SR-11-25-2014-8ACity Council Meeting: November 25, 2014
Agenda Item: 8 -A
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director of Planning and Community Development
Subject: Concept Design Approval for the Proposed Interim Use of the City -Owned
Property at 4th St. and Colorado Ave. to Facilitate Expo Transit Connection
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Approve the concept design and direct staff to proceed with schematic design,
design development and construction documents for the proposed interim use for
a six berth interim transit transfer zone with related kiss - and -ride, shuttles and
pedestrian amenities at the 4th /Colorado Station Site for approximately four to ten
years. The rough order of magnitude cost estimate for the project is
approximately $8 million (including $1.4 million for interim and long -term site
analysis and interim use construction documents, and $6.6 million for proposed
interim use construction).
2) Authorize the budget changes as outlined in the Financial Impacts and Budget
Actions section of this report.
Executive Summary
Staff was directed to address the priority need to provide bus transfer service within 500
feet of the station site in conjunction with the currently anticipated public light rail
operation date of February 2016. To achieve this goal, an interdepartmental group
convened to work with the City's transportation, engineering and design consultant
AECOM on an expedited schedule, and have now completed the first phase of the
4th /Colorado Station Site Studies (4CO Project). This report describes the evaluation of
the potential uses of the City's property at the 4CO station site, located at the most
visible entrance to Santa Monica's Downtown. The site provides an important
opportunity for first- and last -mile access to light rail, bus transfers and long term
circulation improvements for multiple modes of travel. This report forwards the
interdepartmental recommendation to improve the site with an interim use to create an
arrival experience that optimizes light rail ridership by providing premier access between
bus, bicycle, vehicles, pedestrians and light rail. This interim use will be in place until the
future long term use for the site is under construction. The timeframe for the interim use
could range from four to ten years, depending on the process for the long term vision,
entitlement and construction of the ultimate preferred use for the site.
The proposed interim use will provide an immediate key link between bus transit and
light rail, supporting the City's ongoing policies of providing easily accessible
alternatives to automobile travel. The 4CO Project addressed the priority for an interim
use that is functional when Expo opens, as well as the importance of developing the
circulation, land use and urban design parameters for the long term use of the site,
evaluating how to best use this critical City -owned linkage site to serve the community
and meet the regional needs of the Big Blue Bus (BBB) and the local access to and
from the Downtown District.
In order to meet the scheduling requirements for design, permitting and construction
prior to February 2016, the interdepartmental group focused on efficiently developing an
interim concept design while coordinating with all of the concurrent City efforts to
anticipate a long term use that improves the circulation network as identified in the Draft
Downtown Specific Plan (DSP). Staff will return to the City Council at a later date to
provide analyses of the potential long term use scenarios and circulation improvements,
such as the relocation of the 4th Street off -ramp, that address long term City circulation
priorities.
Interim Use
This staff report
addresses the City's
priority for providing
optimum transit transfer
access within 500 feet of
the new station, as close
as possible to the public
opening date of the light
rail line, by augmenting
the City's investment in
the Expo Terminus
Station and facilitating
access between light rail
and buses, shuttles, para-
transit, kiss - and -ride and
bikeshare.
The proposed interim use accommodates six bus bays consistent with the BBB's 4tn
Street Terminus Station Interim Transit Facility Concept (February 6, 2014). Design
elements include improvements to the 4CO station site, Expo station area, 5th Street,
and Palm Court and will result in a station transit transfer interface design that
orchestrates arrival and departure for drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, and bus and
transit patrons, and addresses the existing circulation constraints pertinent to the
current surrounding uses.
The design includes new bus stops, a transit transfer zone, ADA accessible access, and
locations for kiss - and -ride, shuttles, bikeshare and public amenities, including restrooms
2
and carts to activate the public space and maintain a well -lit, comfortable pedestrian
zone that provides some commercial activity to support the benefits of social interaction
and "eyes on the street." The transit transfer zone is designed to provide the opportunity
for flexible programming of temporary commercial uses to enliven this area. City Council
approval of the proposed interim use will allow the consultant team to begin schematic
design for the project with the goal to begin construction of the interim use in Fall 2015
with construction completed at the earliest in January 2017. Restroom facilities and
traffic signal would be completed on a different schedule at a later date.
Long -term Use
Approval of the proposed interim use will not eliminate or restrict any particular long
term use option in the future. Building on the findings of the interim use concept
development process, staff and AECOM are preparing the long term use analysis for
completion in May 2015. Circulation options continue to be evaluated, including the
concepts outlined in the Draft DSP, such as a potential new 4th Street freeway off -ramp
that would realign the existing 4th Street 1 -10 off -ramp with Olympic Drive (the "Olympic
Crossover ") allowing for better access to the site and improved off -ramp operation. Staff
will return to Council at a later date to present cost/benefit and site use analysis for the
long term potential of the site.
Background
The Downtown Expo Terminus Station is anticipated to open for passenger service by
February 2016, connecting Santa Monica to Culver City and Downtown Los Angeles. In
2011, City staff began working with the Expo Construction Authority on the final
Terminus Station layout and access. Significant changes to the alignment of the Expo
Terminus station resulted in a straighter track alignment as the train enters the station.
The new alignment provides improved vehicle throughput on 5th Street but pedestrian,
vehicular and transit access to the station site from 4th Street need to be improved. The
final alignment requires a smaller station footprint than the original configuration,
creating a more significant remnant site as depicted in the illustration below. The 4CO
Project was initiated to envision using the remnant parcel to provide the necessary
multi -modal connectivity and access that is not included in the Expo station design, and
represents the consistent City priority to offer sustainable multi -modal travel options.
This staff report presents the concept design for the interim use recommended for
approval by the interdepartmental group (Attachment C), the benefits and drawbacks of
the proposed interim use, and alternative actions for the Council to consider for the
City's property consisting of approximately 86,250 square feet, located at Colorado
Avenue between 4th and 5th Streets located directly south of the future Downtown Expo
Terminus Station, including the remnant parcel of 402 Colorado Avenue and the parcels
of 1636 5th Street. This staff report also presents the criteria for further evaluation of
potential long term uses for the area south of the future Downtown Expo Terminus
Station, which may include an additional 53,000 square feet with the construction of the
Olympic Crossover and inclusion of the parcels of 1640 5th Street.
Previous Council Actions
At the May 11 2009 meeting, Council allocated a portion of redevelopment funds to
study the feasibility of freeway capping or connection improvements between Ocean
Avenue and 4th Street, recognizing this connection as critical to the integration of the
Expo Light Rail terminus station, the Downtown and the Civic Center areas, and as
envisioned in the Land Use and Circulation Element and Civic Center Specific Plan. At
the January 19 2010 Council meeting, Council directed staff to execute phased
contracts with AECOM for this work. On April 12 2011, Council prioritized short term
and long term projects related to the circulation in the Civic Center and the Downtown.
Short term projects required additional implementation steps and mid- and long -term
M
projects required additional analysis. On September 13, 2011, Council received an
update on the refined alignment of the Downtown Expo Light Rail Station which allowed
for significant circulation improvements
On January 24 2012, Council approved a contract amendment for planning, feasibility
and circulation analysis related to the Freeway Capping /Bridging feasibility analysis to
further explore freeway off -ramp and bridging connections to improve the vehicular
street network. However, the work was put on hold in 2012 due to uncertainties of
continuing to use redevelopment agency funding for the analysis.
On June 10, 2014, Council authorized a third contract modification for AECOM to
provide circulation, planning, urban design, transportation, environmental and economic
analysis, infrastructure, parking, and transportation demand consultant services for the
4th /Colorado Station Site. These analyses are related to the interim use for the site for
when the train becomes operational, as well as analysis for long term uses at the site.
Discussion
Process
The proposed interim use was developed through an interdepartmental design process
that involved staff from Public Works (PW), Big Blue Bus (BBB), Housing and Economic
Development (HED), the Fire Department, the City Manager's Office, and Planning and
Community Development (PCD). The planning effort is being led by the consultant firm
AECOM, focusing on potential transit transfer and circulation improvements. AECOM is
working closely with City traffic engineers and sub - consultants Fehr and Peers to
understand traffic flow impacts related to various interim and long term options; identify
the optimal location, width and impacts of a potential road through the station site to
improve the overall circulation network; as well as define the location of traffic signals,
driveway curb cuts and parking access to best serve both the interim and long term use
of the site.
5
Responding to the compressed timeline to achieve optimal bus service when light rail
opens, the interdepartmental planning process resulted in the development of a
proposal for the interim use of the 4CO station site which optimizes vehicle flow and
services for pedestrians, bicycles, transit, shuttles, and private vehicles (the 4CO
Project). Environmental analysis was also conducted, concluding that the proposal is
consistent with the LUCE EIR as detailed below.
To ensure consistency and compatibility between City projects, analyses for the 4CO
station site have been closely tied to the concurrent City efforts that address integrating
the light rail into the City's infrastructure for transit and circulation operations: the Big
Blue Bus Expo Integration Study, the Draft Downtown Specific Plan (DSP), and the
Colorado Esplanade as follows:
® Big Blue Bus Expo Integration Study: The BBB is currently working on this
evaluation of transit connections to all the City Expo Station sites. The 4CO
Project includes coordination with Big Blue Bus for a temporary transit interface
that would be accommodated by the remaining City -owned parcel while
concurrent long term circulation and land use visioning, planning and design are
underway. Long term options to be considered would also incorporate a solution
for intermodal transit interface.
® Draft Downtown Specific Plan: 4th Street is identified as a critical component of
the Downtown and Civic Center circulation network in the Draft DSP and the
2010 Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE). LUCE Circulation objectives for
the 4CO station site included improvement of transit and pedestrian access to
the station while addressing opportunities to improve vehicle circulation. The
Draft DSP evaluates the specifics for implementing the LUCE vision at this site
by creating multi -modal transit interface and access at this site, as well as
developing additional roadway capacity to complete the street grid that is
interrupted by the freeway adjacent sites. Long term goals include including one
or more new streets to relieve pressure on two of the City's busiest and most
important intersections at the 4th and 5th Street freeway ramps.
® The Colorado Esplanade: Currently in the construction drawing phase, the
Colorado Esplanade implements the LUCE vision for improved multi -modal
access and is an early project exemplifying the Draft DSP objectives, creating
multimodal right of way that improves vehicle flow and addresses access to the
Expo station. The Esplanade creates additional sidewalk space to accommodate
new pedestrians; improves vehicle flow through the busiest entrance to the
downtown; provides a user - friendly linkage between existing and future bike
facilities; and provides orientation and legible connections to all of the adjacent
9
uses —the Downtown, the Civic Center, and the Pier /Beach. The Esplanade will
fulfill the community's vision for a seamless transition between the Expo station
and other key destinations.
The interdepartmental group collaborated and advanced concept designs, reaching
consensus on the necessary criteria for the functioning of the site through a series of
circulation analyses that examined the multiple constraints related to operations and
physical improvements. The group evaluated the constraints based on resolving the
issues of best site access, ensuring that the vehicle network for both the City and the
Caltrans off -ramps was not adversely impacted and determining how the steep slope on
this site would need to be altered to accommodate ADA access and pedestrian
transfers between travel modes. The interim use concept design was developed with
the following circulation parameters:
Operations
• Maximize opportunity for bus usage with six new berths and two new stops.
• Maintenance of the vehicle network while adding additional bus function at the
4CO station site.
• Regulate access and turning movements on and off the site (potential new signal
at 5th Street entrance and possible curb cut on 4th Street, with analysis of impacts
to Caltrans off -ramp function).
• Provision for appropriate para- transit, kiss - and -ride and shuttle /private van
access to prevent unregulated use of downtown bus stops and red curb.
• Maintenance of access and parking for the users of the properties located at
1636 5th Street and 1640 5th Street.
Physical Site Alterations
• Required coordination with California Public Utilities Commission and Metro for
installation of new signal on 5th Street to optimize full bus operations (limited
operations may occur before signal is installed). Metro coordination would be
after the train is operational.
• Required permission from Caltrans for curb cut on 4th Street to create new road
through the site, because the curb cut would impact the 4th Street bridge, which
is a Caltrans overpass. (This concept was ultimately not included in the interim
recommendation as the lengthy coordination with Caltrans was determined to be
a more appropriate process undertaken in conjunction with the ultimate use of
the site.)
• Required reconfiguration of the site slope to accommodate ADA access on
pedestrian pathways between the station platform, bus berths, and bus stops on
7
5th Street, including the re- grading of the fire access lane to be constructed by
Expo so that it may be used as an ADA compliant pedestrian pathway.
Interim Use Criteria
Concurrent with the circulation analysis, the interdepartmental group agreed on three
key overarching principles: 1) Provide bus multi -modal access to the station as close as
possible to opening day; 2) Pedestrian safety, comfort and wayfinding are required for
the success of transfer operations; and 3) Achieve a smooth interface between buses
and vehicular traffic on the freeway off -ramps at 4th and 5th Street. Building on the
understanding of the circulation parameters for the site, these principles were also used
to inform the following specific criteria that address the multiple stakeholders:
Bus Operations:
• Construct 4 -6 new bus berths /stops within 500 feet of the train platform.
• Minimize impacts to BBB site area and operations.
• Consider locations for kiss - and - ride /para - transit/shuttles to prevent those uses
from occurring at City bus stops.
• Provide sufficient space for buses to make turns.
Circulation:
• Provide visible and convenient pedestrian crossings across 5th Street.
• Create a place that works for all modes of travel when Expo opens, with
pedestrian and bike public realms as equal priorities.
• Improve circulation network where possible and do not negatively impact current
circulation system.
• A new curb cut and signal on 4th Street should not be considered for the short
term since 4th Street access is not proposed for the interim use; however, a new
signal on 4th Street may be included in a long term scenario that reconfigures the
off -ramp.
• Include sufficient wayfinding and information to provide an optimal arrival
experience.
• Ensure rail operation is not inhibited and provide roadway geometry and
operations to keep the tracks clear at all times.
Land Use:
• Do not preclude implementation of a long term vision with the short term use.
• Create a use that may be removed with long term development or replaced on
site or nearby.
• Envision curb cuts and intersections as long term investments that may carry
over to long term development.
• Design the site for optimal access to future development opportunities where
E
possible.
• Consider using smallest possible area of the site with minimal temporary
improvements and screening of remainder of site.
• Consider the effect that the placement of a 4th Street curb cut would have in
relation to development of nearby sites.
• Provide lowest cost temporary improvements within the parameters of safety and
functionality.
Urban Design:
• Create a positive arrival experience as a first impression, including strong
wayfinding.
• Consider public restrooms for the site.
• Anticipate scenarios for highest and best long term uses for the freeway adjacent
uses to maintain potential circulation benefits for considering these sites
together.
• Activate pedestrian transfer zone with information kiosk and /or carts to maintain
sufficient activity to provide benefit from "eyes on the public realm."
Results of Investiqative Analysis and Draft Interim Use Concepts
Traffic analysis included evaluation of access to the 4CO station site and the adjacent
businesses at 1636 5th Street and 1640 5th Street, potential impacts to freeway traffic
off -ramps at 4th and 5th Streets, the necessity for accommodating train headways as
they approach the station at the intersection of 5th Street and Colorado Avenue, and
both the location and access for additional bus stops within 500 feet of the station.
Based on the overarching principles and the interim use criteria, the consultant team
provided a range of initial concepts for review. Some initial concepts explored the
potential for Big Blue Bus operations to occur on a portion of the BBB yard site, such as
along 5th Street or along the alley north of the BBB yard. Any options that explored
partial use of the BBB yard site would have impacts to BBB capacity and operations,
and were therefore not pursued for the interim use.
These initial concepts were ultimately refined by the interdepartmental group and
narrowed down to five interim use concepts (see Attachment D for more detailed
description) from which the proposed interim use was generated.
0
1. Modified BBB Plan: Large site development footprint, bus operations on site (3 bus
bays, 2 layovers), shuttles /kiss - and -ride operations on site and near LRT. This
option was refined into the proposed interim use with additional bus bays, access
and the related necessary changes.
2. "Two Way" New Road: Large site development footprint, bus operations on site (3
bus bays, 2 layovers), a 4th Street curb cut for bus ingress, shuttles on site and near
LRT, off site kiss - and -ride. This option was not pursued as it did not provide the
required six bus bays for optimal BBB function. Additionally, the through alley to 6th
Street, which was required for the most efficient signal timing, required some key
alterations to the BBB site. It was also determined that 4th Street access for BBB
would be constrained due to wide turning movements.
3. "Westbound" New Road: Provided the smallest site development footprint, swing
space, bus operations on site (3 bus bays), a 4th Street curb cut for bus egress, off
site shuttles /kiss - and -ride. This option was not pursued because it did not provide
the required six bus bays and eastbound bus access for optimal BBB function.
4. "Eastbound" New Road: Medium site development footprint, bus operations on site
(3 bus bays), a 4th Street curb cut for car and bus ingress, shuttles /kiss - and -ride on
site. This option was not pursued because it did not provide the required six bus
bays for optimal BBB function, although it did allow for vehicle access and kiss -and-
ride from 4th Street.
5. Minimal Build Scenario: This option assumed location of additional bus bays on
the 5th Street edge of the BBB site and was not pursued because providing
additional bus bays on the BBB site would impact the size and overall operations for
the BBB site.
All potential interim use concepts included bus stops on 4th and 5th Streets, pedestrian
improvements to access new bus stops on 5th Street, and strong wayfinding. Following
the discussion of the five draft interim use concepts and subsequent team meetings, the
Modified BBB Plan concept was refined into the Modified BBB Plan with Six Bus Bays
proposed interim use.
Proposed Interim Use
The Modified BBB Plan with Six Bus Bays proposed interim use for the 4CO station site
(Attachment A) was developed using multiple refinements to the above scenarios. The
proposed design provides the lowest cost improvements that provide the highest
possible level of service for the Big Blue Bus, including the appropriate ADA compliant
pedestrian access between the station and the bus facility. The proposed interim use
maximizes bus bays on site and incorporates functional and design components that
10
meet the interdepartmental interim use criteria. Using the VISSIM Model for multi modal
analysis, the proposed interim use was analyzed for potential circulation impacts that
might increase vehicle congestion over current conditions. The analysis concluded that
the proposal does not create any new traffic impacts for the interim period in which no
other site development takes place.
Modest improvements such as lighting, shade structure and removable commercial
activity are included to activate the transit transfer zone between the Expo station and
the bus facility. This site has also been identified as a location for the new bikeshare
program. The transfer zone includes the restrooms and the required fire access right of
way to the station platform and should be well -lit with the minimal level of amenities to
ensure the area remains active and comfortable for transit users as they transfer from
one system to another.
