The URL can be used to link to this page

SR 09-27-2016 11A Ci ty Council Report City Council Meeting : September 27, 2016 Agenda Item: 11.A 1 of 5 To: Mayor and City Council From: Susan Cline, Director , Public Works, Water Resources Subject: Resolution Adopting the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Proje ct and Project Approval Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the environmental revie w phase of planning the City of Santa Monica’s proposed Sustainable Wate r Infrastructure Project (SWIP) which takes an integrated approach to treating stormwater runoff, brackish groundwater, and municipal wastewater for beneficial (non -potable) reuse. Ex ecutive Summary The City is in the process of applying to the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to fund the City’s Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP). The City’s proposed SWIP utilizes an integrated water resources approa ch to advance treat stormwater runoff, brackish/saline -impaired groundwater, and municipal wastewater for immediate non -potable reuse in accordance with state regulations and County of Los Angeles Public Health Department Guidelines and, when properly perm itted, for indirect potable reuse via aquifer recharge. The project would support the City in achieving its goal of water self -sufficiency by 2020, while improving beach water quality and providing for compliance with new State non -point source pollution c ontrol regulations. Following guidelines from the State Water Board, an environmental evaluation was a required part of the funding application process. A California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) w as prepared for the SWIP (Attachment B). The IS/MND determined that the SWIP would no t have a 2 of 5 significant impact on the environment with the implementation of certain mitigation measures. This report recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution fo r the final IS/MND, thereby completing an important step in the State Water Board funding application process for the SWIP. Background On January 26, 2016, the City Council adopted a resolution (Attachment C ) authorizing City staff to file applic ations wi th the State Water Board requesting funding from various State programs including Proposition 1 and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), and to negotiate funding for the proposed SWIP with the State Water Board. Currently, the City’s water supply is a combination of imported water and local groundwater. Long term, the City is committed to become sustainably independent from imported water by continued conservation and increasing reliance on its groundwater resources. For non -potable reuse, the Cit y has historically harvested and treated urban runoff at its Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF). However, a drying climate and the City’s successful conservation efforts have reduced the amount of runoff available at the SMURRF. Increas ingly, forward -thinking water experts and public agencies are taking a “One Water” approach that integrates fresh water supply; stormwater reuse and flood control; wastewater reuse ; and groundwater management as interrelated opportunities. The SWIP adopts this framework to help secure the City’s water future by leveraging use of existing City infrastructure and by linking together three distributed water reuse elements into a single cohesive and comprehensive project. Advance d treated water (runoff, bracki sh impaired groundwater, and municipal wastewater) produced from the SWIP would be used to meet existing permitted non -potable reuse demands such as landscape irrigation . When properly permitted, a significant portion of the advanced treated water would be utilized for future indirect potable reuse via aquifer recharge . Combined, the three SWIP elements would produce approximately 1,680 acre -feet per year (AFY ) of new water. The SWIP has three basic elements (Attachment D ) all designed to function as a coh esive and integrated system for the harvesting, treatment and conjunctive reuse of all nonconventional water resources that are available to the City (i.e. stormwater, 3 of 5 brackish/saline impaired groundwater, and municipal wastewater). SWIP Element 1, a shallow brackish/saline impaired groundwater supply well, would be installed in geologic sediments beneath the Beach Maintenance Yard to replenish a City stormwater harvest tank near the Santa Monica Pier during dry weather. The City recently received a $3.7M Clean Beaches Initiative grant to construct this 1.6 million gallon tank. Runoff and impaired groundwater from the tank would be piped to the City’s existing SMURRF. As part of Element 1, the SMURRF would also be upgraded with the installation of a c ontainerized reverse osmosis unit capable of treating both captured stormwater and brackish/saline impaired groundwater for permitted non -potable distribution and future permitted indirect reuse (aquifer recharge). SWIP Element 2 would provide a source of recycled water for permitted conjunctive reuse via the construction of a new below ground Advanced Water Treatment Facility to treat up to 1 million gallons per day (MGD) of municipal wastewater. Treatment would include , among other things, membrane b ioreactors, membrane filtration, reverse osmosis, and advanced oxidation. Future permitted reuse may include, among other things, irrigation and aquifer recharge. SWIP Element 3 would include added infrastructure to further improve stormwater harvesti ng and reuse. Two below -grade runoff harvest tanks totaling 4.5 million gallons would reduce ocean discharges and divert the harvested runoff to the treatment facility . One tank would be constructed upgradient beneath Memorial Park and the other below grou nd at a location on the Civic Center Parking Lot. The subject tanks also provide for compliance with new State Enhanced Watershed Management Plan for Santa Monica Bay Jurisdictional Group 2 and 3 and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permit requirement s for nonpoint source pollution control, and would help improve beach water quality by decreasing the amount of runoff discharged to the ocean at the Pico -Kenter Outfall . Discussion Environmental review of the potential impact of nearly all proposed pr ojects is required under California law as well as the terms of the anticipated State funding . An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared pursuant to State Water Board requirements for project funding and Sections 15063 (c) and 1 5070 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to determine whether any significant impacts to the environment would result from the SWIP. A draft IS/MND was circulated for a 30 -day public review period beginning on July 19, 2016, ending on August 20, 2016. Public notification (Attachment E ) included a printed announcement in the Santa Monica Daily Press on July 19, 2016, posting of the draft CEQA document to the City’s Water Resources Division website, and mailed notifications to the Stat e 4 of 5 Clearinghouse, relevant agencies, and all City addresses within 500 feet of the SWIP element sites. Several comment letters and an e -mail were received from the public. Staff prepared responses to all comments. Those materials are presented in the f inal IS/MND. The final IS/MND determined that the proposed SWIP would no t result in significant impacts to the environment with the incorporation and implementation of mitigation measures in the areas of Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Construct ion Effects. Mitigation measures include the use of cultural resource monitors during earth disturbing activities, and biological resource monitoring (birds and bats) during construction. Construction effects will be mitigated by adherence to City Municipa l Code pertaining to work hours. Less than significant or no impacts would occur with respect to Aesthetics/Shadows, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Reso urces, Population and Housing, and Public Services, Utilities, and Mandatory Findings of Significance. To ensure mitigation measures are properly implemented, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting P rogram has been prepared and will be enforced during const ruction and operation of the SWIP. The proposed mitigation measures are provided in the final IS/MND. Financial Impacts and Budget Actions There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. The cost of the project is approximately $56 million. The City is currently seeking a combination of State grant money and low interest financing to fund the project. Staff will return to Council if specific budget actions are required in the future. 5 of 5 Prepared By: Ch ris Aguillon, Water Resources Protection Specialist Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. Attachment A: Resolution for the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) B. Attachment B: Fin al Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) C. Attachment C: Janu ary 26, 2016 Staff Report for the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) D. Attachment D: Figure of the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) Project Elements E. Attachment E: Published Notice of Intent (NOI) Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 Prepared for: City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Prepared by: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 180 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura, California 93003 Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for: City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, California 90401 Prepared by: Ri ncon Consultants, Inc. 180 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura, California 93003 August 2016 This document i ncludes minor revisions to the Santa Monica Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration [MND] (S tate Clearinghouse No. 201 6071056 ). The minor revisions do not change the conclusions in the MND , and are indicated throughout this Final MND using underline and strikeout . This report is printed on 50% recycled paper. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page i T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Page Initial Study ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Project Title ........................................................................................................................................... 2 2. Lead Agency Name and Address .................................................................................................. 2 3. Contact Person and Phone Number .............................................................................................. 2 4. Project Location .................................................................................................................................. 2 5. Project Applicant/ Sponsor’s Name and Address ....................................................................... 2 6. General Plan Designation ................................................................................................................. 2 7. Zoning ................................................................................................................................................... 3 8. Description of Project ......................................................................................................................... 3 9. Su rrounding Land Uses and Setting ..............................................................................................10 10. Project Approvals Required ............................................................................................................10 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .............................................................................................1 4 Determination .................................................................................................................................................1 5 Environmental Checklist ................................................................................................................................1 6 I. Aesthetics/ Shadows ........................................................................................................................1 6 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...............................................................................................1 9 III. Air Quality ...........................................................................................................................................21 IV. Biol ogical Resources ........................................................................................................................2 6 V. Construction Effects .........................................................................................................................30 VI. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................31 VII. Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................................3 5 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................................................3 9 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................4 2 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................................4 5 XI. Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................................5 1 XII. Mineral Resource s .............................................................................................................................5 5 XIII. Neighborhood Effects ......................................................................................................................5 6 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page ii XIV.Noise ....................................................................................................................................................57 XV.Population and Housing ..................................................................................................................60 XVI.Public Services ...................................................................................................................................61 XVII.Recreation .........................................................................................................................................63 XVIII.Transportation/Traffic .......................................................................................................................64 X IX.Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................................67 X X.Mandatory Findings of Significance .............................................................................................72 R eferences .......................................................................................................................................................75 Response to Comments on t he Draft IS/MND ..........................................................................................79 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ..................................................................................... 121 List of Figures Figure 1 Project Location Map ....................................................................................................................12 Figure 2 Project Site and Vicinity .................................................................................................................13 List of Tables Table 1 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................22 Table 2 SCAQMD LST’s f or Emissions in SRA -2 ............................................................................................23 Table 3 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ....................................................................24 Table 4 Existing Development Adjacent to the Proposed Project Elements ......................................30 Table 5 Zoning Requirements for the Project Site ....................................................................................52 Table 6 Project Consistency with the Goals and Policies of SCAG and LUCE ...................................53 Table 7 Project Typical Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment ...................................58 Table 8 Utilities Serving the City of Santa Monica ....................................................................................69 Table 9 Solid Waste Facilities Serving the City of Santa Monica ...........................................................71 List of Appendices Appendix 1 CalEEMod Calculations Appendix 2 Biological Resources Review Appendix 3 CNDDB Summary Table S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page iii Appendix 4 Critical Habitat Historical Range Appendix 5 Section 106 Findings Appendix 6 Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Appendix 7 Alternate Wate r Sources Guidelines S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page iv This page left intentionally blank S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 1 of 1 2 4 I NTRODUCTION This document is an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to evaluate po tential environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed Sustainable Water Inf rastructure P roject (also referenced herein as “SWIP” or the “project”). The proposed project is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, this document has been prepared in compliance with the relevant provisions of CEQA and the 201 6 State CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of Santa Monica. This IS/MND evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects associated with the proposed project. P URPOSE AND L EGAL A UTHORITY Under CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. Seq.) and the 2015 State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Monica as lead agency is required to analyze the potential environmental impacts of a project. Senate Bill 88 (SB 88) signed into law in 2015, made changes to the CEQA review process for recycled water projects. Specifically, SB 88 provides a narrowly tailored CEQA for a class of water recycling projects that will not impact sensitive environments . The purpose of the bill was to address the State’s extreme d rought conditions. These regulations are written in CEQA Section 21080.08 , which state that: “(a) This division does not apply to a project that satisfied both of the following: 1) The project is approved or carried out by a public agenc y for the purpose of mitigating drought conditions for which a state of emergency was proclaimed by the Governor on January 17, 2014, pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2 of Government Code 2) The project consists of c onstruction or expansion of recycled water pipeline and directly related infrastructure within existing rights of way and directly related groundwater replenishment, if the project does not affect wetlands or sensitive, and where the construction impacts a re fully mitigated consistent with applicable law (b) This section shall remain operative until the state of emergency due to drought conditions declared by the Governor in the proclamation issued on January 17, 2014 has expired or until January 1, 2017, w hichever occurs first, and as of January 1, 2017 is repealed unless a subsequent statute amends or repeals that date.” Although the SWIP is a recycled water project that is statutorily exempt from CEQA as set forth in Section 21080.08 of CEQA , the City of Santa Monica has prepared this IS/MND to qualify for State Revolving Fund financial assistance from the State Water Resources Control Board. This IS/MND addresses all environmental issues listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Based on the analysis p rovided within this IS/MND, the City has concluded that the project will not result in significant impacts on the environment. This IS/MND, which is ultimatel y required to be adopted by the City Council , is intended as an informational document. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 2 of 1 2 4 CITY OF SANTA MONICA I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION A ND N EIGHBORHOOD I MPACT S TATEMENT 1. Project T itle: Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) 2 . Lead Agency Name and A ddress: City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 904 0 1 3. Contact Person and Phone N umber: Tom Watson (310) 458 -82 35 tom.watson@smgov.net 4. Project L ocation: The p roject site is located in the City of Santa Monica , in western Los Angeles County. Primary impr ovements associated with the p roject will occur at the existing Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF), Santa Monica Civic Center p arking l ot , and Memorial Park, as shown i n Figure s 1 and 2, and discussed in Section 8. The street addresses f or these locations are provided below. Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility 1625 Appian Way Santa Monica, CA 90401 Civic C enter (parking lot ) 1855 Main St. Santa Monica, CA 90401 Memorial Park 1401 Olympic Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90404 5. Project A pplicant/Sponsor's Name and A ddress: City of Santa Monica Department of Public Works 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 6. General Plan D esignation: Oceanfront – SWIP Element 1 (SMURRF and City Beach Maintenance Yard ) Parks and Open S pace – SWIP Elements 2 and 3 (Civic Center p arking l ot and Memorial Park) S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 3 of 1 2 4 7. Zoning: Oceanfront (OF ) – SWIP Element 1 Parks and Open Space (OS ) – SWIP Elements 2 and 3 8. Description of P roject: The City of Santa Monica Sustainable Water Infrastructure P roject (SWIP) consists of three integral project elements : • Element 1: Brackish/Saline Impaired Groundwater Treatment and Reuse • Element 2: Recycled Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Conjunctive Reuse • Element 3: Stormwater Harvesting , Treatment , and Reuse T ogether t hese elements will provide for advance treatment and reuse of brackish /saline - impaired groundwater, recycled municipal wastewater, and stormwater runoff. Tangible benefits of the SWIP include the following : • Harvest up to 4.5 million gallons (MG) of stormwater from any single storm event for treatment and permitted reuse • Improve beach and bay water quality through the reduction of stormwater discharges • Comply with State Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and Enhanced Watershed Management P lan (EWMP) stormwater nonpoint source pollution control measures for Santa Monica Bay • Recycle 1.0 million gallons per day (MGD) of municipal wastewater for permitted reuse, including future indirect potable reuse via aquifer recharge • Treat up to 0.5 MGD of stormwater and/or brackish -saline -impaired groundwater for permitted beneficial reuse • Conserv e over 1,680 acre -feet per year (AFY ) (5 47.4 MG) of groundwater or imported water • Reduc e energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the production and transport of imported water The purpose of the SWIP is to contribute to existing programs and plans aimed toward achieving water supply sustainability, as discussed below. Clean Beaches Initiative - Dea u ville Tank Project. To improve beach water quality and increase the amount of stormwater available for treatment and reuse at the SMURRF, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) recently awarded a Clean Beaches Initiative (CBI) g rant to the City. These funds will be utilized to construct a set of modular , underground , stormwater storage tanks immediately north of the Santa Monica Pier beneath the Deau ville p arking l ot (Deauville). The tanks will have a capacity of 1.6 MG (i.e., 85 th percentile storm event) and will harvest runoff from the City’s Pi er Drainage Area . Additional discussion of the CBI project is provided under Element 1. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 4 of 1 2 4 Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP). T he SWIP furthers the stormwater control measure goals of the Santa Monica Bay Jurisdictional Groups 2 and 3 EWMP, a requi rement of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) Permit Order Number R4 -2012 -0175 . The MS4 permit was adopted by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LA RWQCB) in 2012 . T h e EWMP contains strategies to address water quality objectives that can be implemented to achieve required target load reduction (e.g., bacterial total maximum daily load or TMDL) of water quality constituents in the Santa Monica Bay watershed (City of Lo s Angeles et al. 2015). Element 3 of the SWIP will implement two Regional EWMP Projects: the Memorial Park stormwater tank BMP and Santa Monica Civic Center p arking l ot stormwater tank BMP . A dditional discussion is provided under Element 3. City of Santa Monica Sustainable Water Master Plan . In 2013 , the Santa Monica City Council adopted the City's Sustainable Water Master Plan , which include s a provision for the City to be “water self -sufficient ,” or independen t from environmentally -costly , imported water by the year 2020. To work toward achieving this goal, the City will rely upon a mix of the following efforts: • W ater conservation , • R ehabilitation of existing water supply wells to improve water production , • P ilot testing of an advanced groundwater treatment technology for the City's Olympic sub -basin , • I nstallation of new supply wells , and • C onstruction of a large new drinking water treatment facility . Together these measures will bring the City close to achieving its goal of being water self - sufficient , but a dditional steps are required , including the harvesting, treatment , and reuse of all available water resources , to ensure water sustainability and the long -term yield of groundwater resources. Available , nonconventional water resources includ e municipal was tewater , urban and stormwater runoff, and brackish/saline -impaired groundwater. Each element of the SWIP (collectively referred to as the “proposed project”) is described in detail below. For the purpose of the SWIP MND, “non -potable use” includes without limitation all non -potable reuse permitted or approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH 2016 ) including toilet flushing, and future permitted indirect potable reuse via aquifer recharge . Each e lement of t he SWIP (collectively referred to as the “proposed p roject”) i s described in detail below. Element 1 : Brackish/Saline Impaired Groundwater Reuse . When completed, this element of the SWIP will achieve the following : • Conserve groundwater and reduce the City's dependence on import ed water by providing a supplemental source of water to the separate CBI (Deauville) Project tanks when runoff is scarce , • Produce approximately 560 AFY of advanced treated water for permitted reuse from non conventional res ources (stormwater and /or brackish /saline -impaired groundwater), S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 5 of 1 2 4 • Pilot test modular water treatment systems that could be deployed elsewhere in the State (e.g., other mid -sized cities, the Central Valley etc.), • I ncrease the City's drought resiliency and sustainably replenish groundwater re sources via aquifer recharge (e.g., indirect potable reuse), and • Provide a teaching platform for local schools and universities . The City’s Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF) is located just south of the Santa Monica Pier Bridge between Appian Way and Moomat Ahiko Way. In order to achieve the Element 1 outcomes listed above, the City will upgrade the SMURRF by installing container - based, modular, reverse osmosis (RO ) and pretreatment un its capable of advance treating brackish/saline -impai red groundwater. Water produced after these upgrades will be of a higher quality than that currently produced by the SMURRF and must meet CCR Title 22 and Title 17 requirements. T he City’s SMURRF currently treats and removes pollutants from dry -weather , ur ban runoff and some stormwater runoff for non -potable reuse. The SMURRF is designed to treat up to 0.5 MGD, but drought and the City’s conservation efforts have reduced the treated output of SMURRF to around 80,000 to 135,000 gallons per day. As part of th e SWIP , t he City will also install a shallow impaired groundwater extraction well at its existing Beach Maintenance Yard , located adjacent to the City’s CBI Project (a separate project from the SWIP ). The CBI Project involves construction of a n underground , stormwater harvest tank capable of storing 1.6 MG of stormwater (85 th percentile storm) from any single precipitation event. The SWIP Element 1 well will eventually be use d to increase the efficiency of the SMURRF by replenis hing the CBI tank when runoff is scarce. All water retained in the CBI tank will be piped to the RO -upgraded SMURRF for advanced treatment and beneficial reuse. The extraction well will be approximately 100 to 150 f ee t deep and will not penetrate deeper aquifers used to supply water t o the City which are generally deeper than 400 f ee t below the ground surface. E xtraction will occur in a shallow , water -bearing zone where a mixture of freshwater and salt water is expected depending on the depth of the well. The extraction well will be go verned by smart monitoring technology and will only pump when the stored water level in the CBI tanks reaches a pre -established level. When operational, it is estimated that the extraction well will pump between 200 and 300 gallons per minute, depending on replenishment requirements determined by the smart monitoring technology . Previous subsurface investigations have found that the fresh groundwater gradient slopes toward the ocean , where the groundwater becomes impaired by mixing with salt water. Availab le City pumping data have indicated that the location of the extraction well does not conflict with any future salt water intrusion barrier the City may construct to protect its deeper supply aquifers. Initially , the advanced treated water from SMURRF w il l be distributed through the City's existing reclaimed (purple) pipe system for non -potable use . When the advanced treatment system is fully operational and permitted, the City will begin to use a portion of this water to replenish its g roundwater aquifers via injection for indirect potable use (discussed further in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality). T he RO c oncentrate produced by the RO -upgraded SMURRF and at the SWIP recycled waste water treatment facility w ill be blended with C ity sanitary sewer flo w s for treatment at the existing City of Los Angeles Hyperion Treatment Plant . To help offset the energy demand at the upgraded SMURRF, s olar panel arrays w ill be constructed at the SMURRF and two adjacent locations (Pico -Kenter SMURRF pumping station, an d City Parking Lot #1 -South). Together the panels will generate approximately 52,800 kilowatt - hours (kWh ) per year , to be used primarily to help power the project ’s supervisory control and S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 6 of 1 2 4 data acquisition (SCADA ) and smart monitoring technology . This will allow for the remote operation and control of water and wastewater facilities. Direct energy was calculated as a sum of the SWIP elements ’ energy consumption and savings . The solar panels will be installed in a flat orientation on top of the RO container at SMURRF , and flat at the existing tank at the nearby SMURRF -related pumping station at the Pico -Kenter outfall. The solar panels installed across Appian Way from SMURRF at City Parking L ot #1 -South as a parking sunshade will also be installed in a flat c onfiguration. In total, it is estimated that the SWIP will save the City approximately 202 megawatt -hours (MWh ) in direct energy each year (one MWh is equivalent to 1,000 kWh). A majority of the annual direct energy savings is attributed to the energy tha t is avoided by reducing the City’s use of imported water. When project construction and operati onal energy use i s considered, the SWIP will help the City conserve approximately 800 MWh over the 30 -year project ed life of the SWIP . T he upgrades included und er the SWIP Element 1 make extensive use of existing infrastructure . T herefore t he estimated duration of construction is only six to eight months , including permitting and construction of the shallow extraction well. The offsite prefabrication of the RO un it will take approximately four months, with installation and start -up taking another two to four months (i.e., six to eight months total). The installation of the well is expected to take approximately three weeks and will be accomplished concurrent ly wit h the installation of the SMURRF RO container. Soils generated by the drilling will be drummed and tested for contaminates prior to lawful disposition in accordance with applicable laws and regulations . It is estimated that the well will generate ten to tw elve drums of soils (or approximately one covered roll -off bin). No ground disturbance other than the shallow well boring will occur under Element 1. As designed, the existing SMURRF treatment operator will manage the improvements described in Element 1. T he treatment operator may be assisted by a part -time staff member on an occasional and as -needed basis. Element 2 : Recycled Water Production and Conju n ctive Reuse . When completed, the recycled water treatment element of the SWIP (Element 2) will provide wa ter compliant with CCR Title 22 and Title 17 standards and the following beneficial outcomes: • Advance treat and recycle approximately 1.0 MGD of municipal wastewater for immediate non -potable reuse, • Allow for conjunctive reuse, when permitted, via aquifer recharge for indirect potable reuse, • Capacity to advance treat and reuse harvested stormwater diverted to the facility from the SWIP Element 3 stormwater harvest tanks, • Provide for sustainable groundwater management and increased drought resiliency, • Result in annual groundwater or imported water reductions of approximately 1,120 acre - feet (AF) (i.e., 33,600 AF, or 10 billion gallons over 30 years), and • Achieve the goals of water resources reliability, restoration, and resilience set forth in the Governor's California Water Action Plan and the City's Sustainable Water Master Plan. As part of Element 2, the City will construct an underground, recycled water treatment facility at a location beneath the existing Civic Center parking lot. When completed, the recy cled water facility will be capable of advance treatment of up to 1.0 MGD of municipal wastewater. The S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 7 of 1 2 4 treatment plant will be sourced primarily by nearby City sanitary sewers and will utilize , among other things, membrane bio -reactor (MBR)-type technology and RO filtration. A seasonal secondary source of water for treatment and reuse will be stormwater harvested by the runoff storage tanks described in SWIP Element 3. Processed sludge and RO concentrate associated with treatment of the municipal wastewater will be cleared by discharging to the existing sanitary sewer system down -gradient of the plant, where it will blend with other City wastewater flows and be treated at the City of Los Angeles Hyperion Treatment Plant. Trash collected from the bar screens at the SWIP facility will be managed for weekly offsite disposition. It is anticipated the weekly volume of these materials will be equivalent to approximately one garbage truck. The advanced treated water produced by the recycled facility will be of a qua lity acceptable for immediate non -potable reuse, and eventually (when permitted) for injection towards the purposes of sustainable groundwater management and most importantly for indirect potable reuse. Treated water will be distributed via the City's exis ting purple pipe system for all planned uses. The treatment facility will be accessed by a stairway from the ground surface and by a separate service elevator. The access points will be secured to prevent entry by unauthorized persons. Facility ventilation will be provided by a dedicated air filtration and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. Any ventilation shafts or exhaust to the atmosphere will be permitted and monitored pursuant to applicable South Coast Air Quality Management Dist rict (SCAQMD) requirements. The MBR treatment train for the recycled water facility will be made up of modular and commercially available components including membrane bio -reactor cassettes, activated carbon air scrubbers, reverse osmosis skids, and ultra violet water disinfection units. The facility will also have cast -in -place anoxic and aeration basins and a clear well. The preliminary design of the underground facility includes a compact two -story footprint of approximately 9 ,200 square feet , with a n un derground height of approximately 30 feet. T he size of the excavation for the facility will be slightly larger than the constructed facility footprint in order to accommodate safe construction (approximately 12,000 square feet). As planned , the excavation will utilize engineered shoring to minimize the size of the excavation, and limit the amount of soil exported during construction. The r ecycled water treatment plant will be connected to the City ’s existing municipal wastewater system via a diversion struc ture located beneath Ocean Avenue. Connection to the Civic Center T ank, described below under SWIP Element 3, will be made by onsite piping . Other onsite project activities will include trenching for connecting pipelines need ed to access the sewer main whi ch will source the recycled water treatment facility, trenching for accessing the separate stormwater sewer used to convey the stormwater harvested in the Memorial Park stormwater tank down to the Civic Center p arking l ot stormwater tank, and construction of necessary diversion and pumping structures. The stormwater harvest tanks are described in SWIP Element 3. Under Element 2, ground -disturbing activities will include an excavation area of approximately 150 feet by 120 feet, or 0.41 acre for the recycled water facility (assuming engineering shoring). Up to a pproximately 6,2 00 cubic yards of soil may need to be exported during construction of SWIP Element 2. Export activities will be limited to 10 to 12 truck trips per day for this element , and will be time d to avoid midday traffic . Excess soils designated non -hazardous will be staged for reuse at the existing City Maintenance Yard located at 2500 Michigan Avenue in Santa Monica . Soils requiring offsite disposal will be transported and disposed pursuant to a pplicable laws and regulations. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 8 of 1 2 4 The actual duration of onsite construction for the SWIP recycled water treatment facility is estimated to be approximately 22 months from contractor notice to proceed (NTP), with onsite construction duration of approximatel y 520 days . It is planned that the below -grade Civic Center stormwater harvest tank described in SWIP Element 3 will be constructed concurrent ly with and adjacent to the recycled water treatment facility. After construction of the underground treatment fac ility, the existing surface parking in the Civic Center lot will be restored. However, the underground design of the treatment facility allows for other City redevelopment on the same property . Approximately one full -time employee will be required to staf f Element 2. This employee may be assisted from time to time by a part -time employee on an as needed basis. Element 3 : Stormwater Harvesting and Reuse . When completed, the stormwater harvesting element of the SWIP will : • Harvest and divert for advanced tre atment and beneficial reuse approximately 4.5 MG of stormwater from any single storm event that will ordinarily be discharged to the ocean at the Pico -Kenter Outfall; • Improve beach and Santa Monica Bay water quality by reducing the volume of stormwater dis charged to ocean at the Pico -Kenter outfall; • Provide for required MS4 and EWMP stormwater nonpoint source pollution control measure compliance; and • Contribute towards groundwater conservation and sustainability by providing an alternative source of water f or advance treatment and permitted beneficial reuse. In order to achieve the Element 3 outcomes listed above, the City will construct two stormwater control and harvest tanks , described below . These tanks will reduce the amount of stormwater discharges to the Pico -Kenter outfall. Element 3 will utiliz e the existing municipal separate stormwater sewer system (MS 4) to divert harvested stormwater runoff from the subject tanks to the Element 2 recycled water advanced treatment facility. • Memorial Park Tank . The underground Memorial Park Tank is a recognized stormwater best management practice (BMP) that will be capable of harvesting up to 3.0 MG of stormwater from any single precipitation event from the Pico -Kenter sub -watershed tributary area within the City. M emorial Park is located at the intersection of 14th Street and Olympic Boulevard. The Memorial Park tank w ill be constructed beneath the existing play field adjacent to the City’ Colorado Maintenance Yard and will harvest stormwater from two City storm dra ins : one beneath Santa Monica Boulevard with a diversion structure that goes from 15th Street to the Park ; and one beneath Broadway, also with a diversion at the intersection with 15th Street. Under current conditions, flow from these two storm drains is d ischarged to the ocean at the Pico -Kenter ou tfall, where stormwater is known to have adverse impacts on the beach and Santa Monica Bay water quality primarily due to fecal bacteria . After a storm event , the M emorial Park tank will slowly release its conte nts to the down - gradient Civic Center T ank (described below) via the City’s existing storm drain system. The Civic Center Tank will gradually release its contents into the source water feed to the proposed recycled water advanced treatment plant (SWIP Elem ent 2). S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 9 of 1 2 4 Excavation associated with the Memorial Park Tank will encompass an area of approximately 23,260 square feet, or 0.53 acre (assuming a 172 -foot -diameter circular and sloped excavation, including a 10 -foot pre -stress leeway ). To the exten t feasible , excavated soils will be managed on site. It is e stimated that approximately 17,800 cubic yards of soil may be exported to the City Maintenance Yard located at 2500 Michigan Avenue for reuse , requiring a maximum of 20 to 25 truck trips per day , which will be timed to avoid mid -day traffic . Soils determined to require offsite disposal, if any, shall be transported and disposed pursuant to applicable laws and regulations. The M emorial Park T ank will be connected to the City’s existing storm drain system by mi cro tunneling beneath existing surface and buried infrastructure. The project will also include construct ion of two stormwater diversion structures in the City streets adjacent to the tank. • Civic Center Tank . The second stormwater control measure BMP inclu ded under Element 3 is a n underground 1.5 -MG stormwater harvest tank adjacent to the SWIP Element 2 recycled water treatment facility. The Civic Center Tank is designed to accomplish the following: 1) Reduce stormwater discharges at the Pico -Kenter outfall, i mprove beach water quality , and comply with MS4 and EWMP nonpoint source pollution control requirements ; and 2) Function as a settling tank for stormwater collected at the Memorial Park Tank which, after a storm event, will be diverted down the City's existi ng sewer system (MS4) to the recycled water facility for eventual treatment. As described above for the Memorial Park Tank, the Civic Center Tank will receive flows from the Memorial Park Tank via the City’s existing storm drain system, and will then rele ase flows to the recycled water treatment plant included under SWIP Element 2. Excavation associated with the Civic Center Tank will encompass an area of approximately 50 feet by 135 feet, or 0.15 acre (assuming modular tanks and engineering shoring). To the exten t feasible, excavated soils will be managed on site. It is e stimated that approximately 8,458 cubic yards of soil may be exported to the City Maintenance Yard for reuse , requiring a maximum of 10 to 12 truck trips per day, which will be timed to av oid mid -day traffic. The Civic Center Tank will be connected to the storm drain system and the recycled water treatment plant included under Element 2 by a diversion structure and pumping station constructed beneath City property. Both the Memorial Park Ta nk and the Civic Center Tank will be constructed entirely underground , utilizing either modular tanks or st andard cast -in -place methods . Excavation depths for each tank will be approximately 20 to 30 feet, and will employ engineered shoring , or be sloped t o accommodate safe and efficient construction. Due to the underground construction design, a portion of the excavated soils will be used to backfill around and over the tanks. To the exten t feasible, excavated soils will be managed on site. Non -hazardous e x cess soils will be exported for reuse to the City Maintenance Yard. Soils requiring offsite disposal shall be transported and managed pursuant to applicable laws and regulations. The release of stormwater water from both tanks will be monitored and governe d by smart technology sensors and Supervisory Control a nd D ata Acquisition (SCADA) monitoring . In the event of an emergency, such as closely -spaced large storm event s that could overwhelm the capacity of the Element 3 tanks , the smart technology will diver t stormwater from one or both tanks to the existing sanitary sewer for treatment at the City of Los Angeles ’ existing Hyperion S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 10 of 1 2 4 Treatment Plant. To determine the amount of water to be diverted to the sanitary sewer, the smart technology will analyze real -ti me weather forecast and rain gauge data. I n order t o maximize constructability efficiencies, the Memorial Park Tank and Civic Center Tank will be constructed concurrently with the recycled water treatment facility (SWIP Element 2 ). The combined duration fo r onsite construction of the tanks is approximately 16 months , with total onsite construction duration of approximately 401 days . Upon completion of construction, existing land uses at each tank site will be restored (play field at Memorial Park and parkin g lot at the Civic Center, respectively). Operation and maintenance of the tanks will include annual inspections, and clean -out of sediments approximately every three to five years. The frequency of tank clean -out will depend on the number, frequency, and magnitude of storm events , as well as the quality of harvested stormwater. Access for inspec tion and cleaning will be via at -grade manways, secured with bolted metal lids. O ne part -time employee will be required to maintain the Element 3 tanks . 9. Surroun ding L an d Uses and S etting: The project site is located in the western portion of Los Angeles County, in the City of Santa Monica. As discussed above, the project consists of three integrated e lements, located on several sites in the City . S urrounding land uses are predominantly retail, commercial, and residential. The Pacific Ocean is approximately 1,000 feet from t he sites for Element 1, the SMURRF and the Beach Maintenance Yard . Table 6 (Development Adjacent to the Proposed Proj ect Elements) describes site -specific developments relevant to each of the project e lements. 10. Project A pproval s R equired : The proposed p roject will require review by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and the discretionary approval of the Santa Mon ica City Council prior to initiating construction. If appealed, the City Council will make decisions related to approval prior to initiation of construction . The proposed p roject will require other administrative and ministerial approval s by the City’s Bui lding and Safety Department and the Planning and Community Development Department . Specifically, the following reviews or approvals will be required: • Adoption of the MND (Santa Monica City Council); • Authorization to proceed with final design (Santa Monica City Council); • Approval of design and materials and landscaping (Santa Monica Architectural Review Board); • Review and approval, as necessary, by the Santa Monic/Malibu Unified School District; • Demolition and Construction p ermits (Santa Monica Building and Safety Division); • Traffic Control Plans (Planning and Community Development Department); • California Coastal Commission Permit (CCC); S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 11 of 1 2 4 • Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) in accordance with the most recent version of LACDPH Guidelines f or Alternate Water Sources: Indoor and Outdoor Non -Potable Uses (see Appendix 7); and • Any other incidental discretionary approvals needed from relevant agencies for the construction and operation of the proposed project and distribution and reuse of the ad vanced treated water (e.g. SCAQMD air quality permits). State or Regional Water Quality Control Board permits are not required for indirect reuse because groundwater recharge injection is not included as part of this infrastructure construction project. Th ese permits and approval s will be obtained under a separate review and approval process. Pico-Kenter Outfall Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Project Location Map Figure 1 City of Santa Monica ± Imagery provided by Google, ESRI and its licensors ©2016. SWIP Element 1 SWIP Element 2 SWIP Element 3 0 1,000 500 Feet ± ^_Santa Monica CALIFORNIA Sacramento San Francisco Santa Barbara ^_Project Location ¥¦405 ¥¦5 ¥¦10 ¥¦110 ¥¦710 SOUTHERN LOS ANGELES COUNTY August 20 16 Page 1 2 of 123 So u r c e : C i t y o f S a n t a M o n i c a , 2 0 1 5 Pr o j e c t S i t e a n d V i c i n i t y Figure 2 City of Santa Monica Su s t a i n a b l e W a t e r I n f r a s t r u c t u r e P r o j e c t In i i t i a l S t u d y / M i t i g a t e d N e g a t i v e D e c l a r a t i o n E E E Pi c o K e n t e r Ou t f a l l Sa n t a M o n i c a Ba y 4TH ST 1 1TH S T P I C O B L V D 2 0TH S T 14T H ST 17 TH S T PEARL ST L INC O L N BL V D B R O A D W A Y 12 T H S T 16T H ST 5 TH S T OC EA N AV E O L Y M P I C B L V D 6TH ST A R I Z O N A C O L O R A D O A V E 19T H S T 2ND S T H I L L S T O A K S T B EAC H F R O N T EUC L I D ST ID A H O A V E O C E A N P A R K BL VD 23 RD S T S A N T A M O N I C A F W Y MA IN S T C A LI F O R N IA A V E S A N T A M O N I C A B L V D M O N T A N A A V E W A S H I N G T O N A V E 28TH S T 7 TH C T 3RD S T 21S T S T STE W ART S T 25TH ST 22 ND ST 31ST ST 29TH ST 30TH ST P I N E S T 5 TH CT M A P L E S T H I L L P L N O R T H 3 2ND S T 33RD ST 26 TH ST A L T A A V E 16T H C T D EWEY ST 34T H ST C E D A R S T 18T H S T APP I A N WA Y S A N V I C E N T E B L V K A N S A S A V E NE ILS O N W A Y VIRG INI A AVE G R A N T S T G E O R G I N A A V E B A Y S T A D E L A I D 12 TH C T AIR PO R T A VE 9T H ST 27TH ST 9 TH C T 10 T H S T MARGUERITA AVE P A C I F I C S T 24TH ST 19 TH CT M I C H I G A N A V E E XPOSITION BLVD EU CLID C T B I C K N E L L A V E 2 4TH CT 18T H C T 1 1T H C T P I E R A V E DELA WAR E A VE 21ST CT UR BA N A VE P A LI S A D E S A V E CLOV E R FI EL D BLVD A S H L A N D A V E PA LI SAD ES B E A CH RD 20 T H CT T 17 TH CT 22ND C T 23RD CT 10T H C T S U N S E T A V E MAR IN E PL N ORTH G E O R G I N A P L N O R T H 27T H CT 26T H CT 25 T H CT MA RINE ST 3RD S T R E E T P R OM PIER P L N O RTH S A N T A M O N I C A P I E R P A L I S A D E S P L N O R T H 7TH S T 1S T C T 4TH C T 6 TH CT O L Y M P I C D R BR Y N M A W R A V E 3RD C T N A V Y S T 2N D CT S T R A N D S T R A Y M O N D A V E GLE N N AV E 15T H CT A L T A P L N O R T H B EVE R L E Y AVE WE L LE S L E Y D R NAVY PL N O RTH P I C O P L S O U T H W I L S O N P L ASHLAND PL NORTH PICO PL NORTH S A N V I C VIL LAGE PKWY CLOV E R FIEL D C T M O N T A N A P L N O R T H K E N S I N G T O N R D M A R G U E R I T A P L N O R T H P E N N S Y L V OCEAN PAR K PL SOU TH YORKS H IRE AVE WARW I CK AV E H O L L I S T E R A V E P I C O P L MA IN CT RO B SO N A V E T A F T W A Y G R A N T P L N O R T H MOO M A T A H IKO WA Y HI GH PL P A C I F I C P L N O R T H S E A S I D E T E R V I RGINI A P L NO R TH P I N E P L N O R T H L IND A L A N E M I L L S S T S C H A D E R D O Z O N E A V E D EWEY PL NORT H PAUL A D R P E A R L P L N O R T H M A P L E P L N O R T H C E D A R P L N O R T H B E A C H S T OCE A N WA Y W O O D L A W N C E M E T E R Y R D V IC E N T E T E R R A Y M O N D P L N O R T H FR A NK S T STEWART CT O C E A N P A R K P L N O R T H C O P E L A N D C T 11T H CT 5 TH C T 7T H C T C E D A R S T 9 TH C T 5T H S T 21ST ST 2 0T H C T 2N D S T 12T H C T 4T H C T 14 TH CT T 7TH CT 15T H S T 10T H C T 15T H CT B A Y S T 17TH S T 7TH CT 1S T C T 4 TH CT 14T H CT 1ST CT 1 9TH C T A S H L A N D P L N O R T H L INC O L N C T 17 T H C T EUC L ID C T 7T H C T 16T H C T 1 1T H C T 1 6T H CT 12T H CT 1ST C T 19 TH C T 10TH ST CL OVE R F IE LD B L V D C ENT I NELA A VE 9TH C T B A Y S T 10 TH CT 14 TH S T P I C O P L S O U T H L IN CO L N C T 26TH ST 11TH C T B A Y S T L IN COL N C T VI R G I N I A A V E 3R D C T 15T H C T M A P L E S T D E L A W A R E A V E NAV Y S T 4 TH C T 9TH ST 4TH CT 18TH CT 18T H C T 5T H CT A S H L A N D A V E 2N D CT S T R A N D S T 1 5TH C T 4T H CT P A C I F I C S T 6TH CT 5TH S T 6TH C T 7T H ST 4TH C T 2ND C T 1 ST C T 1 5TH S T 1 5T H CT 4 TH C T H I L L S T 1S T CT 14T H CT 14T H C T H IL L S T 12T H ST 5TH C T P I C O P L S O UT H 21S T C T 16 TH C T H I L L P L N O R T H 12 TH C T 2 1ST CT 9TH C T P A C I F I C S T 12T H S T 5TH CT 18 T H CT 19T H ST B A Y S T 16T H ST 9TH CT 2 0T H CT 1 0T H CT R A Y M O N D A V E 6 TH S T 22 ND ST 10T H C T 20T H C T 2 7TH ST 7TH ST 9T H CT 10T H C T 1S T CT 6TH CT 11TH S T 11 T H ST 10T H ST 9TH C T 6T H CT 9 TH C T OCE A N AV E 23RD CT 22N D ST 11 TH C T O C E A N P A R K P L S O U T H B A Y S T 19 TH C T 1 8T H CT A S H L A N D P L N O R T H 18T H ST 3R D CT 7TH CT T 2 4TH C T 18 TH C T 18T H S T 31 S T ST EUC L I D S T 6TH C T 1 2TH C T 1ST C T 18TH C T 18 TH CT 3 4TH S T 11 TH CT 3R D C T 27TH CT 18TH S T 2N D CT 4TH C T A L T A P L N O R T H M IC H I G A N A V E 1S T CT 12T H C T EUC L I D ST 2ND C T 17T H C T EU CLID CT 18T H CT 18TH ST 10T H CT 6T H CT 25TH ST 1 6TH S T 7T H CT EUC LI D ST EU CL ID C T 5 TH CT 9TH CT 7TH S T E UCL I D C T 1 2TH C T 19T H C T PIE R AVE LIN COL N CT M A R I N E S T SU NS E T AV E 14T H C T 1 6TH C T 21S T ST 3 RD ST 11T H CT O L Y M P I C B L V D 7TH C T H ST 20T H CT S T R A N D S T 22ND C T 1 0TH S T 11T H C T 3 RD C T ® SW I P E W M P T r i b u t a r y D r a i n a g e A r e a T o t a l : 2 2 3 . 