The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-10-23-2012-3PCity Council Meeting: October 23, 2012 Agenda Item: 3_P To: Mayor and City Council From: Andy Agle, Director of Housing and Economic Development Subject: Fire Station No.1 Land Exchange: CEQA Review Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Fire Station No. 1 Land Exchange. Executive Summary Subject to environmental review, the City Council authorized an exchange of City property for private property to serve as a replacement site for Fire Station No. 1. The environmental review has now been completed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. A City - prepared Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration has concluded that the proposed project would have no significant impact on the surrounding environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. This report recommends that City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the final Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Fire Station No. 1 Land Exchange, allowing staff to proceed with the property exchange. Background Fire Station No. 1 was built in 1955 and has surpassed its expected useful life span as a "Critical Facility." A new fire station on a larger site is necessary to support the Fire Department's operating and service needs. On January 10, 2012, City Council authorized the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) to exchange real property in Downtown Santa Monica for a new site to build a replacement facility for Fire Station No. 1. The City received one response from NMS Properties Inc. On August 14, 2012, City Council adopted a resolution waiving advertising requirements related to an exchange of property and authorized the City Manager to negotiate and 1 execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with NMS Properties Inc. to exchange City - owned property located at 1338 -42 and 1321 5th Street, for property located at 1337 -45 7th Street, owned by 1337 NMS Properties /7th Street LLC, subject to the condition that closing of escrow and the undertaking of any obligations or commitments under the Agreement should not occur until the City complies with the applicable requirements of the CEQA, including any requirement that the City Council make findings and approvals in accordance with CEQA. The CEQA guidelines require the City to assess the project's potential impact on the environment. Discussion An Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA to determine whether any significant impacts on the environment would result from the land exchange and construction of a Fire Station at 1337 -45 7th Street. A draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day public review on August 8, 2012, with the public review comment period ending on September 8, 2012. Three letters commenting on the draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration were received. Responses to public comments are included in the.final Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Public Comment (Attachment B). The final Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that there would be no significant impacts on the environment with incorporation of mitigation measures in the areas of biological resources, construction effects, cultural resources, geology and soils, and transportation /traffic. To ensure that these mitigation measures are properly enacted, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is necessary and will be enforced during the construction and operation of the project. The proposed mitigation measures are provided in the final Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration. FA Financial Impacts & Budget Actions Adoption of the resolution has no fiscal impact. Prepared by: Elaha Buegoff, Sr. Development Analyst Approved: Andy Agle, Director Housing and Economic Development Attachments: A. Resolution Forwarded to Council: Rod Gould City Manager B. Final Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 I,�, {i'FT+1 i1 i^UM, City of Santa Monica Fire Station No. I Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses Mitigation Monitoring Program City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL CITY OF SANTA MONICA INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT STATEMENT 1. Project title: City of Santa Monica Fire Station # 1 Land Exchange and Construction 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90407 3. Contact person and phone number: Rachel Kwok (310) 458 -8341 4. Project location: 1) 1337 -45 7th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 This parcel addressed as 1337 -45 711, Street (Assessor's Parcel Number 4291008802) is the proposed site of the new Fire Station No. 1 Building. The project site is approximately 22,500 square feet in size and is currently developed as a parking lot with 84 spaces. The project site is bound generally by a one -story dental office building and associated surface parking lot on the north, 7th Court alley on the east, a three -story office building on the south, and 7th Street on the west. 2) 1338 -42 and 1321 5th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 This property consists of two parcels addressed as 1338 -42 5th Street (Assessor's Parcel Number 4291 01 1 906) and one parcel addressed as 1321 51h Street (Assessor's Parcel Number 4291 -010 -901). The parcels at 1338 -42 51h Street comprise a total of approximately 15,000 square feet in size and the parcel at 1321 5th Street is approximately 7,500 square feet in size. 5. Project sponsors name and address: City of Santa Monica Housing and Economic Development 1901 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90405 Contact: Jennifer Taylor 6. General plan designation: Downtown Core 7. Zoning: C3 e� Fire Station No. 1 1S /MND September 2012 Page 1 FIRE STATION No. 1 INITIAL 8. Description of project: The proposed project includes the land exchange of the privately -owned property addressed at 1337 -45 7th Street and the City -owned properties addressed as 1338 -42 and 1321 51h Street. 1337 -45 7L Street - Under the proposed project, the parcel addressed as 1337 -45 71h Street would be acquired by the City and a new Fire Station No. 1 for the Santa Monica Fire Department (SMFD) would be constructed on this site. The new Fire Station No. 1 building would be a replacement for the existing 11,362 square foot Fire Station No. 1 located at 1444 7th Street. The existing Fire Station No. 1 was built in 1955 and has surpassed its expected useful life span as a "Critical Facility." A City - commissioned structural evaluation has indicated that the existing facility is in need of seismic retrofitting, facility upgrades and building improvements required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Additional analysis has concluded that retrofitting the existing facility would not meet current and future service demands for a fire station that serves Downtown and the northwestern portion of Santa Monica. A new fire station on a larger site is necessary to support the Fire Department's operating and service needs. The proposed project would develop a new two -story Fire Station No. 1 building for the.SMFD at1337 -45 71h Street. The proposed project site is located approximately 530 feet north (0.1 mile) of the existing station. The proposed project would develop a new fire station to provide additional space for expanded staff and equipment as well as improved amenities for the SMFD and the public. SMFD staffing is anticipated to increase from 14 per shift (per 24- hour shift) at the existing fire station to up to 24 per shift (per 24 -hour or 48 -hour shift) at the new fire station. The new fire station building to be developed would comprise a total of 25,000 square feet of space and would include office areas, a kitchen, conference rooms, dorm rooms, shop rooms, watch rooms, sew shop, clothing room, day room, the turn -out closets (where fire fighter's uniforms are stored), utility closet, storage space, exercise room, locker rooms, restrooms, and a sports court. The new fire station would provide up to 6 apparatus bays with up to 4 being pull through. The new building would have a maximum height of approximately 37 feet and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.11. The proposed project would be constructed to achieve at minimum LEED Silver certification. Parking for SMFD staff's personal vehicles would be provided within a subterranean parking to the garage would be provided from 71h Court. In addition, the new fire station would include an aboveground fuel storage tank and gas pump, oxygen tanks, drums of engine oil, and an emergency generator. Construction of the proposed project would take approximately 2 years (2 months for demolition, 4 months for site grading, and 18 months for building construction). Construction is anticipated to begin within 6 months of City approval. Based on the area for the subterranean parking.(22,500 square feet) and depth of excavation (25 feet), approximately 21,000 cubic yards of export is estimated. There are currently no plans to demolish, improve, or alter the existing Fire Station No. 1 building. m� Fire Station No. 11S(MND September 2012 ........ Page 2 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL Upon completion of the new fire station, the existing Fire Station No. 1 building would be vacated by the SMFD. The existing Fire Station No.1 would continue to remain fully operational until construction of the new fire station is complete. 1338 -42 and 1321 51h Street - Under the proposed project, the properties addressed as 1338- 42 and 1321 5th Street would be acquired by the private seller. Currently, there are no development plans for these properties. Per CEQA Section 15384, it would be too speculative to predict or analyze future development that could occur on these properties. In addition, future development that would occur would be subject to its own CEQA review. Therefore, this IS /MND focuses on the potential physical environmental impacts that would occur with the acquisition of 1337 -45 7th Street and subsequent construction of a new Fire Station No. 1 building. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The proposed project site (1337 -45 71h Street) lies within the eastern portion of the City's Downtown district. The surrounding area is primarily mixed -use in nature with a mix of retail, restaurant, office, residential, and institutional uses. ® North - Immediately to the north bordering the project site is a one -story office building; one to three -story office buildings are located further north and northeast of the project site. East - East of the project site across 7th Court is a one -story fast food restaurant with surface parking; a gas station is located to the southeast at the corner of Lincoln Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard. o South - Immediately to the south bordering the project site is a three -story office building at the northeast corner of 71h and Santa Monica Boulevard; one -story commercial buildings (that include a dry cleaners, retail shops, restaurants) are located further south fronting Santa Monica Boulevard. West - West of the project site across 71h Street is the three -story Main Branch of the Santa Monica Public Library and surface parking lot; to the northwest of the project site across 7th Street is a five -story Verizon utility building that functions in part as a switching station with offices. Local vehicular access to the project site is provided by 7th Street and 7th Court alley. Regional access to the project site is provided by the 1 -10 Freeway which is located less than 0.25 mile south of the project site. 10. Public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) • Santa Monica City Council (Adoption of a MIND and Mitigation Monitoring Program) • City of Santa Monica Architectural Review Board (Architectural Design Review) • City of Santa Monica City Council (Project Approval) 4� Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 Page 3 FIRE STATION NO. 1 19KINSIMM MR, "MT. ��;•� . ,� , � <;� -�'a �s�,, -ate- r � � rv' u � +� � � T�'1 �♦ `l:Y > SI+ Ay Yh ` h -Y�' d y >;•. �A >� � � 'bb'µ\ Project Sites Aerial Map a® Fire Station No. 1 IS /RAND September 2072 Page 1 FIGURE 2 — EXISTING SITE PHOTOS Existing project site looking east with view of fast -food restaurant across 7 +n Court in the rear FIRE STATION No. 1 INITIAL STUDY Existing project site looking northeast with view of adjacent one -story dental office to the north �® Fire Stafion No. I IS /MND September 2012 --••_- Page 1 FIGURE 3— SURROUNDING LAND USES (above) View of three -story office building to the north of the project site at 7 +h Street and Santa Monica Boulevard (above) View of Santa Monica Main Library across 7h Street m� FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY (above) View of one -story commercial uses along at Th and Santa Monica Blvd. (above) View of one -story fast food restaurant across 7m Court Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 Page 2 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Construction Effects ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology /Water Quality ❑ Land Use /Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Neighborhood Effects ❑ Noise ❑ Population /Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Shadows ❑ Transportation /Traffic ❑ Utilities /Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance o� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 '• Page 3 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the ® environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Francie Stefan Planning Manager 6 Date Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 Page 4 FIRE STATION No. 1 INITIAL a) No Impact. A scenic vista is typically defined as a public view of highly valued visual and scenic resources such as the ocean and distant mountain ranges, particularly from public vantage points. Scenic resources visible from vantage points in the project area include the Santa Monica Mountains to the north; historic buildings located throughout the Downtown area; and the Pacific Ocean, the coastline, and Palisades Park to the west. The topography of the project site and vicinity is generally flat. Development proximate to the project site is generally mid -rise and includes predominantly mixed commercial and residential uses. Due to the built -out urban nature of the area and flat topography, views of these scenic resources are generally limited to the immediate vicinity of the resource and channelized views along streets. Views in all directions from within the project site are generally limited to the urban streetscape in the immediate project vicinity (i.e., buildings, roadways /sidewalks, trees, billboards). Scenic views, including ocean and mountain views, are not available on or through the project site. Therefore, the project's development of a two -story building would not block existing scenic vistas. The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on a scenic vista. Impacts associated with scenic vistas would not occur. b) No Impact. The project site is not located adjacent to an officially designated state scenic highway. Currently, there are no scenic highways officially designated by the State of California within the City of Santa Monica. The Pacific Coast Highway (PCH /SR- 1Aincoln Boulevard), located approximately 180 feet east of the project site, is eligible for State scenic highway designation but it is not currently designated as scenic by the State or a� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 °• ° ° °• Page 5 Potentially Significant. Impact. Less Than Significant With `Mitigation Incorporated Less Than '':Significant Impact No '. Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a El E] El scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock El El El 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 that would adversely affect day or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ nighttime views in the area? a) No Impact. A scenic vista is typically defined as a public view of highly valued visual and scenic resources such as the ocean and distant mountain ranges, particularly from public vantage points. Scenic resources visible from vantage points in the project area include the Santa Monica Mountains to the north; historic buildings located throughout the Downtown area; and the Pacific Ocean, the coastline, and Palisades Park to the west. The topography of the project site and vicinity is generally flat. Development proximate to the project site is generally mid -rise and includes predominantly mixed commercial and residential uses. Due to the built -out urban nature of the area and flat topography, views of these scenic resources are generally limited to the immediate vicinity of the resource and channelized views along streets. Views in all directions from within the project site are generally limited to the urban streetscape in the immediate project vicinity (i.e., buildings, roadways /sidewalks, trees, billboards). Scenic views, including ocean and mountain views, are not available on or through the project site. Therefore, the project's development of a two -story building would not block existing scenic vistas. The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on a scenic vista. Impacts associated with scenic vistas would not occur. b) No Impact. The project site is not located adjacent to an officially designated state scenic highway. Currently, there are no scenic highways officially designated by the State of California within the City of Santa Monica. The Pacific Coast Highway (PCH /SR- 1Aincoln Boulevard), located approximately 180 feet east of the project site, is eligible for State scenic highway designation but it is not currently designated as scenic by the State or a� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 °• ° ° °• Page 5 FIRE STATION No. 1 INITIAL STUDY /MND County of Los Angeles.I While portions of the project site are visible from Lincoln Boulevard, the proposed project would not be a significant visual deviation from the existing urban development that is visible from Lincoln Boulevard. Additionally, the City of Santa Monica's Scenic Corridors General Plan Element or the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP) does not designate 71h Street or Lincoln Boulevard as scenic corridors.2 In addition, the project site is currently developed as existing surface parking. No desirable vegetation, valued natural features (i.e., rock outcroppings), historic buildings, or other scenic resources exist within the project site. As such, development of the proposed project would not damage scenic resources and impacts on scenic resources would not occur. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed with surface parking with minimal landscaping. The visual quality of the project site is considered low. There are no buildings on the site and the existing surface parking offers little visual quality. The proposed project would alter the visual character of the project site by demolishing the existing surface parking and constructing a new two story fire station building. The new building would comprise approximately 25,000 square feet of building area and would be approximately 37 feet in height. The proposed project would be consistent in height and scale to the existing surrounding uses. Specifically, the project area includes a mix of predominantly one to five story buildings. As such, the proposed project's two story building would not contrast with existing development. (Please see Section XI(a) Land Use for a discussion of the proposed project's height consistency with the LUCE and FAR). While specific details and design elements of the new fire station have yet to be determined, it is anticipated that the new station would be designed to improve the visual character of the project site and area since the project would be subject to design review and approval by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). As required by the ARB, the proposed project would be required to meet the City's standards regarding site design and architecture. As stated, the mission of the Architectural Review Board is to "preserve existing areas of natural beauty, cultural importance and assure that buildings, structures, signs or other developments are in good taste, good design, harmonious with surrounding developments, and in general contribute to the preservation of Santa Monica's reputation as a place of beauty, spaciousness and quality." The design review process would ensure that the project would not degrade the visual character or quality of the area. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City where ambient nighttime lighting levels are medium to medium high. The project site is currently illuminated by pole mounted lights. Existing off -site light sources include interior and exterior lighting from nearby commercial and residential uses, pole- mounted street lights along nearby streets including 7th Street and Lincoln, Boulevard, as well as light generated by vehicular traffic traveling on these streets. There are no light sensitive uses in close proximity to the project site. The nearest light sensitive uses are residential uses that are California Department of Transportation; State Scenic Highways; http://www dot ca ciov /hq /LondArch /scenic /cahisys htm accessed July 2, 2012. 2 Santa Monica Local Coastal Program, Map 13, Scenic and Visual Resources Map. o� Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 ° °` °^ Page 6 FIRE STATION No. 1 INITIAL STUDY /MND located more than 200 feet to the south across Santa Monica Boulevard at the southwest corner of 7th Street /Santa Monica Boulevard. The proposed project would introduce new building lighting as well as exterior lighting on the project site that would incrementally increase nighttime lighting levels. Project lighting would not be significant given the existing medium to medium -high ambient nighttime lighting levels in the downtown area. Lighting levels would not be substantial enough to affect the residential uses which are located approximately 200 feet to the south. In addition, in accordance with Section 9.04.10.02.270 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC), all outdoor lighting associated with commercial uses would be shielded and directed away from surrounding residential uses. Such lighting would not exceed 0.5 footcandles of illumination beyond the project site. Therefore, the proposed project's lighting would not substantially affect nighttime views nor substantially illuminate light - sensitive uses. Therefore, impacts associated with light would be less than significant. Glare is primarily a daytime occurrence caused by the reflection of sunlight or artificial light from highly polished surfaces, such as window glass or reflective materials, and, to a lesser degree, from broad expanses of light- colored surfaces. To address the potential impacts associated with glare, the proposed project would be required to comply with SMMC Section 9.04.10.02.070 (Reflective Materials), which requires that no more than 25 percent of the surface area of any fagade on any new building contain black or mirrored glass or other mirror -like material that is highly reflective, and that materials for roofing be of a non - reflective nature. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with SMMC Section 9.04.10.02.280 (Glare), which requires that direct glare not be visible beyond the boundaries of the property. To ensure compliance with the SMMC, the proposed project would be subject to design review by the city's Architectural Review Board. Therefore, impacts associated with glare would be less than significant. Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 •••.. ... Page 7 FIRE STATION No. 1 INITIAL STUDY less Than 1 Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation. Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact il. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 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 Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the nrniect 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 ❑ El ❑ use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public ❑ ❑ El Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest ❑ ❑ ❑ use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location El E] El or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non - ag(cultural use? a) No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area and is completely developed with surface parking. No agricultural uses occur on the site. Furthermore, the California Division of Land Resources Protection has not designated this area as Prime Farmland, m� Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 °` Page 8 Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide exists within the City. Therefore, the proposed agricultural use. No impacts would occur. FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL Importance.3 No such designated farmland project would not convert farmland to non- b) No Impact. The project site is completely developed with surface parking and zoned C3. The project site is not zoned for agricultural uses nor do agricultural uses occur on the project site. Only land located within an agricultural preserve is eligible for enrollment under a Williamson Act contract. Accordingly, the project site is not covered by a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act Contract. No impacts would occur. c) No Impact. The project site is completely developed with surface parking. No forest land occurs on the project site or surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of forest land. No impacts would occur. d) No Impact. The project site is completely developed with surface parking. Surrounding land uses consists predominantly of commercial and residential uses. As previously described, no forest land occurs on the project site or surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use. No impacts would occur. e) No Impact. The project site is completely developed with surface parking. Surrounding land uses consists predominantly of commercial and residential uses. No farmland or forest land occurs on the project site or in the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural uses or the conversion of forest land to non - forest use. No impacts would occur. 3 California Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Los Angeles County Map; online at fp:7lfto.consry ca govloubldlrp lFMMPlodfl2008llos08 odf• 2008. o� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MIND September 2012 Page 9 FIRE STATION No. 1 INITIAL STUDY. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than CSignificant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact III. 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 El El ® El applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non - attainment under an applicable federal or state El El ® El air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial El El ® El concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a El El ® El number of people? a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located with the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD). Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, SCAQMD has prepared the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants in the SCAB. The AQMP contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing emissions and achieving ambient air quality standards. The SCAQMD has adopted criteria for determining consistency with regional plans and the regional AQMP in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook. These include: (1) identifying whether a project would increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new air quality violations and (2) identifying whether a project would exceed the assumptions utilized in preparing the AQMP. Under the second criterion, a significant impact would occur if a project is inconsistent with the growth assumptions upon which the regional AQMP was based. According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the consistency criteria for the first criterion pertain to pollutant concentrations rather than to total regional emissions. As such, an analysis of the pollutant emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations is used as the basis for evaluating project consistency with the first criterion. As analyzed in Section III(c), project construction and operation would not exceed localized significance thresholds. Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 Page 10 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY /MND Therefore, the proposed project meets the first criterion for determining project consistency with the 2007 AQMP. With regard to the second criterion, projects that are consistent with the regional population, housing, and employment forecasts identified by SCAG are considered to be consistent with the AQMP growth projections, since the forecast assumptions by SCAG forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. Since SCAG's regional growth forecasts are based upon, among other things, land uses designated in City general plans, a project that is consistent with the land use designated in a City's general plan would also be consistent with the SCAG's regional forecast projections, and thus also with the AQMP growth projections. As discussed in Section XV(a), Population and Housing, the proposed project is a the new construction of a replacement fire station to serve existing and forecasted population in the City of Santa Monica. The proposed project would not generate significant permanent population growth that would exceed regional growth forecasts. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the growth assumptions of the AQMP and meets the second criterion of determining consistency with the AQMP. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As indicated above, the project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which is in non - attainment for several of the criteria air pollutants. The proposed project would contribute to local and regional air pollutant emissions during construction (short -term) and operation (long- term). However, based on the following analysis, construction and operation of the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria air pollutant emissions and thus, impacts would be less than significant. Construction Construction of the proposed project would have the potential to create air quality impacts due to constructed - related emissions from grading /demolition activities; operation of construction equipment /trucks; and construction worker vehicle trips. The SCAQMD establishes the following construction regional (mass daily) thresholds for the criteria air pollutants: 75 pounds per day ROG ® 100 pounds per day NOx ® 550 pounds per day CO ® 150 pounds per day of PM 10 • 55 pounds per day of PM2.5 Project construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation and, for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. Construction - related daily emissions associated with the proposed project were calculated using CALEEMOD, an air quality emissions model developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). [Model results are provided in Appendix A]. A summary of the maximum daily emissions by construction phase along with the regional significance thresholds for each air pollutant are presented in Table 2. As shown therein, maximum daily construction - related emissions would not exceed the regional thresholds for any of the criteria air pollutants. o® Fire Station No. 1 IS /MAID September 2012 ° ^• ^° Page 1 T FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL In addition, local significance thresholds (LSTs) were devised in response to public concern regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. The LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an air quality exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the nearest sensitive receptor, taking into consideration ambient concentrations in each source receptor area (SRA), project size, and distance to the sensitive receptor, etc. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. As presented in Table 2, construction - related maximum daily emissions would not exceed LSTs. Based on the above, construction of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to air quality. TABLE 2 ESTIMATED MAXIMUM UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (LBS /DAY) Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 °^ Page 12 Unmitigated Emissions (lbs /day)° VOC NO, sox CO PM10 PM2.5 Demolition - lweek (2013) On -Site 2.00 13.95 0.02 9.51 1.04 1.04 Off -Site 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.64 0.13 0.01 Total 2.06 14.91 0.02 10.15 1.17 1.05 Site Preparation -2 months (2013) On -Site 1.72 12.58 0.01 8.68 0.92 0.81 Off -Site 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.32 0.07 0.00 Total 1.75 12.61 0.01 9.00 0.99 0.81 Grading -1 week (2013) On -Site 2.00 13.91 0.02 9.51 1.83 1.46 Off -Site 1.64 16.56 0.02 9.58 62.01 0.69 Total 3.64 30.47 0.04 19.09 63.84 2.15 Building Construction - 18 months (2014) On -Site 2.02 15.03 0.02 10.68 0.92 0.92 Off -Site 0.09 0.64 0.00 0.84 0.17 0.02 Total 2.11 15.67 0.02 11.52 1.09 0.94 Paving -1 week (2014) Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 °^ Page 12 FIRE STATION No. 1 INITIAL On -Site 13.77 0.02 9.69 1.10 1.10 Off -Site J2.27 0.09 0.00 1.07 0.24 0.01 Total 13.86 0.02 10.76 1.34 1.11 Architectural Coating - 4 weeks (2014) On -Site 34.50 2.77. 0.00 1.92 0.24 0.24 Off -Site 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.12 0.03 0.00 Total 34.51 2.78 0.00 2.04 0.27 0.24 Maximum Daily Emissions 34.51 30.47 0.04 19.09 63.84 2.15 (highest of the phases) SCAQMD Regional 75 100 150 550 150 55 Thresholds Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Localized Significant Thresholds b LSTs _ 103 562 - 4 3 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: CaIEEMod Summer Emissions output (see Appendix A for data sheets). a Maximum daily emissions based on highest of the construction phase from construction year 2013 through 2014. LSTs are for a 1 -acre project in SRA -2 within a distance of 25 meters from the site boundary Operation The SCAQMD has established separate significance thresholds to evaluate potential impacts associated with the incremental increase in criteria air pollutants associated with project operation: 9 55 pounds per day ROG 55 pounds per day NOx 550 pounds per day CO 150 pounds per day of PM 10 55 pounds per day of PM2.5 Project operation could potentially increase mobile source (i.e., vehicle trips) emissions as well as emissions generated by area sources (e.g., natural gas combustion, landscape fuel combustion, consumer products, and architectural coatings). Due to the operating nature of fire stations as emergency responders, it is not possible to predict their daily trip generation for when trips would be generated throughout a day). Only the commute trips by fire station staff are predictable. As previously stated in the Project Description, SMFD staffing is anticipated to increase from 14 per shift (per 24 -hour shift) at the existing fire station to up to 24 per shift (per 24 -hour or 48 -hour shift) at the new fire station. As analyzed in Section XIX(a) Transportation /Traffic, conservatively assuming that the net increase of 10 personnel per 24 hour shift would drive alone to the new fire station, the proposed project could result in a net daily increase of 10 inbound and 10 outbound ®� Fire Station No. 1 IS /M ND September 2012 Page 13 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL trips. Additionally, the proposed project would result in an increase in the consumption of fossil fuels for comfort heating and the generation of electricity for cooling, lighting, and power needs. The number of emergency generators would not increase from existing conditions. Operational emissions related to the fire station personnel vehicle trips and stationary sources were estimated using CALEEMOD (see Appendix A). The results of the detailed emissions calculations are provided in Table 3. As indicated therein, the proposed project would not result in criteria pollutant emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD daily regional significance thresholds. TABLE 3 ESTIMATED MAXIMUM UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (LBS /DAY) Localized air quality impacts could occur as a result of carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots. Vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO in urban settings. Consequently, the highest CO concentrations are generally found within close proximity to congested intersection locations. Under typical meteorological conditions, CO concentrations tend to decrease as distance from the emissions source (i.e., congested intersection) increase. The SCAQMD recommends a hot -spot evaluation of potential localized CO impacts when a project causes an intersection to go from a Level of Service (LOS) of C to a LOS of D or worse and when the volume to capacity (V /C) ratio increases by 2 percent or more for intersections rated D or worse. As identified in Section XIX Transportation /Traffic, fire station personnel would work a 24 hour shift or 48 hour shift beginning at 7:00 AM and ending at 7:00 PM, prior to the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, trips associated with fire station personnel would not have an impact on the LOS of existing intersections during peak hours. Therefore, no CO hotspot impacts would occur. Based on the above, operation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to air quality. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As the proposed project is not part of an ongoing regulatory program, the SCAQMD recommends that project specific air quality impacts be used to determine the potential cumulative impacts to regional air quality. As discussed above, ®� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 °••••• °° Page 14 Unmitigated Emissions (lbs /day) VOC NO, SO. CO PM10 PM2.5 Area 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 Mobile 0.14 0.33 0.00 1.41 0.30 0.02 Total Emissions 0.80 0.39 1.46 0.00 0.30 0.02 SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 55 55 150 550 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Localized air quality impacts could occur as a result of carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots. Vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO in urban settings. Consequently, the highest CO concentrations are generally found within close proximity to congested intersection locations. Under typical meteorological conditions, CO concentrations tend to decrease as distance from the emissions source (i.e., congested intersection) increase. The SCAQMD recommends a hot -spot evaluation of potential localized CO impacts when a project causes an intersection to go from a Level of Service (LOS) of C to a LOS of D or worse and when the volume to capacity (V /C) ratio increases by 2 percent or more for intersections rated D or worse. As identified in Section XIX Transportation /Traffic, fire station personnel would work a 24 hour shift or 48 hour shift beginning at 7:00 AM and ending at 7:00 PM, prior to the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, trips associated with fire station personnel would not have an impact on the LOS of existing intersections during peak hours. Therefore, no CO hotspot impacts would occur. Based on the above, operation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts related to air quality. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As the proposed project is not part of an ongoing regulatory program, the SCAQMD recommends that project specific air quality impacts be used to determine the potential cumulative impacts to regional air quality. As discussed above, ®� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 °••••• °° Page 14 FIRE STATION NO. I INITIAL STUDY peak daily emissions of operation - related pollutants would not exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. By applying SCAQMD's cumulative air quality impact methodology, implementation of the proposed project would not result in an addition of criteria pollutants such that cumulative impacts, in conjunction with related projects in the region, would occur. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution of operational emissions would be less than significant d) Less Than Significant Impact. Certain population groups are especially sensitive to air pollution and should be given special consideration when evaluating potential air quality impacts. These population groups include children, the elderly, persons with pre- existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and athletes or others who engage in frequent exercise. As defined in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a sensitive receptor to air quality is defined as any of the following land use categories: (1) long -term health care facilities; (2) rehabilitation centers; (3) convalescent centers; (4) retirement homes; (5) residences; (6) schools (i.e. elementary, middle school, high schools); (7) parks and playgrounds; (8)child care centers; and (9) athletic fields. The closest sensitive receptors are the residential uses located more than 200 feet to the south across Santa Monica Boulevard. As described in Section lll(b) above, construction and operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact for both regional and localized air pollution emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As such, impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact. Objectionable odors are typically associated with industrial uses such as agricultural facilities (e.g., farms and dairies), refineries, wastewater treatment facilities, and landfills. The proposed project involves the development of a fire station, which would not generate significant odors. Limited odors during project operation may occur as a result of trash areas and the use of certain cleaning agents, all of which would be consistent with existing conditions on -site and in the surrounding area. In addition, limited and temporary odors may occur during project construction from diesel operated machinery/equipment and application of architectural coatings. However, any odors that may be generated would be localized and temporary in nature, and would not affect a substantial number of people or result in a nuisance as defined by SCAQMD Rule 402. Therefore, impacts with regard to odors would be less than significant. o� Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 ° ^• ° °• Page 75 FIRE STATION No. 1 INITIAL STUDY -.Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant .Mitigation Significant Impact JIncorporated Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status 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 ❑ 11 El policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. 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 wetlands, 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 El El ❑ resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, 71 ® 11 El as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 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? a) No Impact. The project site is completely developed and is located in a highly urbanized area in the City of Santa Monica. No special status /sensitive species occur on the project site or surrounding area. Additionally, given the urbanized nature of the project area and considering that the project site has already been disturbed, the likelihood of the presence e� Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND September 2012 °..... Page 16 FIRE STATION NO. I INITIAL STUDY /MND of any sensitive or special status species is unlikely. Species expected to occur on -site would be limited to terrestrial species (such as squirrels) and birds that are commonly found in urban environments. The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive or special status species. No impacts would occur. b) No Impact. As stated previously, the project site is completely developed and located in an urbanized area within the City. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community exists on the project site or in the surrounding area. The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and no impacts would occur. c) No Impact. As stated previously, the project site is completely developed and located in an urbanized area within the City. There are no wetlands on the project site or in the surrounding area. As such, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and no impacts would occur. d) No Impact. As stated above, the project site is completely developed and located in an urbanized area within the City. Surrounding land uses consists predominantly of commercial and residential uses. No wildlife corridors, native wildlife nursery sites, or bodies of water in which fish are present are located on or near the project site. Furthermore, due to the urbanized nature of the project area, the potential for native resident or migratory wildlife species movement to occur through the site is highly unlikely. The proposed project would not interfere with any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No impacts would occur. e) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As stated above, the project site is completely developed and is located in a highly urbanized area in the City. No biological resources, including trees, occur on the project site. There are two public street trees (palm trees) located on the public sidewalks adjacent to the project site. Depending on the proposed project's design and location of the apparatus bays, the proposed project could require the removal and /or relocation of the two street trees on 7th Street. As such, the following mitigation measures would be required if the two street trees are to be removed or relocated: BIO -i Tree Protection Zone. Prior to commencement of construction activities and /or the removal or planting of any tree species within the public realm, the SMED shall coordinate with the Santa Monica Public Landscape Division to obtain the proper tree permits and delineate any applicable Tree Protection Zone areas, in compliance with the Santa Monica Tree Code and the Santa Monica Urban forest Master Plan. BI0-2 Tree Relocation and Removal Plan. if public trees are to be removed or relocated, a Tree Relocation and Removal Plan shall be prepared that clearly identifies the public trees to be impacted, the reasons for the proposed removals or relocations, and shall contain the following information: • The appraised value of the tree in relation to its relocation cost • Existing utilities and other elements of the city's infrastructure • The suitability of the tree for relocation, i.e., tree age, health, root and canopy structure o� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 °•• Page 17 FIRE STATION NO. 7 INITIAL STUDY • The mature size of the tree • Impact the relocated tree will have on the new site • Long -term and short -term maintenance and irrigation requirements • Chances of surviving relocation ® Public input obtained as part of the project's community design process • Environmental benefits of the tree • Aesthetic and /or cultural value The final Tree Relocation and Removal Plan shall be approved by the City Council as part of their approval of final project design. With implementation of the mitigation measures, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources (including trees). Impacts would be less than significant. f) No Impact. No habitat for any special status or sensitive biological species exists on the project site or in the vicinity. Accordingly, no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved habitat conservation plan applies to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan. No impacts would occur. g® Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 ' °..... Page 18 FIRE STATION NO. I INITIAL Less Than Significant `Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation - Significant Impact Incorporated .Impact No Impact V. CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS. Would the project: a) Have considerable construction - period impacts due to the scope, or location of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ construction activities? a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Construction of the proposed project would result in short -term impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards /hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and traffic. As analyzed in the respective sections of this IS /MND, construction impacts would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. Please refer to Section I - Aesthetics; Section ll - Air Quality; Section VI - Cultural Resources; Section VI - Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Section IX - Hazards; Section X - Hydrology and Water Quality; Section XIV - Noise; and Section XIX - Transportation /Traffic, for a detailed analysis of construction related effects associated with the proposed project. o® Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 '••.. Page 19 FIRE STATION NO. I INITIAL STUDY /MND a) No Impact. A historical resource is defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines as a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; a resource included in a local register of historical resources; or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript determined to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military or cultural annals of California. Generally, a resource is considered to be "historically significant" if it meets one of the following criteria: o Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; o Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; o 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 o Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history In general, structures over 40 years of age are eligible for consideration as a historic resource in the City of Santa Monica. The project site is developed with existing surface parking. No buildings exist on the project site. The proposed project would not demolish existing buildings that could be potential historic resources. In addition, currently, there are no plans to demolish, improve, or alter the existing Fire Station No. 1 building at 1444 7th Street, which is listed on the Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory (the Inventory) - December 2010 with a historic resources code o� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 ° °° Page 20 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact '. VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as ❑ ❑ ❑ defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ® ❑ ❑ pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ® ❑ ❑ geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those El El ® El outside of formal cemeteries? a) No Impact. A historical resource is defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines as a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; a resource included in a local register of historical resources; or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript determined to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military or cultural annals of California. Generally, a resource is considered to be "historically significant" if it meets one of the following criteria: o Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; o Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; o 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 o Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history In general, structures over 40 years of age are eligible for consideration as a historic resource in the City of Santa Monica. The project site is developed with existing surface parking. No buildings exist on the project site. The proposed project would not demolish existing buildings that could be potential historic resources. In addition, currently, there are no plans to demolish, improve, or alter the existing Fire Station No. 1 building at 1444 7th Street, which is listed on the Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory (the Inventory) - December 2010 with a historic resources code o� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 ° °° Page 20 FIRE STATION No. 1 INITIAL of 5S3 *.4 Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect a historical resource. No impacts would occur. b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The project site is located within a highly urbanized area and has been developed for a number of years. Therefore, any archaeological resources on the site would likely have already been uncovered. Nonetheless, since the proposed project would require excavation for the subterranean parking, there is a potential to uncover archaeological resources that were never previously discovered. The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potential impacts on archaeological resources to less than significant: CUL -1 If archaeological materials are discovered during project grading and excavation activities, all work within a 100 -meter radius shall be temporarily ceased. The materials shall be treated in accordance with Federal, State, and local guidelines, including those set forth in California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. In addition, if it is determined that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 would be implemented. With adherence to the above mitigation measure, impacts on archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The project site is located within a highly urbanized area, and has been developed for a number of years. As such, the likelihood of uncovering paleontological resources is low. Nonetheless, since the proposed project would require excavation for the subterranean parking, there is a potential to uncover significant vertebrate fossils in older Quaternary deposits during grading /excavation activities. Vertebrate fossil remains have been recovered within older Quaternary sediments within the City of Santa Monica and its surrounding areas. The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potential impacts on paleontological resources to less than significant: CUL -2 If paleontological materials are discovered during project grading and excavation activities, all work within a 100 -meter radius shall be temporarily ceased. A qualified paleontologist shall be secured by contacting the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum to assess the resources and evaluate the impact. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a report of the findings and a copy of the report shall be submitted to the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum. With adherence to the above mitigation measure, impacts on paleontological resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. d) Less Than Significant Impact. There is no evidence that the project site was previously used as a cemetery or other human burial grounds. Furthermore, the project site is located within a highly urbanized area and has been developed for a number of years. Therefore, any 4 A historic resources code of 5S3* indicates that the structure appears to be individually eligible as a Santa Monica Structure of Merit through survey evaluation. e® Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 Page 21 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY /MND human remains on the site would likely have already been uncovered. Nonetheless, since the proposed project would require excavation for the subterranean parking, there is a potential to uncover human remains that were never previously discovered. However, if human remains are uncovered during project grading and excavation activities, state requirements would be followed. Specifically, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 enumerate specific requirements for the evaluation and treatment, in the event of an accidental discovery, of human remains. The regulations require that if human remains are found, no further disturbance shall occur until the County coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who will then serve as consultant on how to proceed with the remains. Therefore, with adherence to regulations, impacts on human remains would be less than significant. o� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 Page 22 FIRE STATION No. I INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant '.' Potentially With Less Than Significant - Mitigation 1Significant No Impact Incorporated .impact Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 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 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including El ❑ ® El liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of El El ® ❑ topsoil? 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? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code ❑ ® 1:1 El creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. (i) Fault rupture is the displacement that occurs along the surface of a fault during an earthquake. The California Geological Survey (CGS) designates Alquist- Priolo Earthquake o� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 °•' °'•• Page 23 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY /MND Fault Zones, which are regulatory zones around active faults.5 These zones, which extend from 200 to 500 feet on each side of known active faults, identify areas where potential surface ruptures along active faults could prove hazardous and identify where special studies are required to characterize hazards to habitable structures. There are no Alquist- Priolo Fault Zones located within the City of Santa Monica.6 The City of Santa Monica, however, is crossed by the south branch and north branch of the Santa Monica Fault.l The City of Santa Monica treats the Santa Monica Fault as an active fault, and as such, has designated Fault Hazard Management Zones, which extend 380 to 500 feet north of the north branch and 100 to 600 feet south of the south branch of the Santa Monica Fault.8 The project site is not located in these zones. As such, the potential for fault rupture to occur at the project site is low. Impacts related to fault rupture would be less than significant. (ii) The project site is located in the seismically active region of southern California. As such, the project site would be subject to strong groundshaking in the event of an earthquake on the Santa Monica fault or any other fault in the area. Therefore, the proposed project improvements could be adversely affected by seismic groundshaking if design measures to the project site and proposed project are not implemented. Adherence to the seismic safety design standards established through the SMMC and SMBC (which adopts CBC standards by reference with local amendments) would ensure the maximum practicable seismic protection for the proposed project. Notwithstanding, Mitigation Measure GEO -1 is required to ensure that site - specific geotechnical design considerations are incorporated to reduce potential seismic hazards to a less- than - significant level. GEO -1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City shall contract with a California - licensed Civil Engineer (Geotechnical) to prepare and submit to the Santa Monica Building and Safety Department a site specific design -level geotechnical report addressing seismic and soils hazards (including but not limited to unstable soils, expansive soils, etc.) for the proposed project. The report shall be performed in accordance with the most current Santa Monica Guidelines for Geotechnical Reports. The requirements and recommendations, as established in the Geotechnical Report project shall be implemented in the design of the project, including but not limited to measures associated with grading (site preparation, compaction, materials, utility trench backfill, shrinkage), foundation design (foundation reinforcement, lateral design, settlement), retaining wall design (including waterproofing, drainage, and backfill), temporary excavations, shoring, slab -on -grade construction, overall site drainage; stormwater disposal, design review, and construction monitoring). Permits shall not be issued for grading or construction until the Santa Monica Building and Safety Department has reviewed and approved project plans. (iii) Liquefaction is a form of earthquake induced ground failure that occurs primarily in relatively shallow, loose, granular, water - saturated soils. Liquefaction can occur when these types of soils lose their inherent shear strength due to excess water pressure that builds up during repeated movement from seismic activity. Liquefaction potential is greatest where 5 Active faults are those having historically produced earthquakes or shown evidence of movement within the past 11,000 years. d California Geological Survey, Beverly Hills Quadrangle - Alquist -Paolo Fault Zones; online at htto�llamw consry ca oov /shmo /download /oolodf /BEVHILLS PDF accessed May 3, 2011. r City of Santa Monica, Online Property Information System; online at htto,llaismaosanto- monica.cralimflimf iso2site= r)L(2r)grtvJ accessed May 3, 2011. 6 City of Santa Monica, Geologic Hazards Map; online at htto: / /gismao santa- monica org/GISMaps /pdf /aeohaz od accessed June 28, 2012. Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 ^• °•• Page 24 FIRE STATION No. 1 INITIAL STUDY the groundwater level is shallow, and where submerged loose, fine sands occur. The project site is not mapped by the City as being located in a Liquefaction Risk Areas nor is the site designated by the CGS as a Liquefaction Hazard Zone.10 As such, the potential for liquefaction to occur at the project site is unlikely, and impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant. (iv) Landslides are movements of large masses of rock and /or soil. Landslide potential is generally the greatest for areas with steep and /or high slopes, low sheer strength, and increased water pressure. The project site and surrounding area is characterized by a relatively flat topography. Thus, the potential for landslides to occur at the project site is very low. Additionally, the project site is not mapped by the City as being located in a Landslide Risk Area" or mapped by the CGS as an Earthquake- Induced Landslide Area.72 Therefore, no impacts related to landslides would occur. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed further in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, in accordance with the City's Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance, Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented during project construction to minimize erosion and stormwater runoff. In addition, an Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan would be in place throughout the operational life of the proposed project to reduce erosion or siltation effects. As such, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The soils underlying the project site consists of Hanford Soils, which tend to be sandy foams and loamy sands on alluvial fans and plains.13 Potential impacts related to unstable soils could arise if project design did not consider the specific nature of the underyling soils. In addition, excavation for the subterranean parking could result in unstable soils for the proposed new fire station. Therefore, mitigation measure GEO -T is required to reduce impacts to less than significant. all Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The soils underlying the project site consists of Hanford Soils, which tend to be sandy looms and loamy sands on alluvial fans and plains. These soils are well drained and have low potential for expansion and erosion. Potential impacts related to expansive soils could arise if project design did not consider the specific nature of the underyling soils. With incorporation of the mitigation measure above (GEO -1), impacts related to expansive soils would be reduced to less than significant. e) No Impact. The project site is located in the City of Santa Monica, which is entirely supported by existing wastewater infrastructure. Alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be necessary to support the new fire station. The new fire station would connect to existing wastewater infrastructure. Therefore, no impacts related to soils supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur. Ibid. 10 California Geological - Survey, Beverly Hills Quadrangle - Seismic Hazards Map; online at htto: / /dmw.consry ca govlshmoldownloadlodflozn bevh adE accessed June 28, 2012 11 City of Santa Monica, Online Property Information System; online at http://gismap.santa- monico.org /imf /imf.jsp ?site= property; accessed July 2, 2012. Ibid. is City of Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element, Final Environmental Impact Report, April 2010; online at btto�llwww.shopethefuture2a25.net/PDF/eir/iuce feir t od: accessed July 6, 2012. o� Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 Page 25 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ` Impact Incorporated Impact - No Impact VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of El ❑ ® ❑ reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? a and b) Less Than Significant Impact. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gases that trap heat in the earth's atmosphere. GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (03), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). The international scientific communities have recognized that GHGs are contributing to global climate change. Predicted effects of global climate change include sea level rise, water supply changes; changes to ecosystems and habitat; and human health effects. Not all GHGs exhibit the same ability to induce climate change; CO2 is the primary driver of global climate change. As a result, GHG contributions are commonly quantified in the equivalent mass of CO2, denoted as CO2e. Most of the CO2e produced in California is associated with transportation. Electricity generation is the second largest source. In response to concern regarding GHGs and global climate change, the State passed Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) also known as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 mandated a reduction in the State's greenhouse gas levels. In addition, SB375 passed by the State of California in 2009, requires metropolitan regions to adopt transportation plans that reduce vehicle miles travelled. The City of Santa Monica has also adopted the Sustainable City Plan (SCP) which includes targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2015 for City government operations and 15 percent below 1990 levels by 2015 Citywide. In 1990, GHG emissions for the City were 924,293 metric tons of CO2e. In 2007 (the most recent inventory), GHG emissions for the City were 941,625 metric tons of CO2e. Therefore, the 2015 Citywide target is 785,649 metric tons CO2e by 2015 (a 15 percent reduction from 1990 levels or a reduction of 16.6 percent below the 2007 inventory of CO2e). In addition, the City's LUCE links new development and urban character and form with a shift in transportation to reduce GHG emissions in accordance with the SCP. The LUCE goals and policies align with State regulations and policies for GHG reductions. In addition, the LUCE is intended to achieve the GHG reduction targets reflected in the SCP. Neither the SCAQMD nor the CEQA Guidelines have established numeric or qualitative thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions. The CEQA Guideline Amendments, adopted in December 2010, state that each local lead agency must develop its own o® Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 ••• °° Page 26 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL significance criteria based on local conditions, data, and guidance from public agencies and other sources. The information provided in this section is based on recently established California goals for reducing GHG emissions, as well as a project specific emissions inventory developed for the proposed project. How a proposed project might contribute to GCC and the overall effect of an individual project based on that contribution are still being debated. As previously discussed, no statewide thresholds or methodologies for determining the significance of a project's potential cumulative contribution to GCC have been adopted to date. An individual project (unless it is a massive construction project, such as a dam or a new freeway project, or a large fossil fuel fired power plant) does not generate sufficient GHG emissions to directly influence GCC; therefore, the issue of global climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project's contribution towards a cumulative impact is cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The significance threshold utilized for the City of Santa Monica is based on the methodologies recommended by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association ( CAPCOA), CEQA, and the Climate Change white paper (January 2008). CAPCOA conducted an analysis of various approaches and significance thresholds, ranging from a zero threshold (all projects are cumulatively considerable) to a high of 40,000 to 50,000 metric tons (MT) of CO2. An approach assuming a zero threshold and compliance with AB 32 2020 targets would require all discretionary projects to achieve a 33 percent reduction from projected BAU emissions to be considered less than significant. A zero threshold approach could be considered on the basis that climate change is a global phenomenon, and not controlling small source emissions would potentially neglect a major portion of the GHG inventory. However, the CEQA Guidelines also recognize that there may be a point where a project's contribution, although above zero, would not be a considerable contribution to the cumulative impact (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130(a)). Therefore, a threshold of greater than zero is considered more appropriate for the analysis of GHG emissions under CEQA. Another method would use a quantitative threshold of greater than 900 MT CO2e per year based on a market capture approach that requires mitigation for greater than 90 percent of likely future discretionary development. This threshold would generally correspond to office projects of approximately 35,000 sf, retail projects of approximately 11,000 sf, or supermarket space of approximately 6,300 sf. Another potential threshold would be the 10,000 MT standard used by the Market Advisory Committee for inclusion in a GHG Cap and Trade System in California. A 10,000 MT significance threshold would correspond to the GHG emissions of approximately 550 residential units, 400,000 sf of office space, 120,000 sf of retail, and 70,000 sf of supermarket space. This threshold would capture roughly half of new residential or commercial development. The basic concepts for the various approaches suggested by CAPCOA are used herein to determine whether or not the proposed project's GHG emissions are "cumulatively considerable." development on sites at the periphery of metropolitan areas, also known as "greenfield" sites, where there would be an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated GHG emissions than to infill development, which would generally reduce regional VMT and associated emissions. As the City of Santa Monica is generally built out, most commercial development within the City is infill or redevelopment and would be expected to @� Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 ••••••••• Page 27 FIRE STATION NO. I INITIAL STUDY generally reduce VMT and reliance on the drive -alone automobile use as compared to further suburban growth at the periphery of the region. A reduction in vehicle use and VMT can result in a reduction in fuel consumption and in air pollutant emissions, including GHG emissions. Recent research indicates that infill development reduces VMT and associated air pollutant emissions, as compared to greenfield sites. For example, a 1999 simulation study conducted for the USEPA, comparing infill development to greenfield development, found that infill development results in substantially fewer VMT per capita (39 percent compared to 52 percent) and generates fewer emissions of most air pollutants and GHGs. For this reason, the most conservative (i.e., lowest) thresholds, suggested by CAPCOA, would not be appropriate for the proposed project given that it is located in a community that is highly urbanized. Similarly, the 900 -ton threshold was also determined to be too conservative for general development in the South Coast Air Basin. Thus, a project's contribution to cumulative impacts to global climate change is considered cumulatively considerable if the proposed project would generate 10,000 MT CO2e. Consequently, the threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e is used as a quantitative benchmark for significance. In addition, qualitative consideration is given to the project's consistency with GHG emissions reduction strategies and policies. In particular, the Climate Action Team produced the CAT Report, which contains greenhouse gas reduction strategies that California agencies can implement. The CAT published a public review draft of Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in California. Most of the strategies were in the 2006 CAT Report or are similar to the 2006 CAT strategies. In addition, the Attorney General and CAPCOA includes policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions. At the local level, the City of Santa Monica's GHG policies are contained in the Sustainable City Plan and LUCE. As indicated below, based on the above criteria, the proposed project would result in GHG emissions but such emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. Construction Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary greenhouse gas emissions from operation of construction equipment /trucks as well as construction worker vehicles. It is estimated that approximately 21,000 cubic yards of export would be required for the proposed project. Based on the maximum daily CO2 emissions generated by construction of the proposed project (see Appendix A for greenhouse gas emissions modeling results), construction of the proposed project would generate an estimated 583 tons of CO2e over the 2 year construction period. Amortized over a 30 year period (operational life of the project as recommended by SCAQMD), this would equate to 19 tons of CO2e per year. Unlike the operational emissions that would occur over the life of the project, construction emissions would be temporary and short term. Operation Project operation would result greenhouse gas emissions on a long term basis as a result of GHG emissions coming from vehicle traffic, as well as the on -site consumption of natural gas /electricity. However, the proposed project would be designed to achieve at minimum LEED Silver certification. Table 4 shows the estimated operational emissions of GHGs from the proposed development. As shown therein, operation of the proposed would generate 212.23 metric tons of CO2E per year. The proposed project's GHG emissions of 212.23 metric tons CO2e /year would not exceed the City's threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO2e /year. It should be noted that the existing fire station currently generate greenhouse gas emissions, and as such, the estimated 212.23 metric tons of CO2E per year does not represent net new emissions. o� Fire Station No. 1 IS(MND September 2012 °• °' °'° Page 28 FIRE STATION NO. I INITIAL In addition, as shown in Table 5, the proposed project would be consistent with the greenhouse gas strategies and policies established by the Climate Action Team (CAT), Attorney General, and CAPCOA. Furthermore, the proposed project is consistent with the City's LUCE and Sustainable City Plan as it would be constructed to achieve a LEED Silver Certification. Thus, because the project would result in total GHG emissions less than the 10,000 metric ton threshold recommended by the CAPCOA and is consistent with applicable GHG goals, the project is not considered to have a significant impact on a cumulative level. TABLE 4 ESTIMATED PROJECT OPERATION GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (ANNUAL CO2E METRIC TONS) o� Fire Station No. 1 IS/MIND September 2012 ••••• Page 29 Annual CO2E Area 0.00 Energy 127.17 Mobile 41.25 Waste 10.58 Water 33.23 Total 212.23 See Appendix A for modeling results o� Fire Station No. 1 IS/MIND September 2012 ••••• Page 29 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL TABLE 5 PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH GREENHOUSE GAS PLANS AND REGULATIONS ,,,G G Stiplegy /policy v 'allfomia Air R @sources Board Vehicle Climate Change Standards: AB 1493 required the state to develop and adopt regulations that achieve Not Applicable. These are CARB enforced standards for the maximum feasible and cost - effective reduction vehicle manufacturing. Therefore, this strategy is not climate change emissions emitted by passenger vehiclees s applicable to the project. and light duty trucks. Regulations were adopted by the CARB in September 2004. Consistent: Current State law restricts diesel truck idling Diesel Anti - Idling: The CARB adopted a measure to limit to five minutes or less. Diesel trucks that travel to and diesel - fueled commercial motor vehicle idling in July from the project site would be subject to this State -wide 2004, law. Construction vehicles would also subject to this regulation. Hydrofluorocarbon Reduction 1) Ban retail sale of HFC in small cans. 2) Require that only low GWP refrigerants be used in new Not Applicable: This strategy applies to the sale, vehicular systems. manufacturing, and regulation of consumer products. 