q)Q)>-
~..Q"c..Q
f:3ro~roe5
<( ~.!:: ~ e
III
o
'i::
o
:iE
,l!J
c::
III
Vl
.....
o
~
U
C06+-'
U ._ C
.- +-' Q)
5~E
2:0Q)c
o.OlO
ro 00 ro.-
+-'CcC/)
~ ~ ro:~
(j)1-2:0
~
c 0
ro -
0.. ~ C
l..... co 0
.2 :;:-~ ~
~ .~ .g -a ~
c>Q)QjQ)
o ~ 0.<;::::: >
G'
c
ro .
o..:t:::
::l E
U ~
U Q)
o a.
~
.Q ro . _ c
o.OEg g>
5Q)~ro'6 5
.~ g ~ ~ ~ t5
> ro Ol'C Ol
~::JcQ)O) 2
en .- > c en
~ .~ -g :Q 'c"C c
0:: .8 OJ~ -@ ~ 8
c <Ii
.Q g
ro "C 0 .~
l:J ~ C 0) ill +-' "'Q.
~ 02'E<;::::: g>E
ro U E "C._ 0
5>2....coU
.~ e en ~ co :t= ~
> a. c a. c c 'C
Q)o.oE~oQ)
0:: ro U ._ a. E >
c:0
Q)
ro :6
..c: .6- Ol
00
c.B c
ro '6
ro c > c
U ro 0 Q)
'5. 0:: g> 0. a.
0.. c ";;:: 0.. E
ro 0 ::l ro -
:+:::il:Jl:J 0
1! ~c c .I!l
I- .- Q) ro .. 00
:t= 50l .~
c: 2: E Q) .!::
III .... Q).- 5 0
_uOl>O
a.roroQ)= E
o..cl.....o
gEro.8~ Q)
00
,- E t5 ..c: .;;:
(/) 1ijc~Q)"" "C
0) 0 .- .~ Q) ro
I- :.;;t5~-g-a .8
U ,- ::l a. 00 ~
W 2:~roQ)u E
LL -0 ~ U ..Q .!:: ro
III 0 g>= co OJ
LL o.O:2~..c: 0
W E ro ~ 00 00 0.
Z ~c~cE- c
0 oQ)"C~::l 0
:;::;Eco.E 15
I- o Q) ro.~'c E
U ::l 0.. U ..c: .- 0
:::l l:oElt:I-E -
~ .- ~ . ro c
c::: o""O+-'c+-, .~
C l..... 0 co
I- u ro.2u - :0
(/) ...... Q)Q)::l"C ::l
Z l..... l:J l..... C a.
Z ro ._ en ro <(
0 0 g-6c~ ~
U l..... l..... 0 .-
U o.o.uO .
E
III
...
01
o
...
a.
01
r:::
:;::;
~ 0
Wa.
.... Qj
ale::
'e-g
0... III
Qj 01
::l r:::
~ ';::
>.9
<( 'i:
o 0
-g2:
~ r:::
-@ ,Q
01ij
~~
~~
!: III
-
0 r:::
~ Q)
E
U E
i;::: 0
.;:: 0
Q)
>
Q) Q)
U -
III
!: Cl
.!!!
c.. (ij
E
0 ;+:;
U r:::
Q)
:c C5
'iij >- >-
!:ut::
o !: C'Cl
Q.Q)Q.
IIIOl
~<C
Ol>-
!: U
.- !:
... Q)
.s ::::l
.- CT
!: Q)
o ...
2:LL.
o
-
!: ~...
Q) ._ ::::l
.c:::C5u
:>_u
:> '-0
!:
o
2:
"C
!: f!:!
o ._
'.;::::; ::::l
UCT
<C Q)
0:::
iij
>
e
Q.
Q.