9 a c r e s Pi e r S t o r m D r a i n B a s i n Pi c o - K e n t e r S t o r m D r a i n B a s i n Pr o p o s e d N e w P i p i n g St o r m D r a i n D i v e r s i o n s E Fl o w D i r e c t i o n Ex i s t i n g S a n i t a r y S e w e r L i n e s Ex i s t i n g S t o r m D r a i n L i n e s Ex i s t i n g R e c y c l e d D i s t r i b u t i o n L i n e s !( SW I P E l e m e n t 1 : S M U R R F R O / B r a c k i s h W e l l !( SW I P E l e m e n t 2 : R e c y c l e d W a t e r T r e a t m e n t P l a n t SW I P E l e m e n t 3 : E W M P S t o r m w a t e r H a r v e s t T a n k s !( Sa n i t a r y S e w e r D i v e r s i o n #*#* / 0 30 0 F e e t August 20 16 Page 1 3 of 12 3 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 14 of 12 4 E NVIRONMENTAL F ACTORS P OTENTIALLY A FFECTED : The environmental factors checked below would be po tentially 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 /Shadows Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Construction Effects Cultural Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazard ous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Neighbo rhood Effects Noise Population/Housing Publ ic Services Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 16 of 1 2 4 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Signific ant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS /SHADOWS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substan tially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing v isual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? e) Produce extensive shadows affecting adjacent uses or property? Existing Setting The proposed project will occur at three developed sites in the urbanized area of the City of Santa Monica. The existing visual character is typical of an urban area, with mixed commercial, residential, institutional, and recreational land uses. Buildings range in size from low -scale on e - to three -story buildings to taller multiple -story buildings. The public streets in the area are predominantly lined with sidewalks and ornamental trees. The project sites are currently developed as follows: • Element 1 – SMURRF (RO unit) and City Beach Ma intenance Yard (impaired groundwater extraction well); • Element 2 – Civic Center p arking l ot (underground recycled water treatment); and • Element 3 – Memorial Park (underground stormwater harvest tank) and Civic Center p arking l ot (underground stormwater ha rvest tank). A scenic vista is typically defined as a view of highly valued , visual and scenic resources such as the ocean and distant mountain ranges, particularly from public vantage points. The Santa Monica Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Program (LUP) identifies the beach and the bay/ocean, the Pier, and the Palisades bluffs as Santa Monica’s m ajor scenic resources. The LCP LUP also identifies S anta M onica P ier ’s upper outdoor dining deck as a protected public area from which to view these scenic r esources. Further more , both the LCP LUP and General Plan Scenic Corridor Element identify the Santa Monica (I -10) Freeway, Pacific Coast Highway (PCH)/Palisades Beach Road, and Ocean Avenue as scenic corridors with views of these scenic resources. There ar e no State -designated scenic highways in Santa Monica. The PCH is eligible for designation as a scenic highway by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), but it is not currently designated as such by either the State or the County of Los An geles. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 17 of 1 2 4 Discussion a -b) Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will not damage scenic resources related to a S tate scenic highway or locally designated scenic corridor , because there are no scenic highways officially designated by the S tate in the project site vicinity. Pacific Coast Highway (PCH ), which is eligible for state scenic highway designation , is located just northwest of the SMURFF . The only a bove -grade features of the project include the modular RO units proposed at the SMURRF (Element 1), a s mall wellhead structure and well protection posts at the existing Beach Maintenance Yard , and a section of piping associated with the proposed groundwater extraction well . These features will not be visible from PCH , due to exist ing intervening obstruction between PCH and the SMURFF (i.e., Moomat Ahiko Way, McClure Tunnel), existing vegetation and fencing around the SMURFF , and elevation difference . Thus, the project will have no permanent impact to scenic highways or scenic resou rces. c) Less Than Significant Impact . The project sites are currently developed as described above. A bove -grade features of the proposed project will be limited , consisting of the modular RO and pretreatment unit s proposed at the existing SMURRF (Element 1), as well as a small wellhead structure, protection posts, and section of piping associated with the proposed groundwater extraction well. The modular RO and pretreatment unit s will be installed at the SMURRF and will not exceed the height or size of the existing facility. The facility is currently surrounded by vegetation and fencing that block views into the facility. The proposed groundwater extraction well will be located in the City’s existing B each Ma intenance Ya rd adjacent to the City’s CBI Project (Deauville p arking l ot), north of the Santa Monica Pier. This site is currently surrounded by privacy fencing and contains maintenance equipment and materials storage , including several large , steel containers. The addition of a small wellhead structure, protection posts, and piping running from the structure to the underground CBI tank will not substantially alter the visual character of the site. Additionally, the proposed solar panels on top of the RO container at the SMURRF , at a parking sunshade stru cture at adjacent City Parking Lot #1, and at the existing tank at the SMURRF pumping station near the Pico -Kenter outfall , will be installed in a flat orientation and as such, will not obstruct views or adversely impact surrounding visual character . Views of the project area are provided below; additional views of existing conditions are provided in Appendix 5. Photograph 1. View northeast of Element 1 Solar Panels Photograph 2. View to southeast, Beach Maintenance Yard Other above -ground features of the project include the stairway and service elevator enclosures that access the underground recycle water treatment facility (Element 2). These structures will be designed to have a low profile, be secure from public access, and to blend with existing structures and architecture on the site . S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 18 of 1 2 4 All other key project infrastructure will be underground upon project completion. By constructing the key project elements underground , the project areas will be visually consistent with the existing area . Because m ost project features will be underground , they will not result in permanent visual changes to the existing environment. Due to the low profile of the proposed sustainable water infrastructure feature s , the proposed project will not substantially alter the character of the project areas. During construction, excavation , and construction , equipment will temporarily alter the visual character of the sites. However, the construction sites will be screened from public view with temporary fencing in accordance with standard City requirements . Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. d -e) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the proposed project will be predominantly underground . T herefore, the project elements will not create new sources of light or glare in the project area. Similarly, they will not produce shadows that could affect adjacent uses. The elements of the project that will be above -grade include the modular RO and associated pretreatment units, the wellhead and piping associated with the groundwater extraction well, the solar panels , and the stairway and supply elevator structures associated with the recycled water treatment facility . The modular RO and pretreatment unit s will be installed at the existing SMURRF and will not subs tantially change the light and glare currently associated with the facility. Given its location within an existing water treatment facility, the RO unit s will not produce extensive shadows that could affect adjacent land uses or properties. The solar panel s will be installed in a flat orientation on top of the RO container at SMURRF , and at the existing tanks at the SMURRF pumping station near the Pico -Kenter outfall. The solar panels installed across Appian Way from SMURRF at City Parking Lot #1 -South will be in a flat sunshade configuration ; the flat sunshade configuration will minimize glare to nearby visual receptors, and the panels will not introduce a substantial source of light or glare . Similarly, construction of the small wellhead structure, protect ive posts, and piping associated with the groundwater extraction well will not require exterior lighting. Therefore, these project features will not create a significant new source of light or glare on the project site. The wellhead structure will be locat ed in the City’s existing B each M aintenance Y ard, adjacent to the City’s CBI Project in the Deauville p arking l ot. Therefore, shadows produced by the structure will not have a substantial adverse effect on adjacent land uses or properties. Based on the lo w profile of the proposed sustainable water infrastructure features and lack of potential sources of substantial light or glare , impacts will be less than significant. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 19 of 1 2 4 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Le ss Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 A ssessment 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 environmen tal 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 pro ject; 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, o r 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, could result in conversion of Farmland to non -agricultural use? Existing Setting The sites of all three e lements of the SWIP project are fully developed and located in highly urbanized area s of Santa Monica. For Element 1, the City’s Gener al Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) designates the existing SMURRF and adjacent Parking Lot #1 -South and nearby Pico -Kenter outfall as Oceanfront and the site for the brackish/saline groundwater well as Parks and Open Space. The sites for both Element 2 and Element 3 are designated as S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 20 of 1 2 4 Parks and Open Space. T he sites of the different project e lements do not overlie any prime soils 1 and no agricultural land uses are present in or near the project vicinity. N o forest land or timberland zoning is pr esent in the surrounding area. The project vicinity is fully urbanized with mixed use, residential, and commercial buildings. Discussion a -e) No Impact . As described above, the LUCE designates the project site s as either Oceanfront or Parks and Open Space ; there are no land use designations for Agriculture on the project sites . Existing development on the project sites consists of the existing SMURRF, Beach Maintenance Yard , the Civic Center p arking l ot, and the City’s Memorial Park . No existing agricultur al land, forest land, or timberland zoning is present on the site s or near the project vicinity. The project will not involve the conversion of farmland to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use either directly or indirectly. A s a result, the project will not conflict with any existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract with existing zoning for forest land or timberland. Therefore, no impact associated with agricultural or forestry resources will occur . 1 “Prime Soils” are defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as land that has the best physical and chemical characteristics to produce forage, a nd fiber crops , and is available for these uses. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 21 of 1 2 4 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY . Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution c ontrol 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 substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutan t 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? Existing Setting The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which includes Orange County and portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside c ounties. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) monitors and regulates the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Basin. Air quality in the Basin is affected by both stationary and mobile sources , with a ir quality at a ny given location affected by a number o f factors, such as the quantity and type of pollutants emitted locally and regionally, and the dispersion rates of pollutants in the region. Primary factors affecting pollutant dispersion are wind speed and direction, atmospheric stability, temperature, th e presence or absence of inversions, and topography. The Basin frequently experiences weather conditions that trap air pollutants in the Basin, due to temperature inversions and periods of stagnant wind conditions. Santa Monica is located in the western co astal portion of the Basin, which has moderate variability in temperatures. To protect public health and welfare, federal and state governments have identified six criteria air pollutants and a host of air toxics, and established ambient air quality standa rds through the federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. Federal and State criteria air pollutants include : Carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), ozone (O 3 ), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM 10 ), fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5 ), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). Established standards represent levels of air quality considered safe from a regulatory perspective, including an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health a nd welfare. The entire Basin is currently designated as an extreme nonattainment area for O 3 , meaning that federal ambient air quality standards are not expected to be met for several years (USEPA , S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 22 of 1 2 4 2012 ). Additionally, the Los Angeles County portion of th e Basin is designated as a moderate nonattainment area for PM2.5, nonattainment area for Pb, and as a serious maintenance area for PM 10 and CO (USEPA 201 6 ). The basin is in attainment of federal standards for SO 2 and NO 2 , a subcategory of NOx. At the state level, the Basin is also designated as a nonattainment area for O 3 , PM 2.5 , and PM 10 . The Basin is in attainment for the state ambient air quality standards for CO, Pb, SO 2 , and NO 2 (ARB 201 6 , SCAQMD 201 6 ). The SCAQMD has divided the region into 38 source receptor areas (SRA) in which 32 monitoring stations operate. The City of Santa Monica is located in SRA 2, which covers the northwest coastal Los Angeles County area. SRA 2 is located at the Veterans Administration building in West Los Angeles, and monit ors measurements only for O 3 , CO, and NO 2 . Measurements for PM 2.5 , PM 10 , and SO 2 , are collected in SRA 1 in Los Angeles at the North Main Street monitoring station. Table 1 identifies SCAQMD significance thresholds for relevant ai r pollutants. Sensitive receptors (i.e., land uses sensitive to air pollutants) in the project vicinity include Santa Monica High School , located approximately 0.2 mile northeast of the Civic Center p arking l ot, and residential buildings located near and adjacent to all project elements . There is also a n approved early childhood education center planned for development on a portion of the Civic Center p arking l o t. Table 1 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance (Pounds/Day) Air Pollutant SCAQMD Threshold CO 550 NO x 100 SO x 150 VOC 75 PM 10 150 PM 2.5 55 Source: SCAQMD 2015 In addition to the above thresholds, the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) in response to the Governing Board’s Environmental Justice E nhancement Initiative (1 -4), which was prepared to update the CEQA Air Quality Handbook . LSTs represent the maximum emissions a project could generate without causing or contributing to an air quality exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard at the nearest sensitive receptor. LSTs consider ambient concentrations in each source receptor area (SRA), project size, distance to the sensitive receptor, and other factors, but LSTs only apply to emissions in a fixed location. As such, LSTs are not typically a consideration for project operation since the majority of operational emissions are generated by cars on roadways. Localized Significance Thresholds have been developed for emissions in construction areas up to five acres in size. The SCAQMD provides lookup tables for sites that measure one, two, or five acres. The individual Element site s would each measures less than one acre and are located in Source Receptor Area 2 (SRA -2) Northwest Coastal Los Angeles. LSTs for construction on a one - acre site in SRA 2 are shown in Table 2 . S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 23 of 1 2 4 Table 2 SCAQMD LSTs for Emissions in SRA -2 Pollutant Allowable emissions as a function of receptor distance in meters from a one -acre site (lbs ./day) 25 50 100 Gradual conversion of NO x to NO 2 103 104 121 CO 562 833 1,233 PM 10 4 6 13 PM 2.5 3 4 6 Source: SCAQMD, website: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default -source/ceqa/handbook/localized -significance - thresholds/appendix -c -mass -rate -lst -l ook -up -tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed January 2016. Note: The LST mass rate look -up tables are updated annually by SCAQMD with the most recent air quality monitoring data (Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, 2008). Mass rate LSTs for NO 2 ar e derived using an air quality dispersion model to back -calculate the emissions per day that would cause or contribute to a violation of any short -term AAQS for a particular SRA. According to the SCAQMD, the most stringent of the federal and State standard s for NO 2 is the one -hour State standard of 0.18 ppm (Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, 2008). The most recent LST for NO 2 is based on this standard. Discussion a) Less Than Significant Impact . A project is inconsistent with the AQMP for the Basin if its implementation would result in population and/or employment growth that exceeds growth estimates in the applicable air quality plan. For the proposed project, the applicable plan is the SCAQMD’s adopted 2012 AQMP , as a 2016 update of the plan is still in development . The AQMP relies upon growth projections developed and adopted by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which in turn rel ies upon cities’ adopted General Plan growth projectio ns. Consequently, compliance with a City’s General Plan typically results in compliance with the AQMP. In addition, the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Handbook states that a consistency finding should be based on identifying whether a project will increase the frequ ency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new air quality violations. The proposed project will generate temporary emissions during construction due to the use of equipment and vehicles; however, as discussed in Section XV, Population and Housing , the project will not induce or result in population growth . In the long -term, the project will result in a decrease in emissions due to the reduction in water importation, as well as energy generated by the solar panels include d under Element 1 . Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict with growth projections used in the current AQMP or otherwise cause violations of air quality standards . Potential impacts will be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact . The project area is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is currently identified as a nonattainment area for state and/or fed eral standards for O 3 , P M 10 , and PM 2.5 . Construction of t he proposed project will generate air pollutants due to the use of equipment for ground -disturbing activities (including excavations) and installation of proposed facilities, as well as for the use of trucks and passenger vehicles to transport workers and equipment to and from the construction sites . A majority of these c onstruction -related emissions will consist of NO x and PM 10 . The SCAQMD thresholds are identified above in Table 1 ; a s discussed above for criterion a), the project will be consistent with the current AQMP because it will not induc e or result in population growth. Additionally, over the long -term the project will decrease overall energy -water related S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 24 of 1 2 4 emissions by minimizing the need to import a water supply while also generating renewable energy through the proposed solar panels . Ap plicable s tate and local regulations that will be complied with as part of the project will limit the generation of construction -related emissions; a s required by the USEPA, California ARB, and the California Code of Regulations (CCR) (Title Division 3, Ch apter 9, Article 4, Sec. 2423(b) (1)), off -road diesel engines are required to meet at least Tier 3 Emission Standards for compression - ignition engines. Compliance with this requirement will reduce the potential generation of NOx and PM 10 emissions . In add ition , construction activity will occur in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which will requires preventative measures such as covering up haul trucks carrying dirt and properly cleaning streets in the vicinity. Compliance with this SCAQMD rule will minimize fugitive dust (PM 10 ) and NO x emissions. Emissions associated with the proposed project were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2. The proposed project’s construction -related impacts were calculated based on parameters such as the duration of construction activity, area of disturbance, and anticipated equipment used during construction. It was assumed that e quipment used for construction would include the following: drill rig, excavator, crane, compaction roll er, forklift, belly dump trucks, frontend loader , backhoe, concrete trucks, and materials delivery trucks. It was assumed that the project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 , which identifies thresholds for fugitive dust and is required to be implemented at all construction sites located within the Basin. The CalEEMod results are provided as Appendix 1. Table 3 summarizes the estimated annual emissions of pollutants during construction ; a s shown, project emissions would not exceed S CAQMD construction thresholds or Local Significance Thresholds for SRA -2 . Table 3 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Construction Year Maximum Emissions (pound s / day ) ROG NO x CO PM 10 PM 2.5 SO x 2018 Maximum Emis s ions 1.9 13.8 17.3 2.5 1.0 0.04 2019 Maximum Emissions 0.7 2.8 9.5 1.9 0.5 0.02 Maximum Daily Emission 1.9 13.8 17.3 2.5 1.0 0.04 SCAQMD Threshold s 75 100 550 150 55 150 Local Significance Threshold NA 103 562 NA 4 3 Threshold Exceeded? N o N o N o N o N o N o During operation of the project, small amounts of emissions will be generated due to v ehicle trips associated with new employee s (as discussed in the Project Description, the project will introduce one new full -time employee and up to two new part -time em ployees ); these trips will be minimal, as the project will primarily be monitored remotely using smart technology and SCADA . The refore, given the negligible amount of emissions, the project will not violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Potential impacts will be less than significant c) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project will result in temporary emissions during construction, but operational emissions will be m inimal, almost exclusively limited to the operation of workers’ vehicles to and from the project sites. T he project will introduce one full - time employee and up to two part -time employees, all of whom will be sourced from the local (Los Angeles County) wor kforce. Therefore, operational emissions associated with vehicle traffic S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 25 of 1 2 4 will be comparable to existing conditions and the project will not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions of criteria pollutants. Potential impacts will be less t han significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. S ensitive receptors near the project site include the Santa Monica High School and residential apartments adjacent to the SMURRF , and a planned future early childhood education center . The project will not substantially increase emissions of criteria pollutants, and therefore will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Potential impacts will be less than significant. e) Less Than Significant . Additionally, although constructi on of the project will include the use of heavy equipment and machinery to install underground infrastructure, these activities will be temporary and will not introduce objectionable odors. Operation and maintenance of the proposed project will include rem ote monitoring and periodic inspection and repair activities , but no permanent odor sources will be introduced. P otential for nuisance odors form the recycled water treatment plant will be mitigated by a robust air filtration system approved and permitted by the SCAQMD and by locating the facility vent pipes as far as practical from sensitive receptors. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 26 of 1 2 4 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Sign ificant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES . Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regio nal 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 limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal wetlands, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption o r other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corr idors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ord inance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation p lan? Existing Setting The City of Santa Monica is highly urbanized with areas of native wildlife habitat limited to the c oast along the Santa Monica State B each , and forested open sp ace areas in the Santa Monica Mountains located approximately 3.5 miles to the north. The p roject site consists entirely of developed and landscaped areas located within an urban city setting. Project Element 1 will be constructed at an existing water recy cling facility (SMURFF and Beach Maintenance Yard), Project Element 2 will be constructed under a paved parking lot at the Civic Center , and Project S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 27 of 1 2 4 Element 3 will be constructed at an existing facility and under the maintained play field turf of Memorial Park . The project sites do not support designated or recognized sensitive habitats or mapped critical habitat for any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Ca lifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Any use of the area by such species is rare, transient, or episodic. Species expected to occur onsite include terrestrial species such as squirrels and birds that ar e commonly found in urban environments. In addition, the project vicinity does not support any riparian habitat, wetlands, wildlife corridor/nursery site, or other sensitive natural community. T here are no conservation plans that apply to the project site A dditionally, a search was conducted of available electronic databases of sensitive species localities, including the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2016 ), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in -house data (unpublished data), and California Nativ e Plant Society (CNPS 2016). Previous surveys of projects that encompassed the study area or portions thereof were also referenced (Natural Environment Study for the Santa Monica Pier Bridge Replacement Project, prepared in 2016). An assessment of the stud y area location in relation to the known range of sensitive species of the region was conducted, focusing on the habitat resources available onsite to identify sensitive species known to occur in the region and assess their potential for occurrence in the study area . Discussion a) No Impact . The literature review and database search did identify a number of sensitive species known from the region. However, suitable habitat and conditions for the majority of these species do not occur on site or in the study area. Given the absence of biological habitats on the site or immediately adjacent to the site, sensitive species occurring in the region that rely on coastal sage scrub (i.e. California gnatcatcher, pacific pocket mouse), coastal salt marsh (i.e. salt ma rsh bird’s -beak), coastal waters (i.e. steelhead), freshwater/brackish marsh (i.e. western pond turtle, black rail), vernal pool, or playa/coastal dune habitats (i.e. least tern, snowy plover, El Segundo blue butterfly 2 ) do not occur on site. The p roject site consists entirely of developed and landscaped areas located within an urban city setting. Project Element 1 will be constructed at an existing water recycling facility, Project Element 2 will be constructed under a paved parking lot, and Project Eleme nt 3 will be constructed at an existing facility and under the maintained turf of a recreational park. Given the developed nature of the study area, habitat opportunities for sensitive species that occur in the region are limited. The presence of any sensi tive or special status species is therefore unlikely . Mature ornamental trees and mowed grass/turf are the only vegetation types present within the non -paved portions of the study area. Species likely to be found in developed/landscaped 2 The CNDDB species lists provided in Appendix 3 indicates that in the last 20 years there were two individual butterflies sighted or reports of butterflies near the larger Santa Monica area (e.g. reported r ange is from Ocean Park Beach located on the extreme southern edge of the City, south into the City of L os A ngeles. T here is no information that the subject insects are eradicated (i.e. extinct). Ocean Park Beach, the reported northern extent of the range for the El Segundo Blue Butterfly, is more than one mile from the SMURRF and Civic Center Park ing Lot (SWIP Elements 1, 2, and 3) and approximately 1.5 miles from Memorial Park (SWIP Element 3). Aside from the shallow brackish groundwater well to be instal led at the paved Beach Maintenance Yard, there is no land disturbing construction related to SWIP Elemen t 1. Regarding SWIP Elements 2 and 3, these areas are inland, urbanized, and are either paved or graded. Therefore butterflies are not anticipated to be present on the site or adjacent to sites where project - related ground disturbing activities will occur. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 28 of 1 2 4 areas onsite includ e common species that coexist with human activities such as American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos ), white -crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys ), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura ), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus ), rock dove (domestic pigeon; Columba liv ia), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus ), and house sparrow (Zonotrichia querula ). Common gull species found in Los Angeles County include the Western Gull (Larus occidentalis ); California Gull (Larus californicus ); Ring -billed Gull (Larus delawarensis ); Heerm an’s Gull (Larus heermanni ); and Bonaparte’s Gull (Chroicocephalus Philadelphia ). Less common visitors include Glaucous -winged Gull (Larus glaucescens ) and Common (Mew) Gull (Larus canus ). Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in impact s on sensitive species. b -c ) No Impact . No sensitive natural communities as defined by CDFW occur within the study area. Wetlands and waters regulated by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board under the Clean Water Act (§ 404 and 401, respectively) and CDFW under Fish and Game Code §1602, are absent from the proposed p roject work areas. As mentioned in the Existing Setting, the project site s are completely developed and located in highly urbanized areas of Santa Monica . T h e urbanized nature of the project area s and the currently developed states of the project site s are previously disturbed . No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community is present at the project site s . d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. T he Biological Resource Assessment p resented as Appendix 2 (Amec Foster Wheeler 2016 a ) for the project identified ornamental trees surrounding and mowed grass/turf in portions of the study area, including mature trees situated around the SMURRF. These lands caped areas could provide potential roosting habitat for nesting birds and roosting bats. Tree removal is not proposed as part of the p roject , but equipment will be staged and working immediately adjacent to numerous mature trees. This could result in dist urbance to potential adjacent bird nest or bat roost sites. Therefore, mitigation is required to reduce impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats to a less than significant level . Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1 Nesting Birds and Roosting Bats Survey . A pre -c onstruction survey for nesting birds and roosting bats shall occur prior to work during the nest ing season (January 15 - August 31). These surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 14 days prior to the start of construction staging or grou nd disturbance and reinitiated as needed after periods of inactivity at each p roject site. If nesting birds or bats are found, a non -disturbance buffer zone shall be implemented with input from the qualified biologist. Buffer zones shall be clearly marked with exclusion fencing/staking and signage. Biological monitoring shall be implemented if active nests or roosting bats are found to regularly assess their status and condition. Given the urban setting and the high baseline disturbance level, buffer zones can likely be focused to a limited area and, therefore, a specific distance is not provided. Nesting raptors (e.g., red -tailed hawk) typically warrant a larger zone than nesting passerines. If buffers are determined to be necessary (based on the survey), they can be adjusted based on work activities, monitoring results (e.g ., reaction of the animals), and the biologist’s judgment. Buffers shall be maintained until work has ceased in the identified area or the birds/bats are done nesting/roosting, as confir med by the biologist. Residual Impact : I mplementation of the recommended MM BIO -1 will reduce th e risk of adverse impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats to a less than significant level. No residual impacts associated with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -1 will occur. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 29 of 1 2 4 e) Less Than Significant Impact . The City of Santa Monica Tree Code (Section 7.40.160) and Urban Forest Master Plan require the protection of any tree, shrub, or plant in any street, sidewalk, parkway, alley, or other public prop erty in the City . There are trees and shrubs present around the perimeter of all the sites for the three elements of the proposed project. No trees are proposed to be removed as part of the proposed project, and trees and shrubs will be protected in accord ance with City requirements . Implementation of the project will not c onflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources . Potential impacts will be less than significant. f ) No Impact . As stated in the Environmental Setting discus sion above , the project site s are completely developed and do not support any sensitive habitat or wetlands. Accordingly, no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved habitat conservation plan applies to the project site s, and none will be affected by the project . No impact will occur. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 30 of 1 2 4 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V. CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS . Would the project: a) Have conside rable construction -period impacts due to the scope, or location of construction activities? Existing Setting The project is located at three project elements in the urbanized City of Santa Monica. The project sites are surrounded by a mixture of commercial, residential, institutional, and recreational land uses. Several land uses sensitive to increases in construction related noise and air pollutant emissions are located in proximity t o the project sites. Table 4 identifies land use and development surrounding the different project elements. Table 4 Existing Development Adjacent to the Proposed Project Elements Element 1 Santa Monica Pi er and beach , Deauville p arking l ot, residential apartments Element 2 Santa Monica Civic Center, Santa Monica High School Element 3 Memorial Park, Commercial Office Buildings, Santa Monica Community Maintenance Department Colorado Yards Some land uses are considered more sensitive to construction effects than other s due to the population groups or activities involved. Sensitive land uses in Santa Monica include residences, schools, churches, and libraries. Sensitive uses present in the vicinity of the p roject site include the residential apartments adjacent to the SMURFF (Element 1 ) and the Santa Monica High School located west of the Civic Center p arking l ot (Element 2 ). In addition, the planned future early childhood education center will be located ne arby the proposed recycled water treatment plant at the Civic Center Lot. Discussion a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction of the proposed project will result in short -term impacts . related to : aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse g as (GHG) emissions, noise, and traffic. To address construction traffic impacts, a Construction Impact Mitigation Plan shall be prepared and implemented (further discussed in Section XVIII Transportation/Traffic ). For discussion of construction -related imp acts for each of these issues, please refer to Sections III, Air Quality ; VI, Cultural Resources ; VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions ; XIV, Noise ; and XVIII, Transportation/Traffic of this IS/MND. To ensure that construction -related impacts will be less than si gnificant, mitigation measures have been identified for Biological Resources (Section IV) and Cultural Resources (Section VI). As discussed in the respective sections of this IS/MND, construction impacts will be less than significant or less than significa nt with mitigation. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 31 of 1 2 4 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES . Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a hi storical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, inclu ding those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Existing Setting Historic Resources . Seven properties in the City are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). How ever, none of these properties are located in or immediately adjacent to the project sites. The NRHP structure nearest to the project is the Santa Monica Looff Hippodrome building on the Santa Monica Pier, approximately 500 feet southwest of the SWIP Eleme nt 1 at the SMURRF. The City of Santa Monica adopted the Landmarks and Historic District Ordinance (1975) that allowed for the establishment of a Landmarks Commission to designate "Structures of Merit" and "Landmarks" and to make recommendations to the Cit y Council regarding the designation of potential "Historic Districts". The designated landmark nearest to the p roject sites is the Santa Moni ca Civic Auditorium, which lies approximately 300 feet west of the proposed location of the proposed recycled water treatment plant (Element 2 ) in the Civic Center p arking l ot. Archaeological Resources . There is evidence of human occupation of the Southern California mainland for as long as 13,000 years. However, many ancient sites may have been lost, inundated, or dee ply buried as a result of rising sea levels, marine transgression, erosion, aggradation, and other natural forces. No prehistoric sites are known in the immediate project vicinity. If prehistoric remains exist in the City of Santa Monica they most likely r epresent the past occupation by the Gabrielino/Tongva, which are known to have occupied territories in Los Angeles County. Although no archaeological sites are known to exist in the immediate project vicinity, the scarcity of previously identified archaeol ogical sites is not a reliable indicator of archaeological sensitivity. In highly developed urban settings, the original ground surface is typically extensively disturbed or not available for inspection . P rehistoric and historic archaeological deposits may be preserved beneath more recent earth materials. While surfac e deposits may have been obscured by development since 1875, the potential also exists that alluvial sediments eroding from higher elevations have covered older archaeological deposits over the millennia prior to 1875. Thus, archaeological deposits dating back thousands of years could be uncovered at unknown depths in the project vicinity. Such prehistoric archaeological deposits could provide important information about the occupation, settleme nt practices, economy, trade, and life ways of Native Americans during ancient times. The Archaeological and Historical Resource Study conducted for the project presented as Appendix 6 (Amec Foster Wheeler, 2016 b ) identified five previously recorded cultur al resources S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 32 of 1 2 4 in proximity to the project sites, including the Spencer House site and a Santa Monica Air Line segment. The Spencer House site is approximately 2,200 feet southeast of the Element 2 site and the Santa Monica Air Line segment is approximately 2,500 feet northeast of the Element 3 site. Paleontological Resources . The project sites are located in the Los Angeles Basin of coastal Southern California, one of several deep Cenozoic era basins that occupy the region. Locally, the basin contains more t han 32,000 feet of strata ranging from Miocene to Recent in age. The project site is underlain by Quaternary older surficial sediments of Pleistocene age (2.6 million years ago to 11,700 years before present [BP]). Quaternary older alluvial deposits of Ple istocene age have yielded significant vertebrate fossil localities throughout this region (UCMP 2015).3 These localities yielded fossil specimens of whale, sea lion, horse, ground sloth, bison, camel, mammoth, turtle, ray, shark, bird, mollusk, and foramin ifera. At least two localities have been documented nearby and from in the same sedimentary deposits that underlie the project area . Locality LACM 5462, located northeast of the project site, south of Olympic Boulevard and east of Cloverfield Boulevard, p roduced a fossil specimen of Felis atrox (extinct lion). Locality LACM 7879, located southeast of the project site near Rose Avenue and Penmar Avenue, produced fossilized specimens of Equus (horse) and Paramylodon (ground sloth). These fossil localities we re discovered at depths as shallow as six feet below the ground surface and from in Quaternary alluvium. Discussion a) Less Than Significant Impact . As discussed above, the project sites are currently developed with the SMURRF, the City’s Beach Maintenance Yard, Civic Center p arking l ot, and the City’s Memorial Park. The nearest identified historic resources to the project is the Santa Monic Civic Auditorium, which is designated as a Santa Monica Landmark and the Santa Monica Looff Hippodrome building , whic h is a National Historic Landmark (Amec Foster Wheeler 2016 b ). T he proposed project will construct a n underground recycled water treatment facility (Element 2) and an underground stormwater collection and storage tank in the Civic Center lot (Element 3). The underground footprint of the recycled water treatment plant and water tank will be approximately 375 f eet northeast of the Civic Auditorium. The p roject will not involve any modifications to this landmark or any other historic resources in the vicinity . Additionally, the p roject ’s installation of the modular RO unit in the existing SMURRF (Element 1) and the installation of an underground stormwater harvest tank at Memorial Park (Element 3) would not affect historic resources, since there are no histori c resources in close proximity to any of these sites . Therefore, potential impacts regarding the significance of a historical resource will be less than significant. b) Less than Significant with M itigation . The Archaeological and Historical Resources Stud y conducted for the project recommends monitoring of ground disturbing activities within 50 feet of project activities (Amec Foster and Wheeler 2016 b ); however, the project is not located within 50 feet of an identified site and therefore no monitoring is necessary. Based on site reconnaissance conducted in June 2016 , as well as inspection of historic aerial photography and property records, archaeological resources may potentially exist in the subsurface of the project sites . It is possible that other reso urces in the project site s or immediate vicinity have been displaced and/or built over without being properly recorded. The project vicinity may have provided a favorable environment for Native American settlement and, therefore, prehistoric archaeological deposits could be preserv ed at depth beneath the project sites . Project construction will involve excavation for underground water treatment and storage 3 Fossil refers to a recorded fossil site. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 33 of 1 2 4 facilities in areas (Civic Center P arking L ot and Memorial Park) that could potentially contain subsur face archaeological remains (e.g., artifact -rich middens). Excavation associated with the proposed underground recycled water treatment facility, and underground stormwater harvest tanks , has the potential to encounter buried archaeological deposits. There fore, a mitigation measure is proposed to ensure that any discovered resources shall be protected and curated if encountered during project construction. Accordingly, this impact will be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure : MM CR -1 I nadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources: In the event of an inadvertent discovery of prehistoric or historic -period archaeological resources during construction, the applicant shall immediately cease all work with in 50 feet of the discovery. The a pplicant shall immediately notify the City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department and shall retain a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) to evaluate the significance of the discovery prior to resuming any activities that coul d impact the site/discovery. This investigation shall be driven by a Treatment Plan that sets forth explicit criteria for evaluating the significance of resources discovered during construction and identifies appropriate data recovery methods and procedure s to mitigate project effects on significant resources. The Treatment Plan shall be prepared by an RPA familiar with both historical resources and prehistoric archaeological resources prior to further excavation or site investigation following initial disc overy. The Treatment Plan shall also provide for a final technical report on all cultural resource studies and for the curation of artifacts and other recovered remains at a qualified curation facility, to be funded by the applicant. If the archaeologist d etermines that the find may qualify for listing in the California Register, the site shall be avoided or a data recovery plan shall be developed. Any required testing or data recovery shall be directed by an RPA prior to resuming construction activities in the affected area. Work shall not resume until authorization is received from the City. Residual Impact : The implementation of MM CR -1 will reduce the risk of adverse impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level. No residual impac ts associated with implementation of Mitigation Measure CR -1 will occur. c) Less than Significant with M itigation : According to the CEQA Guidelines, impacts to paleontological resources are significant when a project is determined to disturb or destroy sci entifically important fossil remains, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Significant paleontological resources are defined as “identifiable” vertebrate fossils, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils that provide taphonomic, tax onomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, or biochronological data. These data are important because they are used to examine evolutionary relationships, provide insight on the development of and interaction between biological communities, establ ish time scales for geologic studies, and for many other scientific purposes. The project vicinity is underlain by Pleistocene age deposits that may have a demonstrated potential to reveal paleontological resources. Pleistocene age deposits have pr eviously yield ed identifiable vertebrate fossils in the vicinity of the proposed project and elsewhere in Southern California. E xcavations associated with construction of the proposed project’s subterranean elements could potentially impact such resources. Mitigat ion is necessary to ensure that resources discovered during project construction will be appropriately protected and curated. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 34 of 1 2 4 Mitigation Measure : MM CR -2 Inadvertent Discovery of Paleontological Resources : In the event that a paleontological resource is discovered during ground -disturbing activities associated with the project, work will immediately cease within 50 feet of the discovery and the find shall be assessed by a qualified paleontologist for scientific significance and collected for curation, if necessary. If significant resources are encountered, curation will occur according to accepted standards as recommended by the Paleontologist in consultation with City staff. Residual Impact : The implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CR -2 will reduce t he risk of adverse impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level. No residual impacts associated with implementation of Mitigation Measure CR -2 will occur. d) Less than Significant : Human remains have not been identified in the proj ect vicinity; however, human remains could be preserved at depth beneath the existing onsite building and surface parking lot, and the possibility exists that such remains could be uncovered during construction of the proposed project. California Health a nd Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an inadvertent or unanticipated discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. Specifically, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event human remains are discovered in a proposed project site, disturbance of the site shall be immediately halted. A qualified professional archaeologist shall inspect the remains and confirm that they are human, and notify the coroner in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Na tive American Heritage Commission (NAHC). As provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the NAHC shall identify the person or persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent makes recommend ations for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Compliance with existing regulations prescribed in California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, will ensure that impacts to human remains will be less than significant. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 35 of 1 2 4 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than S ignificant Impact No Impact 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: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as deline ated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including 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 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? Existing Setting The proposed project is regionally located in the northwestern Coastal Plain of the Los Angeles Basin in Los Angeles County. The City of Santa Monica is geologically bounded to the north by the Santa Monica Mountains, Elysian Hills, a nd Repetto Hills; to the east by the Merced Hills, Puente Hills, and Santa Ana Mountains; and to the south and west by the Pacific Ocean. Topography in the City consists of a gently southward sloping coastal alluvial plain. However, the surface topography of each of the project sites have been previously graded and are generally flat and developed . The project site s range from approximately 20 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the Beach Maintenance Yard to approximately 115 feet amsl at Memorial Park . S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 36 of 1 2 4 So uthern California is seismically active because numerous geologic faults occur in the region. No known active or potentially active faults are located in or proximate to the project sites, although there are numerous faults in the Los Angeles area that are categorized as active, potentially active, and inactive. Active and potentially active faults in and near the City of Santa Monica include the Newport -Inglewood Fault, the Santa Monica -Hollywood -Malibu Coast Fault, and the Palos Verdes Fault. Risks assoc iated with seismic activity at the project sites include the potential for tsunami and liquefaction events to affect site stability. In regards to tsunami risk, the Beach Maintenance Yard site (where a shallow groundwater well will be installed adjacent to the CBI tanks that are located beneath the Deauville p arking l ot for Element 1 is entirely in the City -identified inundation zone, and the SMURRF site for Element 1 is partially in the tsunami inundation zone (Santa Monica 2016). In terms of liquefaction, risks are limited to a linear area about 1,000 feet long, along the coastline stretching from the waterline of the Pacific Ocean, inland to Ocean Avenue. The Beach Maintenance Yard site lies in City -identified coastal liquefaction hazard zone . Element 1 w ill install a shallow brackish/saline groundwater extraction well at the Beach Mainten ance Yard, adjacent to the CBI tanks located beneath the Deauville p arking l ot and solar panels on a parking sunshade at City Parking Lot #1 -South.. All other project sit es are outside of City -identified liquefaction zones. Discussion a -i) Less Than Significant. Fault rupture is the displacement that occurs along the surface of a fault during an earthquake. The CGS designates Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, which ar e mapped regulatory zones around active faults.4 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 studie s are required to characterize hazards to habitable structures. No Alquist -Priolo Fault Zones have been identified in the City of Santa Monica to date (California Department of Conservation 1986). The City of Santa Monica, however, is crossed by the south branch and north branch of the Santa Monica Fault (City of Santa Monica 201 6 ). 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 n orth branch and 100 to 600 feet south of the south branch of the Santa Monica Fault. The project site s are not located in these zones as the closest site, Memorial Park, is approximately 2,500 feet south of the south branch and 7,0 00 feet south of the nort h branch. Additionally, no other known active or potentially active faults underlie the project site s . As such, the potential for fault rupture to occur at the project site is low. Therefore, impacts related to fault rupture will be less than significant. a -ii) Less Than Significant Impact . The project site s are located in the seismically active region of southern California and as such, will be potentially subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on the Santa Monica fault or other fau lt s in the area. The ground shaking that an area may experience is primarily a function of the distance to the seismic source, the type of material underlying a property, and the motion of fault displacement. The nearest known faults to the project site s a re the South Branch of the Santa Monica Fault located approximately 0.5 mile to the north, North Branch of the Santa Monica Fault located approximately 1.3 miles to the north, and the Newport -Inglewood fault located approximately 5.8 miles east of the Memo rial Park site . However, the proposed project consists of sustainable water infrastructure that will be largely below the ground surface and will not expose people or structures to potential adverse 4 Active faults are those having historically produced earthquakes or shown evidence of movement within the past 11,000 years. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 37 of 1 2 4 effects such as risk of loss, injury or death involving s eismic ground shaking . Therefore, impacts associated with ground shaking will be less than significant. a -iii) Less Than Significant Impact . Soil liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated, granular soils lose their inherent shear strength due to excess wat er pressure that builds up during repeated movement from seismic activity. Factors that contribute to the potential for liquefaction include a low relative density of granular materials, a shallow groundwater table, and a long duration and high acceleratio n of seismic shaking. Liquefaction usually results in horizontal and vertical movements from lateral spreading of liquefied materials and post -earthquake settlement of liquefied materials. Liquefaction potential is greatest where the groundwater level is l ess than 50 feet from the surface, and where the soils are composed of poorly consolidated, fine to medium grained sand. The project sites at the SMURRF , Civic Center P arking L ot, and Memorial Park are not identified as having soils susceptible to liquefac tion. However, Parking Lot #1 -South and the Beach Maintenance Yard are identified as having soils susceptible liquefaction along the coastline (Department of Conservation 1999 ; City of Santa Monica 2016). T he proposed solar panel parking shade at the Parki ng Lot #1 -Sout h and the shallow groundwater extraction well at the B each Maintenance Yard would not expose people or structures to liquefaction or exacerbate existing liquefaction risks . Therefore, implementation of the project will not expose structures o r people to potential adverse effects involving liquefaction. Impacts will be less than significant. a -iv) Less Than Significant Impact . Landslides occur when slopes become unstable and masses of earth material move downslope. Landslides are generally cons idered to be rapid events, often triggered during periods of rainfall or by earthquakes. The project site s and surrounding area s for Elements 2 and 3 of the proposed project are generally located in an area of flat topography and are not mapped as being in landslide hazard areas . Therefore t he probability of seismically induced landslides affecting any of the project site s for Element 2 and 3 of the project is considered remote . The SMURRF and Beach Maintenance Yard sites for Element 1 are located in proxim ity to slopes. The SMURRF is located beneath a slope coming off of Moomat Ahiko Way; however, the site is completely developed and the slope is contained with a concrete retaining wall as is the adjacent Parking Lot #1 -South . The SMURRF is not identified a s being in an area of mapped as a landslide hazard area (Department of Conservation 1999; City of Santa Monica 2016). The Beach Maintenance Yard is mapped as being in a landslide hazard area (Department of Conservation 1999; City of Santa Monica 2016). As discussed above, the project will construct a shallow groundwater extraction well on the Beach Maintenance Yard site; these features will not cause a landslide to occur, but may be inundated in the unlikely event that the bluff on the other side of the PCH from the site fails and a landslide event does occur. Implementation of the project will not expose people or structures to potentially adverse effects involving landslides. Impacts will be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact . Elements 2 and 3 of the proposed project will require excavation for installation of the underground stormwater harvest tanks as well as the underground recycled water treatment facility. The maximum excavation required will be approximately 30 feet below the exist ing surface grade for the proposed recycled water treatment plant in Element 2 and the stormwater harvest tanks in Element 3 . Excavations on the site s will be expected to expose fill and native soils. Construction activities will be conducted in accordance with applicable requirements, including the City’s Urban Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance to minimize soil erosion impacts. In addition, the project site s have generally flat topography and are currently developed with existing asphalt for parking lots and the playing fields at Memorial Park. Construction of the project will result in minimal soil exposure, and as such, the potential for erosion hazards is extremely low. Therefore, impacts with respect to soil erosion or the loss of soil will be less tha n significant. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 38 of 1 2 4 c) Less Than Significant Impact . As discussed above, the Beach Maintenance Yard (Element 1 ) is located in an area mapped as a potential landslide hazard area (Department of Conservation 1999; City of Santa Monica 2016 ). The proposed shallow groundwater extraction well at the Beach Maintenance Yard (Element 1 ) would be a minimal above -grade infrastructure. The well will be installed in compliance with standard engineering and design practices for safety and stability of the infrastructure and surrounding areas. Should weather and/or seismic conditions result in a landslide at this site, it is possible that the well head could be inundated, but the project itself will not result exposure people or structures to landslide, lateral spreading, subs idence, liquefaction, or collapse. Potential impacts will be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact . Expansive soils are soils that are generally clay -dominant , swell when wetted , and shrink when dried. Wetting can occur in a number of way s (e.g., absorption from the air, rainfall, groundwater fluctuations, lawn watering, broken water or sewer lines), and e xpansive soils located beneath structures can result in cracks in foundations, walls, and ceilings. Based on geotechnical reports prepar ed for the City’s Civic Center Parking Structure (north of the Civic Center p arking l ot), the area near the Civic Center is underlain by potentially expansive soils (Geotechnologies, 2005). The project site at Memorial Park (where the underground stormwate r harvest tank is proposed) is underlain by soils with low expansion potential (Leighton Consulting, 2010). As required by the City ’s Municipal Code , a geotechnical report will be prepared to provide specific recommendations for design and construction of the project based on the existing geologic conditions at the project sites . Construction of the proposed project will be required to adhere to the building and safety requirements in the City’s Building Code as well as the site specific recommendations in the geotechnical report. Therefore, with adherence to City requirements, impacts would be less than significant. e) No Impact. The proposed project will not involve the install ation of s eptic tanks or other wastewater disposal systems. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 39 of 1 2 4 Potentially Signi ficant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII . GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant im pact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Existing Setting The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates E arth’s temperature. Without the natural heat trapping effect of GHGs, Earth’s surface would be about 34° C cooler (CalEPA, 20 06 ). However, i t is believed that emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concent rations. Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) are the GHGs that are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO 2 are largely by -products of fossil fuel combustion. CH 4 results from fossil fuel combustio n as well as off -gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. N 2 O is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions that occur in fertilizers that contain nitrogen, fossil fuel combustion, and other chemical p rocesses. Scientific modeling predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates will induce more extreme climate changes during the 21st century than were observed during the 20th century. According to the CalEPA’s 2010 Climate Action Team Re port, potential impacts of climate change in California may include loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (CalEPA, 2010). California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” signed into law in 2006. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 16 percent red uction below 2005 emission levels; the same requirement as under S -3 -05), and requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 3 2 requires ARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. After completing a comprehensive review and update process, ARB approved a 1990 statewide GHG level and 2020 limit of 427 million metric tons (MMT) of CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 e). The Scoping Plan was approved by ARB on December 11, 2008, and included measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other measures. Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and Cap -and -Trade) have been adopted over the last five years. Implementation activities are ongoing and ARB is currently in the process of updat ing the Scoping Plan. In May 2014, ARB approved the first update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The 2013 Scoping Plan update defines ARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years and sets the groundwork to S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 40 of 1 2 4 reach post -2020 goals set forth in EO S -3 -05 . The update highlights California’s progress toward meeting the “near -term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original Scoping Plan. It also evaluates how to align the State’s longer -term GHG reduction strategies with other State policy pri orities, such as for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy and transportation, and land use (ARB 2014). Senate Bill (SB) 97, signed in August 2007, acknowledges that climate change is an environmental issue that requires analysis in CEQA documents. In March 2010, the California Resources Agency (Resources Agency) adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted guidelines give lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 is a California State Law that establishes a comprehensive program to reduce GHG emissions from all sources throughout the s tate. AB 32 requires the ARB to develop regulations and market mechanisms to reduce California’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, representing a 25 percent reduction statewide, with mandatory caps beginning in 2012 for significant emissions sources. The 2012 GHG emissions inventory (most currently available) for the City of Santa Monica accounted for electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel consumption, as well as solid waste generation in the City (City of Santa Monica 2013a). Total existing em issions in 2012 were estimated at approximately 794,892 metric tons (MT) of CO 2 e, approximately 14 percent below the 1990 emission total of 924,293 MT of CO 2 e. Transportation emissions were 38 percent of total GHG emissions while commercial, residential, i ndustrial, and solid waste represented 30 percent, 21 percent, 6 percent, and 5 percent, respectively. Electrical consumption is a substantial contributor to indirect GHG emissions, though Southern California Edison maintains a relatively high proportion o f generation from renewable sources. Total per capita GHG emissions from the City in 2012 were estimated to be 8.8 MT CO2e per person, compared to 12.1 MT of CO 2 e per person for the state (City of Santa Monica 2013 b ). Discussion a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. Greenhouse gas emissions will occur onsite during construction activities from mobile sources such as vehicles and machinery used to install the proposed project features. Emissions will also occur during project operations, but will be primarily limited to the use of trucks and vehicles to access project sites for inspections and repairs, as needed. Overall, the proposed project will result in energy savings by minimizing the need to import environmentally costly surface water supplies from distan t watersheds . The current 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 threshold s developed by other public agencies or other expert entities, such as the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), as long as the threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence. Because the SCAQMD has not adopted GHG emission s thresholds that apply to land use projects where the SCAQMD is not the lead agency and no GHG emissions thresholds or qualifying local GHG reduction plan have been adopted in the City of Santa Monica , the proposed p roject is evaluated based on the SCAQMD ’s recommended/preferred option threshold for all land use types of 3,000 metric tons CO 2 e per year (SCAQMD, 2010). Therefore, the p roject’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions and climate change would be cumulatively considerable i f the p roject would produce in excess of 3,000 metric tons CO 2 e/year. Based on the CalEEMod modeling results (Appendix 1 ), construction activity for the project would generate an estimated 373.1 metric tons CO 2 e. For the purpose of comparing S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 41 of 1 2 4 construction emissions with annual emissions from operation of the proposed project, it is useful to amortize them over a 30 -year period (the assumed life of the project). Thus, construction of the proposed project would generate an estimated 12.4 metric tons CO 2 e per year. T herefore, impacts of construction related emissions would be less than significant. Operation and maintenance of the project will not introduce GHG emissions that are inconsistent with the existing environment, as the project’s minimal staff will be drawn from the local workforce , thereby avoiding the introduction of new commuters. Further, t he project will reduce the City ’s current reliance on imported water . For every 2.5 billion gallons of avoided import ed water associated with water savings under the project, approximately 8.9 million kWh of energy use and 5.256 million kg GHG emissions will be avoided . Because the project will ultimately decrease energy expenditures associated with providing a sustainable water supply to the City , potential impac ts associated with GHG emissions will ultimately be beneficial. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 42 of 1 2 4 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I X. 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 enviro nment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous o r acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material s 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 airpo rt 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? 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 significa nt risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Setting No ide ntified past operations on the project sites have involved the use or storage hazardous materials, and none of the project sites are listed on the State of California EnviroStor Database as a known hazardous waste clean -up site. The closest hazardous mater ials sites identified in the S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 43 of 1 2 4 project area are two voluntary clean -up sites with no further action required in the southern edge of the Downtown District (DTSC , 201 6 a ). The California GeoTracker database identifies an active remediation effort for a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) to the southeast of the Civic Center parking lot site, across Pico Boulevard (CWRCB 2016). N o existing structures on the project sites will be demolished as part of the project. Discussion a) Less Than Significant Impact . D uring construction activities for the project, typical hazardous materials will be used at the site, including hydraulic fluids, paints /sealers , cleaning materials, and vehicle fuels. The use of these materials during project construction will be short -ter m in nature and will occur in accordance with standard construction practices, as well as with applicable federal, state, and local health and safety regulations. Construction activities will not create a new hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The project would install a modular RO unit and associated pretreatment units at the existing SMURRF, and construct a n underground recycled water treatment facility at the Civic Center p arking l o t. The recycled water treatment facility will be comprised of modular and commercially available components including membrane bio -reactor cassettes, activated carbon air scrubbers, RO skids, and ultraviolet water disinfection units. The facility will also have cast -in -place anoxic and aeration basins and a clear well. Operation of these facilities will not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of unusual or large quantities of hazardous substances. Any hazardous materials used or generated throug h operation of these facilities will be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Potential impacts associated with the transport, use, and storage of ha zardous or potentially hazardous materials during construction and operation will be less than significant. Potential impacts to human health associated with treated non -potable water reuse will be less than significant. The quality of water for reuse will be in compliance with CCR Title 22 and Title 17 as determined by LA County Department of Public Health through their permitting process and their Guidelines for Alternate Water Sources: Indoor and Outdoor Non -Potable Uses. b) Less Than Significant Impact . The proposed water treatment facilities will be used to treat stormwater runoff and municipal waste water from the Santa Monica sanitary sewer. The proposed stormwater harvest tanks will store stormwater runoff in a n underground configuration. Construction and operation of the proposed project will not involve the storage, use, or disposal of unusual or large quantities of hazardous materials. No structures will be demolished as a result of project implementation, and there is no risk of the accidental rele ase of asbestos -containing materials (ACM) or lead -based paint (LBP). It is possible that a release of materials such as vehicle fuels could occur during project construction or operation; however, adherence to standard safety and operational practices wil l minimize such occurrences and ensure proper clean -up should a leak or spill occur. Therefore, impacts related to the accidental release of hazardous materials will be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact . The schools nearest to the proj ect sites are the Crossroads Elementary School, approximately 650 feet northeast of Memorial Park (Element 3 ), and Santa Monica High School, approximately 400 feet northeast of the Civic Center parking lot (Element 2 ). The proposed project will not emit ha zardous emissions or handle hazardous waste. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant d) Less Than Significant Impact . The following databases were searched for listings of hazardous materials sites in proximity to the project sites: • GeoTracker: T his database is maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board ; S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 44 of 1 2 4 • EnviroStor : This database is maintained by the State Department of Toxic Substances Control and contains sites listed on the Cortese Lise; • RCRAInfo: U.S. EPA’s comprehensive informati on system providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 ; • State Water Board’s list of solid waste disposal sites with waste constituents above hazard ous waste levels (SWRCB, 2016a); • State Water Board’s list of active Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (SWRCB, 2016b); and • California Environmental Protection Agency’s lists of active Cease and Desist Orders (“CDO”), Cleanup and Abat ement Orders (“CAO”), Contaminated Solid Waste Disposal Sites (DTSC, 2016 b ). Review of the databases listed above found no listing of the project sites as hazardous sites due to accidental contamination/spills or handling of hazardous materials. The hazar dous material site nearest to the project is an open remediation case for a LUST, approximately 200 feet southeast of the Civic Center P arking L ot (Element 2 ) across Pico Boulevard. Sampling at the LUST site indicates that contamination is stable and decre asing. Further, sampling at the LUST site indicates a southwest groundwater flow direction (Stratus Environmental Inc. 2016). Therefore, contamination will not migrate to the Civic Center P arking L ot . Impacts will be less than significant. e -f) No Impact . Santa Monica Municipal Airport is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of Element 3 and 1.75 miles east of Element 2. The project sites are not located in the area covered by an airport land use plan (County of Los Angeles, 2003 ). The project will not involve placing people or structures in proximity to aircraft operations and no risks to life or property from airport operations will occur as a result of the project. Therefore, no impact will occur . g) Less Than Significant Impact . The proposed projec t will not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or a local, state, or federal agency’s emergency evacuation plan. Operationally, the project will not materially change the characteristics of the project site in a way that will alter emergency response or evacuation plans. Further, as discussed in Section XVIII, Transportation/Traffic , construction will occur in accordance with a City -approved Construction Impact Mitigation Plan, which will reduce traffic impacts on nearby s treets and ensure that e E mergency access to the project site will be maintained at all times during construction. As such, the proposed project will not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. h) No Impact . The project sites are located in the urbanized City of Santa Monica, and are surrounded by commercial and residential uses. The project site s are not located adjacent to or intermixed with wildlands. As such, the proposed project will not subject people or structures to a substantial risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of exposure to wildland fires. Therefore, no impacts will occur. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 45 of 1 2 4 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mit igation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre -existing near by wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or si lt a tion on - or off -site? d) Substant ially 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? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water 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 would impede or redi rect 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? S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 46 of 1 2 4 Existing Setting The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) divides surface watersheds in California into 10 hydrologic regions. The proposed project lies in the South Coast Hydrologic Region (HR), a large coastal watershed in southern California (C alFIRE 2004). The South Coast HR spans approximately seven million acres and is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the north by the Transverse Ranges, on the east by the Colorado River HR, and on the south by the international boundary with Mexico (DWR, 2003). The DWR subdivides Hydrologic Regions into Hydrolog ic Units (HU), and further into Hydrologic Areas (HA) and Hydrologic Subareas (HSA). In the South Coast HR, the proposed project is located in the Santa Monica Bay HU (C alFIRE 2004). The Los Angeles RWQCB governs basin planning and water quality in the San ta Monica Bay HU (LARWQCB 1994). In the Santa Monica Bay HU, the City is situated entirely in the Upper Santa Monica Bay HA (C alFIRE 2004). A ccording to the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), a verage precipitation in the project area totals approximat ely 12.6 inches annually, with most of the rainfall occurring from December through March. Average temperatures range from summertime maximums in the low 70s (degrees Fahrenheit) to wintertime minimums in the upper 40s (WRCC 2016). Most of the project area is occupied by urban development with highly altered drainage systems, such as concrete -lined washes and underground stormwater systems. The topography of the project area is generally flat and slopes gently to the west, towards the Pacific Ocean. The nea rest National Hydrography Dataset named streams include: Ballona Creek, Centinela Creek Channel, the Grand Canal, and Sepulveda Channel. The Grand Canal flows roughly north to south, parallel to the coastline in the cities of Marina del Rey and Venice. Bal lona Creek flows roughly east to west through the cities of Culver City and Playa Vista, and discharges to the Santa Monica Bay just south of Marina del Rey. Centinela Creek Channel and Sepulveda Channel are tributary to Ballona Creek, with their confluenc es located west of I -405. Areas that are subject to flood risk are identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on the National Flood Hazard Layer. Flood hazards can occur when the amount of rainfall exceeds the infiltration capacity of the surrounding landscape or the conveyance capacity of the stormwater drainage system. Flood risk is defined as an annual percent -chance of flooding, or the probability that flooding will occur in any given year. A 100 -year flood will, on average, occur once every 100 years, so the probability of a 100 -year flood occurring i n any particular year is one percent . FEMA designates most of the proposed project area as Zone X, which is an area of minimal flood hazard. A small strip of land near the shoreline is des ignated as being subject to flooding from the 500 -year flood (0.2 percent annual chance of flooding). The shallow groundwater extraction well is the only proposed project component that falls in the 500 -year flood hazard zone. The project sites are underla in by the Santa Monica Subbasin of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin (DWR 2004). The Santa Monica Subbasin underlies the northwestern part of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin and is bounded by the Santa Monica Mountains o n the north and the Ballona escarpment on the south (DWR 2004). The subbasin extends from the Inglewood fault on the east to the Pacific Ocean on the west (DWR 2004). Groundwater in the subbasin moves generally southward toward the Ballona gap, then westwa rd toward the ocean (DWR 2004). Recharge in the basin occurs primarily from infiltration of surface runoff onto the subbasin from the Santa Monica Mountains (DWR 2004). Total storage capacity of the subbasin is estimated to be approximately 1,100,000 acre -feet (DWR 2004). It should be noted that storage capacity does not equate to the volume of water that can be sustainably produced . S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 47 of 1 2 4 Water quality contaminants in the Santa Monica Subbasin include volatile organic compounds (VOC) and methyl tertiary butyl e ther (MTBE). The Santa Monica Subbasin is further divided into five local subbasins, including: the Arcadia subbasin, the Chamock subbasin, the Coastal subbasin, the Crestal subbasin, and the Olympic subbasin. The project sites are located in the local Coa stal subbasin of the Santa Monica Subbasin. The primary water quality concern in this local subbasin is elevated Total Dissolved Solids (LADWP 2011). Water quality in the project area is governed by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LA R WQCB ), which sets water quality standards in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses for surface water and groundwater and establishes water quality objectives to attain those benefi cial uses. The identified beneficial uses and the water quality objectives to maintain or achieve those uses are together known as wate r quality standards. There are no named surface waters in the project area. T he LARWQCB Basin Plan identifies several ben eficial uses for Ballona Creek and its associated estuary, lagoon, and wetlands (LARWQCB 1994). These surface water features are located approximately 3.5 miles south of the proposed project area. The Basin Plan also identifies several beneficial uses for the Santa Monica Subbasin of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin, including: Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN), Industrial Service Supply (IND), Industrial Process Supply (PROC), and Agricultural Supply (AGR). The Clean Water Act (CWA) 303 (d) list is a register of impaired and threatened waters which the CWA requires all states to submit for Environmental Protection Agency approval. The list identifies all waters where the required pollution control measures have so far been unsuccessful in reaching or maintaining the required water quality standards. Waters that are listed are known as “impaired.” The CWA Section 303(d) list s the Santa Monica Bay Offshore/Nearshore as impaired by the following pollutants: DDT, Debris, polychlorinated biphen yls (PCB), and sediment toxicity. A TMDL is required but not yet completed for each of these pollutants. Stormwater and urban (dry weather) runoff is the primary source of pollution to the Santa Monica Bay. Common sources of stormwater pollution in the pro ject area include litter, trash, pet waste, organic material (yard waste), fertilizers, fecal bacteria, pesticides, sediments, construction debris, metals from automobile brake pad dust, air pollutants that settle on the ground or attach to rainwater, cook ing grease, and illegally dumped motor oil. The City of Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF) treats polluted urban runoff water. The City has also involved the community by providing example of how residents and business could assist in re ducing the pollution of runoff water (City of Santa Monica 2010a). The potential tsunami inundation hazard zone extends 0.25 mile inland from the shoreline (CalEMA 2009). Only the shallow impaired groundwater extraction well and SMURRF component of the pro posed project would be subject to inundation. Discussion a) Less Than Significant . Construction of the proposed project, including drilling and excavation for the shallow groundwater extraction well , and excavation for the underground recycled water treatment facility, and stormwater harvest tanks, could result in loose, disturbed, or stockpiled soils that would be susceptible to high rates of erosion from wind and rain, resulting in sediment transport via stormwater runoff from the construction or soil storag e sites. The types of pollutants contained in runoff from construction sites would be typical of urban areas, and may include sediments and contaminants such as oils, fuels, paints, and solvents. Additionally, other pollutants such as nutrients, trace meta ls, and hydrocarbons, can attach to sediment and be transported to downstream drainages and ultimately into the Santa Monica Bay, contributing to degradation of water quality. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 48 of 1 2 4 C onstruction would occur in accordance with applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules for control of fugitive dust and separate water quality regulations, including the City of Santa Monica Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 7.10). In accordance with the ordinance, BMPs and pollutant control me asures would be employed during p roject construction to minimize pollutants and reduce runoff to levels that comply with applicable rules and standards . The SCAQMD fugitive dust Rule 403, and City and urban runoff reduction requirements presented below wil l be implemented during construction .  Soil stockpiles will be covered or managed via engineering control measures (e.g. water mist). Excavation work faces will be misted to minimize dust generation during construction excavation. Soil track out by construc tion vehicles will be minimized via tread plates and other engineering control measures (e.g. tread broom cleaning), as necessary. • Polluted runoff (including runoff containing sediments and/or construction wastes) shall not leave the construction parcel. No wash water from any type of cement and concrete machinery or concrete mix truck shall be allowed to leave the construction parcel . Any washing of equipment in the right -of -way shall be contained and properly disposed. • For any paint removal, paint prepa ration, 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. • 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. Operation of the proposed project will involve the collection and t reatment of stormwater runoff, brackish/saline -impaired groundwater, and municipal wastewater. The treated water will be available for reuse in the City’s existing purple pipe (reclaimed water) system and, once permitted, would be available for reinjection towards the purposes of sustainable groundwater management and indirect potable reuse. The RO concentrate and processed sludge associated with the RO -upgraded SMURRF and recycled water treatment facility will be discharged to the existing sanitary sewer s ystem, blended with other City wastewater flows, and treated at the City of Los Angeles Hyperion Treatment Plant. No waste discharges to the Santa Monica Bay or other impaired waterbody will occur, and operation of the proposed project will not result in t he violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements . Impacts would be less than significant. b ) Less Than Significant Impact . Several proposed project components will be located under ground and may require temporary dewatering duri ng construction. Construction of the underground recycled water treatment facility at the Civic Center parking lot may require excavation as deep as 30 to 40 feet, and shallow groundwater may be encountered. Dewatering activities during construction will b e temporary and limited to the proposed project construction sites. Dewatering activities will not affect the local aquifers, as those aquifers are generally deeper than 400 feet below the ground surface. Construction of the proposed project will not incre ase the amount of impermeable surface area in the project area and will not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. Construction of the proposed project will not S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 49 of 1 2 4 result in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater ta ble level . Impacts to groundwater levels during construction will be temporary, localized, and will not affect groundwater supplies. Operation of the proposed project will not interfere with groundwater recharge. The stormwater that will be harvested and advanced treated during operation of the proposed project will be distributed through the City’s existing purple pipe (reclaimed water) system. This reclaimed water will be applied to landscaping throughout the City , and when permitted the water will be in jected into City aquifers to help sustain groundwater yields. The shallow groundwater extraction well that is proposed as part of Element 1 will have a depth of approximately 100 to 150 feet. This groundwater extraction will occur in a zone of brackish gro undwater that is shallower and down -gradient of the fresh groundwater aquifer. Extraction of brackish groundwater in this location will not result in a lowering of fresh groundwater levels or a net deficit in fresh groundwater aquifer volume. Additionally, a portion of extracted brackish groundwater that will be treated by the proposed project will be available for injection towards the purposes of sustainable groundwater management once permitted. These activities, once permitted, will result in an increas e in net fresh groundwater aquifer volume and will represent a beneficial impact. Overall , the project will result in a beneficial impact to water resources and water supply reliability. However, the construction period will require a temporary water supp ly for dust abatement on disturbed soils; this water supply would likely be provided from local groundwater resources. As noted, the construction water requirements will be temporary, and overall the project will have a beneficial impact to water supply re liability. Therefore, potential i mpacts associated with the depletion of groundwater resources or interference with groundwater recharge will be less than significant. c ) Less Than Significant Impact . Construction of the proposed project may temporarily a lter the onsite drainage patterns at the construction sites , but such alterations will be temporary and limited to the active construction sites. Construction of the proposed project will not alter the course of a stream or river. Operation of the proposed project will alter drainage patterns in that runoff that will normally flow to the Pacific Ocean will be captured, treated, and re - distributed for reuse throughout the City . These drainage pattern alteration s will not result in erosion or siltation on - or off -site . Rather, the proposed project’s harvesting of stormwater runoff would be beneficial in reducing any erosion or siltation existing down gradient of the project sites . No impact to on - or off -site erosion or siltation will occur from operation of t he proposed project. d ) No Impact . C onstruction of the proposed project may temporarily alter onsite drainage patterns at construction sites ; however, flood risk in the proposed project area is minimal and the temporary, minor drainage alterations during construction of the proposed project will not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that will result in flooding on - or off -site . Construction of the proposed project will not alter the course of a stream or river since no surface water resources are located on or in the vicinity of any of the project sites . Runoff in the proposed project area is managed through a stormwater drainage system and construction of the proposed project will not affect this system in a manner tha t will result in flooding on - or off -site. Operation of the proposed project will alter drainage patterns in that runoff that would normally flow to the Pacific Ocean will be captured, treated, and re -distributed for reuse throughout the City . This draina ge pattern alteration will not result in flooding on - or off -site . Rather, the proposed project’s harvesting of stormwater runoff will be beneficial in reducing flooding that exists down S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 50 of 1 2 4 gradient of the project sites . No impact to on - or off -site flooding will result from operation of the proposed project. e ) No Impact . Neither construction nor operation of the proposed project will c reate or contribute runoff water which will exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provid e substantial additional sources of polluted runoff . The stormwater harvest tanks associated with the proposed project will retain potentially contaminated runoff water that w ill be treated for reuse in the City’s reclaimed water system or for groundwater recharge, once permitted. Neither construction nor operation of the proposed project will increase the amount of runoff in the project area, and the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage systems will be unaffected. The project will decrease the amou nt of stormwater discharged to the ocean at the Pico -Kenter outfall by up to 4.5MG from any single storm event. f ) Less Than Significant Impact . Several proposed project components will be located below ground and may require temporary dewatering during c onstruction. If improperly managed, these dewatering activities could result in discharge of contaminated groundwater. In accordance with the Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Groundwater from Construction and Project Dewatering to Surface Wat ers in Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Order No. R4 -2013 -0095, General NPDES Permit No. CAG994004), c ontaminated groundwater will be treated prior to discharge or disposed of at an appropriate disposal facility or wastewater treatme nt plant. This impact will be less than significant. g ) No Impact . The proposed project does not include any housing or habitable structures. Also, none of the proposed project components is located in a 100 -year flood hazard area as shown on FEMA’s Natio nal Flood Hazard Layer. No impact will occur. h ) No Impact . None of the project components is located in a 100 -year flood hazard area as shown on FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer. In addition most project components will be located below ground or in th e footprint of existing structures and will not impede or redirect flood flows. No impact will occur. i ) No Impact . The proposed project does not include any housing or habitable structures. Most proposed project components will be located below ground an d will not be subject to damage from flooding. With the exception of the shallow groundwater extraction well, all proposed project components are located in Flood Hazard Zone X (unshaded), which is an area of minimal flood hazard. The shallow groundwater e xtraction well is located in an area that is designated as Zone X (shaded), which is an area subject to flooding from the 500 -year flood (0.2 percent annual chance of flooding). The above -ground components of the shallow impaired groundwater extraction wel l will not be subject to damage from flooding, and no impact will occur. The proposed project is not located in a dam inundation area, and no flooding impact due to failure of a dam or levee will occur . j) Less Than Significant Impact . The potential tsuna mi inundation hazard zone extends only 0.25 miles inland from the shoreline. Only the shallow groundwater extraction well component of the proposed project will be subject to inundation. Inundation of this component of the proposed project by tsunami will not result injury or loss of life as this component is not a habitable structure and will be operated on an unmanned basis. Although damage to the aboveground portion of this proposed project component could occur during a tsunami, this proposed project co mponent is not critical infrastructure and damage to this component during a tsunami will not reduce or interfere with emergency response capabilities. This impact will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 51 of 1 2 4 Potentially Significant Impac t Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X I . LAND USE AND PLANNING . Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of a voiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Existing Setting The City of Santa Monica is located on the western edge of Los Angeles County. The City is directly accessible via the I -10 and I -405 freeways , as well as the PCH/Palisades Beach Road , which links Santa Monica to Malibu. The City of Santa Monica occupies approximately 8.25 square miles, and is mostly developed with residential, commercial, light industrial, and institutional uses. Existing land uses surrounding the project site s include a variety of comme rcial buildings, residential buildings , the Santa Monica Civic Center, t he Santa Monica Pier, Memorial Park, and Santa Monica High School . The proje ct sites are located at The SMURRF, adjacent Parking Lot #1 -South, Beach Maintenance Yard , the Santa Monica Civic Center P arking L ot, and the sports fields at Memorial Park . Discussion a) No Impact . The project sites are located in an urbanized area of Santa Monica and are zoned Parks and Open Space, and Oceanfront under the LUCE. The proposed project involves the construct ion of sustainable water infrastructure and facilities . A ll proposed components of the project would occur within existing City property , which is previously disturbed . Furthermore, the major elements of the project such as the recycled water treatment plant and underground stormwater harvest tanks would be located underground. By constructing the key project elements underground, the project areas will be allowed to be developed with future land uses . The proposed project will be compatible wi th existing adjacent land uses. As a result, the project will not divide any established community. Therefore, no impact will occur. b) Less Than Significant Impact . The project w ill include the construction and installation of sustainable water infrastruc ture at several locations in the City with various zoning districts . The table below provides a comparison of project components with existing zoning and applicable requirements. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 52 of 1 2 4 Table 5 Development Adjacent to the Proposed Projec t Elements Project Element Project Component Proposed Location Zoning District Applicable Requirements 1 Groundwater Extraction Well City Beach Maintenance Yard Open Space (OS) None – since a significant portion of this project component (well casing) will be located underground and surface area will be restored 1 Modular Reverse Osmosis (RO) unit SMURFF Oceanfront (OF) Section 9.15.020 - Accessory uses are permissible when they are determined by the Zoning Administrator to be necessary and customaril y associated with and appropriate, incidental, and subordinate to, the principal uses and which are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses. 1 Solar Panels SMURRF, existing tanks near the Pico - Kenter outfall, City Parking Lot #1 -South Oceanfront (OF), Open Space (OS) Section 9.21.150 - Excluding solar collector panels, their necessary support structure, and conduit, solar energy systems shall not be visible from the public right -of -way adjacent to the front property line 2 Un derground Recycled Water Treatment Plant Civic Center parking lot Open Space (OS) None – since this project component will be located underground and surface area will be restored 3 Underground Stormwater Harvest Tank Civic Center parking lot Open Space (OS) None – since this project component will be located underground and surface area will be restored 3 Underground Stormwater Harvest Tank Memorial Park Open Space (OS) None – since this project component will be located underground and surface area will be restored As shown in Table 5 , the proposed project will not conflict with applicable zoning requirements. The major components of the project will be underground and as such, will not interfere with the City’s zoning regulat ions for the project sites . Additionally, the project will be consistent with SCAG’s RTP/SCS and the City’s other adopted land use plans including the City’s Sustainable City Plan, the Land Use and Circulation Element, and the Sustainable Water Master Pla n (SWMP). The City’s Sustainable City Plan calls for increasing the City’s water supply to 100 percent local (i.e., no import of water) and an upward trend in non -potable use . The LUCE also includes goals and policies to p romote water conservation and incr ease the use of reclaimed and recycled water. Furthermore , the SWMP includes an evaluation of expanded demand management measures and a variety of water supply alternatives including recycled water, stormwater collection and treatment, rainwater harvesting , gray -water applications, and other water rights, supply and exchange opportunities to align with the City’s goal of water self -sufficiency by 2020 . Overall , the project will be fully supportive of the region’s and the City’s water goals and policies as d escribed below in Table 6 . The project will be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 53 of 1 2 4 Table 6 Project Consistency with the Goals and Policies of SCAG and LUCE Policy Relationship to Project SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS RTP Goal : Actively encourage and create incentives for energy efficiency, where possible Consistent: C onstruction of the proposed solar panels will produce approximately 52,800 k Wh/year which will be utilized to offset operational energy demand at the City’s SWIP . Additionally, the proposed project will help to reduce the city ’s dependence on imported water, which is energy - intensive to transport and deliver. Sustainable City Pl an Resource Conservation Water Use Targets for 2020 • Increase to 100% local (no import) • Upward trend in non -potable use The proposed SWIP will provide treatment and conjunctive reuse of brackish/saline impaired groundwater, recycled municipal wastewater, a nd stormwater runoff . The project will help to reduce the City’s dependence on imported water and increase the use of non -potable (recycled) water. 2010 LUCE D19.6 Preserve the public view corridors, including western views to the ocean from the east -wes t streets and boulevards, views to the ocean and the Pier from Palisades Park, and denotes sustainable policy views from the Pier to the city . Consistent. Element 1 of the project, which will be located in the Oceanfront District, will involve installatio n of modular RO unit s at the SMURRF, installation solar panels at the SMURRF, Pico -Kenter outfall , and City parking lot adjacent to the SMURRF, and installation of a shallow groundwater extraction well at the City’s existing B each M aintenance Y ard . Install ation of these will not obstruct views of the ocean or of the city . Goal S4: Increase use of renewable energy in the city . Consistent. Element 1 of the proposed project will install solar panels capable of generating approximately 52,800 kWh/year of sola r electricity. Goal S6: Promote water conservation and increase the use of reclaimed and recycled water. Consistent. The proposed SWIP will provide treatment and conjunctive reuse of brackish/saline impaired groundwater, recycled municipal wastewater, an d stormwater runoff . Goal S7: Reduce the carbon footprint of the City’s municipal operations. Consistent . The installation of solar panels in Element 1 of the project will supply approximately 52,800 kWh/year of electricity that will offset the energy u sed at the SMURRF . Additionally, the project will reduce dependence on imported water and will result in estimated water -energy reductions for every 2.5 billion gallons of avoided import water of 8.9 million kWh of energy and 5.256 million kg GHG emissions . Sustainable Water Master Plan A chieve water self -sufficiency by 2020 The proposed SWIP will provide treatment and conjunctive reuse of brackish/saline impaired groundwater, recycled municipal wastewater, and stormwater runoff . The project will help to reduce the City’s dependence on imported water and increase the use of non -potable (recycled) water. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 54 of 1 2 4 c) No Impact . The project is located entirely in the urban ized City of Santa Monica and there is no habitat conservation plan that applies to the project site s . The proposed project will not conflict with the provisions of any applicable habitat conservation plan. Therefore, no impacts will occur. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 55 of 1 2 4 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impa ct No Impact X I I. MINERAL RESOURCES . Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Existi ng Setting There are no known mineral resources in the project site s . In addition, no State of California designated operational mineral resource recovery sites are present in the project site vicinity (Department of Conservation 2014). Discussion a -b) No Impact . The proposed project will not occur in an area known to contain mineral resources. G iven that the project site s are located in a highly urbanized area of the City and are developed as the SMURFF, Beach Maintenance Yard, Civic Center, and Memoria l Park , the potential for mineral resources to occur onsite is low. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource or a mineral resource recovery site and no impacts will occur. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 56 of 1 2 4 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIII . NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS . Would the project: a) Have considerable effects on the city ’s residential neighborhood s ? Existing Setting “Neighborhood effects” refers to the impacts of the proposed project, or processes related to its implementation, that might affect the quality of life of the existing residents of adjacent neighborhoods. Quality of life represents a composite impression, and is usually expressed in terms of overall environment, combining aesthetic character, ambient noise levels, and transportation/circulation. Element 1 of the project is located in the Oceanfront District of Santa Monica as defined by the LUCE. Elements 2 and 3 are zoned as Parks and Open Space. All sites for the project elements are located in a highly urbanized area, surrounded by a mixture of commercial, recreational, institutional, and residential uses . Buildings surrounding the project sites range in height from single to five plus stories and are designed with varying architecture. The p roject sites are located near busy urban streets such as PCH, Pico Boulevard, Ocean Boulevard , and Colorado Avenue. Pedestrian -friendly sidewalks and varied tree -lined public frontages are also present around each element site. The City’s Urban Forest Program supports the preservation and enhancement of mature street trees . Discussion a) Less Than Significant Impact . None of t he project sites are located in residential neighborhoods. As discussed above, the project sites are located within existing City property and are surrounded by existing commercial, institutional, recreational, and residential uses. The proposed project will involve the construction and installation of sustainable water infrastructure, including modular RO and pretreatment unit s , underground recycled water treatment plant, underground storm water harvest tanks, and a shallow saline/brackish groundw ater extraction well. The only above -ground project features will be located at the SMURRF, which is not in a residential neighborhood , and at the Civic Center p arking l ot, also not a residential neighborhood (at the Civic Center parking lot a low profile stairwell and elevator structure will be constructed to provide secure access to the underground recycled water treatment facility ). All other project features will be installed under ground and therefore will result in no long -term change to neighborhood c haracter or effects . Construction and operation of the proposed project will not r esult in adverse effects on a residential neighborhood given the project site location. For discussions of the project’s effects on surrounding land uses, please refer to Se ction I , Aesthetics , Section III , Air Quality , Section XIV , Noise , and Section XVIII , Transportation/Traffic . As analyzed in the respective sections of this IS/MND, these neighborhood impacts will be less than significant . S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 57 of 1 2 4 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XI V. 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 no ise ordinance or of applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport lan d 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 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 residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Existing Setting The project sites are located in the urbanized C ity of Santa Monica. Ambient noise in the project vicinity is largely associated with transportation noise generated by roadway and aircraft. Additional noises that contribute to ambient noise in the City occur from various stationary sources, such as mechanical equipment associated with building structures, the operation of various types of businesses, and sources at commercial locations (e.g., amplified music). Existing s ensi tive receptors near the project site include the Santa Monica High School across from the Civic Center parking lot , and residential apartments adjacent to the SMURRF . In addition, the planned future early childhood education center is proposed within the C ivic Center to the north of the proposed site for the underground recycled water treatment plant. Discussion a -b) Less Than Significant Impact . In accordance with Section 4.12.110 of Article 4 of the City’s Noise Ordinance, construction activities will be restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and no construction activities will be allowed on Sundays or public holidays. Co nstruction activit ies will involve the use of heavy equipment as well as sma ller power tools and equipment that produce noise. Haul trucks traveling on the streets will also generate increased S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 58 of 1 2 4 noise during the construction period . Construction will involve the operation of various types of equipment, and noise levels will vary bas ed on the amount and types of equipment in operation and the location of the activity. P roject construction will involve excavation and the use of typical “drill and pour” cast -in -place concrete. No pile driving will be necessary for construction. Solider piles for engineered shoring will be installed by drilling pilot holes. Noise levels associated with typical construction equipment is shown in Table 7 . Table 7 Typical Noise Levels Generated by Constructi on Equipment Equipment Type Typical Lmax (dBA) 50 Feet from the Source Air Compressor Stationary 81 Backhoe Mobile 80 Compactor (ground) Mobile 83 Concrete Mixer Stationary 85 Dozer Mobile 82 Dump Truck Mobile 76 Excavator Mobile 81 Flat Bed Truck Mobile 74 Front End Loader Mobile 79 Generator Stationary 81 Grader Mobile 83 Jack Hammer Mobile 88 Paver Mobile 89 Roller Mobile 80 Saw Stationary 70 Scraper Mobile 89 Truck Mobile 88 Source: FHWA, 2006. Based on the noise levels indicated abo ve, maximum noise levels anticipated to occur at nearby sensitive receptors will be about 8 9 A -weighted decibels (dBA ) at 50 feet , 83 dBA at 150 feet , and 72 at 350 feet . According to the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 4.12.110), noise from construction a ctivities shall not exceed 20 dBA over the exterior noise standards specified for the noise zone. The exterior noise standard for Noise Zone II (zone for the project site) is set at 65 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., thereby allowing for a maximum noise level of 85 dBA during these hours. During project construction, maximum noise levels could reach as high as 83 dBA at the exterior of nearest commercial uses approximately 100 feet southeast of Element 2 . The nearest residences are the apartments adjacent to the SMURRF; Element 1 at the SMURRF involves the installation of prefabricated modular RO unit s and will not require noise -intensive activities such S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 59 of 1 2 4 as excavation. Regardless, maximum noise levels could reach as high as about 80 dBA at the exterior of the residences adjacent to the SMURRF. Therefore, c onstruction activities for the proposed project will not generate noise levels that exceed the established exterior noise limit of 85 dBA in a commercial zone . Impacts associated with construction activiti es will be less than significant and no mitigation will be required. Nevertheless, standard noise control methods will be utilized during construction to minimize noise conflicts. A s discussed in Section XVIII, Transportation/Traffic , op eration of the proj ect will generate minimal vehicle trips. The noise that is anticipated to occur from operation of the project will be nominal and consisting of vehicle -related mobile sources during inspection and repair activities. Underground components, which comprise t he majority of project facilities, will not generate operational noise. Potential noises associated with the use of inspection and repair vehicles and equipment will be minimal and consistent with the existing environment . Therefore, impacts will be less t han significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact . The existing noise environment in the project vicinity is dominated by traffic noise on nearby streets, as well as nearby commercial and recreational activities. Operation of the project will not have a sig nificant effect on the project vicinity. Therefore, noise impacts will be less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact . Implementation of the project will result in limited and short term construction noise. A s discussed above, noise from constru ction will be in conformance with the City Noise Ordinance. The operation of the project will not generate a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels. Therefore, impacts will be less t han significant. e -f) No Impact . The Santa Monica Municipal Airport is approximately 1.5 miles southeast of Memorial Park , 1.75 miles east of the Civic Center , and two miles east of the SMURFF . The project sites are outside of the Airport Land Use Plan. Th e proposed project will not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from an airport or airstrip. Therefore, the project will have no impact. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 60 of 1 2 4 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Inc orporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XV. POPULATION AND HOUSING . Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of ro ads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Existing Setting The project site s a re located in the urbanized City of Santa Monica. This region is characterized by a mixture of urban land uses, and supports a mix of retail, commercial, institutional, recreation and residential land uses. The project sites are currently developed as the SMURFF, Beach Maintenance Yard, Civic Center, and Memorial Park. As of January 201 6 , the City of Santa Monica has a population of 93,640 5 while the County of Los Angeles has a population of 10,241 ,335 (CDF 201 6 ). It is estimated that, as of January 2016, the City of Santa Monica has a housing stock of approximately 52,082 units (CDF 201 6). There are no existing housing units or residents on these sites . Discussion a) No Impact . The proposed project will not include construction of any housing units, and wi ll not directly or indirectly induce population growth. Construction employment opportunities provided by the project will not result in household relocation by construction workers due to the relatively small project scale, and the fact that construction workers are expected to be drawn from the local Los Angeles County workforce. Operation of the project will support water supply reliability for the City ’s existing residences and businesses, and will not directly draw new residences or businesses to the a rea . No impact will occur. b -c) No Impact . The project sites are currently developed as the SMURFF, Beach Maintenance Yard, Civic Center, and Memorial Park . There are no existing housing units or residents on these sites. As such, the project will not disp lace existing housing units or people and will have no impact. 5 Estimated 1.91 persons per household. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 61 of 1 2 4 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVI. PUBLIC SERVICES . Would the project result in substantial advers e 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 obje ctives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? Existing Setting Fire Protection. The Santa Monica Fire Department (SMFD) provides fire protection and emergency medical (paramedic) services in the City . The City has four fire stations that provide em ergency response services. Santa Monica Fire Department Station No. 1 is the first -response station as it is most centrally located to the three project elements , at 1444 7th Street , between Santa Monica Boulevard and Broadway. Two others stations are with in 1.5 miles of the all three project sites , Fire Station No. 2 at 222 Hollister Avenue and Fire Station No. 3 at 1302 19th Street. The SMFD currently follows the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710 standards for setting emergency response tim e goals. The SMFD has approximately 116 total sworn firefighters , 99 of which are active fire fighters (Clemo 2016). Construction of a new Fire Station No. 1 building is pending at 1337 -45 7th Street. The new station will allow additional space for equipme nt and expansion of staff. The City estimates that the new station will increase firefighters at SMFD from 14 per 24 -hour shift to 24 per 24 -hour shift. Additionally, the SMFD strictly enforces the City’s current Fire Code which provides requirements for f ire suppression systems, use of fire resistant building materials, and visible address signage . Police Protection. The Santa Monica Police Department (SMPD) provides police protection services in the City. The SMPD is headquartered at Olympic Boulevard and 4th Street , the station is within one mile of all three project elements . The SMPD is staffed with 216 sworn enforcement personnel and 231 non -sworn administrative and support staff. The SMPD divides the City into four beats and operates these beats on a 24 -hour basis. Elements 1 and 2 are located in Beat No. 1, while Element 3 is located in Beat No 3. Although there are only eight officers assigned to Beat No. 1, there are 63 officers deployed across the City at all times. SMPD’s maximum allowable respons e time to emerge ncy calls is 5 minutes or less . Schools. The Santa Monica -Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) provides public school education to the project area. The SMMUSD operates twelve existing public (k indergarten to g rade 12) schools in Santa M onica, including seven elementary schools (k indergarten to g rade 5), two middle schools (g rade 6 to g rade 8), one alternative school (k indergarten to g rade 8), and two high schools (g rade 9 to g rade 12), as well as additional school facilities in Malibu (S MMUSD 2016). Other Public Facilities . The City of Santa Monica Public Works Department (PWD) provides park maintenance for the City ’s 27 parks and approximately 141 acres of park space, medians, City facilities, and the Civic Center complex. Of this total amount, 125.5 acres of park space is S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 62 of 1 2 4 maintained as formal open space and recreational facilities for the City ’s population. The City also provides additional public services, such as the five Santa Monica p ublic l ibraries and additional recreational facil ities (e.g., plazas, regional areas, and school facilities with joint -use agreements) (Sa nta Monica 2016 ). Discussion a -c and e ) No Impact . T he proposed project will be designed in accordance with applicable provisions of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (S MMC) pertaining to fire protection and emergency access. Emergency access to the project sites will be maintained throughout construction and operation. The project will result in a negligible demand for fire protection services since the facilities will b e predominantly underground and unmanned. Expansion of existing SMFD facilities or personnel will not be necessary to accommodate demand associated with the proposed project. During project operation, project infrastructure will be monitored largely remot ely via smart technology and SCADA with minimal onsite staff support, and no substantial risk or unusual demand for SMPD services will be introduced. Further, the project will not result in an increase in population in the City . As a result, demand for pol ice protection services will not increase and there will be no need for new or expanded SMPD facilities. The proposed project will not introduce new residential structures or uses that w ill generate demand for school facilities, libraries, or other public facilities. Further, the construction of the project will not generate employment such that direct or indirect increases in demand for such facilities w ill result. Based on the above , no impact associated with fire protection, police protection, school f acilities, libraries, or other public facilities will occur as a result of the proposed project. d) Less Than Significant Impact . The project will not introduce new population that will create additional demands for existing or planned park facilities. How ever, Element 3 of the proposed project ) includes the installation of a stormwater harvest tank located underground in the City’s Memorial Park . During construction of this tank , access to portions of the park will be temporarily restricted . Upon completio n of construction , the stormwater harvesting tank at Memorial Park will be underground and the above surface area will be restored to recreational uses. Impacts to Memorial Park will be temporary and limited to the construction period . Therefore, impacts t o parks will be less than significant. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 63 of 1 2 4 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVII. RECREATION . a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regio nal parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilit ies, or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Existing Setting The City of Santa Monica pr ovides 27 parks, 3 community gardens, 5 public grounds (e.g., Annenberg Beach House, Civic Auditorium, Community Center), 245 acres of open space (state beach), and multiple special use areas (e.g., Third Street Promenade, Santa Monica Place, Cove Skate pa rk, Swim Center). Recreational areas near the project site include the Memorial Park , Santa Mo nica State Beach, and the Santa Monica High School . The Santa Monica State Beach provides stretches of sandy beach, bike and walking paths, lawn areas, and volley ball courts along with other recreational opportunities for the City ” residents, employees, and visitors. a) Less Than Significant Impact . As discussed in Section XVI. (Population and Housing), the proposed project will not result in an increase in populat ion or employment in the City of Santa Monica. Therefore, the project will not create a substantial increase in demands on existing or planned recreational facilities. However, Element 3 of the project includes the installation of a stormwater harvest tank located beneath the sports fields at the City’s Memorial Park. During construction of this tank , a portion of the recreational facilities will be temporarily unavailable to the public. However, after construction is complete, the project area will be rest ored to its current recreational use. Therefore, impacts to recreational facilities will be temporary and limited to the construction period for the underground stormwater tank . Impacts will be less than significant. b) No Impact . The proposed project will not include the development of or require the construction of recreational facilities that will physically affect the environment. T he proposed project will not result in an increased demand for parks or recreational services and no impacts will occur. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 64 of 1 2 4 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XVIII . 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, str eets, 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 servi ce standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traff ic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Existing Setting Regional access to the project site is provided via Santa Monica Freeway (I -10), the San Diego Freeway (I -405), and PCH/Palisades Beach Road. I -10 is located centrally between the different project elements, and provides access across the City of Santa Monica to the City of Los Angeles. I -405 is located approximately 2.7 miles east of the project site for Element 3 and provides north -south access throughout the western region of the Los Angeles Basin. PCH is locat ed at the western edge of the City , adjacent to Element 1, and provides access north along the coast to the Pacific Palisades community and further north to the City of Malibu. Element 1 of the project is located at the SMURRF on Appian Way, just south of the Santa Monica Pier. Element 2 of the project is located at the Santa Monica Civic Center P arking L ot at S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 65 of 1 2 4 the western corner of 4 th Street and Pico Boulevard. Element 3 of the project is located at the City’s Memorial Park and will be accessed off of 16 th Street. The project elements are located in Santa Monica, and are all in a designated Transit Priority Area, as designated by SCAG (SCAG 2016b). A t ransit priority area includes area s within 0.5 mile of a major , existing or planned transit stop. Public t ransit in the project vicinity is currently provided by the City of Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). The majority of these lines have headway frequency of 30 minutes or less, with peak -ho ur headways of eight to 15 minutes. Additionally, the Expo Light Rail Transit (LRT) recently began operation in May 2016 ; t he LRT provide s regional public rail transit to the City . The Expo LRT is designed to carry an estimated 50 trains per day with headw ays of 10 to 12 minutes. The SMURFF, Civic Center P arking L ot, and Memorial Park are within walking distance of the Expo LRT stations. Public parking in the project area is available in City -owned public parking lots, privately owned public parking lots, a nd metered parking on City streets. Metered street parking is available on 16 th Street near Element 3 and along the east side of Pico Boulevard near Element 2. Element 2 is located in the public parking lot for the Santa Monica Civic Center. There is addit ional public parking south of the SMURRF site in Element 1, across Apian Way. Discussion a -b) Less Than Significant Impact . The proposed project will not generate a substantial amount of vehicle trips during project operation. Improvements to the SMURRF p roposed in Element 1 of the project will not result in any net new increase in vehicle trips. The proposed recycled water treatment facility at the Civic Center P arking L ot in Element 2 will require about eight truck trips, two times per year for the remov al of the processed solids for a total of 16 vehicle trips per year. Other portions of the project are not anticipated to generate vehicle t r ips since they will include underground water storage facilities and a shallow groundwater extraction well. T he pr oject will not generate traffic on a regular basis . The minor increase in trips will have a negligible effect on the performance of the existing street network. The proposed project will not conflict with transportation plans, including the Los Angeles Cou nty Congestion Management Program . Impacts will be less than significant. c) No Impact . The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles away from the Santa Monica Municipal Airport, a general aviation airport located in the southeastern portion of the City . Due to its distance from the airport, the project elements are not located in an airport land use plan or airport limited (e.g., safety -restricted) area. In addition, the project elements are not in established flight paths for the Santa Monica Airpo rt and will not construct any structures or features that could interfere with air traffic. Construction of the proposed project will involve the use of crane equipment ; however, this will not affect air traffic patterns. Therefore, this project will have no impact. d) Less Than Significant . The proposed project involves the construction of sustainable water infrastructure at several distinct sites, and will not include hazardous design features such as dead ends, sharp curves, or dangerous intersections. T he project also will not include incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). During construction, short -term transportation -related hazards may be introduced due to the presence and use of construction vehicles and equipment; however, the City will obtain a Use of Public Property Permit, Excavation Permit, Sewer Permit, and/or Oversize Load Permit, as well as any Caltrans permits required, for any construction work requiring encroachment into public rights of way, detours, or any other work in a public right -of -way. Therefore, i mpacts will be less than significant with mitigation. e) Less Than Significant Impact . The project sites are accessible to emergency vehicles and evacuation routes are available via existing streets . During project construction, there a re no S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 66 of 1 2 4 expected lane closures and emergency access will be maintained at all times. Construction of the recycled water treatment plant may require the temporary closure of one or two driveways at the Civic Center parking lot. In the event that temporary clo sure of a driveway is required, a secondary detour driveway will be provided to ensure that access to the parking lot will be maintained for the Civic Center uses. Further, the project will be reviewed by the SMFD and SMPD prior to issuance of building per mit to ensure adequate access. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. f) No Impact. The project site is in close proximity to a variety of alternative transportation opportunities. The Expo Light Rail provides regional rail service within walkin g distance of the Civic Center parking lot and Memorial Park. The Expo Light Rail operates every 10 to 12 minutes. Additionally, the Big Blue Bus and Metro provide bus service throughout the City . The majority of these lines have service frequency or headw ays of 30 minutes or less, with peak -hour headways of 8 to 15 minutes. The proposed project will not disrupt existing rail/bus service nor will it require the relocation of existing bus stops. Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict with policies , programs, or plans supporting alternative transportation and will not result in impacts. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 67 of 124 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporate d Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X IX . UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS . Would the p roject : a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of new stor m water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies available t o serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 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 su fficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g)Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Existing Setting The City of Santa Monica Water Resource Division is the agency responsible for providing water service to the City . The City distributes water to approximately 18,000 custome rs throughout a 250-mile network of water lines ranging from 4 to 36 inches in diameter. The City of Santa Moni ca h as averaged an annual demand of approximately 13,930 AFY since 2005. Historically, the City produces approximately 70 percent of the municipal water supp lies from groundwater resources. H owever, the City confirmed contamination (methyl tert -butyl ether) in groundwater supplies from the Charnock Groundwater Sub -basin wells from 1996 to 2011 and ha s relied mor e h eavily upon imported water supplies from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). P resently, contamination has been abated and all five supply wells are operational. As of May 2016, California has withdrawn statewide water conservation mandates of 25 percent and instead has implemented policies for municipalities to select their own conservation rates S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 68 of 1 2 4 providing proof of adequate supplies following three consecutive drought years . Actions to reduce water demand include the City’s Sustainable Water Master Plan, which outl ines the City’s plan to achieve water supply sufficiency by 2020 (City of Santa Monica , 2014). Under the LUCE, the land use changes in the City are expected to create a water demand of between 14,000 and 15 ,000 AFY by 2020 . Wastewater . Wastewater from the City is collected through the City of Santa Monica’s wastewater system, which is owned by the City of Santa Monica and is managed, operated, and maintained by the Water Resources Division of the City’s Public Works Department. All wastewater is currently t reated at the City of Los Angeles’s existing Hyperion Treatment Plant in the community of Playa del Rey located approximately 6.5 miles southeast of the proposed project . To ensure that wastewater flows will be adequately accommodated, the City reviews sew er lines based on the guidelines for sewer design and operations from the Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering Manual – Part F. According to this guidance, sewers should be sized so the depth of the Peak Dry Weather Flow (PDWF), projected for the design perio d, is no more than 50 percent of the pipe diameter. The proposed project will be connected to the sanitary sewer system at the underground recycled water treatment facility (Element 2). Wastewater will be sourced from a 54 -inch force main located near the intersection of Pico Boulevard and Ocean Avenue. Wastewater entering the plant will be treated to advance water quality and distributed through the City’s existing purple pipe system for all planned uses. Additionally, the RO concentrate generated by the proposed modular RO unit at the SMURRF (Element 1 ) and the recycled water treatment facility (Element 2) will be blended with sanitary sewer flow and sent to the City of Los Angeles’s existing Hyperion Treatment Plant for treatment . Wastewater is delivered to the Hyperion Treatment Plant via the City of Santa Monica ’s Coastal Interceptor Sewer System (CISS). The Hyperion Treatment Plant operates in accordance with water quality permits issued by the Los Angeles RWQCB. Th e CISS system is designed for 52 MGD at its terminus at the southern City boundary and currently has average yearly flows of approximately 32.6 MGD (City of Santa Monica , 2012). The Hyperion Treatment Plant currently processes an average of 340 MGD but has a dry weather capacity of 450 MGD an d a we t weather capacity of 850 MGD (City of Los Angeles , 2016 ). Solid Waste . The Resource Recovery and Recycling Division of the City’s Public Works Department provides solid waste management and collection services to all Santa Monica residents and appro ximately 50 percent of commercial and industrial establishments. The City collects, transfers, and disposes of trash; processes green waste and food scraps for compost; recycles single -stream commingled recyclables; and provides a State - authorized e -waste collection facility. Currently, 77 percent of solid waste generated in the City is diverted through waste prevention, recycling, and composting; the remaining 23 percent is disposed in landfills or waste -to -energy facilities (City of Santa Monica 2013b ; C ity of Santa Monica , 201 6 c). Energy and Power . In the City of Santa Monica, S outhern California Edison Company (SoCal Edison) provides electricity service and Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas) provides natural gas service. As of 2013, overall ele ctricity and natural gas consumption was 6.1 Gigajoules (GJ), 0.7 percent higher than 2012, but still 10.4 percent lower than 1990, the highest year recorded for the City (City of Santa Monica , 2010). An increase in natural gas accounted for the change, ri sing three percent from 2012 while electricity usage dropped 1.5 percent. The commercial sector, comprised largely of d owntown businesses, dominated energy consumption contributing 58 percent of total energy demands while the residential sector accounted f or 42 percent. Currently, energy services in the project vicinity are considered adequate; no deficiencies in service capacities have been identified (City of Santa Monica , 2010). Table 8 provides a summary of all the agency’s tha t provide services to the City . S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 69 of 1 2 4 Table 8 Utilities Serving the City of Santa Monica Water Supply City of Santa Monica Public Works Department, Water Resources Division Wastewater Disposal City of Santa Monica Public Works Departmen t, Water Resources Division City of Los Angeles, Hyperion Treatment Plant Solid Waste City of Santa Monica Public Works Department, Resource Recovery and Recycling Division Electric Southern California Edison Natural Gas Southern California Gas Company Discussion a, e) Less Than Significant Impact . The Los Angeles RWQCB in connection with the implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, impose s requirements on the treatment of wastewater and its discharge into l ocal water bodies, including Santa Monica Bay. Wastewater produced by the proposed project will meet these requirements through treatment at the Hyperion Treatment Plant. This treatment plant uses full secondary treatment and has recently been upgraded to reduce the amount of wastewater solids going into Santa Monica Bay by 95 percent. In addition, implementation of wastewater BMPs required by the Santa Monica Municipal Code also help meet wastewater quality treatment standards. Therefore, RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements will not be exceeded. Element 1 and 2 of the proposed project will generate RO concentrate . The concentrate from both facilities will be mixed with the existing sanitary sewer flow and delivered to the City of Los Angeles’s existing H yperion Treatment Plant for treatment . Element 2 will construct a recycled water treatment plant that will advance treat water delivered to the treatment plant via the sanitary sewer to CCR Title 22 and Title 17 standards . All water treated by the propose d recycled water treatment plant will meet the quality acceptable for non -potable reuse as authorized by the LACDPH . The proposed recycled water treatment facility will have the capacity to treat up to 1.0 MGD. Water treatment will be limited to recycled w ater demand until the City is permitted for groundwater aquifer recharge injection of treated water. Overall, implementation of Element 2 will serve to incrementally reduce wastewater loads (hydraulic capacity) in the City’s sanitary sewer and Los Angeles’s Hyperion Treatment Plant. The RO concentrate flows generated by Element 1, as well as the concentrate flows generated by Element 2 of the proposed project, will constitute a negligible change to the amount of wastewater delivered to the Hyperion Treatme nt Plant and the CISS. The net result of the project will be a decrease in wastewater flows. Therefore, flows will remain within the dry -weather capacity of 450 MGD and a wet weather capacity of 850 MGD. As a result, the proposed project will not exceed an y wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB and adequate wastewater treatment capacity is available to serve the project. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact . The proposed project involves cons truction of water and wastewater treatment facilities , including a modular RO unit at the existing SMURRF, and a recycled water treatment plant beneath the Civic Center P arking L ot. The proposed project will increase the City’s capacity to treat and reuse wastewater, stormwater, and brackish/saline groundwater, as well as reduce the City’s demand for environmentally costly imported water. As S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 70 of 1 2 4 such, the project will not require construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities beyond wh at is proposed as part of the SWIP . Impacts will be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact . The proposed project involves construction of stormwater harvesting facilities (Element 3), including a 3.0 -MG tank beneath Memorial Park and a 1.5 -MG tank beneath the Civic Center Parking Lot. Th e Memorial Park tank will harvest stormwater from two storm drains, one beneath Santa Monica Boulevard and another from beneath Broadway, both with diversions at 15 th Street. Currently, flows from these two s torm drains are discharged at the Pico -Kenter Outfall into the Pacific Ocean. The 1.5 -MG stormwater collection and holding tank will be constructed adjacent to the recycled water treatment facility proposed in Element 2 of this project. This tank will prim arily harvest stormwater from the approximately a portion of the Pico -Kenter sub drainage tributary area and the 6.2 -acre Civic Center parking lot to store for i treatment at the proposed recycled water treatment facility. A secondary use for this tank wil l be to serve as a settling tank for stormwater collected from the Memorial Park harvesting tank. Water will be delivered from the Memorial Park tank to the proposed recycled water treatment facility through the City’s existing stormwater drainage faciliti es. Together, these harvesting tanks act as stormwater control measure BMPs . They also contribute to the Santa Monica Bay Jurisdictional Group s 2 and 3 EWMP compliance and help improve beach water quality at the Pico -Kenter outfall . The proposed project wi ll not result in the need of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities beyond what is proposed as part of the SWIP design . Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. d) No Impact . A stated purpose of the SWIP is to reduce the City’s demand for imported water supplies and work towards water supply self -sufficiency. Through the treatment and reuse of wastewater, stormwater runoff, and brackish/saline water resources in the City , the proposed project will increase the availability of local water re sources and help to reduce demand for imported water purchased from MWD. Therefore, implementation of the project will not require new or expanded entitlements and will ultimately have a beneficial impact to the available water supply for the City of Santa Monica. No impact will occur. f) Less Than Significant Impact . Construction and operation of the proposed project will result in the need for solid waste disposal at the County’s landfills. Project construction will generate construction and demolition (C &D) waste such as asphalt, concrete, and wood. SMMC Section 8.108.010, Subpart B, requires that demolition and/or construction projects greater than $50,000 or 1,000 sf divert at least 70 percent of C&D material from landfills. T he proposed project will be subject to this diversion requirement. The applicant will complete a waste management plan (WMP) to ensure the management of C&D waste, as required and approved by the City as part of the application for the construction and demolition permit. Therefore, the project’s C&D waste disposal will be reduced by at least 70 percent and the impacts on landfills will be less than significant. SWIP Element 2 will generate approximately 1,040 cubic yards of solid waste annually (approximately 20 cubic yards/week).The waste is expected to consist of paper scraps, rags and other materials typically found in municipal wastewater . A ccumulated solid waste will be remove d weekly and transported to an appropriate disposal facility in accordance with applicable regulations. T he quantity of solid waste that will be generated by the proposed project will not exceed the available capacity at any of the nearby landfills shown in Table 9 . Therefore, this impact will be less than significant and no mitigati on is required S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 71 of 1 2 4 Table 9 Solid Waste Facilities Serving the City of Santa Monica Facility Remaining Permitted Capacity (cubic yards) Permitted Daily Capacity (Tons) Antelope Valley 22,991,651 1,800 Chiquita Canyon Landfill 2,107,30 2 6,000 Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center 14,298,311 3,000 Sunshine Canyon Landfill 87,416,245 12,100 Source: Los Angeles 2015 g) Less than significant. The proposed project will not conflict with the goals of the City’s Sustainable City Plan, AB 341, or the Zero Waste Strategic Plan. As mentioned above, during project construction, the City will comply with SMMC Section 8.108.010, Subpart B, to divert at least 70 percent of C&D material from landfills. In accordance with the SMMC, a Waste Manageme nt Plan (WMP) shall be prepared prior to commencement of construction work. Additionally, throughout the operational life of the project, recyclable containers or bins will be provided onsite to ensure that project -generated solid waste will be recycled or reused to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, the proposed project will comply with federal, state, and local regulations related to solid waste and will result in less than significant impacts. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 72 of 124 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X . MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild -life population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major peri ods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incr emental 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? Existing Setting Not a pplicable . Di scussion a )L ess than Significant Impact. The proposed project’s potential to degrade the quality of the environment has been analyzed throughout this IS/MND. The project has been determined to have no impacts, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impact s with mitigation. As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources , because the project site is completely developed and located in an urbanized area, there are no rare or endangered habitats or protected plant or animal species. In addition, the proposed project will not cause a fish or wild -life population to drop below self -sustaining levels or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. The proposed project will result in less than significant impacts. b-c) Less than Signific ant Impact. Based on the analysis provided in this MND, the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts on an individual level and will not result in any significant adverse effects on human beings. The project will not generate new populat ion or employment or result in long -term increases in traffic, noise, or emissions of air pollution, GHGs, or noise. It will have beneficial effects with respect to water and S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 73 of 1 2 4 energy use and utility systems. As such, the project will not contribute to any s ignificant cumulative impacts. Therefore, the proposed project will result in less than significant impacts. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 74 of 1 2 4 This page left intentionally blank S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 75 of 1 2 4 R EFERENCES AMEC Foster Wheeler (Environment and Infrastructure, Inc.). 2016a. Biological Resources Review for the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP), Santa Monica, California. June. _____. 2016 b . Proposed Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) Archaeological And Historical Resources Study . May. ARB (Air Resources Board). 2014. AB 32 Scoping Plan. May 27. Accessed May 27, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm . _____. 2015. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory 2015 Edition. Acc essed May 27, 2016. Retrieved from : http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm . _____. 2016. Area Designations Maps / State and National. May 5. Accessed May 27, 2016. Retrieved from : http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm . CalEMA (State of California Emergency Management Agency). 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning – Beverly Hills Quadrangle. March 1. Accessed Ju ne 17, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/LosAnge les/Documents/Tsunami_Inundation_BeverlyHills_Quad_LosAngeles.pdf CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. Accessed May 27, 2016. Retrieved from : http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/clim ate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006 -04 - 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF . CalFIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2004. California Interagency Watershed Map of 1999 (CalWater 2.2.1). Accessed June 17, 2016. Retrieved from: http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata -sw -calwater_download CDC (California Department of Conservation). 1986. California State Special Studies Zones : Beverly H i lls Quadrangle. Accessed May 27, 2016. Retrieved from: http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/quad/BEVERLY_HILLS/maps/BEVHILLS.PDF _____. 1999. Seismic Hazard Zones: Beverly Hills Quadrangle. Accessed May 27,2016. Retrieved from: http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/q uad/BEVERLY_HILLS/maps/ozn_bevh.pdf _____. 2014. Office of Mine Reclamation – Mines On Line. Accessed June 2, 2016. Retrieved from: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/mol -app.html CDF (California Department of Finance). May 2016. E -5 Population and Housin g Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011 – 2016, with 2010 Benchmark. Accessed June 2, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.dof.ca.gov/researc h/demographic/reports/estimates/e - 5/2011 -20/view.php City of Los Angeles. 2015. LA S anitation: Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant . Accessed: June 7, 2016 . Retrieved from: https://www.lacitysan.org/san/faces/home/portal/s -lsh -wwd/s -lsh - wwd -cw/s -lsh -wwd -cw -p?_adf.ctrl -state=x7a1uv02d_324&_afrLoop=27149486486564637#! S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 76 of 1 2 4 _____. 2016. Hyperion Water Recla mati on Plant. Accessed June 8, 2016. Retrieved from: https://www.lacitysan.org/san/faces/home/portal/s -lsh -wwd/s -lsh -wwd -cw/s -lsh -wwd -cw - p/s -lsh -wwd -cw -p -hwrp?_adf.ctrl -state=152b270w4i_192&_afrLoop=27212990712469303#! City of Los Angeles, et al. (City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Flood Control District, County of Los Angeles, City of Santa Monica, City of El Segundo). 2015. Santa Monica Bay Jurisdictional Group 2 and 3 Enhanced Watershed Management Program – DRAFT. June 29. Accessed June 9, 2016. Retriev ed from: http://www.lastormwater.org/wp - content/files_mf/santamonicabayj2j3draftewmpmainreport.pdf City of Santa Monica. 2010a. Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element. July 24. Accessed: June 2, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.smgov.net/Departments /PCD/Plans/2010 -Land -Use -and -Circulation -Element/ _____. 2010 b . Urban Water Management Plan. Accessed June 17, 2016. Retrieved from: https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/Public_Works/Water/Final%202010%20U MWP_July%202011.pdf _____. 2010c . Santa Monica Office of Sustainability and the Environment - Energy Use . Accessed: June 7, 216 . Retrieved from: http://www.smgov.net/Departments/OSE/Categories/Sustainability/Sustainable_ City_Progress_Report/Resource_Conservation/Energy_Use.aspx _____. April 201 2. City of Santa Monica Sewer System Management Plan. Accessed June 7, 2016. Retrieved From: https://www.smgov.net/Departments/PublicWorks/ContentWater.aspx?id=50955 _____. 2013a. 15 X 15 Climate Action Plan. Accessed May 27, 2016. Retrieved from: https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/OSE/Home_Page_Item_with_Image/CA P_Final.pdf _____. 2013b. Zero Waste Stra tegic Operations Plan . Accessed: June 7, 2016 . Retrieved from: https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/Public_Works/Solid_Waste/ZW%20St rate gic%20Plan.pdf _____. 2014 . Sustainable Water Master Plan . Accessed: June 7, 2016 . Retrieved from: https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/Public_Works/Water/SWMP.pdf _____. 2016 a . SM Map. Accessed May 27, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.smgov .net/Departments/ISD/content.aspx?id=15297 _____. 2016b. Community and Cultural Services. Accessed: June 7, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.smgov.net/Departments/CCS/content.aspx?id=32599 _____. 2016 c. Santa Monica Public Works - About Us . Accessed: June 7, 2016 . Retrieved from: http://www.smgov.net/Departments/PublicWorks/ContentRecycling.aspx?id=73 19 Clemo, Tom. 2016. Personal Communication with Deputy Chief of Administration , Santa Monica Fire Department. June 7. CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Dat abase). 2016 . Accessed: June, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/ S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 77 of 1 2 4 CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2016 . Accessed: June, 2016. Retrieved from: http://cnps.org/ County of Los Angeles. May 13, 2003. Santa Monica Municipal Air port Influence Area. Accessed: June 1, 2016. Retrieved from: http://planning.lacounty.gov/aluc/airports#anc -apm _____. December 2015. Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan: 2014 Annual Report. Accessed June 8, 2016. Retrieved from: https://dpw.lacoun ty.gov/epd/swims/ShowDoc.aspx?id=3473&hp=yes&type=PDF CWRCD (California Water Resources Control Board). 2016. GeoTracker Database. Accessed May 31, 2016. Retrieved from: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2 016 a . EnviroStor Database. Accessed May 31, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ _____. 2016b. List of Hazardous Waste Facilities Subject to Corrective Action P ursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code. Accessed: J uly 1, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ DWR (California Depa rtment of Water Resources). 2004. Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin, Santa Monica Subbasin. Accessed June 17, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.w ater.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/basindescriptions/4 -11.01.pdf _____. 2003 . South Coast Hydrologic Region - 2003 Bulletin 118 update. Accessed June 17, 2016. Retrieved from : http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/california's_groundwater__bulletin _118_-_update_2003_/bulletin118_4 -sc.pdf Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. (FHWAHEP -06 -015; DOT -VNTSC -FHWA -06 -02). Retrieved from: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/construction_noise/handbook Geotechnologies. 2005. Geotech nical Engineering Investigation – Parking Structure, Northwest Corner of Fourth Street and Civic Center Drive, Santa Monica, California. January 18 . LACDPH (Los Angeles County Department of Public Health). 2016. Guidelines fo r Alternate Water Sources: Indoor and Outdoor Non -Potable Uses. February. Accessed August 17, 2016. Retrieved from: http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/eh/docs/ep_cross_con_AltWaterSourcesGuideline.pdf LADWP (Los Angeles Department of Water and Power). 2011. Feasibility Report for Development of Groundwater Resources in the Santa Monica and Hollywood Basins. December. Accessed June 17, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.m2resource.com/images/KJ_Feasibility_Studysmall.pdf LARWQCB (Los Angeles Regional Water Quali ty Control Board). 1994. Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Accessed June 17, 2016. Retrieved from : http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan_ documentation.shtml Leighton Co nsulting, Inc. 2010. Geotechnical exploration – Proposed 1.0 MG buried Non -potable Water Tank, Memorial Park, Santa Monica, California. April 30 . S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 78 of 1 2 4 SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments). 2015. Demogra phics and Growth Forecast. Dece mber. Acces sed June 2, 2016. Retrieved from: http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/draft/d2016RTPSCS_DemographicsGrowthForecast.p df _____. 2016 a . The 2016 -2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy . April. Accessed June 2, 2016. Retrieved fro m: http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx _____. 2016b. DRAFT SB 743 Transit Priority Areas (TPA). Accessed: June 7, 2016. Retrieved from: http://gisdata.scag.ca.gov/Lists/GIS%20Programs%20%20Transportation/AllItems.aspx SCAQMD (South Coast Air Q uality Management District). 2016. Air Quality Management Plan. Accessed May 27, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean -air - plans/air -quality -mgt -plan _____. 2015. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Accessed May 27, 2016. Ret rieved from: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default -source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd -air -quality - significance -thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2 SMMUSD (Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District). 2016. Accessed June 7, 2016. Retrieved From: http://www.smmusd.org/ Stratus Env ironmental Inc. January 15, 2016. Second 2015 Annual Monitoring and Status Report. Accessed: June 1, 2016. Retrieved from: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/esi/uploads/geo_report/1143774449/T0603739924.PD F SWRCB (California State Water Resources Contro l Board). 2016a . Sites Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit. Accessed: July 1, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/CurrentList.pdf _____. 2016b. List of Activ e CDO and CAO. Accessed: July 1, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/SectionC.htm UCMP (University of California Museum of Paleontology). 2015. University of California Museum of Paleontology. Accessed: May 27, 2016. Retr ieved from: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/ USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 201 2 . 2008 Ground -level Ozone Standards – Region 9 Final Designations. April. Accessed: 27 May 2016. Retrieved from: https://archive.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/web/html/region9f.html _____. 2016. Green Book of Nonattainment Areas. April 22. Accessed 27 May, 2016. Retrieved from: https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center). 2016. Santa Monica Pier, California (047953) – Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary. Accessed June 17, 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi -bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7953 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 79 of 1 2 4 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT IS/MND Th is Final IS/MND for the Santa Monica SWIP provides responses to all written comments received on the Draft IS/MND. These c omments include concerns about noise from a nearby resident, requests for project description clarification from a developer interested in the area, and requests from the local Native American Tribe to be involved in th e construction monitoring process. Minor revisions were incorporated into the IS/MND to address these comments, and are shown throughout the document using underline and strike -out . None of the revisions incorporated to address comments received on the Dra ft IS/MND constitute significant new information or substantial project changes as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Each comment letter received on the Draft IS/MND has been assigned an abbreviation based on the name or title of the commenter, as shown below in Table 10 . Individual comments are then numbered consecutively for each comment letter. These numbered comments are presented in their entirety, followed by the corresponding responses. Copies of the comment lette rs are also presented following each set of comments and responses. Table 10 Commenters on the Draft IS/MN Name Comment ID No. Groups / Organizations San Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians SGBMI Joint: • Santa Monica Task Forc e on the Environment • Earth Law Center • Southern California Watershed A lliance / Desal Response Group • NRDC Water Program • Envi ronment Now Freshwater Program • Seventh Generation Advisors Joint Agencies California Department of Transportation – District 7 CT Individuals / Private Party Harding Larmore Kutcher & Kozal LLP (08/08/16) HLKK1 Harding Larmore Kutcher & Kozal LLP (08/19/16) HLKK2 Jacqueline Scott JS S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 80 of 1 2 4 Comment SGBMI #1 In all cases, when the NAHC states there are “No" records of sacred sites” in t he subject area; they always refer the contractors back to the Native American Tribes whose tribal territory the project area is in. This is due to the fact, that the NAHC is only aware of general information on each California NA Tribe they are "NOT " the “experts” on our Tribe. Our Elder Committee & Tribal Historians are the experts and is the reason why the NAHC will always refer contractors to the local tribes. In addition, we are also often told that an area has been previously developed or disturbed and thus there are no concerns for cultural resources and thus minimal impacts would be expected. I have two major recent examples of how similar statements on other projects were proven very inadequate. An archaeological study claimed there would be no im pacts to an area adjacent to the Plaza Church at Olvera Street, the original Spanish settlement of Los Angeles, now in downtown Los Angeles. In fact, this site was the Gabrieleno village of Yangna long before it became what it is now today. The new develop ment wrongfully began their construction and they, in the process, dug up and desecrated 118 burials. The area that was dismissed as culturally sensitive was in fact the First Cemetery of Los Angeles where it had been well documented at the Huntington Libr ary that 400 of our Tribe's ancestors were buried there along with the founding families of Los Angeles (Pico’s, Sepulveda’s, and Alvarado’s to name a few). In addition, there was another inappropriate study for the development of a new sports complex at F edde Middle School in the City of Hawaiian Gardens could commence. Again, a village and burial site were desecrated despite their mitigation measures. Thankfully, we were able to work alongside the school district to quickly and respectfully mitigate a mut ually beneficial resolution. Given all the above, the proper thing to do for your project would be for our Tribe to monitor ground disturbing construction work. Native American monitors and/or consultant can see that cultural resources are treated appro priately from the Native American point of view. Because we are the lineal descendants of the vast area of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, we hold sacred the ability to protect what little of our culture remains. We thank you for taking seriously your rol e and responsibility in assisting us in preserving our culture. Response to SGBMI #1 Thank you for your interest in this project. The comment is noted and will be forwarded to decision -makers for review and approval. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 81 of 1 2 4 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 82 of 1 2 4 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 83 of 1 2 4 Comment Joint #1 The City of San ta Monica (City) has been an environmental leader for many decades. The City’s efforts on stormwater pollution reduction, sustainable cities guidance, plastic bag and foam container bans, green building requirements, 100% local water, and the Sustainabilit y Rights Ordinance2 (SRO) exemplify this leadership. Response to Joint #1 This comment is introductory in nature. Comments are noted and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for their review. It should be noted that the City, as stewards of these resou rces, has always recognized its obligation to proactively explore and implement innovative policy and engineering solutions to ensure water sustainability for its residents now and for the decades to come. The SWIP is one such innovative solution because i t harvests, advance treats and reuses nonconventional alternative water resources (runoff, municipal wastewater and brackish/saline impaired groundwater) that are readily available, but have traditionally been either wasted to the ocean where it adversely impacts beach water quality, or is sent to the City of Los Angles Hyperion Treatment Plant to which the City pays many millions of dollars annually for treatment. Comment Joint #2 The Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) has been offered as a st ep forward in reducing stormwater pollution and reliance on imported water. However, while we support better utilization of stormwater as water supply source and recycling of highly treated wastewater to reduce imported water demands, the SWIP Draft Initia l Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) fails to answer a number of key questions and concerns that need to be addressed to ensure the City best meets its water goals in the short and long term. The MND also completely fails to reference the City’s SR O, which requires the City to report on its “progress in effectuating and enforcing” the right of the aquifer to health. Response to Joint #2 This comment is introductory in nature and outlines the comments to follow. Please see responses to the comments t hat follow. Comment Joint #3 Implementation of the SRO and the City’s 2020 wat er self ‐sufficiency go complete analysis of how the proposed SWIP advances a healthy aquifer that also meets City needs. To accomplish this, the City should perform and regularly update a self ‐sufficiency wa balance analysis that inclu des a comparison of all potential sources of local water – stormwater capture, recycled water, treated groundwater, and other potential sources. However, one of the shortcomings of a MND approach under CEQA is that the depth of environmental analysis is si gnificantly less substantive than a formal EIR. We hope that the issues below can be addressed in the MND process; if not, we urge the City to otherwise address them formally, including potentially through an EIR. Response to Joint #3 The commenter indicat es that the MND should include a more detailed completed analysis of how the proposed project will advance a healthy aquifer. Please see response 5 below. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 84 of 1 2 4 Comment Joint #4 The City has s et a laudable goal of 100% self -sufficiency in water use by 2020. This goal is expected to be achieved through heavy reliance on groundwater,4 making the health of the aquifer of critical importance, as noted by the SRO. However, the MND does not provide an overview of how the project was arrived at, the local water alternat ives it was intended to be compared and considered with, or quantitatively how it may help the city achieve 100% local water sustainability in light of the projected cost and other alternatives for the funds. The City is doing well at approximately 85 -87% local water currently, but clear planning is needed to ensure that the 100% goal is both met and sustained over time. More details than are provided in the MND are needed to ensure this clear planning is put in place and implemented. Response to Joint #4 T he commenter questions how the proposed project was conceived and whether there are other alternatives to help the City achieve 100% local water sustainability. The commenter questions the merits of the project and does not raise any issues with regard to the project’s physical impacts on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15002, the purpose of CEQA is to inform the government decision -makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities. As analyzed in the MND, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to the environment. Therefore, no further response is required. However, it should be noted that the SWIP is consistent with the concept of One Water and would help the City achiev e its water sustainability objectives. When completed and permitted, the SWIP would provide for the harvesting, advanced treatment, and permitted reuse of all available alternative water resources (runoff, municipal wastewater and brackish/saline impaired groundwater). Benefits of the SWIP include among others, improved beach water quality, compliance with non -point source pollution control measures as set forth in the EWMP for Santa Monica Bay Jurisdictional Groups 2 &3, and helping to sustain the long -term yield of groundwater aquifers. Other elements that will contribute towards water sustainability include continued conservation and increased reliance on local ground water supply in lieu of imported water. When fully operational, the SWIP would produc e up to 1,680 AFY of new water for permitted reuse. Comment Joint #5 The MND further fails to include any assessment or even mention of how the SWIP is consistent with the rights of the aquifer to be healthy (both in quantity and quality), as articulated i n the RO. The aquifer’s “right to flourish” in the SRO is a far more protective standard than provided in statewide Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). By contrast with the City’s SRO, SGMA generally allows for aquifer degradation all the way do wn to “significant and unreasonable” results, and endpoint inconsistent with both aquifer health and with achievement and maintenance of the City’s self ‐sufficiency goal. Respons e to Joint #5 The commenter states that the MND fails to include an assessment of how the SWIP is consistent with the rights of the aquifer to be healthy. As analyzed on pages 3 -10 and elsewhere in the MND, the SWIP will produce advanced treated water for permitted reuse, including future aquifer recharge and indirect potable reuse. Prior to utilizing SWIP water for aquifer recharge and indirect reuse, the City will comply with the State’s established permitting process overseen by the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water, and the Los Angeles County Departm ent of Public Health. Thus, any water utilized for aquifer recharge or indirect S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 85 of 1 2 4 reuse will have met State and County standards and requirements for that use. All the advanced treated water produced by the SWIP will be treated to the same high quality, as required by CCR Title 22. Title 22 standards are the same standards that are utilized by the regulatory agencies to assess water for public consumption (i.e. drinking water). Comment Joint #6 Without examining Santa Monica’s overall local water management approach, there is no context in which to determine the City’s need for all or part of the SWIP. Indeed, the new water sources examined in the MND may have the opposite effect, moving the City away from its self ‐sufficiency goals if there are not sufficie nt safeguards on water ‐thirsty development, redevelopment, and water use generally throughout the City, particularly within the context of potential future drought. For this reason, it is essential that City perform now, and regularly update, a self -suffic iency water balance analysis that includes a comparison of all potential sources of local water – stormwater capture, recycled water, treated groundwater, and other potential sources. This analysis is necessary to fully understand the implications of the S WIP and its elements, in the context of the current and past work to improve the City’s water supply. The MND fails to provide any analysis in this regard. Response to Joint #6 The commenter questions the need for the proposed project and states that an an alysis of potential sources of local water should be conducted to understand the proposed project. The commenter questions the merits of the project and does not raise any issues with regard to the project’s physical impacts on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15002, the purpose of CEQA is to inform the government decision -makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities. As analyzed in the MND, the proposed project would result in less than signif icant impacts to the environment Therefore, no further response is required. It should be noted that the City’s Sustainable Water Master Plan (SWMP), and the recent Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP) for Santa Monica Bay, Jurisdictional Groups 2 &3, have assessed potential sources of local water for supply and reuse. The SWIP was based on, and comports with, the findings of these reports. Comment Joint #7 The MND incorrectly uses older figures to justify the ostensible need for the project. For examp le, the City’s water demands as projected in the MND are older numbers that were the case before mandatory water conservation, but are not the case now. The demand given in the MND of approximately 14K AF has been reduced to less than 12K AF in the last ye ar. The MDN assumes a 2020 water demand of approximately 15K AF, an exorbitantly high volume in light of the City’s successful investment in water conservation, a change in the City’s water rate structure, the pending introduction and potential passage of a water neutrality ordinance for new and redevelopment, and a Low Impact Development ordinance with increased stormwater capture requirements. Response to Joint #7 The commenter states that older conservation data has been used to justify the need for the project. The commenter questions the merits of the project and does not raise any issues with regard to the project’s physical impacts on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15002, the purpose of CEQA is to inform the government decision -makers and t he public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities. As analyzed in the MND, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to the environment. Therefore, no S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 86 of 1 2 4 further response is required. However, it should be noted that potable water demand fluctuates each year. Recent demand for water has decreased in the City, particularly in light of the drought restrictions that have been enacted. Even so, adjusting the water demand numbers in the MND does not cha nge any of the environmental conclusions in the MND. Further, the City’s most recent Sustainable Water Master Plan (SWMP) assessed future water demand under non - compulsory water conservation. The subject MND, which is a component of the City’s State fundin g application for SWIP construction, relied on these findings. Recent State mandated conservation requirements layered with the City’s Water Shortage Response Plan (WSRP) did produce some notable reduction in water usage. However, the State has, for better or worse, recently removed its regulatory conservation limits. A changing climate, an improving economy, the vagaries of politics and human nature, and continued City development all augur toward some of the recent conservation savings being transitory. T he project elements included in the SWIP will produce quantifiable water savings by advance treating alternative water resources (runoff, municipal wastewater, and brackish/saline impaired ground water) for permitted reuse. These water resources are curren tly underutilized or run off to the ocean where they can adversely affect beach water quality. When fully permitted and operational the SWIP would produce up to 1,680 AFY of new water for reuse. Comment Joint #8 The MND Fails to Appropriately Examine the D etails of the Range of Alternatives for Achieving the City’s Water Goals, Consistent with the SRO’s Focus on Aquifer Health With respect to funding for other alternatives, the City of Santa Monica has put considerable time, effort and expense in getting re sponsible parties to provide resources to clean up the Olympic subbasin. The MND fails to provide any information on the cleanup effort, the expected increased volume of water to be produced by the Olympic sub ‐basin pump and treat effort, the sustainable y ield of the sub ‐basin, the timing of the groundwater cleanup effort, and how close the increased volume of treated groundwater will get the City to self ‐sufficiency. This information is critical for better understanding the need for each component of the S WIP and Santa Monica's overall sustainable water management approach. Response to Joint #8 The commenter states that the MND should include information regarding the Olympic sub -basin cleanup and treatment effort, and how the treated groundwater from this project will help the City achieve water self -sufficiency. The Olympic treatment project is a separate project from the proposed SWIP and would not materially affect the proposed SWIP and its potential for environmental effects. Comment Joint #9 Moreover, the MND fails to discuss the relative water supply benefits of the proposed new groundwater treatment effort at the SMURFF and a pump and treat approach for new production wells over the Olympic sub ‐basin. This information is necessary to provide the City and the public with a better understanding of the quantified need for additional local water supplies to achieve the City’s ambitious but achievable 2020 self ‐sufficiency goal. Response to Joint #9 The commenter states that the MND fails to include a disc ussion of the water supply benefits of the proposed project, and states that this information is necessary to understand the need for additional local water supplies. The commenter questions the merits of the project and does not raise any issues with rega rd to the project’s physical impacts on the environment. Therefore, no S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 87 of 1 2 4 further response is required. It should be noted that benefits derived from the SWIP, including water supply, are discussed on page 3 and elsewhere in the MND. Comment Joint #10 Also, a dditional information on the relative cost of the Olympic pump and treat project is needed, because there could be concerns about the ratepayer impacts of the building and operating both the SWIP and the Olympic project. A worst -case scenario, which argua bly would be in violation of the SRO, would be construction and operation of the SWIP without cleanup of santa Monica's precious groundwater resources, or without conducting a more complete assessment first of the use and status of the groundwater basin. R esponse to Joint #10 The commenter states that the MND should include information regarding the costs of the Olympic sub -basin treatment project and the SWIP. As stated previously, the Olympic sub basin is a separate project and the intent of CEQA is to a nalyze and disclose the potential physical impacts of a project on the environment. Fiscal/economic impacts are not considered effects on the environment that require analysis pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, no further response is required. Comment Joint #11 All of this information makes it critical that the SWIP, with its projected capital cost of approximately $44.6 M (SMURRF = $3.4M, Civic Center MBR ‐ $28.3M, Stormwater capture – $12.9M), is thoroughly analyzed for need and environmental benefits. In addi tion, the City has committed to spending $1.5M toward a $5.2M California Clean Beach Initiative grant ‐funded cistern at the 1550 lot north of the Pier. The financial impacts of the SWIP project on customer water rates and sewer service charges, particularl y in light of the cistern commitment, was not provided in the MND. Such data needs to be provided in a manner that includes a side ‐by ‐side, year ‐by ‐year comparison with MWD rates. Response to Joint #11 The commenter raises concerns with regard to the finan cial impacts of the proposed project. As stated previously, the intent of CEQA is to analyze and disclose the potential physical impacts of a project on the environment. Fiscal/economic impacts are not considered effects on the environment that require ana lysis pursuant to CEQA. However, it should be noted that the City has applied for a combination of State grants and low interest State Revolving Fund financing to fund the construction of the SWIP. Comment Joint #12 Also, if the SWIP gets constructed, Sant a Monica will have a total of 6.1 million gallons of new stormwater storage. The MND fails to include an analysis of the water supply benefit of all this new storage. For example, will it take pressure off aquifer use of the aquifer and allow for long ‐term maintenance of the City ’s self ‐sufficiency goal? Or will it simply allow for more uses, and if so what kinds of uses? Response to Joint #12 The commenter questions how the proposed SWIP’s increased stormwater storage will affect the use of the aquifer an d the achievement of the City’s water self -sufficiency goal. The three S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 88 of 1 2 4 technical elements that comprise the SWIP, including stormwater reuse, were described in the MND on pages 3 -10. Summarized here these are: • Element 1: Brackish/Saline Impaired Groundwate r Reuse. This Element would provide for the installation of a containerized reverse osmosis (RO) unit to the existing water treatment configuration at the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF). In addition, the City will install a shallow i mpaired groundwater supply well adjacent to the planned Clean Beaches Initiative (CBI) Project. The CBI Project is a stormwater harvest tank to be constructed beginning in 2017 below grade adjacent to the City’s Beach Maintenance Yard. The CBI tank will co llect runoff primarily from the City’s Pier Drainage Area for treatment at the SMURRF. One purpose of the SWIP is to improve beach water quality by decreasing discharges at the Pier and Pico -Kenter outfalls. The lack of consistent precipitation and the Cit y’s conservation efforts has reduced the amount of runoff available for treatment and reuse at the SMURRF. On occasion this has necessitated the use of potable make up water at SMURRF in order to meet existing commitments for reclaimed water. The purpose o f the impaired groundwater supply well is to leverage existing infrastructure and provide a reliable supplemental source of water to the CBI tank and thus SMURRF when runoff is scarce. The quality of the RO treated water produced by the upgraded SMURRF can only be reused if consistent with Title 22 standards (drinking water standards or other applicable state and county laws, guidelines and permits. When completed the upgraded SMURRF would be capable of producing up to 500,000 gallons/day (~560 AFY) of adva nced treated water. • Element 2: Recycled Water Production and Conjunctive Reuse. This Element would provide for the construction of an innovative below grade advanced water treatment facility (AWTF) for recycled water at a location beneath the Civic Center Parking Lot. When completed, the AWTF would advance treat up to 1.0 million gallons/day (~1,120 AFY) of municipal wastewater for permitted conjunctive reuse. Feed water for the AWTF would come from two sources; a nearby City sanitary sewer, and two new bel ow grade stormwater harvest tanks described in SWIP Element 3. The quality of the treated water produced by the AWTF would meet Title 22 standards (drinking water standards). The inventive below grade design and construction will allow for restoration of e xisting parking after construction. • Element 3: Stormwater Harvesting and Reuse: This Element provides for the construction of two below grade stormwater harvest tanks which were discussed and modeled in the EWMP for Santa Monica Bay Jurisdictional Groups 2 & 3. The tanks would harvest stormwater that is typically discharged to the Pico - Kenter outfall and the ocean where it has the potential to adversely impact beach water quality. One tank (3.0 million gallons) will be constructed upgradient from the Civic Center Parking Lot beneath Memorial Park. This tank would harvest stormwater directly off of two City storm drains. The other tank (1.5 million gallons,) would be constructed below grade adjacent to the AWTF at the Civic Center Parking Lot described SWIP Element 2. After a storm event the Civic Center tank would slowly blend its harvested stormwater into the feed stock of the AWTF. As capacity in the Civic Center tank became available, the Memorial Park tank, linked by SCADA and smart technology to the Civ ic Center tank, would gradually release its harvested stormwater down the City’s S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 89 of 1 2 4 municipal storm drain system to the Civic Center tank, which would then feed it to the AWTF. Combined, the stormwater tanks would have the capacity to decrease flows to the oc ean by 4.5 million gallons per storm event. The SWIP is a comprehensive and integrated use of new and existing City infrastructure and the focused application of innovative technology to achieve permitted conjunctive water reuse. Writ large, the SWIP would produce approximately 1,680 AFY of new water annually from a set of water resources that are currently underutilized or wasted to the ocean. The SWIP would reduce the City’s dependence on imported water, and simultaneously provide for compliance with non -point source pollution control requirements as set forth in the EWMP for Santa Monica Bay Jurisdictional Groups 2 &3, improve would beach water quality and help sustain the long term yield of the City’s groundwater aquifers. The recharge of aquifers would only occur after the City completed the necessary regulatory permitting process overseen by the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water and the LA County Department of Public Health. Thus, any water utilized for aquifer recharge or indirect reuse will be required to meet State and County standards and requirements for that use. It is important to clarify therefore, that contrary to statements made in the joint response letter, the City is not proposing to recharge aquifers or sub bas ins with “desalinated salty groundwater”, as that would not be in accord with State drinking water regulations or the City’s well -earned reputation for environmental stewardship, and would be counterproductive to its stated long term water sustainability g oals. Please see Response 4 for a discussion of the SWIP and its consistency with the City’s self - sufficiency goal . Comment Joint #13 The water recycling facility at the Civic Center could be the first such project on the west side. However, no explanatio n was given regarding the size of the project, or whether the projected 1,100 AF per year plus 6.1 million gallons of stormwater storage will bring the city close to 100% self ‐sufficiency. Response to Joint #13 The commenter states that there is no explana tion regarding the size of the project, or how the proposed project will help the City achieve 100% water self -sufficiency. The commenter questions the merits of the project and does not raise any issues with regard to the project’s physical impacts on the environment. Therefore, no further response is required. However, please see responses #4, 7, and 12 above. Comment Joint #14 Also, the MND fails to address whether the City of Los Angeles is supportive of Santa Monica’s use of wastewater for recycling. C ontrary to the language in the MND, the City of Los Angeles has expressed concern about reductions in volumes going to Hyperion (they’ve averaged about 260 MGD out of 450 MGD capacity in the last three years), because there has been commensurate degradatio n of water quality from these reduced flows, and because there are plans to dramatically increase water recycling through West Basin, LAX, and potentially a partnership with MWD. As flows are reduced, the relative concentration of sewage in the wastewater goes up. As a result, recycling Hyperion wastewater has been a growing challenge because of increased ammonia concentrations and turbidity levels. We bring up these issues to illustrate the complexity of the issue at hand. Santa Monica needs the recycled w ater, but residuals disposal is not as straightforward an issue as is described in the MND. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 90 of 1 2 4 Response to Joint #14 The commenter states concerns with regard to the proposed project’s impacts on the Hyperion Treatment Plant. As stated on pages 6 -8 and 67 -69 of the MND, Element 2 of the proposed project will construct a recycled water treatment plant that will advance treat up to 1 million gallons/day of municipal wastewater for permitted reuse. This volume constitutes approximately 8% of the City’s 12 million gallons/day discharge to the Hyperion Plant, which in turn collects on average 350 million gallons of wastewater per day for treatment. Conservatively assuming a minimum volume of 250 million gallons/day as in -flow to Hyperion, the reduction of 1million g allons/day to this flow represents a de minimis volume to the Hyperion Plant total in -take (i.e. approximately .0004%). Overall, implementation of Element 2 will serve to benefit the City by incrementally reduce wastewater loads in the City’s collection sy stem and thus improve hydraulic capacity and the useful life of the City’s wastewater collection system. The RO concentrate flows generated by Element 1, and Element 2 of the proposed SWIP, will constitute a negligible change to the amount of wastewater d elivered to the Hyperion Treatment Plant. The net result of the project will be a decrease in wastewater flows. Therefore, flows will remain within the Hyperion Treatment Plant’s reported dry -weather capacity of 450 MGD and reported wet weather capacity of 850 MGD. As a result, the proposed project will not exceed any wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB and adequate wastewater treatment capacity is available to serve the project. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. Comme nt Joint #15 Another wastewater question that remains to be addressed is whether the City is certain that chemical disinfection will not be required for the produced recycled water. A disinfection residual is often required by the health department, and UV disinfection alone doesn’t provide that residual. If chlorination is required, then there would be concerns about the chlorination facility that were not addressed in the MDN. Response to Joint #15 The commenter questions where chemical disinfection will be required for the produced recycled water. The SWIP will provide for disinfection in order to meet CCR Title 22 and other applicable treated water standards. However, the SWIP upgraded SMURRF and recycled water advanced treated water facility will not ut ilize a “chlorination facility” to maintain a disinfection residual in the distribution pipeline. As is the current practice at the existing SMURRF and other City water treatment facilities, a disinfection residual will be maintained through the applicatio n of appropriately dosed sodium hypochlorite. Comment Joint #16 On a related issue, the MND mentions the potential of injecting the treated wastewater and potentially even desalinated salty groundwater in to the Olympic sub ‐basin. Although the issue was de ferred as a future project, there are numerous concerns related to this approach because of the impacts of injection on existing groundwater contamination, the lack of a groundwater management plan, the regulatory requirements for these injection wells, an d other concerns. The City’s SRO calls for a “healthy” aquifer. At a minimum, the potential impacts of such an injection proposal should be evaluated to ensure they do not violate the aquifer’s right to health, a notably higher bar than under SGMA and othe r requirements. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 91 of 1 2 4 Response to Joint #16 The commenter states concerns regarding injection of SWIP -produced water into the groundwater. As stated in the MND, advanced treated water produced by the SWIP would first be utilized for permitted non -potable reuse. When fully permitted it would also be utilized for groundwater aquifer recharge. It is important to note that the recharge of aquifers and indirect potable reuse would only occur after the City completed the necessary regulatory permitting process overseen by the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water and the LA County Department of Public Health. Thus, any water utilized for aquifer recharge or indirect reuse will have met State and County standards and requirements for that use. N on - potable reuse would be permitted pursuant to State requirements and the latest available version of Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Guidelines for Alternative Water Sources. Comment Joint #17 One of the most disconcerting components of th e proposed SWIP is the beach well desalination element. No analysis was provided demonstrating the need for this component. For example, why was a beach well preferable to expanding the capacity of the 1.5 million gallon reservoir under the 1550 lot? Or pr eferable to directing runoff flows from the 4.5 MG of upstream stormwater storage to the SMURRF? Why was a beach well approach chosen rather than pumping and treating less saline water from further inland in the City? Salt water desalination is incredibly energy intensive and creates a magnified residuals management problem in comparison to wastewater recycling or stormwater capture and treatment. The MND case for the need for this element was woefully inadequate. Response to Joint #17 The commenter questio ns the need for the proposed desalination element of the project and identifies other potential alternatives to the desalination element. The commenter questions the merits of the project and does not raise any issues with regard to the project’s physical impacts on the environment. Therefore, no further response is required. However, the rationale for the installation of the impaired groundwater well and its benefits are discussed on pages 4 and 5 in the MND. To summarize, the City recently received a Stat e Clean Beaches Initiative (CBI) grant to construct a below grade 1.6 million gallon stormwater harvest tank beneath the Deauville parking lot adjacent to the City’s Beach Maintenance Yard. The purpose of the CBI tank is to harvest stormwater from the City ’s Pier Drainage area to improve beach water quality and reduce discharges to the ocean. Harvested stormwater will be piped to the nearby Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF) for treatment and non -potable reuse. Because of recent and poten tially long term fluctuations in the precipitation patterns of southern California, it is likely the CBI tank would sit empty or be underutilized most of the year. To increase the efficiency of the SMURRF, SWIP Element 1 would upgrade SMURRF with a brackis h/saline containerized reverse osmosis unit and shallow brackish/saline impaired groundwater supply well adjacent to the CBI tank. The well would be utilized to provide a reliable supplemental source of water to replenish the CBI tank when runoff is scarce . Recently, the lack of precipitation and the City’s conservation efforts to reduce dry weather runoff have occasionally required the City to augment treated SMURRF water with potable make up water in order it meet its reclaimed water commitments. Having a reliable supplemental source of water will eliminate the need to utilize potable make up water at the SMURRF. The proposed SWIP upgrades would allow the SMURRF to produce up to 560 AFY of advanced treated water from an underutilized and impaired water re source. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 92 of 1 2 4 Comment Joint #18 Although the MND included information on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts of the SWIP, it did not include a comparison of the SWIP with some of the aforementioned alternatives, such as pumping and treating groundwater fro m the Olympic sub ‐basin. Also, the GHG impacts of each element of the SWIP per acre ‐foot of water produced would help provide the basis of a quantitative comparison of carbon embeddedness for each water source; this information was not provided. In additio n, the assumptions that the consultant used to perform the analysis were not provided. Analytical conclusions on GHG emissions can vary dramatically based on the assumptions used in the analysis. Response to Joint #18 The commenter states that the MND did not analyze the project’s GHG impacts with those of other alternatives. Under CEQA, a comparison of the project’s impacts with those of the alternatives is required for EIRs . Since the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts, a MND w as prepared for the project and analysis of alternatives is not required pursuant to CEQA. The commenter further states that GHG emissions should be analyzed for each acre feet of water produced by the project. The GHG analysis conducted in the MND was con ducted in accordance with applicable CEQA standards and guidelines established by the City of Santa Monica, and South Coast Air Quality Management District. The GHG analysis estimated potential GHG emissions for operation of the project on an annual basis as required by the SCAQMD. There is no requirement for GHG emissions to be analyzed per acre -feet of water. The commenter also states that the MND did not include assumptions that were made in the GHG analysis. Those assumptions are provided in Section II I of the IS/MND, with CalEEMod calculations provided in Appendix 1. Comment Joint #19 We strongly encourage Santa Monica to continue their efforts to make the City sustainable, and to protect human health, nature and the environment, consistent as well wit h the SRO. The goal to make Santa Monica 100% self ‐sufficient on sustainable local water supplies is bold and commendable. We strongly urge the City to ensure that the SWIP review and approval process is completely transparent, is conducted consistent with the City’s laws and policies, includes the necessary water balance analysis, addresses the need for law and policy safeguards that unsure that new water leads to self ‐sufficiency rather than water waste, and results overall in a sustainable local water ap proach that maximizes benefits to residents, workers and the environment. Response to Joint #19 This comment includes conclusory statements. Comments are noted and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for review. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 93 of 1 2 4 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 94 of 1 2 4 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 95 of 1 2 4 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 96 of 1 2 4 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 97 of 1 2 4 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 98 of 1 2 4 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 99 of 1 2 4 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 100 of 1 2 4 Comment CT #1 Storm water run -off is a sensitive issue for Los Angeles County. Please be mindful that projects should be designed to discharge clean run -off water. Discharge of storm water fun -off is not permitted on State Highway facilities without a storm water management plan. In ad dition, please be reminded that transportation of heavy construction equipment, material, or other special equipment which requires the use of oversized -transport vehicles on State highways, will require a Caltrans transportation permit. Caltrans recommend s that large size truck trips be limited to off peak commute hours. Response to CT#1 The project will occur with implementation of best management practices to avoid adverse traffic impacts, and in compliance with all regulations. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 101 of 1 2 4 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 102 of 1 2 4 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 103 of 1 2 4 Comment HLKK #1 Based on their review of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (“SWIP”), our client’s understanding is that the SWIP project contemplates use of SMURRF/recycled water in the City’s purple pipe system f or non -potable uses. Because the draft MND for the SWIP does not appear to include a definition of the intended meaning of the term “non -potable,” we request confirmation in the final MND that the scope of SWIP does not include or contemplate approval for use of any recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed -use residential building. In this regard, at least one other jurisdiction has defined “non -potable” applications to include toilet flushing in addition to irrigation. Thus, this clar ification is important. It is our understanding that use of recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed - use residential buildings will require separate approvals and upgrades to the treatment process at the SMURRF (and potentially the ne w facilities contemplated in the SWIP program if these facilities will also feed the City’s purple pipe system). And, we assume that approval process will trigger its own environmental assessment. Because the MND for SWIP does not study the potential impac ts of use of recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed -use residential buildings, it is important for the project description to be clear that this use is not part of the project scope or description. Response to HLKK #1 For the purpos es of the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP), ”non -potable use” includes all reuse that is not intended for human consumption. The SWIP will, as noted in the subject MND, provide for technology upgrades to the SMURRF and the construction of a below grade recycled water treatment facility. Once completed, both facilities will be capable of producing high quality advanced treated water via the use of reverse osmosis (RO) technology. This level of treatment would exceed the water quality level cur rently achieved by the SMURRF. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH) regulates reuse water within the County of Los Angeles, in accordance with Titles 22 and 17 of the California Code of Regulations. All indoor reuse of water, includ ing reuse of recycled water for toilet flushing, must be permitted or approved by the LACDPH with review by the State Water Board. The specific criteria for approval, including minimum water quality standards, treatment processes, and monitoring & reportin g requirements, are set forth in the LACDPH's Guidelines for Alternate Water Sources: Indoor and Outdoor Non -Potable Uses. These Guidelines are attached for reference as Appendix 6 to the MND. Thus, the scope of SWIP encompasses all non -potable water use t hat is permitted by the LACDPH, in accordance with Titles 22 and 17 of the California Code of Regulations. The MND has also been clarified to state that only reuse permitted by the LACDPH will be allowed, in accordance with Titles 22 and 17 of the Californ ia Code of Regulations. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 104 of 1 2 4 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 105 of 1 2 4 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 106 of 1 2 4 Comment HLKK2 #1 This letter is submitted on behalf of DK Broadway, LLC (“DK Broadway”), the owner of the property located at 500 Broadway where the City recently approved a Development Agreement for a mixed -use housing projec t (12DEV -008). We have previously submitted a comment letter on the City’s Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) on the City’s Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (“SWIP”). This letter supplements those prior comments, due to the change in info rmation we have received from the City since that first submission. Response to HLKK2 #1 This comment is introductory in nature and references the prior letter submitted by the applicant. Responses to the prior comment letter are provided in the prior pag es of this MND. Comments are noted and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for their review. Comment HLKK2 #2 DK Broadway enthusiastically supports the City’s water conservation efforts, including innovative and responsible use of recycled water and u nderstands the City is operating under time constraints while seeking grant funding to assist these efforts. However, in light of our most recent conversations with City Staff about SWIP and the MND, we are concerned that the project description set forth in the Draft MND fails to fully and adequately describe the SWIP project and its reasonably foreseeable uses. As to reasonably foreseeable uses, Section 15004(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides: “[N]egative declarations should be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project program and design and yet late enough to provide meaningful information for environmental assessment.” Section 15004 goes on to confirm, “To implement the above principles, public agencies shall not undertake actions concerning the proposed public project that would have a significant adverse effect or limit the choice of alternatives or mitigation measures, before completion of CEQA compliance.” Response to HLKK2 #2 The commenter indicates their concern that the project description in the MND fails to adequately describe the proposed project and cites Section 15004(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Please see Responses HLKK2 #3 through #6 with regard to the project descr iption and how the MND complies with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Comment HLKK2 #3 Here, absent confirmation from the City that the SWIP project does not contemplate future use of its recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed -use residen tial buildings, we request that either (a) the MND be revised and recirculated to clarify that it may lead to use of its recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed -use residential buildings or (b) the City extend the public comment peri od to provide sufficient time for us to meet with City Staff to better understand the scope of the SWIP project and assess whether to retain a water quality expert to assist with review of and commenting on the Draft MND. Response to HLKK2 #3 The commenter states that there is no confirmation in the MND whether the proposed SWIP project contemplates future use of recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed - use residential building. The commenter further requests that either (a) the MND be revised and S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 107 of 1 2 4 recirculated to clarify that SWIP may lead to use of its recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed use residential buildings or (b) that the City extend the public comment period. Please see Response to HLKK #1 regarding t he SWIP and non -potable water uses as permitted by the LACDPH, in accordance with Title 22 standards (drinking water standards) or other applicable state and county laws, guidelines and permits. Additionally, the MND has been clarified to make clear that the SWIP will be designed to recycle water for non -potable uses, including, without limitation, toilet flushing, and indirect potable water uses [ page 4 of the MND]. Notwithstanding that SWIP will be designed to maximize recycled water use, actual reuse o f recycled water, including reuse for toilet flushing, will not occur unless and until such use is permitted by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH), in accordance with Title 22 standards (drinking water standards) or other applicabl e state and county laws, guidelines and permits. Comment HLKK2 #4 As a follow up to our August 8, 2016 letter and August 17, 2016 discussion with City Staff, we request confirmation in the Final MND that the SWIP project does not contemplate future use o f its recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed -use residential buildings. In our most recent call with the City, City Staff indicated that Title 22 does not allow use of recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed -u se residential buildings. The City should clearly state this legislative prohibition on use of recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed -use residential buildings (with the appropriate legal citation) in the Final MND and indicate that the SWIP project does not contemplate future use of any recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed -use residential buildings because such usage would be inconsistent with State law. In this situation, recirculation of the MND presumabl y would not be required because such new information “merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.” (State CEQA Guidelines §15073.5(c)(4).) Response to HLKK2 #4 The comment requests confirmation that the pr oposed SWIP project does not contemplate future use of its recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed use residential buildings. The commenter further states that this confirmation would not require recirculation. Please see prior Respo nse to HLKK #1 and HLKK2 #3 regarding the SWIP and non -potable water uses as permitted by the LACDPH, in accordance with Title 22 standards (drinking water standards) or other applicable state and county laws, guidelines and permits. Comment HLKK2 #5 We a cknowledge that if, in the future, State law is amended to establish a process by which recycled water may be used for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed -use residential buildings, the City might then wish to pursue approvals for use of SWIP’s rec ycled water to be used for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed -use residential buildings. At the present time, we request that the City confirm in the Final MND that an assessment of the required level of environmental review to allow recycled wate r to be used for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed -use residential buildings will be conducted consistent with CEQA as part of any future process the City might then initiate to seek any such approvals. Response to HLKK2 #5 The commenter acknowle dges that State law may be amended in the future to allow recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed use buildings. The commenter also requests that a CEQA assessment be conducted should the City seek approval for the use of recycled S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 108 of 1 2 4 wa ter for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed use residential projects. State law and the LACDPH Guidelines currently authorize reuse of recycled water for toilet flushing (see, e.g., page 10 of the LACDPH Guidelines attached as Appendix E to the MND ); however, SWIP treated water will need to be recognized by the State and LACDPH as recycled water within the meaning of Title 22 in order to be approved for toilet flushing. The specific criteria for approval, including minimum water quality standards, t reatment processes, and monitoring & reporting requirements, will be in accordance with state law and approved LACDPH Guidelines. The City acknowledges that the issuance of a permit by LACDPH for potential Title 22 reuse of SWIP wastewater for toilet flus hing is an independent discretionary approval of the LACDPH that would be subject to CEQA requirements. Comment HLKK2 #6 If the SWIP project contemplates future use of its recycled water for toilet flushing in residential or mixed -use buildings, the SWIP project description must be revised to add this important new project component, the MND must study this additional aspect of the project, and the Draft SWIP MND must be recirculated for public review and comment. See State CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5. Resp onse to HLKK #6 The commenter states that if the proposed SWIP project contemplates reuse of recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed -use residential buildings, the MND must be revised and recirculated pursuant to State CEQA Guideline s §15073.5. As stated in §15073.5, CEQA only requires recirculation of a MND when “the document must be substantially revised”. The CEQA Guidelines further states, “a substantial revision” means: 1) “A new avoidable significant effect is identified and mit igation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to significance , or 2) “The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance” CE QA Guidelines §15073.5 also provides that “recirculation is not required when new provision revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project’s effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new significant effects; or when new information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.” The MND has been revised to clarify that the scope of SWIP encompasses all non -pot able water use that is permitted by the LACDPH, in accordance with Title 22 (drinking water standards) or other applicable state and county laws, guidelines and permits. The potential for non -potable uses of SWIP treated wastewater was already disclosed in the MND and has been further clarified in Response to HLKK #1 and HLKK2 #3. These revisions merely clarify information in the MND and do not implicate new significant effects. Therefore, recirculation of the MND is not required pursuant to CEQA Guideline s §15073.5. Comment HLKK2 #7 The potential for future use of SWIP’s recycled water for toilet flushing in residential or mixed -use buildings is not disclosed anywhere in the Draft MND, including in any of the three elements identified in the SWIP MND proje ct description. As confirmed in our August 8, 2016 comment letter, our client’s understanding from discussions with the City had been that the scope of SWIP S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 109 of 1 2 4 does not include or contemplate use of its recycled water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed -use residential buildings. In that regard, I contacted the City’s EIR Planner Rachel Kwok on July 27, 2016 requesting clarification on this issue and she indicated to me that her understanding was that SWIP recycled water would not be used for toile t flushing in residential and/or mixed -use residential building. Ms. Kwok indicated that she would need to confirm this with Tom Watson, but thought that this clarification could be added prior to publishing the Final MND. After not hearing back from the C ity to the contrary, I submitted the August 8, 2016 letter formally requesting that this clarification be made in the MND project description. On August 17, 2016 (only three days before the close of the MND comment period), City Staff informed us in a conf erence call apparently spurred by our comment letter that there is a future possibility that the SWIP water might be used for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed -use residential buildings. Following that conference call, I received a telephone call from Deputy City Attorney Susan Y. Cola in which she stated that Title 22 does not currently permit direct delivery of recycled water into residential homes. Thus, our client remains confused about the scope of the SWIP project, and it appears the City is as well. Response to HLKK2 #7 The commenter requests clarification regarding the use of SWIP water for toilet flushing in residential and/or mixed use residential buildings. Please see Response to HLKK #1 and HLKK2 #3 and #6 regarding the SWIP and non -pot able water uses as permitted by the LACDPH, in accordance with Title 22 standards (drinking water standards) or other applicable state and county laws, guidelines and permits. Comment HLKK2 #8 The MND needs an accurate, stable and finite project descripti on. Courts have held, “An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.” (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 CA3d 185, 192.) In this instance, although City Staff has prepared an MND rather than an EIR for this project, the stability of the project description is equally important. If the SWIP project is reasonably like to lead to use of its recycled water for toilet flushing in residential or mixed -use buildings, then the proj ect description in the Draft MND is not accurate as it completely ignores this potential future use. If the MND’s project description does not describe the entire project, then it appears likely that the MND’s environmental analysis may not have studied th e environmental effects of the entire project. (See Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 C3d 376.) Response to HLKK2 #8 The commenter states that if SWIP water is to be used for toilet in residential and/or mixed residentia l buildings, then the MND’s project description and associated analysis is inadequate. Please see Response to HLKK2 #3, #5 and #6. Comment HLKK2 #9 The State CEQA Guidelines explain the “project” is the “whole of an action, which has a potential for resul ting in either a direct physical change in the environmental or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (State CEQA Guidelines §15378(a).) In this regard, Laurel Heights provides that the environmental analysis “must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansion or other action if: (1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2)the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nat ure of the initial project or its environmental effects.” Thus, if the SWIP project includes the reasonably foreseeable future use of its recycled water for S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 110 of 1 2 4 toilet flushing in residential or mixed -use buildings, then this must be described in the SWIP proj ect description and the MND must study whether this future expansion of the use of the recycled water produced by the SWIP project will have the potential for any significant environmental effects, including public health and safety impacts. Response to HL KK2 #9 The commenter further details that if SWIP water is to be used for toilet in residential and/or mixed residential buildings, then the MND does not adequately address the potential environmental effects, including public health and safety impacts. Pl ease see Response to HLKK2 #3, #5 and #6. Comment HLKK2 #10 Given that our client remains unclear on the scope of the SWIP project, we are requesting an extension of the SWIP MND comment period (See State CEQA Guidelines § 15073) to allow us to meet with City Staff and clearly and definitively understand the final scope of the project. We believe this may be the most productive way to move forward, as that meeting may clarify whether our client will have an interest in retaining a water quality expert to f urther evaluate the Draft MND from a technical standpoint. We have been informed that the City may have deadlines by which the MND needs to be completed in order to apply for certain grant funding related to the SWIP project. Thus, our client is prepared t o make themselves available to meet as soon as the City is able. Please feel free to contact me to schedule the requested meeting and/or if you have any questions. Response to HLKK2 #10 This comment requests extension of the MND comment period and a meetin g with the City to discuss the scope of the proposed SWIP project. Comment is noted. Comment HLKK2 #11 If none of the above solutions are pursued by the City and it is reasonably foreseeable that the SWIP project will result in the City’s use of recycled water for toilet flushing in residential or mixed - use buildings, then we reserve the right to assert the SWIP MND is legally deficient due to (a) failing to have an accurate and clear project description and (b) failing to study the reasonably foreseeable use of SWIP water for toilet flushing in residential or mixed -use buildings which is likely to change the project’s environmental effects. Response to HLKK2 #11 This comment summarizes the previous comments. Please see R esponse to HLKK2 #3, #5, and #6 . Co mment HLKK2 #12 Specifically, our client is concerned about ensuring there is no potential public health risk to individuals and animals occupying the residential units where recycled water is used for toilet flushing, especially sensitive users such as ch ildren and pets who may reasonably come into direct contact with (including ingesting) the recycled water. We anticipate the environmental analysis would need to consider the water quality standard proposed for use of recycled water for toilet flushing in residential homes, the roles of the State, County and City in establishing these S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 111 of 1 2 4 standards and monitoring to ensure the water consistently meets these standards, a health risk assessment, an assessment of odors, and a consideration of alternatives. There m ay be other potential environmental effects; however, given the lack of clarity in the project description our client and other members of the public have not had time to fully consider or analyze the additional potential environmental effects. At a minimu m, the MND should incorporate the City’s SMURRF water usage requirements included in Section 2.8.5(b) the 500 Broadway DA as mitigation measures. In this regard, this comment letter is submitted without prejudice to the purple pipe and SMURRF water usage r equirements in Section 2.8.6 of the 500 Broadway DA. Response to HLKK2 #12 The commenter expresses concern regarding the use of recycled water for toilet flushing and states that environmental effects of such use would need to be analyzed. Please see Respo nse to HLKK2 #3, #5 and #6. The commenter also states that the MND should incorporate the City’s SMURRF water usage requirements as referenced in the 500 Broadway DA. Since the MND has not identified any significant impacts relating to use of recycled wate r for toilet flushing because such use would not be allowed unless permitted by the LACDPH in accordance with laws, it would not be appropriate to include SMURRF water usage requirements as referenced in the 500 Broadway DA as mitigation measure to be adop ted as part of the MND for the project. Any measures necessary to mitigate identified significant environmental effects from the use of SWIP water for toilet flushing would need to be incorporated as part of the LACDPH's permitting process, as determined based upon the applicable laws and guidelines then in effect. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 112 of 1 2 4 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 113 of 1 2 4 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 114 of 1 2 4 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 115 of 1 2 4 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 116 of 1 2 4 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 117 of 1 2 4 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 118 of 1 2 4 Comment JS #1 I am very concerned about the notice I received regarding the treatment facility proposed under the Civic Center Parking Lot. What will be the noise impact on those of us that live across the street across Pico? First we will be bombarded with the noise of tearing up the parking lot and building the underground facility. But more important we will be subjected to continuing noise from the facility running. It is hard enoug h to have peace and quiet in our apartments with a noise factor such as a continuous buzzing, electric sounds, machinery running sounds, etc. bombarding us 24/7. Those of us that live across the street do not have double pane windows because our apartments were built before this became law and we have no air conditioning so we HAVE to keep our windows open to not die of heat. No one seems to be concerned that this is in the middle of a residential area. If you have to build it put it over by the City Hall -- let them listen to the noise. Response to JS #1 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document prepared for the Sustainable Water infrastructure Project (SWIP) has evaluated Construction Effects including noise. Those discussions can be general ly be found on pages 29 -33 and 56 -58 of the project CEQA document. To mitigate potential temporary noise effects , construction will be restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays ; additionally, no c onstruction activities will be allowed on Sundays or public holidays. Further, an innovative aspect of the SWIP recycled water treatment facility at the Civic Center Parking Lot is that, once completed, the facility will be entirely below ground with the e xisting parking lot configuration restored. The only anticipated surface features associated with the treatment facility will include a n access stairway, a service elevator enclosure , and a ventilation shaft. As such, noise associated with the project will be limited to the construction period. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 119 of 1 2 4 S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 120 of 1 2 4 This page left intentionally blank S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 121 of 1 2 4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM I NTRODUCTION The following Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) provides a summary of each Mitigation Measure (MM) identified in the Initial Study/Mitiga ted Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project and the monitoring implementation responsibility for each measure. The MMRP for the proposed project will be in place through all phases of the proposed project, in cluding design, construction, and operation. Purpose The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that measures provided in the IS/MND to minimize or avoid adverse effects are implemented. The MMRP can also act as a working guide to facilitate not only the impleme ntation of mitigation measures by the project proponent, but also the monitoring, compliance, and reporting activities of the implementing agency and any monitors it may designate. Responsibilities The City of Santa Monica Public Works Department will act as the lead implementing agency and approve a program regarding reporting or monitoring for the implementation of approved mitigation measures for this project to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented as defined in this IS/MND. For e ach MMRP activity, the Public Works Department will either administer the activity or delegate it to staff, other City departments (e.g., Department of Building and Safety, etc.), consultants, or contractors. The Planning Development will also ensure that monitoring is documented as required and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The designated environmental monitor depending on the provision specified below (e.g., project contractor, certified professionals, etc.) will track and document compliance with mitigation measures, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to remedy problems. The Public Works Department or its designee(s) will ensure that each person delegated any duties or responsibilities is qualified to monitor compli ance. The applicant is responsible for funding and successfully implementing all the mitigation measures in the MMRP, and is responsible for assuring that these requirements are met by all of its construction contractors and field personnel. Standards for successful mitigation of impacts are implicit in many mitigation measures that include such requirements as obtaining permits or avoiding a specific impact entirely. Other mitigation measures include detailed success criteria. Additional mitigation success thresholds will be established by applicable agencies with jurisdiction through the permit process and through the review and approval of project specific plans for the implementation of mitigation measures. Monitoring Procedures Many of the monitoring pr ocedures will be conducted during the construction phase of the project. The Public Works Department or its designee(s) and the environmental monitor(s) are responsible for integrating the mitigation monitoring procedures into the construction process in c oordination with the applicant. To oversee the monitoring procedures and to ensure success, S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 122 of 1 2 4 the environmental monitor assigned to a monitoring action must be on site during the applicable portion of construction that has the potential to create an environm ental impact or other impact for which mitigation is required. The environmental monitor is responsible for ensuring that all procedures specified in the monitoring program are followed. Site visits and specified monitoring procedures performed by other in dividuals will be reported to the environmental monitor assigned to the relevant construction phase. A monitoring record form will be submitted to the environmental monitor by the individual conducting the visit or procedure so that details of the visit ca n be recorded and progress tracked by the environmental monitor. A checklist will be developed and maintained by the environmental monitor to track all procedures required for each mitigation measure and to ensure compliance with the timing specified for t he procedures. The environmental monitor will note any problems that may occur and take appropriate action as directed by the Public Works Department to rectify the problem. Monitoring Table For each mitigation measure, Table 11 identifies : 1) The full text of the mitigation measure; 2) The timing of the required action(s) that needs to be performed; 3) The entity responsible for performing the action; and 4) The agency responsible for verifying compliance. Table 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Timing / Reporting Action Monitoring Party Responsible Agency Aesthetics No mitigation measures for this impact area. N/A N/A N/A Agriculture and Forestry Resources No mitigation measures for this impact area. N/A N/A N/A Air Quality No mitigation measures for this impact area. N/A N/A N/A Biological Resources MM BIO -1 Nesting Birds and Roosting Bats Survey. A pre -construction survey for nesting birds and ro osting bats shall occur prior to work during the nesting season (January 15 - August 31). These surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 14 days prior to the start of construction staging or ground disturbance and reinitiated as needed af ter periods of inactivity at each project site. If nesting birds or bats are found, a non - disturbance buffer zone shall be implemented with input from the qualified biologist. Buffer zones shall be clearly marked with exclusion fencing/staking and signage. Biological monitoring shall be implemented if active nests or roosting bats are found to regularly assess their status and condition. Given the urban During construction a ctivities, including demolition and excavation City of Santa Monica Department of Public Works; City approved/ qualified archaeologist City of Santa Monica Department of Public Works S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 123 of 1 2 4 Table 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Timing / Reporting Action Monitoring Party Responsible Agency setting and the high baseline disturbance level, buffer zones can likely be focused to a limited area an d, therefore, a specific distance is not provided. Nesting raptors (e.g., red -tailed hawk) typically warrant a larger zone than nesting passerines. If buffers are determined to be necessary (based on the survey), they can be adjusted based on work activiti es, monitoring results (e.g., reaction of the animals), and the biologist’s judgment. Buffers shall be maintained until work has ceased in the identified area or the birds/bats are done nesting/roosting, as confirmed by the biologist. Construction Effects No additional 6 mitigation measures for this imp act area. N/A N/A N/A Cultural Resources MM CR -1 Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event of an inadvertent discovery of prehistoric or historic -period archaeological resources during construction, the applicant shall immediatel y cease all work within 50 feet of the discovery. The applicant shall immediately notify the City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department and shall retain a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) to evaluate the significance of t he discovery prior to resuming any activities that could impact the site/discovery. This investigation shall be driven by a Treatment Plan that sets forth explicit criteria for evaluating the significance of resources discovered during construction and ide ntifies appropriate data recovery methods and procedures to mitigate project effects on significant resources. The Treatment Plan shall be prepared by an RPA familiar with both historical resources and prehistoric archaeological resources prior to further excavation or site investigation following initial discovery. The Treatment Plan shall also provide for a final technical report on all cultural resource studies and for the curation of artifac ts and other recovered remains at a qualified curation facility, to be funded by the applicant. If the archaeologist determines that the find may qualify for listing in the California Register, the site shall be avoided or a data recovery plan During construction activities, including demolit ion and excavation City of Santa Monica Department of Public Works; City approved/ qualified archaeologist City of Santa Monica Department of Public Works 6 The mitigation measures identified under Biological Resources and Cultural Resources would sufficiently reduce potential impacts associated with Construction Effects to a less than significant l evel, such that additional mitigation would not be required. S USTAINABLE W ATER I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROJECT I NITIAL S TUDY / M ITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION August 2016 Page 124 of 1 2 4 Table 11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Timing / Reporting Action Monitoring Party Responsible Agency shall be dev eloped. Any required testing or data recovery shall be directed by an RPA prior to resuming construction activities in the affected area. Work shall not resume until authorization is received from the City. MM CR -2 Inadvertent Discovery of Paleontological Resources. In the event that a paleontological reso urce is discovered during ground -disturbing activities associated with the project, work will immediately cease within 50 feet of the discovery and the find shall be assessed by a qualified paleontologist for scientific significance and collected for curat ion, if necessary. If significant resources are encountered, curation will occur according to accepted standards as recommended by the Paleontologist in consultation with City staff. During construction activities, including demolition and excavation City of Santa Monica Department of Public Works; City approved/ qualified archaeologist City of Santa Monica Department of Public Works Greenhouse Gas Emissions No mitigation measures for this impact area. N/A N/A N/A Geology / Soils No mitigation mea sures for this impact area. N/A N/A N/A Hazards and Hazardous Materials No mitigation measures for this impact area. N/A N/A N/A Hydrology and Water Quality No mitigation measures for this impact area. N/A N/A N/A Land Use and Planning No mi tigation measures for this impact area. N/A N/A N/A Mineral Resources No mitigation measures for this impact area. N/A N/A N/A Noise No mitigation measures for this impact area. N/A N/A N/A Population and Housing No mitigation measures for t his impact area. N/A N/A N/A Public Services No mitigation measures for this impact area. N/A N/A N/A Recreation No mitigation measures for this impact area. N/A N/A N/A Transportation / Traffic No mitigation measures for this impact area. N /A N/A N/A Utilities and Service Systems No mitigation measures for this impact area. N/A N/A N/A A ppendix 1 CalEEEMod Calculations South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter Santa Monica SWIP 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.10 1000sqft 0.00 100.00 0 Unenclosed Parking Structure 24.75 1000sqft 0.57 24,750.00 0 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 23.26 1000sqft 0.53 23,260.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 8 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 31 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2020 Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 630.89 0.029 CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006 N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 1 of 33 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Element 2 assumed to be parking structure to account for concrete in treatment facility. Square footage for Element 3 = 23,260 SF Element 2 (plus Element 3 Civic Center Tank) = 24,750 SF Construction Phase - assume all three stages start at same time. Durations estimated to account for total Element durations given by City; 10 days for Element 1, 520 days for Element 2, and 401 days for Element 3. Off-road Equipment - equipmnet per city provided email 7/1/16. Off-road Equipment - equipment hours averaged over duration of phase to get the total estimated equipment hours provided by the City. Element 2 plus Civic Center tank portion of Element 3 Off-road Equipment - equipment list per City email 7/1/16. Equipment hours averaged over duration of phase to get the total estimated equipment hours provided by the City. Off-road Equipment - equipment hours averaged over duration of phase to get the total estimated equipment hours provided by the City. Off-road Equipment - equipment hours averaged over duration of phase to get the total estimated equipment hours provided by the City. Off-road Equipment - equipment hours averaged over duration of phase to get the total estimated equipment hours provided by the City. Off-road Equipment - equipment hours averaged over duration of phase to get the total estimated equipment hours provided by the City. Grading - acres disturbed per City provided site plans. Element 2 totals and area includes Civic Center portion of Element 3. Trips and VMT - exported soils hauled to City Maintenance yard at 2500 Michigan Street Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 8.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 51.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 90.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 2.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 420.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 350.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/15/2019 1/12/2018 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/26/2018 7/15/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/18/2019 12/13/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/13/2019 8/9/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/11/2020 5/3/2019 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 2 of 33 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/4/2019 1/3/2018 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/13/2018 5/6/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/16/2019 8/12/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/3/2018 1/1/2018 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/10/2019 1/1/2018 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/14/2019 12/16/2019 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 205.00 9.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 9.00 89.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 9.00 97.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 162.00 174.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 400.00 46.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 80.00 97.00 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.50 0.56 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.56 0.20 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.56 0.37 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.41 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.45 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.37 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 25.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 3 of 33 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Building Construction Element 1 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Building Construction Element 2 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading Element 3 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading Element 3 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading Element 3 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading Element 3 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading Element 3 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Building Construction Element 1 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Building Construction Element 2 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Paving Element 2 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Building Construction Element 3 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Building Construction Element 2 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.10 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.40 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.20 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.90 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.30 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.50 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.30 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.10 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.40 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.40 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 4 of 33 2.0 Emissions Summary tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2020 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 2.20 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.10 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 5 of 33 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2018 1.8849 13.8110 17.3355 0.0446 2.3962 0.4927 2.8260 0.5506 0.4551 0.9982 0.0000 3,939.924 5 3,939.924 5 0.6661 0.0000 3,953.912 8 2019 0.7216 2.8449 9.5176 0.0237 1.7951 0.1181 1.8821 0.4742 0.1103 0.5559 0.0000 1,836.001 8 1,836.001 8 0.1307 0.0000 1,838.747 2 Total 2.6065 16.6559 26.8531 0.0683 4.1913 0.6108 4.7081 1.0247 0.5653 1.5541 0.0000 5,775.926 3 5,775.926 3 0.7969 0.0000 5,792.660 1 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2018 1.8849 13.8110 17.3355 0.0446 2.0976 0.4927 2.5359 0.5422 0.4551 0.9972 0.0000 3,939.924 5 3,939.924 5 0.6661 0.0000 3,953.912 8 2019 0.7216 2.8449 9.5176 0.0237 1.7881 0.1181 1.8751 0.4732 0.1103 0.5549 0.0000 1,836.001 8 1,836.001 8 0.1307 0.0000 1,838.747 2 Total 2.6065 16.6559 26.8531 0.0683 3.8857 0.6108 4.4110 1.0153 0.5653 1.5521 0.0000 5,775.926 3 5,775.926 3 0.7969 0.0000 5,792.660 1 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.29 0.00 6.31 0.92 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 6 of 33 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Grading Element 1 Grading 1/1/2018 1/2/2018 5 2 2 Grading Element 2 Grading 1/1/2018 8/9/2019 5 420 3 Grading Element 3 Grading 1/1/2018 5/3/2019 5 350 4 Building Construction Element 1 Building Construction 1/3/2018 1/12/2018 5 8 5 Building Construction Element 3 Building Construction 5/6/2019 7/15/2019 5 51 6 Building Construction Element 2 Building Construction 8/12/2019 12/13/2019 5 90 7 Paving Element 2 Paving 12/16/2019 12/27/2019 5 10 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Grading Element 1 Bore/Drill Rigs 1 8.00 9 0.56 Grading Element 1 Off-Highway Trucks 2 4.00 400 0.38 Grading Element 2 Dumpers/Tenders 25 0.10 16 0.38 Grading Element 2 Excavators 1 0.10 174 0.41 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 8 of 33 Grading Element 2 Forklifts 2 0.20 89 0.20 Grading Element 2 Generator Sets 1 0.20 84 0.74 Grading Element 2 Off-Highway Trucks 1 0.20 400 0.38 Grading Element 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 0.40 97 0.37 Grading Element 3 Dumpers/Tenders 25 0.10 16 0.38 Grading Element 3 Excavators 1 0.10 162 0.38 Grading Element 3 Forklifts 1 0.10 89 0.20 Grading Element 3 Generator Sets 1 0.10 84 0.74 Grading Element 3 Off-Highway Trucks 1 0.30 400 0.38 Grading Element 3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 0.40 97 0.37 Building Construction Element 1 Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 0.10 89 0.20 Building Construction Element 1 Cranes 1 0.10 226 0.29 Building Construction Element 1 Off-Highway Trucks 2 5.00 400 0.38 Building Construction Element 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 0.10 97 0.37 Building Construction Element 3 Cranes 1 0.40 226 0.29 Building Construction Element 3 Forklifts 2 0.90 89 0.20 Building Construction Element 3 Generator Sets 1 0.30 84 0.74 Building Construction Element 3 Rollers 1 0.90 97 0.37 Building Construction Element 2 Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 0.10 97 0.37 Building Construction Element 2 Cranes 1 0.20 226 0.29 Building Construction Element 2 Forklifts 2 1.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Element 2 Generator Sets 1 0.50 84 0.74 Building Construction Element 2 Off-Highway Trucks 1 0.20 46 0.45 Building Construction Element 2 Rollers 1 0.50 80 0.38 Paving Element 2 Off-Highway Trucks 1 0.30 400 0.38 Paving Element 2 Rollers 1 0.30 80 0.38 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 9 of 33 3.2 Grading Element 1 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.5303 0.0000 0.5303 0.0573 0.0000 0.0573 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.8377 8.7164 4.5869 0.0136 0.3316 0.3316 0.3051 0.3051 1,372.264 5 1,372.264 5 0.4272 1,381.235 8 Total 0.8377 8.7164 4.5869 0.0136 0.5303 0.3316 0.8619 0.0573 0.3051 0.3624 1,372.264 5 1,372.264 5 0.4272 1,381.235 8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area Clean Paved Roads Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Building Construction Element 2 7 20.00 8.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction Element 3 5 20.00 8.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction Element 1 6 20.00 8.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading Element 2 31 78.00 0.00 1,832.00 14.70 6.90 2.20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading Element 1 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading Element 3 31 78.00 0.00 2,225.00 14.70 6.90 1.10 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving Element 2 2 5.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 10 of 33 3.2 Grading Element 1 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0275 0.0375 0.3908 1.0600e- 003 0.0894 7.0000e- 004 0.0901 0.0237 6.5000e- 004 0.0244 82.6240 82.6240 4.1800e- 003 82.7118 Total 0.0275 0.0375 0.3908 1.0600e- 003 0.0894 7.0000e- 004 0.0901 0.0237 6.5000e- 004 0.0244 82.6240 82.6240 4.1800e- 003 82.7118 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.2386 0.0000 0.2386 0.0258 0.0000 0.0258 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.8377 8.7164 4.5869 0.0136 0.3316 0.3316 0.3051 0.3051 0.0000 1,372.264 5 1,372.264 5 0.4272 1,381.235 8 Total 0.8377 8.7164 4.5869 0.0136 0.2386 0.3316 0.5702 0.0258 0.3051 0.3309 0.0000 1,372.264 5 1,372.264 5 0.4272 1,381.235 8 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 11 of 33 3.2 Grading Element 1 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0275 0.0375 0.3908 1.0600e- 003 0.0894 7.0000e- 004 0.0901 0.0237 6.5000e- 004 0.0244 82.6240 82.6240 4.1800e- 003 82.7118 Total 0.0275 0.0375 0.3908 1.0600e- 003 0.0894 7.0000e- 004 0.0901 0.0237 6.5000e- 004 0.0244 82.6240 82.6240 4.1800e- 003 82.7118 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Grading Element 2 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 5.3900e- 003 0.0000 5.3900e- 003 7.5000e- 004 0.0000 7.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0814 0.7119 0.5026 1.0400e- 003 0.0376 0.0376 0.0356 0.0356 98.7401 98.7401 0.0231 99.2258 Total 0.0814 0.7119 0.5026 1.0400e- 003 5.3900e- 003 0.0376 0.0430 7.5000e- 004 0.0356 0.0363 98.7401 98.7401 0.0231 99.2258 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 12 of 33 3.3 Grading Element 2 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0312 0.1869 0.6237 4.2000e- 004 0.0123 2.1100e- 003 0.0144 3.2700e- 003 1.9400e- 003 5.2000e- 003 40.5361 40.5361 4.9000e- 004 40.5464 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2683 0.3660 3.8098 0.0103 0.8719 6.8200e- 003 0.8787 0.2312 6.3100e- 003 0.2375 805.5844 805.5844 0.0408 806.4404 Total 0.2995 0.5530 4.4335 0.0108 0.8842 8.9300e- 003 0.8931 0.2345 8.2500e- 003 0.2427 846.1204 846.1204 0.0413 846.9868 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 2.4200e- 003 0.0000 2.4200e- 003 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0814 0.7119 0.5026 1.0400e- 003 0.0376 0.0376 0.0356 0.0356 0.0000 98.7401 98.7401 0.0231 99.2258 Total 0.0814 0.7119 0.5026 1.0400e- 003 2.4200e- 003 0.0376 0.0400 3.4000e- 004 0.0356 0.0359 0.0000 98.7401 98.7401 0.0231 99.2258 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 13 of 33 3.3 Grading Element 2 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0312 0.1869 0.6237 4.2000e- 004 0.0123 2.1100e- 003 0.0144 3.2700e- 003 1.9400e- 003 5.2000e- 003 40.5361 40.5361 4.9000e- 004 40.5464 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2683 0.3660 3.8098 0.0103 0.8719 6.8200e- 003 0.8787 0.2312 6.3100e- 003 0.2375 805.5844 805.5844 0.0408 806.4404 Total 0.2995 0.5530 4.4335 0.0108 0.8842 8.9300e- 003 0.8931 0.2345 8.2500e- 003 0.2427 846.1204 846.1204 0.0413 846.9868 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Grading Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 5.3900e- 003 0.0000 5.3900e- 003 7.5000e- 004 0.0000 7.