The proposed interim use provides the following benefits
1. Bus Bay Improvements
• Six bus bays on site (three -60' bus bays and three -45' bus bays)
2. Shuttles /Para- transit/Kiss- and -ride Improvements
• Reconfiguration of Palm Court to accommodate kiss - and -ride
• Redesign of parking lot at 1636 5th Street to accommodate shuttles /para-
transit
3. Activation and Safety Improvements
• ADA compliant grading between station and other facilities
• Lighting, landscaping, wayfinding and signage and opportunities for
station site amenities (information kiosk, restrooms, removable carts)
• Reconfiguration of fire access lane for improved pedestrian orientation
4. Circulation Improvements
• New access road off of 5th Street with future new 5th Street signal
• Access alley to serve the building at 1640 5th Street
• Bikeshare location
• Sidewalk widening at Palm Court and adjacent to TPSS facility
• Optional 4th Street access at a later date
11
While the team made every effort to meet all the criteria, certain goals were not feasible
and some tradeoffs were made to address the priority of BBB operations. Unmet goals
and tradeoffs include:
1. Due to construction timeframes, it is not possible to construct a bus facility to
exactly coincide with the currently anticipated public opening of the light rail.
2. If approved, the City would be investing approximately $5.4 million of the total $8
million rough order of magnitude project cost in a temporary improvement with an
anticipated maximum life of 10 years. While the majority of the facility would be
removed and replaced with the long term use, the traffic signal, new bus stops,
restrooms and pedestrian pathways (a value of approximately $2.6 million) could
be maintained once the ultimate long term use is in place.
3. Due to the complexity of the Caltrans process, the decision not to provide a 4th
Street curb cut limits BBB access from 4t" Street, requiring buses to reroute to
the 5th Street entrance, and does not provide a kiss - and -ride and shuttle facility
accessible from 4t" Street.
4. The project utilizes the entire existing site and may create a public expectation
for a long term use that includes a bus facility prior to fully understanding the long
term feasibility for this use at this location.
Cost
If the proposed interim use concept design is approved, the total estimated cost of the
project is $8 million. This includes $1.4 million for interim and long -term site analysis
and interim use construction documents, and a rough order of magnitude (ROM)
construction cost of approximately $6.6 million. Of the $6.6 million construction cost,
approximately $1.4 million is required for site preparation and grading. Site analysis and
design funds include evaluation of long -term site options. The construction cost
estimate is based on 2014 pricing (see Attachment A). Funding totaling approximately
$3.6 million has already been allocated through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
process using General Fund, Miscellaneous Grant Funds (Prop C LR), and Big Blue
Bus Funds. If the proposed concept design is approved, staff is recommending that
Council authorize an additional $700,000 in General Fund budget at this time.
Additional funding of approximately $3.7 million to cover site preparation, grading and
providing ADA accessible pedestrian zones would be requested through the exception -
based CIP Budget approval process. The following diagram indicates rough order of
magnitude costs for the key elements of the design.
12
Phasing
Staff also considered whether there would be benefits to phasing the project for earlier
completion to coincide with the opening of Expo (February 2016). Although some of the
pedestrian improvements could potentially be completed within this timeframe, a
phased approach would create inefficiencies and increased project costs. For these
reasons, staff recommends a single -phase approach for completion at the earliest in
January 2017. Restroom facilities and traffic signal would be completed on a different
schedule at a later date.
Outreach
The proposed interim use was presented to the DTSM District Issues subcommittee on
November 11, 2014 and discussed with the property owner of 1640 5th Street. DTSM
registered concern that the interim use would delay the opportunity for addressing long
13
term circulation improvements on the site, and the owner of 1640 5th Street suggested
some changes to the design based on the use of the alley.
Alternatives
Council may also consider the following alternative actions:
• Focus on an RFQ process for a joint use partner to determine long term use and
delay decisions for the short term use with the understanding that to do so could
increase the timeframe for which optimal BBB service is not provided.
• Direct staff to prioritize different criteria and reconsider alternatives or scenarios
that were not recommended.
• Provide minimal improvements for pedestrian access and safety, two additional
bus stops on 5th Street, and allow the remainder site to be fenced and remain
vacant until a long term project is approved.
Environmental Analysis
On July 6, 2010, the City Council certified the LUCE Program EIR (State Clearinghouse
Number #2009041117), adopted CEQA findings and a statement of overriding
considerations, and adopted the LUCE. Section 15183.3 of the CEQA Guidelines
establishes streamlining provisions for eligible infill projects based on a certified EIR,
stating that:
1. If an infill project's effect was addressed as a significant effect in a prior EIR for a
planning level decision, then, with some exceptions, that effect need not be
analyzed again for an individual infill project even when that effect could not be
reduced to a less than significant level.
2. An effect need not be analyzed, even if it was not analyzed in a prior EIR or is
more significant than previously analyzed, if uniformly applicable development
policies or standards, adopted by the lead agency or a city or county, apply to the
infill project and would substantially mitigate that effect.
In accordance with CEQA, City staff conducted environmental review of the 4CO
Project to determine if the proposed Downtown Santa Monica Station Site project may
be eligible for environmental streamlining as an infill project and if new environmental
documentation would be required. The written checklist (Attachment E) specifically
reviews the proposed project's effects in comparison with those addressed within the
LUCE EIR. The checklist addresses all environmental issues listed in Appendix N of the
14
CEQA Guidelines. Based on the analysis provided within the Infill Environmental
Checklist, the City has concluded that the proposed project would not cause any new
specific effects or more significant effects than those in the LUCE EIR. Additionally, no
new mitigation measures are required.
Additionally, according to Section 15168(c)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a program
EIR can be used in compliance with CEQA to address the effects of a subsequent
activity so long as the activity is within the scope of the project covered by the program
EIR and no new effects are found and no new mitigation measures would be required.
Chapter 2.6 of the LUCE Program EIR specifically contemplates maximizing place
making opportunities associated with the Expo Light Rail station to create a vibrant
Downtown gateway; ensuring high - quality implementation of transit - oriented
development adjacent to the station; ensuring pedestrian orientation of ground floor
uses in new development; prioritizing transit connections associated with the Light Rail
Station; and creating convenient pedestrian linkages to the Expo Light Rail station. The
proposed interim use falls within the scope of these LUCE objectives and no new
effects are found and no new mitigation measures would be required. Therefore,
pursuant to Sections 15183.3 and 15168, further environmental review is not required.
Next Steps
Following Council approval of the concept design, staff will proceed with the
development of final design and construction documents and will return to Council for
construction contract award authorization. The project design includes temporary
wayfinding and new bus stops on 5th Street scheduled to be in place when Expo opens.
The interdepartmental group will proceed with the strategic, long term planning analysis.
The network expansion proposed in the Draft DSP illustrates how development of
freeway adjacent sites together with the Colorado Esplanade and the station site can
achieve significant roadway capacity circulation improvements at this prominent
gateway.
15
While the station site will serve .a critical function as a transit hub, it may also provide
opportunities for shared parking, improved access to and from the site and more
connectivity to all of the surrounding areas. The coordination and development of an
expanded road network in the future would provide the City with more options for
addressing traffic pressure points in the southern end of the Downtown. This analysis
will consider additional uses within a transit - oriented development and address issues
such as 4th Street access, future City and BBB operational needs, interface with
adjacent sites, and the cost/benefit analysis for the relocation of the 4th Street freeway
off -ramp.
Financial Impacts & Budget actions
The City's FY 2014 -16 Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget partially funds the
Downtown Santa Monica Temporary Use TOD Site project #9098 (4CO Project). Funds
in the amount of $700,000 were included in the FY 2014 -15 approved budget in account
C419098.589000 and funds in the amount of $2,944,000 are included in the FY 2015-
16 approved budget in the following accounts:
C019098.589000 $1,353,000
C209098.589000 $1,180,000
C419098.589000 $ 411,000
At the June 10, 2014 meeting, City Council authorized a third contract modification to
contract #9167 (CCS) with AECOM and refined $1,171,337 of the original contract
scope and added $228,663 of new consultant services for a total of $1,400,000. Also at
the June 10, 2014 meeting, City Council authorized $700,000 included in the FY 2014-
15 approved budget in account 0419098.589000 to fund half of the $1,400,000 with the
understanding that staff would return to City Council for authorization of the remaining
$700,000 when additional funds had been identified. Funds in the amount of $700,000
have since been identified and approval of the proposed interim use concept design and
continued long term use analysis for the project will require the following FY 2014 -15
budget actions:
16
1. Release of fund balance from reserve account 1.380006 of $700,000;
2. Appropriation of $700,000 to 0019098.589000.
Taking into account the FY 2014 -15 approved budget (in the amount of $700,000), the
FY 2014 -15 budget actions listed above (in the amount of $700,000), and the FY 2015-
16 approved budget (in the amount of $2,944,000) for the 4CO Project, the original total
estimated budget for this project was $4,344,000. However, based on cost estimates for
the construction of the proposed interim use concept design, the total estimated project
budget increased from $4,344,000 to $8,000,000. Staff will apply for the remaining
unfunded amount of $3,656,000 in the FY 2015 -16 exception -based budget process,
and if funding is available for the additional FY 2015 -16 budget allocation, City Council
would approve that budget as part of the FY 2015 -16 adopted budget.
Prepared by: Francie Stefan, Strategic and Transportation Planning Manager
Sarah Lejeune, Principal Planner
Linda Huynh, Associate Planner
Approved: Forwarded to Council:
David Martin Rod Gould
Director, Planning & Community City Manager
Development Department
Attachments:
A. Concept Illustration for Proposed Interim Use
B. Site Context Photographs
C. Mobility Diagram for Proposed Interim Use
D. Initial Interim Use Concepts Not Pursued
E. Initial Checklist, CEQA Infill Project
17
I I IIIII I
11 11 1
5th Stfl 1640
I I
4W 1 0
ATTACHMENT B - SITE CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPHS
Looking west across the station site:
Looking east across the station site:
ATTACHMENT C - MOBILITY DIAGRAM FOR PROPOSED INTERIM USE
i
F771
TP Ill S
—tit,
f/
LEGEND
Bu¢SOp
�ED�nvli
i .O Pa Wnp
U, suu�
Inlnllml1111ne e.po uno
t. <, Paeaaau
® 64e Stem
L_
SIG BLUE BUS /
C.] 7 L
r..i^ '— ExISImO — —'— _ nll
l¢.+ Ial KIOeM
® I(15n�n�PWe
4�4 P✓011ciollela
iilllllilllilliilll Peae:Wnn Renm
n�n�nnn�nnn Peee))GIanP�
snuiao.
74 � 5111 :I i6A0 511 GI.
4TH S'IBEET
Modified BBB Plan with Six Bus Bays Proposed Interim Use Mobility Diagram
Santa Monica 4th /Colorado Station Site Studies (4CO Project)
14l J
a�
i
F771
TP Ill S
—tit,
f/
LEGEND
Bu¢SOp
�ED�nvli
i .O Pa Wnp
U, suu�
Inlnllml1111ne e.po uno
t. <, Paeaaau
® 64e Stem
L_
SIG BLUE BUS /
C.] 7 L
r..i^ '— ExISImO — —'— _ nll
l¢.+ Ial KIOeM
® I(15n�n�PWe
4�4 P✓011ciollela
iilllllilllilliilll Peae:Wnn Renm
n�n�nnn�nnn Peee))GIanP�
snuiao.
74 � 5111 :I i6A0 511 GI.
4TH S'IBEET
Modified BBB Plan with Six Bus Bays Proposed Interim Use Mobility Diagram
Santa Monica 4th /Colorado Station Site Studies (4CO Project)
14l J
ATTACHMENT D - INITIAL INTERIM USE CONCEPTS NOT PURSUED
1. Modified BBB Plan Interim Use Concept not pursued:
• Includes three bus bays and accommodates shuttle and kiss -n -ride on site, but six bus bays and kiss -n -ride along
Palm Court are preferred by BBB.
• Does not provide a pedestrian crossing across 5th Street to Metro bus stop. Per the City's Traffic Engineer, to avoid
congestion at Colorado intersection, private vehicles utilizing kiss -n -ride must turn right when exiting the site
guided by a physical design intervention, which would conflict with additional pedestrian crossing.
• Restrooms located near south station stairs, closer to centralized bus stop island.
Scenario 1 - Modified BBB Plan • • ?
Santa Monica 4th /Colorado Station Site Studies (4CO Project)
ATTACHMENT D - INITIAL INTERIM USE CONCEPTS NOT PURSUED
2. "Two Way" New Road Interim Use Concept not pursued:
• Includes three bus bays and two layovers and accommodates shuttle and kiss -n -ride on site, but six bus bays and
kiss -n -ride along Palm Court only are preferred by BBB.
• One -way eastbound alley to 6th Street (for buses and shuttles only) provides bus exiting but may impact BBB site
and operations.
• Includes optional 4th Street access. 4th Street access possible but requires lengthy coordination with Caltrans
determined more appropriate to be undertaken in conjunction with the long term use and /or the Olympic Crossover.
• Pedestrian crossing across 5th Street on north leg, but must be south of signalized intersection to eliminate conflict
with buses exiting the site (left turn onto 5th Street).
• Per the City's Traffic Engineer, to avoid congestion at Colorado intersection, private vehicles utilizing kiss -n -ride
must turn right when exiting the site guided by a physical design intervention, which would conflict with additional
pedestrian crossing on south side of intersection.
• Restrooms located near south station stairs, closer to centralized bus stop island.
Scenario 2 - Two Way' New Road • w
Santa Monica 4th /Colorado Station Site Studies (4CO Project) �E.,.<•
ATTACHMENT D - INITIAL INTERIM USE CONCEPTS NOT PURSUED
3. "Westbound" New Road Interim Use Concept was not pursued:
• Includes three bus bays to reduce project footprint and accommodate required distance between buses in roadway
configuration, but six bus bays are preferred by BBB.
• Includes optional 4th Street access. 4th Street access possible but requires lengthy coordination with Caltrans
determined more appropriate to be undertaken in conjunction with the long term use and /or the Olympic Crossover.
• Buses enter from 5th Street with exit onto 4th Street, but Big Blue Bus prefers to be able to exit on 5th Street.
• Creates four protected bus bays along east side of 5th Street with three bays on 5th Street but impacts Big Blue Bus
site and operations.
• Does not provide pedestrian crossing across 5th Street. Dedicated signal could be installed on 5th Street for
pedestrian crossing.
• Difficult for buses to exit on 4th Street due to bus turn radius (may need to use both lanes to make turn).
Scenario 3 - ' Westbound" New Road
Santa Monica 4th /Colorado Station Site Studies (4CO Project) •,..<•
ATTACHMENT D - INITIAL INTERIM USE CONCEPTS NOT PURSUED
4. "Eastbound" New Road Interim Use Concept was not pursued:
• Includes three bus bays to reduce project footprint and accommodates kiss -n -ride on site, but six bus bays and kiss -
n -ride along Palm Court are preferred by BBB.
• One -way eastbound alley to 6th Street (for buses and shuttles only) provides bus exiting, but may impact BBB site
and operations.
• Includes optional 4th Street access. 4th Street access possible but requires lengthy coordination with Caltrans
determined more appropriate to be undertaken in conjunction with the long term use and /or the Olympic Crossover.
• Pedestrian crossing across 5th Street on north leg, but must be south of signalized intersection to eliminate conflict
with buses exiting the site (left turn onto 5th Street).
• Bus stop locations dispersed and difficult pedestrian access between Transfer Zone and Bus Bay 3.
• Kiss - and -ride access from 4th Street is more direct, but accessible only from 4th northbound, and must share lanes
with buses exiting on 5th Street.
Scenario 4 - ' Eastbound' New Road "
Santa Monica 4th /Colorado Station Site Studies (4CO Project)
ATTACHMENT D - INITIAL INTERIM USE CONCEPTS NOT PURSUED
5. Minimal Build (on Station Site) Interim Use Concept was not pursued:
• Creates eight protected bus bays on 5th Street and along one -way eastbound alley to 6th Street, but impacts BBB
site and operations.
• No bus or shuttle operations on site.
• Kiss - and -ride and shuttle access on Palm Court.
• Does not provide pedestrian crossing across 5th Street. Dedicated signal could be installed on 5th Street for
pedestrian crossing.
• Maintains interim fire access lane turnaround.
• Provides space for temporary carts south of station.
Scenario 5 - Minimal Build
Santa Monica 4th /Colorado Station Site Studies (4C0 Project)
ATTACHMENT E - INFILL CHECKLIST, CEQA INFILL PROJECT
ID
1!
4th /Colorado Station Site
Environmental Checklist
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
Santa Mnn lon°
Section 15183.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides streamlining provisions for qualified infill
projects. Infill projects that meet certain criteria may not require further environmental review or
may undergo a streamlined CEQA process.
I. INFILL PROJECT DEFINITION CRITERIA
Infill project includes the whole of an action that consists of residential, commercial, retail,
transit station, school, or public office building uses, or any combination of such uses that meet
the eligibility requirements set forth in subdivision (b) [see below]. For retail and commercial
projects, no more than one half of the project area may be used for parking. "Transit station"
means a rail or light -rail station, ferry terminal, bus hub, bus transfer station, or bus stop, and
includes all streetscape improvements constructed in the public right -of -way within 'A mile of
such facility to improve multi -modal access to the facility, such as pedestrian and bicycle
safety improvements and traffic - calming design changes that support pedestrian and bicycle
access.
Subdivision B Requirements YES NO
Is the project located in an urban area on a site that either has been
previously developed or that adjoins existing qualified urban uses on at ® ❑
least 75% of the site's perimeter?
Does the project satisfy the standards in Appendix M of the CEQA ® El guidelines?
Is the project consistent with the general land use designation, density,
building intensity, and policies in SCAG's adopted Sustainable
Communities Strategy? (Consult SCAG SCS map attached and complete SCS
Consistency Checklist) ® ❑
The 2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy
anticipated the completion of a transit station for the Expo Light Rail line at 41h and
Colorado in Santa Monica.
If you answered "No" to the above question, the project does not qualify for streamlining as an Infill
Project pursuant to Section 15183.3. STOP
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
INTRODUCTION
This document is an Infill Environmental Checklist to evaluate the potential environmental effects
of the City of Santa Monica's proposed Downtown Santa Monica terminus station for the
Exposition Light Rail (also referenced as the "proposed project "). This document has been
prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) of 1970 (as amended) and the State CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of
Santa Monica. According to Section 15183.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency
should prepare an Infill checklist to document the infill project's eligibility for CEQA streamlining.
The purpose of this checklist is to 1) determine if the proposed project satisfies the applicable
performance standards for an infill project pursuant to CEQA; 2) explain whether the effects of
the infill project were addressed in a prior EIR for a planning level decision, and 3) explain
whether the infill project will cause new specific effects and if the application of uniformly
applicable development policies or standards would substantially mitigate that effect.
BACKGROUND
On July 6, 2010, the Council adopted the City of Santa Monica's Land Use and Circulation
Element (LUCE) and certified the LUCE Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) [State
Clearinghouse Number #2009041117]. In accordance with CEQA, the LUCE EIR analyzed the
potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the LUCE. The LUCE
provided the framework for integrating future land uses with existing and future transit
investment, including the Exposition Light Rail line and the three stations in Santa Monica
(Downtown, Memorial Park, and Bergamot). The LUCE EIR determined that with implementation
of the LUCE, the Citywide goal of No Net New PM Peak Hour Trips could be achieved by 2030.