3) Adopt specifications for new commercial ref(geration. Therefore, this strategy is not applicable to the project. 4) Add refrigerant leak tightness to the pass criteria for vehicular inspection and maintenance programs. 5) Enforce federal ban on releasing HFCs. Alternative Fuels: Blodiesel Blends: CARB would develop regulations to require the use of 1 to 4 percent blodiesei displacement of California diesel fuel. Not Applicable: These are CARB strategies for regulating Alternative Fuels: Ethanol: Increased use of E-85 fuel. the use of alternative fuels and increasing heavy duty vehicle efficiency. Therefore, this strategy is not applicable to the project. Heavy -Duty Vehicle Emission Reduction Measures: Increased efficiency in the design of heavy duty vehicles and an education program for the heavy duty vehicle sector. Achieve 50 Percent Statewide Recycling Goal: Achieving the State's 50 percent waste diversion Consistent: The proposed project would include on site mandate as established by the Integrated Waste recycling containers to support the statewide recycling Management Act of 1989, (AB 939, Sher, Chapter 1095, goal. In addition, the proposed project would comply Statutes of 1989), will reduce climate change emissions with Section 8.108.010 Subpart C of the Santa Monica associated with energy intensive material extraction and Municipal Code, which requires that demolition and /or production as well as methane emission from landfills. construction projects over 1000 square feet divert at least 65 percent of construction and demolition material from landfills. Zero Waste - High Recycling: Efforts to exceed the 50 percent goal would allow for additional reductions in See above. climate change emissions. • pepadlnent df FoieifrV - o� Fire Station No. I IS /MND September2012 ° °••••.. Page 30 Urban Forestry: A new statewide goal of planting 5 million trees in urban areas by 2020 would be achieved through the expansion of local urban forestry programs. electricity, 30 percent of all natural gas, and 88 million gallons of diesel are used to convey, treat, distribute and use water and wastewater. Increasing the efficiency of wafer transport and reducing water use would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Use both potable and non - potable water to maximum extent practicable; low flow appliances (i.e., toilets, dishwashers, showerheads, washing machines, etc); automatic shut off valves for sinks in restrooms; drought resistant landscaping; Place "Save Water" signs near Building Energy Efficiency Standards in Place and in Progress: Public Resources Code 25402 authorizes the CEC to adopt and periodically update its building energy efficiency standards (that apply to newly constructed buildings and additions to and alterations to Building Energy Efficiency Standards in Place and In Progress: Public Resources Code 25402 authorizes the CEC to adopt and periodically update its building energy efficiency standards (that apply to newly constructed buildings and additions to and alterations to Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards In Place and in Progress: Public Resources Code 25402 authorizes the Energy Commission to adopt and periodically update its appliance energy efficiency standards that apply to devices and equipment using energy that are sold or Fuel - Efficient Replacement Tires & Inflation Programs: State legislation established a statewide program to encourage the production and use of more efficient Municipal Utility Energy Efficiency Programs /Demand Response: Includes energy efficiency programs, renewable portfolio standard, combined heat and power, and tronsitioning away from carbon intensive generation. California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) , established in 2002, requires that all load serving entities achieve a goal of 20 percent of retail electricity sales from renewable energy sources by 2017, within certain Municipal Utility Combined Heat and Power: Cost effective reduction from fossil fuel consumption in the commercial and industrial sector through the application of on -site power production to meet both heat and FIRE STATION No. I INITIAL Consistent: Although detailed site plans have not been developed yet, it is anticipated that the proposed project would include the planting of new trees on the project site and along the adjacent public right of ways. Consistent: The proposed project would be USGBC LEED Silver certified at minimum. The proposed project would be required to comply with all pre- requisites in the five primary categories of Sustainable Sites, including water efficiency. As part of the LEED Silver Certification, the proposed project would be required to include low flow appliances. In addition, the proposed project's landscaping would be required to comply with the City's Water- Efficient Landscape and Irrigation Standards. Landscaping may include drought resistant plant species. Not Applicable: This strategy is aimed at the California Energy Commission to adopt energy efficiency standards. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the proposed project intends to achieve LEED Silver certification under the USGBC, and therefore would be energy efficient. Furthermore, the project will comply with the City's Green Building Ordinance, which requires that the project exceed Title 24 standards. Not Applicable: This strategy is aimed at manufacturers and sellers of appliances. Therefore, this strategy is not applicable to the project. Not Applicable: This strategy is aimed of manufacturers and sellers of tires. Therefore, this strategy is not applicable to the project. Not Applicable: These strategies are aimed at energy companies /agencies that buy and sell energy. Therefore, this strategy is not applicable to the project. o� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 Page 31 Alternative Fuels: Non- Petroleum Fuels: Increasing the use of non - petroleum fuels in California's transportation sector, as recommended as recommended in the CEC's Alternative Fuels: General: The project shall include the necessary infrastructure to encourage the use of alternative fuel vehicles (e.g., electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling stations. Smart Land Use and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS): Smart land use strategies encourage jobs /housing proximity, promote transit oriented development, and encourage high - density residential /commercial Green Buildings Initiative: Green Building Executive Order, 5 -20 -04 (CA 2004), sets a goal of reducing energy use in public and private buildings by 20 percent by the year 2015, as compared with 2003 levels. The Executive Order and related action plan spell out specific actions state agencies are to take with state -owned and - leased buildings. The order and plan also discuss various strategies and incentives to encourage privaie building Smart Land Use and Intelligent Transportation Systems: Require pedestrian -only streets and plazas within the project site that may be reached conveniently by public transportation, walking or bicycling. FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY Not Applicable: These strategies are aimed at the transportation sector. Therefore, this strategy is not applicable to the project, infrasiructure,that encourage the use of alternative fuel vehicles. These include electric vehicle charging facilities at some of the parking facilities in Downtown as well as a natural gas station at 51^ Street and Olympic Boulevard. SMFD vehicles have and would continue to Not Applicable: The proposed project consists of the construction of a replacement fire station. This goal is applicable to new mixed -use development and therefore, is not.applicoble to the project. Consistent: The proposed project intends to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification under the US Green Building Council (USGBC). Specifically, the project intends to pursue FEED Silver Certification for New Buildings and Major Renovations. Not Applicable: The proposed project site is not of sufficient size to accommodate pedestrian -only street. However, the proposed project site can be reached easily by walking and bicycling. Diesel Anti- Idling: Set specific limits on idling time for Limit Diesel - Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling commercial vehicles, including delivery vehicles. restricts diesel truck idling to five minutes or less. Diesel trucks at the project site would be subject to this state- applicant shall promote ride sharing program by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for high- occupancy vehicles, providing larger parking spaces to accommodate vans used for ride - sharing, and designating adequate passenger loading and Transportation Emissions Reduction: Contribute transportation impact fees per residential and commercial unit to the City to increase transit service. Transportation Emissions Reduction: Provide shuttle service to public transportation. Consistent: The City of Santa Monica implements ride sharing programs, vanpoois, and other TDM measures for City employees. SMFD personnel have and would continue to have access to such TDM measures. Not applicable: The proposed project would develop a new replacement fire station, which is an institutional /governmental uses. Furthermore, the City of Santa Monica does not have a transportation impact fee. Not applicable: Shuttle service to public transportation would be unnecessary as the proposed project would be located within walking distance of the future Transportation Emissions Reduction: Incorporate bike I Consistent: The project site is readily accessible to many Transportation Emissions Reduction: Provide on -site bicycle and pedestrian facilities (showers, bicycle parking, etc.) for commercial uses, to encourage Consistent: The project would provide bicycle parking racks. Moreover, as discussed above, the project is in close proximity to mass transit options. o� Fire Station No. 1 tS /MND September 2012 •• ^•••••• - Page 32 Transportation Emissions Reduction: Coordinate controlled intersections so that traffic passes more efficiently through congested areas. Where signals are installed, require the use of Light Emitting Diode traffic lights. Solid Waste Reduction Strategy: Project construction shall require reuse and recycling of construction and demolition waste. Water Use Efficiency: Require measures that reduce the amount of water sent to the sewer system. (Reduction in water volume sent to the sewer system means less water has to be treated and pumped to the end user, thereby saving energy. Smart Land Use and Intelligent Transportation Systems: Encourage mixed -use and high density development to reduce vehicle trips, promote alternatives to vehicle travel and promote efficient delivery of services and goods. T2: Proximity to Bike Path/ Bike Lanes: Project is located within 0.5 miles of an existing /planned Class I or Class II bike lane and project design includes a network that connects the project uses to the existing offsite facility. Project design includes a designated bicycle route connecting all units, onsite bicycle parking facilities, offsite bicycle facilities, site entrances, and primary building entrances to existing Class I or Class II bike lane(s) within 0.5 miles. Bicycle route connects to all streets contiguous with project site. T3: Minimum Parking: Provide minimum amount of parking required. T6: Wood Burning Fireplaces/ Stoves: Projc feature fireplaces or wood burning stoves. 77: Low-Water Use Appliances: Require the of low -water Use Appliances. T8: Landscaping: Project shall use drought resistant native trees, trees with low emissions and high carbon sequestration potential. FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY Not applicable: This strategy is aimed at City and County transportation agencies and not applicable to individual development projects. recycling containers to support the statewide recycling goal. In addition, the proposed project would comply with Section 8.108.010 Subpart C of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, which requires that demolition and /or construction projects over 1000 square feet divert at least 70percent of construction and demolition material Consistent: The proposed project intends to achieve LEED Silver certification under the USGBC. The proposed project will be required to comply with all pre- requisites in the five primary categories of Sustainable Sites, including wafer efficiency. The proposed project would include low flow appliances as part of its LEED Silver certification. In addition, the proposed project's landscaping would be required to comply with the City's Water- Efficient Consistent: The proposed project conssits of the development of a replacement fire station to serve the high densely developed area of Downtown Santa Monica. The project site would be accessbile to alternative transportation as it is locafednear many public transit routes and would be within 0.5 miles of the Consistent: The project site is accessible via various bicycle facilities in the Downtown area, including the bike lanes on 71h Street. of subterranean parking that would provide approximately 50 spaces for fire station personnel. Consistent: The proposed project would not include fireplaces or wood burning stoves. Ilimill appliances to comply with LEED pre- requisites of Sustainable Sites, including water efficiency. Consistent: The proposed project's landscaping would be required to comply with the City's Wafer - Efficient Landscape and Irrigation Standards. Landscaping may include drought resistant plant species. a� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 Page 33 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY T9: LEED Certification: Promote building approach to Consistent: The proposed project intends to achieve sustainability by recognizing performance in sustainable LEED certification under the USGBC. Specifically, the site development, water savings, energy efficiency, project intends to pursue LEED Silver Certification for New materials selection, and indoor environment quality. Buildings and Major Renovation. TI 0: Energy Star Roof: Project installs Energy Star labeled Potentially Consistent: Specific design details of the roof materials, where feasible. project have yet to be determined. However, the proposed project could include the installation of energy star labeled roof materials. TI 1: Exceed Title 24: Project exceeds title 24 Consistent: The proposed project would achieve LEED requirements. silver certification and would comply with the City's Green Building Ordinance a, which require that the project exceed Title 24 standards. T12: Energy Efficient Appliance Standard: Project uses Consistent: The proposed project intends to achieve energy efficient appliances. LEED Silver certification under the USGBC. Certification includes the use of energy efficient appliances. T13: Green Building Materials: Project uses materials Consistent: The proposed project intends to achieve which are resource efficient and recycled, with long life LEED Silver certification under the USGBC. Certification cycles and manufactured in environmentally friendly includes the use of green building materials. way. =S(is ainabWClIV Plan ,.: = > Resource Conservation Goal I Consistent - T The proposed project intends to achieve LEED Silver certification under the USGBC. The proposed Significantly decrease overall community consumption, project would include on -site recycling containers to specifically the consumption of non - local, non- support the City's recycling goal. In addition, the renewable, non - recyclable and non - recycled materials, proposed project would comply with Section 8.108.010 water, and energy and fuels. The City should take a Subpart C of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, which leadership role in encouraging sustainable procurement, requires that demolition and /or construction projects extended producer responsibility and should explore over 1000 square feet divert at least 70 percent of innovative strategies to become a zero waste city. construction and demolition material from landfills. Resource Conservation Goal Potentially Consistent - The proposed project intends to achieve LEED Silver certification under the USGBC. As Within renewable limits, encourage the use of local, non- such, the proposed project could include the use of polluting, renewable and recycled resources (water, alternative renewable resources. energy -wind, solar and geothermal -and material resources) Transportation Goal 2 Consistent - The project site is located within walking distance of the future Downtown Station for the Facilitate a reduction in automobile dependency in favor Exposition Light Rail at Vh Street and Colorado. In of affordable alternative, sustainable modes of travel. addition, the project site is accessible via various bicycle facilities including bicycle lanes. As such, fire station personnel would have opportunities to take alternative modes of transportation. 'Land Use,anc] Ctrculalion Eletnenk(L(10E - - Q® Fire Station No. I IS/MND September 2012 .. Page 34 FIRE STATION NO. 7 INITIAL Policy S2.1 Implement the VMT reduction policies of the Consistent. The project site would be within walking Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan, distance of the future Downtown Station for the including, but not limited to: focusing new growth in Exposition Light Rail. The proposed project would serve mixed -use, transit oriented districts; focusing new growth existing and forecasted future City growth in a dense along existing corridors and nodes; support the creation Downtown neighborhood. of complete, walkable neighborhoods with goods and services within walking distance of most homes; and promoting and supporting a wide range of pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvements in the City. Policy S2.3 Advance the No Net New Trips goal in the Consistent. The proposed project consists of the Land Use and Circulation Element with TDM projects such construction of a replacement fire station. 24 -hour and as expanded rideshare programs, parking management 48 hour shifts for fire station personnel begin at 7:00 AM strategies, as well as development impact fees for public and end at 7:00 PM. Due to these shift hours of the fire transit infrastructure. station personnel, no net new PM peak hour trips would be generated. Policy S2.9 Consider incorporating the No Net New Trips policy into the City's CEQA environmental analysis and require mitigation of significant impacts for projects that will generate new vehicle trips. Policy S5.5 As part of future updates to the City's Green Consistent. The proposed project would include the Building Ordinance, explore a requirement for shade planting of new trees around the project site. trees on south- and west - facing sides of all new buildings to reduce building energy loads. Policy S5.6 Encourage cool roofs or green roofs on new Potentially Consistent. Specific sustainability features of buildings. the project have yet to be determined. However, during final building plan designs and /or application for LEED Silver Certification, the City would consider the use of Policy S5.7 Encourage cool paving on new plazas and cool roofs, cool paving and installation of electrical parking lots, outlets in loading zones and on the exterior of buildings. Policy S5.0 Encourage installation of electrical outlets in loading zones and on the exterior of new buildings to reduce emissions from gas - powered landscape maintenance and operating refrigeration for delivery trucks. Policy S6.1 Ensure sufficient water supplies for new Consistent. As indicated in this IS /MND, the City would development. have adequate water supplies to serve the proposed project. Policy S6.3 Implement landscape water conservation Consistent. The proposed project's landscaping would be requirements for new construction projects. required to comply with the City's Water- Efficient Landscape and Irrigation Standards o e� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MAID September 2012 ^••• Page 35 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY /MND Policy 56.7 Expand solid waste diversion strategies such Consistent. The proposed project would include on -site as increased commercial recycling collection and recycling containers to encourage recycling. In addition, outreach, expanded food waste collection, composting construction of the proposed project would occur in and waste to energy conversion programs. accordance with Section 8.108.010 Subpart C of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, which requires that demolition and /or construction projects over 1000 square feet divert at least 70 percent of construction and demolition material from landfills. Policy LU8.3 Pedestrian Bicycle and Transit Connections. Consistent. The project site would also be within walking Ensure transit mobility by creating facilities for distance of the future Downtown Station for Exposition comfortable walking throughout the City, a complete Light Rail. In addition, the project site is readily accessible and safe bicycle network, and convenient and frequent via many bicycle facilities, including the bike lane on 71h transit service that will make transit an attractive option Street. for all types of trips. Fire Station No. 1 IS /MAID September 2012 Page 36 FIRE STATION No. 1 INITIAL Less Than Significant Potentially j With Less Than Significant:.: Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated - .Impact ";Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine El El ® El transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? 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? 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 t6 Government Code §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 area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public El El El airport or a public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing orworking in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety El El El 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? 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? a� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MIND September 2012 •• ....... Page 37 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY a and b) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities for the project would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials including vehicle fuels, oils, transmission fluids, paint, adhesives, surface coatings and other finishing materials, cleaning solvents, and pesticides for landscaping purposes. However, the use of these hazardous materials would be temporary, and all potentially hazardous materials would be stored, used, and disposed of in accordance with manufacturers' specifications, applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations. As such, impacts associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant during construction. With regard to operation, the new fire station would include an aboveground fuel storage tank and gas pump, oxygen tanks, and drums of engine oil. All potentially hazardous materials would be handled, used, and stored in accordance with manufacturers' specifications and applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations. Specifically, Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 5.24 establishes Hazardous Materials Reporting and Response Planning (HMRRP) and Hazardous Materials Management Plans (HMMP) requirements for the preparation of business and area plans relating to the handling and release or threatened release of hazardous materials. The requirements are established to prevent or mitigate the damage to the health and safety of persons and the environment from the release or threatened release of hazardous materials into the workplace and environment. Additionally, as required by Health & Safety Code, Section 25270.5, the new fire station would be required to prepare a Spill and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan for the aboveground storage tank. As such, operational impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal and accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant. c) No Impact. The project site is not located within one quarter mile of an existing school. The nearest school to the project site is Santa Monica High School located approximately 0.50 mile to the south. Therefore, the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No impacts would occur. d) No Impact. The following hazardous material sites were checked in July 2012 for known hazardous materials contamination at the project site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5: • Department of Toxic Substances Control's Envirostor database for hazardous waste and substances sites; • State Water Board's Geotracker Database for leaking underground storage tanks; • State Water Board's list of solid waste disposal sites with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels • State Water Board's list of active Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders The project site is not listed on any hazardous material sites lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, no impacts related to hazardous waste site listing pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 would occur. e) No Impact. The project site is located approximately 2 miles north of the Santa Monica Airport. However, the project site is not located in the area covered by an airport land €ems Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 .. Page 38 FIRE STATION NO. T INITIAL use plan.14 Furthermore, the proposed project does not include any elements that would create an airport - related safety hazard for the people residing or working the area. No impacts would occur. f) No Impact. See above g) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would construct a new fire station that would facilitate and improve emergency access for fire trucks and apparatus. Currently, the existing Fire Station No. 1 does not have pull through apparatus bays. As a result, fire trucks and apparatus must back into the existing bays. The proposed new Fire Station No. 1 would include up to new b apparatus bays, with 4 being pull through. With the new pull- through bays, fire trucks can enter and exit the project site via 711, Street or 7th Court alley. Therefore, the proposed project would not have adverse impacts on an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Rather, the proposed project would result in beneficial impacts on emergency access and response. Impacts would be less than significant. h) No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area where no wildlands are present. Furthermore, the project site is not designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. 15 Therefore, no wildfire impacts would occur. 14 Santa Monica Airport Influence Area Map, available online at htto•11alsmaosonto- monica ora(GISMaps /pdf /airportinfluencearea pdf; accessed July b, 2012. 15 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; Los Angeles County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map; online at httoWwww fire ca aov /fire prevention /fhsz maps /fhsz maps losanaeles oho accessed July b, 2012. o� Fire Station No. t 1S /MIND September 2012 •••• Page 39 FIRE STATION No. 1 INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With 'Less Than '- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated .`Impact Impact X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste El F-1 ® El 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 situation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or El El ® El river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off -site? 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water El 1:1 ® E] quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard ❑ El ❑ Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood ❑ ❑ ❑ flows? e® Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 ` °..."° Page 40 FIRE STATION NO. T INITIAL STUDY a) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would require approximately 21,000 cubic yards of earthwork. During earthwork activities, exposed and stockpiled soils on the construction site could be subject to minor erosion and conveyed via stormwater runoff into municipal storm drains. However, construction activities are required to occur in accordance with the City of Santa Monica Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance (Chapter 7.10 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code). In accordance with the ordinance, Best Management Practices (BMPs) and pollutant control measures would be employed during project construction to minimize pollutants and reduce runoff to levels that comply with applicable water quality standards. The following urban runoff reduction requirements are required to be implemented during construction: Polluted runoff (including runoff containing sediments and /or construction wastes) shall not leave the construction parcel. No wash water from any type of cement and concrete machinery or concrete mix truck shall be allowed to leave the construction parcel. Any washing of equipment in the right -of -way shall be contained and properly disposed. Any sediment or other materials that are tracked off the parcel by vehicles and equipment shall be removed the same day as they are tracked off the parcel. Where determined to be necessary, a temporary sediment control BMP shall be installed. ® For any paint removal, paint preparation, or sandblasting activities that will result in particles entering the air or landing on the ground, BMP steps shall be implemented to prevent or minimize to the maximum extent practicable such particle releases into the environment. Plastic covering shall be utilized to prevent erosion of an otherwise unprotected area, e.g., exposed or open to elements, along with treatment control BMPs to intercept and safely convey the runoff to the MS4. No washing of construction or other vehicles shall be allowed adjacent to a construction parcel. No polluted runoff from washing vehicles on a construction parcel shall be allowed to leave the parcel. ® Erosion drainage controls shall be utilized depending on the extent of proposed grading and topography of the parcel to prevent runoff, including, but not limited to, the following: e® Fire Station No. I IS /MND 30 September 2012 Page 41 Less Than Significant '. Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant '.No Impact Incorporated Impact "Impact i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, 11 L1 11 including flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would require approximately 21,000 cubic yards of earthwork. During earthwork activities, exposed and stockpiled soils on the construction site could be subject to minor erosion and conveyed via stormwater runoff into municipal storm drains. However, construction activities are required to occur in accordance with the City of Santa Monica Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance (Chapter 7.10 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code). In accordance with the ordinance, Best Management Practices (BMPs) and pollutant control measures would be employed during project construction to minimize pollutants and reduce runoff to levels that comply with applicable water quality standards. The following urban runoff reduction requirements are required to be implemented during construction: Polluted runoff (including runoff containing sediments and /or construction wastes) shall not leave the construction parcel. No wash water from any type of cement and concrete machinery or concrete mix truck shall be allowed to leave the construction parcel. Any washing of equipment in the right -of -way shall be contained and properly disposed. Any sediment or other materials that are tracked off the parcel by vehicles and equipment shall be removed the same day as they are tracked off the parcel. Where determined to be necessary, a temporary sediment control BMP shall be installed. ® For any paint removal, paint preparation, or sandblasting activities that will result in particles entering the air or landing on the ground, BMP steps shall be implemented to prevent or minimize to the maximum extent practicable such particle releases into the environment. Plastic covering shall be utilized to prevent erosion of an otherwise unprotected area, e.g., exposed or open to elements, along with treatment control BMPs to intercept and safely convey the runoff to the MS4. No washing of construction or other vehicles shall be allowed adjacent to a construction parcel. No polluted runoff from washing vehicles on a construction parcel shall be allowed to leave the parcel. ® Erosion drainage controls shall be utilized depending on the extent of proposed grading and topography of the parcel to prevent runoff, including, but not limited to, the following: e® Fire Station No. I IS /MND 30 September 2012 Page 41 FIRE STATION NO. T INITIAL With compliance with the above regulatory requirements, pollutant levels in urban runoff during construction would be minimized. Therefore, project construction impacts related to the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. With regard to operation, good housekeeping practices and BMPs would be implemented to minimize polluted runoff in accordance with the City's Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance. in addition, an Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan would be prepared to show that the proposed project would store and use (for non - potable purposes), infiltrate, or evapotranspire project - generated runoff during a 0.75 inch storm event, or alternatively, the City would pay an urban runoff reduction fee.16 In addition, the following BMP requirements would be implemented during operation: • Urban runoff shall not be allowed to come into contact with the loading /unloading dock areas; vehicle repair and maintenance bays; vehicle and equipment wash areas; and fueling areas. • Where there are outdoor areas for the storage of material that may contribute pollutants to the stormwafer conveyance system, these materials must be enclosed and protected by secondary containment structures. The outdoor storage area for materials must be paved and impervious and covered with a roof or awning to minimize collection of sformwater within the secondary containment area. • Drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement must be diverted away from the trash storage areas. • Trash areas must be covered, screened or walled to prevent off -site transport of trash, and must be connected to the sanitary sewer. • Trash bins must have solid covers and be covered at all times except while being emptied. The above requirements and other BMP provisions set forth in the Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan would be implemented throughout the operational life of the proposed project to reduce the discharge of polluted runoff from the project site. Therefore, project operational impacts related to violation of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no active groundwater production wells located within a half -mile radius of the project site. The closest active groundwater production wells are located approximately 1.25 miles to the north of the site, in the Olympic subbasin. Two City production wells are located on the beach south of the Santa Monica Pier approximately 1 mile from the site. As nearby site borings indicate the anticipated groundwater beneath the site is between 40 and 50 feet below the ground surface (bgs) 16 As defined by the Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance, the project - generated runoff required to be mitigated is one hundred percent of the runoff produced by a 0.75 inch storm event falling on all impermeable surfaces of a parcel for new developments /projects that would replace greater than 50 percent of the existing buildings on the site. o® Fire Station No. 1 1S /MND September 2012 °• ^•° Page 42 FIRE STATION No. 1 INITIAL and flows in a southerly direction.I7 Excavation for the proposed project would reach approximately 25 feet bgs. Therefore, no withdrawal of groundwater (i.e., dewatering system) would be necessary for the proposed project. The proposed project would generate an incremental increase in water demand. The water supply for the City of Santa Monica's Water Department (which would serve the project site) comes mostly from groundwater. The water demand of the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of the City of Santa Monica's current and projected water supplies (see Section XX Utilities). As such, operation of the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. Furthermore, the project site is 100 percent impervious (i.e., completely developed with existing surface parking). Minimal groundwater infiltration and recharge occurs on the project site under existing conditions. In accordance with Section 9.04 10.4 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, the proposed project would incorporate new landscaping and increase the amount of pervious surface areas. Therefore, the proposed project would create new pervious areas for groundwater infiltration and recharge. Based on the above, construction and operation of the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is 100 percent impervious (i.e., completely developed with existing surface parking). In accordance with Section 9.04 10.4 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, the proposed project would incorporate new landscaping and increase the amount of pervious surface areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the amount of stormwater runoff. Rather, the amount of stormwater runoff would be expected to decrease due to opportunities for groundwater infiltration. Additionally, in accordance with the City's Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance, the proposed project would include appropriate on -site design measures to store and use (for non - potable purposes), infiltrate, or evapotranspire project - generated runoff during a 0.75 inch storm event or alternatively pay a fee. Site - generated surface water runoff would continue to flow into nearby municipal drains and /or catch basins. Thus, the existing drainage patterns would not substantially' change. In addition, as previously stated, an Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan would be in place throughout the operational life of the project to reduce erosion or siltation effects. Project construction would also comply with the requirements of the City's Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance, including those regarding the implementation of good housekeeping practices and BMPs, to reduce erosion and siltation. Furthermore, there are no streams or rivers within the project site or in the surrounding area. As such, implementation of the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern such that substantial erosion or siltation would occur. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is 100 percent impervious (i.e., completely developed with existing surface parking). In accordance with Section 9.04 10.4 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, the proposed project would incorporate new landscaping and increase the amount of pervious surface areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the amount of stormwater runoff. Rather, the amount of stormwater runoff would be expected to decrease due to opportunities for groundwater infiltration. Additionally, the 17 Santa Monica New Main Library, Final Environmental Impact Report, January 2003; online at htto•/lwww0I.smoov.net/olannina/eir/MainL!braryFEIR.t)d f e� Fire Station No. 1 1S /MND September 2012 •••....•• Page 43 STATION NO. I INITIAL STUDY proposed project would include appropriate on -site design measures to store and use (for non - potable purposes), infiltrate, or evapotranspire project - generated runoff during a 0.75 inch storm event or alternatively pay a fee. Site - generated surface water runoff would continue to flow into nearby municipal drains and /or catch basins. Thus, the existing drainage patterns would be maintained. Furthermore, there are no streams or rivers within the project site or in the surrounding area. Thus, project implementation would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern such that substantial flooding on- or off -site would occur. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is 100 percent impervious (i.e., completely developed with existing surface parking). In accordance with Section 9.04 10.4 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, the proposed project would incorporate new landscaping and increase the amount of pervious surface areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the amount of stormwater runoff. Rather, the amount of stormwater runoff would be expected to decrease due to opportunities for groundwater infiltration. Furthermore, the City's Department of Public Works would have final review and approval of all project site plans to ensure that adequate drainage would be provided to accommodate the project's stormwater flows. Therefore, the proposed project would not create or contribute to runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously, in accordance with the City's Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance, Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented during project construction to minimize erosion and pollutants in stormwater runoff. In addition, an Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan would be in place throughout the operational life of the project to minimize pollutant runoff. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially degrade water quality. Impacts would be less than significant. g) No Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the City of Santa Monica, the project site is not located within a 100 -year flood plain.78 Therefore, the proposed project would not place housing within a 100 -year flood plain. No impacts would occur. h) No Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the City of Santa Monica, the project site is not located within a 100 -year flood plain. Therefore, the project would not place structures within a 100 - year flood plain such that flood flows would be impeded. No impacts would occur. i) No Impact. No dams, levees, or above - ground flood control channels exist in the City of Santa Monica. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. No impacts would occur. j) No Impact. A seiche is a standing wave occurring in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water, such as a lake, reservoir, or bay. There are no enclosed or partially enclosed bodies of water near the project site. Therefore, the potential for inundation from a seiche is considered remote. No impacts relative to a seiche would occur. 18 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel o� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 ° °•• °° Page 44 FIRE STATION NO. I INITIAL STUDY /MND A tsunami is a large ocean wave caused by a significant undersea disturbance such as earthquakes. Areas susceptible to a tsunami in the City include areas below the Palisades Bluff and approximately '/4 mile from the ocean. The project site is located approximately one mile inland (east) from the Pacific Ocean. In addition, the project site is not located in a City designated tsunami hazard area.19 Therefore, inundation risk from a tsunami is considered low. No impacts would occur. Mudflows (also called debris flows) result from the downslope movement of soil and /or rock under the influence of gravity. The project site and vicinity is characterized by relatively flat topography. Given the absence of any steep slopes nearby, the project site would not be at risk from inundation by mudflow. No impacts would occur. 19 City of Santa Monica, Online Properly Information System; online at ftLLp.LZgismap.scvn La- - monico.org/imf/`imf.isr)Rsite-pror)Qrty: accessed May 3, 2011. o® Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 ....•.. Page 45 FIRE STATION No. I INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact'. Incorporated ;.Impact Impact XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the oroiect: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan? a) No Impact. The project site is located in the urbanized City of Santa Monica, which is generally built out. The proposed project is an infill development and does not include any physical improvements that would divide the project site or surrounding area (e.g., new through roads). Furthermore, the proposed project would not introduce a new land use in the Downtown area. Rather, the proposed project would provide for the relocation and continuation of existing fire protection services in the Downtown area. Therefore, the proposed project would not alter the existing land use relationships in the area. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not divide an established community. No impacts would occur. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The City's Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) designates the project site as Downtown Core. As stated in the LUCE, this designation allows for the broadest mix of uses and highest intensity development in the city. The downtown area is the City's major regional retail and employment district, with pedestrian - oriented design incorporated at the street level. The Downtown Core designation is defined in the adopted LUCE as follows: Santa Monica's Downtown Core designation maintains and enhances the Downtown area as the heart of the City and as a thriving, mixed use urban environment in which people can live, work, be entertained and be culturally enriched. The Downtown has the greatest concentration of activity in the City, anchored by the core commercial district, which includes the Third Street Promenade and the revitalized Santa Monica Place open -air mall. The Downtown Light Rail Station will serve as a gateway to the Downtown, Civic Center and coastal destinations, transforming the southern edge of the district. The Downtown continues to provide a substantial number of new housing units in mixed -use projects. Affordable, workforce and market -rate housing are highly desirable. The LUCE expands the Downtown boundaries to include Wilshire Boulevard to the north and Lincoln Boulevard to the east. These important mixed -use boulevards appropriately define the edge of the e� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 ^" Page 46 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY district and help with the transition from the intensity of the Downtown to adjacent residential neighborhoods to the north and the east... The Downtown Core designation allows for the broadest mix of uses and highest intensity development. The area is the City's major regional retail and employment district, with a human -scale and pedestrian - orientation at the street level. A balance of uses generates activity during both daytime and evening hours. Development intensities are lower on the northern and eastern edges of the district in order to transition to the lower- density character of adjacent neighborhoods. New development and infrastructure strengthens the Downtown's connection with the Civic Center, Beach and Pier. While specific uses will be established by a specific plan, allowed uses include residential, commercial, retail, cultural and entertainment uses, and other visitor- serving uses, such as hotels. Existing parameters and review processes for 100 percent affordable housing projects will continue to apply. The LUCE did not establish development parameters for the Downtown Core designation, instead deferring such standards until the preparation of a Downtown Specific Plan. Until this specific plan is adopted, the 1984 LUCE destinations will apply. The 1984 LUCE designated the project site as general commercial. The project site is also located in the C3 zone (Downtown Commercial district). Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.04.08.20, the C3 zone is intended to maintain and enhance the downtown area and to provide a concentration and variety of commercial, residential, cultural, and recreational opportunities including comparison and general retail, office, cultural uses, and complementary uses such as hotels, housing, and visitor serving uses.. Structures may be a maximum of 50 feet in height and 1.5 floor -to -area ratio(FAR). The proposed project would construct a new Fire Station No. 1 to replace the existing fire station in the Downtown area. The fire station would not represent a new land use in the Downtown area. The project is intended to serve the public and ensure the safety of all the surrounding land uses. In addition, the building would be a maximum of 37 feet with a FAR of 1.11; and as such would not exceed zoning standards. Therefore, impacts relative to land use consistency would be less than significant. c) No Impact. As previously stated in Section IV, Biological Resources, no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved habitat conservation plan applies to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impacts would occur. o� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND D September 2012 ' °° "° Page 47 O LL O Em 3° 9 a u n t 1 1f rl 111 H I I III I N W- Fl 1,--"] "J, 1""I [,l I I I I N m m F! N II CL m 2 rx 0 N Zo 13 u. 1 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact " Impact XII. 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 1-1 El El delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a) No Impact. No mineral extraction operations occur on the site or in the nearby vicinity. Additionally, the project site is not designated as an existing mineral resource extraction area by the State of California. Given that the project site is located within a highly urbanized area of the City and has been previously disturbed by development, the potential for mineral resources to occur on -site is low. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource. No impacts would occur. b) No Impact. As stated above, no mineral extraction operations occur on the site or in the nearby vicinity. Additionally, the project site is not designated as an existing mineral resource extraction area by the State of California. Given that the project site is located within a highly urbanized area of the City and has been previously disturbed by development, the potential for mineral resources to occur on -site is low. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of a mineral resource recovery site. No impacts would occur. v� Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 ^• ^'••'•• Page 49 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY a) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, noise, and traffic. As analyzed in the respective sections of this IS /MND, these neighborhood impacts would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. Please refer to Section I - Aesthetics; Section II - Air Quality; Section XIV - Noise; and Section XIX - Transportation /Traffic, for a detailed analysis of neighborhood related effects associated with the proposed project. ff� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 ........,.. Page 50 Less Than Potentially .Significant Less Than Significant With Mitigation Significant No Impact - Incorporated Impact ',impact - XIII. NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS. Would the project: a) Have considerable effects on the project neighborhood? a) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, noise, and traffic. As analyzed in the respective sections of this IS /MND, these neighborhood impacts would be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. Please refer to Section I - Aesthetics; Section II - Air Quality; Section XIV - Noise; and Section XIX - Transportation /Traffic, for a detailed analysis of neighborhood related effects associated with the proposed project. ff� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 ........,.. Page 50 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL Less Than `.Significant Potentially.` With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant -. No `Impact ` Incorporated impact Impact. XIV. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in El ❑ ® El local general plan or noise ordinance or of applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ ❑ ® ❑ levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ❑ ❑ ® ❑ above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public El El El airport or a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people El 1:1 El residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a) Less Than Significant Impact. Chapter 4.12 of the Santa Monica Code establishes the City's Noise Ordinance. The ordinance sets forth allowable exterior noise standards based on zones. Noise zone I includes residential districts; Noise zone it includes commercial districts; and Noise zone III includes manufacturing and industrial districts (i.e., the project site). Noise standards for the zones are more restrictive during sleeping hours (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). Table 6 provides the exterior noise standards by zone. Construction The City's Noise Ordinance (SMMC §4.12.110) restricts construction activity to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturday. The Noise Ordinance does not allow construction activity to occur on Sunday or major national holidays. In general, the equivalent noise level during construction cannot exceed the standard on the receiving property, plus 20 dB. The maximum instantaneous noise level during construction cannot exceed the standard plus 40 dB. However, construction - related noise exceeding these thresholds is permitted, provided that it is w� Fire Station No. 1 1S /MND September 2012 •• °•. ° ^. Page 5 T FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL restricted to the hours between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM. The project site is classified as Noise Zone II and has an exterior noise standard of 65 dBA during the day for a 15 minute continuous measurement period. Based on the above, construction - related equivalent noise level generated on the project site (Noise Zone II) would not be permitted to exceed 85 dBA, or 110 dBA for instantaneous noise (except for between the hours of 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM). TABLE 6 CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS Noise Zone Time Interval Allowable Leq 15 minute continuous 5 minute continuous measurement period measurement period I Monday— Friday 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.: 50 dBA 55 dBA 7 a.m. to 10 .m.: 60 dBA 65 dBA Saturday and Sunday 10 p.m. to 8 a.m.: 50 dBA 55 dBA 8 a.m. to 10 .m.: 60 dBA 65 dBA II All days of Week 1.0 p.m. to 7 a.m.: 60 dBA 65 dBA 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 65 dBA 70 dBA III Anytime 70 dBA 75 dBA There are no sensitive noise receptors in close proximity to the project site. The nearest receptors are the residential uses that are more than 200 feet to the south across Santa Monica Boulevard. During construction, the proposed project would temporarily result in an increase in noise levels. Construction noise would be generated by construction vehicles and equipment involved during various stages of construction operations: demolition, site grading, and building construction. Maximum construction noise levels would occur during the site preparation phase. The noise levels created by construction equipment will vary depending on the type of equipment and the specific model, the mechanical /operational condition of the equipment and the type of operation being performed. Individual pieces of typical construction equipment that would be used for project construction would produce maximum noise levels of 73 dBA to 90 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source, as shown in Table 7.20 Noise levels anticipated from operation of individual pieces of construction equipment would be below the City's standard of 110 dBA for instantaneous noise in Noise Zone II. 10 These maximum noise levels would occur when equipment is operating under full power conditions. However, equipment used on construction sites often operates under less than full power conditions, or part power. a� Fire Station No. I IS /MND _ September 2012 '• °• °'° Page 52 FIRE STATION NO.1 INITIAL STUDY /MND TABLE 7 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS Description Noise Levels @ 50 feet (dBA, slow) Compactor (ground) 80 Compressor (air) 80 Concrete Mixer Truck 85 Concrete Saw 90 Crane 85 Dozer 85 Drill Rig Truck 84 Dump Truck 84 Excavator 85 Front End Loader 80 Paver 85 Tractor 84 Welder /Torch 73 Noise from localized point sources (such as construction sites) typically decreases by about 6 dBA with each doubling of distance from source to receptor. In addition, intervening development between the project site and sensitive receptors provide further attenuation of approximately 15 dBA. As shown in Table 8, construction - related noise levels associated with project construction would not exceed noise standards (of 85dBA for the equivalent noise level and 110 dbA for instantaneous noise) at the nearest residential uses approximately 200 feet south of the project site at 7th Street and Santa Monica Boulevard (see Appendix B for noise analysis worksheets). Therefore, construction noise impacts would be less than significant. Operation The existing noise environment in the project vicinity is dominated by traffic noise along adjacent streets. Long -term noise generated by the proposed project would occur primarily due to project - generated traffic and on -site noise sources such as fire truck sirens and mechanical equipment. o� Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 ^• ^•• °• Page 53 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY TABLE 8 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL AT NEARBY SENSITIVE RECEPTOR With regard to project - generated traffic noise, typically a doubling of vehicle traffic would be required before a noticeable increase (i.e., 3 dBA or greater) in traffic noise levels would occur. As indicated in Section XIX, Transportation /Traffic, the proposed project would conservatively result in a net increase of 10 daily inbound trips and 10 daily outbound trips, which would occur outside of the peak hours. Given that a doubling of vehicle traffic would not occur, the increase in traffic noise levels would not be perceptible. As a result, operation of the proposed project would not be expected to result in a noticeable increase in ambient noise levels that would exceed applicable noise standards. On -site noise sources of the proposed project would primarily be associated with the fire truck sirens and operation of mechanical equipment. However, there are no sensitive noise receptors adjacent to the project site. The nearest receptors are the residential uses that are approximately 200 feet to the south across Santa Monica Boulevard. Furthermore, such noises already occur at the existing fire station which is located approximately 0.1 mile south of the project site. Long -term operation of the proposed project would have a minimal effect on the surrounding noise environment and on sensitive receptors. Therefore, operational noise impacts would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Typical construction techniques would be employed during project construction. Pile driving and impact methods would not be necessary. Heavy construction equipment (e.g. bulldozer and excavator) would generate a limited amount of ground -borne vibration at short distances away from the source. However, such vibration would not be significant and would not affect the sensitive receptors which are 200 feet to the south. No permanent sources of vibration are proposed on the site during project operation. The proposed project includes the development of commercial and residential uses. These uses would not generate vibration. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not expose people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant. o� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 ° °• Page 54 Estimated Construction Noise Levels at the Noise Sensitive Receptor by Construction Phase (dBA) Maximum Allowable Noise —Zone 11 Demolition Site Preparation /Grading Building Construction Leq 74 73.7 67.9 85 dBA Lmax 77.5 73 68.5 110 dBA See Appendix B for noise modeling results. With regard to project - generated traffic noise, typically a doubling of vehicle traffic would be required before a noticeable increase (i.e., 3 dBA or greater) in traffic noise levels would occur. As indicated in Section XIX, Transportation /Traffic, the proposed project would conservatively result in a net increase of 10 daily inbound trips and 10 daily outbound trips, which would occur outside of the peak hours. Given that a doubling of vehicle traffic would not occur, the increase in traffic noise levels would not be perceptible. As a result, operation of the proposed project would not be expected to result in a noticeable increase in ambient noise levels that would exceed applicable noise standards. On -site noise sources of the proposed project would primarily be associated with the fire truck sirens and operation of mechanical equipment. However, there are no sensitive noise receptors adjacent to the project site. The nearest receptors are the residential uses that are approximately 200 feet to the south across Santa Monica Boulevard. Furthermore, such noises already occur at the existing fire station which is located approximately 0.1 mile south of the project site. Long -term operation of the proposed project would have a minimal effect on the surrounding noise environment and on sensitive receptors. Therefore, operational noise impacts would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Typical construction techniques would be employed during project construction. Pile driving and impact methods would not be necessary. Heavy construction equipment (e.g. bulldozer and excavator) would generate a limited amount of ground -borne vibration at short distances away from the source. However, such vibration would not be significant and would not affect the sensitive receptors which are 200 feet to the south. No permanent sources of vibration are proposed on the site during project operation. The proposed project includes the development of commercial and residential uses. These uses would not generate vibration. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not expose people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant. o� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 ° °• Page 54 FIRE STATION No. T INITIAL c) Less Than Significant Impact. The existing noise environment in the project area is dominated by traffic noise along roadways, as well as nearby commercial activities. Long -term operation of the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the ambient noise environment in proximity to the project site. The project's net increase in traffic, as discussed in Section XIV(a), would have a less than significant impact on ambient noise levels. Noise levels associated with on -site operations (e.g., fire truck sirens) would also be less than significant as discussed in Section XI(a). As such, operational (permanent) noise impacts would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction activities would generate noise on a temporary basis and would increase the existing ambient noise in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Construction - period noise impacts are discussed in Section XIV(a). As described therein, noise generated by on -site construction activities would not exceed City standards and would not affect nearby sensitive receptors. Construction noise impacts would be less than significant. e) No Impact. The project site is located approximately 2 miles north of the Santa Monica Airport. However, the project site is located outside of the 60, 65, and 75 CNEL Airport Land Use Plan Noise Contour.27 Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from an airport or airstrip. No impacts would occur. f) No Impact. See Section XIV(a). 21 Santa Monica Airport; Year 2009 CNEL Contours Report; online at htto,ll wwwsmoovnet/ unfoadedFi les /2009%20SMO %20CNEL%2OReportcdf, accessed March 15,2011. ®� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 ° °' ° °• Page 55 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL Less Than Significant Potentially 1. With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact ..Impact XV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? a) No Impact. No permanent residences or major infrastructure that could induce population growth are included as part of the proposed project. The proposed project consists of the development of a new building that would replace existing Fire Station No. 1. The proposed project would serve existing and forecasted population in the City of Santa Monica. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth. No impacts would occur. b) No Impact. The project site is currently developed as surface parking. No housing exists on- site. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace existing housing or people, nor necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur. c) No Impact. See Section XV(b) above. e� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 ••• ° ° °•• Page 56 FIRE STATION No. 1 INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With less Than Significant Mitigation ':Significant No Impact,. Incorporated 'Impact `impact XVI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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 times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ a) No Impact. The proposed project consists of the acquisition of property and construction of a new replacement Fire Station No. 1 to serve existing and forecasted population in the City. The new Fire Station No. 1 building would be a replacement for the existing 11,362 square foot Fire Station No. 1 located at 1444 7th Street. The proposed new fire station is located approximately 530 feet north (0.1 mile) of the existing station. Therefore, emergency response times to incidents would not change from existing conditions. Existing Fire Station No. 1 is equipped with two paramedic engine companies, one paramedic rescue squad, one 100' ladder truck, one air /light rescue unit, and one command vehicle. The existing station has a staff of approximately 14 per 24 -hour shift. The existing Fire Station No. 1 building is undersized to house the existing SMFD equipment and personnel. The proposed project would develop a new fire station to provide additional space for expanded staff and equipment as well as improved amenities for the SMFD and the public. SMFD staffing is anticipated to increase from 14 per shift (per 24 -hour shift) at the existing fire station to up to 24 per shift (per 24 -hour or 48 -hour shift) at the new fire station. Construction of the new fire station would provide enhanced facilities and capacity for the SMFD to provide fire protection and emergency services. Staffing for this station would increase. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a negative impact on fire protection and emergency services provided by the SMFD. Rather, the proposed project would result in a beneficial impact on fire protection services. Upon completion of the new fire station, the existing Fire Station No. 1 building would be vacated by the SMFD. SMFD staffing and equipment would then be relocated to the new Fire Station No. 1 building. Therefore, there would be no disruption of SMFD services. Based on the above, no impacts on fire protection and emergency services would occur. b -e) No Impact. As discussed in Section XV(a) Population and Housing, the proposed project consists of the acquisition of property and construction of a new replacement Fire Station No. 1 to serve existing and forecasted population in the City. No population growth would occur as a result of the proposed project. As such, the proposed project would not result in an increased demand for public services including police protection, schools, parks, or libraries. No impacts would occur. e® Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 •• °•° Page 57 FIRE STATION No. 1 INITIAL STUDY /MND a -b) No Impact. As discussed in Section XV(a) Population and Housing, the proposed project consists of the acquisition of property and construction of a new replacement Fire Station No. 1 to serve existing and forecasted population in the City. No population growth would occur as a result of the proposed project. As such, the proposed project would not result in an increased demand for parks or recreational services. No impacts would occur. m� Fire Station No. 1 tS /MND September 2012 ^• ^..... Page 58 Potentially `. Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. 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? 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? a -b) No Impact. As discussed in Section XV(a) Population and Housing, the proposed project consists of the acquisition of property and construction of a new replacement Fire Station No. 1 to serve existing and forecasted population in the City. No population growth would occur as a result of the proposed project. As such, the proposed project would not result in an increased demand for parks or recreational services. No impacts would occur. m� Fire Station No. 1 tS /MND September 2012 ^• ^..... Page 58 FIRE STATION No. 1 INITIAL Less Than Potentially Significant . Less Than Significant With Mitigation .Significant No Impact Incorporated impact Impact XVIII.SHADOWS. Would the project: a) Produce extensive shadows affecting adjacent uses or property? 11 El M El a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would replace the existing surface parking on the project site with a new two -story fire station building (maximum height 37 feet). As a result, new shadows would be produced by the proposed project's building. However, immediate land uses in all directions consists predominantly of commercial uses. Figure 6 shows the project's shadow during the winter solstice (worst case). As shown in Figure 6, the proposed project would generate limited shadows on these commercial uses and such shadows would be cast in a clockwise direction from north to northeast. The closest residential uses are approximately 200 feet to the south and would not be shaded by the project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. o� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 20 i2 °...... - Page 59 FIGURE 6 — PROJECT SHADOWS — DECEMBER 21 PACIFIC STANDARD TIME 9:00 AM Shadows m® FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY 12:00 PM Shadows Note: For illustrative purposes only. Model does not reflect actual project design. Shadows based on maximum building height of 37 feet and a building area of 25,000 square feet. Fire Station No. I IS/MND September 2012 Page 60 FIRE STATION NO. I INITIAL STUDY/MND 3:00 PM Shadows o Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 ^•••• °• Page 61 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL Less Than Significant Potentially ` With less Than Significant Mitigation ;Significant No Impact Incorporated ) iImpact ' Impact XIX. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and ❑ ® ❑ ❑ relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature_ (e.g., sharp curves or ❑ dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or ❑ pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ® ❑ El X ❑ ❑ /D 0 a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The proposed project would develop a new Fire Station No. 1 to replace the existing fire station at 1444 7th Street. Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate a minor net increase in traffic. Construction Construction activities for the proposed project would generate additional traffic as a result of construction worker vehicle trips and construction truck transport of equipment, building and demolition materials, and the export of soil /material. Construction hours and days o Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 '• ^•'-'•• Page 62 FIRE STATION No. 1 INITIAL would occur from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturday in accordance with Section 4.12.110 of the City of Santa Monica Municipal Code. Construction of the proposed project would occur over a 2 year period. The number of workers and the amount of equipment required during construction would vary in order to maintain a reasonable schedule. However, based on the air quality analysis provided within CALEEMOD (see Appendix A), it is estimated that during the demolition, site preparation /grading, and building construction phases, construction worker vehicle trips are anticipated. In addition, construction of the proposed project would generate construction vendor truck trips and haul trips. Therefore, the following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce construction traffic impacts to less than significant. CON -1 Construction Impact Mitigation Plan. The City shall prepare, implement, and maintain a Construction Impact Mitigation Plan which shall be designed to: o Prevent traffic impacts on the surrounding roadway network • Minimize parking impacts both to public parking and access to private parking to the greatest extent practicable. • Ensure safety for both those constructing the project and the surrounding community. • Prevent truck traffic through residential neighborhoods by establishing truck routes that utilize non - residential streets. The Construction Impact Mitigation Plan shall be subject to review and approval by the following City departments: Public Works Department, Fire, Planning and Community Development and Police to ensure that the Plan has been designed in accordance with this mitigation measure. This review shall occur prior to building permit issuance for the project. It shall at a minimum, include the following: Ongoing requirements throughout the duration of construction: A detailed traffic control plan for work zones shall be maintained which includes, at a minimum, accurate existing and proposed: parking and travel lane configurations; warning, regulatory, guide and directional signage; and area sidewalks, bicycle lanes and parking lanes. The plan shall include specific information regarding the project's construction activities that may disrupt normal pedestrian and traffic flow and the measures to address these disruptions. Such plans must be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Management Division prior to building permit issuance and implemented in accordance with this approval. Work within the public right -of -way shall be performed between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM , including dirt and demolition material hauling and construction material delivery. Work within the public right -of -way outside of these hours shall only be allowed after the issuance of an after -hours construction permit. Fire Station No. 1 IS /MIND -� September 2012 Page 63 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL o Streets and equipment should be cleaned in accordance with Santa Monica's established Environmental and Public Works Management (EPWM) requirements. o Trucks shall only travel on a City approved construction route. Truck queuing /staging shall not be allowed on Santa Monica Streets. Limited queuing may occur on the construction site itself. o Materials and equipment should be minimally visible to the public; the preferred location for materials is to be on -site, with a minimum amount of materials within a work area in the public right -of -way, subject to a current Use of Public Property permit. o Any requests for work before or after normal construction hours within the public right -of -way shall be subject to review and approval through the After Hours Permit process administered by the Building and Safety Division. With implementation of the above mitigation measure, construction traffic impacts would be less than significant. Operation The City of Santa Monica has established specific CEQA criteria for assessing whether project - related traffic increases would result in significant impacts on intersection operating conditions. The significance criteria are summarized in Table 9. TABLE 9 CITY OF SANTA MONICA TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Level of Service I Intersection Type A, B, or C Collector Street Intersection Average vehicle delay is z 15 seconds or LOS becomes D, F, or F Arterial Street Intersection Average vehicle delay is ? 15 seconds or LOS becomes EorF Collector Street Intersection Any net increase in average seconds of delay per vehicle D Arterial Street Intersection Average vehicle delay is ? 15 seconds or LOS becomes E or F E Collector or Arterial Any net increase in average seconds of delay per Intersection vehicle F Collector or Arterial I HCM V/C ratio net increase is ? FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL Operation of the proposed project would generate a minor net increase in vehicle trips. Due to the operating nature of fire stations as emergency responders, it is not possible to predict their daily trip generation (or when trips would be generated throughout a day). Only the commute trips by fire station staff are predictable. Currently, Fire Station No. 1 has a staff of 14 firefighters on shift at any given time, with each 24 -hour shift beginning at 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. SMFD staffing is anticipated to increase from 14 per shift (per 24 -hour shift) at the existing fire station to up to 24 per shift (per 24 -hour or 48 -hour shift) at the new fire station, which is a net increase of 10 personnel per shift. Conservatively assuming that the net increase of 10 personnel per shift would drive alone to the new fire station, the proposed project could result in a net daily increase of 10 inbound and 10 outbound trips. Based on the shift times (beginning at 7:00 AM and ending at 7:00 PM), these trips would occur outside of the peak hours (7:30 -9:30 AM and 5:00 -7:00 PM). Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on the existing surrounding intersections. Furthermore, the project site is located in the highly commercialized Downtown area. Therefore, no impacts to neighborhood (residential) street segments would occur. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Within Los Angeles County, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) administers the 2010 Congestion Management Plan (CMP), a state mandated program designed to address the impacts of urban congestion on local communities and the region as a whole. The 2010 CMP requires a traffic impact analysis be conducted where a project would (1) add 50 or more peak hour trips to. any CMP arterial intersection or (2) where a project would add 150 or more peak hour trips in any direction to a CMP freeway monitoring segment. As previously stated, it is conservatively estimated that the proposed project would generate a minor net increase of 10 daily inbound and 10 daily outbound trips, which would occur outside of the peak hours. Based on the small amount of net new trips generated, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on the regional transportation system and a traffic impact analysis pursuant to the CMP is not required. Impacts would be less than significant. c) No Impact. The proposed project does not propose any uses which would change air traffic patterns or increase air traffic. Therefore, no impacts to air traffic patterns would occur. d) No Impact. The proposed project would develop a new two -story Fire Station No. 1 to replace the existing station. The proposed project does not include any hazardous design feature such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections on- or off -site, nor does the proposed project propose any hazardous or incompatible uses. Furthermore, there are no existing hazardous design features such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections on -site or in the surrounding project area. No impacts would occur. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would construct a new fire station that would facilitate and improve emergency access for fire trucks and apparatus. Currently, the existing Fire Station No. 1 does not have pull through apparatus bays. As a result, fire trucks and apparatus must back into the existing bays. The proposed new Fire Station No. 1 would include up to new 6 apparatus bays, with 4 being pull through. With the new pull - through bays, fire trucks can enter and exit the project site via 71h Street or 7 +h Court alley. Therefore, the proposed project would not have adverse impacts on an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Rather, the proposed project would result in beneficial impacts on emergency access and response. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 9� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND D September 2012 •• °•..... Page 65 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL No Impact. The Big Blue Bus serves the City of Santa Monica and has bus routes throughout the area. The proposed project would not disrupt existing bus service nor require the relocation of existing bus stops. Furthermore, the proposed project is located within walking distance (within 0.5 mile) of the future Exposition Light Rail station at 5th Street and Colorado Avenue. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with policies, programs, or plans supporting alternative transportation. No impacts would occur. a� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 ^• Page 66 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation `:.Significant No .impact Incorporated Impact Impact XX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: treatment provider that serves or may serve a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements the project that it has adequate capacity to ❑. El of the applicable Regional Water Quality ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Control Board? addition to the provider's existing b) Require or result in the construction of new f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient water or wastewater treatment facilities or permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ construction of which could cause significant g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes El El El environmental effects? and regulations related to solid waste? 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 El El ® El and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to ❑. El ® El the project's projected demand, 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 El El El and regulations related to solid waste? a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently served by a 10 inch sewer main within 7th Court which connects to a 24 inch sewer line within Broadway. Wastewater is conveyed via this existing sewer main westward to the City's Coastal Interceptor Sewer System (CISS) and then ultimately to the City of Los Angeles' Hyperion Treatment Plant in the City of Los Angeles for treatment. Two flow metering stations for the CISS are located at 415 Pacific Coast Highway and at the 3000 block of Main Street. The CISS system is designed for 51.7 million gallons per day (mgd) at its terminus at the southern City boundary with the City of Los Angeles. Presently the 13.07 mgd average flow at the CISS terminus represents e� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 '•• ° "° Page 67 FIRE STATION No. 1 INITIAL STUDY approximately 25.3 percent of its capacity.22 The Hyperion Treatment Plant has a dry weather capacity of 450 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently processes an average of 340 mgd. The proposed project would develop new commercial and residential uses on the site, resulting in increased wastewater flows. As shown in Table 11 below, the proposed project would generate a net increase of approximately 1,950 gpd of wastewater. TABLE 11 PROJECT WASTEWATER GENERATION Generation rate from the County of Los Angeles Sanitation District Pollutant loads for project wastewater flows would not substantially increase from the existing flows at the existing fire station. Furthermore, at the time of final building plan check, a sewer capacity study would be submitted to the City of Santa Monica Public Works Department to ascertain that the existing sewer lines(s) can accommodate project flows. In order to do these studies, the applicants will have to meter the flow of the sewer line(s) that the project will be discharging to (to make sure that d/D is less than 50% with their additional flow) and upsize the sewers accordingly as part of their project. Furthermore, project flows would be within the remaining design capacity of the CISS and the Hyperion Treatment Plant. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed any wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and adequate wastewater treatment capacity exists to serve the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Santa Monica Water Department operates and owns the water infrastructure systems within the City. Currently, the water infrastructure to the project site includes an existing 16 -inch water main within 71h Court which connects to a 12 -inch water main within Santa Monica Boulevard. The proposed project would redevelop the project site with a new expanded fire station that would replace the existing station. There are no City water demand rates for fire stations. Therefore, the water demand rate for a governmental /institutional use was applied to the proposed project. Based on these water consumption factors, the proposed project would result in a net water demand of approximately 521,950 gallons per year or 1.60 acre foot per year as shown in Table 12. This demand would not be significant increase compared to the projected 2020 water demand for the City of 12,635 acre feet per year.23 Water conservation measures to be incorporated 22 City of Santa Monica Sewer System Management Plan; online at http://wwwOl.smaov net /cilyclerk/ council / agendas /2009/20090908/x2009090801 -N -1 htmt accessed March 15, 2011. 23 Santa Monica Urban Water Management Plan 2010. m� Fire Station No. 11S/MND September 2012 ^• ..... Page 68 Size Proposed Generation Rate Generation Per Day Proposed Fire Station No. 1 25000 0.15 3,750.00 Existing Fire Station No. 1 12000 0.15 1,800.00 Total Net New 1,950.00 Generation rate from the County of Los Angeles Sanitation District Pollutant loads for project wastewater flows would not substantially increase from the existing flows at the existing fire station. Furthermore, at the time of final building plan check, a sewer capacity study would be submitted to the City of Santa Monica Public Works Department to ascertain that the existing sewer lines(s) can accommodate project flows. In order to do these studies, the applicants will have to meter the flow of the sewer line(s) that the project will be discharging to (to make sure that d/D is less than 50% with their additional flow) and upsize the sewers accordingly as part of their project. Furthermore, project flows would be within the remaining design capacity of the CISS and the Hyperion Treatment Plant. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed any wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and adequate wastewater treatment capacity exists to serve the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Santa Monica Water Department operates and owns the water infrastructure systems within the City. Currently, the water infrastructure to the project site includes an existing 16 -inch water main within 71h Court which connects to a 12 -inch water main within Santa Monica Boulevard. The proposed project would redevelop the project site with a new expanded fire station that would replace the existing station. There are no City water demand rates for fire stations. Therefore, the water demand rate for a governmental /institutional use was applied to the proposed project. Based on these water consumption factors, the proposed project would result in a net water demand of approximately 521,950 gallons per year or 1.60 acre foot per year as shown in Table 12. This demand would not be significant increase compared to the projected 2020 water demand for the City of 12,635 acre feet per year.23 Water conservation measures to be incorporated 22 City of Santa Monica Sewer System Management Plan; online at http://wwwOl.smaov net /cilyclerk/ council / agendas /2009/20090908/x2009090801 -N -1 htmt accessed March 15, 2011. 23 Santa Monica Urban Water Management Plan 2010. m� Fire Station No. 11S/MND September 2012 ^• ..... Page 68 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY as part of the project's LEED Silver Certification would help to reduce this estimated water demand. All water connections to serve the proposed new fire station would be constructed to meet the standards of the Santa Monica Public Works Department. As in current conditions, water demand for firefighting varies as such demand is dependent on the specific fire incident and the frequency of such incidents. TABLE 12 PROJECT WATER DEMAND * Demand rates for institutional /government uses from the City of Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation FIR, April 2010. As discussed previously, project wastewater flows of 1,950 gallons per year would be within the remaining design capacity of the CISS and the Hyperion Treatment Plant. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the construction of new water and wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would replace the existing impervious parking lot with new impervious surface areas in the form of a new fire station building and hardscaped areas. Additionally, new pervious surface areas would be introduced with the proposed project's landscaping and the proposed project would be required to comply with the Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance. Thus, the amount of stormwater runoff would decrease relative to existing conditions, and the overall amount of run -off is not expected to exceed the capacity of the existing storm drain system. Additionally, the proposed project would include appropriate minor on -site drainage improvements such as roof drains to direct anticipated stormwater flows to existing storm drains and /or catch basins and maintain existing drainage patterns. The proposed project would not require the construction of new major stormwater facilities or the expansion of facilities that would cause significant impacts. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Water for the Santa Monica service area is supplied from both groundwater and imported sources. Six wells are in the Santa Monica Sub basin, and the remaining five wells are in the Charnock Sub basin. In February 2010, the City opened the Santa Monica Water Treatment Plant at the Charnock Well Field. The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California delivers imported water from the Colorado River and State Water Project to the City. Table 9 summarizes the net increase in water demand that is anticipated from the proposed project. As previously stated, this demand would not be significant increase compared to the projected 2020 water demand for the City of 15,806 acre feet per year. Therefore, project water demand could be accommodated by the Fire Station No. 1 IS /MIND September 2012 ""' Page 69 Size Proposed (sf) Water Demand Rate (gpd) Demand Per Year (gpy) Proposed Fire Station No. 1 25000 0.11 1,003,750.00 Existing - Fire Station No. 1 12000 0.11 481,800.00 Total Net New 521,950.00 * Demand rates for institutional /government uses from the City of Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation FIR, April 2010. As discussed previously, project wastewater flows of 1,950 gallons per year would be within the remaining design capacity of the CISS and the Hyperion Treatment Plant. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the construction of new water and wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would replace the existing impervious parking lot with new impervious surface areas in the form of a new fire station building and hardscaped areas. Additionally, new pervious surface areas would be introduced with the proposed project's landscaping and the proposed project would be required to comply with the Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance. Thus, the amount of stormwater runoff would decrease relative to existing conditions, and the overall amount of run -off is not expected to exceed the capacity of the existing storm drain system. Additionally, the proposed project would include appropriate minor on -site drainage improvements such as roof drains to direct anticipated stormwater flows to existing storm drains and /or catch basins and maintain existing drainage patterns. The proposed project would not require the construction of new major stormwater facilities or the expansion of facilities that would cause significant impacts. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Water for the Santa Monica service area is supplied from both groundwater and imported sources. Six wells are in the Santa Monica Sub basin, and the remaining five wells are in the Charnock Sub basin. In February 2010, the City opened the Santa Monica Water Treatment Plant at the Charnock Well Field. The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California delivers imported water from the Colorado River and State Water Project to the City. Table 9 summarizes the net increase in water demand that is anticipated from the proposed project. As previously stated, this demand would not be significant increase compared to the projected 2020 water demand for the City of 15,806 acre feet per year. Therefore, project water demand could be accommodated by the Fire Station No. 1 IS /MIND September 2012 ""' Page 69 FIRE STATION NO. I INITIAL City's existing and future water supply. Therefore, impacts to the City's water supply would be less than significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response XX(b). Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would result in the need for solid waste disposal at the County's landfills. In particular, construction of the proposed project would generate construction and demolition (C &D) waste such as asphalt, concrete, glass, and wood. Section 8.108.010 Subpart C of the SMMC requires that demolition and /or construction projects greater than $50,000 or 1000 square feet divert at least 70 percent of C &D material from landfills. As the project would involve the construction of new structures greater than 1,000 square feet, the proposed project would be subject to this diversion requirement. Therefore, via compliance with this ordinance, the project's C &D waste disposal need would be reduced by at least 70 percent. As such, project construction impacts on landfill capacity would be less than significant. Municipal waste generated in the City is disposed of at several in- County and out of County landfills. In addition, a portion of the wastes are transformed at Waste to Energy facilities. Table 12 shows the landfills and wastes to energy facilities that served the City in 2011. Based on information from the most recent Los Angeles County Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan Annual Report, the in- County municipal landfills serving the City has a remaining capacity of 115.37 million tons as of January 2010 and a maximum daily capacity of 33,000 tons. TABLE 12 SOLID WASTE FACILITIES SERVING CITY OF SANTA MONICA ®� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September2012 ..... Page 70 Remaining Ca aci tons SWFP Daily capacity tons City Disposal 2009 tons In County Class 111 Landfills Chiquita Canyon Landfill 7,323,000 6,000 6,722 Lancaster Landfill 13,070,000 1,700 826 Puente Hills Landfill 14,351,000 13,200 73,243 Sunshine Canyon Landfill 80,627,000 12,100 2,096 Subtotal 115,371,000 _ 33,000 82,887 In County Inert Landfills Azusa Land Reclamation 46,425,000 6,500 470 Peck Road Gravel Pit 9,374,000 0 Subtotal 55,799,000 _ _1,210 7,710 470 In Coun Waste to Ener Facilities Commerce Refuse To Energy 466,640,000 1,000 15,616 Southeast Resource Recovery 1,602,450,000 2,240 2,209 ®� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September2012 ..... Page 70 FIRE STATION NO. 7 INITIAL Subtotal 2,069,090,000 3,240 17,825 Out of Coun ty Landfills Simi Landfill and Rec clin Center 16,000,000 3,500 164 El Sobrante 132,000,000 16,054 437 Bakersfield Metro 1 Frank Bowerman 37,000,000 11,500 10 Olinda Alpha Subtotal 14,000,000 199,000,000 8,000 39,054 108 720 _ Total Capacity/ Disposal 2,240,260,000 43,950 84,077 Total Transformed 470 Source: Los Angeles County Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan 2009 Annual Report; California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Disposal Reporting System - Jurisdiction Disposal By Facility for Santa Monica 2009 As shown in Table 14, operation of the proposed project would generate approximately a net increase of 12.65 tons of solid waste per year or 0.03 tons per day. Daily solid waste generated by the project would, therefore, account for less than 0.01 percent of the permitted daily disposal of the in- County landfills serving the City. Furthermore, it should be noted that this figure does not account for any waste diversion programs that would be implemented by the project, such as recycling programs for cardboard boxes, paper, aluminum cans, and bottles, in accordance with the City's Source Reduction Recycling Element. Since the project would not represent a substantial portion of the daily permitted tonnage for in- County landfills serving the City, it is anticipated that the landfills would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. As such, operational impacts on landfill capacity would be less than significant. TABLE 14 - PROJECT SOLID WASTE GENERATION Tons Per Year Tosed Station No. 1 (25 ksf) 23.25 fang Station No. 1 (11.4 ksf) 10.6C Increase 'Solid waste generation from the CALEEMOD model based on CalRecycle generation factors. g) No Impact. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) was passed by the State legislature for the purpose of establishing an integrated waste management hierarchy consisting of (in order of priority): source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal. The Act requires each city, county, and regional agency, if any, to develop a source reduction and recycling element of an o� Fire Station No. 1 1S /MND September 2012 °• Page 71 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY integrated waste management plan containing specified components. Those entities are required to divert, from disposal or transformation, 50% of the solid waste through source reduction, recycling, and composting. In accordance with AB939, the City prepared the Source Reduction and Recycling Element, which outlines efforts to reduce solid waste. Furthermore, the City has adopted the Sustainable City Plan, which includes a number of goals to reduce solid waste disposal. Specifically, solid waste generation is not to exceed 2000 generation levels by 2010, and diversion rate of 70 percent of the total by 2010. The City is updating the Sustainable City Plan to create a Zero Waste Strategic Plan, which would set a zero waste goal (or 90 percent diversion) for 2030. Section 8.108.010 Subpart C of the SMMC (Construction and Demolition Ordinance) requires that demolition and /or construction projects costing $50,000 or more, projects 1000 square feet or more, or all demolition only projects divert at least 70 percent of C &D material from landfills. Applicants for construction or demolition permits involving these covered projects shall complete and submit a waste management plan (WMP), on a WMP form approved by the City for this purpose, as part of the application packet for the construction or demolition permit. The proposed project would not conflict with the goals of AB939, the Source Reduction and Recycling Element, the City's Sustainable City Plan, or the SMMC. During project construction, the City would comply with Section 8.108.010 Subpart C of the SMMC to divert at least 70 percent of C &D material from landfills.24 In accordance with the SMMC, a Waste Management Plan would be prepared prior to commencement of construction work. Additionally, throughout the operational life of the project, recyclable containers/ bins would be provided on -site to ensure that project - generated solid waste would be recycled or reused to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. No impacts would occur. 24 Inert wastes are excluded from calculating compliance with this requirement. Inert wastes are defined as non - liquid solid resources including, but not limited to, soil and concrete, that do not contain hazardous waste orsoluble pollutants and does not contain significant quantities of decomposable solid resources. e� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 °•• ° ^^ Page 72 FIRE STATION NO. T INITIAL STUDY Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant. Mitigation 'Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild -life population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ❑ ❑ ❑ animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a El ❑ ® El 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. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ ❑ ® ❑ human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) No Impact. As discussed in Responses IV(a) through IV(f) above, the project site is located within a highly urbanized area and is completely developed. No biological species or habitat for biological species exists on -site or within the surrounding vicinity. In addition, no Habitat Conservation Plan, Community Conservation Plan, or other approved habitat conservation plans apply to the project site. As such, the proposed project would not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Furthermore, as discussed in Responses V(a) through V(d) above, with implementation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would not have the potential to eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory as no historical resources exist on -site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts that have the potential to degrade the quality of environment. No impacts would occur. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative impacts may occur when the proposed project in conjunction with one or more related projects would result an impact that is greater than what would occur with the development of only the proposed project. s� Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 ^••• °• Page 73 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY With regard to cumulative effects for the issues of agricultural, biological, and mineral resources, the project site is located in an urbanized area and therefore, other developments occurring in the area of the project would largely occur on previously disturbed land and are not anticipated to have an impact. Thus, no cumulative impact to these resources would occur. Impacts related to archaeological resources, paleontological resources, geology /soils, and hazards and hazardous materials are generally confined to a specific site and do not affect off -site areas. However, the City's approved and pending projects in the vicinity combined with the proposed project may result in cumulative effects in other environmental issue areas due to the aggregate development within an already urbanized area. However, as the following analysis indicates, Project - related impacts that require mitigation measures to reduce the level of significance would not result in cumulative impacts when combined with cumulative growth. Aesthetics - Project impacts to aesthetics resources have the potential to be cumulatively considerable if project development in conjunction with related project development were to alter existing views and the visual character of nearby aesthetic resources. However, as with the proposed project, related projects would be reviewed on a case -by- case basis by the City to comply with the LUCE and if appropriate, the SMMC regarding, building heights, setbacks, massing and lighting. In addition, projects would be required to undergo site - specific review by the Architectural Review Board regarding building density, design, and light and glare effects. Therefore, it can be expected that no significant impacts with regard to aesthetic resources would occur. Thus, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Air Quality - The SCAQMD evaluates a project's cumulative impacts in terms of its relationship with regional emissions. Based on the SCAQMD's recommended methodology, the proposed project would have a significant cumulative impact on air quality if the daily Project vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to daily county -wide VMT ratio exceeds the ratio of daily Project employees to daily county -wide employees. As discussed in Response lll(c), the proposed project would have no significant cumulative air quality impacts. Hydrology and Water Quality - Additionally, related projects could potentially result in an increase in surface water runoff and contribute point and non -point source pollutants to the Pacific Ocean. However, related projects would be subject to the City's Urban Stormwater Ordinance requirements for both construction and operation, including development of SWPPPs for construction projects greater than one acre, and SUSMPs, as well as mandatory implementation of BMPs pertaining to hydrology and surface water quality. Thus, cumulative impacts related to hydrology /water quality would be less than significant. Land Use - As with the proposed project, related projects would be reviewed on a case - by -case basis to ensure consistency with existing land use policies and regulations. Where inconsistencies occur, it is anticipated that discretionary review (e.g., Development Agreement) would be undertaken to ensure that and use impacts would be less than significant. Thus, cumulative land use impacts would be less than significant. Noise - The proposed project would not generate a significant increase in ambient noise levels. As previously stated, on -site noise sources of the proposed project would primarily be associated with the fire truck sirens and operation of mechanical equipment. However, ®� Fire Station No. 1 1S /MND September 2012 °•••• Page 74 FIRE STATION NO. I INITIAL STUDY such noises already occur at the existing fire station which is located approximately 0.1 mile south of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to noise levels would not be considered cumulatively considerable. Population /Housing -The proposed project would develop a new replacement Fire Station No. 1 building to serve the existing and forecast City population. As the proposed project would not include the development of new residential units, the proposed project would not have any population and housing impacts and thus would not contribute to a cumulative impact with regard to population and housing. Public Services - Development of the proposed project in conjunction with the related projects would not cumulatively increase the demand for public services. As stated previously, the proposed project consists of the acquisition of property and construction of a new replacement Fire Station No. 1 to serve existing and forecasted population in the City. The new Fire Station No. 1 building would be a replacement for the existing 11,362 square foot Fire Station No. 1 located at 1444 71h Street. The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in the demand for public services. Traffic - As indicated in Section XIX Transportation /Traffic, the proposed project would result in a net increase of 10 daily inbound and outbound vehicle trips that would occur outside of the peak hours. Therefore, the proposed project's incremental traffic impact would not be cumulatively considerable. Wastewater. Stormwater, and Water Utilities - Development of the proposed project in conjunction with the related projects would cumulatively increase wastewater generation, water demand, and solid waste disposal needs. Thus, there is potential for a cumulative significant impact on these utilities services and associated infrastructure. However, each related project would be subject to discretionary review by the Santa Monica Department of Public Works and the Water Department to ensure that adequate infrastructure exists. As the service providers conduct ongoing evaluations to ensure that facilities are adequate to serve the forecasted growth of the City, cumulative impacts on wastewater, stormwater, and water utilities are concluded to be less than significant. Solid Waste - The proposed project in conjunction with related projects would increase the need for solid waste disposal during their respective construction periods as well as on an on -going basis during operations. Thus, there is potential for a cumulative significant impact on solid waste. However, since unclassified landfills in the County do not generally have capacity concerns, inert landfills serving the related projects would have sufficient capacity to accommodate construction waste disposal needs. With regard to operational waste disposal needs, each related project would be subject to discretionary review to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures (e.g., implementation of recycling programs, provision of recycling containers, etc) would be implemented to reduce solid waste impacts. Furthermore, the County of Los Angeles conducts ongoing evaluations. In addressing solid waste, the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County prepares an annual report (the County Integrated Waste Management Plan) that analyzes future disposal needs and ensures that landfill capacity is adequate to serve the forecasted disposal needs of the region over the next 15 year planning horizon. With each annual report, the planning horizon is extended by one year, thereby providing sufficient lead time for the County to address any future shortfalls in landfill capacity. Therefore, ®� Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 "" Page 75 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL c) Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the analysis presented above, implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures would reduce environmental impacts such that no substantial adverse effects on humans would occur. o® Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 Page 76 FIRE STATION NO. I INITIAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Fire Station No. 1 Land Exchange and Construction 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 a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the required mitigation measures identified in the MND are implemented as part of the overall project implementation. The following table summarizes the mitigation measures for each issue area identified in the MND for Fire Station No. 1. 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 will 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. 0 Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 °•° Page 77 z O Z z O eq LL 4) u Cy "... o u a a) Ev U u.! c o 0 0) u cS c - 0 c � O .� o3-c.- C C U 0 Ua� >. c,�_ a) E D N � O D O 0 O LL Q 0 O 0 C a > c a-6 U_ �° Q ouC5 �a)a 3 a c a U a) 0 U u '•� C C O Q 0 U C O Q- O U O C a L ' j 6 D 6 0 Q G W a.a - Ca !U �.: O J C Q p U 0 Q •> C3 J d ❑ C a 00 a) .L- O o a L 0 0 U N O 0 -N 0 c Cu N� a O 0 o � T N O E O Q m O O , 0 .Q C Cl O aE ) E D_ C a) F- C q NL O C C C O ...:U O rLC 9 - - �N S aaN 99p0 N 0 C3 O O p 0} a O a N N O L } N O O. L 0 0-+L. C da E 0 0 0 =mac o3� �°)a -° �o .L- p o a) o o o c° o a a .o a> o o 0 u o u .� ° -a>m�o c >oQOO me (D °a .�-� � a� H o O O 0 N CT O o U N 0 ) o 0 .L- O .�-. U Q.. 0 a E U Q 0 a 00 L E C ?_ a 0 _O O O U -a c c O N u a) fi !c Q p 6) C c ,n :N 0) a a E 4 U 0 a u 4 O } 0 a � 0) O a a a) -6 c c U a U �- a o T� 0 O�G E N ° — O��aaioa o e a a e o e aa)9�c�a m O Q..L -.d QNHLL mid' U �Ln o ^� zov N � H � a a Z O_ v C H O O H u 0 c� O U Ev 0 U O c o c 0 6 O a e0e E _ O O 'U c 'U O c `p, p LL A ° ® ° ° `p O U :O e c 'O c o O C U m .0 S O U U U N h 0 C C_ O O o O o U o c D C+ 0-0 0 a CI O o O Q E O O Q E ° C a o O U U N 6 ° �? U N 6 ° U W o o > Q C U o 0 o U a o o U c N p0 9 ° U ° LN O 5 0 o N 0 0 U C o 0 O . D O O 0 N p L S O N O N a-L N N O ° U E U Q > O U E U r 6 N O 0 U O N D O 0 Z O_ N v O 6 > > p ._ � bO- ° d -o O 'O c ac o c H cl Q Q 0 O p O > O 0 '0K O „ > p O 0 0) N O N U O o O +U O C N Q N c c c p C c N N n C5 6 'U G— U `r C G N 0 a 6 07 9 O c° C 0 0 0 P) 0- C o C L o. � C o 0 O) o N N _ o N C 0 'o � 0 .- N a O - 0 ° O) N cx O N N U U p N o 00 Q O� �� N U � N 0 N 0 -0 -0 O1 p 0 � O O 0 0 0 6) C ) u 6 N < D N N U E O } N T u= L U o o 0 0 O a1 6 k 0 U OC NO O U N C O oA O O N N CS _ o N LO +O O d w Q "6 U O O a ~ C > 0 > c Q - ° N c E 3 p 0 . -LN d 7o ° O O 0 N Q Q Q Q N >'o O N o o O- °o-p3U�U T N o E 0 O Q Q 9 w U O m oo U U-a3o��°'�� O �N y N as N O O h v LL i Q��;j v C Y °O U •O. al E o U;' c o O O O a) o- .D ;. co B C Off, V U C a U Q o O Q Q C 0 :: U Qa C QO Q°'a QC a) U a N O) d o 6 O U oU _a C U_ C _U O C _ C a) ;.... 0 Q O _ O 0 0 U O J amp ma-°)� 0 c e a 0-0 C C J L : C o)Ua U C O D Oulu O C O C E m C N C N N E E U E - O C) O t O t O V y o C 0 0 o a o _C .> O 0 U O a) 0--a 00 U) a) a) 0130Eu00; 000 o� C Ec2' U u o o'–aJ cC�acc `c m m e o 6 E D J a E E E Q C O E , o M o 0 W -0 U C a) 0 0 U ap a) .= 0 0 - U 3 0 d 0 0 0 0 a 0 w m 6 O U U � D L 6 a) N } :.`o° -.E aUi` u m °03o� v E'er. tea_° �° Q U a N O o C C .E S 9 ac ) c C 0 T3 0 (D 0 0 = to o a)0U o�c a o 0— j } F U 5 o O O o O C O O C U L - Q C O o U�a E�Ea= o o0 cO C `� Q �U � U aa o 0 a - N C C) O Q O N d U Q 0 0) 0o Ea o a �C 0 0 a -E3 (3 °a C6 _ ° C ' o 6 'J) U a ti o 'o a o Q c„ c a > 3 N .E J O n X E o U •rn - L 6 O) 0 0 5 M a 0 a) U N a C Q a a) N ` C N C L- C 6 ° O � N Qa�a O O o N O >0a o a� o N J a° O Q 0 9 Q U .° r6 - . O) O a O- O U 0 O a N O -0,2 C N C � L m 'D O O U O U c U a O w C T 0 o O Q Ij E o C) U O . E o O L) = f a J a a U E U Q O a Y O"' - o C. O O a= O O £- U U ` a C a C O O a N o • O O o a) C �ao° E0 0 3a a8 JO a �? `O O x N UoUa o° oQa o ® O Z o yN mi E Z 2 v c 0 H i v C Y a U .p- N Ev 0 U N 0) u C c ' O ¢=5E' '. S. — e O V , � T � C 6 v ; c 6 •O v o u`i .0 V O e at c 0 u u v oa c a, E e v ar 6 � oa c W O) O C 0 6 0 U J m `o °° 0 6 6 a U 3 a a a o C C — N o •Lm 0 C 0 - 9 .-C a- o G N O 0 O E 0 0 0 O O O C C c 6 N 0 »O - °a ' O O LL N o 6 U U 3•s p2 E a 6 -o O a m � - l - 3 6 0 0 C5 o o u 6 9 U c 3 O OQ a.9 N C+ Q -0'5 o O T 0 '6 N Q JO O "0 -a 0) "6 U U N 'g .`- u� O 0 U-+- N> M 0) a» o c 4) L N L 4? E 0 0 U 0 h Q •_ U 6 L C O N vi '- .0 0 0) � 0) c> O C O 0) N C O Q C, a 6 o 9�� 0 o a � 9 Q O CL -0 -o s u u °� a as a J E o h_ a °-o u`1 3 0 00 o 063 -000c° ° ma �Q0 0 20 ° 6 �3a3OS 0., C) Lo :C O 42 Y U N cm Q C U N J 6 rn.tn Etc t 6 .0 E0'^ C 0 J N N rL- 4 C) 4 O N N a 0 0 N it T (D Q� Ol C N C O m J N ti ) oar sE N N C 0) o 0) N U O L N Q L oo -0OZ N o L 3 'ova } a0 O U c�O)E C N C 0 J c C � C E 6• o ._ 0 c N O N O 0` 6 C) Q N -0 C) C t U 9 E� C O U 0— c m o m o Q o�0)O1� ¢ E m O y 0 o c a 0 c 00`0 `x0 ° �-6 O p m 9 L 0� U m o U E E c2 o- No - >o� 6 U Q E O a o 0 E��o 0 0 o a oo° 0 g` a° ma a'D �0 0 v °u Q O C C F H A O .L- 9 E O o U 0.9t O C O +. a O Q 0 O Q U E o Z O N � H � a a E Z R C H 0 a W N a w ; E 0 . `U U) u c C C ¢rii E 0 _ u ...0.:..N.::., � D '. C O' - N fe •O 0o c O Q C N E c ISN W >04 u, c a N Q a o o `oa oa`Na C j C c 0 'E O T C ' E O G �-a N O a d) Q N J o t 3 N a- N J �a O ° O O O N 0-0 O 0 -0 J O O N C O N N O E N C �[ a 4.+ C o U O Qua > J N U aaa °' N' C) aa3 °`o °+ 3 a.E •o � a° >.a�� NNa3aN ocao F L N Gdt 0,00 �_ v Oj +�- � a a v, a N _ ga c c O U 0 3 C 6 0 a E N N J� L p 9 N a t p'J > O I C a 3 6 N y a C N Q L U N�o Q C 0 O O C °. C N N O N O .- a 9 O O a C O o paw "' O° o E o> E E o°-0 _° 0 ^ N zov N tn � d .0 E C N O O h v 6,� q Fire Station No. I Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS /MND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT IS /MND The Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration and Neighborhood Impact Statement Checklist (MND) for the Fire Station No. 1 Project was circulated for review and comment for a 30 -day public review period that began on August 8, 2012, and concluded on September 8, 2012. The Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the MND was posted with the Los Angeles County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse, mailed to all owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project site boundaries, made available on the City's website, distributed to all relevant public agencies, and mailed to all City neighborhood groups. Three comment letters were received during the public review period: • Native American Heritage Commission • California Department of Transportation ® Tistaert Dental The complete text of the comments and the City's response to those comments are presented' in this section, with written comments reproduced in their entirety, and the responses to those comments presented thereafter. CEQA does not require written responses to comments received on an MND; however, the City has reviewed the comments received and prepared these responses to provide full information to the decision - makers and the public a� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 ^• °•• Page 83 Fire Station No. 7 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS /MND August 16, 2012 `0 W Ms, Rachel Kwok, Project Planner o City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: SCH #2012081025: CEQA Notice of Completion: Initiai_Study(ISl and proposed Mitiga_.ted Negative Declaration for the "Fire Station No. 1 Land Exchange and ¢onstructlon Protect:" located In the City of Santa Monica• Los Angeles Qounty, California. Dear Ms. Kwok: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), the State of California 'Trustee Agency' for the protection and preservation of Native American cultural resources pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21070 and affirmed by the Third Appellate Court in the case of EPIC v. Johnson (1985:,170, Ca1.App. 3`9, 604)..: This letter includes state and federal statutes relating to Native American ` historic properties or resources of religious and cultural significance to American Indian tribes and interested Native American individuals as'consulting parties' under both state and federal law. State law also addresses the freedom of Native American Religious Expression in Public Resources Code §5097.9, This project is also subject to California Government Code Section 65352.3 at seq. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA— CA Public Resources Code 21000-21177, amendments effective 3118/2010) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, Is a'significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as'a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project, including .- .objects of historic or aesthetic significance," In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the 'area of potential effect (APE), and if so, to mitigate that effect, The NAHC recommends that the lead agency request that the NAHC do a Sacred Lands File search as part of the careful planning for the proposed project. The NAHC "Sacred Sites; as defined by the Native American Heritage Commission and the California Legislature in California Public Resources Code § §5097.94(a) and 5097.98. ca otfi Comment 1 -1 o� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 Page 84 _ — EdMALL BSOVN JY GOVBr90r NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION CAPITOL 384 SAC ) IAWNW,CAU5814 Y 634261 ox 5)657 5390 Wab81b y ;.tbAab < Y A da_ neho0paOb011.na[ N August 16, 2012 `0 W Ms, Rachel Kwok, Project Planner o City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: SCH #2012081025: CEQA Notice of Completion: Initiai_Study(ISl and proposed Mitiga_.ted Negative Declaration for the "Fire Station No. 1 Land Exchange and ¢onstructlon Protect:" located In the City of Santa Monica• Los Angeles Qounty, California. Dear Ms. Kwok: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), the State of California 'Trustee Agency' for the protection and preservation of Native American cultural resources pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21070 and affirmed by the Third Appellate Court in the case of EPIC v. Johnson (1985:,170, Ca1.App. 3`9, 604)..: This letter includes state and federal statutes relating to Native American ` historic properties or resources of religious and cultural significance to American Indian tribes and interested Native American individuals as'consulting parties' under both state and federal law. State law also addresses the freedom of Native American Religious Expression in Public Resources Code §5097.9, This project is also subject to California Government Code Section 65352.3 at seq. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA— CA Public Resources Code 21000-21177, amendments effective 3118/2010) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, Is a'significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as'a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project, including .- .objects of historic or aesthetic significance," In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the 'area of potential effect (APE), and if so, to mitigate that effect, The NAHC recommends that the lead agency request that the NAHC do a Sacred Lands File search as part of the careful planning for the proposed project. The NAHC "Sacred Sites; as defined by the Native American Heritage Commission and the California Legislature in California Public Resources Code § §5097.94(a) and 5097.98. ca otfi Comment 1 -1 o� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 Page 84 Fire Station No. 1 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS /MND Items in the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory are confidential and exempt from the Public Records Act pursuant to California Government Code §6254 (r ). Early consultation with Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or burial sites once a project is underway. Culturally affiliated tribes and individuals may have knowledge of the religious and cultural significance of the historic properties in the project area (e.g. APE). We strongly urge that you make contact with the list of Native American Contacts on the attached list of Native American contacts, to see if your proposed project might Impact Native American cultural resources and to obtain their recommendations concerning the proposed project. Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code § 5097.95, the NAHC requests cooperation from other public agencies in order that the Native American consulting parties be provided pertinent project information. Consultation with Native American communities is also a matter of environmental justice as defined by California Government Code §65040.12(e). Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code §5097.95, the NAHC requests that pertinent project information be provided consulting tribal parties, including archaeological studies. The NAHC recommends avoidance as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15370(a) to pursuing a project that would damage or destroy Native American cultural resources and Section 2183.2 that requires documentation, data recovery of cultural resources. Furthermore,. the NAHC if the proposed project is under the jurisdiction of the statutes and regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act (e.g. NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 - 43351). Consultation with tribes and interested Native American consulting parties, on the NAHC list, should be conducted in compliance with the requirements of federal NEPA and Section 106 and 4(f) of federal NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470 at seq), 36 CFR Part 800.3 (f) (2) & .5, the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CSQ, 42 U.S.0 4371 at seq. and NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001- 3013) as appropriate. The 1992 Secretary of the interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties were revised so that they could he applied to all historic resource types Included in the National Register of Historic Places and including cultural landscapes. Also, federal Executive Orders Nos. 11593 (preservation of cultural environment), 13175 (coordination & consultation) and 13007 (Sacred Sites) are helpful, supportive guides for Section 106 consultation. The aforementioned Secretary of the Interior's Standards include recommendations for all 'lead agencies' to consider the historic content of proposed projects and to "research" the cultural landscape that might Include the'area of potential effect' Confidentiality of "historic properties of religious and cultural significance" should also be considered as protected by California Government Code §6254( r) and may also be protected under Section 304 of he NHPA or at the Secretary of the Interior discretion If not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary may also be advised by the federal Indian Religious Freedom Act (of. 42 U.S.C.; 1996) in issuing a decision on whether or not to disclose items of religious and/or cultural significance Identified in or near the APES and possibility threatened by proposed project activity. Furthermore, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, California Government Code §27491 and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 provide for provisions for inadvertent discovery of human remains mandate the processes to be followed in the event of a discovery of human remains in a project location other than Wdedicated cemetery'. To be effective, consultation on specific projects must be the result of an ongoing relationship between Native American tribes and lead agencies, project proponents and their contractors, in the opinion of the NAHC. Regarding tribal consultation, a relationship built Comment 1 -1 (cont'd) ®� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 ° °'•• Page 85 Fire Station No. 1 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS /MND around regular meetings and informal Involvement with local tribes will lead to more qualitative consultation tribal input on specific projects. Finally, when Native American cultural sites and/or Native American burial sites are prevalent within the project site, the NAHC recommends'avoidance' of the site as referenced by CEQA Guidelines Section 15370(a). If you have: c tact, eat (916) incer (y, e Sin leton Program Analyst Cc: Stale Attachment: o� American Contact List response to your request, please do not hesitate to Comment 1 -1 (cont'd) Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 Page 86 Fire Station No. I Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS /MND Native American Contacts Los Angeles County August 16, 2012 LA City /County Native American Indian Comm Gabrielino Tongva Natlon Ron Andrade, Director Sam Dunlap, Chairperson 3175 West 61h St, Rm. 403 L BOX 66908 Angeles , CA ssoss Gabrielino Tongva Los Los Angeles , CA 90020 9 randrade @css.lacounty.gov samduniap @earthlink.net (213) 351 -5324 (213) 386 -3995 FAX Ti'At Society /Inter - Tribal Council of Pimu Cindi M. Alvitre, Chairwoman - Manisar 3094 Mace Avenue, Apt. B Gabrielino Costa Mesa, , CA 92626 calvitre @yahoo.com (714) 504 -2468 Cell Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Admin. Private Address Gabrielino Tongva tattnlaw@girail.com 310 - 570 -6567 len lrongv�$an Gabriel Band of Mission Anthony ivorales, hairperson PO Box 693 Gabrielino Tongva San Gabriel , CA 91778 GTTri balcouncil @ aol.com (626) 286 -1632 (626) 286 -1758 - Home (626) 286 -1262 -FAX This list Is current only as of the date of (tits docwnent. (909) 262 -9351 - cell Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Robert F. Dorame, Tribal Chair /Cultural Resources P.O. Box 400 - Gabrielino Tongva Bellflower CA 90707 gtongva @verizon.net 562 - 761 -6417 - voice 562 - 761 - 8417 -fax Gabrielino- Tongva Tribe Bernie Acuna 1875 Century Pk East #1500 Gabrielino Los Angeles , CA 90067 (619)294. 6660 -work (310) 428 -5690 - cell (310) 5B7 -0170 - FAX bacunai @gabrieinotribe.org Gabrielino- Tongva Tribe Linda Candelana, Chairwoman 1875 Century Pk East #1500 Gabrielino Los Angeles , CA 90067 Icandelarlat @gabrielinoTribe.org 626- 676 - 1184 -cell (310) 587 -0170 - FAX a� Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 °• ° °•'•• Page 87 Fire Station No. 1 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS /MND Response 1 -1 As discussed in the Cultural Resources section of the MND prepared for the proposed project, the project site is located within a highly urbanized area and has been developed for a number of years. Therefore, any archaeological resources on the site would likely have already been uncovered. Nonetheless, since the proposed project would require excavation for the subterranean parking, there is a potential to uncover archaeological resources that were never previously discovered. Mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce potential impacts on archaeological and paleontological resources to less than significant. Any discovery of human remains would be treated in accordance with federal, State and local guidelines for disclosure, recovery, preservation, and curation, as appropriate. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Section 15064.5 of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) mandate procedures to be followed, including that construction or excavation be stopped in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery until the County coroner or medical examiner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. wa® Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 ° °•- Page 83 Fire Station No. 1 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS /MND u2�. otsA��rw+ nr��wa7mss. nredsecrunnoannerr9yalctsawen� ..._w - --� _.....___. —_ _ � „�o�cd,ROwu_ruo�,�, DEPARTMENT 0P'rflANSP012TA'1'10N u D191RICF 7, OFFICE OF REGIONAL PLANNING (ITY Or Wfl A HUl �CF t IGRJCEQA 13RANCII 100 MAIN STREET, MS 1116 CITY t'IAt1lflN6 /PI %1i LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 -3606 P/exymvpamer/ PHONE: (213)997.0219 FAX: (213) 897 -1337 12 AUG 16 A10:1 % Ua wmrp cferir! August 14, 2012 Ms. Rachel Kwok City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: Proposed Fire Station No. 1 7 °' Seat and Santa Monica Blvd. Vic: SR- 1/I -10 IGIt/CLQA No. •120815 /ZJ -ND SCH## 2012081025 Dear Ms: Rachel Kwok: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review process for the proposed construction of Fire Station Number 1 (No. 1). The project site is located at 133745 7a' Strect in the City of San(<a Monica California. This proposed project is located sonic distance from State Route 1 and Interstate 10 (SR- UI -10) right -of- way. Caltrans; do not expect project approval to result into a direct adverse impact to the existing State transportation facilities. As a reminder, any transporting of heavy construction equipment and /or materials which require (tic use of oversized- transport vehicles on State highways will require a Caltrans transportation permit. Caltrans recommend that large size track trips be limited to off -peak commute periods. If you have tiny questions regarding our comments, please call project coordinator Zero Jefferson at (213) 897 -0219 or DiAnna Watson at (213) 897 -9140. Please refer to our record number.1020815 /ZJ. Sincerely, DiAnma Watson IGR /CEQA Branch Chief cc: Scott Morgan, Slate Clearinghouse "Ca!lrmu inqumenuo6111ryaern¢v Cnrifundu” Comment 2 -1 °® Fire Station No. I IS /MND September 2012 Page 89 Fire Station No. I Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS/MND Response 2 -1 A transportation permit for the use of oversized - transport vehicles on State highways Department will be requested of Caltrans, if necessary. The comment recommending that large size truck trips be limited to off -peak periods is noted for the record and will be forwarded to decision - makers for review and consideration. Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 Page 90 Fire Station No. I Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS /MND Native American Contacts Los Angeles County August 16, 2012 LA City /County Native American Indian Comm Gabrielino Tongva Nation Sam Dunlap, Chairperson Ron Andrade, Director P.o. Box f3[3908 Gabrielino Tongva 3175 west 6th St, Rm. 403 Los Angeles , CA 90006 Los Angeles r CA 90020 samdunlap @earthlink.net randrade@ css.lacounty.gov Bellflower CA 90707 Boli (213) 351 -5324 (909) 262 -9351 - cell (213) 386 -3995 FAX Los Angeles ,Pk E st #1600 Gabrielino Ti'At Society /Inter-Tribal Council of Pimu Robert Defa Indiana of California Chair/Cultural r /Cultur l Reel Robert F. Dorame, Tribal ChaGabrielln Resources Cindi M. Alvitre, Chairwoman- Manisar Boxer Gabrielino Tongva 3094 Mace Avenue, Apt. B Gabrielino Bellflower CA 90707 Boli Costa Mesa, , CA 92626 gtongva@verizon.net calvitreQyahoo.com 562 - 761 -6417 -voice (714) 5042468 Cell 562.761 -6417- fax Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation Bernie Acuna John' Gabrielino- Tongva Tribe Tommy Roses, Tribal Admin. 1875 Century Pk East #1500 Gabrielino Private Address Gabrielino Tongva Los Angeles r CA 90067 tattnlaw @gmail.com (619) 294. 6660 -work 310 - 570 -6567 (310) 428 -5690 -cell (310) 587 -0170 -FAX bacunal @gabrieinotribe.org Gabrielen4/Tonav San Gabriel Band of Mission Morales, chairperson Gabrielino- Tongva Tribe Linda Candelaria, Chairwoman Anthony PC Box 693 Gabrielino Tongva Los Angeles ,Pk E st #1600 Gabrielino San Gabriel r CA 91778 Icandelariai @gabrielinoTribe.org GTTribalcouncil @aol,com 826 -676- 1184 - cell (626) 286 -1632 (310) 587 -0170 - FAX (626)) 286 -1758 - Home (626) 286 -1262 -FAX This list is current only as of the date Of this document Fire Station No. I IS /MND e� September 2012 Page 87 Fire Station No. I Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments on the Public Review Drag IS /MND Response I -I As discussed in the Cultural Resources section of the MND prepared for the proposed project, the project site is located within a highly urbanized area and has been developed for a number of years. Therefore, any archaeological resources on the site would likely have already been uncovered. Nonetheless, since the proposed project would require excavation for the subterranean parking, there is a potential to uncover archaeological resources that were never previously discovered. Mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce potential impacts on archaeological and paleontological resources to less than significant. Any discovery of human remains would be treated in accordance with federal, State and local guidelines for disclosure, recovery, preservation, and curation, as appropriate. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Section 15064.5 of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) mandate procedures to be followed, including that construction or excavation be stopped in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery until the County coroner or medical examiner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 Page 88 Fire Station No. 1 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS /MND CITY Of SANTA MONIU, geera a. gwavirt, !Dills 12 RtIG 23 PR:17 Cosmetic & Implant Dentistry , General Dentistry 1333 Seventh Street Santa Monica CA 90401 (310) 394 -2661 FAX (310) 451 -8971 GTistaert(oAOL.com www.tistaertdental.com Rachel Kwok Environmental Planner 1685 Main Street Rm 212 Santa Monica CA 90401 August 16, 2012 Thinking Small Placing a fire station at 1337 -45 7r" St is a case of "thinking small' and not "planning for the future." n When there were small California wooden bungalows, next door to the 7 St. Fire Station #1, even if one of these caught on fire, the fireman could have run outside the station, with hoses, and knocked the fire down and put it out in short order. In the event of an earthquake, not much was apt to fall "uphill' from the. one story California bungalow on to the roof of the two story Fire Station. Enter now with 5 story multiuse buildings next to the Fire Station. Given stricter earthquake and fire standards, the possibility of a catastrophic event is less — but it cannot be ruled out. The City is growing by "leaps and bounds." All one has to do is drive around and see what Santa Monica looks like today verses when Fire Station #1 was built. And, we are talking about 3 hotel buildings at 7th & Wilshire, 2 new 4/5 story multi -use buildings @ 702 Arizona and next door on 71h - -1317. The Miramar is looking at 12 stories and high density development. We are going to have the Expo Rail terminals with thousands of people to watch over for fire, earthquake and medical problems like heart attacks and Heaven forbid no events caused by "nuts" or terrorists. These are only a few of the developments. The Fire Department has not grown enough to kept pace with what has happened to Santa Monica, in terms of present growth, or to account for coming growth to Santa Monica. The Santa Monica Fire Department has a top rating, but the growth of Santa Monica may be somewhat nebulous in terms of accountability — one day you have a nice looking grass lawn and a week later it suddenly needs mowing — the synchronization between the fire department size and equipment vs the growth of Santa Monica might be looked at the same way as the "grass lawn." Building a Fire Station one lot wider than the present 70' Street Station is laughable. It Is totally inadequate. My recommendation would be two fold: Commen13 -1 Comment 3 -2 Fire Station No. 1 iS /MND September 2012 Page 91 Fire Station No. 1 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS /MND 1. The 7m St Fire Station #1 be left where it is. Fire Station #1 would become a "Satellite" Station. 2. Find an area where you can develop a "large secure compound" area for a new Main Santa Monica Fire Station. I looked at the 1414 & Santa Monica Blvd empty used car lot. To lne this type of a location would be highly desirable for a Main Station. This property has Santa Monica Blvd, on ong side, 1414 Street, on the second side, the alley on the third side, and seemingly a possibility of acquiring the buildings to the north to increase land holdings and to provide open 4th side safety zone. Doing this would provide a "secure compound" where the Main Station is not apt to be "taken down" or "taken out of commission" by either minor or catastrophic events. There is a seemingly un -used parking lot from the alley to 15t4 St. If this were available, this would give the Fire Station both a "drive thru" ability and an "escape route" if something were to block the 14th St. doors. (see Google maps) The signals could be regulated by the Fire Station, so all traffic could be stopped. I spoke to Steve Taub, and he said the property is "for sale." I have talked to other people, some of whom give me a strange look when I mention Steve Taub's property. I do not know what they know and I do not know, if anything. The Expo Line is going to have a station at 17t4 and Colorado, the old Papermate Pen site, and lots of stuff is up this direction. Moving the Main Station further East seems favorable to lne. You could run north to Montana and Gillette Region square and south to Bergamont Station and the Expo Station and the Pico corridor and service the hospitals on 15th and 20th and the other buildings of this area. There is a saying "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." If you leave the existing fire stations, no one is going to take that away from the City. If you venture out and start moving an existing station (Main Fire Station #1), what happens if the State comes in and robs the funds in the middle? If the City finds a new large "secure site," for a Main station and the State finds a way to take City General Funds, it would seem the worst would be that construction is slowed down, but the City would still at least have present coverage. As far as the Verizon Property goes @ 1337 -45 7th St, it is inadequate and there is a Main City Library Parking garage across the street that Is both quite busy and experiences minor accidents on a regular basis. No one wants to hear, from the fire commander — "As soon as we get the auto accident, in 7th Street, cleared up, we will pull our engines out and respond to the fire." Or, "our engine company had a collision with one of the cars coming out of the Library Parking garage and it will be delayedl" (there has already been an accident @ 714 & Arizona where the Paramedics were `immediately" on scene because their own engine was involved — there is too much traffic here for a New Main Fire Station and frankly the drivers, bike riders, and pedestrians are too unpredictable often times). Comment 3 -3 Comment 3 -4 IS /MND __,._...ber 2012 Page 92 Fire Station No. I Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS /MND Does this traffic stream Pictured look like something you want to take fire engines out into? During the routine day the Main Library Parking looks like a "beehive" of activity as seen in the photos. 