Loading...
SR-08-11-2009-8ACity Council Meeting: August 11, 2009 Agenda Item: ~®~ To: Mayor and City Council From: P. Lamont Ewell, City Manager Subject: Exposition Light Rail Phase 2 Maintenance Facility Update -Expo Construction Authority Consideration of Verizon Site and Exploration of Possible New Hybrid Site within the City of Santa Monica Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: Authorize the City Manager to continue to work with the Exposition Construction Authority (Expo) to further explore a new hybrid site consisting of the Verizon property, the Santa Monica College (SMC) parking lot and a portion of the City Yard as the location for the required Phase 2 light rail maintenance facility (Attachment A). Such an altemative might include a tightly configured storage and maintenance facility on the Verizon/SMC site adjacent to the railroad right of way, a linear buffer of 120 feet for most of the frontage facing residents on Exposition Boulevard and a joint parking structure on a portion of the City Yard. Currently, the Exposition Light Rail Phase 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) identifies the entire Verizon site in Santa Monica as the only option. 2. Request Expo to continue working with the City and community to ensure that any environmental impacts associated with the new hybrid Verizon site are .fully mitigated. 3: Direct City staff to work with Expo and other agencies on layout and financial issues associated with the newly proposed alternative. Efforts will include discussion with Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and SMC. 4. Direct City staff to analyze options and work with Expo to meet applicable relocation needs and the exploration of joint use and/or co-location of facilities. Direct City staff to work with Santa Monica College on the identification and acquisition of a parcel(s) acceptable to them that will at a minimum make them whole. 6. Direct staff to work with Expo to minimize the visual and environmental impacts of the maintenance facility and enhance its aesthetic interface with the community. 7. Direct staff to work with Expo to develop any necessary agreements regarding the co-location/joint use of the City Yard site if the new hybrid site is recommended and adjust the final budget for the Expo Phase 2 project as appropriate. Executive Summary The Exposition Light Rail (Expo LR) Phase 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), issued in January 2009, summarizes the review of a number of candidate sites for a Phase 2 maintenance facility, but concludes that the Verizon site is the only viable alternative. The City Council expressed concern about locating the proposed maintenance yard adjacent to a residential area and requested Expo to continue to look for an alternative location. The Expo Authority has provided additional information regarding the many sites they had considered during the project development process. The City also hired both real estate and design professionals to perform an independent review. of possible sites. Last month a "split alternative" developed cooperatively by the City and Expo was considered by City Council. The proposed layout utilized the Verizon site, an adjacent SMC parking lot and the City's 1800 Stewart Street property across the street. The City property located at 1800 Stewart is subject to a lease between the City and The Lionstone Group, which .expires in 2030. The SMC property is a 2.35 acre site at Stewart and Exposition. A depth of 150 feet was proposed as a buffer along Exposition Boulevard across from the residential area for possible housing and community uses. Council authorized staff to work with Expo to further evaluate the "split alternative". At the City Council meeting the adjacent community and Lionstone, the lessee of the 1800 Stewart Street property, voiced strong opposition to this split alternative. Lionstone indicated that it would be unwilling to give up its long term lease and had already made a substantial investment in the property. Expo worked with the City and Metro to determine the cost of the split alternative and it was determined that the split altemative was substantially more expensive than the original Verizon site. Since this split alternative garnered no support from the adjacent neighbors and generated new opposition, and given the significant cost to acquire the site and that it potentially created additional environmental impacts, Expo concluded that the split alternative would not be a preferred or recommended option for a maintenance facility. More recently, City staff and Expo have explored a new hybrid alterative utilizing the Verizon site, the SMC College parking .lot for the maintenance facility and a portion of the City Yard for a shared parking facility. This new hybrid eliminates the use of 1800 Stewart Street while providing a 120 foot buffer for most of the frontage facing residents on Exposition Boulevard. This is the alternative presented for consideration in this staff report. 