<C
....
o
!:
o
E
"C
!:
o
U
~
::::l
III
C'Cl
Q)
2:
!:
o
~
Ol
'.;::::;
~
III
o
'i::
o
:iE
,l!J
c::
III
Vl
.....
o
~
U
C
ro 0
.~ -g :~
o ro .2::
2: 010
ro.!:: ~
....-OQj
c:":'+-
ro ::l ro
(j)[JJ(j)
01
>-~ C
= ro 0
~ C>> t5
iJO) 2
Oc en
";;::";;::""'0 C
Qj ::l C 0
o...-orou
01
C
is 6
~ t5
0) .s
C (/)
";;::""0 c
::l C 0
Orou
-
o C
C 0
o .-
+=i ~
ro Q)
u ~
~a.
ill 0.. .
> ::l (/)
(/) C
-0....0
men:.+:::;
._ ::l U
LL-Oro
'<t
.2:f c c
(/) (/) C ~-g ~~ 0 .(/) ~~
C .~ 0 Q) Ero ~>-.... Q) a.(/)
o UU-l ....:>c C -O(/)= (/)._ (ii >-.c o::l
.- U . - C = - 0:> 0 0 U Q) ~ ..>::: Q) (/) ._ ro .... _ -0
Q) n=~Q)~....(/) .... ~~ ._~~....-oro U .cro ~Q) Eo Q)Cl
01 ::l~(/)Cl::lC Q) U n-LcQ)E::l Q).... .... >
ro ~::l2roo...Q)E~ > ~::l ::l~ro~a.'c ~ ~~Q)ro ~t Q).!::
~ (/) a. ::l -0 - Qj l;:::: ro ~ ~ .... (/) E -0 a. _ 01..>::: :5 E ._ 0 -0 .!::
Q) 6Be20~.c (/) ~~ ~~~roc=~o ro~c-o ~~.Q)2
E U .!::"S al C Qj (j) .~ ~ 8 0 Q) al .... ro ~ 0... 6 -0 ~ E C _ C rl :5 ~
Q) >-....roll=Q)>~ c:> ua.c(/)~(/)._ 2 ~ro (/)ro._>-
~~~~.croEQ)c Q) Q)~ -oc(/)~"S(/)8E al~5:c Qj~6~O
ro.... c=tO::l 01 .cu cOro-UW"E lI=::l....Q) ~~""-o-
t'm~EClroro~o ro ....Q) roo Q)'-Q)~o roocE o=~Q)ro
S.c. a.~O -0 Cl'~ ClCc.c.c~-o~ ~Q) :>::lro....O
8. C - U Q) 0 Q) 'c Q) C e C Qj Q) .... Q) en C a. .c.c E.9- :> .c.... ro 01
-,g-oro';:-;;;O::l~ n iSa..-=<j:::EQ)::~ro-o j-Z;a.::l C(/)~Qjro
&u~e~Q)~EQj Q) ~Q)5:~roa.~c~2:C e'sg .Q.c(j)c.c
ro 2 '5 g .2:: "S C E 01 1i5 0:5 0 .c -0'5 ro 2l 0 <( ro gJ, ro g _ n '5 _ & ~
~""~Q)n-oQ)oc ~ ~_c~uroc Q) c~ 0 ::l:>o 5:
~~~Clro~Eo<( :5 ~~.Q.~roQ)B~08i ~Cl-gc ~c~enE
oOu~cQ)ui-o(/) .~ (/)iS1i5Q)~-O..>:::ro..>:::~~ i.!::ro.Q c,g'O-::l::l
U . .C(/)(/) co~ (/)~~~._C~ ~ =.... Oro 0
roQ)(/)'-::l a.ro-l(/)..>::: ....ro.... crooQ)~_o EO(iiro uUQ) E
is:5 ~ ~ W 6 c3 01 t-.~ 0 i g> (ii EO(/) 5::5 :> ~ B c -E .~ E Cl.Q:5 c:'c
Q)~~~~~Q).!::::lg5: ~~~6EwoBQ)E~(/)'_,g0~= .!::Q)>-O'~
E ro..>:::....::l~coQ)c cO'-Q)Q) Q) o..>:::(/)UU -0 ..>:::~~:;::;
- (/) 0 ~ (/) ~ u:: cOOl 0 . - Q).Q c ~ .c ~ ~ U >-.c g >- ::l 0 E c -g ~ E ~ III ro
~~~~Qj(/) -~~ro~~:5~....o""~~croQ)~~~ croroa.Q)ro~o
<Ii'm 0 :>.c 6 C 0... .Q ~ ::l 0 ~ E a. E 01 0 is ~ -0 .c _ -6 ~.gJ 0 ro . _ W ~ (/) E....