7111 Street has a constant line of cars backed up down the block, at the Santa Monica Blvd signal, durinV, a regular day. Often times the intersection @ 7 ' and Santa Monica Blvd has a traffic jam going and nothing is moving. There are constant minor accidents that occur in 7th St., by the Library, with the north bound cars skirting around the cars waiting to turn into the Library lot and 2 layers of south bound cars — one headed south and one lane waiting to turn into the Library Parking. What you see is four lanes of car activity on a two lane street with cross traffic coming out of the Library lot. This is not a street to suddenly inject a fire station exit on to. Plus there are many trucks as seen in the picture, traveling up and down 7th that represent a formidable accident potential to fire engines coming out of a station. When the 7th Street Fire Station #1 was built, anyone could easily have played football In 7th Street with little to no interruption from cars. In the era when 7th Street Fire Station #1 was built, a "blind man" could easily have driven a fire engine out of the station with little likelihood of hitting a car. This is definitely not true today! Santa Monica needs a new large isolated and secure property with limited surrounding traffic and easily controlled traffic flow. The Fire department is an integral part of our lives; we depend on them for Paramedics, Haz Met, and Fire. Just as Osama Bin Laden had a compound, we need a safe large compound in which to house our Fire Department so in the event of a disaster, the Fire Department is not part of it. Daniel Tratel Mobil Home Park, on Colorado; 14th and Santa Monica Blvd. and numerous other locations are possibilities. 0 Fire Station Photos 6 -16 -12 c4d.doc I Comment 3 -5 1 a� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND September 2012 Page 93 Fire Station No. I Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments on the Public Review Drat IS /MND Response 3 -1 The commenter provides anectodal evidence regarding past fire incidents and risks and states that today, there are greater risks of "catastrophic events ". As this comment is not related to the environmental analysis provided in the MND, no further response is provided. However, this comment is noted and will be forwarded to and considered by decision - makers prior to project approval. Response 3 -2 The commenter states that the Santa Monica Fire Department has not kept up with the pace of growth despite its high rating and further comments that the new proposed site of the fire station would still be inadequate. The new Fire Station No. 1 building would be approximately 25,000 square feet and would be a replacement for the existing 11,362 square foot Fire Station No. 1 located at 1444 7th Street. The existing Fire Station No. 1 was built in 1955 and has surpassed its expected useful life span as a "Critical Facility." A City- commissioned structural evaluation has indicated that the existing facility is in need of seismic retrofitting, facility upgrades and building improvements required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fire Station No. 1 has a service area that covers Downtown Santa Monica and extends from Olympic Boulevard to the south, Ocean Avenue to the west, Adelaide Drive to the north, and I I 1 Street to the east. A full range of options, including rebuilding the existing station at its current location (1444 7th Street), acquiring adjacent land to expand the station footprint, and building a new station elsewhere in the District. In the course of this investigation, many of the options were eliminated due to adverse impacts on emergency response times, overall operational inefficiencies, and functional infeasibility. In 2010, the Fire Department refined its criteria, focusing the site search on the area bounded by Santa Monica Boulevard to the south, Washington Avenue to the north, 5th Court to the west, and 7th Court to the east. It was determined that the new fire station would require a site of at least 22,500 square feet with 150 feet of street frontage. This size would enable the Fire Department to keep a minimum of five apparatus bays on site, the minimum requirement for fifty -year growth. A new fire station on a larger site is necessary to support the Fire Department's operating and service needs. Response 3 -3 The commenter states that the existing fire station should remain as is and serve as a satellite facility and a new main fire station should be built at 14th and Santa Monica Boulevard. The current fire station location is functionally obsolete and retrofitting the existing facility would not meet current and future service demands for a fire station that serves Downtown and the northwestern portion of Santa Monica. A fire station on a larger site located within the station's o� Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND D September 2012 °•• ° °• Page 94 Fire Station No. I initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS /MND core response area is necessary. Based on this criterion, the Fire Department identified the area bounded by Santa Monica Boulevard to the south, Washington Avenue to the north, 5th Court to the west, and 7th Court to the east as the optimal location for the new fire station. A fire station located at 14th and Santa Monica Boulevard would be outside of this area. Response 3 -4 The commenter states that the proposed site of the new fire station is inadequate given the amount of traffic on 7th Street. As stated in the MND, the proposed site of the new fire station is located approximately 530 feet north of the existing fire station, which is also located on 7fh Street. As in current conditions, fire and emergency vehicles responding to incidents would be equipped with sirens and alarms to facilitate emergency response along traveled streets. However, this comment is noted and will be forwarded to and considered by decision - makers prior to project approval. Response 1 -5 The commenter repeats the previous comments regarding traffic surrounding the proposed site of the new fire station and proposes that the project be located at an alternate site. The commenter also provides attachment of photos showing the project site. Please see Responses 3 -3 and 3 -4. Fire Station No. I IS /MNL) � September 2072 Page 95 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL ®® Fire Station No. 1 IS /MND -� August 2072 "' Page 77 of 87 Date: 716/2012 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.201 1 .1 .1 Fire Statino No. 1 South Coast Air Basin, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses r Size ? Metric Government office Building 25 1000sgt[ 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Speed MIS 2.2 Utility Company Southern California Edison Wind S Urbanization Urban P (MIS) Climate Zone B Precipitation Freq (Days) 31 1.3 User Entered Comments Project Characteristics - Land Use - 25,000 sf fire station with net increase of 10 staff Construction Phase - demolition: 2 months; site preparation /grading: 4 months; building construction 18 months Grading - 25 feet in depth of excavation ` 0.52 acres = 21000 cubic yards of export for subterranean parking Vehicle Trips - assumes single occupancy vehicles per SMFD staff personnel; 100% all fire personnel commute trips; no delivery trips Construction Off -road Equipment Mitigation - Mobile Land Use Mitigation - 1 of 22 Area Mitigation - Energy Mitigation - 2.0 Emissions 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO 1 502 1 Fugitive `PM10 .Exhaust PM10 I PM10 .:Fugitive Total r PM2.5 I Exhaust -PM2.5 PM2.5 :. Total - Bio -0O2 'NBio- CO2 Total. CO2 CH4 0.25 0.00 '- Year lb/day 2014 34.51 r------ 15.67 11.52 0.02 ?lb /day - -- ------------ ��• _----- ..�. +� ��.vv --------------------------- v.w a�.vo i.io b3.b4 U.4b 1.70 2.15 0.00 ' 4,151.66 0.00 0.25 0.00 4,157.20 2014 34.51 r------ 15.67 11.52 0.02 0.23 1.11 ------ 1.35 __.__. 0.00 ..____�__.___p.__0 ------ 1.11 1,11 0.00 2242_. �._____�._.___ 2,136.65 ' 0.00 0.21 }___ 0.00 _ 2,142.99 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Mitigated Construction 2 of 22 ROG N CO 502 'Fugitive PM10 I Exhaust PM10 PM16 Total rFugitive `:. PM2.5 ::Exhaust `; PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 11310 -CO2 '.NBio- ?. CO2 ToMICO2 CH4 -': N20 :'CO2e :Y Year lb /day 'lb /day 2013 3.57 30.46 19.09 0.04 61.65 1.76 63.41 0.22 1.70 1.92 0.00 ' 4,151.66 0.00 0.26 0.00 ' 4,157.20 ------ } ------------- }22------ }_. ---- }2224__ }2.4.99 2014 34.51 15.67 11.52 0.02 0.23 1.11 1.35 0.00 1.11 1.71 0.00 2,136.65 38.65 0.00 0.21 0.00 2,142.99 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 of 22 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitioated Operational Mitiaated Operational -: ROG NOx CO : 0.00 0.00 PM10 Total 0.00 0'00 D 0 Area 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 ...... - --•--• *--•--•�-- 77.29 00 00 7 -------- --- =- -----'-•---• 0.01 -- 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 , 0.00 0.00 ` Ene - - - -- -----:------r------•--- 0.30 .-:- -.4. 0.00 0.01 --------- 0.02 --- 262.29 0.65 26250 bile :- Mobile 0.14 0.33 1.41 0.00 0.29 0.02 0.00 0.00 00 -- o0 0 Area - -. - - • ----- ------- 0.29 0.02 0.30 0.00 0.01 0.02 - - --- -'♦000 . 66.35 339.57 0 T 0. 0 0.01 0.00 340.25 Total 0.80 0.39 1.46 0.00 ; 0.00 - - -. ': _ _ ---4------=- ---- -'----- Mitiaated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail 3 of 22 -: ROG NOx CO 802 ( Fugitve ' -PM10 Exhaust -PM10 PM10 Total :Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total ': Bio -0O2 CO2 Total CO2 CH4 `N20 CO2e Ib /tlay Category ` ID/day 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' o.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00 -- o0 0 Area - -. - - • ----- ------- --- --- -`------ ' - - -- --�- - *------•- O.OD _ - - -- -- 0.00 - - --- -'♦000 . 66.35 p 0. 0 0 T 0. 0 6 6 75 - -. Energy Energy :-- 0.01 ?- 0.0a 0.06 0.05 0.00 O.OD ; 0.00 - - -. ': _ _ ---4------=- ---- -'----- 0.30 0.00 0.01 0.02 26229 0.01 zsz sD Mobile 0.14 D.33 1.41 0.00 0.29 0.02 0.0 2 0.30 0.00 0.07 0.02 328.64 0.01 0.00 329.25 Total 0.80 0.39 1.46 0.00 0 .29 3.0 Construction Detail 3 of 22 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area 3.2 Demolition - 2013 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust `: PM10 PM70 Total Fugitive PM2.5 :Exhaust ': PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio -0O2 ':NBio Mal CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e 1 Category Ib /day lb /day Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Off-Road 2.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ ------ ------------- ------ 15.91 9.51 0.02 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1,476.12 0.18 1,479.88 Total 2.00 73.91 9.57 0.02 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 1.04 1.04 1,476.12 0.18 1,479.86 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site 4 of 22 ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 !Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 I Bio -0O2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 :: N20 CO2e ' (PM70 PM10 Total "PM2.5 -PM2.5 Tohl f CO2 .Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 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 Vendor 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 ----------- j------ T------ --- ----• ------ ;------ •-----%--••--;-- Worker 0.06 0.06 0.64 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.01 707.26 0.01 107.40 Total 0.06 0.06 0.64 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.01 107.26 0.01 107.40 4 of 22 3.2 Demolition - 2013 Miticated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Oft -Site > S02 Fugitive ..Exhaust PM 10 :fugitive :Exhaust PM2.5 Bio -0O2 NSlo Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e - -: ROG - NOx CO M 1D 'PM10 Total 'PM2.5 f PM2.5 Total CO2 ibltlay Category lb/day 1 0 00 0.00 Mo 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 Fugitive Dust -- - :. .: 1.04 1.04 0.00 1,476.12 0.18 1,479 86 --•- . -. - "" - - -T - -.- - - - -r Off Road 2.00 13.91 9.51 0.02 1.04 1.04 Worker 0.06 0.06 0.64 p.DD 0.13 9.51 0.02 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 1,476.12 0.00 0.16 1.478'88 Total 2.00 13.91 07.40 Total 0.06 O.Ofi 0.64 Mitigated Construction Oft -Site 5 of 22 > 502 Fugitive Exhaust Exhaust PM10 :Fug @rve :Exhaust PM2.5 Blo -0O2 (NBIo- Totai CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e ROG -NOx CO J:.PM10 t Total 'PM2.5 PM2.5 Total ) 'CO2 Ib /tlaY ; Category lb/day 1 D.0D 0.00 D.00 0.DD : 0.00 : D.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0D 0 Hauling -- ,;- * - 00 0.00 O.DO 000 0 O D.DO Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 IN 0.00 -- -- - -: - � T 1D728 "--W "k""-";""-"""- "0.06 " D.01 107.40 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 O.D1 Worker 0.06 0.06 0.64 p.DD 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.07 707.26 0.01 07.40 Total 0.06 O.Ofi 0.64 5 of 22 3.3 Site Preparation - 2013 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ' ROG NOx 00 S02 (Fugitive i�PM10 I Exhaust 'PM10 PM10 Total :.Fugitive PM2.5 .Exhaust ':PM2.5 PM2.5;- Total ! Bio -0O2 :NBio i(CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 ?:CO2e:: -. 'Category lb/day }b /tlay Fugitive Dust 0.11 0.00 0.11 • ' 0.00 0.00 0.0D 0.00 ... ...... ......}. :._ .__� Off-Road 1.72 72.58 8.68 0.01 0.81 0.87 0.81 0.81 ,4 -------------- ------------ : 1 02.64 • D.15 1,405.88 Total 1.72 12.56 8.68 0.07 L 0.11 0.81 0.92 0.00 0.81 0.87 1,402.64 0.15 lb/day 1,405.88 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site 6 of 22 5 ROG NOx CO ': 502 ;Fugitive Exhaust PM10 P, Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 i Bio -CO2 ': NSio- Total CO2 CH4 N2C `tCO2e I 'PM10 PM10 Total 'PM2.5 r:PM2.5 Total "Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 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 ----------- _------ r------ r_- ____- _.____;______ -______ -___.__r ------ __ _ _ Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 _ 00 ------------ ------ r.___._ ______; ______ ------ ------ �.__ ____________ __p_.____ } ------ r------ }------ r Worker 0.03 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.63 0.00 53.70 Total 0.03 0.03 D.32 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.63 0.00 57.70 6 of 22 3.3 Site Preparation - 2013 Mitigated Construction On-Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site .Category ` S02 Exhaust/ PM 10 1 Fugiave Exhaust PM2.5 '. &o -0O2 NBio- TotaICO2 CH4 'N20 CO2e 0.00 : !ROG -NOi CO 0.00 rFUgihve 0.00 LL 0 ------ Pfv12.5 Total CO2 _____________¢____._ }______} .__ __ _ 0.00 0.00 /day C', Category _ Ib /day Vendor • 0 ' 0.05 0.00 0.05 O.DD : 0.00 ' D.00 0 0 Fugitive Dust .._ } _.__. __. __._ .__.__ . T - _ .__ 0.81 0.61 - : - -0.00 1,402.64 ' 0.15 1,405.86 Off -Road 1.72 ' 12.58 8.58 0.01 0.81 0.81 0.00 � 1.72 12.56 8.68 0.01 0.05 0,81 O.Bfi 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 1,402.64 0.15 ____ }__________________ 1,405.88 Total }____._p 0.00 0.00 . 53.63 D.00 53.70 Worker 0.03 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.07 0.00 Mitigated Construction Off -Site .Category Hauling 0.00 D.00 . 0.00 0.00 : 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 000 0.00 0OD -------- 0 ------ _ }______ _____________¢____._ }______} .__ __ _ 0.00 0.00 _. 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 D.00 � 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 � � � _____ _}._ ____ }__________________ }____._p 0.00 0.00 . 53.63 D.00 53.70 Worker 0.03 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 Total 0.03 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.63 0.00 53.70 7 of 22 3.4 Grading - 2013 Unmitigated Construction On -Site -, - u.19 U.UU U.79 0.42 0.00 0.42 0.00 _________________}__. __.p- ___._ ;______ }------ 104 Off -Road - 2.00 13.91 9.51 0.02 . 1.04 1.04 1.04 1,476.12 ' 0.18 1,479.88 Total 2.00 I 13.91 I 9.51 1 0.02 I 0.79 I 1.04 I 1.83 I 0.42 I 1.04 I 1.466 1,476.12 0.18 1,479.88 Unmitigated Construction Off Site ROG 1. NOx I CO I S02 I Fugitive.: :IPM ID Exhaust is PM10 PM10 Total ;:.Fugitive r: PM2.5 '- Exhaust 'PM2.5 PM2.5 Total ? eio -0O2 sfNBio -> ':C 02 Total CO2 CH4 '. N20 -f CO2e' /= :Category lb/day PM10 PM10 ;lb/day -, - u.19 U.UU U.79 0.42 0.00 0.42 0.00 _________________}__. __.p- ___._ ;______ }------ 104 Off -Road - 2.00 13.91 9.51 0.02 . 1.04 1.04 1.04 1,476.12 ' 0.18 1,479.88 Total 2.00 I 13.91 I 9.51 1 0.02 I 0.79 I 1.04 I 1.83 I 0.42 I 1.04 I 1.466 1,476.12 0.18 1,479.88 Unmitigated Construction Off Site 8 of 22 ROG NOx CO ,: S02 jFugitive Exhaust PM10 - Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 !': Bic, CO2 "'.NBio Total CO2 CH4 N20 -0O2e PM10 PM10 Total :. PM2.5 `.PM2.5 Totai '. aCO2 Category lb/day Ib /tlay Hauling 1.61 16.5D 8.94 0.02 61.16 D.71 61.68 D.D3 0.66 D.68 2,566.27 ' 0.08 2,569.92 ----------- _------ __ _ }_.__._;._____________ }__.___; ..__._p___.__; ___ r------------- ;_ _____r____._ ------ r------ .;__. ___ _ _ Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T 0.00 ----------- _------ r------ r------ r------ ;------ r------ r------ ;------ p Worker 0.06 0.06 D.64 0.00 0.13 O.DD 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.01 107.25 0.01 107.40 Total 1.67 15.56 9.58 0.02 61.29 0.71 62.01 0.03 0.66 0.69 2,675.53 0.09 2,677.32 8 of 22 3.4 Grading - 2013 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site Hauling ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust 0.66 Fugitive 2,568.27 ' -------------------- T ot2. Bio CO2I __________________ Vendor CO2I CH4 N2O t,uee 0.00 _.__._-___ -------------------- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ___ 0.00 0.00 10. Total PM2.5 I PM2u5t I }1111__ I CO2 (Total I ------------- 0.01 I Category 107.4D Worker 0.05 0.06 - Ib /tlay Ib /tlay Fugitive Dust Total 1.67 0.35 O.OD 0.35 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.71 0.00 ___. ------ ______________ 0.66 r_.__._ __.__.._ _.- __r_.- ___;._- .__.�-- ____ }_._ 1.04 1.04 _._p__._..r_._.._:_._ 1.04 1.04 _ 117.1_ .__. ___ ._r ,.. _:. _ -�_ 0.00 1,476.12 D.16 . 1,479.88 Off -Road 2.00 13.91 9.51 O.D2 Total 2.00 13.91 9.51 0.02 0.35 1.04 1.39 0.19 1.04 1.23 0.00 1,476.12 0.18 1,479.88 Mitigated Construction Off -Site Hauling 1.61 ' 16.50 8.94 0.02 61.16 • D.71 ' 61.88 0.03 0.66 0.68 2,568.27 ' -------------------- O.OB 2,569.92 * .__ __________________ Vendor 0.00 }1111__;. 0.00 _.__._�______¢______- 0.00 0.00 0.00 _.__._-___ -------------------- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ___ 0.00 0.00 0.00 1111_ ------------ ------ }------ y------ }1111__ 0.00 } ------ 0.13 ;.______;___ 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 ------------- 0.01 _ ____ 1111 107.25 ___ 1111_ T 0.01 107.4D Worker 0.05 0.06 0.64 Total 1.67 16.55 9.58 0.02 61.29 0.71 52.01 0.03 0.66 D.69 2,675,53 0.09 2,677.32 9 of 22 3.5 Building Construction - 2013 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off-Site s ROG iNOx CO S02 Fugitive lPM10 Exhaust :'PM10 PM10 Total ::fugitive PM2.5 ::Exhaust f:.PM2.5 PM2.5 Total ' Blo -0O2 'I1 NBio- ;CO2 T018I CO2 CH4 N20 =:CC2e Category lb/day :Ib /tlay Off -Road 2.20 16.33 10.77 072 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1,945.40 020 1,949.52 Total 2.20 16.33 10.77 0.02 PM2.5 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1,945.40 0.20 :Category 1,949.52 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site 10 of 22 '. ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive :Exhaust PM2.5 Bid -0O2 NSio- Total CO2 CH4 ; N20 ;CO e S `PM 10 PM10' Total PM2.5 'PM2.5 Total !CO2 :Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.00 me 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _._ p_____________;.._.__?_._ _..r.__...:__.__.:______ }._.___ Vendor 0.06 0.65 0.40 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.02 106.67 0.00 106.73 ----------- _------ r_.____ ------ ; ------ ;------ r------ ______ ------ __ _ _ Worker 0.04 0.04 0.52 D.DO 0.10 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 85.81 0.00 85.92 Total 0.10 0.69 0.92 0.00 0.14 0.02 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.02 194.46 0.00 194.65 10 of 22 3.5 Building Construction - 2013 CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust Mitigated Construction On -Site :Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 ROG -:NOx CO S02 Fugitive ":1PM D Exhaust: ''. PM10 Total :Fugitive "`PM2.5 .PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio -0O2 :NBio- CO2 TotaICO2 C14 N20 CO2e Category Ito/day Ib /tlay Ib /tlay I b /tlay i.. Off Road 2.20 : 16.33 10.77 0.02 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 0.00 1,945.40 0.20 1,949.52 Total 2.20 76.33 10.77 0.02 0.02 7.04 1.04 0.02 1.04 1.04 0.00 1,945.40 194.65 0.20 0.70 1,949.52 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 11 of 22 CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 :Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e =ROG aNOx PM10 PM10" Total 'PM2.5 PM2.5 Total '. CO2 Ib /tlay Category I b /tlay i.. 0.00 0.00 D.00 IN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.D0 000 000 Hauling '- T ___r_ _.Q._ _;._ __________________r.__.. . 10- 0 00 T 108.73 0 0 0 0 ' Vendor 0.06 0.65 0.40 0.00 0.04 0 � -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.00 0.00 85.61 0.00 85.9 Worker 0.04 0.04 0.52 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.14 0.02 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.02 194.48 0.00 194.65 Total 0.70 0.69 11 of 22 3.5 Building Construction - 2014 Unmitigated Construction On -Site o.uc u.a4 u.a[ U.92 0.92 1,945.40 0.16 • 1.949.18 Total I 2.02 I 15.03 I 10.68 I 0.02 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1,945.40 0.18 1,949.18 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx I CO S02 I fugitive PM10 I Exhaust PM10 I PM70 Total j: Fugitive PM2.5 I Exhaust S:PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total Bio -0O2 NBio- ';:CO2 Totaf:CO2 CH4 - N20 bCO2e i; :Category lb/day I I PM10 PM70: I Total db /tlay o.uc u.a4 u.a[ U.92 0.92 1,945.40 0.16 • 1.949.18 Total I 2.02 I 15.03 I 10.68 I 0.02 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1,945.40 0.18 1,949.18 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site 12 of 22 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 ;Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 : Bio -0O2 NBio- Total'CO2 CH4 720 bCO2e i; I I PM10 PM70: I Total PM2.5 IPM2.5 Total !'.0O2 Category lb/day lb /day Hauling 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------ r------ ------------- ------ r--------------------------- :------------- }___ _________________�__..__:_.___. Vendor 0.05 0.60 0.36 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.02 O.D2 • 108.94 0.0D 106.99 ----------- _ ------ _------- :-------------------- }------ p------ }------------- p------------- :______-.._ Worker 0.04 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 84.32 0.00 84.42 Total 0.09 0.64 0.84 0.00 0.14 0.02 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.02 193.26 0.00 193.41 12 of 22 3.5 Building Construction - 2014 Mitigated Construction On-Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG -. NOx I CO I 502 - Fugitive "PM70 :.Exhaust PM10 PM70 '. Total FUgitve 'PM25 '::Exhaust rPM2.5 PM2.5 Total -: Bio -0O2 NBio 'CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e r. Category lb/day lb /day Off -Road 2.02 15.03 10.68 0.02 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.00 '. 1,945.40 D.18 1,949.18 Total 2.02 15.03 10.66 0.02 PM2.5 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.00 1,945.4D 0.18 1,949.16 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 13 of 22 ?: ROG iNOx CO 502 ,Fugitive Exhaust'. PM10 iFugitive Exhaust PM2.5 - Bic- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 : N20 CO2e PM10 PM10" Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total .:Category o1day =1b /day Hauling 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.DD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- _---- __r.__.__-_.__._ ______ ------ .._... ------ ------ ------ .._. _._ ------ Vendor 0.05 0.60 0.36 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.06 O.DO 0.02 D.02 • 108.94 0.00 108.99 ____________------ r.__...-...___; ------ r------ ------ ___.__ ------ ___ - -- ------ .. ------ ____ Worker 0.04 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 84.32 0.00 84.42 Total 0.09 0.64 0.84 0.00 0.14 0.02 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.02 193.26 0.00 193.41 13 of 22 3.6 Paving - 2014 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Off -Road 2.18 13.77 9.69 0.02 MD 1.10 1.10 1.10 1,408.52 0.2D 1,412.63 . _____________}.__ _._p__.___�_.__._�___.._p_..__. Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1 2.18 1 13.77 1 9.69 1 0.02 1 1 1.10 1 1.10 1 1 1.10 1 1.10 1 1 1,408.52 1 1 0.20 I 1 1.412.63 1 Unmitiaated Construction Off -Site -. ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive -1PM10 Exhaust SPM10'. PM70 Total <Fugnive: 1PM2.5 .:Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5` TO Bio CO2 S -NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 1 1120 CO2e t. :Category lb/day PM10 PM10 !:lb /clay Off -Road 2.18 13.77 9.69 0.02 MD 1.10 1.10 1.10 1,408.52 0.2D 1,412.63 . _____________}.__ _._p__.___�_.__._�___.._p_..__. Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1 2.18 1 13.77 1 9.69 1 0.02 1 1 1.10 1 1.10 1 1 1.10 1 1.10 1 1 1,408.52 1 1 0.20 I 1 1.412.63 1 Unmitiaated Construction Off -Site 14 of 22 ROG N CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust P1010 Fug@rve ;Exhaust PM2.5 'i Bic- CO2 NBio- Total:CO2 CH4 °: N20 CO2e t. PM10 PM10 Total fPM2.5 PM2.5 Total iCO2 :Category Ib /clay 'lb /clay Hauling 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 ____________------ ?------ ------ :------ r___.__r______-______r_.__ __ _ __. ___ _.__ .__ __._ ___ _____ _._ � __�_ _.,_ _ ;_ ._�_ _ }_ _.� _p_ Vendor 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 ____________------ r------ r------ r------ r------ r------ ------ ------ ______ --------- Worker 0.09 0.09 1.07 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.24 O.OD 0.01 0.01 189.72 0.01 189.94 Total 0.09 0.09 1.07 0.130 0.23 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.01 D.01 169.72 0.01 169.94 14 of 22 3.6 Paving - 2014 Mitiaated Construction On -Site Mitioated_Construction Off -Site 0.00 : '.NOx 502 sO2 = Fugitive Exhaust'. PM10 'Fugdive Exhaust PM2.5 Blo -0O2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e =:NOx ;IROG --- CO '. PM10 'PM10 PM10a Total !PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Vendor CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 -, Ibftlay lb/day, Category 0.00 lb/day Category ' Ib /daY I 1.10 1.10 MD 0.00 1408.52 � 020 141263 Off -Road 2.18 13.77 9.69 0.02 1.10 � -:-- -' - - -- ..�- -.3- -'- - - -- 'T-- ••---- . - -. --. 0.00 0.00 ..- .- .. s..--- Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' -_ -.- ---.--.-`-.---- }------ :•----- }------ 1.10 1.10 - 0.01 1.10 1.10 0.00 1,408.52 169.0 0.20 0.09 1,412.63 Total 2.18 j 13.77 9.69 0.02 0.24 Mitioated_Construction Off -Site Hauling 0.00 : 0.00 : 502 :.Fugitive Exhaust PM10 ;Fugitive :Exhaust PM2.5 Bid- CO2 NB�o- Total CO2 CH4 :N20 CO2e -: ROG =:NOx CO --- PM10 '. PM10 Total -PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 0- CO2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -, Ibftlay lb/day, Category 0.00 . n nn o.00 o.DD 0.00 Hauling 0.00 : 0.00 : 0.00 u.uu u.uo �.�� '" "" :. - - -- - - - - -'---- •- }------ =--- --- `- .-- .--- - -• - -- - -- - - - - -- }" }------ 0.00 0 0- 0 0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - -0- - -----------=------ - -_ -.- ---.--.-`-.---- }------ :•----- }------ -- - - - - -' O.OD - 0.01 -- 0.07 189.72 0.01 169.0 Worker 0.09 0.09 1.07 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.24 0.23 0.07 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.01 188.72 0'01 188'84 Total 0.09 0.09 1.07 0.00 15 of 22 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2014 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG <NOx CO ': $02 Fugitive -PM10 ,Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total :I Fugitive ":. PM2.5 < Exhaust `:PM2.5 PM2.5 - -. Total _ Bid -0O2 -: NBio- :77 CO2 Total CO2 CH4 -. N20 <: CO2e ? Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 34.05 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .......... .: ------ -------------------- :.__...:__ __ _ _ .__.} ......: ......:.__.__�__._..:--- _._�... Off -Road 0.45 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 281.19 0.04 282.03 Total 34.51) 2.77 1.92 0.00 >PM2.5 0.24 024 D.24 0.24 281.19 0.04 Category 282.03 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site 16 of 22 ROG NOx CO :. 802 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive ':Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 ': N20 'CO2e ': r'PM10 PM10 I Total >PM2.5 (PM2.5 Total -:'CO2 Category lb/day rlb /tlay Hauling 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 ------------ ------ r------ _------ ______r_._..- r___.__- .._.. -} _ Vendor 0.00 o o.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- ------ -- ---= --- '--T---- -- --- --- ------ ------ _ ---T------�-- .0 '-�----- -+ -21.08 '--- Wofkef 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.06 0.00 21.10 Total 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.08 0.00 21.70 16 of 22 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2014 Mitigated Construction On-Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site <: ROG -:'ROG NOx CO '.' S02 Fugitive Exhaust; PM70 rFugitive :Exhaust PM2.5 Bio -CO2 -NBio- TOizi CG2 C114 -1120 CO2e lb /day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 : 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 0.0D 0.00 }_ ___ }__-- __ }.__. _ }_ __�_ _ }- __�_ _ .__.__.__._. q._____ r___.__r_______________ _____r_.__._�______�.__.__�_._ _ ___ __._ .__ _ - -_ .__ Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0D 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 O.OD 21.03 0.00 ' 21.10 Total PM10 PM10 ', Total PM2.5 'PM2.5 Total 0.00 CO2 0.00 21.08 0.00 :Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 34.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _._...p__.___ } -------- }._. ------------------ . ------ 0.45 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.00 281.19 0.04 282.03 Off -Road Total 34.50 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.00 281.19 0.04 282.03 Mitigated Construction Off -Site <: ROG NO. CO : S02 - ::Fugitive 2. PM10 - Exhaust :PMiD P1010 Total ,Fugitive :`PM25 Exhaust ':PM2.5 PM2.5 Total No-0O2 I NBio- :CO2 Total CC2 CH4 I N20 7e Category r. lb /day lb /day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 : 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 0.0D 0.00 }_ ___ }__-- __ }.__. _ }_ __�_ _ }- __�_ _ .__.__.__._. q._____ r___.__r_______________ _____r_.__._�______�.__.__�_._ _ ___ __._ .__ _ - -_ .__ Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0D 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 O.OD 21.03 0.00 ' 21.10 Total 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.08 0.00 21.10 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 17 of 22 4.2 Trip Summary Information ROG NOx CO 7 502 < Fugitive 'PMID Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total ;Fugitive PM2.5 (.Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Tofal :. Bio -0O2 NBio- 002 Total CO2 CH4 ':'N20 ::CC2e 'Category lb/day :lb /day Mitigated 0.14 ; 0.33 1.41 ; 0.00 ; 0.29 0.02 0.30 0.00 ; 0.01 0.02 262.29 0.01 262.50 Unmitigated 0.14 0.33 1.41 0.00 0.29 0.02 0.30 0.00 0.01 0.02 262.29 0.01 262.50 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily:Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday : Sunday Annual VMT :Annual VMT Government Office Building 25.00 25.OD 25.00 86,450 86,450 Total 25.00 25.00 25.00 86,450 86,450 4.3 Trip Type Information 5.0 Enerav Detail 18 of 22 Miles t. Trip % Land Use,. H -W or C -W HS or C -C H-0 or C' -NW H -Wlor C-W H -S or Government Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 100.00 0.00 0.00 5.0 Enerav Detail 18 of 22 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitinated ROG -r: NOx CO = 802 - .Fugitive ':'PM1D Exhaust PM10 '. PM10 Total (Fugitive '.PM2.5 .Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio CO2 :NBIO CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e CO2e Land Use kBTU ib /day Ib /day to/day Category Cove mmenl Office 656 849 D.01 0.06 0.05 : Ib /day 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.00 77.26 0.00 0.00 77.75 Building 7ptyl 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.35 0.0D 000 66.75 NatualGas 001 0.06 0.05 : Mitigated ------- ____: •__.__ _r _.__._�_____________r_ __________ ______�._ .___ 0.00 0.00 _.._ 77.28 .__. __. 0.00 ____ 0.00 77.75 NalutalGas 0.01 0.06 .0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unmitigated NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total NA j NA NA NA j I 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitinated 19 of 22 NatualGas Use ROG 'NOx CO : S02 'Fugitive '. PM10 .Exhaust ".PM10 PM70 Total : Fugdrve - .PM2.5 'Exhaust PM25 PM25 '. Total Bio -0O2 :NBIO- N( Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU ib /day to/day Cove mmenl Office 656 849 D.01 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.00 77.26 0.00 0.00 77.75 Building 7ptyl 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.28 0.00 0.00 77.75 19 of 22 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated ! NaturalGas Use ROO NOx CO -. 502 Fugitive PM10 :Exhaust PM10 PM10 f: Total Fugitive PM2.5 < Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5? Total Bio -0O2 ;'N610- ICO2 Total 702 CH4 -. N20 '; CO2e < =. lantl Use kBTU lb/day -lb/day GovemmentOffce 0.563973 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.35 Building 0.00 0.00 66.75 Total 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.35 0.00 0.00 66.75 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Use Electric Leafblower No Hearths Installed 20 of 22 6.2 Area by Subcategory Unmitigated <'ROG -.NOx CO 502 Fugitive :Exhaust PM70 - FUgihve Exhaust PM2.5 8io -CO2 <NBio- Total CO2 CH4 -N2O CO2e I SPM10 PM10 J Total ":PM25 ;PM2.5 Total :CO2 Category _LL lb/day Ili /tlay Mitigated 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 : 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ ____ .__ ._..__ _ _..:.____.r .............�_.___. ___.._-.__ _.._ .._ ------------- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 T 0.00 Unmitigated 0.65 0.00 0.00 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6.2 Area by Subcategory Unmitigated 21 of 22 ?FROG - -NOx CO >: 502 -: Fugitive .Exhaust PM10 :Fugitive '.Exhaust I PM2.5 Bio -CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 I N2O I CO2e '.: PM10 PM10 Total : PM2.5 !PM2:5 Total :: ?CO2 SubCategory lb/day Ib /tlay Architectural 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ Coating ____. �_ ___ ____ ___ _ ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ .-_________ _____________�______,.._____,._ __.__r._ _,. _. r. _ ,__ _,._ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0D 0.00 Consumer 0.50 Protlucts : _ ____ ___ ______ ___ _ ____ ___ 0.00 0.00 0.0D 0.00 0.00 0.00 r 0.00 * O.OD T 0.00 Landscaping 0.00 0.00 Total 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21 of 22 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 4 22 of 22 i'ROG NOx CO S02 :Fugitive Exhaust PM10 'Fugitive :Exhaust PM2.5 Bio -0O2 : NBio- TotaY:CO2 CH4 ?' N20 ?b02e -PMiO PM10' I Total PM2.5 !PM2.5 Total :? ` =CO2 SubCategory lb/day tlb/day Architectural 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating ...........:...... ........,___._- ;.______r ,..._.__,__.__. ------ ------ ------ ....