2 City staff, as well as Expo staff, have recently discussed this new hybrid concept with some residents in the adjacent community to garner input and address concerns. In addition, the City has discussed this alternative with the College. Both the City and Expo will continue to work with the community and College to ensure that concerns are addressed and any impacts are fully mitigated in accordance with CEQA requirements. Further, Expo has pledged to host a workshop and meet with the community to receive design input into the maintenance facility building. The City will also work with the community to discuss options for the 120 foot buffer if the hybrid site is recommended as the preferred option. Expo will be making the final decisions about the project in consultation with the funding and operating agency, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The regional agencies are responsible for deciding on the final project. The project budget in the Phase 2 DEIR currently assumes that Expo will acquire the Verizon site. The City is requesting that the Expo Phase 2 budget be adjusted, as necessary, if the new hybrid alternative is selected. Background In January 2009, the Expo issued a DEIR for the project. On February 10 and March 3, 2009 the City Council held hearings on the contents of the DEIR. The City also held a community workshop on February 17th The DEIR included the proposed maintenance yard just east of Stewart Street between the right of way and Exposition Boulevard on property currently owned by Verizon and used for their telecommunications yard. Expo has explained that they are required to have a yard for maintenance within the Phase 2 project and the location within Santa Monica was the only viable site they could identify. As evident from the aerial photo below, there is a residential neighborhood just south of the proposed site. The City Council submitted comments on the DEIR expressing concern about locating the proposed maintenance yard adjacent to a residential area and requested Expo to continue looking for a more suitable location elsewhere.. The City also hired both real estate and design professionals to perform an independent review of possible sites. 3 A recent City Council meeting on July 14, 2009 considered a "split" maintenance facility alternative cooperatively developed by the City and Expo. The "split alternative" site failed to win community support and was opposed by the long-term lessee, Lionstone, who threatened legal proceedings that would delay the project. Thus, the spilt alternative did not mitigate community concerns, generated additional opposition and may result in additional impacts. In addition, Metro Real Estate staff determined that the full cost of the "split alternative" was prohibitive since it includes at least a $30 million lease-hold investment as well as the value of current site improvements and a potential substantial sub-lessee investment. Given these factors, Expo informed staff that this split alternative was not a preferred option that they could recommend. Discussion As further directed by Council at the July 14 meeting, staff redoubled its efforts to review sites using more liberal criteria that did not preclude multiple ownerships. Metro and Expo, in determining the appropriateness of a site, used the following criteria: safety factors; operational considerations such as access to the right-of-way; functional site considerations; proximity to any aerial grade separations; proximity to the terminus; proximity to sensitive uses such as parks and schools; and willingness of sellers/relocation- costs. All of these factors were taken into consideration when 4 Proposed Maintenance Facility in the DEIR screening potential sites. It should be noted that Verizon is a willing seller. The City's evaluation process included information about ownership, size of site existing uses, description of existing improvements, zoning and description of surrounding neighborhoods. The analysis confirmed that there were no other sites within the Phase 1 or Phase 2 areas that met the criteria, particularly with respect to safety, size and operational consideration. Attached please find a .report by The Maxima Group (Attachment B) on the sites considered. Several community members have raised questions regarding why Bergamot was not considered as an appropriate site for the maintenance facility, particularly given that transit money was used to purchase it. According to Expo, the irregular shape and cost to make it functional, which would require utilizing the adjacent 1800 Stewart Street, would make the site cost prohibitive. Alternatively, because the site narrows at the western end, which also includes the station, a workable maintenance yard configuration would potentially necessitate acquisition of the private property fronting Michigan, further exacerbating costs. Proposed New "Hvbrid Alternative" Currently Beinq Developed Given the result of the first and second survey to identify another possible site within the Phase 2 area, the approach has been to explore whether. it is possible to develop a new hybrid alternative that would still move or buffer most of the facility away from the residential neighborhood frontage. Attachment A is a conceptual diagram of a possible layout of the new hybrid site. • The car wash, storage tracks, train washing facility, traction power station are located behind a 120 foot linear buffer. This alignment assumes the removal of the bikepath from the right-of-way. Once the maintenance facility location is determined; there will be a process to identify the Expo bike path alignment options. 