~ ~c~uQ)oQj~~5:S~2~'~ClQ)Q)>-""Orooo~~.QQ)ro(/)_li
(/)6~.Q -E a.ro(/)-cS(/) ::lCa.trocClOU.c::lro~~_2lr:::Q)
.~~on~otC::l~60ro.!::iS-o-O'C~2~i,!::~~w~">:::::l~0Q)~">:::"
~roQ)2rocroQ)(j)-out~u~~~ro-o.!::Q)~::l~a.E~oa.lI=Q)c_Q)1
~E.c""~.Q~E~c-2-~~tQ)~c-oQ)~Q)~_ o:>Q)o~-oIll~O
u~....(/)O~ tcroo(/)e.c....._>uroc>Q)::lroocu:>:5_ Q)::l==
ro S E c - U 0 ro::l - co.... Q) ro -0 = -0 ro > ~ ~ c Cl~ _ -0 0 Q) c ro 0
cc08~l;::::Q)a.OCO....6a..cCl~C~c~-oOOCa.02Bc:5.~Cl.c_
Q~~~5:~gQ)oQ)~oU(/)-;;;.!::_ro=OOQ)ClCl~~Q)ro~.QQ)~~(/)~
~c-o~COO(/)Ec.cU(/)Q)Nro(/)::l~~Ecc-o~ClC=.~-oQ)lll(/)
gro~!9>-0"'~~tiSa.E~E.~.c-oi~.QOE.SQ)~~.~~>::lW~.~2
~ (/)- e ::l (/) Qj c ~ Q) ro ~ (/) ro ::l .2:: .- 2 .g .c ~ lI= t E Q) ~ 0 0 ~'m e U -0 z' :!::: 'm
~ca.B~EClO~~8~~un~roEQ)a.~~~~~~(j)~m-o.50"'.!::~O~Q)
8.~~~.~~~S<(oO-o<(.!::ro~ . ug:5
. ...
.
.
.
.
.
~
E
III
...
01
o
...
a.
01
r:::
o:::~
- 0
Wo.
t5 CLl
CLlD::
'~"C
e r:::
0... III
CLl 01
::l r:::
C ,-
CLl ...
>.9
<( ,-
r:::
o 0
-g2:
~ r:::
.2 0
o ,_
01ij
'<tCl
(Y):.i:i
OJ ,-
N2:
!:
o
'.;::::;
C'Cl
U
i;:::
.;::
CI>
>
CI>
U
!:
.!!!
c..
E
o
u
CI>
:c C5
'iij >- >-
!:ut::
o !: C'Cl
c..CI>Q.
lIlCl
~<C
Cl>-
!: U
.- !:
... CI>
.s ::::l
.- CT
!: CI>
o ...
2:LL.
o
-
!: ~...
CI> .- ::::l
.c:::C5u
:>_u
:> '-0
!:
o
2:
"C
g ~
'.;::::; ::::l
UCT
<C CI>
0:::
iij
>
e
c..
c..
<C
....
o
!:
o
E
"C
!:
o
U
-
~
::::l
1Il
C'Cl
CI>
2:
!:
o
~
Cl
E
2:
III
-
r:::
Q)
E
E
o
o
Q)
-
III
Cl
(ij
E
r:::
C
ro 0
.~ -g :~
o ro .2::
2: 010
ro.!:: ~
...."CCLl
c:":'+-
ro ::l ro
(j)[JJ(j)
....