Additionally, in early 2007, the Exposition Construction Authority began the environmental study
to extend the Expo Line from the current terminus in Culver City to Santa Monica (Expo Phase 2
line) and the associated rail stations for this extension. The Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR), released in January 2009, analyzed the potential environmental effects associated with
construction of the Exposition Light Rail Line between Culver City and Santa Monica as well as
construction of the associated transit stations. On February 4, 2010, the Exposition Construction
Authority Board of Directors certified the FEIR for the Expo Phase 2 Line.
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Santa Ilion icu
Environmental Checklist
Since publication of both the LUCE EIR and the Expo Phase 2 FEIR, the design and circulation of
the Downtown Santa Monica terminus station has been refined to provide an interim (5 -10 years)
use of the site that would can best serve the community and meet the needs of the Big Blue Bus
(BBB), and the Downtown District. Specifically, the proposed 4CO project carefully orchestrates
the arrival and departure of various transportation users and enhances the transit experience
through integration of passenger amenities and services, including information kiosks, retail carts,
bikeshare, and restrooms. Please refer to the Project Description provided beginning on page 6
for more details on the project. As demonstrated within this Infill Checklist documentation, the
proposed 4CO project would not result in new specific effects or more significant effects that
were not addressed in the LUCE EIR. Additionally, the environmental effects of the proposed
4CO project (i.e., the transit station) were previously analyzed in the Expo Phase 2 FEIR.
PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section
21000, et. Seq.) and the 2014 State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Monica as lead agency is
required to undertake the preparation of an Infill Checklist to determine if the infill project
qualifies for streamlining and to determine what type of environmental document shall be
prepared for the infill project. Section 15183.3 of the CEQA Guidelines establishes the
streamlining provisions for eligible infill projects:
"CEQA does not apply to the effects of an eligible infill project under two circumstances.
First, if an effect was addressed as a significant effect in a prior EIR for a planning level
decision, then, with some exceptions, that effect need not be analyzed again for an
individual infill project even when that effect could not be reduced to a less than
significant level. Second, an effect need not be analyzed, even if it was not analyzed in
a prior EIR or is more significant than previously analyzed, if uniformly applicable
development policies or standards, adopted by the lead agency or a city or county,
apply to the infill project and would substantially mitigate that effect. Depending on the
effects addressed in the prior EIR and the availability of uniformly applicable
development policies or standards that apply to the eligible infill project, streamlining
under this section will range from a complete exemption to an obligation to prepare a
narrowed, project- specific environmental document."
The guidelines states that a lead agency should prepare a written checklist (or similar device) to
document the infill project's eligibility for streamlining and to assist in making the determinations
for CEQA streamlining. If, as a result of the written checklist, the lead agency finds:
1) The infill project's effects were addressed in the prior EIR and the project would not cause
any new specific effects or more significant effects, or that uniformly applicable
development policies or standards would substantially mitigate such effects, then no
further review is required (either a Notice of Determination will be filed or findings shall be
made).
2) Alternatively, if the lead agency finds that the infill project would result in new specific
effects or more significant effects that were not addressed in the prior EIR and uniformly
applicable development policies or standards would not substantially mitigated such
effects, those effects shall be subject to CEQA either through a Negative Declaration or
an Infill Project EIR.
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Ann /n Rlon lun°'
Environmental Checklist
Section 15168(c) of the CEQA Guidelines further states that a Program EIR may be used to
address the potential environmental effects of subsequent activities:
"Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to
determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.
1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new
initial study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a negative
declaration.
2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new
mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being
within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental
document would be required
Pursuant to CEQA, the City of Santa Monica has prepared this Infill Environmental Checklist to
determine if the proposed Downtown Santa Monica terminus station may be eligible for
environmental streamlining as an infill project and if new environmental documentation would
be required. This written checklist specifically reviews the proposed terminus station effects in
comparison with those addressed within the Program EIR ( "the prior EIR') for the LUCE ( "planning
level decision "). The checklist addresses all environmental issues listed in Appendix N of the
CEQA Guidelines. Based on the analysis provided within this Infill Environmental Checklist, the
City has concluded that the proposed project would not cause any new specific effects or
more significant effects than those in the LUCE FIR. Additionally, no new mitigation measures are
required. Therefore, pursuant to Sections 15183.3 and 15168, further environmental review is not
required.
Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15150,15152, and 15168, this Infill Checklist
incorporates, by reference, the Metro's previously certified Environmental Impact Report [EIR]
(February 4, 2010) prepared for the Expo Phase 2 Line. The Expo Phase 2 EIR analyzed the
potential environmental effects of the Expo Phase 2 LRT, which includes the light rail line as well
as the transit stations. The Downtown Expo Terminus Station is anticipated to open for passenger
service by February 2016, connecting Santa Monica to Culver City and Downtown Los Angeles.
As discussed previously, the proposed 4CO project provides a more refined design for the interim
use of the transit station. In 2011, City staff began working with the Expo Construction Authority
on the final 4th Street Station layout and access. Significant changes to the alignment of the
Expo Terminus station resulted in a straighter track alignment as the train enters the station. The
new alignment provides improved vehicle throughput on 5th street but pedestrian and transit
access to the Station Site from 4th Street need improvement. The final track alignment modified
the footprint of the transit station, leaving a larger portion of the property for City ownership and
future planning. As determined within this checklist, the potential environmental effects of the
Downtown transit station (as proposed) are covered within the scope of analysis of the Expo
Phase 2 FIR. Based on the analysis provided within, the proposed transit station would not result
in new significant impacts on the environment that have not been previously examined or
adequately addressed in the Metro Phase 2 EIR.
PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
The LUCE Program EIR and the Expo Phase 2 EIR are available for public review at the City of
Santa Monica City Hall, located at 1685 Main Street in Santa Monica.
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
S. Environmental Checklist
• City of Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Program Environmental
Impact Report (LUCE Program EIR), April 2010, State Clearinghouse No. 2009041117
• Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2
FEIR (Expo Phase 2 EIR), December 2009, State Clearinghouse No. 2007021 109
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Son /u nonimm
Environmental Checklist
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT STATEMENT
1. Project title:
4th /Colorado (4CO) Station
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407
3. Contact person and phone number:
Rachel Kwok
(310) 458 -8341
4. Project location:
Southeast corner of 4th /Colorado within the Downtown district of Santa Monica, California
5. Project applicant /sponsor's name and address:
City of Santa Monica
Strategic and Transportation Department
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407
6. General plan designation:
Downtown
7. Zoning:
C3
8. Prior Environmental Document(s) Analyzing the Effects of the Infill Project (include State
Clearinghouse Number if assigned)
City of Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element Final EIR (SCH #2009041 1 1 7)
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority Expo Light Rail Phase 2 EIR (SCH #2007021109)
9. Location of Prior Environmental Document(s) Analyzing the Effects of the Project:
City of Santa Monica City Hall, Room 212, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
" I Environmental Checklist
Sunla �lon foa"
Figure 1 — 4CO Site Location
t
A. <A,,P�
S �� Sit ���\�9e� <��/ ,�` � /' /.��J ✓� <r
Er aJ
Q ,
F/ G
� at� , A tinNlnio IaAriii ol��lr , %,r
Clry Hall 91FH 15, mM nlon Nlh &h..1
/ IY�H \Ya�J \ Torryva Party \ \. /�tl✓�\ / s 4.
/ J
HO �ty
\l\
r
1560 PCNPvN7np / /Y, <�C' >, r c� \ '. /I
V1 5 C
—� � \l �/ IOS AnyPIea COU Iy plllf¢MMa ASSessa
M
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
San /a Ploniva
Environmental Checklist
Figure 2 — 4CO Project Site
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
tianla Manion
Environmental Checklist
10. Description of the project:
The proposed 4CO project would provide for the interim use (4 -10 years) of the City's
property, consisting of approximately 86,250 square feet, located at Colorado Ave. between
4th and 5th Streets located directly south of the future Downtown Expo Terminus Station. The
project provides an interim design and site layout for the station site so that it can best serve
the community and meet the regional needs of the Big Blue Bus (BBB) and the local access
to and from the Downtown District. An interim use is proposed that would augment the City's
investment in the Expo Terminus Station by facilitating access between the light rail and
buses, shuttles, para- transit, kiss - and -ride, and bikeshare. Because the site is located in the
Draft Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) area, adjacent to the Expo Station, BBB site, and
Colorado Esplanade, the planning and design process for the 4CO project has been closely
coordinated with the concurrent City efforts that address integrating the light rail into the
city's infrastructure for transit and circulation operations to ensure consistency and
compatibility between City projects: the Big Blue Bus Expo Integration Study, the Draft DSP,
and the Colorado Esplanade. The proposed 4CO project maximizes bus bays on site and
incorporates functional and design components that meet the interdepartmental interim use
criteria. The proposed interim use of the station site provides all of the following:
1. Bus Bay Improvements
• Six bus bays on site (three -60' bus bays and three -45' bus bays)
2. Shuttles /Para- transit /Kiss- and -ride Improvements
• Reconfiguration of Palm Court to accommodate kiss - and -ride
• Redesign of parking lot at 1636 5th Street to accommodate shuttles /para- transit
3. Activation and Safety Improvements
• ADA compliant grading between station and other facilities
• Lighting, landscaping, wayfinding and signage and opportunities for station site
amenities (information kiosk, restrooms, removable carts)
• Reconfiguration of fire access for improved pedestrian orientation
4. Circulation Improvements
• New access road off of 5th Street with future new 51h Street
• Access alley to serve the building at 1640 51h Street
• Bikeshare location
• Sidewalk widening at Palm Court and adjacent to TPSS facility
• Optional 41h Street access at a later date
Construction for the station site would entail earthwork, including approximately 2,946 cubic
yards of cut and 1,275 cubic yards of fill, construction of the restrooms, information kiosk,
signage and other structural elements, utility work, and landscaping /paving. No demolition
would be necessary (TPSS facility would remain). Construction is anticipated to take
approximately 14 months, which includes 3 -4 months of rough and fine grading and 6 -8
months of building construction, paving, and landscaping,
IN
Figure 3: Proposed 4CO Project
I
?1
Modified BBB Plan with Six
Santa Monica 4th /Colorado
Concept Illustration
K111-
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
s•"�• M1•" +•ll Environmental Checklist
11. Surrounding land uses and setting:
The proposed 4CO site encompasses the property located at 4th and Colorado within the
southwestern portion of the City's Downtown district and borders the Civic Center District to
the south and Ocean Front District to the west. Land uses in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed project site include commercial, retail, office, hotel, restaurant, and park uses.
Immediately adjacent uses include the following:
• North —Bank of the West, mixed -use buildings with
upper story residential, hotels under construction
• East — Affordable housing building; Big Blue Bus yard
• South — Interstate 10 (1 -10), office building
• West —Leaf and Petal Company (garden nursery), Sc
Monica Place shopping center and parking structure,
Santa Monica Pier with restaurant and entertainmen
Monica Beach
groundfloor commercial and
ars Department Store, Santa
Tongva Park, Wyndam Hotel,
uses, Pier parking lot, Santa
Development to the north of the project site within the City's Downtown is characterized by
a mix of high - activity uses including retail, office, entertainment, residential, hotel, and
restaurant uses. Notable land uses in Downtown include the Third Street Promenade and the
Santa Monica Place mall. Notable land uses in the Civic Center Specific Plan area to the
south of the project site includes Santa Monica City Hall, the Los Angeles County Court
House, the Civic Auditorium, Rand office building, Tongva Park, and the Village Mixed -Use
Project.
12. Discretionary approvals required:
• CEQA clearance and findings
• Santa Monica City Council approval of concept plans for Downtown Station
12
ID
Snnlu Monimm
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
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
❑
Trans orfation /Traffic
p
❑
Utilities /Service Systems
❑
Mandatory Findings
of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the infill project WOULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment that
either have not already been analyzed in a prior EIR or that are more significant than
® previously analyzed, or that uniformly applicable development policies would not
substantially mitigate. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21094.5, CEQA does not
apply to such effects. A Notice of Determination (Section 15094) will be filed.
I find that the proposed infill project will have effects that either have not been analyzed in
a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no uniformly
❑ applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. With respect
to those effects that are subject to CEQA, I find that such effects WOULD NOT be
significant and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION, or if the project is a Transit Priority Project a
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, will be prepared.
I find that the proposed infill project will have effects that either have not been analyzed in
a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior FIR, and that no uniformly
❑ applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. I find that
although those effects could be significant, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because revisions in the infill project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, or if the project is a Transit Priority
13
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Snnin Monica
Environmental Checklist
Project, a SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, will be prepared.
I find that the proposed infill project would have effects that either have not been
analyzed in a prior EIR, or are more significant than described in the prior EIR, and that no
❑ uniformly applicable development policies would substantially mitigate such effects. I find
that those effects WOULD be significant, and an infill ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required to analyze those effects that are subject to CEQA.
Francie Stefan
Strategic and Transportation Planning Manager
EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF INFILL PROJECTS:
Date
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if
the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well
as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants
based a project- specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take into account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well
as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction
as well as operational impacts.
3) For the purposes of this checklist, "prior EIR" means the environmental impact report
certified for a planning level decision, as supplemented by any subsequent or
supplemental environmental impact reports, negative declarations, or addenda to those
documents. "Planning level decision" means the enactment or amendment of a
general plan, community plan, specific plan, or zoning code.
4) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur as a
result of an infill project, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the nature and
magnitude of that impact has already been analyzed in a prior EIR. If the effect of the
infill project is not more significant than what has already been analyzed, that effect of
the infill project is not subject to CEQA. The brief explanation accompanying this
determination should include page and section references to the portions of the prior EIR
containing the analysis of that effect. The brief explanation shall also indicate whether
the prior FIR included any mitigation measures to substantially lessen that effect and
whether those measures have been incorporated into the infill project.
5) If the infill project would cause an effect that either was not analyzed in a prior EIR, or is
more significant than what was analyzed in a prior EIR, the lead agency must determine
whether uniformly applicable development policies or standards that have been
adopted by the lead agency, or city or county, would substantially mitigate that effect.
If so, the checklist shall explain how the infill project's implementation of the uniformly
applicable development policies will substantially mitigate that effect. That effect of the
infill project is not subject to CEQA if the lead agency makes a finding, based upon
14
ID
inn /n fllonion°
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
substantial evidence, that the development policies or standards will substantially
mitigate that effect.
6) If all effects of an infill project were either analyzed in a prior EIR or are substantially
mitigated by uniformly applicable development policies or standards, CEQA does not
apply to the project, and the lead agency may prepare a Notice of Exemption
7) Effects of an infill project that either have not been analyzed in a prior EIR, or that
uniformly applicable development policies or standards do not substantially mitigate, are
subject to CEQA. With respect to those effects of the infill project that are subject to
CEQA, the checklist shall indicate whether those effects are potentially significant, less
than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. The lead agency should indicate
that an effect is "Potentially Significant" if there is substantial evidence that the effect
may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when
the determination is made, an infill EIR is required. The infill EIR should be limited to analysis
of those effects determined to be potentially significant. (Sections 15128, 15183.3(d).)
8) "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures will reduce an effect of an infill project that is subject to CEQA from
"Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact:' The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how those measures reduce the
effect to a less than significant level. If the effects of an infill project that are subject to
CEQA are less than significant with mitigation incorporated, the lead agency may
prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration. If all of the effects of the infill project that are
subject to CEQA are less than significant, the lead agency may prepare a Negative
Declaration.
9) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that
are relevant to an infill project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
10) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance.
15
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis in
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
Development
Impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
El
effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
®
®
El
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
15
ID
Sanlu IlmNOn"
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
a) Less than Significant Impact. For the purpose of this analysis, scenic vistas are considered views
of scenic resources. Scenic resources visible from vantage points in the project area include the
Santa Monica Pier and associated sign, public art located on the exterior of the Santa Monica
Mall, the Palisades Park, Santa Monica City Hall, the Pacific Ocean, the coastline, and distant
mountains. Additionally, Tongva Park is visible from vantage points in the project area. Due to
the built -out nature of the surrounding area, views of these scenic resources are generally
limited to the immediate vicinity of the resource and channelized views down streets.
The most widely available view of a scenic resource is the channeled view of the historic Santa
Monica Pier sign from along Colorado Avenue. Views of the Santa Monica Pier sign from
Colorado Avenue are framed by development, trees, and light poles, and are partially
obstructed by traffic signals and vehicles utilizing the street. Currently, a construction fence
surrounding the project site and existing development (Sears building and Santa Monica Place
shopping center) obstructs views of the Santa Monica Pier sign, the ocean and, coastline from
within the project site. Views of Santa Monica City Hall and the future Palisades Garden Walk
are only available looking across the Main Street Triangle (a grassy landscaped area on south
side of the intersection of Colorado Avenue and Main Street).
The proposed project involves landscaping, minor building improvements, and circulation
modifications within the project site to create an integrated transit plaza /station. Above -grade
structures and features would include new restrooms, kiosks, removable retail carts, shade
canopies, lighting, trees, pedestrian amenities (such as bus shelters, street furniture, and
fountains), and signage. These structures and features proposed would be located within the
project site and would not encroach upon the existing view corridor of the Santa Monica Pier
sign down Colorado Avenue.
Based on the type and location of the above -grade structures and features proposed and the
lack of scenic views from the project site, the proposed project would not obstruct or
negatively affect scenic vistas. Existing views of scenic resources described above would
continue to be available. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant
impact on a scenic vista, consistent with the LUCE EIR (pg.4.1 -58 through 4.1 -59). No new
specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit
16
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis In
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
Development
Impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
c) Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
®
of the site and its
®
El
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare that
would adversely affect day or
®
El
®
❑
nighttime views in the area?
a) Less than Significant Impact. For the purpose of this analysis, scenic vistas are considered views
of scenic resources. Scenic resources visible from vantage points in the project area include the
Santa Monica Pier and associated sign, public art located on the exterior of the Santa Monica
Mall, the Palisades Park, Santa Monica City Hall, the Pacific Ocean, the coastline, and distant
mountains. Additionally, Tongva Park is visible from vantage points in the project area. Due to
the built -out nature of the surrounding area, views of these scenic resources are generally
limited to the immediate vicinity of the resource and channelized views down streets.
The most widely available view of a scenic resource is the channeled view of the historic Santa
Monica Pier sign from along Colorado Avenue. Views of the Santa Monica Pier sign from
Colorado Avenue are framed by development, trees, and light poles, and are partially
obstructed by traffic signals and vehicles utilizing the street. Currently, a construction fence
surrounding the project site and existing development (Sears building and Santa Monica Place
shopping center) obstructs views of the Santa Monica Pier sign, the ocean and, coastline from
within the project site. Views of Santa Monica City Hall and the future Palisades Garden Walk
are only available looking across the Main Street Triangle (a grassy landscaped area on south
side of the intersection of Colorado Avenue and Main Street).