5 • Office space and shop areas would be located in a fully enclosed structure in the area currently occupied by SMC parking. The City has requested a buffer area in this location as well. • The 120 foot linear buffer facing most of the residential neighborhood could be used for housing and neighborhood serving uses. • City Yard/Joint Use of Parking Structure: Expo requires 96 parking spaces and replacement parking is required for a portion of the City Yard. City staff is initiating a City yards master planning process that will incorporate consideration for the proposed shared parking structure if it is decided to proceed with this new hybrid alternative In an effort to retain a sizable residential buffer, City staff and SMC have agreed to use the SMC parking lot as part of this new hybrid. SMC and its Board of Trustees are willing to relocate their parking facility on the condition that SMC will be made whole or better with a replacement site that will be acceptable to SMC. Also, Expo has initiated outreach with the adjacent residential community and has committed to a series of meetings and a community design charrette to explore ways to mitigate noise, vibration and air quality concerns as well as solicit input regarding the aesthetic interface with the surrounding neighborhood. The City has been in discussion with Lionstone and they are amenable to work with the City to establish an easement to accommodate the bikepath. The exact alignment and how the bike path will connect with the station and the network would be determined through a community process. Budget/Financial Impact Following further study of this alternative, cost issues will be refined and brought back for Council consideration. 6 Prepared by: Kathryn Vernez, Assistant to the City Manager, Community and Government Relations Ellen Gelbard, Assistant Director, Planning and Community Development Department Assistant to the City Manager for Community and Govemment Relations Attachment A: Conceptual Plan: Hybrid Verizon-SMC-City Yards Alternative for Expo Maintenance Yard Facility Attachment B: The Maxima Group report on sites considered Approved: Forwarded to Council: g~VD EXPOSITION TRANSIT PROJECT -PHASE 2 MAINTENANCE YARD FACILITY E%PO LME SH<)P OPTIQN N3 THE MAXIMA GROUP LLC Real Es}ata and Business Solutions 6 August 2009 To: P. Lamont Ewell, City Manager City of Santa Monica From: Pat Flynn, Principal Subject: Final Report on Expo Rail Maintenance and Operations Site Study Introduction The Maxima Group LLC ("Maxima") was retained by the City of Santa Monica ("City/') in April 2009 to evaluate potential sites for the location of a maintenance and operations facility for Phase 2 of the Exposition Light Rail Line ("Expo"). The Expo line. is scheduled to begin construction in 2010, with operations scheduled for 2015. Maxima was asked to review and independently evaluate 20 potential locations considered by the Expo Construction Authority, as-well as to search for potential alternate sites along the alignment. The search area included the entire Phase 2 alignment extending from Robertson Boulevard on the east to Fourth Street in Santa Monica at the terminus of the proposed line. Maxima was provided with a site selection matrix prepared by Expo identifying 20 sites as candidate locations for the facility. The sites were numbered in sequence from E201 to E220. Each site was described by its location, area (in acres) and locational characteristics (e.g. near schools, homes, industrial uses). Expo's judgment of the relative merits of each site was also included in the descriptive matrix. A copy of the Expo site selection matrix is included in Appendix A. The schedule for performing the scope of work was initially two weeks, requiring a compressed and focused effort. Field work and research began with an initial meeting (described below) on April 20, 2009. Preliminary results were presented at a meeting on April 29, 2009. Following the July 14, 2009 City Council meeting, Maxima redoubled its efforts to identify additional potential sites with additional research, analysis, and on-going discussions with City and Expo staff. The study results were finalized in anticipation of the August 11, 2009 City Council meeting. This memo summarizes the study methodology and our conclusions to date. Work Tasks Kickoff Meeting Maxima's work process began with an April 20, 2009 "kick ofP' meeting attended by a working group consisting of representatives from the City of Santa Monica as well as staff and consultants for Expo. The City of Santa Monica representatives included personnel from the City Manager's office, Planning Department, Public Works Department, and Economic Development. Page 1 of 16 The purpose of the meeting was to conduct an in-depth discussion of the facility requirements and siting constraints important to both Expo and the City of Santa Monica. Expo representatives (staff and technical consultants) described both the operational characteristics of the facility as well as site selection criteria. Operational considerations include: • 24 hour operations; three shifts e Outdoor storage area sufficient to accommodate one to three car lengths • Direct adjacency to main