01 .~ "C C
.!:: CLl C "C ~:5 C .2
:J Q.B ~ ~ ~ co t)
"C g>rl5:iS Clg>.s
~ is '5..~.g ~ is ~
c~a.>Q)l.....~o
o Clro ~ 0.:5 ClU
....
ro E c
'OWCl-gO
CLl a..!:: ro t5
.sgg>:sg>2
l..... co .- l:J .- en
O::l"C"C"Cc
"C ~ ~ c ~ 0
0... ._ 01 ro 01 U
"C 0 .
c.... CLl
- U
roroClc
~ ~.~ ~
"C-rooo.
~~0..'E E
5:~g>~8
CLl 0._ ~
.:;: 0.. "C "C .-
Q)o..~Q)G:i
0:: ro 01<;::: >
"C C
~ E Q) WLD 0)
mID ~Ol:J~~ ~c c
~~ '~ro ~~~ro(/) Q)O 5:
.~ ~ ~ -g ..c Ol ~ -g -g ->:::_ 1ij .~
~o...c o~~ ~~(/)ro~ -gw 0
o_~-; _Q)Q) E~EOlX w~E'~
cOC C"C- Q) .....!::Q) >Ol<(..c
o .- o'~u ....o.E-c"C 0.... ....
:;::;~iiiQ):;::; "C (/)E ~c U(/).....
rouQ)~ro"Cc ~ro::lEoE'5 Q)::llll~
>::l-Q)>cro~"C > ~"Cr:::
rl~Euroro.... Q).....2~w ....oE
x~0(/)~2~ ~~'~2> ~~~~..
Q)2~.~Q)Q)5: '~E ~~ ..c>"C::l~
ol ro ~ 5 ol ~ (/) a. Q) ro Q) Q) ~ ~ g E .2
c5:::l:;::;C(/)Q) ~6~:5..c ~o.UQ)(/)
'~~~g'~~~ oE ..!::~ ~B~~'~
E'~~~E'~~ ~Q)~(/)C O~CLlQ)Q)
..c2>~..c2(/) uu(/)~ro ~~E:5x
Lro~l:JLrol..... 2EQ)l.....~ cc~cO
~Eo...c~E2 ~~:5;"C ~B~oZ
-:==Bg -:==~>-2_OluQ) ...._C""CQ)
Olc~l:JQ)O)c~.;::~roo.~>::l(/)E Q).6W~U
Q) Q) > 00 l..... 00 C ~ ~
.-0 ~'-OQ) >-ro ~ o-o~"CQ)
"C....(/)Q)"C....o.Q) _wQ)co E~ ~
~::l::l~~::l 5:c~-5:- ~~c~
OlUQ)roOlU2Q)oroEo"C ~5:oQ)o
'+-~~ '+-.~u~- l:JQ) ~l:J2Eo.~
olOo~olOQ)'~::lro_eOlw~ Q)_ Q)
.!:: c .... ~ .!:: c ..c .,::; ~ a..... .!:: 0.. ::l -g 10 III'S"C
~.2Q)u~.2""_(/)Q)(/)=Eo=Q)r:::C"~
ro~l.....roro~'+-ocQ)~Q) ~a.l.....OQ)O
Q)roro Q)roo o,,~>o~->:::""U c
ut(/)Q)ut....Eu~~>uQ)uo c._
Ol 8.. E 10 Ol 8.. ~ ::l Ol B C Q) .~ a. B ~.2 (/)
.!::~2~.!::~~.~.!::"C~~->:::~=~0~~~.~
:sro~u:sroLD.~:s~~~~~o I~~
o~(/)BO~~EO::lo..!::5:E(j)EZ(/)"C
occ
u88
.
.
.