The proposed project involves landscaping, minor building improvements, and circulation
modifications within the project site to create an integrated transit plaza /station. Above -grade
structures and features would include new restrooms, kiosks, removable retail carts, shade
canopies, lighting, trees, pedestrian amenities (such as bus shelters, street furniture, and
fountains), and signage. These structures and features proposed would be located within the
project site and would not encroach upon the existing view corridor of the Santa Monica Pier
sign down Colorado Avenue.
Based on the type and location of the above -grade structures and features proposed and the
lack of scenic views from the project site, the proposed project would not obstruct or
negatively affect scenic vistas. Existing views of scenic resources described above would
continue to be available. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant
impact on a scenic vista, consistent with the LUCE EIR (pg.4.1 -58 through 4.1 -59). No new
specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit
16
ID
- City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
station's potential impacts on scenic vistas were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor
Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to page 3.3 -30 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any
significant impacts on scenic vistas as a result of the transit station.
b) Less than Significant Impact. Currently, there are no scenic highways officially designated by
the State of California within the City of Santa Monica. The Pacific Coast Highway (SR 1 or PCH)
is eligible for State scenic highway designation but it is not currently designated as scenic by
the State or County of Los Angeles. While no designated state scenic highways are located in
the City, the City of Santa Monica's Scenic Corridors General Plan Element identifies nearby
Ocean Avenue and the Santa Monica Municipal Pier as designated scenic corridors.
There are no scenic resources within the project site boundaries. Additionally, scenic resources
along PCH or Ocean Avenue would not be affected by the proposed project. Therefore, the
proposed project would result in a less than significant on a scenic resource, consistent with the
LUCE EIR (pg. 4.1 -57 through 4.1 -58). No new specific effects or more significant effects would
occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be
required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential impacts on a scenic resource
were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to page
3.3 -31 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts on scenic resources as a
result of the transit station.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would implement a number of
improvements on the transit station site to optimize flow and enhance services for all
transportation users. These improvements, such as the plaza, landscaping, and public art,
would enhance the visual character of the project site, especially when considering that the
majority of the project site is currently graded /undergoing construction. Along 4rh Street,
Colorado Avenue, and 5th Street, the streetscape adjacent to the transit station would be
enhanced with decorative paving, wayfinding, street furniture, lighting, landscaping, and
public art in order to improve the pedestrian environment. The proposed project would be
compatible with the character of the project area, as it would create visual and physical
connections to the surrounding area including the future Colorado Esplanade through
enhanced sidewalks, wayfinding, and streetscape. Furthermore, the transformed visual
character of the project site would be consistent with LUCE Policy 5.3, which envisions inviting
station areas with designs that incorporate landscape, enhanced, and inviting open space,
plazas, and transit- serving uses. As such, the proposed project would result in a Less than
Significant impact on visual character, consistent with the LUCE EIR (pg. 4.1 -59 through 4.1 -61).
No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed
project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the
proposed transit station's potential impacts on visual character were previously analyzed in the
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to page 3.3 -52 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not
identify any significant impacts related to visual character /quality as a result of the transit
station.
d) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in the urbanized downtown area of the
City where ambient nighttime lighting levels are medium to medium high. The project site is
currently illuminated by existing pole- mounted street lights as well as building lighting from the
on -site office building. Existing off -site light sources also contribute to the ambient lighting levels,
including lighting from nearby uses such as the Santa Monica Place mall, the Wyndam Hotel,
17
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Clly of
8anla Plonien Environmental Checklist
and other commercial uses. In addition, the Santa Monica Pier illuminated sign and the Santa
Monica Ferris wheel are prominent light sources.
The proposed project would introduce new lighting that would incrementally increase
nighttime lighting levels. Specifically, new lighting would be installed at the transit station and
adjacent street frontages for landscaping, wayfinding, and safety purposes. In addition,
architectural lighting would be installed to accent landscaping, pedestrian amenities, and art
features. All lighting technologies that are being considered are at a minimum partial cut -off (if
not full cut off) fixtures to adhere to dark sky requirements. Project lighting would not be
significant given the existing medium- to medium -high ambient nighttime lighting levels in the
immediate project area. Therefore, the proposed project's lighting would not substantially
affect nighttime views or substantially illuminate light- sensitive uses. Therefore, impacts
associated with increased 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. Glare can also be caused at night by
vehicle headlights.
The proposed transit station would not generate significant glare that would affect nighttime
views. Structures and features proposed on the station would include new restrooms, kiosks,
removable retail carts, shade canopies, pedestrian amenities (such as bus shelters, street
furniture, and fountains), and signage, which would not utilize highly reflective materials.
Additionally, glare from the headlights of buses or cars at the transit station would be generally
confined to the site and would not affect sensitive receptors that are located at a sufficient
distance from the site. Therefore, impacts associated with glare would be less than significant,
consistent with the LUCE EIR (pg. 4.1 -62). No new specific effects or more significant effects
would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures
would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential impacts related to
light /glare were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer
to page 3.3 -53 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts related to
light /glare as a result of the transit station.
UM
ID
taiam
Snn /n Ilonioa
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
IH
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis in
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
Development
Impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
II. 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 project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to
❑
❑
®
®
❑
the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency,
to non - agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a
❑
❑
®
®
❑
Williamson Act contract?
c) 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
❑
❑
®
®
❑
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 or nature,
1:1
El
®
®
El
result in conversion of
Farmland to non - agricultural
use?
IH
ID
s�..ro nruomn"
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
a -e) No Impact. The City is urbanized and does not contain any designated Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance; agricultural land, or forest land.
Therefore, no impacts would occur, consistent with the LUCE FIR (pg. 1 -3). No new specific
effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally,
no new mitigation measures would be required.
a) No 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,
20
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
'Uniform
.Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis in
Applicable
-
.Significant
with
the Plan
Development
Impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
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 the
❑
❑
®
®
❑
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality
standard or contribute
❑
®
L1
®
El
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
❑
®
❑
®
❑
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
that exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone
precursors) ?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
❑
❑
®
®
❑
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number
❑
®
❑
®
❑
of people?
a) No 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,
20
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Ranla Nanicu
Environmental Checklist
SCAQMD has prepared the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to reduce emissions of
criteria pollutants in the SCAB. The 2012 AQMP focuses on achieving the established standards
for ozone and PM2.5. 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.
The proposed project would create a transit station that would optimize flow and enhance
services for all transportation users. On -site improvements would include a plaza, bus bays,
kiosks, carts, restrooms for transportation users, shuttle stops, pedestrian /bicycle amenities, etc.
The proposed project would not generate new permanent vehicle trips and associated air
quality emissions. Rather, implementation of the proposed project would support existing and
future transit operations, helping to help reduce vehicle trips and associated air emissions.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the applicable air quality plan. No
impacts would occur, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.2 -16 through 4.2 -17 of the
LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the
proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore,
the proposed transit station's potential impacts related to an AQMP were previously analyzed
in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.4-11 through 3.4 -13 of the
FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts to the AQMP as a result of the transit
station.
b,c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of circulation modifications,
landscape and minor building improvements, and design enhancements on the project site to
optimize flow and enhance services for the transit station. The proposed project would not
generate new permanent vehicle trips and associated air pollutant emissions. Rather, by
creating a transit station that supports the needs of all transportation users, the proposed
project would facilitate transit use, promote a reduction in vehicle travel, and help to improve
air quality in the SCAB. Therefore, the proposed project would not violate an air quality
standard or contribute to an existing air quality violation. No impacts on operational air
quality would occur, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.2 -18 through 4.2 -19; pg. 4.2 -23
through 4.2 -25 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur
as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be
required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential impacts on air quality standards
were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.4-
14 through 3.4 -16 of the FEIR). As concluded in the FEIR, the Expo LRT and associated transit
stations would have a beneficial impact on regional air quality as they would result in lower
regional VMT and a corresponding reduction in regional emission levels. For a discussion of
construction - related air pollutant emissions, refer to Section V. Construction effects.
d) No Impact. 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) childcare centers, and (9) athletic fields. The closest sensitive receptors are
the multi - family residential uses located at 1539 4th Street to the north.
21
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
„k o, Environmental Checklist
sa nmra°
The proposed project consists of a transit station and does not propose any uses which would
expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations. Specifically, the transit station does not
include a "park n ride" parking structure or lot and therefore, localized CO concentrations
from idling vehicles waiting to park would not be a concern. The buses that would utilize the
transit station would be required to turn off the engines to prevent engine idling, in compliance
with SCAQMD requirements. Furthermore, the City's fleet of Big Blue Bus fleet utilizes natural
gas and therefore, would not generate significant carbon emissions. Therefore, the proposed
project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No air
quality impacts on sensitive receptors would occur, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg.
4.2 -20 through 4.2 -21 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would
occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be
required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential air quality impacts on sensitive
receptors were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer
to pg. 3.4 -17 through 3.4 -25 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts
related to odors as a result of the transit station.
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 includes circulation modifications, landscaping and minor building
improvements, and design enhancements for the future transit station. No odors would be
generated from the proposed project as no new land uses are proposed. Airborne odors
could result from trash receptacles at the proposed station site. However, existing policies and
regulations require that all trash receptacles located within the station site be enclosed and
have lids and be emptied on a regular basis. Collection of the trash receptacles in a timely
manner would serve to prevent substantial objectionable odors during operation. During
project construction, limited and temporary odors may occur during project construction from
diesel- operated machinery/equipment. 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 consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.2 -28 of the LUCE EIR).
No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed
project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the
proposed transit station's potential impacts related to odors were previously analyzed in the
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.4 -25 through 3.4 -26 of the FEIR).
The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts related to odors as a result of the transit station.
22
ID
o,
Swnm
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
23
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis in
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
Development
Impact
Millgation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the prolect:
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 plans, 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
El
El
®
El
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
❑
El
®
®
El
established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
23
ID
8.
Annln Nnnicnr
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
a -d) No Impact. The project site is located in an urban area and is currently graded, undergoing
construction, and developed with an existing structure (e.g., TPSS facility). Accordingly, no
suitable or riparian habitat for any special - status plant or wildlife species occurs on the project
site. As such, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any
sensitive or special status species, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community,
wetlands, or native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. No impacts would occur, consistent
with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.3 -20 through 4.3 -23 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or
more significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new
mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential
impacts on special status species and habitat areas were previously analyzed in the Exposition
Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pages 3.6 -7 through 3.6 -9 of the FEIR). The FEIR did
not identify any significant impacts on special status species, riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community, wetlands, or native resident or migratory wildlife corridors as a result of the
transit station.
e) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urban area and is currently
graded, undergoing construction, and developed with an existing structure (e.g., TPSS facility).
Therefore, project implementation would not result in conflict with any policies or ordinances
protecting special- status plant or wildlife species, including any endangered, threatened, or
rare species. Street trees would either be protected in place, removed and replaced, and /or
relocated during construction in accordance with the City of Santa Monica's Tree Code and
Urban Forest Master Plan. The Urban Forest Master Plan allows for the removal /replacement
and relocation of street trees for public improvement projects. Therefore, the proposed
project would not conflict with the Urban Forest Master Plan. Furthermore, new trees proposed
for planting would consist of species that would be consistent with the Colorado Esplanade or
the City's Urban Forest Master Plan. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with any
local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and this impact would be less
than significant, consistent with the LUCE FIR (refer to pg. 4.3 -24 of the LUCE EIR). No new
specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed
24
.Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
(LTS) or LTS
with
Mitigation
No Impact
Within the
Scope of
Analysis in
the Plan
Level EIR
Substantially
Mitigated by
Uniform
Applicable
Development
Policies
e) Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such 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 -d) No Impact. The project site is located in an urban area and is currently graded, undergoing
construction, and developed with an existing structure (e.g., TPSS facility). Accordingly, no
suitable or riparian habitat for any special - status plant or wildlife species occurs on the project
site. As such, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any
sensitive or special status species, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community,
wetlands, or native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. No impacts would occur, consistent
with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.3 -20 through 4.3 -23 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or
more significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new
mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential
impacts on special status species and habitat areas were previously analyzed in the Exposition
Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pages 3.6 -7 through 3.6 -9 of the FEIR). The FEIR did
not identify any significant impacts on special status species, riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community, wetlands, or native resident or migratory wildlife corridors as a result of the
transit station.
e) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urban area and is currently
graded, undergoing construction, and developed with an existing structure (e.g., TPSS facility).
Therefore, project implementation would not result in conflict with any policies or ordinances
protecting special- status plant or wildlife species, including any endangered, threatened, or
rare species. Street trees would either be protected in place, removed and replaced, and /or
relocated during construction in accordance with the City of Santa Monica's Tree Code and
Urban Forest Master Plan. The Urban Forest Master Plan allows for the removal /replacement
and relocation of street trees for public improvement projects. Therefore, the proposed
project would not conflict with the Urban Forest Master Plan. Furthermore, new trees proposed
for planting would consist of species that would be consistent with the Colorado Esplanade or
the City's Urban Forest Master Plan. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with any
local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and this impact would be less
than significant, consistent with the LUCE FIR (refer to pg. 4.3 -24 of the LUCE EIR). No new
specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed
24
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
transit.station's potential impacts related to local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer
to pages 3.6 -10 through 3.6 -11 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts
related to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources as a result of the transit
station,
No Impact. The project site is located in an urban area and is currently graded, undergoing
construction, and developed with an existing structure (e.g., TPSS facility). There is no
vegetation on the project site. Accordingly, no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved habitat conservation plan applies to the City of Santa
Monica. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted
habitat conservation plan and no impact would occur, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to
pg. 4.3 -20 through 4.3 -23 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects
would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures
would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential impacts related to an
adopted habitat conservation plan were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit
Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to page 3.6 -12 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant
impacts related to habitat conservation plans as a result of the transit station.
a) Less than Significant Impact. Construction for the transit station would entail site grading
activities, construction of the restrooms, kiosks, and other structural elements, utility work, and
landscaping /paving. No demolition would be necessary (TPSS facility would remain).
Construction is anticipated to take approximately 14 months, which includes 3 -4 months of
rough and fine grading and 6 -8 months of building construction, paving, and landscaping.
Construction of the proposed project would result in short-term impacts related to air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise, and traffic. As analyzed below,
construction impacts would be less than significant.
Construction Air Quality
Pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by
federal and state law. Air pollutants are categorized as primary or secondary pollutants.
Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), volatile
organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02), coarse inhalable
particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary
air pollutants. Of these, CO, S02, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are "criteria air pollutants," which
means that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for them at the
federal (National AAQS) or state level (California AAQS). The SCAB is currently in
25
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis in
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
Development
impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
V. CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS. Would the project:
a) Have considerable
construction - period impacts
due to the scope, or location
El
®
®
❑
of construction activities?
a) Less than Significant Impact. Construction for the transit station would entail site grading
activities, construction of the restrooms, kiosks, and other structural elements, utility work, and
landscaping /paving. No demolition would be necessary (TPSS facility would remain).
Construction is anticipated to take approximately 14 months, which includes 3 -4 months of
rough and fine grading and 6 -8 months of building construction, paving, and landscaping.
Construction of the proposed project would result in short-term impacts related to air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise, and traffic. As analyzed below,
construction impacts would be less than significant.
Construction Air Quality
Pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by
federal and state law. Air pollutants are categorized as primary or secondary pollutants.
Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), volatile
organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02), coarse inhalable
particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary
air pollutants. Of these, CO, S02, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are "criteria air pollutants," which
means that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for them at the
federal (National AAQS) or state level (California AAQS). The SCAB is currently in
25
City of Santa Monica
Inflll Project
.R•ol• �l•ni•:i
Environmental Checklist
nonattainment for ozone ( "03 "), respirable particulate matter ( "PM1011) and fine particulate
matter ( "PM2.5 ").
Construction of the proposed project would require earthwork, including approximately 2,946
cubic yards of cut and 1,275 cubic yards of fill. Soil (cut) excavated on -site would be reused
as fill to the maximum extent possible. However, the export of approximately 2,200 to 4,000
cubic yards of soil (accounting for 30% soil swell factor) would be required, which would
generate pollutant emissions on a temporary basis. Additionally, construction pollutant
emissions would be generated from operation of construction equipment /trucks and
construction worker vehicle trips.
The SCAQMD establishes the following construction regional (mass daily) thresholds for criteria
air pollutants:
• 75 pounds per day ROG
• 100 pounds per day NOx
• 550 pounds per day CO
• 150 pounds per day of PM10
• 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). As shown in Table AIR -1 (Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions in Pounds
per Day), construction emissions would be below the Regional Significance Thresholds
established by the SCAQMD during all construction phases. In general, the primary source of
CO and NOx emissions would be from construction equipment and off -site vehicle trips, while
the primary source of PM,o and PM2.5 emissions would be from ground disturbance. It should be
noted that construction activities would be required to comply with SCAQMD's Rule 403 to
reduce fugitive dust emissions. Compliance could include, but not be limited to the following:
(1) watering of the disturbed soil such that the soil remains visibly moist; (2) the application of
soil stabilizers; and (3) the covering of all soil stockpiles. [Model results are provided in Appendix
B].
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, PMio, and PM2.5.
Emission Source
Peak Day Emissions in Pounds per Day
ROG
NOx
co
sox
PM10
PMu
2015
4.86
51.9
34.2
0.04
13.0
8
SCAQMD Threshold
75
100
550
150
150
55
Exceed Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
No
rN,
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
SOURCE:
CoIEEMod outputs
The proposed project is located in SRA 2, and the closest sensitive receptors are the multi-
family residential uses located at 1539 4th Street, which is adjacent to the area of
construction for the proposed project. These residential uses would be within 50 feet
(25 meters) of construction activity. The maximum construction related emissions and the LSTs
thresholds for 25 meter, 200 meters, and 500 meters are shown below in Table AIR -2 (Total
On -Site Construction Emissions and Localized Significance Thresholds). If the proposed
project would result in exceedance of the LSTs for any air pollutant as identified below in
Table AIR -2, this would constitute a significant impact. As shown in Table AIR -2, emissions
would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds during project construction at any of the identified
sensitive receptors for CO, NO2, PM,o and PM2.5 and this impact would be less than
significant. As compared to the LUCE EIR (pg. 4.2 -23 and pg. 4.2 -24) which concluded that
some projects in the City could individually exceed SCAQMD thresholds, the proposed transit
station would not result in a significant construction impact.