line tracks • Accommodation of a main yard shop (125,000 square feet) that will house various functions including administrative offices; vehicle repair areas; repair, parts, and machine shops; vehicle blowdown facility; sheet metal, welding, and battery shops; underfloor wheel truing facility; and parts and storage area • A vehicle wash facility • Traction power substation • Parking for to 70-96 employee automobiles The maintenance function requires that each train is cleaned and inspected daily and that maintenance is performed as required. The facility will include platforms and pits to allow personnel to clean, inspect, maintain, and service the trains. It is significantly more cost-effective if all of these functions can be co- located. The site selection criteria include: • Six to ten contiguous acres in size • Adjacent to the proposed alignment, with accessibility from both ends of the candidate site; best if not near a grade separation • Regular, rectangular shape • Adjacent to compatible commercial/industrial uses • Single ownership or limited ownership interests • Relatively flat topography • Good vehicular access • Limited potential for environmental impact • Appropriate zoning Expo and City representatives had a detailed discussion about each of the twenty candidate sites that Expo considered for the proposed maintenance facility. A matrix summarizing the characteristics of each of Expo's twenty sites is included in Appendix A. The goal of Expo's site selection process was to identify the candidate site or sites that fulfilled the minimum functional and technical requirements at a reasonable estimated cost. The Expo budget includes $59 million (current dollars) for all site acquisition costs. Expo's site selection process concluded that the Verizon site (site E210, located along Exposition Boulevard east of Stewart Street) was best suited for the proposed facility: Page 2 of 16 The City of Santa Monica expressed several concerns about the location of the proposed facility. The primary concern was to avoid negative impacts on sensitive residential neighborhoods, a key concern for the Verizon site. Other concerns included land use and economic development compatibility and minimizing economic dislocation. The meeting included a discussion of the various activities that take place in a light rail operations yard and the potential for "creative" solutions to site selection. This might include splitting the operational requirements into multiple smaller sites, bridging existing streets or freeways, or locating the facility underground. Research and Site Visits The Maxima team completed several research tasks after the initial meeting with the working group. First, assessor's maps, Expo alignment maps, and aerial photos were carefully studied to identify the sites included in the Expo site selection matrix as well as potential alternate sites that might have been overlooked in the initial search. Next, a tour was conducted on the ground to get a better sense of topography, land uses, adjacencies, and other relevant site selection issues. Photos were taken to document critical information and all candidate sites were mapped. Maxima staff reviewed relevant land use regulations for all candidate sites. We noted that the City is undergoing a General Plan update and that there may be potential changes to existing land use guidelines. Maxima also researched assessors maps and ownership records. Assessor's information was useful both to identify other potential candidate sites, as well as to establish the number of owners for each site. Additional field research was conducted to obtain ownership information and tenant profiles for sites that merited additional consideration. Technical info provided by Expo was used to evaluate site suitability, particularlyfor candidate sites that were not part of the initial Expo site selection matrix. Alignment maps, elevations, and profiles were used to evaluate whether potential sites met minimum site selection criteria. Finally, Maxima researched the potential to use "creative" solutions to accommodate Expo's requirements. On-line research was conducted to determine other facilities that made use of alternate configurations. Telephone interviews were conducted with transportation industry specialists to discuss possible solutions and the impacts on functionality and cost. There are various design and engineering techniques that could be used to mitigate the impact of the maintenance facility on the surrounding area. Examples of mitigation measures include sound walls, landscaping, designed buffers, and otherfacility design measures. The application of design mitigation measures is highly site specific and outside the scope of this assignment. Analysis EMensive review of assessor's records, aerial photos, parcel maps, and Expo light rail design information resulted in the identification of two potential sites that were not included in the original Expo site matrix. The first site, referred to as E221, was located in the City of Los Angeles, bounded by Olympic Boulevard on the north, Barrington on the east, Granville on the west and the Expo right-of-way on the south. The site is currently occupied by a variety of small office and industrial uses, including an Office Depot retail