.
ill ~ l..... ~
~ ~ "5> -g 0 c-
c c ~ ro (/) Q)
Q) 2 (/) o.E
Ti ~ Q)Q)Q)Eo.
.- C Q) :O::l .-
g> ~ ::0 0, '5,'~ ~ ~
1ij..c ~ ~~~Q)Q)
l..... 0) I If- en .52
Q)::J 2 "'=tG:i~o.p
g-e C O~ 0 U
..c 'co .... E "C ~ Q)
c; E NroQ)(/)W
Q)Q) ..c..croro~
EN Q) ~u~..c~
a. .- ~ 5: c c U"C
'S .~ ~ (/) "C .2 '-Q) 1il Q)
C"C ::lcQ).... U
Q) .~ E.2 a. ~ ~ C ~
a Q) . - .... 10 .~ ~ ro Q) ~
~(/) cu C"E..c E~
~ .... ~ ~ '[j Q) 8 (/) .9- Q)
U (/).- Q) Q) Q) (/) ::l ~
Q) ::J t) .9- 0....0 l..... ill rr l:J
'0.. E ~ ::l (/) = a. t Q) ~
a ~ a. g _(/) ro 0 Q) -g 0
l.....~ccG3~-aEG:i~
Q) Q) 0 ~ .... ~ 0 >
~gE:;::;.3cElu6~
ECQ)UUQ)Q)Uo.O,
::Jro0)2~El.....+=i....!...ro~
c'=:: CO+-':::J o..O)~Q) l.......o
Q)::l C ~ C 'S.!:: El (/) ~.~
..c E ro 0 ro C" E ro .~ Q) ro
I- .~ E 0 E W :;::; 0 0 Ol 2
.
.
.
. .
III
o
'i::
o
:iE
,l!J
c::
III
Vl
.....
o
~
U
L!)
....
C
Q)
~ E .
~o.Q)
.- E
"C ::l.-
Q) C"....
U Q) Q)
::l C C
"Coo
~u ~
Q) ::l ro
..o.::::;+--
=(/)ro
roc....
..coc
(/) U Q)
c~E
.2 ::l .9-
t)l:J::J
::l~C"
~ > Q)
woo'+-
C Q) 0
o ..c (/)
U _ Q)
OlOU
C C .~
"C 0 a.
il1ijL!)
en ill c
co.ro
ooE
.~ Q) Q)
.~ ..c 0
E-;E
Q) C
X:..j::i 0
O'~ C
z=B
.
~
E
III
...
01
o
...
a.
01
r:::
o:::~
- 0
Wo.
U CLl
CLlD::
.~"C
e r:::
0... III
CLl 01
::l r:::
C ,-
CLl ...
>.9
<( ,-
r:::
o 0
-g2:
~ r:::
.2 0
o ,_
01ij
'<t0l
(Y):.i:i
OJ ,-
N2:
!: III
-
0 r:::
'.;::::; Q)
C'Cl E
U E
i;:::
.;:: 0
Q) 0
>
Q) Q)
U -
!: III
.!!! Cl
c..
E (ij
0 E
U r:::
-
Q)
:c C5
'iij >- >-
!:ut::
o !: C'Cl
g. ~a.
~<C
Cl>-
!: U
.- !:
... Q)
.s ::::l
.- CT
!: Q)
o ...
2:LL.
o
-
!: ~...
Q) ._ ::::l
.c:::C5u
:>_u
:> '-0
!:
o
2:
"C
g ~
'.;::::; ::::l
UCT
<C Q)
0:::
iij
>
e
c..
c..