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0753 0.6469 0.4942 1.0400e- 003 0.0330 0.0330 0.0313 0.0313 97.6850 97.6850 0.0230 98.1677 Total 0.0753 0.6469 0.4942 1.0400e- 003 5.3900e- 003 0.0330 0.0384 7.5000e- 004 0.0313 0.0320 97.6850 97.6850 0.0230 98.1677 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 14 of 33 3.3 Grading Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0297 0.1771 0.6124 4.2000e- 004 0.0189 2.1000e- 003 0.0210 4.8800e- 003 1.9300e- 003 6.8100e- 003 39.7577 39.7577 5.0000e- 004 39.7681 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2467 0.3356 3.4918 0.0103 0.8719 6.7000e- 003 0.8786 0.2312 6.2100e- 003 0.2374 774.9177 774.9177 0.0382 775.7190 Total 0.2764 0.5128 4.1041 0.0107 0.8907 8.8000e- 003 0.8995 0.2361 8.1400e- 003 0.2442 814.6753 814.6753 0.0387 815.4871 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 2.4200e- 003 0.0000 2.4200e- 003 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0753 0.6469 0.4942 1.0400e- 003 0.0330 0.0330 0.0313 0.0313 0.0000 97.6850 97.6850 0.0230 98.1677 Total 0.0753 0.6469 0.4942 1.0400e- 003 2.4200e- 003 0.0330 0.0354 3.4000e- 004 0.0313 0.0316 0.0000 97.6850 97.6850 0.0230 98.1677 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 15 of 33 3.3 Grading Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0297 0.1771 0.6124 4.2000e- 004 0.0189 2.1000e- 003 0.0210 4.8800e- 003 1.9300e- 003 6.8100e- 003 39.7577 39.7577 5.0000e- 004 39.7681 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2467 0.3356 3.4918 0.0103 0.8719 6.7000e- 003 0.8786 0.2312 6.2100e- 003 0.2374 774.9177 774.9177 0.0382 775.7190 Total 0.2764 0.5128 4.1041 0.0107 0.8907 8.8000e- 003 0.8995 0.2361 8.1400e- 003 0.2442 814.6753 814.6753 0.0387 815.4871 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading Element 3 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 7.3600e- 003 0.0000 7.3600e- 003 1.0400e- 003 0.0000 1.0400e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0907 0.8302 0.5728 1.2100e- 003 0.0424 0.0424 0.0397 0.0397 116.3035 116.3035 0.0305 116.9432 Total 0.0907 0.8302 0.5728 1.2100e- 003 7.3600e- 003 0.0424 0.0498 1.0400e- 003 0.0397 0.0408 116.3035 116.3035 0.0305 116.9432 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 16 of 33 3.4 Grading Element 3 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0418 0.1944 0.8826 3.7000e- 004 7.8000e- 003 1.7000e- 003 9.4900e- 003 2.1000e- 003 1.5600e- 003 3.6600e- 003 34.5575 34.5575 5.5000e- 004 34.5691 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2683 0.3660 3.8098 0.0103 0.8719 6.8200e- 003 0.8787 0.2312 6.3100e- 003 0.2375 805.5844 805.5844 0.0408 806.4404 Total 0.3101 0.5605 4.6924 0.0107 0.8797 8.5200e- 003 0.8882 0.2333 7.8700e- 003 0.2412 840.1419 840.1419 0.0413 841.0095 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.3100e- 003 0.0000 3.3100e- 003 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0907 0.8302 0.5728 1.2100e- 003 0.0424 0.0424 0.0397 0.0397 0.0000 116.3035 116.3035 0.0305 116.9432 Total 0.0907 0.8302 0.5728 1.2100e- 003 3.3100e- 003 0.0424 0.0457 4.7000e- 004 0.0397 0.0402 0.0000 116.3035 116.3035 0.0305 116.9432 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 17 of 33 3.4 Grading Element 3 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0418 0.1944 0.8826 3.7000e- 004 7.8000e- 003 1.7000e- 003 9.4900e- 003 2.1000e- 003 1.5600e- 003 3.6600e- 003 34.5575 34.5575 5.5000e- 004 34.5691 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2683 0.3660 3.8098 0.0103 0.8719 6.8200e- 003 0.8787 0.2312 6.3100e- 003 0.2375 805.5844 805.5844 0.0408 806.4404 Total 0.3101 0.5605 4.6924 0.0107 0.8797 8.5200e- 003 0.8882 0.2333 7.8700e- 003 0.2412 840.1419 840.1419 0.0413 841.0095 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading Element 3 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 7.3600e- 003 0.0000 7.3600e- 003 1.0400e- 003 0.0000 1.0400e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0837 0.7469 0.5611 1.2100e- 003 0.0368 0.0368 0.0346 0.0346 114.8242 114.8242 0.0304 115.4622 Total 0.0837 0.7469 0.5611 1.2100e- 003 7.3600e- 003 0.0368 0.0442 1.0400e- 003 0.0346 0.0356 114.8242 114.8242 0.0304 115.4622 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 18 of 33 3.4 Grading Element 3 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0397 0.1855 0.8664 3.7000e- 004 0.0198 1.6900e- 003 0.0215 5.0400e- 003 1.5500e- 003 6.5900e- 003 33.8996 33.8996 5.6000e- 004 33.9113 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2467 0.3356 3.4918 0.0103 0.8719 6.7000e- 003 0.8786 0.2312 6.2100e- 003 0.2374 774.9177 774.9177 0.0382 775.7190 Total 0.2864 0.5211 4.3582 0.0107 0.8916 8.3900e- 003 0.9000 0.2363 7.7600e- 003 0.2440 808.8172 808.8172 0.0387 809.6303 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.3100e- 003 0.0000 3.3100e- 003 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0837 0.7469 0.5611 1.2100e- 003 0.0368 0.0368 0.0346 0.0346 0.0000 114.8242 114.8242 0.0304 115.4622 Total 0.0837 0.7469 0.5611 1.2100e- 003 3.3100e- 003 0.0368 0.0401 4.7000e- 004 0.0346 0.0350 0.0000 114.8242 114.8242 0.0304 115.4622 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 19 of 33 3.4 Grading Element 3 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0397 0.1855 0.8664 3.7000e- 004 0.0198 1.6900e- 003 0.0215 5.0400e- 003 1.5500e- 003 6.5900e- 003 33.8996 33.8996 5.6000e- 004 33.9113 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2467 0.3356 3.4918 0.0103 0.8719 6.7000e- 003 0.8786 0.2312 6.2100e- 003 0.2374 774.9177 774.9177 0.0382 775.7190 Total 0.2864 0.5211 4.3582 0.0107 0.8916 8.3900e- 003 0.9000 0.2363 7.7600e- 003 0.2440 808.8172 808.8172 0.0387 809.6303 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction Element 1 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9722 10.4708 5.2860 0.0166 0.3839 0.3839 0.3532 0.3532 1,664.761 5 1,664.761 5 0.5183 1,675.645 0 Total 0.9722 10.4708 5.2860 0.0166 0.3839 0.3839 0.3532 0.3532 1,664.761 5 1,664.761 5 0.5183 1,675.645 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 20 of 33 3.5 Building Construction Element 1 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0623 0.5909 0.8713 1.7200e- 003 0.0500 9.6500e- 003 0.0597 0.0143 8.8800e- 003 0.0231 167.2970 167.2970 1.2300e- 003 167.3229 Worker 0.0688 0.0939 0.9769 2.6500e- 003 0.2236 1.7500e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.6200e- 003 0.0609 206.5601 206.5601 0.0105 206.7796 Total 0.1311 0.6848 1.8481 4.3700e- 003 0.2736 0.0114 0.2850 0.0735 0.0105 0.0840 373.8571 373.8571 0.0117 374.1025 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9722 10.4708 5.2860 0.0166 0.3839 0.3839 0.3532 0.3532 0.0000 1,664.761 5 1,664.761 5 0.5183 1,675.645 0 Total 0.9722 10.4708 5.2860 0.0166 0.3839 0.3839 0.3532 0.3532 0.0000 1,664.761 5 1,664.761 5 0.5183 1,675.645 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 21 of 33 3.5 Building Construction Element 1 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0623 0.5909 0.8713 1.7200e- 003 0.0500 9.6500e- 003 0.0597 0.0143 8.8800e- 003 0.0231 167.2970 167.2970 1.2300e- 003 167.3229 Worker 0.0688 0.0939 0.9769 2.6500e- 003 0.2236 1.7500e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.6200e- 003 0.0609 206.5601 206.5601 0.0105 206.7796 Total 0.1311 0.6848 1.8481 4.3700e- 003 0.2736 0.0114 0.2850 0.0735 0.0105 0.0840 373.8571 373.8571 0.0117 374.1025 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Building Construction Element 3 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.1074 1.0545 0.7738 1.2200e- 003 0.0654 0.0654 0.0608 0.0608 119.8435 119.8435 0.0320 120.5157 Total 0.1074 1.0545 0.7738 1.2200e- 003 0.0654 0.0654 0.0608 0.0608 119.8435 119.8435 0.0320 120.5157 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 22 of 33 3.6 Building Construction Element 3 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0589 0.5446 0.8426 1.7200e- 003 0.0500 9.1600e- 003 0.0592 0.0143 8.4200e- 003 0.0227 164.0406 164.0406 1.2100e- 003 164.0661 Worker 0.0633 0.0861 0.8953 2.6500e- 003 0.2236 1.7200e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.5900e- 003 0.0609 198.6968 198.6968 9.7800e- 003 198.9023 Total 0.1222 0.6307 1.7380 4.3700e- 003 0.2736 0.0109 0.2845 0.0735 0.0100 0.0836 362.7375 362.7375 0.0110 362.9684 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.1074 1.0545 0.7738 1.2200e- 003 0.0654 0.0654 0.0608 0.0608 0.0000 119.8435 119.8435 0.0320 120.5157 Total 0.1074 1.0545 0.7738 1.2200e- 003 0.0654 0.0654 0.0608 0.0608 0.0000 119.8435 119.8435 0.0320 120.5157 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 23 of 33 3.6 Building Construction Element 3 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0589 0.5446 0.8426 1.7200e- 003 0.0500 9.1600e- 003 0.0592 0.0143 8.4200e- 003 0.0227 164.0406 164.0406 1.2100e- 003 164.0661 Worker 0.0633 0.0861 0.8953 2.6500e- 003 0.2236 1.7200e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.5900e- 003 0.0609 198.6968 198.6968 9.7800e- 003 198.9023 Total 0.1222 0.6307 1.7380 4.3700e- 003 0.2736 0.0109 0.2845 0.0735 0.0100 0.0836 362.7375 362.7375 0.0110 362.9684 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Building Construction Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.0942 0.8802 0.7065 1.1000e- 003 0.0572 0.0572 0.0538 0.0538 106.9712 106.9712 0.0240 107.4750 Total 0.0942 0.8802 0.7065 1.1000e- 003 0.0572 0.0572 0.0538 0.0538 106.9712 106.9712 0.0240 107.4750 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 24 of 33 3.7 Building Construction Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0589 0.5446 0.8426 1.7200e- 003 0.0500 9.1600e- 003 0.0592 0.0143 8.4200e- 003 0.0227 164.0406 164.0406 1.2100e- 003 164.0661 Worker 0.0633 0.0861 0.8953 2.6500e- 003 0.2236 1.7200e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.5900e- 003 0.0609 198.6968 198.6968 9.7800e- 003 198.9023 Total 0.1222 0.6307 1.7380 4.3700e- 003 0.2736 0.0109 0.2845 0.0735 0.0100 0.0836 362.7375 362.7375 0.0110 362.9684 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.0942 0.8802 0.7065 1.1000e- 003 0.0572 0.0572 0.0538 0.0538 0.0000 106.9712 106.9712 0.0240 107.4750 Total 0.0942 0.8802 0.7065 1.1000e- 003 0.0572 0.0572 0.0538 0.0538 0.0000 106.9712 106.9712 0.0240 107.4750 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 25 of 33 3.7 Building Construction Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0589 0.5446 0.8426 1.7200e- 003 0.0500 9.1600e- 003 0.0592 0.0143 8.4200e- 003 0.0227 164.0406 164.0406 1.2100e- 003 164.0661 Worker 0.0633 0.0861 0.8953 2.6500e- 003 0.2236 1.7200e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.5900e- 003 0.0609 198.6968 198.6968 9.7800e- 003 198.9023 Total 0.1222 0.6307 1.7380 4.3700e- 003 0.2736 0.0109 0.2845 0.0735 0.0100 0.0836 362.7375 362.7375 0.0110 362.9684 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.8 Paving Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.0350 0.3523 0.2207 5.9000e- 004 0.0153 0.0153 0.0141 0.0141 58.5341 58.5341 0.0185 58.9230 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0350 0.3523 0.2207 5.9000e- 004 0.0153 0.0153 0.0141 0.0141 58.5341 58.5341 0.0185 58.9230 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 26 of 33 3.8 Paving Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0158 0.0215 0.2238 6.6000e- 004 0.0559 4.3000e- 004 0.0563 0.0148 4.0000e- 004 0.0152 49.6742 49.6742 2.4500e- 003 49.7256 Total 0.0158 0.0215 0.2238 6.6000e- 004 0.0559 4.3000e- 004 0.0563 0.0148 4.0000e- 004 0.0152 49.6742 49.6742 2.4500e- 003 49.7256 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.0350 0.3523 0.2207 5.9000e- 004 0.0153 0.0153 0.0141 0.0141 0.0000 58.5341 58.5341 0.0185 58.9230 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0350 0.3523 0.2207 5.9000e- 004 0.0153 0.0153 0.0141 0.0141 0.0000 58.5341 58.5341 0.0185 58.9230 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 27 of 33 3.8 Paving Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0158 0.0215 0.2238 6.6000e- 004 0.0559 4.3000e- 004 0.0563 0.0148 4.0000e- 004 0.0152 49.6742 49.6742 2.4500e- 003 49.7256 Total 0.0158 0.0215 0.2238 6.6000e- 004 0.0559 4.3000e- 004 0.0563 0.0148 4.0000e- 004 0.0152 49.6742 49.6742 2.4500e- 003 49.7256 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 28 of 33 South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer Santa Monica SWIP 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.10 1000sqft 0.00 100.00 0 Unenclosed Parking Structure 24.75 1000sqft 0.57 24,750.00 0 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 23.26 1000sqft 0.53 23,260.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 8 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 31 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2020 Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 630.89 0.029 CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006 N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 1 of 33 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Element 2 assumed to be parking structure to account for concrete in treatment facility. Square footage for Element 3 = 23,260 SF Element 2 (plus Element 3 Civic Center Tank) = 24,750 SF Construction Phase - assume all three stages start at same time. Durations estimated to account for total Element durations given by City; 10 days for Element 1, 520 days for Element 2, and 401 days for Element 3. Off-road Equipment - equipmnet per city provided email 7/1/16. Off-road Equipment - equipment hours averaged over duration of phase to get the total estimated equipment hours provided by the City. Element 2 plus Civic Center tank portion of Element 3 Off-road Equipment - equipment list per City email 7/1/16. Equipment hours averaged over duration of phase to get the total estimated equipment hours provided by the City. Off-road Equipment - equipment hours averaged over duration of phase to get the total estimated equipment hours provided by the City. Off-road Equipment - equipment hours averaged over duration of phase to get the total estimated equipment hours provided by the City. Off-road Equipment - equipment hours averaged over duration of phase to get the total estimated equipment hours provided by the City. Off-road Equipment - equipment hours averaged over duration of phase to get the total estimated equipment hours provided by the City. Grading - acres disturbed per City provided site plans. Element 2 totals and area includes Civic Center portion of Element 3. Trips and VMT - exported soils hauled to City Maintenance yard at 2500 Michigan Street Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 8.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 51.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 90.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 2.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 420.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 350.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/15/2019 1/12/2018 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/26/2018 7/15/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/18/2019 12/13/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/13/2019 8/9/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/11/2020 5/3/2019 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 2 of 33 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/4/2019 1/3/2018 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/13/2018 5/6/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/16/2019 8/12/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/3/2018 1/1/2018 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/10/2019 1/1/2018 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/14/2019 12/16/2019 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 205.00 9.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 9.00 89.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 9.00 97.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 162.00 174.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 400.00 46.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 80.00 97.00 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.50 0.56 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.56 0.20 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.56 0.37 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.41 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.45 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.37 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 25.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 3 of 33 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Building Construction Element 1 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Building Construction Element 2 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading Element 3 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading Element 3 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading Element 3 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading Element 3 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading Element 3 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Building Construction Element 1 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Building Construction Element 2 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Paving Element 2 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Building Construction Element 3 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Building Construction Element 2 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.10 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.40 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.20 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.90 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.30 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.50 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.30 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.10 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.40 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.40 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 4 of 33 2.0 Emissions Summary tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2020 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 2.20 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.10 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 5 of 33 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2018 1.8617 13.7202 17.6678 0.0462 2.3962 0.4926 2.8259 0.5506 0.4549 0.9981 0.0000 4,063.861 4 4,063.861 4 0.6660 0.0000 4,077.847 3 2019 0.7064 2.7926 9.8783 0.0251 1.7951 0.1180 1.8820 0.4742 0.1102 0.5558 0.0000 1,940.971 6 1,940.971 6 0.1307 0.0000 1,943.715 3 Total 2.5682 16.5128 27.5461 0.0713 4.1913 0.6105 4.7079 1.0247 0.5651 1.5538 0.0000 6,004.833 0 6,004.833 0 0.7966 0.0000 6,021.562 6 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2018 1.8617 13.7202 17.6678 0.0462 2.0976 0.4926 2.5357 0.5422 0.4549 0.9971 0.0000 4,063.861 4 4,063.861 4 0.6660 0.0000 4,077.847 3 2019 0.7064 2.7926 9.8783 0.0251 1.7881 0.1180 1.8750 0.4732 0.1102 0.5548 0.0000 1,940.971 6 1,940.971 6 0.1307 0.0000 1,943.715 3 Total 2.5682 16.5128 27.5461 0.0713 3.8857 0.6105 4.4107 1.0153 0.5651 1.5519 0.0000 6,004.833 0 6,004.833 0 0.7966 0.0000 6,021.562 6 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.29 0.00 6.31 0.92 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 6 of 33 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Grading Element 1 Grading 1/1/2018 1/2/2018 5 2 2 Grading Element 2 Grading 1/1/2018 8/9/2019 5 420 3 Grading Element 3 Grading 1/1/2018 5/3/2019 5 350 4 Building Construction Element 1 Building Construction 1/3/2018 1/12/2018 5 8 5 Building Construction Element 3 Building Construction 5/6/2019 7/15/2019 5 51 6 Building Construction Element 2 Building Construction 8/12/2019 12/13/2019 5 90 7 Paving Element 2 Paving 12/16/2019 12/27/2019 5 10 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Grading Element 1 Bore/Drill Rigs 1 8.00 9 0.56 Grading Element 1 Off-Highway Trucks 2 4.00 400 0.38 Grading Element 2 Dumpers/Tenders 25 0.10 16 0.38 Grading Element 2 Excavators 1 0.10 174 0.41 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 8 of 33 Grading Element 2 Forklifts 2 0.20 89 0.20 Grading Element 2 Generator Sets 1 0.20 84 0.74 Grading Element 2 Off-Highway Trucks 1 0.20 400 0.38 Grading Element 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 0.40 97 0.37 Grading Element 3 Dumpers/Tenders 25 0.10 16 0.38 Grading Element 3 Excavators 1 0.10 162 0.38 Grading Element 3 Forklifts 1 0.10 89 0.20 Grading Element 3 Generator Sets 1 0.10 84 0.74 Grading Element 3 Off-Highway Trucks 1 0.30 400 0.38 Grading Element 3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 0.40 97 0.37 Building Construction Element 1 Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 0.10 89 0.20 Building Construction Element 1 Cranes 1 0.10 226 0.29 Building Construction Element 1 Off-Highway Trucks 2 5.00 400 0.38 Building Construction Element 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 0.10 97 0.37 Building Construction Element 3 Cranes 1 0.40 226 0.29 Building Construction Element 3 Forklifts 2 0.90 89 0.20 Building Construction Element 3 Generator Sets 1 0.30 84 0.74 Building Construction Element 3 Rollers 1 0.90 97 0.37 Building Construction Element 2 Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 0.10 97 0.37 Building Construction Element 2 Cranes 1 0.20 226 0.29 Building Construction Element 2 Forklifts 2 1.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Element 2 Generator Sets 1 0.50 84 0.74 Building Construction Element 2 Off-Highway Trucks 1 0.20 46 0.45 Building Construction Element 2 Rollers 1 0.50 80 0.38 Paving Element 2 Off-Highway Trucks 1 0.30 400 0.38 Paving Element 2 Rollers 1 0.30 80 0.38 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 9 of 33 3.2 Grading Element 1 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.5303 0.0000 0.5303 0.0573 0.0000 0.0573 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.8377 8.7164 4.5869 0.0136 0.3316 0.3316 0.3051 0.3051 1,372.264 5 1,372.264 5 0.4272 1,381.235 8 Total 0.8377 8.7164 4.5869 0.0136 0.5303 0.3316 0.8619 0.0573 0.3051 0.3624 1,372.264 5 1,372.264 5 0.4272 1,381.235 8 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area Clean Paved Roads Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Building Construction Element 2 7 20.00 8.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction Element 3 5 20.00 8.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction Element 1 6 20.00 8.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading Element 2 31 78.00 0.00 1,832.00 14.70 6.90 2.20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading Element 1 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading Element 3 31 78.00 0.00 2,225.00 14.70 6.90 1.10 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving Element 2 2 5.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 10 of 33 3.2 Grading Element 1 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0271 0.0342 0.4273 1.1300e- 003 0.0894 7.0000e- 004 0.0901 0.0237 6.5000e- 004 0.0244 88.1095 88.1095 4.1800e- 003 88.1973 Total 0.0271 0.0342 0.4273 1.1300e- 003 0.0894 7.0000e- 004 0.0901 0.0237 6.5000e- 004 0.0244 88.1095 88.1095 4.1800e- 003 88.1973 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.2386 0.0000 0.2386 0.0258 0.0000 0.0258 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.8377 8.7164 4.5869 0.0136 0.3316 0.3316 0.3051 0.3051 0.0000 1,372.264 5 1,372.264 5 0.4272 1,381.235 8 Total 0.8377 8.7164 4.5869 0.0136 0.2386 0.3316 0.5702 0.0258 0.3051 0.3309 0.0000 1,372.264 5 1,372.264 5 0.4272 1,381.235 8 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 11 of 33 3.2 Grading Element 1 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0271 0.0342 0.4273 1.1300e- 003 0.0894 7.0000e- 004 0.0901 0.0237 6.5000e- 004 0.0244 88.1095 88.1095 4.1800e- 003 88.1973 Total 0.0271 0.0342 0.4273 1.1300e- 003 0.0894 7.0000e- 004 0.0901 0.0237 6.5000e- 004 0.0244 88.1095 88.1095 4.1800e- 003 88.1973 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Grading Element 2 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 5.3900e- 003 0.0000 5.3900e- 003 7.5000e- 004 0.0000 7.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0814 0.7119 0.5026 1.0400e- 003 0.0376 0.0376 0.0356 0.0356 98.7401 98.7401 0.0231 99.2258 Total 0.0814 0.7119 0.5026 1.0400e- 003 5.3900e- 003 0.0376 0.0430 7.5000e- 004 0.0356 0.0363 98.7401 98.7401 0.0231 99.2258 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 12 of 33 3.3 Grading Element 2 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0279 0.1842 0.4962 4.3000e- 004 0.0123 2.0700e- 003 0.0144 3.2700e- 003 1.9000e- 003 5.1700e- 003 41.2826 41.2826 4.6000e- 004 41.2923 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2639 0.3336 4.1659 0.0110 0.8719 6.8200e- 003 0.8787 0.2312 6.3100e- 003 0.2375 859.0680 859.0680 0.0408 859.9240 Total 0.2918 0.5178 4.6620 0.0115 0.8842 8.8900e- 003 0.8931 0.2345 8.2100e- 003 0.2427 900.3506 900.3506 0.0412 901.2163 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 2.4200e- 003 0.0000 2.4200e- 003 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0814 0.7119 0.5026 1.0400e- 003 0.0376 0.0376 0.0356 0.0356 0.0000 98.7401 98.7401 0.0231 99.2258 Total 0.0814 0.7119 0.5026 1.0400e- 003 2.4200e- 003 0.0376 0.0400 3.4000e- 004 0.0356 0.0359 0.0000 98.7401 98.7401 0.0231 99.2258 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 13 of 33 3.3 Grading Element 2 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0279 0.1842 0.4962 4.3000e- 004 0.0123 2.0700e- 003 0.0144 3.2700e- 003 1.9000e- 003 5.1700e- 003 41.2826 41.2826 4.6000e- 004 41.2923 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2639 0.3336 4.1659 0.0110 0.8719 6.8200e- 003 0.8787 0.2312 6.3100e- 003 0.2375 859.0680 859.0680 0.0408 859.9240 Total 0.2918 0.5178 4.6620 0.0115 0.8842 8.8900e- 003 0.8931 0.2345 8.2100e- 003 0.2427 900.3506 900.3506 0.0412 901.2163 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Grading Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 5.3900e- 003 0.0000 5.3900e- 003 7.5000e- 004 0.0000 7.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0753 0.6469 0.4942 1.0400e- 003 0.0330 0.0330 0.0313 0.0313 97.6850 97.6850 0.0230 98.1677 Total 0.0753 0.6469 0.4942 1.0400e- 003 5.3900e- 003 0.0330 0.0384 7.5000e- 004 0.0313 0.0320 97.6850 97.6850 0.0230 98.1677 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 14 of 33 3.3 Grading Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0266 0.1746 0.4850 4.3000e- 004 0.0189 2.0600e- 003 0.0209 4.8800e- 003 1.9000e- 003 6.7700e- 003 40.4921 40.4921 4.6000e- 004 40.5018 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2430 0.3060 3.8288 0.0110 0.8719 6.7000e- 003 0.8786 0.2312 6.2100e- 003 0.2374 826.5001 826.5001 0.0382 827.3014 Total 0.2695 0.4806 4.3137 0.0115 0.8907 8.7600e- 003 0.8995 0.2361 8.1100e- 003 0.2442 866.9922 866.9922 0.0386 867.8033 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 2.4200e- 003 0.0000 2.4200e- 003 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0753 0.6469 0.4942 1.0400e- 003 0.0330 0.0330 0.0313 0.0313 0.0000 97.6850 97.6850 0.0230 98.1677 Total 0.0753 0.6469 0.4942 1.0400e- 003 2.4200e- 003 0.0330 0.0354 3.4000e- 004 0.0313 0.0316 0.0000 97.6850 97.6850 0.0230 98.1677 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 15 of 33 3.3 Grading Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0266 0.1746 0.4850 4.3000e- 004 0.0189 2.0600e- 003 0.0209 4.8800e- 003 1.9000e- 003 6.7700e- 003 40.4921 40.4921 4.6000e- 004 40.5018 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2430 0.3060 3.8288 0.0110 0.8719 6.7000e- 003 0.8786 0.2312 6.2100e- 003 0.2374 826.5001 826.5001 0.0382 827.3014 Total 0.2695 0.4806 4.3137 0.0115 0.8907 8.7600e- 003 0.8995 0.2361 8.1100e- 003 0.2442 866.9922 866.9922 0.0386 867.8033 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading Element 3 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 7.3600e- 003 0.0000 7.3600e- 003 1.0400e- 003 0.0000 1.0400e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0907 0.8302 0.5728 1.2100e- 003 0.0424 0.0424 0.0397 0.0397 116.3035 116.3035 0.0305 116.9432 Total 0.0907 0.8302 0.5728 1.2100e- 003 7.3600e- 003 0.0424 0.0498 1.0400e- 003 0.0397 0.0408 116.3035 116.3035 0.0305 116.9432 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 16 of 33 3.4 Grading Element 3 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0369 0.1934 0.6965 3.7000e- 004 7.8000e- 003 1.6400e- 003 9.4400e- 003 2.1000e- 003 1.5100e- 003 3.6100e- 003 35.6456 35.6456 5.1000e- 004 35.6562 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2639 0.3336 4.1659 0.0110 0.8719 6.8200e- 003 0.8787 0.2312 6.3100e- 003 0.2375 859.0680 859.0680 0.0408 859.9240 Total 0.3008 0.5271 4.8624 0.0114 0.8797 8.4600e- 003 0.8881 0.2333 7.8200e- 003 0.2411 894.7135 894.7135 0.0413 895.5802 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.3100e- 003 0.0000 3.3100e- 003 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0907 0.8302 0.5728 1.2100e- 003 0.0424 0.0424 0.0397 0.0397 0.0000 116.3035 116.3035 0.0305 116.9432 Total 0.0907 0.8302 0.5728 1.2100e- 003 3.3100e- 003 0.0424 0.0457 4.7000e- 004 0.0397 0.0402 0.0000 116.3035 116.3035 0.0305 116.9432 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 17 of 33 3.4 Grading Element 3 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0369 0.1934 0.6965 3.7000e- 004 7.8000e- 003 1.6400e- 003 9.4400e- 003 2.1000e- 003 1.5100e- 003 3.6100e- 003 35.6456 35.6456 5.1000e- 004 35.6562 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2639 0.3336 4.1659 0.0110 0.8719 6.8200e- 003 0.8787 0.2312 6.3100e- 003 0.2375 859.0680 859.0680 0.0408 859.9240 Total 0.3008 0.5271 4.8624 0.0114 0.8797 8.4600e- 003 0.8881 0.2333 7.8200e- 003 0.2411 894.7135 894.7135 0.0413 895.5802 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading Element 3 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 7.3600e- 003 0.0000 7.3600e- 003 1.0400e- 003 0.0000 1.0400e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0837 0.7469 0.5611 1.2100e- 003 0.0368 0.0368 0.0346 0.0346 114.8242 114.8242 0.0304 115.4622 Total 0.0837 0.7469 0.5611 1.2100e- 003 7.3600e- 003 0.0368 0.0442 1.0400e- 003 0.0346 0.0356 114.8242 114.8242 0.0304 115.4622 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 18 of 33 3.4 Grading Element 3 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0351 0.1846 0.6805 3.7000e- 004 0.0198 1.6300e- 003 0.0214 5.0400e- 003 1.5000e- 003 6.5500e- 003 34.9700 34.9700 5.1000e- 004 34.9807 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2430 0.3060 3.8288 0.0110 0.8719 6.7000e- 003 0.8786 0.2312 6.2100e- 003 0.2374 826.5001 826.5001 0.0382 827.3014 Total 0.2780 0.4906 4.5093 0.0114 0.8916 8.3300e- 003 0.9000 0.2363 7.7100e- 003 0.2440 861.4701 861.4701 0.0387 862.2822 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 3.3100e- 003 0.0000 3.3100e- 003 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0837 0.7469 0.5611 1.2100e- 003 0.0368 0.0368 0.0346 0.0346 0.0000 114.8242 114.8242 0.0304 115.4622 Total 0.0837 0.7469 0.5611 1.2100e- 003 3.3100e- 003 0.0368 0.0401 4.7000e- 004 0.0346 0.0350 0.0000 114.8242 114.8242 0.0304 115.4622 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 19 of 33 3.4 Grading Element 3 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0351 0.1846 0.6805 3.7000e- 004 0.0198 1.6300e- 003 0.0214 5.0400e- 003 1.5000e- 003 6.5500e- 003 34.9700 34.9700 5.1000e- 004 34.9807 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2430 0.3060 3.8288 0.0110 0.8719 6.7000e- 003 0.8786 0.2312 6.2100e- 003 0.2374 826.5001 826.5001 0.0382 827.3014 Total 0.2780 0.4906 4.5093 0.0114 0.8916 8.3300e- 003 0.9000 0.2363 7.7100e- 003 0.2440 861.4701 861.4701 0.0387 862.2822 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction Element 1 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9722 10.4708 5.2860 0.0166 0.3839 0.3839 0.3532 0.3532 1,664.761 5 1,664.761 5 0.5183 1,675.645 0 Total 0.9722 10.4708 5.2860 0.0166 0.3839 0.3839 0.3532 0.3532 1,664.761 5 1,664.761 5 0.5183 1,675.645 0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 20 of 33 3.5 Building Construction Element 1 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0572 0.5770 0.7138 1.7400e- 003 0.0500 9.5600e- 003 0.0596 0.0143 8.8000e- 003 0.0230 168.7185 168.7185 1.2000e- 003 168.7436 Worker 0.0677 0.0855 1.0682 2.8300e- 003 0.2236 1.7500e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.6200e- 003 0.0609 220.2738 220.2738 0.0105 220.4933 Total 0.1249 0.6625 1.7820 4.5700e- 003 0.2736 0.0113 0.2849 0.0735 0.0104 0.0840 388.9923 388.9923 0.0117 389.2369 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.9722 10.4708 5.2860 0.0166 0.3839 0.3839 0.3532 0.3532 0.0000 1,664.761 5 1,664.761 5 0.5183 1,675.645 0 Total 0.9722 10.4708 5.2860 0.0166 0.3839 0.3839 0.3532 0.3532 0.0000 1,664.761 5 1,664.761 5 0.5183 1,675.645 0 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 21 of 33 3.5 Building Construction Element 1 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0572 0.5770 0.7138 1.7400e- 003 0.0500 9.5600e- 003 0.0596 0.0143 8.8000e- 003 0.0230 168.7185 168.7185 1.2000e- 003 168.7436 Worker 0.0677 0.0855 1.0682 2.8300e- 003 0.2236 1.7500e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.6200e- 003 0.0609 220.2738 220.2738 0.0105 220.4933 Total 0.1249 0.6625 1.7820 4.5700e- 003 0.2736 0.0113 0.2849 0.0735 0.0104 0.0840 388.9923 388.9923 0.0117 389.2369 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Building Construction Element 3 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.1074 1.0545 0.7738 1.2200e- 003 0.0654 0.0654 0.0608 0.0608 119.8435 119.8435 0.0320 120.5157 Total 0.1074 1.0545 0.7738 1.2200e- 003 0.0654 0.0654 0.0608 0.0608 119.8435 119.8435 0.0320 120.5157 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 22 of 33 3.6 Building Construction Element 3 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0542 0.5321 0.6870 1.7300e- 003 0.0500 9.0800e- 003 0.0591 0.0143 8.3500e- 003 0.0226 165.4408 165.4408 1.1700e- 003 165.4654 Worker 0.0623 0.0785 0.9817 2.8200e- 003 0.2236 1.7200e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.5900e- 003 0.0609 211.9231 211.9231 9.7800e- 003 212.1286 Total 0.1165 0.6106 1.6687 4.5500e- 003 0.2736 0.0108 0.2844 0.0735 9.9400e- 003 0.0835 377.3639 377.3639 0.0110 377.5940 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.1074 1.0545 0.7738 1.2200e- 003 0.0654 0.0654 0.0608 0.0608 0.0000 119.8435 119.8435 0.0320 120.5157 Total 0.1074 1.0545 0.7738 1.2200e- 003 0.0654 0.0654 0.0608 0.0608 0.0000 119.8435 119.8435 0.0320 120.5157 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 23 of 33 3.6 Building Construction Element 3 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0542 0.5321 0.6870 1.7300e- 003 0.0500 9.0800e- 003 0.0591 0.0143 8.3500e- 003 0.0226 165.4408 165.4408 1.1700e- 003 165.4654 Worker 0.0623 0.0785 0.9817 2.8200e- 003 0.2236 1.7200e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.5900e- 003 0.0609 211.9231 211.9231 9.7800e- 003 212.1286 Total 0.1165 0.6106 1.6687 4.5500e- 003 0.2736 0.0108 0.2844 0.0735 9.9400e- 003 0.0835 377.3639 377.3639 0.0110 377.5940 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Building Construction Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.0942 0.8802 0.7065 1.1000e- 003 0.0572 0.0572 0.0538 0.0538 106.9712 106.9712 0.0240 107.4750 Total 0.0942 0.8802 0.7065 1.1000e- 003 0.0572 0.0572 0.0538 0.0538 106.9712 106.9712 0.0240 107.4750 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 24 of 33 3.7 Building Construction Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0542 0.5321 0.6870 1.7300e- 003 0.0500 9.0800e- 003 0.0591 0.0143 8.3500e- 003 0.0226 165.4408 165.4408 1.1700e- 003 165.4654 Worker 0.0623 0.0785 0.9817 2.8200e- 003 0.2236 1.7200e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.5900e- 003 0.0609 211.9231 211.9231 9.7800e- 003 212.1286 Total 0.1165 0.6106 1.6687 4.5500e- 003 0.2736 0.0108 0.2844 0.0735 9.9400e- 003 0.0835 377.3639 377.3639 0.0110 377.5940 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.0942 0.8802 0.7065 1.1000e- 003 0.0572 0.0572 0.0538 0.0538 0.0000 106.9712 106.9712 0.0240 107.4750 Total 0.0942 0.8802 0.7065 1.1000e- 003 0.0572 0.0572 0.0538 0.0538 0.0000 106.9712 106.9712 0.0240 107.4750 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 25 of 33 3.7 Building Construction Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0542 0.5321 0.6870 1.7300e- 003 0.0500 9.0800e- 003 0.0591 0.0143 8.3500e- 003 0.0226 165.4408 165.4408 1.1700e- 003 165.4654 Worker 0.0623 0.0785 0.9817 2.8200e- 003 0.2236 1.7200e- 003 0.2253 0.0593 1.5900e- 003 0.0609 211.9231 211.9231 9.7800e- 003 212.1286 Total 0.1165 0.6106 1.6687 4.5500e- 003 0.2736 0.0108 0.2844 0.0735 9.9400e- 003 0.0835 377.3639 377.3639 0.0110 377.5940 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.8 Paving Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.0350 0.3523 0.2207 5.9000e- 004 0.0153 0.0153 0.0141 0.0141 58.5341 58.5341 0.0185 58.9230 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0350 0.3523 0.2207 5.9000e- 004 0.0153 0.0153 0.0141 0.0141 58.5341 58.5341 0.0185 58.9230 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 26 of 33 3.8 Paving Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0156 0.0196 0.2454 7.1000e- 004 0.0559 4.3000e- 004 0.0563 0.0148 4.0000e- 004 0.0152 52.9808 52.9808 2.4500e- 003 53.0321 Total 0.0156 0.0196 0.2454 7.1000e- 004 0.0559 4.3000e- 004 0.0563 0.0148 4.0000e- 004 0.0152 52.9808 52.9808 2.4500e- 003 53.0321 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.0350 0.3523 0.2207 5.9000e- 004 0.0153 0.0153 0.0141 0.0141 0.0000 58.5341 58.5341 0.0185 58.9230 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0350 0.3523 0.2207 5.9000e- 004 0.0153 0.0153 0.0141 0.0141 0.0000 58.5341 58.5341 0.0185 58.9230 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 27 of 33 3.8 Paving Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0156 0.0196 0.2454 7.1000e- 004 0.0559 4.3000e- 004 0.0563 0.0148 4.0000e- 004 0.0152 52.9808 52.9808 2.4500e- 003 53.0321 Total 0.0156 0.0196 0.2454 7.1000e- 004 0.0559 4.3000e- 004 0.0563 0.0148 4.0000e- 004 0.0152 52.9808 52.9808 2.4500e- 003 53.0321 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:37 PM Page 28 of 33 South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual Santa Monica SWIP 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.10 1000sqft 0.00 100.00 0 Unenclosed Parking Structure 24.75 1000sqft 0.57 24,750.00 0 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 23.26 1000sqft 0.53 23,260.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 8 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 31 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Southern California Edison 2020 Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 630.89 0.029 CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006 N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 1 of 38 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Element 2 assumed to be parking structure to account for concrete in treatment facility. Square footage for Element 3 = 23,260 SF Element 2 (plus Element 3 Civic Center Tank) = 24,750 SF Construction Phase - assume all three stages start at same time. Durations estimated to account for total Element durations given by City; 10 days for Element 1, 520 days for Element 2, and 401 days for Element 3. Off-road Equipment - equipmnet per city provided email 7/1/16. Off-road Equipment - equipment hours averaged over duration of phase to get the total estimated equipment hours provided by the City. Element 2 plus Civic Center tank portion of Element 3 Off-road Equipment - equipment list per City email 7/1/16. Equipment hours averaged over duration of phase to get the total estimated equipment hours provided by the City. Off-road Equipment - equipment hours averaged over duration of phase to get the total estimated equipment hours provided by the City. Off-road Equipment - equipment hours averaged over duration of phase to get the total estimated equipment hours provided by the City. Off-road Equipment - equipment hours averaged over duration of phase to get the total estimated equipment hours provided by the City. Off-road Equipment - equipment hours averaged over duration of phase to get the total estimated equipment hours provided by the City. Grading - acres disturbed per City provided site plans. Element 2 totals and area includes Civic Center portion of Element 3. Trips and VMT - exported soils hauled to City Maintenance yard at 2500 Michigan Street Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 8.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 51.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 90.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 2.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 420.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 350.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/15/2019 1/12/2018 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 3/26/2018 7/15/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/18/2019 12/13/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/13/2019 8/9/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 12/11/2020 5/3/2019 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 2 of 38 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/4/2019 1/3/2018 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/13/2018 5/6/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/16/2019 8/12/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 1/3/2018 1/1/2018 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/10/2019 1/1/2018 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 12/14/2019 12/16/2019 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 205.00 9.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 9.00 89.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 9.00 97.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 162.00 174.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 400.00 46.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 80.00 97.00 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.50 0.56 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.56 0.20 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.56 0.37 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.41 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.45 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.37 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 25.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 3 of 38 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Building Construction Element 1 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Building Construction Element 2 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading Element 3 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading Element 3 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading Element 3 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading Element 3 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Grading Element 3 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Building Construction Element 1 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Building Construction Element 2 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Paving Element 2 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Building Construction Element 3 tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Building Construction Element 2 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.10 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.40 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.20 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.90 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.30 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.50 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.30 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.10 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.40 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.40 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 4 of 38 2.0 Emissions Summary tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2020 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 2.20 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.10 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 5 of 38 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2018 0.1027 0.4038 1.3846 3.2400e- 003 0.2300 0.0146 0.2447 0.0607 0.0137 0.0744 0.0000 236.9180 236.9180 0.0184 0.0000 237.3050 2019 0.0579 0.2641 0.7693 1.8800e- 003 0.1301 0.0104 0.1405 0.0343 9.7600e- 003 0.0441 0.0000 135.5836 135.5836 9.7500e- 003 0.0000 135.7883 Total 0.1606 0.6679 2.1539 5.1200e- 003 0.3601 0.0250 0.3852 0.0950 0.0234 0.1185 0.0000 372.5016 372.5016 0.0282 0.0000 373.0933 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2018 0.1027 0.4038 1.3846 3.2400e- 003 0.2284 0.0146 0.2431 0.0605 0.0137 0.0742 0.0000 236.9180 236.9180 0.0184 0.0000 237.3050 2019 0.0579 0.2641 0.7693 1.8800e- 003 0.1288 0.0104 0.1392 0.0341 9.7600e- 003 0.0439 0.0000 135.5836 135.5836 9.7500e- 003 0.0000 135.7883 Total 0.1606 0.6679 2.1539 5.1200e- 003 0.3572 0.0250 0.3822 0.0946 0.0234 0.1181 0.0000 372.5016 372.5016 0.0282 0.0000 373.0933 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.77 0.43 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 6 of 38 Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Grading Element 1 Grading 1/1/2018 1/2/2018 5 2 2 Grading Element 2 Grading 1/1/2018 8/9/2019 5 420 3 Grading Element 3 Grading 1/1/2018 5/3/2019 5 350 4 Building Construction Element 1 Building Construction 1/3/2018 1/12/2018 5 8 5 Building Construction Element 3 Building Construction 5/6/2019 7/15/2019 5 51 6 Building Construction Element 2 Building Construction 8/12/2019 12/13/2019 5 90 7 Paving Element 2 Paving 12/16/2019 12/27/2019 5 10 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Grading Element 1 Bore/Drill Rigs 1 8.00 9 0.56 Grading Element 1 Off-Highway Trucks 2 4.00 400 0.38 Grading Element 2 Dumpers/Tenders 25 0.10 16 0.38 Grading Element 2 Excavators 1 0.10 174 0.41 Grading Element 2 Forklifts 2 0.20 89 0.20 Grading Element 2 Generator Sets 1 0.20 84 0.74 Grading Element 2 Off-Highway Trucks 1 0.20 400 0.38 Grading Element 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 0.40 97 0.37 Grading Element 3 Dumpers/Tenders 25 0.10 16 0.38 Grading Element 3 Excavators 1 0.10 162 0.38 Grading Element 3 Forklifts 1 0.10 89 0.20 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 9 of 38 Grading Element 3 Generator Sets 1 0.10 84 0.74 Grading Element 3 Off-Highway Trucks 1 0.30 400 0.38 Grading Element 3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 0.40 97 0.37 Building Construction Element 1 Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 0.10 89 0.20 Building Construction Element 1 Cranes 1 0.10 226 0.29 Building Construction Element 1 Off-Highway Trucks 2 5.00 400 0.38 Building Construction Element 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 0.10 97 0.37 Building Construction Element 3 Cranes 1 0.40 226 0.29 Building Construction Element 3 Forklifts 2 0.90 89 0.20 Building Construction Element 3 Generator Sets 1 0.30 84 0.74 Building Construction Element 3 Rollers 1 0.90 97 0.37 Building Construction Element 2 Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 0.10 97 0.37 Building Construction Element 2 Cranes 1 0.20 226 0.29 Building Construction Element 2 Forklifts 2 1.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Element 2 Generator Sets 1 0.50 84 0.74 Building Construction Element 2 Off-Highway Trucks 1 0.20 46 0.45 Building Construction Element 2 Rollers 1 0.50 80 0.38 Paving Element 2 Off-Highway Trucks 1 0.30 400 0.38 Paving Element 2 Rollers 1 0.30 80 0.38 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 10 of 38 3.2 Grading Element 1 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 5.3000e- 004 0.0000 5.3000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 8.4000e- 004 8.7200e- 003 4.5900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 3.3000e- 004 3.3000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.2449 1.2449 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.2530 Total 8.4000e- 004 8.7200e- 003 4.5900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 5.3000e- 004 3.3000e- 004 8.6000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 3.1000e- 004 3.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.2449 1.2449 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.2530 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area Clean Paved Roads Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Building Construction Element 2 7 20.00 8.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction Element 3 5 20.00 8.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction Element 1 6 20.00 8.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading Element 2 31 78.00 0.00 1,832.00 14.70 6.90 2.20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading Element 1 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading Element 3 31 78.00 0.00 2,225.00 14.70 6.90 1.10 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving Element 2 2 5.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 11 of 38 3.2 Grading Element 1 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0761 0.0761 0.0000 0.0000 0.0762 Total 3.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0761 0.0761 0.0000 0.0000 0.0762 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.4000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 8.4000e- 004 8.7200e- 003 4.5900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 3.3000e- 004 3.3000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 3.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.2449 1.2449 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.2530 Total 8.4000e- 004 8.7200e- 003 4.5900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 3.3000e- 004 5.7000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 3.1000e- 004 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 1.2449 1.2449 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.2530 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 12 of 38 3.2 Grading Element 1 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0761 0.0761 0.0000 0.0000 0.0762 Total 3.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0761 0.0761 0.0000 0.0000 0.0762 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Grading Element 2 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 1.1300e- 003 0.0000 1.1300e- 003 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0106 0.0929 0.0656 1.4000e- 004 4.9100e- 003 4.9100e- 003 4.6400e- 003 4.6400e- 003 0.0000 11.6896 11.6896 2.7400e- 003 0.0000 11.7471 Total 0.0106 0.0929 0.0656 1.4000e- 004 1.1300e- 003 4.9100e- 003 6.0400e- 003 1.6000e- 004 4.6400e- 003 4.8000e- 003 0.0000 11.6896 11.6896 2.7400e- 003 0.0000 11.7471 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 13 of 38 3.3 Grading Element 2 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 3.9500e- 003 0.0249 0.0790 6.0000e- 005 1.5800e- 003 2.7000e- 004 1.8500e- 003 4.2000e- 004 2.5000e- 004 6.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.8502 4.8502 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.8514 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0329 0.0492 0.5100 1.3700e- 003 0.1117 8.9000e- 004 0.1126 0.0297 8.2000e- 004 0.0305 0.0000 96.8551 96.8551 4.8300e- 003 0.0000 96.9564 Total 0.0369 0.0741 0.5890 1.4300e- 003 0.1133 1.1600e- 003 0.1144 0.0301 1.0700e- 003 0.0312 0.0000 101.7053 101.7053 4.8900e- 003 0.0000 101.8078 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 5.1000e- 004 0.0000 5.1000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0106 0.0929 0.0656 1.4000e- 004 4.9100e- 003 4.9100e- 003 4.6400e- 003 4.6400e- 003 0.0000 11.6896 11.6896 2.7400e- 003 0.0000 11.7471 Total 0.0106 0.0929 0.0656 1.4000e- 004 5.1000e- 004 4.9100e- 003 5.4200e- 003 7.0000e- 005 4.6400e- 003 4.7100e- 003 0.0000 11.6896 11.6896 2.7400e- 003 0.0000 11.7471 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 14 of 38 3.3 Grading Element 2 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 3.9500e- 003 0.0249 0.0790 6.0000e- 005 1.5800e- 003 2.7000e- 004 1.8500e- 003 4.2000e- 004 2.5000e- 004 6.