store. Page 3 of 16 The second potential site, referred to as E222, is located south of Colorado and north of Olympic between 16`" and 17th Streets. The site currently houses the administrative offices of Santa Monica School District (SMUSD). The review process also identified a potential modification to a site on the original Expo list. Site E218 is an irregularly-shaped 6.5 acre parcel located along the Exposition right-of-way between Sepulveda Boulevard and Military Avenue. Maxima proposed re-considering this site with the addition of several parcels to the north totaling 4.2 acres. The additional parcels are referred to as the Anawalt Lumber site. A map showing the location of all twenty two sites (Exhibit 1) follows. Sites E221 and E222 are shown in Exhibit 2. Appendix A includes the Expo site evaluation matrix with summary information on sites E201 to E220. Page 4 of 16 Exhibit 1 The Maxima Group LLC Date: 8/6/2009 Regional Map of All Sites Under Consideration Exhibit 2 Location of Sites E221 and E222 The Maxima Group LLC - Date: 8/6/2009 Maxima subjected all of the candidate sites to two levels of screening before presenting the pre- screened sites to City and Expo representatives for further discussion. The first level of screening considered the following criteria: adequate parcel size; irregular shape or other physical limitations; and significant proximity to parks or schools. The sites which passed the initial screening were then subjected to a more detailed assessment of operational feasibility and community context. Six of the twenty two candidate sites were eliminated from further consideration because they were less than the six-acre minimum size requiremeht and had limited opportunity to acquire adjacent parcels. Those sites include: E204 4.1 .. . South of Olympic between-17th and 20th E207 3.4 South of Olympic between 26th and Cloverfield E212 2.5 Exposition Blvd west ofCentinela E216 1.5 South of Pico between Sawtelle and Expo ROW E217 3.0 South of Pico between Sepulveda and Expo ROW E219 3.5 Between Expo ROW and National Blvd Of the 16 remaining sites, seven were eliminated for considerations such as irregular shape or other significant physical limitations. This includes site E221, one of the two sites identified by Maxima and not on Expo's initial list of candidate sites. E221 can be accessed from the east, but not the west. An aerial switch would force the Barrington crossing into an aerial alignment. The acquisition of E221, as well as E214, would also result in significant economic dislocation as both sites house many small businesses. The sites that were eliminated from additional consideration due to irregularshape or physical limitations include: E206 10.0 South of Olympic between 17th and 20th E204with additional decking; access issues E211 7.5 One block north of Olympic between Nebraska and Too far from alignment E213 6.0 Exposition and Centinela Highly irregular shape won't accommodate uses E214 14.0 South of Olympic, east of Barrington Access issues due to aerial alignment E2]5 7.2 Exposition, Purdue, Tennessee, Federal Access issues due to aerial alignment E220 6.5 Venice and Durango Triangular shape won't accommodate uses E221 8.5 South of Olympic, west of Barrington Access issues would force aerial crossing of Page 7 of 16 Of the nine remaining sites, four were considered to be too close to parks or schools. This includes the second of the Maxima sites, E222: E202 20.0 South of Coloradobetween 9th and 11th Adjacent to Memorial Park; may require acquisition of park land forleadertracks E203 5.8 South of Olympic between 14th and 17th Adjacent to Memorial Park E206 13.5 Cloverfield, Michigan, 21st, Olympic Adjacent to Crossroads School E222 6.9 South of Colorado between 16th and 17th SMUSD Headquarters site; between Memorial Park and Crossroads School The remaining five sites merited additional consideration of the site-specific operational feasibility and community concerns. These sites were discussed in detail with the working group to determine suitability for the proposed maintenance facility. • E201, located between Colorado and Olympic between 9`" and 11`" Streets • E208/E209, located west of Stewart, south of Olympic, known as the Bergamot/Richlar and City Yards sites respectively • E210, Exposition at Stewart, known as the Verizon site • E218, located north of Exposition Boulevard between Sepulveda Boulevard and Military Avenue A location map showing the five sites follows (Exhibit 3). Individual parcel maps showing land uses follow the location map (Exhibits 4 through7). Page 8 of 16 Exhibit 3 Map of Five Candidate Sites for Consideration The Maxima Group LLC Date: 8/6/2009 Exhibit 4 Site E-201 and Surrounding Land Uses L.antl Use X ." ~4i ~ Y ~ y,,.. ~,,~ 9 a4 `I`T. + ~ ~~ .. ~ 5 t. e ~ ~ y a ~~ tfi ~~,~ >` +~C} ~~©~` n~ ~GV S ~ ~ ~,y¢ ~' N ~ J-- mj 5 ~ O~ " Law usnsrcy Hooting + y h rv~ Ot s~ C'>. ^rr.. v,. C c+, Hroatlway Mixetl Usa Distrial ~,.5.:. UroWnEOWn Gafa ~'-.'"_ Caanar.nl Cammmofu:l Wnaral Commarclal Wigl ilowniown coro ~en~ral COm rclai WHh @fY CBISpeCla Wigh OanGhy Wausing Indu.¢Mlal Institutional Law Oerosity Housing Madlum tlansrty Housing ~..... - Neighborhood Cnmmemlal C Dceantrant5pecial Ofctricf ~~t Parks Suruicu anJ SyocWliy Curnmorciol I_.__.