<C
....
o
!:
o
E
"C
!:
o
U
-
~
::::l
III
C'Cl
Q)
2:
!:
o
~
Cl
E
2:
C
ro 0
.~ -g :~
o ro .2::
2: 010
ro.!:: ~
...."CCLl
c:":'+-
ro ::l ro
(j)[JJ(j)
.... CLl
OlE ~ C
.!:: CLl C "C ~:5 ..c 0
~o.OCrooo. tj
-@ Ol+=> ro U..c Ol
cro5'OOlC 2
CLl'O,gCLlO::l+=> en
g = a..;;: 'C 0 .!:: C
o E 2- ~ ~E ~ a 8
CLl
g OJ
~Ol 13
(/) C -e .!::
.~ ~ ~ ~
.8E~ 0)
o co E .~
~ 0 ~-@
Ol 0
en .~ If- +-' aj
coo (/) U
.!llo.~ Ol Ol C
C C C ro
CO:.+::iiJ=-=
oEc=o.
- +=> 'm::l E
o u-e 0...0 0
52w Q)U
.~ en <;::: g> ~ ~
> c l:J.S:: c.p.s::
$OC::lcQ)
,-,-uro-eo>
(/)~-e
g>(/)-S
+=>c~
ro ro >
o u (/)
u = Ol .
-o.cQ)
~ 0.. +=i :0
::l ro ro .-
u-eo(/)
Q) C U ro
~ro..c2
{3 Q).52 Q)
l..... ::o..c Q)
ro 'w 5 0,
OroQ)Q)
02.!:: -e
> ~ E E
::!. Q) ~ ::l
65i2E
--l C Q) 'x
Q) -e ro
iii ..c .8 E
0150 Q)
:E52::5
lll+=>00
og<(....
U.t:;O~
u(/)(j)o
o 5 Q) 'w
> u :5 .~
'c E
5: .-:5 Q)
..9 -g .~ 0
~~20
~Q) ~>
~..o'02l
Z=~::l
oroO-e
U..cOQ)
(/) u ~
C
ro 0
.~ -g :~
o ro .2::
2: 010
ro.!:: ~
....-eQ)
c:":'+-
ro ::l ro
(j)[JJ(j)
Ol
C
>-'0 C
= ro 0
~ C>> t5
is 0) .s
.Q C (/)
l..... "C l:J c
~-@~8
Ol
C
'0 C
~ 0
0) 1:5
Ol 2
C en
"C l:J c
6~8
-
o
C
o
10
u Q)
i.i= ()
"C C
Q) ro
>=
-eo.
~ ~
LL U
ro..c
..c ....
~ .~
c-e
Q) Q)
E a.
0..9-
'5 ~
gQ)
- Q)
Q)..o
(/)
.~ ro
-e..c
- (/)
<(-e
C
iii ro
... (/)
CLl ~
- 0
:::: 0
::l-e
2:Q)(/)
_c~
r::: .- Q)
C1> g> tt=
E Q) ::l
o.-e E
,- Q)
::l(/)-e
C"0Q)
w--e
u C
Qj..cQ)
III ~ E
,!!:! 5 E
Cl-eo
Q) u
~""Q)
III ro ~
~Qi~
, a. ~
zo.8
OQ)u
u..o~
C
ro 0
.~ -g :~
o ro.2::
2: 010
ro.!:: ~
....-eQ)
c:":'+-
ro ::l ro
(j)[JJ(j)
Ol
C
>-'0 C
= ro 0
~ C>> t5
is 0) .s
.Q C (/)
l..... "C l:J c
~-@~8
Ol
C
'0 C
~ 0
0) 1:5
Ol 2
C en
"C l:J c
6~8
-
o
C
o
10
U Q)
i.i= ()
"C C
Q) ro
>=
-eo.
~ ~
LL U
Q)
..0
ro
..c
(/)
~
Q)
5
o
a. .
(/)
roo
.g .8
t) ill
~ 5
W 0
a.
iii ~
_ ro
0=
o E
I- 'w
"C-e
CLl C
OJ ro
5: f!!
o 0
a. (/)
, (/)
:>'Q)
=0..