Construction GHG Emissions
The 2014 CEQA Guidelines do not establish a threshold of significance for GHG impacts; instead
lead agencies have the discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective
jurisdictions. A lead agency may look to thresholds developed by other public agencies or other
expert entities so long as the threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence. Neither
SCAQMD or the City of Santa Monica have adopted a GHG significance threshold applicable
to the development of non - -- stationary source general development projects. However, the
SCAQMD released a draft guidance document regarding interim CEQA GHG significance
thresholds in October 2008. The SCAQMD proposed a tiered approach, whereby the level of
detail and refinement needed to determine significance increases with a project's total GHG
emissions. The SCAQMD also proposed a screening level of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year
27
cc
NOz
I
PM,o
PMzs
Distance
Qbs /day)
Qbs /day)
Qbs /day)
Qbs /day)
Peak Daily On -site Emissions
17.1
26.9
6.9
4.3
Threshold:
Allowable emissions at 25 meters
1,531
13
6
Threshold: Allowable emissions at
E221
200 meters
4,383
250
84
29
Threshold: Allowable emissions at
500 meters
0,467
312
174
95
Exceed Allowable emissions?
No
No
No
No
SOURCE: CaIEEMod outputs
Construction GHG Emissions
The 2014 CEQA Guidelines do not establish a threshold of significance for GHG impacts; instead
lead agencies have the discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective
jurisdictions. A lead agency may look to thresholds developed by other public agencies or other
expert entities so long as the threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence. Neither
SCAQMD or the City of Santa Monica have adopted a GHG significance threshold applicable
to the development of non - -- stationary source general development projects. However, the
SCAQMD released a draft guidance document regarding interim CEQA GHG significance
thresholds in October 2008. The SCAQMD proposed a tiered approach, whereby the level of
detail and refinement needed to determine significance increases with a project's total GHG
emissions. The SCAQMD also proposed a screening level of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year
27
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
3unin Illoniun"
Environmental Checklist
for mixed -use or all land use projects, under which project impacts would be considered "less
than significant." The 3,000 metric ton screening level was intended "to achieve the some
policy objective of capturing 90 percent of the GHG emissions from new mixed -use or all land
use development projects in the residential /commercial sectors." It should be noted in
Response 1 of Attachment D to SCAQMD's Board Meeting from December 5, 2008 (Agenda No.
31, Interim GHG Significance Threshold Proposal), SCAQMD staff stated: "Additional analysis is
needed to further define the performance standards and to coordinate with CARB staff's interim
GHG proposal. Therefore, no thresholds for residential /commercial sectors are recommended
by staff at this time and the stationary source (industrial) sector threshold, if adopted by the
Governing Board, will be used by the AQMD for projects where it is the lead agency." While this
screening threshold was never adopted by the SCAQMD Board, the City has elected to apply
this threshold in its environmental review of development projects.
This analysis of GHG includes an impact determination based on the following: (1) an estimate of
the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the proposed project; (2) a qualitative
analysis or performance based standards; (3) a quantification of the extent to which the
Proposed Project increases greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing
environmental setting; and (4) the extent to which the proposed project complies with
regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the
reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.
Construction emissions represent an episodic, temporary source of GHG emissions. Emissions are
generally associated with the operation of construction equipment and the disposal of
construction waste. To be consistent with the guidance from the SCAQMD for calculating
criteria pollutants from construction activities, only GHG emissions from on -site construction
activities and off -site hauling and construction worker commuting are considered as Project -
generated. As explained by California Air Pollution Controls Officers Association (CAPCOA) in its
2008 white paper, the information needed to characterize GHG emissions from manufacture,
transport, and end -of -life of construction materials would be speculative at the CEQA analysis
level. CEQA does not require an evaluation of speculative impacts (CEQA Guidelines §15145).
Therefore, the construction analysis does not consider such GHG emissions, but does consider
non - speculative on -site construction activities and off -site hauling and construction worker trips.
All GHG emissions are reported on an annual basis.
Emissions of GHGs were calculated using CaIEEMod Version 201322 for construction of the
proposed transit station and the results of this analysis are presented in Table 3, Proposed Project
Construction - Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As shown in Table 3, the greatest annual
increase in GHG emissions from project construction activities would be 249.36 metric tons of
CO2e in 2015, the total construction GHG emissions would be 394.51 metric tons of CO2e, and
the amortized GHG emission estimate would be 13.15 metric tons of CO2e per year for 30 years.
Construction Noise
The proposed project would create a transit station that would optimize flow and enhance
services for all transportation users. On -site improvements would include a plaza, bus bays,
kiosks, retail carts, restrooms, shuttle stops, pedestrian /bicycle amenities, etc. Construction of the
proposed project would involve construction activities that could result in a minor, temporary
increase in ambient noise levels. Construction noise could be generated by dirt haulers,
concrete mixers, materials delivery and on -site movement, and hand and power tools such as
hammers, skill saws, pneumatic nail guns, and power drills, as well as by the arrival and
0
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Snnla M1loninn
Environmental Checklist
departure of construction laborers and the on -site servicing of equipment. Typical construction
noise levels are illustrated in Table N0I -1.
Feet?
Front Loader
73-86
Trucks
82 -95
Cranes (moveable)
75-88
Cranes (derrick)
86-89
Vibrator
68-82
Saws
72_82
Pneumatic Impact Equipment
83-88
Jackhammers
81 -98
Pumps
68_72
Generators
71-83
Compressors
75-87
Concrete Mixers
75 -88
Concrete Pumps
81-85
Back Hoe
73-95
Tractor 77_98
Scraper /Grader 80-93
Paver 85 -88
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and
Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances (1971).
Machinery equipped with noise control devices or other noise - reducing design features does not
generate the same level of noise emissions as that shown in this table
29
ID
s�..ra n�omm�
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
Construction Phase
Noise Level of 50 Feet with Mufflers
(dBAW
' Noise Level at 75 Feet with Mufflers
(dBA LQ
Ground Clearing
82
79
Excavation /Grading
86
83
Foundations
77
74
Structural
83
80
External Finishing
86
83
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building
Equipment and Home Appliances (1971).
The noise levels at the off -site sensitive uses were determined with the following equation from the HMMH Transit Noise and
Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report: L.,= L.y at 50 ft. — 20 Log(D /50), where Leq = noise level of noise source, D =
distance from the noise source to the receiver, Lea .rwn = noise level of source at 50 (eeL Noise levels have been rounded up
to the nearest whole number.
Given the location of the project site in the Downtown, which has a relatively high level of
human activity and vehicular traffic, existing ambient noise levels are moderate to high.
Therefore, while construction activities would temporarily increase the noise levels in the
project area, the City's Noise Ordinance (Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 4.12.110))
allows for an up to 20 dBA increase during construction hours or 40 dBA for instantaneous
noise. Further, the Noise Ordinance limits the hours that construction activities are permitted
to between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM
on Saturday, and allows for construction noise to exceed established noise thresholds so long
as it occurs between the hours of 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM. Exterior noise level standards for
residential uses are set at 60 dBA, thereby allowing for a maximum construction noise level of
80 dBA; however, the City's Municipal Code allows for noise levels to exceed the 80 dBA limit
as long as they occur between the hours of 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM on weekdays.
The closest noise - sensitive receptors are the multi - family residential uses located at 1539 4th
Street to the north of the transit station site. For the purposes of this analysis, these residential
uses would be within 50 feet of construction activity. Approximate noise levels anticipated to
be experienced by these nearby sensitive uses due to construction activities occurring at the
project site have been estimated and are shown in Table NOI -2. Construction activities
would potentially exceed 86 dBA during the noisiest construction period. Noise - generating
activities that would exceed the thresholds would be limited to between 10:00 AM and
3:00 PM in compliance with the Noise Ordinance (Section 4.12.11 Old) of the SMMC).
With regard to construction vibration impacts on nearby structures, this analysis will use the
FTA's vibration damage threshold of approximately 100 Vd8 for fragile buildings., Certain
construction activities that would occur under the proposed project would have the
potential to generate groundborne vibration. Table NOI -3 (Vibration Source Levels for
Construction Equipment) identifies various vibration velocity levels for the types of
construction equipment that would operate at the project site during construction.
Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report (May 2006).
30
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
Large Bulldozer
Caisson Drillina
Loaded Trucks
Small Bulldozer
SUUXUL: Federal Railroad Administration, 1998; and PBS &I, 2008.
a. The vibration levels at the off -site sensitive uses are determined with the following equation
from the HMMH Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report: Lv(D) =Lv(25 ft) -
201og(D /25), where Lv = vibration level of equipment, D = distance from the equipment to
the receiver, Lv(25 ft) = vibration level of equipment at 25 feet.
Such levels of vibration during construction would be temporary and short in duration.
Further, as identified in SMMC Section 4.12.070, vibration associated with construction is
considered exempt from City regulation. Therefore, impacts associated with vibration
resulting from construction of the proposed project would be considered less than
significant.
a
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis In
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
Development
Impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
a historical resource as
El
El
®
®
F-1
defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
an archaeological resource
El
®
®
❑
pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological
❑
®
E3
®
❑
resource or site or unique
geological feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred
❑
®
❑
®
❑
outside of formal cemeteries?
a
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
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:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
• Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
• 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
• Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Resources listed in or determined eligible for the California Register, included in a local register,
or identified as significant in a historic resource survey are also considered historical resources
under CEQA.
The City of Santa Monica contains numerous resources of historic and cultural value. The City's
Historic Resources inventory includes a listing of resources that are either designated as historic
(at either the National, State, or local level), as well as resources that are potentially eligible for
historic designation?
The project would not require the demolition of any structures that could be potential historic
resources. The majority of the project site is currently graded or undergoing construction. The
only structure on the site is the TPSS facility, which is not listed on the City's Historic Resources
Inventory. The TPSS facility is not known to be associated with historic events or lives of persons
important in our past. Furthermore, the structure does not possess distinctive architectural or
artistic values and does not yield information important in prehistory or history.
However, there are several historical resources located adjacent to the site including the Sears
building at 302 Colorado Avenue (on the south side of Colorado Avenue) and the Santa
Monica Pier and associated sign at the western end of Colorado Avenue. The proposed
project would not remove or physically alter these historic resources nor would introduce
features that would overwhelm, conflict, or impair with the historic character of these resources.
Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historic resource. As compared to the LUCE FIR which concluded that some
projects in the City could conceivably result in the demolition or alteration of a historical
resource (refer to pg. 4.4 -43 through 4.4 -45 of the LUCE EIR), the proposed transit station would
not result in any impacts on historical resources. No new specific effects or more significant
effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation
4 City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory; online of hffa: /M'ww smaov net/DeoartmentslFCD/Msicic-
Resources- In -rYL accessed 11/26/2013
32
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
sa' 1e ero�r <,o Environmental Checklist
measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential impacts on
historic resources were previously analyzed in the Exposition Cor (dor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR
(refer to page 3.7 -17 through 3.7 -18 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts
to historic resources as a result of the Downtown transit station.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urban area and is currently
graded, undergoing construction, or developed with existing structures (e.g., TPSS facility). The
site has already undergone significant excavation as a result of the Expo LRT construction.
Therefore, any archaeological resources on the site would likely have already been uncovered.
As such, the likelihood of uncovering archaeological resources is low and impacts on
archaeological resources would be less than significant, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to
pg. 4.4 -45 through 4.4 -46 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects
would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures
would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential impacts on
archaeological resources were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project
Phase 2 FOR (refer to page 3.7 -17 through 3.7 -18 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any
significant impacts to archaeological resources as a result of the Downtown transit station.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urban area and is currently
graded, undergoing construction, and developed with an existing structure (e.g., TPSS facility).
The site has already undergone significant excavation as a result of the Expo LRT construction.
As such, the likelihood of uncovering paleontological resources is low. Therefore, it is unlikely
that the proposed project would uncover significant paleontological resources. Impacts on
paleontological resources would be less than significant, consistent with the LUCE FIR (refer to
pg. 4.4 -46 through 4.4 -47 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects
would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures
would be required.
d) Less than Significant Impact. There is no evidence that the project site was previously used as a
cemetery or other human burial grounds. The project site is located in an urban area and is
currently graded, undergoing construction, or developed with existing structures (e.g., TPSS
facility). The site has undergone significant excavation as a result of the Expo LRT construction.
Therefore, any human remains on the site would likely have already been uncovered.
Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed project would uncover significant vertebrate fossils.
Impacts on human remains would be less than significant.
33
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
ILTS) or LTS
Analysis in
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
Development
Impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death, involving:
33
San,. Nnnluu°'
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
34
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis in
Applicable
Significant
with
the Pion
Development
Impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist- Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State
L1
El
®
®
El
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
®
❑
®
El
shaking?
iii) Seismic - related ground
failure, including
❑
❑
®
®
❑
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
❑
❑
®
®
❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion
❑
®
❑
®
or the loss of 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
L1
El
®
®
❑
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
❑
❑
®
®
❑
(1994), 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?
34
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
se mmrw Environmental Checklist
a) Less than Significant Impact. 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 Fault Zones, which are regulatory zones around active faults. 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. The City of Santa Monica, however, is crossed
by the south branch and north branch of the Santa Monica Fault. 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? The project site is not located in
a Fault Hazard Management Zone. As such, the potential for fault rupture to occur at the
project site is low. Furthermore, the proposed project does not propose the construction of any
occupiable structures. Therefore, no impacts related to fault rupture would occur.
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. However, the proposed project does not
propose the construction of any habitable structures (e.g., homes). As such, the project would
not increase the existing degree of seismic risks. Therefore, less than significant impacts related
to strong seismic groundshaking would occur.
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 the groundwater level
is shallow, and where submerged loose, fine sands occur. According to the City's GIs
information system, the project site is not located in a Liquefaction Risk Area nor is the project
site mapped on the California Department of Conservation's Seismic Hazards Zones map as a
Liquefaction Hazard Zone?,5 As such, the potential for liquefaction to occur at the project site is
unlikely. No impacts would occur.
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 is characterized by a relatively flat topography. Thus, the potential for
landslides to occur at the project site is very low. Additionally, according to the City's GIS
system, the project site is not located in a Landslide Risk Area nor is the project site mapped on
the California Department of Conservation's Seismic Hazards Zones map for the Beverly Hills 7.5-
minute quadrangle as an Earthquake- Induced Landslide Area.6•7 Therefore, no impacts related
to landslides would occur.
3 City of Santa Monica, Geologic Hazards Map (April 2001).
4 City of Santa Monica, Online GIS System (2014) (accessed on September 17, 2014).
5 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones,
Beverly Hills Quadrangle (March 25, 1999).
6 City of Santa Monica, Online Property Information System (2012) (accessed on March 7, 2012).
7 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones,
Beverly Hills Quadrangle (March 25, 1999).
35
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Av+la Ilonioa°i Environmental Checklist
In summary, no significant impacts related to liquefaction or landslides would occur with
implementation of the transit station, consistent with the LUCE FIR (refer to pg. 4.5 -21 of the LUCE
EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed
project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the
proposed transit station's potential impacts related to landslides were previously analyzed in the
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.8 -8 through 3.8 -9 of the FEIR). The
FEIR did not identify any significant impacts related to liquefaction or landslides as a result of the
Downtown transit station.
b) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed further in Section X (Hydrology /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. With regard to operation, after completion of the transit station, the project site would
be entirely paved and /or landscaped. Landscaping and other stormwater management
features on the project site would result in a decrease in erosion. As such, construction and
operation of the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion. Impacts would be less
than significant, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.5 -23 through 4.5 -24 of the LUCE EIR).
No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed
project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the
proposed transit station's potential impacts related to erosion were previously analyzed in the
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.8 -9 through 3.8 -10 of the FEIR). The
FEIR did not identify any significant impacts related to erosion as a result of the Downtown
transit station.
c,d) No Impact. The project does not propose the construction of any habitable structures. The
project scope is limited to minor building improvements such as restrooms, shade canopies,
and kiosks for the transit station. These structures would be constructed in accordance with
applicable SMMC requirements for safety and are not anticipated to be significantly impacted
by the existing geologic conditions. As such, the proposed project would not create any new
impacts associated with unstable or expansive soils. No impacts would occur, consistent with
the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.5 -24 through 4.5 -25 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more
significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new
mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential
impacts related to unstable or expansive soils were previously analyzed in the Exposition
Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 HEIR (refer to pg. 3.8 -10 through 3.8 -12 of the FEIR). The FEIR did
not identify any significant impacts related to liquefaction or landslides as a result of the
Downtown transit station.
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. Therefore, no impacts related to soils supporting septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems would occur, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.14 -7
through 4.14 -10 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would
occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be
required.
36
ID
Sa of
senre n1.0<,a^'
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
a) No 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
(N2O), 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.
The proposed project consists of circulation modifications, landscape improvements, and
design enhancements on the project site to create an integrated transit station. The proposed
project would not generate new permanent vehicle trips and associated greenhouse gas
emissions. Rather, by creating a station site that supports the operations of the Expo LRT and the
Big Blue Bus, the proposed project would facilitate transit use, improve transit connections,
promote a reduction in vehicle travel, and help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. No
impacts on operational air quality would occur, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.2 -18
through 4.2 -19; pg. 4.2 -23 through 4.2 -25 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more
significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new
mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential
impacts on greenhouse gases were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project
Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.4 -14 through 3.4 -16 of the FEIR). As concluded in the FEIR, the Expo
LRT and associated transit stations would have a beneficial impact related to greenhouse gas
as they would result in lower regional VMT and a corresponding reduction in greenhouse gas
levels. For a discussion of construction - related greenhouse gas emissions, refer to Section V.
Construction effects.
b) No Impact. 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
37
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis In
Applicable
Significant
with
the Pion
Development
'Impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
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
❑
❑
reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
a) No 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
(N2O), 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.
The proposed project consists of circulation modifications, landscape improvements, and
design enhancements on the project site to create an integrated transit station. The proposed
project would not generate new permanent vehicle trips and associated greenhouse gas
emissions. Rather, by creating a station site that supports the operations of the Expo LRT and the
Big Blue Bus, the proposed project would facilitate transit use, improve transit connections,
promote a reduction in vehicle travel, and help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. No
impacts on operational air quality would occur, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.2 -18
through 4.2 -19; pg. 4.2 -23 through 4.2 -25 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more
significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new
mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential
impacts on greenhouse gases were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project
Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.4 -14 through 3.4 -16 of the FEIR). As concluded in the FEIR, the Expo
LRT and associated transit stations would have a beneficial impact related to greenhouse gas
as they would result in lower regional VMT and a corresponding reduction in greenhouse gas
levels. For a discussion of construction - related greenhouse gas emissions, refer to Section V.
Construction effects.
b) No Impact. 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
37
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Santa •1•niea° Environmental Checklist
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 .8 The SCP
anticipates that most of the reductions will achieved through increased energy efficiency,
increased renewable energy production, and reduced transportation - related emissions
through increased use of public transit, rideshare programs, and alternatives to driving (i.e.,
walking or bicycling).