---- Singly FamHy Hausinp 5poalel Otgca District Public FacllilRy City Kacflity Flro 59etlon F'irnfPalice 9hation Hospital Llbrery v.ri,nE. r~rk Public Perking Pphlic School r Parcel Maxima Group, LLC Date: 8/6/2009 Exhibit 5 Site E-208 / E-209' and Surrounding Land Uses La nq Use p~0.W~ AvF SmAtle Fnm~dY NCpe~ng ~~~~n lnF9~tMiAy'4 r~OpLN G. s~ a~ '" r ~sr " phi- :: 9ruatlway Mixed Usu Dlatrio-t ~Ni.`: ' DawnWwn Gom ("'"'+.. Gonural COmmerOlaa Gnnnral CCrnntmrc la7 with Downtown Gom Cian~ral COmm~rcla.I wflF arv ee paCla ty Htgh 6bns Ity Habsing Indas[riml ~. hialltuEtwml Low Dnns6ty N.ousing Metllum uansity HOUSIng '.--- No-i®hbarho4d Co mmerciel Ckesnlronf Spacial Disirlct <<. tG Parks 6arvtaO Ontl 6paaloHy Commorclal -- Single Family Housing 5peL'imi gtY{e¢ Dlstrlel Poirot Faclnxy City Facility Firs StetlOn FlraipOiiC9 StLtlOn = HOSpltal Llbmry p~6uo P.adr Pu 661c Parking Pu bl lc School ~' h ~__• °o~, ~ ~ ~~ ~- ~~ ~. Paroel ~...- " taagrlai,~.--. ~"' ~Gr FI?', _,. ry~. ,a u .nh++~' .. ^~~ Maxima Group, LLC - Date: 8/8/2009 Exhibit 6 Site E-210 and Surrounding Land Uses ~: ~' Lanii Usa ~ .+~ 1F ~ rf T ~:" ~ ~ tlfbdtlWay M4[4tl Us4 U4541bi ~~~'"Yi, ~`Fi~} +'J ~ ^ h `~'<y~. -.i 't` ` ~ - nmwaYmwn Cmm ' . T ~u~%'' , ~'~~~ ~ C.en=eralCmmmarcfal R lG l l llh ,. wh .ss n an.nra nmmnrr a w nownWwn Core Yld12~~~~ t Senil~~'SpeC1911y lal with Qy ~~, wag r Hi®h Density Housin® t~Y1C HL^+r" ~ Induab'ihl aamA ar.:.f.n rnn,.4u ~ ~s InsliWtib.nal SPsC3al U9aCaUlsttl C( ~~ Low {lnnsley Haucing ~, :;,I.M4tl lunl (79nstty Ylbusing N41Ahhorh4btl Comm4rctal Oueunhuul3ymciml AfaU 4:L Parke Garviw and apacaalky Cammarblal _-°- ~ SFnglg Femlly Hbusfnq 1 _ - ~. - 6paclol O%icb btaUlCt ~_: Santa Monica - ~~i Pu61ir. Facll ity City College ~ y ro' `~ nr4~ ~q, -~.. Clty Facll4y Site -. ~,t~ric~"1-' :~~ P 4~pWyhS~~'' Flrm Btatlmn - ` ~d FlrblPolic4 Statbn ~5iitr tf w ~~ 41~U S4J1~~~'YN. ~ P SY r+pla 4amlty F9trcuedn(I ~ ~ ypepaLAt°'-Y~-+~µ. IIosPSlal Library ~~~ nV~. °~ x' a':+~a~' Public Park p bli P ki ~ ,~,rAenp44 u c ar ng ;;; ,~. ~~ m IS~H ~ _.- Pi ihlln Sahnnl a* .;wrm+n~" ~ ~,t~p kve ! ParcCJ qty Y16Mx > ~ r _ ~y,CA4~ ¢i~ _ . ~5R ~ y~ 5 . ~~ 4Y~ V~ ~` ~y9 u9`. 1,114 Copy ~ N qP ~~ ' ` Y,`+ ~ r ~~•s. ,- ,~ Irmo f]nnslAy NMLtln~ ':g4aC><~V"ay[ 2, i~' 4 5^ 'YG~.. 5aNlc d~: mm9rClgl "" ~ 3. r c m ?e Yt= ~ 1 ,. ,~ ~, 1~... ~A Maxima Group, LLC Date: 8/6/2009 Exhibit 7 Site E-218 and Surrounding Land Uses I LR City Planning d] 442 Feek z ~u d Z5} y " 5 t„ ~ ~,y~ l~ ,,~t~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ 'v *,4 r yk ~~Mrv ~~il}~?~tP yNji~t~/y yt`~e~. "v`Z S3n r~~~°" e1f;4 1 } ~~'Y~~ fi't` ~ ~~~~ ~~' '~f{.~ Y ts~, 'pt. 9 ~'s~ The Maxima Group LLC Date: 8/6/2009 Conclusions After extensive discussion with both Expo staff and City representatives it is clear that none of the sites is a perfect fit for both Expo and the community on a stand-alone basis. Key characteristics of the short- listed sites are summarized below: E201 13.0 South of Colorado between•9th and 11th Site is well-sized and track-adjacent. However, accessto the site creates a significant safety conce rn. Trains would be required to make a turn into eastbound traffic. Pote ntial for economic dislocation. E208/209 9.0+14.0 South of Olympic, east of 26th Known as the Bergamot/Richlar and City Yards sites. Both City-owned sites must be considered together, as both are unsuitable onastand-alone basis. E208istoonarrow for required operations; E209 is not adjacent to Expo right-of-way. E209 will require significant clean up of existing landfill. Potential for economic dislocation. Possible to use in conjunction with E210. E210 6.8 Exposition and Stewart Known as the Verizon site. This is the preferred alternative in Expo's initial site assessment. Proximity to residential neighborhood will require buffe ring or other mitigation. Possible to use in conjunction with E208/209. E218 6.5+4.2 South of Pico between Sepulveda and Military This is an original Expo site with the addition of anadjacentparcel. Even with the additional parcels, the site could only be accessed from the east. Access and i rregular shape mean that the site cannot accommodate the required uses. "Creative" solutions (undergrounding orelevation) were ruled out as feasible alternatives based on cost and safety issues. Elevating the operations yard by bridging the freeway and/or surface streets would be operationally difficult as well as prohibitively expensive. Similarly, placing the facility underground creates safety concerns for the facility and adverse impacts at street level. The cost of either elevating or undergrounding the facility could be on the order of ten times the cost of a standard surface facility. The optimal site for the Expo operations facility is not astand-alone existing parcel and site selection will require a more creative approach. This could include a "hybrid" site (e.g. Verizon in combination with a portion of the Richlar/City Yards or Verizon/SMC with offsite parking), and/or or a site/facility design that mitigates potential impacts through buffering or other designed solutions. Page 14 of 16 APPENDIX A: EXPO PHASE II LRT YARD SITE SURVEY Page 15 of 16 EXB~® PFlASE 91 9.RT YAR®SITE Sl1RVEV ~XP® PP'dLBSE lP C®RRP®®R ANPS B/PCIlUPFV LE ND SITE LIMITS ~ SITE INO ~, ~ ~ ~, ~, ~ 3 w ~ :;~ <*»^ ~- ~ `Ar r I ~ ~ EXPO CORRIDOR F\ \ ' :y ~'~-+ ~ U,.S~','.''