__ ------ ------ ------ Consumer 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pr--- s Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.66 0.00 OAU 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 4 22 of 22 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMOd.2011.1.1 Fire Statino No. 1 South Coast Air Basin, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses 'S Size Metric Government Office Building 25 ; 1000sgft 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban - Wind Speed (m /s) 2.2 Utility Company Southern California Edison Climate Zone a Precipitation Freq (Days) 31 1.3 User Entered Comments Date: 7/6/2012 Project Characteristics - Land Use - 25,000 sf fire station with net increase of 10 staff Construction Phase - demolition: 2 months; site preparation /grading: 4 months; building construction 18 months Grading - 25 feet in depth of excavation * 0.52 acres = 21000 cubic yards of export for subterranean parking Vehicle Trips - assumes single occupancy vehicles per SMFD staff personnel; 100% all fire personnel commute trips; no delivery trips Construction Off -road Equipment Mitigation - Mobile Land Use Mitigation - 1 of 27 Area Mitigation - Energy Mitigation - 2.0 Emissions S 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction Mitigated Construction ROG NOx I CO 1 S02 ...Fugitive 'PMiD - Exhaust PM10' PM10 Total ;Fugitive 'PM2.5 ::Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 :: Total Bio -0O2 °:NBio- 'TOtai ?CO2 -002 CH4 =N20 c: CO2e '. Year tans /yr MTfyr 2013 0.35 2.73 1.82 0.00 2.38 0.17 2.55 0.02 0.16 0.18 0.00 321.78 321.78 0.03 0.00 322.32 ---------------------------------------------- ...................r...... ;•..._ _.. ------------------------------------ 2014 0.55 1.91 1.41 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.13 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 235.20 235.20 0.02 0.00 235.64 Total 0.90 4.64 3.23 0.00 2.40 0.29 2.68 0.02 0.28 0.30 0.00 556.98 556.98 0.05 0.00 557.96 Mitigated Construction 2 of 27 ROG =.NOx CO '. S02 r Fugitive. PM10 ;Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total tFugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 'r Total 1. B10 -0O2 I NB10- .- CO2 TotaI002 CH4 I N20 I CO2e:; Year tons /yr MT/yr 2013 0.35 2.73 1.82 0.00 2.37 0.17 2.53 0.01 0.15 0.17 0.00 321.78 321.78 0.03 0.00 322.32 ----------- 4.__.__:____________________:.___._:_ _.__.:- __--- -_..__.:......:__._ ------ ____ ___. _._ ------------- _ 2014 0.55 1.91 1.41 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.13 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 T 235.20 235.20 0.02 0.00 235.64 Total 0.90 4.64 3.23 0.00 2.39 0.29 2.66 0.01 0.28 0.29 0.00 556.98 556.98 0.05 0.00 557.96 2 of 27 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational 3 of 27 S02 Fugitive ExhausP. PM10 {Fugitive :Exhaust PM2.5 No- CO2 `NBio- Total CO2 CH4 'N20 CO2e ROG NOT" !IPM70 PM10 ;'. Total zPM2.5 `PM2.5 Total ✓ CO2 MT /yr Category - tonslyr O.OD 0.00 i 0.00 0.00 0.00 : 0.00 0.00 o.00 0.00 0.00 Area 0.12 0.00 0.00 ( 0.00 T _- _ }._- ...r ...... :_- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 126.38 ' 126.38 0 0.00 127.17 . Energy 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 ? 41.22 41.22 0.00 IN 4125 Mobile 0.02 0.06 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 ---- 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 4.72 0.00 4.72 0.28 0.00 * 10.58 Waste ----------- 4__. --- }- 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 28.70 26.70 0.15 0.00 33.23 Water 0.00 0.07 0.26 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.72 196.30 201A2 0.44 0.00 212.23 Total 0.14 3 of 27 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area 4 of 27 ROG NOx CO 502 'Fugitive 'Exhaust PM70 ?Fugitive 'Exhaust PM2.5$ Bio -0O2 rNBio- Total'CO2 CH4 N20 1. CO2e PM10 PM70 Total 2PM2.5 PM2.5 Total "- S'CO2 `Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.12 0.00 0.D0 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _.__.__. . ------ r_..__. ------ - ___._ }__. Energy 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 118.29 116.29 0.01 0.00 119.03 ------------ ------ r------ ------ ______r______ ------ ------ ___ _ _ _ _ _ .__ }______p______p ____._ }______ }_.____�.__ Mobile 0.02 0.06 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.22 41.22 0.00 * 0.00 41.25 ____�__.__. }______p------ Waste 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.00 4.72 0.00 4.72 0.26 0.00 10,58 _______.__.------- }------ }------ }------ p------ }------ ------ r------ p__ _ ._ _. }____._p__.__. }._____p______r Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.70 28.70 0.75 0.00 33.23 Total 0.74 0.07 0.26 0.00 0,05 0.00 0.05 0.00 D.00 0.00 4.72 188.21 192.93 0.44 0.00 204.09 3.0 Construction Detail 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area 4 of 27 3.2 Demolition - 2013 Ilnmitinated Construction OOSite Unmitiaated Construction Off -Site ROG - NOx CO $02 ::Fugitive =PM10 Exhaust` PMiO r' PM10 Total Fug@me 'PM25 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bm -0O2 0 a- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e O.DO 0 OD 0.00 0 DO 0.00 0.00 MT /yr 0 00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 ; 0,00 0 00 0.00 � tons /yr ___ __ __ • Category 000 __.q__ 0.00 ____ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o DD D Do 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ; 0.00 --- - -- - '-- - -- { -- -- --- Fugitive Dust a.----- - -•- -�------= ------°'----------- 0.00 0.00 - -�- .�_.__..�__.__.... � 0.01 D.01 ._ 0.00 T 7.36 _._ 7.36 .__ 0.00 � 0.00 T 738 - .--- .._..- Off -Road 0.01 r• 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 � 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 O.DO 7.36 7.3fi o.00 O.DO 7.38 Total 0.01 0.08 0.05 0A0 0.00 0.01 Unmitiaated Construction Off -Site 5 of 27 tonsryr Category O.DO 0 OD 0.00 0 DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0 00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 ; 0,00 0 00 0.00 � 0.00 ___ __ __ • _____.�.__.__.r______r_____ 000 __.q__ 0.00 ____ 0.00 __ 0.00 __ 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.DD 0 0 vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- - -- - '-- - -- { -- -- --- ___ _ -�------= ------°'----------- 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 ------^'- D.DD --- --0-- 0.00 -'- 0.00 O.s0 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 Worker 0.00 0.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 OAO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 Total 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 5 of 27 3.2 Demolition - 2013 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO SC2 Fugitive ?PM10 :Exhaust -PM70 PM70 Total aFUgdrve '` PM2.5 Exfiaust PM2.5 PM25:. Total i. Bio CO2 PNBio- '. ?CO2 TOtaI CO2 CH4 N20 :CO2e. Category tons /yr '. MT /yr Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.0D 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- ------ ------- .._ ___ }..____r__.... --------- ------ ---------- _ _ ___�.__1 _.__._ }.__.__ }_...._:.__0 Off -Road 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 7.36 7.36 D.00 0.00 Total 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 7.36 7.36 0.00 0.00 7.38 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 6 of 27 ROG NOx CO ". S02 :Fugitive Exhaust PM70 ';`Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio -0O2 2NBio- 1 Total CO2 CH4 a. N20 c:CO2e 1 I I 'PM10 `:PM10 Total "PM25 :PM2.5 Total I: :: CO2 :Category tons/yr ,NlT/yr Hauling 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 ------ }------ _.____ p __.__. }____.--------------- ------ Vendor 000 o.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 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0o 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 � 0.50 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 6 of 27 3.3 Site Preparation - 2013 Unmitinated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG - NOx CO i 502 :.Fugitive Exhausb: PM10 FugSrve 'Exhaust PM2.5 Bio -CO2 NB 0- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e ROG NOZ CO pM10 PM10- Total SPM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 ,MT/yr MT /yr tonslyr Category 0.00 0,00 0.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 000 000 D.00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Fugitive Dust .__ ._ .._ _._ __. .r_ . _. p.__.__r_ ..�._ ------------ ------ .----- . r_ __.__ }._____ }_.__._r___._. I__._._p__. .__ 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.DD 3.18 3.18 0.00 0.00 3.19 . Off -Road 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.18 3.t6 0,00 0.00 3.19 Total 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site 7 of 27 ROG - NOx CO $02 :Fuglfl '1PM10 .Exhaust P 1 PM10 Total IFugdrve ''PMZ5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio -CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 '. N2O CO2e ,MT/yr tonslyr Category 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0 00 0 OD 0 00 0 OD Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 { D.00 - 0.00 D.DD o 0.00 O o o o T o Vender D.00 0.00 o.DO 0.00 0.00 o.00 - -- -"' -- --" -- -"" - -- -- --' ' "------"�"-"-"":"-""-":---- - :--""" -:-"" o.DO o.00 -" D.00 -- "'" o.00 -- O.00 0.11 0.11 D.00 0.00 Worker D.o0 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oD D.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.11 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 of 27 3.3 Site Preparation - 2013 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site 177 NOx CO 502 Fugitive 'PM10 I Exhaust xhau PM10 Total ';Fugitive ::PM2.5 xhaus Exhaust PM2.5 ? Total - Bio -0O2 _'tJBio- `. SO02 Total CH4 r N20 'r02e Category tons/yr MTfyr Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DAO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ... }------------- }...... }------ }------ Off-Road 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 O.DD 0.00 3.18 3.16 0.00 0.00 T 3.79 Total 0.00 D.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.18 3.18 0.00 0.00 3.19 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 8 of 27 = ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive :Exhaust PM10 :iFugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bid- CO2 3:.NBio- Total CO2 CH4 r N20 'r02e :PM70 PM10 Total ':PM2.5 PM2.5 Total (:' YCO2 Category tons /yr MT /yr Hauling 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 ----------- _ ------ r------ ------ ;------ r------ �______r______: ------ r _ _ Vendor 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 ------------ ------ ________ r------ r ------ ------ ______ ------ _ ------ 0.00 __ Worker 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.DD 0.00 0.11 0.11 O.OD 0.00 T 0.77 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.DU 0.11 0.11 0.00 O.DO 0.11 8 of 27 3.4 Grading - 2013 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction off-Site ROG NOx UU au< . may„ •.. `IPM10 _.. ___ PM70 Total _ PM2.5 PM2.5 Total `. UU< MT /yr tons/yr MT /yr Cat gory ton Styr 0 03 0 03 0 00 '. 96 82 0 00 0 00 98 89 Categ N 0.07 0.70 0.40 0.00 2.33 D.03 0 00 002 000 0-0 000 000 0 00 0 00 0.00 _r--------- 0.03 0.00 0 03 9 02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0 ._.. Fugitive Dust ' -0------ 0.00 *----- 0.00 0.00 _ �..._. 0.04 ...; -- 0.04 - 0.00 q. .. 56.90 56.90 -- 0.01 _ � D00 5704 ------- Off -Road 0.09 .•--•-- 0.59 0.40 0.00 0.04 0.04 _.__.. � r------ 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 -- 0.00 0.00 3.89 3.69 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.00 56.90 56.90 0.01 0.00 57.04 Total 0.09 0.59 0.40 0.00 0.03 0.04 2.38 0.00 Unmitigated Construction off-Site 9 of 27 MT /yr tons/yr Cat gory 0 03 0 03 0 00 98 82 96 82 0 00 0 00 98 89 Hauling 0.07 0.70 0.40 0.00 2.33 D.03 2 37 0 00 T 0.00 _r--------- ---- ---- -- - *------ - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0 T 0 00 T 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- ___ ___ _.__.. _.___.�__.._.�------ r------ 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 -- 0.00 0.00 3.89 3.69 0.00 0.00 3.90 Worker 0.00 : 0.00 0.03 0.00 2.38 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 102.71 102.71 0.00 0.00 102.79 Total 0.07 0.70 0.43 0.00 2.34 0.03 9 of 27 3.4 Grading - 2013 Mitigated Construction On-Site Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO 502 :Fugitive PMID :Exhaust fM10 PM 10 . Total IFugrtrve ` PM2.5 'Exhaust "PM2.5 PM2.5> To >: Bio -0O2 sNBio- -0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 : -0O2e :Category tonstyr MTnr Fugitive Dust 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0,01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------ }__---- _______ ______ }.__.__r__.__.p.__ Off -Road 0.09 0.59 0.40 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 D.04 0.00 56.90 56.90 � 0.01 * 0.00 � 57.04 Total 0.09 0.59 D.40 0,00 0.02 0,04 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 56.90 56.90 0.01 0.00 57.04 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 10 of 27 ROG NOx CO : 502 fugitive Exhaust PM10 .:Fugitive :Exhaust PM2.5- 13!o -002 1NBio- Total CO2 CH4 i N20 '.0O2e :PM70 1PM10 Total ;' PM2.5 =PM2.5 To 'CO2 :Category tonstyr MTtyr 33 Hauling 0.07 D.70 0.40 0.00 2. : 0.03 2.37 0.00 0.03 0.03 O.DO 98.82 96.82 0.00 0.00 98.89 ._____�_____- -______r_._ _ _ _ _ Vendor 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 ----------- _------ ------------- ------ ___ _ _ _ _ - }__ }.__.__p ____._ }______�_.____ }.__ Worker 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.07 0,00 0,01 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 3.89 3.89 0.00 0.00 ! 3.90 Total 0.07 0.70 0.43 0.00 2.34 0.03 2.38 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 102.71 102.71 0.00 0.00 702.79 10 of 27 3.5 Building Construction - 2013 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx Co Category .�� Off -Road 0.17 1.27 0.04 Total 017 1.27 0.84 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site tonal I 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0 00 137 62 137 62 0 01 0 00 137-91 0.00 0.08 0.0 8 0.08 0.06 0.00 137.62 137.62 0.01 0.00 137.91 .Category 0 00 0 00 0.00 00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 D 00 f T T ' . * ' - - Hauling � 0.00 :...... . .. ... . .. .. 7.67 7.67 D.DD 7.67 .. ... 0.00 0.00 0. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.00 __. -5... ...... __:_ 5.72 5.72 --- 0.00 - 0.00 5.7 - .-- ."_ - -- --- -. - - -- _..-.r---.--•.---- 0.04 - 0.00 .._- ._r 0.01 ------ 0.00 0.01 0.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 - 1 39 3 13 39 0.0 0 0.00 13.40 007 000 001 000 I 001 I 000 I 000 Total 000 005 11 of 27 3.5 Building Construction - 2013 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO 502 < PMJO BPM10 Exhaust IPM 10 PM70 I: Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio -0O2 -NBio Tota6CO2 CH4 N20 -: CO2e `.' `Category tons /yr MT/yr Off -Road 0.17 1.27 0.84 0.00 D.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 • 137.62 • 137.62 D.01 0.00 • 737.91 Total 0.17 1.27 0.84 0.00 PM2.5 0.08 1 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 137.62 137.62 0.07 0.00 137.91 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 12 of 27 ' ROG NOx CO $02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 'i Bio -0O2 NBIw Total CO2 CH4 a N20 ;:CO2e PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 'PM2.5 Total : iiCO2 Category tons /yr :MT /yr Hauling 0.00 D.OD 0.00 O.DO 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- _ ------ r___._.r_.___.- ______r------ __.__.:__-- - - :_._ _ _ _ Vendor 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.67 7.67 0.00 � � 0.00 � 7.67 ------------ ------ ------- �------ ._____ ------ r.__.__ ------ ___ _ _ _ _ 0.0 Worker 0 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.72 5.72 0.00 T 0.00 * 5.73 Total 0.00 0.05 D.07 0.00 0.01 O.OD 0.01 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 13.39 13.39 0.00 0.00 13.40 12 of 27 3.5 Building Construction .2014 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Off-Road 0.24 178 1.27 Total 0.24 1.78 1.27 Unmiti ated Construction Off -Site o.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.77 0.11 0.71 0�1t 0.00 209.08 • 209408 0.02 D.DO • 209.46 0.00 209.08 209.08 0.02 0.00 209.46 Category '.. ma y, _ .. o 0o o oo 0 00 0- 0-00 o 00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0 00 0 00 0 0.00 0 00- T ' - - - Hauling 0.00 0.00 ; 0.00 ; _.__ 11.67 11.67 0 OD 0.00 11.68 _ _________ _ ___ .....p......: 0.00 ..__._. 0.00 0.01 O.OD 0 00 0.00 0.00 _ _ VE tlOf 0.07 0.07 0.05 O.DO T i :. 8.54 8.54 0.00 ; 0.00 H.5 ------ ----=- __._. r______ _______ }- 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 � 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- ---- Worker 0.00 D.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 20.21 20.21 0.00 0.00 20.23 000 001 000 l 00 D.00 Total 007 006 010 I I I I I 13 of 27 3.5 Building Construction - 2014 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 :Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust 'PM2.5 PM2.5 Total - Bm CO2 NBio- 'TotafCO2 'CO2 Totaf:CO2 CH4 i' N20 ;CO2e:: Category tons/yr MT /yr Off -Road 0.24 1.78 1.27 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 209.08 209.08 0.02 0.00 20746 Total 0.24 rl .78 1.27 0.00 PM2.5 0.11 0.11 f:CO2 0.11 .0.11 0.00 209.08 209.08 0.02 0.00 209.48 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 14 of 27 ROG I NOx I CO S02 Fugdwe Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 a Bio -0O2 sNBio- Totaf:CO2 CH4 :. N20 CO2e '. PM 10 PM10 Total : PM2.5 PM2.5 TO f:CO2 :Category tons /yr !MT /yr Hauling 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 ��._.__. Vendor � 0.01 T 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.67 11.67 O.OD 0.00 11.66 ----------- - .__._ ------ _------ � ------ r------ ------ ;------ ;------ _ _ Worker 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 '0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.54 - 8.54 0.00 0.00 8.55 Total 0.01 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.21 20.21 0.00 0.00 20.23 14 of 27 3.6 Paving - 2014 KW pM10 PM10 Total PM2.b rrviea Unmitigated Construction OnSite ; Exhaust PM2.5 is, CO2 NCOZ Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e -ROG "NOx CO `:502 Fugitive Exhaust PM I- Fugdive PM2,5 =. Total ' category - !'PM10 PM10 ,:. Total PM2.5 0.00 0 00 0 00 0 uu 0 00 - 0.00 -. au ding D.00 ; 0.00 ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 00 0 00 ' - f T : MT /yr o.00 - :;. _. - - - - -- tons/yr 0.00 o.00 o.00 O.00 .000 o.DO o 0o ------ o.00 - - - - Category Vendor =-- 0,00 0.00 000 0.00 3.19 319 000 000 320 Off -Road 0.01 0.03 M2 0.00 • 0.00 ; 000 0.00 _ _ _ 0.00 0 00 0 00 +---------- 0.00 -- 0.00 0.00 • o.o0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.79 3.19 0.00 0 .00 320 Tmel 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site 15 of 27 KW pM10 PM10 Total PM2.b rrviea ; MT /yr slyr ' category - '. 0.00 0 00 0 00 0 uu 0 00 - 0.00 -. au ding D.00 ; 0.00 ; 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 00 0 00 ' - f T * i 0 00 o.00 - T o 00 ----------- - - - - -- 0.00 o.00 o.00 O.00 o.00 o.DO o 0o o.00 o.00 - - - - - -" Vendor =-- 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- T • -. T - - - 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.4 _ ---------*------------ 0.00 -.------ 0.00 0.00 +---------- 0.00 D.00 0.DD 0.00 0.00 0.41 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 15 of 27 3.6 Paving - 2014 Mitigated Construction On -Site -- - -- - ^- -... ROG NOx I CO I S02 .Fugitive `.PM10 I Exhaust P1010 PM10 Total FUgibve 1PM2.5 .Exhaust 'PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 8 Bio CO2 :N &o CO2 TotaICO2 0.00 0.00 ___________________ 0.00 :Category tons/yr ------ 0.00 Total 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 MT/yr -- - -- - ^- -... ..uv v.w u.uu u.uu u.uU 3.19 3.19 0.00 0.00 3.20 Paving 0.00 _____________ 0.00 0.00 ------- 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 ___________________ 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------ 0.00 Total 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 'PM2.5 1PM25 0.00 0.00 '2.0O2 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.19 3.19 0.00 0.00 3.20 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 16 of 27 <ROG I NOx I CO 1 602 Fugitive Exhaus! PM10 - .FUgiM1Ve .Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 'NBio- Total CO2 CH4 i N20 CO2e': 'PM10 PM10:' I Total 'PM2.5 1PM25 Total '2.0O2 Category tons /yr MI /yr Hauling ' ------ 0.00 T 0.0D 000 : 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 ODD 000 0.00 0.00 - -------------------- ------ __------ �------ ,.._._ _�_..__., _ _ _.__r_..___r___.__r____.. ;.______ }___ Vendor 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 O.DD 0.00 0.00 ---------- ------ ------- - - ---;------j--- -- ------ ------ --' '--;-" "- --"- ------ T------ T------ ------ ------ ------ Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.41 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.47 16 of 27 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2014 Unmitigated Construction On -Site cate9ery o.00 a.0o o.00 o.o0 000 000 0.00 000 0.00 o00 Category Arohit. Coating ; 0.29 -•- �--- ' 217 . 217 T 000 000 217 --�------ 0 00 0 00 - .---- •- •- ----- *- .-- •---- .- -•. 0.00 0.00 OAO ; 0.00 ; 0.00 ; 0.00 ; 0.00 _ _ - Off -Road -•-•-- 0.00 D.02 0.02 0.00 ; 0 00 0.00 0 00 2.v 2.17 0.00 0.0o z.17 o00 000 Hauling ; ; - - - - -- 0.00 0.00 - - -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.00 o.00 o _ o.00 o.o0 000 Total 0.29 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.00 o.00 o.00 -- --- Unmitigated Construction Off -Site 17 of 27 tonslyr Category ' 0 00 0 00 0 00 D.00- 0 OD 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ; 0.00 ; 0.00 ; 0 00 0.00 0 00 ; 0 DO 0.00 -� T o00 000 Hauling ; ; - - - - -- - - - -- .•-- .--- •. - - -- o.00 o.00 o.00 o _ o.00 o.o0 000 000 ___ _ .�----- vendor 'T ; o.00. 0.00 0.00 o.00 o.00 o.00 -- --- --- --- -- -- 0.15 _ O.OD ; 0.00 ; 0.15 __ 0.00 0.00 -----4'---- ; 0.00 ; 0.00 ; 0.00 ; 0.00 ; 0.00 ; 0.15 ; ; Worker ; 0.00 ; 0.00 ; 0.00 ; 0.00 ; 0 15 0.15 0.00 O.DO 0.15 000 000 000 0.00 I I 0 DD 0.00 T tal 000 000 000 ODO I I 17 of 27 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2014 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO : S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 :.;Fugitive 'Fugitive :Exhaust PM2.5 Bio -0O2 =N8lo- Total CO21 CH4 `: N20 CO2e ;c PM10 PM 10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total:' ?D02 Category tons/yr '.MT , MTtyr Archit. Coating 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 • 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----------- :------ r------------- ._..__�_..__. ------------------ _ .__p.___..� .....: ......T_._.__�.____. �.__ _ _ _ Off-Road 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.17 2.17 0.00 T 0.00 ' 2.17 Total 0.29 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.17 2.77 0.00 0.00 2.77 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 18 of 27 R61 NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust P1110 'Fugitive EZM1aust PM2.5 - Blo -0O2 ?NBio Total CO2 CH4 ;: N20 is CO2e PM10 PM70 I Total :PM2.5 `PM2.5 Total ':' 9CO2 Category tons /yr '.MT /yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ------ }------ _------ r------------- ; ------------- Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oD 0.00 O.DO 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 ________ _____ -------------------- ------ _ __ _ }_.__._�______p._____ }________ ______ }_�.___} Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 r 0.16 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.15 0.15 0.00 O.DO 0.15 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 18 of 27 4.2 Trip Summary Information -:ROG NOx F.. CO ': $02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 'Fugitive :Exhaust PM2.5 Bio CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e < PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5: Total CO2 Category tonstyr MT /yr Mitigated 0.02 ; 0.06 ; 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.00 ; 0.05 0.00 ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 ; 41.22 ; 41.22 0.00 ; 0.00 41.25 --------------------------- ._ -. .. -_ . -_ .__ -_ -_ 9..._: :...._r._....r___...z_.___.�__. _.. _ 0.06 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 IN 41.22 41.22 0.00 0.00 � 41.25 Un miti aced 0.02 To tal NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information ;Average Dally Trip: Rate Unmitigated '::Mitigated Land Use ` Weekday ': Saturday Sunday - Annual VMT Annual VMT Government Office Building 25.00 25.00 25.00 86,450 86,450 Total 25.00 25.00 25.OD 86,450 86,450 4.3 Trip Type Information 5.0 Enerciv Detail 19 of 27 Miles Trip %a Land Use I H -W or C -W ` HS or C-C '.. H -0 or C -NW H -W of C -W H-S or C -C 'H -O or C -NW:' Government Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 100.00 0.00 0.00 5.0 Enerciv Detail 19 of 27 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Exceed Title 24 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated ROG NOx CO '; S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 pFugitive tExhaust PM2.5 `r Bio CO2 ': NBio- ::. Total CO2 CH4 : N20 :, CO2e`: tCO2e -. Land Use kBTU i tons /yr rMT/yr PM10 PM70 '. I Total ,PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 1 0.00 -0O2 0.00 0.00 D.00 Category tons /yr MT /yr Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 107.3D 107.30 0.00 0.00 • .107.97 _Mitigated .--I -------------------- _.__r_______________ _____________�. ; r_.____,__ __ _ _ _ _ _ Electricity O.OD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 113.58 113.58 0. 0.01 0.00 { 114.30 Unmitigated ' ----------------------------------------- ------------- NaturalGas 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 10.98 10.98 D.00 0.00 � 11.05 Mitigatetl NatumlGas 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 1179 12.79 12.79 0.00 0 D.DD 12.87 Unmitigated Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated 20 of 27 NaturdlGas USe ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10` PM10 Total :Fugitive :PM2.5 :Exhaust PM2i5 PM2.5 Total Bio CO2 :NBio- SCO2 TotaI:CO2 CH4 :.'. N20 tCO2e -. Land Use kBTU i tons /yr rMT/yr Government Office' 239750 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.79 12.79 0.00 0.00 12.87 Building Total 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 12.79 12.79 0.00 0.00 12.87 20 of 27 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electriaty Use Natu2lGas Use `.ROG <NOx. CO 502 zFugi4ve -:PM10 Exhaust' PM10 -' PM70 Total :Fugitive `!PM2.5 Exhaust 'PM2:5 PM2.5 Total Bio -0O2 'NBio- =CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e - Land Use kBTU tons /yr MT /yr Government Office: 205850 OAO 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.98 10.98 0.00 0.00 11.05 Builtling Total 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.96 10.98 0.00 D,00 11.05 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electriaty Use 'ROG -.NOx CO 502 -Total CO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e La ntl USe " kWh - tons/yr MT /yr Government Office• 390500 113.58 0.01 0.00 114.30 Building Total 113.58 1 0.01 0.00 114.30 21 of 27 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Use Electric Leafblower No Hearths Installed 22 of 27 Electricity Use -: ROG `.NOx CO -: S02 -. Total CO2 CH4'. N20 I CO2e:" Land Use kWh tonsfyr MTlyr Government Office - 368900 107.30 0.00 0.00 107.97 Building Total 107.30 0.00 0.00 107.97 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Use Electric Leafblower No Hearths Installed 22 of 27 6.2 Area by Subcategory Unmitigated -ROG -:NOx I CO c$02 .'Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 ' PM10 Total tFugdrve PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM25r: Total Bio -0O2 `;NBio vTOtal CO2 CO2 CH4 =N20 CO2e: =. Category : tonslyr MT /yr Mitigated 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .__.__ 9____:... ...T_____________r__. ___-.__._.;.------ ------------ - -- __. ___ _._ _ -- _ Unmitigated 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T 0.00 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 NA j NA NA j NA j NA NA 6.2 Area by Subcategory Unmitigated 23 of 27 =:ROG NOx= CO ` S02 .:.Fugitive :Exhaust- PM10 - :Fugitive ::Exhaust PM2.5' Bio CO2 ' -NBio- :Total CO2 CH4 ':.N20 CC2e z. PM10 PM10 r. Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total -0O2 - Subcategory lonslyr MTtyr Architectural 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.DO 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 C ____oating _r��______,. �______e. Consumer 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products _ _ .__ __ ____ ____ ____ _ __.__.P_9_:.__.__r______r------ ------ �------ ,.------ ------ Landscaping 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 no 0.00 0.00 Total 0.12 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 23 of 27 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 24 of 27 ;ROG NOx: CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 '.Fugitive '.Exhaust PM25'- Bio -0O2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM70 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 1002 I ?SubCategory tons/yr MTlyr Architectural 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating ------------- ------ _------ r------ r------ Consumer 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products .__ . . --- ------------- __.___ ------ _------ �___.__.------ ._____ ___ ___ __ _._ r Landscaping 0.00 o.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.oD 0.00 0.00 � 0.00 Total 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 24 of 27 Mitigated 28.70 0.15 0.00 33.23 :.__.__+_________________ ______ _________________________ Unmitigated _ _ ; 28.70 1 0.15 , 0.00 , 33.23 Total ! NA I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA N 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated ROG I NOX I CO I S02 TDMICO2 CH4 S. N20 I CO2e .Category- tonslyr : MT /yr Mitigated 28.70 0.15 0.00 33.23 :.__.__+_________________ ______ _________________________ Unmitigated _ _ ; 28.70 1 0.15 , 0.00 , 33.23 Total ! NA I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA I NA N 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated 25 of 27 lndoor /Outdoor Use >tROG NO I CO S02 Total CO2 CH4'- N20 T:CO2e:( Land Use Mgal '.tonslyr _MT /yr Government Office 4.96549/ 26.70 0.15 0.00 33.23 Building 3.04398 Total 28.70 0.15 0.00 33.23 25 of 27 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category /Year Indoor /Outdoor Use P. ROG -NOk I CO S02 Total CO2 CH4` N2C r: CO2e -Land Use " Mgal > tons /yr MT /yr Government Office • 4.965491 28.70 0.15 0.00 33.23 Building 3.04398 Total NA NA NA NA NA 28.70 0.15 0.00 33.23 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category /Year 26 of 27 'ROG NOX I CO S02 TotaiCO2 CH4 s N20 CO2e Stonsfyr : MT /yr Mitigated 4.72 0.28 0.00 10.58 _.____ 9_.__:------ }------ q_._.._ p.._ ___p------ ______ ____._ ------ Unmitigated 4.72 0.28 0.00 10.58 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 26 of 27 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Disposed '. ROG - NOx I CO -. 502. =: Total CO2 CH4:: N2O ':?CO2e. :...Land Use tons - tons /yr MT /yr Government Office' 23.25 4.72 0.28 0.00 10.58 Building Total 4.72 0.28 0.00 10.56 Mitigated Government office • 23.25 4.72 0.28 0.00 10.58 Building Total 4.72 0.28 0.00 10.58 MI 27 of 27 Waste Disposed ROG ..NOx I DO 1 5O2 r:. TotaICO2 CH4 I N2O I CO2e '. Land Use tons >.tons /yr MT /yr Government office • 23.25 4.72 0.28 0.00 10.58 Building Total 4.72 0.28 0.00 10.58 MI 27 of 27 FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL ®� Fire Station No. 1 tS /MND August 2012 ••• °• Page 78 of 87 Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 07/09/2012 Case Description: Fire Station No. 1 - Demolition ""Receptor #1 * * ** Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night ----- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- Residential at 7th /SM Residential 65.0 60.0 60.0 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device ( %) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) ---- - -- ---- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 200.0 0.0 Dozer No 40 85.0 200.0 0.0 Front End Loader No 40 79.1 200.0 0.0 Bacldioe No 40 80.0 200.0 0.0 Dump Truck No 40 76.5 200.0 0.0 Results Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) ----- -- -------------- - - - - -- ------------ - - - - -- ---------------------------------------- Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq ---------------- - - - --- ---- -- - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - --- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - - -- Concrete Saw 77.5 70.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 73.0 69.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Front End Loader 67.1 63.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Backhoe 68.0 64.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dump Truck 64.4 60.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 77.5 74.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Gle:/// FI/ StrategicAndTrwisportationPlanning/ Share / Fire% 20Station %20No. %201 /Demolition.txt[08 /02/2012 12:18:06 PM] Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report date: 07/09/2012 Case Description: Fire Station No. 1 - Site Grading ""Receptor #1 * * ** Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night -- --- - - ---- -- - - - - -- - ------ - -- - - -- - - - -- Residential at 7th /SM Residential 65.0 60.0 60.0 file:/// Fl/ StrategicAndTransportationPlanning /Share/Fire %20Station %20No.°/ 201 /Site %20grading.txt[08 /02/2012 12:18:06 PM] Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description --- ---- - - -- Device ( %) (dBA) - - - - -- - - - -- (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Excavator ----- No 40 -- - -- -- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 80.7 200.0 0.0 Dozer No 40 85.0 200.0 0.0 Front End Loader No 40 79.1 200.0 0.0 Grader No 40 85.0 200.0 0.0 Dump Truck No 40 76.5 200.0 0.0 Backhoe No 40 77.6 200.0 0.0 Results Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) ------------------------- Calculated (dBA) -------- --- ---- -------- - - - - -- Day Evening Night ---------------------------------------------- Day Evening Night Equipment ---- - --- -------- Lmax Leq - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- -------- - - - - -- -------- - - - - -- ----- --- - - ---- -- --- --- Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax -- - - -- Leq Lmax Leq ---------------- Excavator -- ---- - - - - -- - - - - -- 68.7 64.7 - - - - -- - ----t --- - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - - - - -- - - - - -- -- -- -- - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - -- - - - - -- N/A N/A Dozer 73.0 69.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Front End Loader 67.1 63.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Grader 73.0 69.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dump Truck 64.4 60.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Backhoe 65.5 61.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 73.0 73.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A file:/// Fl/ StrategicAndTransportationPlanning /Share/Fire %20Station %20No.°/ 201 /Site %20grading.txt[08 /02/2012 12:18:06 PM] Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version L1 Report date: 07/09/2012 Case Description: Fire Station No. 1 - building construction * ** *Receptor #] * * ** Baselines (dBA) Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night ----- - - - - -- -- - - -- -- - -- -- -- - - ----- - - - -- Residential at 7th /SM Residential 65.0 60.0 60.0 Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device ( %) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) - ---- - - - - -- - - -- -- - - --- - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Crane No 16 80.6 200.0 0.0 Forklift No 40 75.0 200.0 0.0 Forklift No 40 75.0 200.0 0.0 Front End Loader No 40 79.1 200.0 0.0 Backhoe No 40 77.6 200.0 0.0 Results Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA) ------------------------ --------- ---- --- - - - --- ---------------------------------------------- Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night -- -------- - - - - -- -------- -- - - -- ---- --- - - - - -- - ------- - - - --- ------ -- - - - - -- ----- --- - - - - -- ------- -- - - - -- Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq ---- -- --------- -- - - - -- - - - - -- --- - -- -- - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- --- - -- - - - --- - - - - -- -- - - -- - - - - -- - -- - -- - - - - -- -- -- -- - - -- Crane 68.5 60.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Forklift 63.0 59.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Forklift 63.0 59.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Front End Loader 67.1 63.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Backhoe 65.5 61.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 68.5 67.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A file:/// Fl/ StrategieAndTranspoi2atiouPlanni »gJShue/ Fire% 20Station %20No.° /20Uconstiuction.tst[08 /02/2012 12:18:06 PMI Reference Resolution No. 10713 (CCS).