In addition, the City's LUCE links new development and urban character with 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. A number of LUCE policies that emphasize
transit use, reflecting the City's commitment to achieve a reduction in GHGs:
• Policy LU2.2 Transit Villages. Capitalize on the Expo Light Rail Stations to create vital new
sustainable neighborhoods with transit as a focal element, green connections and
pathways, a variety of housing types and jobs, enhanced creative arts and institutions,
and local- serving retail and services
Policy LU2.5 Vehicle Trip Reduction. Achieve vehicle trip reduction through
comprehensive strategies that designate land uses, establish development and street
design standards, implement sidewalk, bicycle and roadway improvements, expand
transit service, manage parking, and strengthen Transportation Demand Management
programs that support accessibility by transit, bicycle and foot, and discourage vehicle
trips at a district -wide level. Monitor progress using tools that integrate land use and
transportation factors. Increase bicycle and pedestrian connectivity in transit districts and
adjust bus and shuttle services to ensure success of the transit system.
• Policy LU4.7 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Access. Emphasize pedestrian and bicycle
access throughout the City, with a special focus on neighborhood gathering areas.
Provide direct and convenient bicycle and pedestrian connections between
destinations. Prioritize land use patterns that generate high transportation usership at
major transit stops.
• Policy LU5.1 Encourage Desired Uses at Stations. Encourage a range of housing options,
including affordable and workforce housing, around the Expo Light Rail stations with a
balanced mix of local- serving retail services and employment
• Policy LU5.2 Integrate Transit Connections. Integrate supporting transit linkages as well as
pedestrian and bicycle connections at all stations. Parking developed at or near a
station is shared with other uses and prices to ensure availability at all times
• Policy LU5.3 Create Inviting Station Areas. Incorporate landscaped, enhanced and
inviting open space, plazas, and transit serving uses into station designs.
8 City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan (revised October 24, 2006).
38
ID
- City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
S•nl• M1I•0••°
Environmental Checklist
• Policy LU6.1 Access and Circulation. Maximize the potential of existing and future assets
such as the Downtown Light Rail Station, oceanfront vistas, and proximity to diverse
neighborhoods. Pursue comprehensive parking and circulation strategies between the
Downtown and Civic Center.
• Policy LU8.3 Pedestrian Bicycle and Transit Connections. Ensure transit mobility by
creating facilities for comfortable walking throughout the City, a complete and safe
bicycle network, and convenient and frequent transit service that will make transit an
attractive option for all types of trips.
• Policy LU8.4 Roadway Management. Prioritize investment in amenities for pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit movement to facilitate green connections and mobility
• Policy D2.2 Encourage Expo Light Rail station access including a second entrance at the
southern end of the platform, that is well integrated with paths of travel and other
functions and amenities in the station area
• Policy D2.3 Encourage amenities in the station plaza area to enhance both the transit
experience and the Downtown environment
• Policy D4.1 Redistribute vehicular traffic to avoid the Colorado Avenue and 4th Street
intersection.
• Policy D4.2 Develop a functional interface for transit, shuttles, taxis, and other vehicle
drop -off and pick -up associated with the station
• Policy D4.3 Evaluate potential changes to vehicular traffic patterns to prioritize transit and
pedestrians
• Policy D6.1 Create secure, convenient and full service bike parking to serve the station.
• Policy D12.1 Establish the Downtown Light Rail Station as a focus of a network of
circulation that connects the Downtown, Civic Center, Main Street, and Beach and
Oceanfront Districts.
• Policy D12.2 Integrate infrastructure improvements with circulation, transit, parking and
the parks.
The proposed project involves landscaping improvements and circulation modifications
within the project site to create an integrated transit station. With implementation of the
project, transit connections and local circulation would be improved. In particular, the new
bus stops would allow operations of the Big Blue Bus to be integrated with the Expo Light Rail.
Furthermore, amenities such as bicycle storage, bikeshare, wayfinding and signage, an
information kiosk, retail carts, and restrooms would be available for bicyclists and other transit
users. Overall, the proposed project would improve the passenger experience and would
help promote transit use. Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with
the sustainability and GHG goals of the City's SCP and the LUCE. Therefore, no significant
impacts relative to GHG emissions would occur. Please also refer to Section XI Land Use for a
discussion of the project's consistency with each of the policies listed above.
39
ID
saga nrunion°
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
CA
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
..Analysis in
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
Development
Impact
'Miflgation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport,
❑
®
❑
®
❑
use or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably
foreseeable upset and
❑
®
El
®
El
conditions involving
the release of hazardous
materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
❑
®
❑
®
El
or waste within
one - quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government
❑
®
❑
®
❑
Code §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 airport or a
❑
❑
®
®
❑
public use airport, would the
project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
CA
ID
so���a nsuNoo�
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
a -c) Less than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not
create significant hazards due to the handling and release of hazardous materials and
emissions as the project site would operate as a transit station. Potentially hazardous materials
that may be used at the station for grounds and landscape maintenance would be handled in
accordance with the safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local
laws, thereby reducing the potential consequences of an accident during handling.
Accordingly, impacts related to the handling, release, or emissions of hazard materials would
be less than significant, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.6 -22 through 4.6 -26 of the
LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the
proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore,
the proposed transit station's potential impacts related to hazardous materials were previously
analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.9 -7 through 3.9 -14
of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts related to hazardous materials as a
result of the Downtown transit station.
d) Less than Significant Impact. Based on a review of the lists that are compiled pursuant to
Government Code §65962.5, the project site is identified on the Department of Toxic
Substances Control's (DTSC) EnviroStor database as a voluntary cleanup site and indicates that
removal and remediation tasks were completed in early 2010 after demolition of the former
Sears Auto Center. The former auto center consisted of a main vehicle service area with
multiple bays, fire storage room, battery storage room, miscellaneous storage rooms, and an
office /reception area. In 1987, underground storage tanks were removed from the site. A
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the project site was conducted in 2004 and identified
LL
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis in
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
Development
Impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
f) For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety
❑
❑
®
®
❑
hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of, or
physically interfere with, an
adopted emergency
❑
®
❑
®
❑
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to
a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland
fires, including where
El
❑
®
®
El
are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
a -c) Less than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not
create significant hazards due to the handling and release of hazardous materials and
emissions as the project site would operate as a transit station. Potentially hazardous materials
that may be used at the station for grounds and landscape maintenance would be handled in
accordance with the safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local
laws, thereby reducing the potential consequences of an accident during handling.
Accordingly, impacts related to the handling, release, or emissions of hazard materials would
be less than significant, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.6 -22 through 4.6 -26 of the
LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the
proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore,
the proposed transit station's potential impacts related to hazardous materials were previously
analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.9 -7 through 3.9 -14
of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts related to hazardous materials as a
result of the Downtown transit station.
d) Less than Significant Impact. Based on a review of the lists that are compiled pursuant to
Government Code §65962.5, the project site is identified on the Department of Toxic
Substances Control's (DTSC) EnviroStor database as a voluntary cleanup site and indicates that
removal and remediation tasks were completed in early 2010 after demolition of the former
Sears Auto Center. The former auto center consisted of a main vehicle service area with
multiple bays, fire storage room, battery storage room, miscellaneous storage rooms, and an
office /reception area. In 1987, underground storage tanks were removed from the site. A
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the project site was conducted in 2004 and identified
LL
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
recognized environmental conditions (RECs). Subsequently, a Phase II ESA was conducted in
2006 and identified elevated levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in the area of the
former hydraulic lifts and abandoned underground piping associated with the removed USTs. A
site cleanup work plan was prepared and implemented, with the oversight of the Department
of Toxic Substances Control Board. As part of the cleanup, the contaminated soil was
excavated and disposed of off -site. The DTSC issued a No Further Action letter in April 2012
indicating that the subject area of contamination (near the former hydraulic lifts) warranted no
further investigation. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the LUCE
EIR (refer to pg. 4.6 -26 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would
occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be
required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential impacts related to hazardous
materials were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to
pg. 3.9 -14 through 3.9 -15 of the FEIR). The FOR did not identify any significant impacts related to
hazardous materials site listing as a result of the Downtown transit station.
e,f) No Impact. The project site is located approximately 2 miles northwest of the Santa Monica
Airport. However, the project site is not located in the area covered by an airport land use plan.
No other airports or private airstrips are located in the vicinity of the proposed project site. The
proposed project does not include any elements that would create an airport - related safety
hazards for the people residing or working in the area. Therefore, no impact would occur,
consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.6 -27 through 4.6 -28 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific
effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally,
no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's
potential impacts related to a public airport or private airstrip were previously analyzed in the
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 HEIR (refer to pg. 3.9 -15 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not
identify any significant impacts related to a public airport or private airstrip as a result of the
Downtown transit station.
g) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project has been designed, in consultation with the
Santa Monica Fire Department, to ensure that the proposed transit station would provide
adequate emergency access. Specifically, an approximately 20 foot wide emergency fire
lane would be provided adjacent to the Expo LRT tracks (see project site plan). Additionally,
the new access road would facilitate emergency access to the site from 51h Street. During
construction of the proposed project, necessary roadway closures would be coordinated with
the City's Police and Fire Departments to ensure that emergency access is maintained at all
times. As such, the proposed project would not interfere with adopted emergency response or
evacuation plans. The impact would be less than significant, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer
to pg. 4.6 -28 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as
a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required.
Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential impacts on emergency access were
previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FOR (refer to pg. 3.9 -16
through 3.9 -17 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts on emergency
access as a result of the Downtown transit station.
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. Therefore, no wildfire impacts would occur. No new
specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit
42
ID
CITY of
Santa Ilanian"
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
station's potential impacts related to wildland fires were previously analyzed in the Exposition
Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.9 -18 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any
significant impacts related to wildland fires as a result of the Downtown transit station.
43
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis In
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
Development.
-
Impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
❑
®
❑
®
❑
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local
❑
®
❑
®
El
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
El
®
El
stream or river, in a manner
®
E]
which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation
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 river, or substantially
❑
®
❑
®
❑
increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner
that would result in flooding
on- or off -site?
43
ID
CtlY of
Swnlu Noniau
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
a, f) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would require grading and
earthwork. During grading and 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
LL!
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis in
Applicable
Significant
with
the Pion
Development
Impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
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
❑
®
❑
®
El
water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 -
year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood
hazard area structures that
El
El
®
El
1:1
impede or redirect
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to
a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding,
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
including flooding as a result
of a failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami
❑
❑
®
or mudflow?
❑
❑
a, f) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would require grading and
earthwork. During grading and 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
LL!
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
(ItY of
Environmental Checklist
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, any of the
following:
• Detention ponds, sediment ponds or infiltration pits
• Dikes, filter berms or ditches
• Down drains, chutes or flumes (added by Ord. No. 1992CCS § 1 [part], adopted
11/28/00; amended by Ord. No. 2317CCS § 1, adopted 7/27/10)
Compliance with the above regulatory requirements would minimize pollutant levels in urban
runoff during construction. 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, the project would create a sustainable transit station that would be
entirely paved and /or landscaped. Landscaping and other stormwater management features
(such as porous surfaces for plantings) on the project site would be incorporated to decrease
runoff and associated pollutants. As such, the proposed project would have a beneficial
impact in reducing pollutant runoff and project operation impacts related to the violation of
water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant,
consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.7 -29 through 4.7 -32 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific
effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally,
no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's
potential impacts on water quality were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit
Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.10 -8 through 3.10 -10 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any
significant impacts on water quality as a result of the Downtown transit station.
b) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would require minimal
grading. No major excavations to groundwater table depth would be required. Therefore, no
withdrawal of groundwater (i.e., dewatering system) would be necessary for construction of the
proposed project.
With regard to operation, the proposed project would implement landscape improvements on
the transit station site. Stormwater management features on the project site would result in a
decrease in surface runoff and help increase percolation of rainwater into the groundwater
table. Water demand associated with the restrooms and kiosks, retailcarts would be minimal
and would not require a significant withdrawal of groundwater supply. As such, operation of
ER
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
ae��a mo ova Environmental Checklist
the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. Project impacts
would be less than significant, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.7 -33 through 4.7 -34 of
the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the
proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore,
the proposed transit station's potential impacts on groundwater were previously analyzed in
the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.10 -10 through 3.10 -12 of the
FEIR). The FOR did not identify any significant impacts on groundwater as a result of the
Downtown transit station.
c) Less than Significant Impact. With regard to operation, after completion of the transit station,
the project site would be entirely paved and /or landscaped. Landscaping and other
stormwater management features on the project site would result in a decrease in surface
runoff and associated erosion or siltation. On -site water management will follow the City of
Santa Monica's Stormwater Guidelines for New Construction as well as the City of Santa
Monica Urban Watershed Management Plan. In addition, project construction would also
comply with the requirements of the City's Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance. 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,
consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.7 -29 through 4.7 -32 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific
effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally,
no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's
potential impacts related to erosion and siltation were previously analyzed in the Exposition
Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FOR (refer to pg. 3.10 -12 through 3.10 -13 of the FEIR). The FEIR
did not identify any significant impacts related to erosion or siltation as a result of the Downtown
transit station.
d) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urban area and is currently
graded /undergoing construction and developed with an existing structure (e.g., TPSS facility).
After completion of the transit station, the project site would be entirely paved and /or
landscaped. Landscaping and other stormwater management features on the project site
would result in a decrease in surface runoff. On -site water management will follow the City of
Santa Monica's Stormwater Guidelines for New Construction as well as the City of Santa
Monica Urban Watershed Management Plan. 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, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.7 -29 through 4.7 -32 of the LUCE
EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed
project. . Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the
proposed transit station's potential impacts on surface runoff were previously analyzed in the
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.10 -12 through 3.10 -13 of the FEIR).
The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts on surface runoff as a result of the Downtown
transit station.
e) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urban area and is currently
graded /undergoing construction, and developed with an existing structure (e.g., TPSS facility).
After completion of the transit station, the project site would be entirely paved and /or
landscaped. Landscaping and other stormwater management features on the project site
would result in a decrease in surface runoff. On -site water management will follow the City of
VJ
City of Santa Monica
Inflll Project
sr mar.,a
Environmental Checklist
Santa Monica's Stormwater Guidelines for New Construction as well as the City of Santa
Monica Urban Watershed Management Plan. 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, consistent with the LUCE EIR
(refer to pg. 4.7 -35 through 4.7 -36 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant
effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation
measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential impacts on
storm drainage capacity were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project
Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.10 -14 of the FEIR. The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts on
storm drainage capacity as a result of the Downtown transit station.
g,h) No Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the City of Santa Monica9, the project site is not located within
a 100 -year flood plain. Additionally, the proposed project does not include the construction of
any habitable structures. The project site would operate as a transit station. Therefore, the
proposed project would not place housing or structures within a 100 -year flood plain. No
impacts would occur. No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a
result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required.
Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential impacts related to flooding were previously
analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 HER (refer to pg. 3.10 -15 through 3.10-
17 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts related to flooding as a result of
the Downtown transit station.
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. No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a
result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required.
Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential impacts related to flooding were previously
analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.10 -15 through 3.10-
17 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts related to flooding as a result of
the Downtown transit station.
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.
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 0.25 mile from the ocean. The project site is located less than 0.25 mile
(east) of the Pacific Ocean. However, given the site's elevated location from the ocean, the
project site is not mapped in a City designated tsunami hazard area.10 Therefore, inundation risk
from a tsunami is considered low.
9 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Panel 1590 of 2350 (September 2008), msc.fema.gov (accessed April
2012).
10 City of Santa Monica, Online Property Information System (2012) (accessed on March 7, 2012).
47
ID
Rnn /n Manlca
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
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 muciflow.
No impacts due to a seiche, tsunami, or mudflows would occur. No new specific effects or
more significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new
mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential
impacts related to flooding were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project
Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.10 -15 through 3.10 -17 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any
significant impacts related to flooding as a result of the Downtown transit station.
a) No Impact. The project site is located in an urban area and is currently graded, undergoing
construction, and developed with an existing structure (e.g., TPSS facility). Surrounding land uses
consists of a bank and two hotels under construction to the north; the Santa Monica Place Mall,
a garden nursery, Sears retail building, Tongva Park and Wyndam Hotel to the west; the Big Blue
Bus yard to the east, and an office building and the 1 -10 freeway to the south. The proposed
project consists of circulation modifications, landscaping and minor building improvements,
and design enhancements on the project site to create a transit station that would optimize
flow and enhance services for all transportation users. The project's transit station would be a
.key element for integrating the Expo light -rail, Big Blue Bus operations, the Colorado Esplanade,
and Downtown Santa Monica. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the physical
division of an establish community. No impact would occur, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer
to pg. pg. 4.8 -113 through 4.8 -114 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant
m
-
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis In
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
Development
-
Impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
❑
ID
®
®
El
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 an urban area and is currently graded, undergoing
construction, and developed with an existing structure (e.g., TPSS facility). Surrounding land uses
consists of a bank and two hotels under construction to the north; the Santa Monica Place Mall,
a garden nursery, Sears retail building, Tongva Park and Wyndam Hotel to the west; the Big Blue
Bus yard to the east, and an office building and the 1 -10 freeway to the south. The proposed
project consists of circulation modifications, landscaping and minor building improvements,
and design enhancements on the project site to create a transit station that would optimize
flow and enhance services for all transportation users. The project's transit station would be a
.key element for integrating the Expo light -rail, Big Blue Bus operations, the Colorado Esplanade,
and Downtown Santa Monica. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the physical
division of an establish community. No impact would occur, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer
to pg. pg. 4.8 -113 through 4.8 -114 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant
m
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Sanln Moniao
Environmental Checklist
effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation
measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential impacts on
an established community were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project
Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.11 -8 through 3.11 -16 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any
significant impacts to an established community as a result of the Downtown transit station.
b) No Impact. Land use plans applicable to the proposed project include the City's LUCE, The
LUCE identifies the project site as the future Expo Light Rail Transit Station, and includes policies
that address the intended design and use of the site. Table LU -1 (Consistency with LUCE
policies) analyzes the consistency of the proposed project with relevant policies contained in
the LUCE.
Policy LU4.4 Pedestrian - Oriented Design.
Consistent. The proposed station site would
Engage pedestrians with ground -floor
feature a pedestrian- oriented design, with
uses, building design, site planning,
wayfinding and signage, attractive pathways
massing, and signage that promote
and active open space areas, including a
vibrant street life and emphasize transit
landscaped transfer zone. Additionally, the
and bicycle access.
station site would emphasize transit and bicycle
Policy LU5.1 Encourage Desired Uses at
access with bus stops, shuttle and "kiss and
Stations. Encourage a range of housing
ride" areas, and bicycle storage facilities.
Policy LU4.5 Art and Amenities. Foster
Consistent. The proposed station site will feature
creativity and the arts through
a prominent public art feature at the transfer
programming, uses and site
zone.
improvements such as the provision of
community spaces, public art, and
creative design of public improvements.