.i'w^ .,y .. ;~ •S!, -r, __,'1€IT•'i` i~'~.w a,~S?<.eia"~. nr ~n .u'_.u~s~ ti. ~'_` ~,' .x r °-4f°td~ `'r n° ~ ! \, 4e a ~ ~ ~ n-9.~ ' d?.~8t "`'~' a`~,~1.".b`s'mSr,e J' ~...Yer .~7'~'T ~,.;. 'A '/ J .£ .` I SSP '. 4 .+A, I',/. Y .~., j7. ~~~ ._ ~- ( -A ~ ~„ - ~. Y .....~ ~ N J _ FAT+v. r r ~ ° ~ v a`': o- ~'' a ,- 672 '' v . a ~ I ~. .vv~k '%r•. QF. r. ° F7 ~v'3 F ~.,!'Y'- -1 ~ +,;••h,,.. ,: n v .. s~ i ~v A,.i ~. \.2 .. • .:y *1 a .: vi .f °. \~.. i` I.J,3. l~ \i .~'.'~/. •\\~,, •P`.:'t ., y~ + ` arm ~•;T Sly. I ,~. .r r ~ J F ~y s ~^P a-r ~ t ; `ire/? ~ ~ ~~ ~a~,y~ i~ ~iyu ,~ \; '. 5 y ~; ~ 3 'H ~. ..5 t b , ~/ ~ \ ,, pC ~ e b, c «,•} o ' x~i4 s ~~~~ TIC' • v"a•-y.,:. '~ "d..u c~° :~ ~a ~ d .~ N.. f. ~J ~ Y.' d• ,~n$ ~ a I ``., J > . xiil ~ r.. ~z~° 4r r~ d ~ :a ., fJ-.r. ~:; .rT 4~; .rm.N - _ • I e ` ~aa(h `\. ® i Y< ~p S 1 t+ ~ ~' ~ . -V'J 17./ ~./~ 13' I _ 'l `/ y A`.. 'w p t p K ° l '+ ti + '~ " ~ +a -.a ti.5~1 I I 1 fli ~4 - ,old ~ '"`; a R+/ ~...- R y ~. ~e .. Q w~r1 1 + ` a I S r ~ 1 u~ mu ".~',`ug..~6s•-,u~»nar:c. „<.u~»~.... ......'~~ ..v. .ad,....... _. ° a o. Ji r n EXPrD P@iASE II V.tlt'P YARID SITE S@9RVEY £XP® ErtdASE l1 C'l~,Q6t6®~R ,4NA V9~lfl1fY'V LEGEND SITE LIMITS ~ SITE NO ®®~ ,~ >~ E PO CORRIDOR x{9 F"kfx,-n:t.Y~r..A~ ,4 'skv.'vai'.~59 :.:..r,8.`Yi~.£n':.4m""~',,,_"'W~`` ..Sv. _.`.~y. 4>. ,. r'~~~.~'"~''.~".emu'~AS`,.nn.'4.~"r~tr`~>~,~w'»~ '~"~'-.:v.;. '2f~ -r, a a ~ fgp. ' X ^5~ _ cs~x ~~ T ~ _ ~.~aq'1x '" ~ iii '~.~',.. '. ~ f%" ~vE' w e ~ ~ a - 3 ..1 G ~ ~ c:1 ^~ xi^o / I ; , r tl~ i R ~ 'Z. s- -„T'--- x }..- v.. r .3.t +8 .,rr l ""~2" d 111 I I ~. rZ~~ ~ I~ ~F 3 c . ' r ~ ,r I f- _. rt~~, .. ' r r II '. ,d c ' V ~ i_, 7 s a s) f ,:w4 ~ d ~ ~ 1 d'~ ~ I ~ d s Y' I 1 •n I M 'l)1 !r f t t ( ..4 I k N .~ k 1\. ~ -~ ~.. ~y ti~ p y r ~'S{ ~ ~~ / ~ I t __~ '. I S'~ . ~ V ea . as '~^ >jd ae ~x. m r a tl ~~ -' n ,. i ~. fi.. A ...,~ y / % ' `~~ ... ' __ 0. } ~ t I > - ~ ~ N _ 3 ru . ~ , ~ I v i 5 r S ~ , ~'. y~ ~# P `3Yi -• r t N Y~9~ ~~ i~ „5~ .,.h,. r ~ a ~ 6 .il~: ~ ~ r ~ .. / .)i" gib R ,li. t~ x n e 1,; :.{ ,. G `~ '~ t~.! F ~' Sri " ' ~e~i cF d rN;+_ v Y r ml _.1 .~. .n ~?+s ~ i ~d ,'sk'' d ~ ~~ & d'" a .a*` ~ ~ .~ ~".. r ~':" ~ ~ r ~1 v v k rrr r '~'~"4 ~~ ~a>< M.:. .1 ~ } 1. ~ ~ ~' F ._>v ~} .~ "s i2 ~~ ~t~ ~.+ ~ °' @h' t r t Ic ~- \\ v r J.. i 9 .n, ., r $ / to-°i' s sl -J1 r d~-: ~~ t ~,. ,*W < n ~. V r., ., m a r~l d s ., dl ror <se .' -r~-rl r ~~4~. l~ i r ~5~'•...>-,o-: .5 ~ 'r- .~ a f" ._~ _...._ s ~~ aY.r :'\~~ ea .~ ri' y.y~~, % ~ ~ p {~~~ w'. jL,l -+; ~J^/~ 3. .~~ ~- v' ~ ~ I \\' I - w ~t~'fr ~_'_` "~/nF ii *,n- r o I,v1° 4„ Iw, ~ r,t. pq``'` . 'f 5 ~ d ;. 5 4 ~ r"„ \\A I 1 y t~ .:. ~,ew, ;ti l .p ~ Hy Q ~ ~ G f l .'iei5 Y$ }~j ......1 ~~~ ~i W E ~, e F ~ P ( bo .. y a t: x" nr < ~. S~ > ~ f r r g .rf 8 R~} y r p ~~!`s iy k` r<$u a~4 v '. / /f o~~flf `'~',. p~ l r ,~.: s nl..z ,; Q `v d ~ ~" ~ t ~' ~ ~ `F ~ 0 .fir /~4 ,i••` r EXPO PHASE IB LRT YARD SITE St1RVEY CNbn aunts e• ~r.nn•v....,. . r•.•c •• wvnn•vVR HItl~J W6,MIVPr r SITE ATTRIBUTES NO. 13O1)NDED BY DESCRIPTION AREA SKETCIi LEGEND: SITE LIMITS pOS1TIVE NEGATIVE REMARKS/RATING /' ~ Multiple 9th, Colorado, Mostly commercial ,iAdjacent to Olympic ~ ' owners tenants• E201 .11th, Olympic . and industrial uses and Colorado 13.0 ~ connect on to LRT NOT RECOMMENDED jalignments; ideal r, ,, tracks on Olympic `' size ,~'` or Colorado would , ,.>'± a create challenges 3 a~. ~ Multiple 11th, ` s ~~Adjacent to Olympic owners/tenants; E202 ' Colorado, Commercial and _ 20 0 ~ and Colorado may require some 14th, Olympic industrial uses . !:::. alignments; ideal acquisition at NOT RECOMMENDED ,, 2size Memorial Park for lead tracks and other challenges .~, I ~ ~ ~". g F'3 J !~ I Inadequate size; I ~ CommercialJ multiple tenants; E203 OI m ic, 14th, Y p industrial uses and I- iAdjacent to Olympic 5 8 requires decking I- . 17th, I-10 lOshoulder £ ~ ialignment ~ 10 shoulder; NOT RECOMMENDED ~ ., . ' adjacent to . ~ 7 Olympic/17th St f Station s /rIOOOLAl /h i _ , . , .. Page 3 of 17 EXPO PHASE II LRT YARD 597E SURVEY E%PO PPAASE PAC®RRADOA8 AND V/PCAAIAFY NO. BOUNDED BY DESCRIP71ON " " ATTRI AREA SKETCH LEGEND: SITE OMIT POSITIVE y,~-. ,,.., .~ .. ... BUTES NEGATIVE REMARKS/RATING f"- ~ ~ Inadequate size; ~ I ~~~ u r multiple tenants; ~ " requires decking I- Olympic, 17th, Commercial) I i ' 10 shoulder; E204 2Dth, I-10 W8 industrial uses and I- 4 1 a i` ;Adjacent to Olympic adjacent to shoulder 10 shoulder ~% a ;all nment g Olympic/17th St NOT RECOMMENDED ~ ' 'Station; access ~~~ ` `~~ ' challenges due to Cloverfield aerial ~ ~ ~ ' LRT tracks ~ ~ - ,~ ~ ~ Multiple tenants; a / / / requires decking I- Olympit, 17th, Commercial/ / ~ ?Ad t t Ol 10 freeway; E205 20th, I-10 fB industrial uses and jacen o ympic 10 0 ` t adjacent to shoulder aver 1-10 freeway . a alignment; moderate Olympic/17th St NOT RECOMMENDED I , size ~ Station; access ; ~~ ~ challenges dueto I 6, ~~ _ ~" ~ Cloverfield aerial I LRT tracks ,; _.,* ~~ ~">.cnc .. ,.,.am .... 1-,.