~ E
'i: 0
_ U
o ~
CLl .-
- ro
W C
~::l
..0 ~
~o
'<t....
z-e
o Q)
U ~
C
ro 0
.~ -g :~
o ro .2::
2: 010
ro.!:: ~
....-eQ)
c:":'+-
ro ::l ro
(j)[JJ(j)
Ol
C
>-'0 C
= ro 0
~ C>> t5
is 0) .s
.Q C (/)
l..... "C l:J c
~-@~8
Ol
C
'0 C
~ 0
0) 1:5
Ol 2
C en
";:: l:J c
6~8
-
o
C
o
10
U Q)
i.i= ()
"C C
Q) ro
>=
-eo.
~ ~
LL U
III
o
'i::
o
:iE
,l!J
c::
III
Vl
.....
o
~
U
C
ro 0
.~ -g :~
o ro.2::
2: 010
ro.!:: ~
....-eQ)
c:":'+-
ro ::l ro
(j)[JJ(j)
Ol-e c
C C 0
.~ co t5
-e Ol::l
C ~
2l'Oen
C ro C
o 0,8
Ol
C
'0 C
~ 0
0) 1:5
Ol 2
C en
";:: l:J c
6~8
-
o
C
o
10
U Q)
i.i= ()
"C C
Q) ro
>=
-eo.
~ ~
LL U
CD
Q) C
ro (/) :!220
5 Q) ~ C ~ 6 .!:: -e
=.- en ::J 0 >-.3 l..... ~ 2 ()
~ ~ .0 .~ en l..... co 0.. 0.. en :.=
0-eccQ)~2 roE8..-g
LL ro_ 2l {3 ~ 8.. Ol f!! ..c 8 Q) a.
ui2::J2roE~.82+-'..Qc
CLl 'w -g ..c :0 2 ro g- ~ 'E ro 2l
5-u l..... g-go ~ () u..Q..c co
'i: .g; .8 (j) ::l C ,gJ ~ '5. 1il (/) i5'
..c: e -g en 5l .Q ro ~ 2-.8 ~ ~
o o.>--e_u-e+=> Q)= E 0
~ Q) 0 Co 0 ::l C 'w ..c rl ::l .)::
r::::5o..-e3l-t;~~1- C-e
ocE~::lc(/)(/) ..8Q)Q)
:;::;OQ).... 0~>-0l(/)..c5
III ~ Q) (/) 1! U 1! -e ,= c I- .~
~ .;;: :: 3l ....-1! 0 ro ti Q) . >
CLl +=> - .- 0 .... Q) 0 -e Q) >-
_ U ro 0 .... -e 0 C a. 'w .~ =
-ro..cC-ec -e Q)O(/)
<(c(/)roQ)ro~cr:::~cal
CLl 0 (/).52 ~ .... ro ro ,21 ro c
1II+=>Q)cEc5 (/)uoQ)
'0 g ~ 0 = ~ Ol ~ r:::.2 tj ::
Z .t:; 'c 2: 0 a. c 1ij 0 0 ::l ro
- en ..c co c .- is ; If- .::::; ..c
III c U .... Q) ::l ::l C 0 ~ (/) (/)
r::: 0 Q) c ~ C" -.Q ::l Q) C -e
o u.... ro ro Q) uu.....o 0 C
:;::; Ol C (j) .... Ol.!:: ::l ti E U ro
.- eOif- :::J c _ l..... ..c
:g+=iiOo..Q+=i~cn5~:t=~
<( ~ ::l ~ Q)- ~.~ 5 U Q) 5 (/)
_~~O-g~t:()_c-gt)
OQ)~ Q)ro"Co Q)
~ 9> co .8 g O)..Q ~ ~ ~ ~.o .
I Q) Q) Cf).- Q)l:J Q) I Q) () l..... (/)
Z (/) (/)W >-(/) C 5Z- 0 o.ro
o '0 '0 > ro '0 ~ Q) 0 2 ~ Q) ~
Ucc~Ec(/)..oUroro:5ro
~