Policy LU5.1 Encourage Desired Uses at
Consistent. The proposed project would
Stations. Encourage a range of housing
provide a wide range of important amenities
options, including affordable and
for transportation users, including bicycle
workforce housing, around the Expo
storage facilities, bikeshare, restrooms, an
Light Rail stations with a balanced mix
information kiosk, and carts. These uses and
of local- serving retail services and
amenities would help enhance the overall
employment.
transit experience. Long term uses, such as
housing and local- serving retail services, at the
station would be determined in the future.
49
San /a Illonlca�
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
50
Policy
Consistency Analysis
Policy LU5.2 Integrate Transit
Consistent. The proposed project would create
Connections. Integrate supporting
a station site that would integrate transit
transit linkages, as well as pedestrian
connections, particularly between the Expo LRT
and bicycle connections, at all stations.
and Big Blue Bus. The station site would also
Parking developed at or near the
support pedestrian connections through
station is shared with other uses and
pedestrian paths that would connect the
priced to ensure availability at all times.
station to nearby bus stops and the adjacent
streetscapes, including the future Colorado
Esplanade. Furthermore, bicycling would be
supported through the provision of bicycle
storage facilities, bikeshare, and restrooms. No
new public parking would be located at the
station site.
Policy LU5.3 Create Inviting Station
Consistent. The proposed project would create
Areas. Incorporate landscaped,
an inviting transit station with design elements
enhanced and inviting open space,
such as a landscaped transfer zone with a
plazas, and transit - serving uses into
public art feature, amenities for users including
station designs.
restrooms and information kiosk, carts, and
transit - serving facilities such as the shuttle and
"kiss and ride" areas.
Policy LU8.3 Pedestrian Bicycle and
Consistent. See Policy LU5.2, LU15.5, and D2.3.
Transit Connections. Ensure transit
mobility by creating facilities for
comfortable walking throughout the
City, a complete and safe bicycle
network, and convenient and frequent
transit service that will make transit an
attractive option for all types of trips.
Policy LU8.4 Roadway Management.
The proposed project would provide a new
Prioritize investment in amenities for
access road through the transit station site to
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
facilitate access and circulation for buses,
movement to facilitate green
shuttles, and pick up /drop vehicles. The street
connections and mobility
represents an important investment in creating
an integrated transit network. Additionally, the
proposed project would invest in pedestrian
and bicycle amenities for the transit station,
such as bicycle storage facilities, bike share,
pedestrian pathways, and restrooms.
50
9m,la M1lonica
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
51
Policy
ConsistencyAnalysfs
Policy LU15.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle
Consistent. The proposed project would create
Connectivity. Encourage the design of
a transit station with a number of design
sites and buildings to facilitate easy
features and amenities that would improve
pedestrian and bicycle - oriented
pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. The
connections and to minimize the
proposed new road within the station site
separation created by parking lots and
would provide for circulation and access to the
driveways,
station for buses as well as bicyclists. Bicycle
facilities at the station would also create
bicycle connectivity between the Expo LRT and
the future cycle track of the Colorado
Esplanade. Pedestrian pathways leading to the
adjacent street frontages would also ensure
continuity of pedestrian facilities.
Policy LU20.2 Street Landscaping.
Consistent.. The proposed project would
Provide street landscaping and
include substantial streetscape features,
streetscape features to enhance the
pedestrian amenities, and street landscaping
public realm throughout the City.
along 5th Street and 4th Street, adjacent to the
Increase landscaping in medians,
station site. Landscaping would be consistent
parkways, and residual areas resulting
with the future Colorado Esplanade.
from changes to parking or traffic
patterns.
Policy D2.1 Develop a pedestrian
Consistent. The proposed project would
gateway plaza at 4th and Colorado
provide a pedestrian pathway leading from the
where riders are greeted, oriented and
Expo LRT train platforms to the landscaped
directed to their destination.
transit station plaza. From the plaza, the
pedestrian pathway would lead to the
intersection of 4th and Colorado where (as part
of the Colorado Esplanade) the paving
materials at the intersection would be
improved to mark the pedestrian crossings.
Policy D2.2 Encourage Expo Light Rail
Consistent. While the proposed project would
station access, including a second
not include a second entrance at the southern
entrance at the southern end of the
edge of the future LRT platform, it would
platform, which is well integrated with
provide enhanced connectivity of the Expo LRT
path of travel and other functions and
platform with the rest of the station through
amenities in the station area.
pedestrian pathways and an access road.
Policy D2.3 Encourage amenities in the
Consistent. With implementation of the
station plaza area to enhance both the
proposed project, the transit station would
transit experience and the Downtown
include a number of amenities and
environment.
improvements to enhance the transit
experience. Amenities proposed include kiosks,
carts, restrooms, bicycle storage facilities, a
landscaped plaza, shade canopies, and shade
canopies for the bus stops.
51
ID
Snnin Monica
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
52
Policy
ConsisfencyAnalysis
Policy D2.4 Capitalize on the Expo Light
Consistent. The proposed project would not
Rail line's location and arrival at the
interfere with the existing view corridor down
Pacific Ocean — maximizing the
Colorado Avenue toward the ocean and the
dramatic viewing experience of the
Pier.
Santa Monica Bay as a defining feature
of Santa Monica.
Policy D3.1 Provide design consistency
Consistent. The proposed transit station would
with streetscape and plaza
feature a consistent and attractive design. The
improvements that address the
public plaza, landscaping, and public art
concept of a gateway.
would be coordinated to ensure that the
station would function as an iconic gateway.
Policy D4.1 Redistribute vehicular traffic
Consistent. The proposed project would
to avoid the Colorado Avenue and 4th
provide a new access road through the station,
Street intersection.
which would be accessed from 5th Street (south
of Colorado). Therefore, buses would not have
to pass through the Colorado and 4ih Street
intersection to access the station site.
Policy D4.2 Develop a functional
Consistent. The proposed project would create
interface for transit, shuttles, taxis, and
shuttle and "kiss and ride" areas, which would
other vehicle drop -off and pick -up
serve as a functional interface for transit,
associated with the station
shuttles, taxis, and other pick up /drop off
vehicles at the station.
Policy D4.3 Evaluate potential changes
Consistent. See analysis of Policy D4.1, and
to vehicular traffic patterns to prioritize
Policy D2.1.
transit and pedestrians.
Policy D6.1 Create secure, convenient
Consistent. Bicycling would be supported
and full service bike parking to serve the
through the provision of bicycle storage
station.
facilities, bikeshare, and restrooms at the
proposed transit station.
Policy D9.5 Encourage public art
Consistent. See analysis of Policy LU4.5
throughout the Downtown.
Policy D12.1 Establish the Downtown
Consistent. The proposed project would ensure
Light Rail Station as a focus of a network
that the transit station would be an integrated
of circulation that connects the
transportation hub, connecting all travelers
Downtown, Civic Center, Main Street,
from the Downtown, Civic Center, Main Street,
and Beach and Oceanfront Districts.
and Beach /Oceanfront districts. Design
elements and amenities such as the
landscaped transfer zone, restrooms,
information kiosk, carts, and transit - serving uses
such as the shuttle and "kiss and ride" areas
would help to create an inviting transit station.
52
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Sanm Noncan"
Environmental Checklist
Policy Consistency Analysis
Policy D12.2 Integrate infrastructure Consistent. See Policy LU8.4 and Policy D4.1,
improvements with circulation, transit,
parking and the parks.
Accordingly, the project would comply with and achieve the goals /objectives /vision of
applicable land use plans including the City's LUCE. As such, no conflicts with adopted land use
plans /regulations would occur and there would be no impact. No new specific effects or more
significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new
mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential
impacts on an established community were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit
Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.11 -8 through 3.11 -16 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any
significant impacts to an established community as a result of the Downtown transit station.
c) No Impact. The project site is completely graded and /or developed and is located in a highly
urbanized area. Accordingly, no Habitat Conservation Plan, or Natural Community 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, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.3 -20 through 4.3 -23 of the
LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the
proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore,
the proposed transit station's potential impacts related to an adopted habitat conservation
plan were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to
page 3.6 -12 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts related to habitat
conservation plans as a result of the transit station.
53
ID
Santa �iwdoa°'
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
a,b) No Impact. No mineral extraction operations occur on the project 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 and graded, 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.
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
- Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis in
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
Development
Impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource
❑
❑
®
El
El
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
❑
❑
®
F-1
❑
delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
a,b) No Impact. No mineral extraction operations occur on the project 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 and graded, 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.
a) No Impact. Neighborhood effects include those impacts that might affect the "quality of life"
of the residents of adjacent and surrounding uses. Quality of life represents a composite
impression, and is usually expressed in terms of overall environment, combining ambient noise
levels, air quality, traffic congestion, and aesthetics of an area. The proposed project would
not result in an adverse impact on quality of life. Rather, the proposed project would improve
the quality of life in the community by creating a sustainable and dynamic transit station that
would serve transportation users, pedestrians, cyclists, and buses. The project would help
promote a reduction in vehicle trips. Furthermore, the project would provide for landscaping
improvements that enhances the visual quality of the area. Therefore, no impacts would
occur.
54
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis in
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
Development
Impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
XIII, NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS. Would the project:
a) Have considerable effects on
project neighborhood?
❑
❑
®
El
El
a) No Impact. Neighborhood effects include those impacts that might affect the "quality of life"
of the residents of adjacent and surrounding uses. Quality of life represents a composite
impression, and is usually expressed in terms of overall environment, combining ambient noise
levels, air quality, traffic congestion, and aesthetics of an area. The proposed project would
not result in an adverse impact on quality of life. Rather, the proposed project would improve
the quality of life in the community by creating a sustainable and dynamic transit station that
would serve transportation users, pedestrians, cyclists, and buses. The project would help
promote a reduction in vehicle trips. Furthermore, the project would provide for landscaping
improvements that enhances the visual quality of the area. Therefore, no impacts would
occur.
54
ID
Fanla Planiva°'
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
55
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis in
Applicable
.Significant
with
the Pion
Development
lmpaef
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
XIV. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in
excess of standards
established in the local
❑
❑
®
®
❑
general plan or noise
ordinance or of applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive
❑
El
®
®
❑
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity
❑
®
❑
lZ
❑
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 airport or a
❑
❑
use airport, would the
®
®
ID
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
ID
El
®
®
El
or working in the
project area to excessive
noise levels?
55
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Ann1u Illonian°'
Environmental Checklist
a,c) No Impact. The proposed project would create a transit station that would optimize flow and
enhance services for all transportation users. On -site improvements would include a plaza, bus
bays, kiosks, carts, restrooms for transportation users, shuttle stops, pedestrian /bicycle
amenities, etc. The proposed project would not introduce any new land uses to the project
site or generate any additional population in the City that would generate a permanent
increase in noise. As a transit station supporting the Expo LRT and bus operations, the proposed
project would not generate new traffic that would increase roadway noise levels. As such, the
proposed project would not result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity and no noise impact would occur. Consistent with the findings of the LUCE FIR,
noise impacts would not be significant (refer to pg. 4.9 -26 through 4.9 -30; 4.9 -32 of the LUCE
EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the
proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore,
the proposed transit station's potential noise impacts were previously analyzed in the
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.12 -23 through 3.12 -41 of the FEIR).
The FEIR did not identify any significant noise impacts as a result of the Downtown transit
station.
b) No Impact. As a transit station supporting the Expo LRT and bus operations, the proposed
project does not propose any uses that would generate significant groundborne vibration.
Any vibration generated from buses arriving at the transit station would not be noticeable. As
such, the proposed project would not result in a permanent increase in vibration levels.
Consistent with the findings of the LUCE EIR, vibration impacts would not be significant (refer to
pg. 4.9 -30 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as
a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required.
Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential noise impacts were previously analyzed in
the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.12 -46 through 3.12 -53 of the
FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts on noise as a result of the Downtown
transit station. Refer to Response X. Construction for a discussion of construction vibration
impacts.
d) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would involve minimal
construction activities that could result in a small but temporary increase in ambient noise
levels. Refer to Response X. Construction for a discussion of construction noise impacts.
e,f) No Impact. The project site is located approximately two miles northwest of the Santa
Monica Airport. However, the project site is not located in the area covered by an airport
land use plan. No other airports or private airstrips are located in the vicinity of the proposed
project site. The proposed project consists of the creation of a transit station to serve
transportation users. As such, the proposed project would not expose people residing of
working in the project area to airport noise and no impact would occur, consistent with the
FIR (refer to pg. 4.9 -47 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects
would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures
would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential noise impacts were
previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.12 -55
through 3.12 -56 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts related to
airport noise as a result of the Downtown transit station.
56
ID
8on10 M1lonloa°
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
a) No Impact. The proposed project would implement circulation modifications, landscaping and
minor building improvements, and design enhancements on the project site to create on
integrated transit station. The proposed project does not propose any uses that would generate
population growth (e.g., new housing). Therefore, the proposed project would not induce
population growth. No impacts would occur consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to 4.10 -12
through 4.10 -13 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would
occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be
required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential impacts related to population
growth were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to
pg. 3.16 -6 through 3.16 -8 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts related to
population growth as a result of the Downtown transit station.
b,c) No Impact. The project site is currently undergoing construction, graded, and developed with
an existing office building. No housing exists on the project site. Therefore, development of the
proposed project would not displace housing or people. No impacts would occur, consistent
with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.10 -13 through 4.10 -15 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects
or more significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no
new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's
potential impacts related to population displacement were previously analyzed in the
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 5 -5 through 5 -6 of the FEIR). The FEIR
did not identify any significant impacts related to population displacement as a result of the
Downtown transit station.
57
Subsfantlally
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
-
Significant
Scope. of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis in
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
Development
Impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
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
1:1
❑
®
®
❑
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
a) No Impact. The proposed project would implement circulation modifications, landscaping and
minor building improvements, and design enhancements on the project site to create on
integrated transit station. The proposed project does not propose any uses that would generate
population growth (e.g., new housing). Therefore, the proposed project would not induce
population growth. No impacts would occur consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to 4.10 -12
through 4.10 -13 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would
occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be
required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential impacts related to population
growth were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to
pg. 3.16 -6 through 3.16 -8 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts related to
population growth as a result of the Downtown transit station.
b,c) No Impact. The project site is currently undergoing construction, graded, and developed with
an existing office building. No housing exists on the project site. Therefore, development of the
proposed project would not displace housing or people. No impacts would occur, consistent
with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.10 -13 through 4.10 -15 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects
or more significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no
new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's
potential impacts related to population displacement were previously analyzed in the
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 5 -5 through 5 -6 of the FEIR). The FEIR
did not identify any significant impacts related to population displacement as a result of the
Downtown transit station.
57
ID
Oy of
Snnin Mon ionP1
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
a,b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would create a transit station that would
optimize flow and enhance services for all transportation users. On -site improvements would
include a plaza, bus bays, kiosks, retail carts, restrooms for transportation users, shuttle stops,
pedestrian /bicycle amenities, etc. Given the transitory nature of transportation users, the
proposed transit station is not anticipated to generate a significant increase in demand for fire
and police protection services provided by the Santa Monica Fire Department and Santa
Monica Police Department. As such, the proposed project would not necessitate the
construction of new or physically altered fire and police facilities, and impacts would be less
than significant, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.11 -8 through 4.11 -24 of the LUCE
EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the
proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore,
the proposed transit station's potential impacts on fire and police services were previously
analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FOR (refer to pg. 3.14 -6 through 3.14-
14 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts on public services as a result of
the Downtown transit station.
c,e) No Impact. The proposed project would create a transit station that would optimize flow and
enhance services for all transportation users. On -site improvements would include a plaza, bus
bays, kiosks, retail carts, restrooms for transportation users, shuttle stops, pedestrian /bicycle
amenities, etc. The proposed transit station would not generate a demand for schools or park
services, and no impacts to these services would occur. As such, the proposed project would
not necessitate the construction of new or physically altered governmental facilities and
impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.11 -8 through
4.11 -24 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a
result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required.
Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential impacts on schools, parks, and other public
facilities were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to
Vii
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
.'Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
-
Analysis In
Applicable
Significant
with
-
the Plan
Development
Impact
Mitigation
No impact
Level EIR
Policies
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,b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would create a transit station that would
optimize flow and enhance services for all transportation users. On -site improvements would
include a plaza, bus bays, kiosks, retail carts, restrooms for transportation users, shuttle stops,
pedestrian /bicycle amenities, etc. Given the transitory nature of transportation users, the
proposed transit station is not anticipated to generate a significant increase in demand for fire
and police protection services provided by the Santa Monica Fire Department and Santa
Monica Police Department. As such, the proposed project would not necessitate the
construction of new or physically altered fire and police facilities, and impacts would be less
than significant, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.11 -8 through 4.11 -24 of the LUCE
EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the
proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore,
the proposed transit station's potential impacts on fire and police services were previously
analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FOR (refer to pg. 3.14 -6 through 3.14-
14 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts on public services as a result of
the Downtown transit station.
c,e) No Impact. The proposed project would create a transit station that would optimize flow and
enhance services for all transportation users. On -site improvements would include a plaza, bus
bays, kiosks, retail carts, restrooms for transportation users, shuttle stops, pedestrian /bicycle
amenities, etc. The proposed transit station would not generate a demand for schools or park
services, and no impacts to these services would occur. As such, the proposed project would
not necessitate the construction of new or physically altered governmental facilities and
impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.11 -8 through
4.11 -24 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a
result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required.
Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential impacts on schools, parks, and other public
facilities were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to
Vii
CuY of
Aan10 Nonlca
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
pg. 3.14 -6 through 3.14 -14 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts on
public facilities as a result of the Downtown transit station.
a,b) No Impact. The proposed project would create a transit station that would optimize flow and
enhance services for all transportation users. On -site improvements would include a plaza, bus
bays, information kiosks, restrooms for transportation users, shuttle stops, pedestrian /bicycle
amenities, etc. The proposed transit station would not increase the use of existing parks or
other recreational facilities nor would it require the construction /expansion of such facilities.
No impacts would occur, consistent with the LUCE FIR (refer to pg. 4.11 -41 through 4.11 -45 of
the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the
proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore,
the proposed transit station's potential impacts on recreational facilities were previously
analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.14 -6 through 3.14-
14 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts on recreational facilities as a
result of the Downtown transit station.
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis in
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
Development
Impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
XVII. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase
the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
El
El
®
®
❑
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. The proposed project would create a transit station that would optimize flow and
enhance services for all transportation users. On -site improvements would include a plaza, bus
bays, information kiosks, restrooms for transportation users, shuttle stops, pedestrian /bicycle
amenities, etc. The proposed transit station would not increase the use of existing parks or
other recreational facilities nor would it require the construction /expansion of such facilities.
No impacts would occur, consistent with the LUCE FIR (refer to pg. 4.11 -41 through 4.11 -45 of
the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the
proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore,
the proposed transit station's potential impacts on recreational facilities were previously
analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.14 -6 through 3.14-
14 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts on recreational facilities as a
result of the Downtown transit station.