~ 3 ~ i.g Irregular shape ~, ' with existing w power substation ~~ ,^ in centerthat Cloverfield, ? `~ would require IE206 Michigan, Commercial and 13 S `~ Adjacent to Expo relocation; , 21st, Olympic industrial uses ~ ~ ~ ~ BROW ~ ~ multi le p NOT RECOMMENDED ~S ~ , _ tr" ,' owners/tenants; 1f l access challenges ~'' a due to Cloverfield <, `' H aerial LRT tracks; { i mpact to Page 4 of 17 EXPf.D PFIASE 11 lRT YARD SITE SURVEY F'XPr9 Pld®6F 11 rnm®6nn® nn~n oirtrnrrv~ SITE AT7RBBUTES Np. BOUNDED BY DESCRIPTION AREA SKETCH LEE SITE LIMITS Pp51TIVE NEGATIVE REMARKSf RATING ~ PARK P F E207 26th, Cloverfield, Commercial and ~ , ~-"~ '.Ad acent to Ex J po i 3,4 , Inadequate size; Olympic industrial uses 1 ~ _ STRt1ROW •~---- -- irre ular sha e g p NOT RECOMMENDED , ..-' ' ,a +i ,._A ~.~„~ ~....~-.~ ...ter.:-:.. -u,,.m~ _a,. i4 7 Artist community ~. _ (Bergamot Station) '~ and long term Stewart Expo Bergamot Station " ~ , lease (adjacent E208 , R and adjacent city ~: Adjacent to Expo 9 8 ; ]' ~ city property); NOT OW, 26th ,. - ROW; moderate size adjacent to RECOMMENDED property y )~ ~ > r ~ OlympicJ26th `" RfFT Street Station so PARK ~ t ~ better suited to TOD L f ~~ _,~ -.. Difficult access ~ -- " S < due to distance Stewart, ~ ! from Expo ROW E209 Michigan, Santa Monica City v - - Ideal size; existin ` , (400 - 500 ft); 24th, Yard and Recycle Pl t g 14 0 ~+ j ;~ ~ A~rr ;,light industrial access blocked by NOT RECOMMENDED Delaware G an ~ buildings; significant clean N' ~ up cost as built on . ~: Page 5 of 17 EXPO PRASE II LRT YARD SITE SURVEY FI(DA D67A CC JA f1ILDbfnnb nnrn eir~rnnv~ V YILI/tl1! I SITE ATTRIBUTES NO. BOUNDED BY DESCRIPTION AREA SKETCFI EGEND: SITE LIM175 POSITIVE NEGATIVE REMARKS/RATING E210 Exposition Blvd, Expo ROW (east of Verizon property _ e ~' Adjacent to Expo 6.8 ? ROW; moderate size; r-- I { JJ RECOMMENDED StewarCj ; ~', ? ]mostly parking II j S~~~E~ `W i m~,~ .., .., ?, Difficult access to Nebraska, site due to E211 Centinela Power Substation '~ . ~ i;!Moderate size; 7 5 t distance from (north of ~ •. ~3existing industrial Ex oROW~ p ' NOT RECOMMENDED Olympic] ,~~4~~ " I moving power ' ~ substation would ~~ ~~ `„ becostiy ~~i Exposition y~-~ l Inadequate size; _ insufficient E212 Blvd, Expo RO Commerical rAd 2 $ J~J ~-r s jacent to Expo frontage along W (west of propert y - { ROW ~ ~ Expo ROW to NOT RECOMMENDED Centinela) ? ' ~"~ 1i ----"'~t, " •-,~ ~ -!'"'~y ` i access yard site; new building 5 i ~ '~ ter"` ~ . E213 Exposition, Commercial and ? `i ~ 60 tAdjacent to Expo Irregular shape; Centinela industrial uses ~ -.ROW multi I p e NOT RECOMMENDED ' ~ owners/tenants ~ ~.•;, ~' e1'~ab ~A p E FV. /~! ~i V ^~J~% .....~. ..:"S-:.f~'.. arv..~E Onrt G "ls~~..- .. ..b., v v. a s EXPO PRASE I! LRT YARD SITE SURVEY EkPO PHASE 1! CORRIDOR AND @/ICINlT V SITE ATTRIBUTES NO. BOUNDED BY DESCRIPTION AREA SBCETCN LEGEND: SITE LIMITS POSITIVE NEGATIVE REMARKS/RAT9NG ~.. ; - Multiple Expo, ~ owners/tenants; E214 Barrington, Commercial and 14.0 ;~. fAdjacentto Expo access challenges ~ Olympic, Colby industrial uses ~ ~~ROW; ideal size due to NOT RECOMMENDED r ~" ~~ ~R - Pico/Gateway LRT #" - ~ ' ~ aerial tracks .; ~ ~ ? Multiple owners/tenants; Exposition, ~ ~~ ~ site of new E21S ' Purdue, Residential commercial and 7 2 ~%' ~< " •'~ .'Adjacent to Expo a ~"'~ residential Tennessee, industrial uses . r!- ;ROW; moderate size construction; NOT RECOMMENDED Federal ~ access challenges ~ _ ~. ~ ` ' due to ~ Pico/Gateway _~.~ { ~ aerial LRT tracks ~.. ~. /` ~' 6 Inadequate size ~ ,,~ . due to freeway ~ I embankment to ~ , j` `` i the north; E216 Sawtelle, Pico, Under the I-405 1 S • • i `Adjacent to Expo ~ constrained by Expo ROW Freeway ' ' ~ _ Y5- gROW freeway columns NOT RECOMMENDED ~ -' P~ '~~~ ~ .- ~ and ramps; access constained by Sawtelle aerial LRT `,.> . ~:~~ ._,~~---.:.~_~_.___--== tracks Page 7 of 17 EXPO PHASE II 1RT YARD SITE SURVEY F%A!D P~61a CF 7! R'~18rFA/nneP nnrn oies~rnnrv _. __ _ .....__.. __............,,,... s..,..e... SITE ATTRIBUTES NO. BOUNDED BY DESCRIPTION AREA SKETCIi LE EN®: 5[TE LIMITS POSITIVE NEGATIVE REMARICS/RATINt'a a,v . ~. 1. ~.., ,~ j ~ ~ ,/ Inadequate size; irregular shape; under private E217 Expo ROW, Sepulveda, Pico Concrete Batch Plant (Casden devetopmentsite) 3 0 ~' ~~,, = /~ .,, ; ~~' _:rAdjacent to Expo ~ !ROW s. C ro development; adjacent to Expo/Sepulveda Station so better NOT RECOMMENDED ~ ~ ~ PO ~'"~~ suited to 70D; access constrained ' by Sawtelle aerial LRT tracks ~ ~. :x ~~ ~ }J X 218 Sepulveda, Expo ROW, Commercial/ ~ industrial use 5 ~ ,iR.a 1 ~-"'~ ' I' , .~`'~ l Adjacent to Expo ~' ~_ --"~ ~ _ ~ ACCESS t0 Site constrained b Y Sepulveda and Military; irregular shape OT RECOMMENDED ~ _ ~ Pp _...._~_ ~a~~ E219 Ex o ROW, P National Public Storage and Lycee Prancais School 3 S t r -.~. ~ ~ '--~ ------_____ ~ :` ,Adjacent to Expo .ROW i r. ~ ~---..~A~,__... i! . rc Inadequate size; site atiowergrade than LRT tracks; site of new school OT RECOMMENDED ~\ erne ~ \ ~~~VARK construction f Page 8 of 17 EXPO P&IA5E II LRT YARD SITE SURVEY FI(ARl ~l/4 fE! IP /'AdAlnnn a va,rn fYItlV VILPItl1 R Y SITE ATTRBBUTES NO. 80UNDED BV DESCRIPTION AREA SKETCIi LEGEND: SITE LIMITS POSITIVE NEGATIVE REMARKS/RATING r Shopping Center ~ ~ I u With multiple ~ ;'-`-'- ---_ ~ ~ y rreg lar shape; E220 Venice, tenants {Office 6 5 , _______ _ , , ~' jAdjacent to Expo access constrained Durango Depot, 5av-on Drugs, ~ ~}ROW -'' " by Venice aerial NOT RECOMMENDED , LRT tracks; etc. ~ multiple tenants MEDTA PK I - ~„ ~ ~ MEDIA ~ { _ s,,. Page 9 of 17