Gi'i
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis in
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
Development
Impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
Gi'i
ID
Rnn /u Monson
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
a) Less than Significant Impact. Shadow impacts occur when a new building /structure of
sufficient height casts new shadows onto nearby sensitive receptors. The consequences of
shadows on land uses may be positive, including cooling effects during warm weather, or
negative, such as the loss of natural light necessary for solar energy purposes or the loss of
warming influences during cool weather. The closest sensitive receptors are the multi - family
residential uses located at 1539 41h Street, to the north of the project site. The proposed project
would implement circulation modifications, landscaping and minor building improvements,
and design enhancements on the project site to create an integrated transit station, Minor
shadows would be cast from the transit station's aboveground structures /features, such as light
poles, trees, and other pedestrian /transit rider amenities (such as bus shelters, shade canopies,
etc.). These shadows would generally be cast in a clockwise direction (from northwest to the
east) and would not be sufficient to shade sensitive uses. Therefore, a Less than Significant
impact would occur, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.1 -63 through 4.1 -67 of the
LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the
proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required.
91
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis In
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
Development
Impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
XVIII. SHADOWS. Would the project:
a) Produce extensive shadows
affecting adjacent uses or
❑
®
❑
®
❑
property?
a) Less than Significant Impact. Shadow impacts occur when a new building /structure of
sufficient height casts new shadows onto nearby sensitive receptors. The consequences of
shadows on land uses may be positive, including cooling effects during warm weather, or
negative, such as the loss of natural light necessary for solar energy purposes or the loss of
warming influences during cool weather. The closest sensitive receptors are the multi - family
residential uses located at 1539 41h Street, to the north of the project site. The proposed project
would implement circulation modifications, landscaping and minor building improvements,
and design enhancements on the project site to create an integrated transit station, Minor
shadows would be cast from the transit station's aboveground structures /features, such as light
poles, trees, and other pedestrian /transit rider amenities (such as bus shelters, shade canopies,
etc.). These shadows would generally be cast in a clockwise direction (from northwest to the
east) and would not be sufficient to shade sensitive uses. Therefore, a Less than Significant
impact would occur, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.1 -63 through 4.1 -67 of the
LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the
proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required.
91
Aan /a Illonimi
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
0
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis In
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
Development
impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
IX. 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
El
El
measures, or other standards
®
El
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
L1
®
El
®
L1
emergency access?
0
ID
0,,
sn.!t L �r Ol�rl!p
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
a,b) No Impact. The project would not generate any new trips on the circulation system, including
the regional freeway system or on CMP arterial monitoring intersections. Rather, as a transit
station, the proposed project would promote a reduction in regional vehicle trips by
supporting transit use for people arriving from all across the region. Furthermore, an analysis
conducted by Fehr & Peers indicates that the proposed signal on 5fh Street would not result in
significant or hazardous queuing conditions on the 1 -10 freeway off -ramp on 5th Street."
Occasional queuing could occur onto the freeway mainline, but would not be constant and
would be less than anticipated without the project. Therefore, no further CMP analysis is
required and there would be no impact. No new specific effects or more significant effects
than what was identified in the LUCE FIR (pg. (pg. 4.12 -67 through 4.12 -69) would occur as a
result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required.
Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential impacts on the circulation system and
CMP regional facilities were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase
2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.2 -84 through 3.2 -85 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant
impacts on CMP regional facilities as a result of the Downtown transit station.
c) No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or airport limited area.
The closest airport to the project site is the Santa Monica Airport, a general aviation airport
located in the southeastern portion of the City (approximately 2 miles to the southeast of the
project site). The project site is not within established flight paths for the Santa Monica Airport
and would not construct any tall, high -rise structures that could interfere with air traffic.
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not affect air traffic patterns and
there would be no impact.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. As part of the project, new access would be provided through
the transit station site allowing for buses, shuttles, and drop off /pick up vehicles, to access the
station directly from 5th Street. The new access would not create a hazardous condition.
Rather, by facilitating access into the station site, the proposed project would create an
integrated system of transit connections and minimize potential for conflicts between the
various transportation modes. The project also proposes installation of a traffic signal at 5th
Street south of Colorado Avenue to facilitate access into the station site. The installation of this
signal would not create a hazardous queuing condition such that it would create safety risks.
As stated above, an analysis conducted by Fehr & Peers indicates that the proposed signal on
Fehr & Peers, Summary Of Findings From Vissim Analysis Santa Monica Expo Station TOD Project Year 2020
Preferred Alternative, October 22, 2014
62
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
'Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis in
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
Development
`Impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
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?
a,b) No Impact. The project would not generate any new trips on the circulation system, including
the regional freeway system or on CMP arterial monitoring intersections. Rather, as a transit
station, the proposed project would promote a reduction in regional vehicle trips by
supporting transit use for people arriving from all across the region. Furthermore, an analysis
conducted by Fehr & Peers indicates that the proposed signal on 5fh Street would not result in
significant or hazardous queuing conditions on the 1 -10 freeway off -ramp on 5th Street."
Occasional queuing could occur onto the freeway mainline, but would not be constant and
would be less than anticipated without the project. Therefore, no further CMP analysis is
required and there would be no impact. No new specific effects or more significant effects
than what was identified in the LUCE FIR (pg. (pg. 4.12 -67 through 4.12 -69) would occur as a
result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required.
Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential impacts on the circulation system and
CMP regional facilities were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase
2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.2 -84 through 3.2 -85 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant
impacts on CMP regional facilities as a result of the Downtown transit station.
c) No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or airport limited area.
The closest airport to the project site is the Santa Monica Airport, a general aviation airport
located in the southeastern portion of the City (approximately 2 miles to the southeast of the
project site). The project site is not within established flight paths for the Santa Monica Airport
and would not construct any tall, high -rise structures that could interfere with air traffic.
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not affect air traffic patterns and
there would be no impact.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. As part of the project, new access would be provided through
the transit station site allowing for buses, shuttles, and drop off /pick up vehicles, to access the
station directly from 5th Street. The new access would not create a hazardous condition.
Rather, by facilitating access into the station site, the proposed project would create an
integrated system of transit connections and minimize potential for conflicts between the
various transportation modes. The project also proposes installation of a traffic signal at 5th
Street south of Colorado Avenue to facilitate access into the station site. The installation of this
signal would not create a hazardous queuing condition such that it would create safety risks.
As stated above, an analysis conducted by Fehr & Peers indicates that the proposed signal on
Fehr & Peers, Summary Of Findings From Vissim Analysis Santa Monica Expo Station TOD Project Year 2020
Preferred Alternative, October 22, 2014
62
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Snnln M1lnniuu
Environmental Checklist
5th Street does not create any new traffic impacts for the interim period in which no other site
development takes place and would not result in significant or hazardous queuing conditions
on the 1 -10 freeway off -ramp on 5th Street. The analysis did not find queuing onto the freeway
mainline during the simulation period. The proposed project is not a traffic - generating
development project but, rather, is expected to improve flow and minimize the potential for
conflicts between transportation users. These improvements would enhance motorist, cyclist,
and pedestrian safety in the Downtown and would not substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature. There would be a beneficial impact as a result of the proposed project. No
new specific effects or more significant effects than what was identified in the LUCE EIR (pg.
(pg. 4.12 -51 through 4.12 -52) would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no
new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's
potential impacts related to hazardous design features were previously analyzed in the
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.15- 6 through 3.15 -7of the FEIR).
The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts related to hazardous design features as a result
of the Downtown transit station.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project has been designed in coordination with the Santa
Monica Fire Department to ensure that the proposed transit station would provide adequate
emergency access. Specifically, an approximately 20 foot wide emergency fire lane would
be provided just adjacent to the Expo LRT tracks. Additionally, the new access on 5th Street
would also facilitate emergency access to the site. During construction of the proposed
project, necessary roadway closures would be coordinated with the City's Police and Fire
Departments to ensure that emergency access is maintained at all times. As such, the
proposed project would not interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans.
Potential impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.6 -28
of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of
the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required.
Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential impacts on emergency access were
previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.9 -16
through 3.9 -17 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts on emergency
access as a result of the Downtown transit station.
No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities. Rather, the proposed project would be fully supportive
of policies and plans that encourage the use of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. With
implementation of the proposed project, the station site would create an integrated system of
transit connections where Expo LRT, buses, shuttles, and drop off /pick up vehicles can
interface. Additionally, the proposed project would include a number of amenities and
improvements to enhance the transit experience. Amenities proposed include an information
kiosk, retail carts, restrooms, a landscaped transfer zone, shade canopies, and shuttle and "kiss
and ride" areas. Bicycle facilities (e.g., bicycle storage, bikeshare) at the station would also
create bicycle connectivity between the Expo LRT and the future cycle track of the Colorado
Esplanade. Pedestrian pathways leading to the adjacent street frontages would also ensure
continuity of pedestrian facilities. Overall, the proposed project supports the LUCE, which
emphasize that the station areas should have "transit linkages as well as pedestrian and
bicycle connections" (Policy 5.2) and be "inviting" (Policy LU5.3). Refer to Response XI(a) for a
discussion of the project's consistency with these policies and others. Therefore, there would
be no impact, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg. pg. 4.12 -53 through 4.12 -55). No new
specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed project.
63
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required. Furthermore, the proposed
station site's potential impacts related to alternative transportation were previously analyzed in
the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 FEIR (refer to pg. 3.2 -106 through 3.2 -108 of the
FEIR). The FOR did not identify any significant impacts on alternative transportation
plans /policies as a result of the station site.
f
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis in
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
Development
lmpacf
Mitigation
No Impact
- Level EIR
Policies
XX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the
El
®
El
®
❑
applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of
❑
®
L1
®
El
facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the
construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities,
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
the construction of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and
❑
®
resources,
❑
®
❑
or are new or
expanded entitlements
needed?
f
ID
Saulu M1innioo
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
o,e) Less Than Significant Impact. Wastewater from the City is collected through the City of Santa
Monica's wastewater system and is treated at the Hyperion Treatment Plant in the City of Los
Angeles community of Playa del Rey located seven miles southeast of the Downtown. The
Hyperion Treatment Plant receives approximately 340 million gallons per day (mgd) of
wastewater, and has a dry weather capacity of approximately 450 mgd processed through
full secondary treatment and an 850 mgd wet weather capacity. It is equipped for biosolids
handling, and biogas generation, where 635 tons of biosolids are reclaimed as fertilizer and soil
amendments, and 7.5 million cubic feet of biogas converted to electricity per day. The City of
Santa Monica Water Resources Division manages its wastewater collection system and its
Coastal Interceptor Sewer System (CISS), which includes 2,875 sewer line segments of 152 miles
of pipeline, two flow monitoring and sampling stations and one 26 mgd pumping station.
Given the transitory nature of transportation users passing through the station, the proposed
restrooms, kiosks, and carts at the station would result in a minimal increase in wastewater
generation at the project site. The amount of wastewater generation anticipated would
constitute a negligible reduction in the remaining capacity at the HTP and City's CISS. This
increase in wastewater would also be within the City's contractual entitlement (unlimited flow)
for flows to the HTP. As a result, the project would not exceed any wastewater treatment
requirements of the LARWQCB, adequate wastewater treatment capacity exists to serve the
project. A less than significant impact would result, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg.
4.13 -41 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a
result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required.
M
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
'Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Analysis in
Applicable
Significant
with
the Plan
.Development
Impact
Mitigation
No Impact
Level EIR
Policies
e) Result in a determination by
the wastewater treatment
provider that serves or may
serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve
❑
®
❑
®
❑
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 and
❑
®
❑
®
El
related to solid
waste?
o,e) Less Than Significant Impact. Wastewater from the City is collected through the City of Santa
Monica's wastewater system and is treated at the Hyperion Treatment Plant in the City of Los
Angeles community of Playa del Rey located seven miles southeast of the Downtown. The
Hyperion Treatment Plant receives approximately 340 million gallons per day (mgd) of
wastewater, and has a dry weather capacity of approximately 450 mgd processed through
full secondary treatment and an 850 mgd wet weather capacity. It is equipped for biosolids
handling, and biogas generation, where 635 tons of biosolids are reclaimed as fertilizer and soil
amendments, and 7.5 million cubic feet of biogas converted to electricity per day. The City of
Santa Monica Water Resources Division manages its wastewater collection system and its
Coastal Interceptor Sewer System (CISS), which includes 2,875 sewer line segments of 152 miles
of pipeline, two flow monitoring and sampling stations and one 26 mgd pumping station.
Given the transitory nature of transportation users passing through the station, the proposed
restrooms, kiosks, and carts at the station would result in a minimal increase in wastewater
generation at the project site. The amount of wastewater generation anticipated would
constitute a negligible reduction in the remaining capacity at the HTP and City's CISS. This
increase in wastewater would also be within the City's contractual entitlement (unlimited flow)
for flows to the HTP. As a result, the project would not exceed any wastewater treatment
requirements of the LARWQCB, adequate wastewater treatment capacity exists to serve the
project. A less than significant impact would result, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to pg.
4.13 -41 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects would occur as a
result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures would be required.
M
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
b) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response XX(a) for a discussion of potential impacts on
wastewater facilities.
With regard to water facilities, the proposed project consists of a transit station and would not
involve the development of land uses that would generate a significant water demand. Given
the transitory nature of transportation users passing through the station, the proposed restrooms,
kiosks, and carts at the station would result in a minimal increase in demand for water at the
project site. New landscaping for the transit station would consist of drought tolerant species to
minimize water demand. In addition, high efficiency irrigation systems would be installed to
reduce water waste. As such, the water demand of the proposed transit station would not
require the construction or installation of new water infrastructure. The City recently upgraded
the 12 -inch water mains that run along Colorado Avenue during the construction for the Expo
Light Rail Extension in order to better serve this corridor and improve water flow in Downtown
(Arden 2014). These new lines are expected to have a 50 -year lifespon, and the City does not
anticipate replacing them any time in the next 20 -50 years (Arden 2014). As such, the proposed
project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of existing facilities.
Therefore, impacts on water infrastructure would be less than significant, consistent with the
LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.13 -41 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant
effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation
measures would be required.
c) Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above in Checklist Question X(c -e) above, the transit
station would provide materially the same surface drainage area and produce a similar
volume of runoff as under existing conditions. Additionally, the drainage pattern would not be
altered and stormwater runoff would continue to flow to the existing municipal stormwater
system. The municipal stormwater conveyance infrastructure currently has adequate capacity
to accommodate the Project, and no downstream flooding is known to occur. Further, the
City's Department of Public Works would have final review and approval of all Project plans to
ensure that adequate drainage capacity is available. As result, the project would not require
or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities and a less than significant impact would result, consistent with the LUCE EIR (refer to
pg. 4.7 -35 through 4.7 -36 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects
would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures
would be required. Furthermore, the proposed transit station's potential impacts on storm
drainage capacity were previously analyzed in the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2
FOR (refer to pg. 3.10 -14 of the FEIR). The FEIR did not identify any significant impacts on storm
drainage capacity as a result of the Downtown transit station.
d) Less than Significant Impact. The City's water system is supplied from both groundwater and
imported sources. Groundwater is supplied by 1l wells; six wells are located 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 to treat groundwater
contamination in the Charnock Sub- basin. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California ( "MWD ") delivers imported water from the Colorado River and State Water Project
to the City.
The proposed project consists of a transit station and would not involve the development of
land uses that would generate a significant water demand. Given the transitory nature of
transportation users passing through the station, the proposed restrooms, kiosks, and retail carts
at the station would result in a minimal increase in demand for water at the project site.
Additional elements of the proposed project that would demand water include water
..
ID
City of Santa Monica
Inflll Project
Environmental Checklist
features, water fountains, and increased landscaping. As these uses do not require potable
water, recycled water from the Santa Monica Urban Runoff & Recycling Facility (SMURRF)
could be used to satisfy this demand. Therefore, sufficient water supplies are available to serve
the proposed project and there would be no impact, consistent with the LUCE FIR (refer to pg.
4.13 -51 through 4.13 -53 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more significant effects
would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new mitigation measures
would be required.
f,g) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of a transit station and would not
involve the development of land uses that would generate significant solid waste. Given the
transitory nature of transportation users passing through the station, the increase in solid waste
generation at the project site is anticipated to be minimal. This minimal increase in solid waste
generation could continue to be accommodated by the landfill currently serving the project
site. Construction waste generated during construction of the proposed transit station would
be recycled in compliance with SMMC Section 8.108.010, Subpart B, which requires that
demolition and /or construction projects greater than $50,000 or 1,000 sf in size divert at least 70
percent of C &D material from landfills. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to
comply with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Therefore, impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant, consistent with the
LUCE EIR (refer to pg. 4.13 -51 through 4.13 -53 of the LUCE EIR). No new specific effects or more
significant effects would occur as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, no new
mitigation measures would be required.
67
Oty o'
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Environmental Checklist
a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve landscaping, minor building
improvements, and circulation modifications within the project site to create an integrated
transit plaza /station. The proposed project's potential to degrade the quality of the
environment has been analyzed in this Infill Checklist, the LUCE EIR, and the Expo FEIR. All
impacts to the environment have been determined to be less than significant or less than
M
Substantially
Less Than
Within the
Mitigated by
Significant
Scope of
Uniform
Potentially
(LTS) or LTS
Less Than
Analysis. in
Applicable
.Significant
with
'Significant
the Plan
Development
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
Level EIR
Policies
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
❑
®
El
®
❑
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
project are considerable
❑
®
❑
®
❑
when viewed in connection
with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the
effects of probable future
projects.
c) Does the project have
environmental effects that will
cause substantial adverse
❑
®
❑
®
❑
effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
a) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve landscaping, minor building
improvements, and circulation modifications within the project site to create an integrated
transit plaza /station. The proposed project's potential to degrade the quality of the
environment has been analyzed in this Infill Checklist, the LUCE EIR, and the Expo FEIR. All
impacts to the environment have been determined to be less than significant or less than
M
ID
City of Santa Monica
Infill Project
Ynnln Monio° Environmental Checklist
significant with mitigation. The proposed project would not 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. As discussed in
Section IV (Biological Resources), because the project site is completely developed and
located in an urbanized area within the City, the proposed project would have no impact on
habitat or protected plant or animal species. The proposed project would not eliminate
important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. As discussed in Section
IV (Cultural Resources), impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant because no
historical resources are located within the project site and it is unlikely that archeological or
paleontological resources would be encountered because the area has been previously
disturbed and grading and excavation would be minimal.
b,c) Less than Significant Impact. Based on the analysis provided in this checklist, the proposed
project would proposed project would not result in any significant impacts on an individual or
cumulative level and would not result in any significant adverse effects on human beings. The
proposed project's potential impacts have been analyzed in this Infill Checklist, the LUCE EIR,
and the Expo FEIR.
M