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.8502 4.8502 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.8514 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0329 0.0492 0.5100 1.3700e- 003 0.1117 8.9000e- 004 0.1126 0.0297 8.2000e- 004 0.0305 0.0000 96.8551 96.8551 4.8300e- 003 0.0000 96.9564 Total 0.0369 0.0741 0.5890 1.4300e- 003 0.1133 1.1600e- 003 0.1144 0.0301 1.0700e- 003 0.0312 0.0000 101.7053 101.7053 4.8900e- 003 0.0000 101.8078 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Grading Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 1.1300e- 003 0.0000 1.1300e- 003 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.9800e- 003 0.0514 0.0393 8.0000e- 005 2.6200e- 003 2.6200e- 003 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e- 003 0.0000 7.0452 7.0452 1.6600e- 003 0.0000 7.0800 Total 5.9800e- 003 0.0514 0.0393 8.0000e- 005 1.1300e- 003 2.6200e- 003 3.7500e- 003 1.6000e- 004 2.4900e- 003 2.6500e- 003 0.0000 7.0452 7.0452 1.6600e- 003 0.0000 7.0800 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 15 of 38 3.3 Grading Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 2.2900e- 003 0.0144 0.0472 3.0000e- 005 1.4700e- 003 1.7000e- 004 1.6400e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 5.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.8981 2.8981 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.8988 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0184 0.0275 0.2849 8.3000e- 004 0.0680 5.3000e- 004 0.0686 0.0181 4.9000e- 004 0.0186 0.0000 56.7582 56.7582 2.7500e- 003 0.0000 56.8160 Total 0.0207 0.0418 0.3321 8.6000e- 004 0.0695 7.0000e- 004 0.0702 0.0185 6.4000e- 004 0.0191 0.0000 59.6563 59.6563 2.7800e- 003 0.0000 59.7148 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 5.1000e- 004 0.0000 5.1000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.9800e- 003 0.0514 0.0393 8.0000e- 005 2.6200e- 003 2.6200e- 003 2.4900e- 003 2.4900e- 003 0.0000 7.0452 7.0452 1.6600e- 003 0.0000 7.0800 Total 5.9800e- 003 0.0514 0.0393 8.0000e- 005 5.1000e- 004 2.6200e- 003 3.1300e- 003 7.0000e- 005 2.4900e- 003 2.5600e- 003 0.0000 7.0452 7.0452 1.6600e- 003 0.0000 7.0800 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 16 of 38 3.3 Grading Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 2.2900e- 003 0.0144 0.0472 3.0000e- 005 1.4700e- 003 1.7000e- 004 1.6400e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 5.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.8981 2.8981 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.8988 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0184 0.0275 0.2849 8.3000e- 004 0.0680 5.3000e- 004 0.0686 0.0181 4.9000e- 004 0.0186 0.0000 56.7582 56.7582 2.7500e- 003 0.0000 56.8160 Total 0.0207 0.0418 0.3321 8.6000e- 004 0.0695 7.0000e- 004 0.0702 0.0185 6.4000e- 004 0.0191 0.0000 59.6563 59.6563 2.7800e- 003 0.0000 59.7148 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading Element 3 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 1.2900e- 003 0.0000 1.2900e- 003 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0118 0.1083 0.0748 1.6000e- 004 5.5300e- 003 5.5300e- 003 5.1800e- 003 5.1800e- 003 0.0000 13.7689 13.7689 3.6100e- 003 0.0000 13.8446 Total 0.0118 0.1083 0.0748 1.6000e- 004 1.2900e- 003 5.5300e- 003 6.8200e- 003 1.8000e- 004 5.1800e- 003 5.3600e- 003 0.0000 13.7689 13.7689 3.6100e- 003 0.0000 13.8446 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 17 of 38 3.4 Grading Element 3 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 5.2800e- 003 0.0259 0.1117 5.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 003 2.2000e- 004 1.2200e- 003 2.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.1659 4.1659 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.1672 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0329 0.0492 0.5100 1.3700e- 003 0.1117 8.9000e- 004 0.1126 0.0297 8.2000e- 004 0.0305 0.0000 96.8551 96.8551 4.8300e- 003 0.0000 96.9564 Total 0.0382 0.0751 0.6217 1.4200e- 003 0.1127 1.1100e- 003 0.1138 0.0299 1.0200e- 003 0.0310 0.0000 101.0210 101.0210 4.8900e- 003 0.0000 101.1236 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 5.8000e- 004 0.0000 5.8000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0118 0.1083 0.0748 1.6000e- 004 5.5300e- 003 5.5300e- 003 5.1800e- 003 5.1800e- 003 0.0000 13.7689 13.7689 3.6100e- 003 0.0000 13.8446 Total 0.0118 0.1083 0.0748 1.6000e- 004 5.8000e- 004 5.5300e- 003 6.1100e- 003 8.0000e- 005 5.1800e- 003 5.2600e- 003 0.0000 13.7689 13.7689 3.6100e- 003 0.0000 13.8446 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 18 of 38 3.4 Grading Element 3 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 5.2800e- 003 0.0259 0.1117 5.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 003 2.2000e- 004 1.2200e- 003 2.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 4.7000e- 004 0.0000 4.1659 4.1659 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.1672 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0329 0.0492 0.5100 1.3700e- 003 0.1117 8.9000e- 004 0.1126 0.0297 8.2000e- 004 0.0305 0.0000 96.8551 96.8551 4.8300e- 003 0.0000 96.9564 Total 0.0382 0.0751 0.6217 1.4200e- 003 0.1127 1.1100e- 003 0.1138 0.0299 1.0200e- 003 0.0310 0.0000 101.0210 101.0210 4.8900e- 003 0.0000 101.1236 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading Element 3 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 1.2900e- 003 0.0000 1.2900e- 003 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.7200e- 003 0.0332 0.0250 5.0000e- 005 1.6400e- 003 1.6400e- 003 1.5400e- 003 1.5400e- 003 0.0000 4.6354 4.6354 1.2300e- 003 0.0000 4.6612 Total 3.7200e- 003 0.0332 0.0250 5.0000e- 005 1.2900e- 003 1.6400e- 003 2.9300e- 003 1.8000e- 004 1.5400e- 003 1.7200e- 003 0.0000 4.6354 4.6354 1.2300e- 003 0.0000 4.6612 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 19 of 38 3.4 Grading Element 3 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.7100e- 003 8.4200e- 003 0.0374 2.0000e- 005 8.6000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 9.4000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.3936 1.3936 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.3940 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0103 0.0154 0.1595 4.7000e- 004 0.0381 3.0000e- 004 0.0384 0.0101 2.8000e- 004 0.0104 0.0000 31.7703 31.7703 1.5400e- 003 0.0000 31.8027 Total 0.0120 0.0238 0.1968 4.9000e- 004 0.0389 3.7000e- 004 0.0393 0.0103 3.5000e- 004 0.0107 0.0000 33.1639 33.1639 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 33.1967 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 5.8000e- 004 0.0000 5.8000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.7200e- 003 0.0332 0.0250 5.0000e- 005 1.6400e- 003 1.6400e- 003 1.5400e- 003 1.5400e- 003 0.0000 4.6354 4.6354 1.2300e- 003 0.0000 4.6612 Total 3.7200e- 003 0.0332 0.0250 5.0000e- 005 5.8000e- 004 1.6400e- 003 2.2200e- 003 8.0000e- 005 1.5400e- 003 1.6200e- 003 0.0000 4.6354 4.6354 1.2300e- 003 0.0000 4.6612 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 20 of 38 3.4 Grading Element 3 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.7100e- 003 8.4200e- 003 0.0374 2.0000e- 005 8.6000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 9.4000e- 004 2.2000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.3936 1.3936 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.3940 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0103 0.0154 0.1595 4.7000e- 004 0.0381 3.0000e- 004 0.0384 0.0101 2.8000e- 004 0.0104 0.0000 31.7703 31.7703 1.5400e- 003 0.0000 31.8027 Total 0.0120 0.0238 0.1968 4.9000e- 004 0.0389 3.7000e- 004 0.0393 0.0103 3.5000e- 004 0.0107 0.0000 33.1639 33.1639 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 33.1967 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction Element 1 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 3.8900e- 003 0.0419 0.0211 7.0000e- 005 1.5400e- 003 1.5400e- 003 1.4100e- 003 1.4100e- 003 0.0000 6.0410 6.0410 1.8800e- 003 0.0000 6.0805 Total 3.8900e- 003 0.0419 0.0211 7.0000e- 005 1.5400e- 003 1.5400e- 003 1.4100e- 003 1.4100e- 003 0.0000 6.0410 6.0410 1.8800e- 003 0.0000 6.0805 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 21 of 38 3.5 Building Construction Element 1 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.4000e- 004 2.4100e- 003 3.3800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6101 0.6101 0.0000 0.0000 0.6102 Worker 2.6000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 4.0100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.7612 0.7612 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7620 Total 5.0000e- 004 2.8000e- 003 7.3900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.0800e- 003 5.0000e- 005 1.1200e- 003 2.9000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 3.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3713 1.3713 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.3722 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 3.8900e- 003 0.0419 0.0211 7.0000e- 005 1.5400e- 003 1.5400e- 003 1.4100e- 003 1.4100e- 003 0.0000 6.0410 6.0410 1.8800e- 003 0.0000 6.0805 Total 3.8900e- 003 0.0419 0.0211 7.0000e- 005 1.5400e- 003 1.5400e- 003 1.4100e- 003 1.4100e- 003 0.0000 6.0410 6.0410 1.8800e- 003 0.0000 6.0805 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 22 of 38 3.5 Building Construction Element 1 - 2018 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.4000e- 004 2.4100e- 003 3.3800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6101 0.6101 0.0000 0.0000 0.6102 Worker 2.6000e- 004 3.9000e- 004 4.0100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.8000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.7612 0.7612 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7620 Total 5.0000e- 004 2.8000e- 003 7.3900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.0800e- 003 5.0000e- 005 1.1200e- 003 2.9000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 3.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.3713 1.3713 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.3722 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Building Construction Element 3 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 2.7400e- 003 0.0269 0.0197 3.0000e- 005 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 1.5500e- 003 1.5500e- 003 0.0000 2.7724 2.7724 7.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.7879 Total 2.7400e- 003 0.0269 0.0197 3.0000e- 005 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 1.5500e- 003 1.5500e- 003 0.0000 2.7724 2.7724 7.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.7879 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 23 of 38 3.6 Building Construction Element 3 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.4600e- 003 0.0142 0.0208 4.0000e- 005 1.2600e- 003 2.3000e- 004 1.4900e- 003 3.6000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 3.8136 3.8136 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.8142 Worker 1.5100e- 003 2.2600e- 003 0.0234 7.0000e- 005 5.6000e- 003 4.0000e- 005 5.6400e- 003 1.4900e- 003 4.0000e- 005 1.5300e- 003 0.0000 4.6681 4.6681 2.3000e- 004 0.0000 4.6728 Total 2.9700e- 003 0.0164 0.0443 1.1000e- 004 6.8600e- 003 2.7000e- 004 7.1300e- 003 1.8500e- 003 2.5000e- 004 2.1000e- 003 0.0000 8.4816 8.4816 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 8.4870 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 2.7400e- 003 0.0269 0.0197 3.0000e- 005 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 1.5500e- 003 1.5500e- 003 0.0000 2.7724 2.7724 7.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.7879 Total 2.7400e- 003 0.0269 0.0197 3.0000e- 005 1.6700e- 003 1.6700e- 003 1.5500e- 003 1.5500e- 003 0.0000 2.7724 2.7724 7.4000e- 004 0.0000 2.7879 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 24 of 38 3.6 Building Construction Element 3 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.4600e- 003 0.0142 0.0208 4.0000e- 005 1.2600e- 003 2.3000e- 004 1.4900e- 003 3.6000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 5.7000e- 004 0.0000 3.8136 3.8136 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.8142 Worker 1.5100e- 003 2.2600e- 003 0.0234 7.0000e- 005 5.6000e- 003 4.0000e- 005 5.6400e- 003 1.4900e- 003 4.0000e- 005 1.5300e- 003 0.0000 4.6681 4.6681 2.3000e- 004 0.0000 4.6728 Total 2.9700e- 003 0.0164 0.0443 1.1000e- 004 6.8600e- 003 2.7000e- 004 7.1300e- 003 1.8500e- 003 2.5000e- 004 2.1000e- 003 0.0000 8.4816 8.4816 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 8.4870 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Building Construction Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 4.2400e- 003 0.0396 0.0318 5.0000e- 005 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.4200e- 003 2.4200e- 003 0.0000 4.3669 4.3669 9.8000e- 004 0.0000 4.3875 Total 4.2400e- 003 0.0396 0.0318 5.0000e- 005 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.4200e- 003 2.4200e- 003 0.0000 4.3669 4.3669 9.8000e- 004 0.0000 4.3875 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 25 of 38 3.7 Building Construction Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.5800e- 003 0.0250 0.0367 8.0000e- 005 2.2200e- 003 4.1000e- 004 2.6300e- 003 6.3000e- 004 3.8000e- 004 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 6.7298 6.7298 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.7309 Worker 2.6700e- 003 3.9900e- 003 0.0414 1.2000e- 004 9.8700e- 003 8.0000e- 005 9.9500e- 003 2.6200e- 003 7.0000e- 005 2.6900e- 003 0.0000 8.2378 8.2378 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 8.2462 Total 5.2500e- 003 0.0290 0.0781 2.0000e- 004 0.0121 4.9000e- 004 0.0126 3.2500e- 003 4.5000e- 004 3.7000e- 003 0.0000 14.9676 14.9676 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 14.9770 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 4.2400e- 003 0.0396 0.0318 5.0000e- 005 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.4200e- 003 2.4200e- 003 0.0000 4.3669 4.3669 9.8000e- 004 0.0000 4.3875 Total 4.2400e- 003 0.0396 0.0318 5.0000e- 005 2.5700e- 003 2.5700e- 003 2.4200e- 003 2.4200e- 003 0.0000 4.3669 4.3669 9.8000e- 004 0.0000 4.3875 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 26 of 38 3.7 Building Construction Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.5800e- 003 0.0250 0.0367 8.0000e- 005 2.2200e- 003 4.1000e- 004 2.6300e- 003 6.3000e- 004 3.8000e- 004 1.0100e- 003 0.0000 6.7298 6.7298 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 6.7309 Worker 2.6700e- 003 3.9900e- 003 0.0414 1.2000e- 004 9.8700e- 003 8.0000e- 005 9.9500e- 003 2.6200e- 003 7.0000e- 005 2.6900e- 003 0.0000 8.2378 8.2378 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 8.2462 Total 5.2500e- 003 0.0290 0.0781 2.0000e- 004 0.0121 4.9000e- 004 0.0126 3.2500e- 003 4.5000e- 004 3.7000e- 003 0.0000 14.9676 14.9676 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 14.9770 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.8 Paving Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.7000e- 004 1.7600e- 003 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2655 0.2655 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2673 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.7000e- 004 1.7600e- 003 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2655 0.2655 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2673 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 27 of 38 3.8 Paving Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 004 1.1500e- 003 0.0000 2.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.8000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2288 0.2288 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2291 Total 7.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 004 1.1500e- 003 0.0000 2.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.8000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2288 0.2288 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2291 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.7000e- 004 1.7600e- 003 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2655 0.2655 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2673 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.7000e- 004 1.7600e- 003 1.1000e- 003 0.0000 8.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2655 0.2655 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2673 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 28 of 38 3.8 Paving Element 2 - 2019 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 004 1.1500e- 003 0.0000 2.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.8000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2288 0.2288 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2291 Total 7.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 004 1.1500e- 003 0.0000 2.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.8000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2288 0.2288 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2291 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/5/2016 4:38 PM Page 29 of 38 A ppendix 2 Biological Resources Review A mec Foster Wheeler 104 West Anapamu Street, Suite 204A Santa Barbara, CA 93101 T el +1 (805) 962 -0992 www.amec fw .com J u ne 2 , 201 6 Mr. Tom Watson Community Development Department 1685 Main Street, Room 212 PO Box 2200 Santa Monica , CA 90407 -2200 Re : Biological Resources Review for the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP), Sa nta Monica , California Dear Mr. Watson , This letter report summarizes the results of a biological resources review conducted by Amec Foster Wheeler (Amec) for the subject P roject and associated study area . The purpose of this work i s to evaluate biological resources within the study area and poten tial project -related impacts that may result from implementation and construction of the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) (Project) within the City of Santa Monica . Project Location and Description The SWIP is comprised of three integrated project elements to improve drought resiliency, increase water supply, and enhance flexibility in the management of the City’s water resources. The proposed Project would involve installation of a containerized reverse osmosis unit at the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF) and a shallow groundwater well at the City’s Beach Maintenance Yard , constructing a below grade municipal wastewater tre atment facility, and installing two below grade stormwater harvest tanks , as described herein. Project Element 1 is the installation of a containerized, off -the -shelf saline reverse osmosis unit at the SMURRF on an existing concrete pad. No excavation or soil disturbance would be required for this activity. The proposed well w ould be 8 inches in diameter and installed under L os A ngeles County permit. When operational, the reverse osmosis unit w ould be utilized to advance treat non -potable water resources , such as urban and wet weather runoff harvested by the recently funded Clean Beaches Initiative Project storage tanks to be constructed at the Deauville Parking Lot. These tanks w ould capture runoff from the 90 -acre Pier Drainage Area that would normally be discharged to the ocean at the Pier Outfall. When runoff is scarce, the tanks would be replenished with brackish/saline groundwater from a proposed shallow groundwater well located at the Beach Maintenance Yard. Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Biological Resources Assessment April 2 7 , 2016 Page 2 Project Element 2 includes the constructi on of a below grade recycled water treatment plant beneath the Civic Center parking lot. The recycled water plant would advance treat approximately 1.0 million gallons/day (MGD) of municipal wastewater for reuse. Project elements to be located under the Ci vic Center Parking lot would be constructed to accommodate future development on the site. Project Element 3 consists of two below grade stormwater harvest tanks. One tank would be constructed beneath Memorial Park, and the other adjacent to the below gra de recycled water treatment facility. Benefits provided by the stormwater harvest tanks include capturing stormwater and urban runoff for treatment and reuse, improving beach water quality and complying with State Water Board Enhanced Watershed Managemen t Plan (EWMP) requirements. Together, the Project E lements would produce approximately 1.5 MGD (1,680 acre -feet/year) of new water for immediate non - potable reuse and , when properly permitted, for indirect pota ble reuse via aquifer recharge. All treated water would be distributed via the City’s existing recycled water system. The three combined Project E lements comprise the biological resources study area. Methods For the biological resources review, A mec conducted a search of available electronic da tabases of sensitive species localities , including the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 201 6 ), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service , A mec in -house data (unpublished data), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS 201 6 ). Previous surveys of projects that encompassed the study area or portions thereof were also referenced (Natural Environment Study for the Santa Monica Pier Bridge Replacement Project, prepared in 2016 ). An assessment of the study area location in relation to the known range of sensitiv e species of the region was conducted, focu sing on the habitat resources available onsite . The purpose was to identify sensitive species known to occur in the region and assess their potential for occurrence in the study area. Those species with no potenti al to occur in the study area based on the habitat assessment and background review were discounted and are not discussed in this report. A review of Project maps and aerial photos was conducted to assess the conditions and vegetation communities on the si te. Results Vegetation Communities and Habitats The Project site consist s entirely of developed and landscaped areas located within an urban city setting. Project Element 1 will be constructed at an existing water recycling facility, Project Element 2 will be constructed under a paved parking lot, and Project Element 3 will be constructed at an existing facility and under the maintained turf of a recreational park. Given the developed nature of the study area, habitat opportunities for sensitive species that occur in the region are limited. Mature ornamental trees and mowed gras s/turf are the only vegetation types present within the non -paved portions of the study area. Species likely to be found in developed/landscaped areas onsite include common species that coexist with human activities such as American crow (Corvus brachyrhyn chos ), white -crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Biological Resources Assessment April 2 7 , 2016 Page 3 leucophrys ), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura ), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus ), rock dove (domestic pigeon; Columba livia ), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus ), and house sparrow (Zonotrichia querula ). Common gull s pecies found in Los Angeles County include the Western Gull (Larus occidentalis ); California Gull (Larus californicus ); Ring -billed Gull (Larus delawarensis ); Heerman’s Gull (Larus heermanni ); and Bonaparte’s Gull (Chroicocephalus Philadelphia ). Less common visitors include Glaucous -winged Gull (Larus glaucescens ) and Common (Mew) Gull (Larus canus ). No sensitive natural communities as defined by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) occur within the study area. Wetlands and waters regulated by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board under the Clean Water Act (§ 404 and 401, respectively) and CDFW under Fish and Game Code §160 2 , are absent from the pro posed Project work areas. Special -Status Species The literature review and database search did identify a number of sensitive species known from the region. However, suitable habitat and conditions for the majority of these species do not occur on site or in the study area . Given the absence of these habitats on site or immediately adjacent to the site, sensitive species occurring in the region that rely on coastal sage scrub (i.e. California gnat catcher, pacific pocket mouse ), coastal salt marsh (i.e. salt marsh bird’s -beak ), coastal waters (i.e. steelhead), freshwater/brackish marsh (i.e. western pond turtle, black rail), vernal pool, or playa/coastal dune habitats (i.e. least tern, sno wy plover , El Segundo blue butterfly ) do not occur on site. B ased o n the types of vegetation present, t he only special -status species with potential to occur on site and in the study area are nesting birds and roosting bats. Nesting Birds - All birds with the exception of European starlings , English house sparrows , rock doves (pigeons), and non -migratory game birds such as quail, pheasant, and grouse, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). However, non -migratory game birds are protected under California Fish and Game Code §3503. Section 3503 prohi bits unlawful take, possession or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird. As described above, the site(s) are highly urbanized and the Civic Center Parking Lot is paved. Therefore, the preferred natural habitat for games birds does not exist at the project site(s). Ornamental trees surrounding Memorial P ark, existing facilities, and parking lot may provide potential nesting habitat for birds. Because the park is regularly mowed and maintained the potential for some bird species (e.g. killdeer , mourning dove) to nest on the grass/turf of the park or ball field is de minimis. Structures associated with existing facilities may also provide nesting habitat. However, the existing SMURRF, which is the location of SWIP Element 1, is an active water t reatment plant. As such, City staff monitors for the presence of bird activity in order to minimize the potential of e -coli and other pathogens in treated water. The City has no report of bird nesting activity at the SMURRF. At the Memorial Park and Civic Center Parking Lot sites (SWIP Elements 2 & 3), there are no structures in the areas designated for construction. “Urban -tolerant” raptor species , such as red -tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis ), red -shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus ), and Cooper’s hawk (Accipi ter cooperii ), have a potential to nest on site . Several other raptor species , including sharp -shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus ) and merlin (Falco Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Biological Resources Assessment April 2 7 , 2016 Page 4 columbarius ), could potentially temporarily forage at the site during the winter or pass over in migration, but these are uncommon winter visitors that do not nest in the region. Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia ) is California Species of Special Concern that has bec ome uncommon in the urban portions of southern California , but still persists at scattered locations in less developed areas . It generally occurs in open habitats, often where species such as California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi ) are presen t, creating precursor burrows for the owls. Open habitat occurs at Memorial Park and Californi a ground squirrel may be present ; however, because of the surrounding urbanization , frequent mowing and maintenance and the lack of recorded adjacent colonies , the occurrence of burrowing owl or ground squirrel on the project is likely de minimis. Roosting Bats - Califo rnia bats and bats in general are threatened by habitat destruction, especially since a wide variety of habitats are needed for different behavio rs (roosting, foraging, drinking, hibernating, etc.). Many bat species roost in groups and use mature trees, snags, crevices and man -made structures for roosting, either for winter roosting (hibernacula) or for forming summer nursery colonies . Some bats will roost in man -made structures such as the undersides of bridges and vacant buildings . Protecting established roost sites is of particular importance to the conservation of bats, and management of these sites is receiving increasing attention from the C DF W . Bats that are not protected under federal or state e ndangered s pecies a cts or other permitting processes (i.e. CDFW §1602 agreements) receive consideration under CEQA. Four special -status bat species were considered to have at least some potential t o occur wi thin the study area based on the CNDDB search results including - Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus ) and western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus ), both California S pecies of S pecial C oncern ; Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus ) and silver -haired b at (Lasionycteris noctivagans ), both species tracked by the CNDDB . Ornamental trees surrounding the park, existing facilities, and parking lot provide potential roost habitat for bats. However, as stated above , there are no structures within the designated construction areas at Memorial Park or the Civic Center Parking Lot. City staff monitors for the presence of bats at the SMURRF which are a potential source of pathogens in the treated water produced by the fa cility. There are no reports of bats roosting at the SMURRF. Conclusions and Recommendations Tree removal is not proposed as part of the P roject ; however , equipment will be staged and working immediately adjacent to numerous mature trees. This could resu lt in disturbance to adjacent bird nest or bat roost sites. A pre -construction survey for nesting birds is recommended prior to work occurring within the nest season (January 15 - August 31). A survey for potentially occurring roosting bats is also recomme nded. These surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 14 days prior to the start of construction staging or ground disturbance and reinitiated as needed after periods of inactivity at each Project Element site. If nesting birds or bats are found , a non -disturbance buffer zone s hall be implemented with input from the qualified biologist. Buffer zones s hall be clearly marked with exclusion fencing/staking Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Biological Resources Assessment April 2 7 , 2016 Page 5 and signage. Biological monitoring is also recommended if active nests or roosting bats are found to regularly assess their status and condition. Given the urban setting and the high baseline disturbance level, buffer zones can likely be focused to a limited area and , therefore , a specific distance is not provided. Nesting raptors (i.e. red -tailed hawk) typically warrant a larger zone than nesting passerines (i.e. mourning dove ). If, based on the survey, b uffers are determined to be necessary, they can be adjusted based on work activities, monitoring results (i.e. reaction of the animals), and the biologist’s judgment. They s hall be maintained until work has ceased in the identified area or the birds/bats are done nesting/roosting , as confirmed by the biologist. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (858) 300 -4338 . Respectfully submitted, Angie Harbin -Ireland Senior Biologist A mec Foster Wheeler A ppendix 3 CNDDB Summary Table Elev.Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence Name (Scientific/Common) CNDDB Ranks Listing Status (Fed/State)Other Lists Range (ft.) Total EO's A B C D X U Historic > 20 yr Recent <= 20 yr Extant Poss. Extirp.Extirp. Aglaothorax longipennis Santa Monica shieldback katydid G1G2 S1S2 None None IUCN_CR-Critically Endangered 150 150 1 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Antrozous pallidus pallid bat G5 S3 None None BLM_S-Sensitive CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern IUCN_LC-Least Concern USFS_S-Sensitive WBWG_H-High Priority 402 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri coastal whiptail G5T3T4 S2S3 None None 1,335 1,400 112 S:2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 Astragalus brauntonii Braunton's milk-vetch G2 S2 Endangered None Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1 USFS_S-Sensitive 450 1,700 34 S:8 0 2 0 1 4 1 5 3 4 4 0 Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus Ventura Marsh milk-vetch G2T1 S1 Endangered Endangered Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1 5 5 7 S:2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 Astragalus tener var. titi coastal dunes milk-vetch G1T1 S1 Endangered Endangered Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1 25 150 6 S:2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 Athene cunicularia burrowing owl G4 S2 None None BLM_S-Sensitive CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern IUCN_LC-Least Concern USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern 5 5 1827 S:1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Atriplex parishii Parish's brittlescale G1G2 S1 None None Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1 USFS_S-Sensitive 100 100 16 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Brennania belkini Belkin's dune tabanid fly G1G2 S1S2 None None IUCN_VU-Vulnerable 10 100 4 S:4 0 0 1 0 1 2 4 0 3 1 0 California Walnut Woodland California Walnut Woodland G2 S2.1 None None 1,500 1,600 76 S:2 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis slender mariposa-lily G4T2 S2 None None Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2 USFS_S-Sensitive 935 935 76 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Calochortus plummerae Plummer's mariposa-lily G4 S4 None None Rare Plant Rank - 4.2 USFS_S-Sensitive 850 1,050 230 S:2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Report Printed on Thursday, March 28, 2013 Page 1 of 6 Commercial Version -- Dated March, 5 2013 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 9/5/2013 Summary Table Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Dr a f t EI R – Do w n t o w n Sp e c i f i c Pl a n G- 1 Ci t y of Sa n t a Mo n i c a Elev.Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence Name (Scientific/Common) CNDDB Ranks Listing Status (Fed/State)Other Lists Range (ft.) Total EO's A B C D X U Historic > 20 yr Recent <= 20 yr Extant Poss. Extirp.Extirp. Carolella busckana Busck's gallmoth G1G3 SH None None 100 225 4 S:2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 Centromadia parryi ssp. australis southern tarplant G4T2 S2 None None Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1 5 140 78 S:4 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 4 0 0 Chaenactis glabriuscula var. orcuttiana Orcutt's pincushion G5T1 S1 None None Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1 10 125 23 S:2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus western snowy plover G4T3 S2 Threatened None ABC_WLBCC-Watch List of Birds of Conservation Concern CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern 10 10 120 S:2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 Chenopodium littoreum coastal goosefoot G2 S2 None None Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2 13 S:1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Chloropyron maritimum ssp. maritimum salt marsh bird's-beak G4?T1 S1 Endangered Endangered Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2 10 10 27 S:1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina San Fernando Valley spineflower G2T1 S1 Candidate Endangered Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1 USFS_S-Sensitive 50 50 21 S:1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Cicindela hirticollis gravida sandy beach tiger beetle G5T2 S1 None None 10 10 34 S:3 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 Cicindela senilis frosti senile tiger beetle G4T1 S1 None None 10 10 9 S:1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Coelus globosus globose dune beetle G1 S1 None None IUCN_VU-Vulnerable 5 10 49 S:4 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 3 1 0 Danaus plexippus monarch butterfly G5 S3 None None 15 550 334 S:11 0 2 2 0 3 4 9 2 8 1 2 Diadophis punctatus modestus San Bernardino ringneck snake G5T2T3 S2? None None USFS_S-Sensitive 876 876 10 S:1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Dithyrea maritima beach spectaclepod G2 S2.1 None Threatened Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1 BLM_S-Sensitive 10 20 28 S:4 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 2 0 2 Report Printed on Thursday, March 28, 2013 Page 2 of 6 Commercial Version -- Dated March, 5 2013 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 9/5/2013 Summary Table Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Dr a f t EI R – Do w n t o w n Sp e c i f i c Pl a n G- 2 Ci t y of Sa n t a Mo n i c a Elev.Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence Name (Scientific/Common) CNDDB Ranks Listing Status (Fed/State)Other Lists Range (ft.) Total EO's A B C D X U Historic > 20 yr Recent <= 20 yr Extant Poss. Extirp.Extirp. Dudleya cymosa ssp. ovatifolia Santa Monica dudleya G5T1 S1 Threatened None Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2 USFS_S-Sensitive 700 700 4 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Emys marmorata western pond turtle G3G4 S3 None None BLM_S-Sensitive CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern IUCN_VU-Vulnerable USFS_S-Sensitive 5 950 1135 S:2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 Eucosma hennei Henne's eucosman moth G1 S1 None None 130 130 1 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat G5T4 S3? None None BLM_S-Sensitive CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern WBWG_H-High Priority 90 1,200 293 S:3 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 3 0 0 Euphilotes battoides allyni El Segundo blue butterfly G5T1 S1 Endangered None XERCES_CI-Critically Imperiled 140 150 4 S:2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 Horkelia cuneata var. puberula mesa horkelia G4T2 S2.1 None None Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1 USFS_S-Sensitive 600 600 58 S:1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Lasionycteris noctivagans silver-haired bat G5 S3S4 None None IUCN_LC-Least Concern WBWG_M-Medium Priority 138 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat G5 S4? None None IUCN_LC-Least Concern WBWG_M-Medium Priority 235 S:2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Coulter's goldfields G4T3 S2.1 None None Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1 BLM_S-Sensitive 89 S:3 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 2 0 1 Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail G4T1 S1 None Threatened ABC_WLBCC-Watch List of Birds of Conservation Concern BLM_S-Sensitive CDFW_FP-Fully Protected IUCN_NT-Near Threatened USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern 10 10 241 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Report Printed on Thursday, March 28, 2013 Page 3 of 6 Commercial Version -- Dated March, 5 2013 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 9/5/2013 Summary Table Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Dr a f t EI R – Do w n t o w n Sp e c i f i c Pl a n G- 3 Ci t y of Sa n t a Mo n i c a Elev.Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence Name (Scientific/Common) CNDDB Ranks Listing Status (Fed/State)Other Lists Range (ft.) Total EO's A B C D X U Historic > 20 yr Recent <= 20 yr Extant Poss. Extirp.Extirp. Microtus californicus stephensi south coast marsh vole G5T1T2 S1S2 None None CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern 5 200 7 S:2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 Monardella hypoleuca ssp. hypoleuca white-veined monardella G4T2T3 S2S3 None None Rare Plant Rank - 1B.3 700 700 29 S:2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 Nama stenocarpum mud nama G4G5 S1S2 None None Rare Plant Rank - 2.2 400 400 22 S:1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Navarretia prostrata prostrate vernal pool navarretia G2 S2 None None Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1 60 S:1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus southern steelhead - southern California DPS G5T2Q S2 Endangered None AFS_EN-Endangered CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern 500 500 13 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Onychobaris langei Lange's El Segundo Dune weevil G1 S1 None None 100 100 1 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Panoquina errans wandering (=saltmarsh) skipper G4G5 S1 None None IUCN_NT-Near Threatened 5 5 14 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi Belding's savannah sparrow G5T3 S3 None Endangered 5 15 36 S:2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 Pelecanus occidentalis californicus California brown pelican G4T3 S1S2 Delisted Delisted BLM_S-Sensitive CDFW_FP-Fully Protected 0 0 19 S:1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Perognathus longimembris pacificus Pacific pocket mouse G5T1 S1 Endangered None CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern 100 100 13 S:1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Phacelia stellaris Brand's star phacelia G2? S1 Candidate None Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1 100 100 10 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard G4G5 S3S4 None None BLM_S-Sensitive CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern IUCN_LC-Least Concern USFS_S-Sensitive 1,000 1,800 677 S:4 0 1 0 0 0 3 3 1 4 0 0 Polioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher G3T2 S2 Threatened None ABC_WLBCC-Watch List of Birds of Conservation Concern CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern 200 200 804 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Report Printed on Thursday, March 28, 2013 Page 4 of 6 Commercial Version -- Dated March, 5 2013 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 9/5/2013 Summary Table Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Dr a f t EI R – Do w n t o w n Sp e c i f i c Pl a n G- 4 Ci t y of Sa n t a Mo n i c a Elev.Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence Name (Scientific/Common) CNDDB Ranks Listing Status (Fed/State)Other Lists Range (ft.) Total EO's A B C D X U Historic > 20 yr Recent <= 20 yr Extant Poss. Extirp.Extirp. Potentilla multijuga Ballona cinquefoil GX SX None None Rare Plant Rank - 1A 5 5 1 S:1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Riparia riparia bank swallow G5 S2S3 None Threatened BLM_S-Sensitive IUCN_LC-Least Concern 14 14 282 S:1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Sidalcea neomexicana Salt Spring checkerbloom G4? S2S3 None None Rare Plant Rank - 2.2 100 100 15 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Socalchemmis gertschi Gertsch's socalchemmis spider G1 S1 None None 100 330 3 S:2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 Sorex ornatus salicornicus southern California saltmarsh shrew G5T1? S1 None None CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern 5 5 4 S:1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest G4 S4 None None 1,300 1,300 246 S:1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Southern Coastal Salt Marsh G2 S2.1 None None 80 80 24 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Southern Dune Scrub Southern Dune Scrub G1 S1.1 None None 130 130 10 S:1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland G4 S4 None None 175 1,200 230 S:9 0 2 0 0 0 7 9 0 9 0 0 Sternula antillarum browni California least tern G4T2T3Q S2S3 Endangered Endangered ABC_WLBCC-Watch List of Birds of Conservation Concern CDFW_FP-Fully Protected 3 10 67 S:3 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 Thamnophis hammondii two-striped garter snake G3 S2 None None BLM_S-Sensitive CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern IUCN_LC-Least Concern USFS_S-Sensitive 725 1,275 143 S:2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 Trigonoscuta dorothea dorothea Dorothy's El Segundo Dune weevil G1T1 S1 None None 10 120 4 S:2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 Report Printed on Thursday, March 28, 2013 Page 5 of 6 Commercial Version -- Dated March, 5 2013 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 9/5/2013 Summary Table Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Dr a f t EI R – Do w n t o w n Sp e c i f i c Pl a n G- 5 Ci t y of Sa n t a Mo n i c a Elev.Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence Name (Scientific/Common) CNDDB Ranks Listing Status (Fed/State)Other Lists Range (ft.) Total EO's A B C D X U Historic > 20 yr Recent <= 20 yr Extant Poss. Extirp.Extirp. Tryonia imitator mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail) G2G3 S2S3 None None IUCN_DD-Data Deficient 39 S:1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Report Printed on Thursday, March 28, 2013 Page 6 of 6 Commercial Version -- Dated March, 5 2013 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 9/5/2013 Summary Table Report California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Dr a f t EI R – Do w n t o w n Sp e c i f i c Pl a n G- 6 Ci t y of Sa n t a Mo n i c a A ppendix 4 Cr itical Habitat Historical Range Path: Q:\CulturalResources\SantaMonica\MXD\ReportFigures\CriticalHabitat.mxd, aaron.johnson 6/20/2016 !.!. !. SWIP Element 1 SWIP Element 2 SWIP Element 3 Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 1:250,000 20,000020,00040,000 10,000 Feet 0510 2.5Miles q SCALE Legend !.SWIP Element 1 !.SWIP Element 2 !.SWIP Element 3 Critical Habitat Historical Range Least Bell's vireo Western snowy plover Critical Habitat Western snowy plover Critical Habitat Historical Range: California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Interagency Wildlife Task Group Critical Habitat: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Conservation Online System A ppendix 5 Section 106 Findings Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers June 30, 2016 Rincon Project No. 16-02845 Rachel Kwok Environmental Planner City Planning 1685 Main Street, Room 212 PO Box 2200 Santa Monica, CA 90407 Subject: Section 106 Findings for the Susta inable Water Infrastructure Project, Santa Monica, Los Angeles County, California This letter presents the historic properties fi ndings for the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (“project”), located in the City of S anta Monica, Los Angeles County, California. The project includes improvements to three exis ting facilities to upgrade the City’s water treatment capabilities. Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) prepared this letter in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Pr eservation Act (NHPA) in support of the environmental analysis being conducted by the City of Santa Monica for the proposed improvements. The purpose of this letter is to present the results of th e previously prepared Cultural Resources Technical Report and a pply the findings in accordance with the requirements of Section 106 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This letter was prepared by Cultural Resource s Principal Investigator Christopher Duran, M.A., RPA, who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) for historic and prehistoric arc haeology (National Park Service 1983), and Architectural Historian Shannon Carmack, B.A. who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s PQS for architectural history and history. Rinc on Principal Joe Power, AICP CEP, reviewed this letter for quality control. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project will consist of three sepa rate project elements (Element 1, 2, and 3), located on separate, discontiguous parcels with in the City of Santa Monica. Each of these parcels contains existing water treatment elements that are cu rrently in operation (Attachment A, Figure 1). Element 1: Element 1 includes three separate parcels loca ted to the north and northwest of the Santa Monica Pier. Element 1A is a roughly 0.5-acre parcel located on the north east corner of Appian Way and Colorado Avenue that is cu rrently in use as the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF). The SM URRF is elevated above Appian Way, and constructed against the slope of Pacific Coast Highway, which is situated directly northeast Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Cultural Resources Section 106 Findings June 30, 2016 Page 2 of 9 Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers of the SMURRF. Element 1B is a roughly 0.6-acre parcel located to the northwest of the pier between the Ocean Front Walk and Pacific Coast Highway. The site is currently used as the City’s Beach Maintenance Yard (BMY). Element 1 will include installation of a reverse osmosis unit, a shallow groundwater extraction well, and several solar panel arrays. The shallow groundwater extraction well will be loca ted at the BMY. In addition to the solar panel arrays situated at the SMURRF in Elem ent 1A, additional sola r panel arrays will be installed within an existing parking lot located across the street from the SMURRF, southwest of Appian Way. The Solar Panel El ement parcel is approximately 0.5-acre. All three parcels are paved and developed with no visible ground surface. Extant structures on Elements 1A and 1B are modern and associat ed with ongoing water treatment activities; there are no extant structures on the Solar Panel Element. Element 2: Element 2 is located within the Santa Monica Civic Center parking lot, generally located at 1855 Main Street. The parcel is roughly 6.5 ac res located at the southwest corner of Pico Boulevard and 4 th Street. The parcel is paved with asphalt and contains parking spaces, minimal vegetation and a vehicle solar charging station. Element 2 will consist of a below- grade recycled water treatment facility that will be constructed beneath a parking lot adjacent to the City’s existing Civic Center, near the intersection of 4 th Street and Pico Boulevard. City Hall is situated to the west an d the Civic Center Auditorium is located to the southwest of Element 2. Element 3: Element 3 includes two separate parcels. El ement 3 will comprise a below-grade stormwater harvest tank and a below-grade stormwater collection and holding tank. Element 3A, includes the stormwater collection and holding tank which will be located adjacent to the SWIP Element 2 recycled water treatment fac ility, within the Santa Monica Civic Center parking lot. Element 3B is located on the site of the Memorial Park, located at 1401 Olympic Boulevard. The park is roughly 9 acres an d contains baseball fields, a gymnasium, playground and a skate park. The stormwater ha rvest tank will be loca ted within the park, near the intersection of 14 th Street and Olympic Boulevard. METHODS/APPROACH Previous Documentation The results of this letter are wholly based on the results of the cultural resources technical report that was recently completed for the prop osed undertaking. In June 2016, the cultural resources technical report, City of Santa Monica Proposed Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) Archaeological and Historical Re sources Study, Los Angeles County, California, was prepared by Archaeologist Trisha Drennan M.Sc., RPA of AMEC Foster Wheeler, on behalf of the City. Ms. Drennan meets the Secretary of Interiors PQS for prehistoric and historic archaeology. The report included a cultural re sources records search from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University Fullerton, a Sacred Lands File search of the Native Am erican Heritage Commission, Native American consultation letters and the summary report (D rennan 2016). The document was prepared in Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Cultural Resources Section 106 Findings June 30, 2016 Page 3 of 9 Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers compliance with CEQA and therefore did not in clude a detailed description of the APE, nor did it include site visits or preparatio n of historic group consultation letters. Area of Potential Effects 36 CFR 800.16(d) of Section 106 defines the APE of an undertaking as the “geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may d irectly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if an y such properties exist.” The project APE is located in an unsectioned portion of Township 2 South, Range 15 West of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Beverly Hills , CA 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Attachment A, Figure 2). The current undertaking’s AP E for archaeological and built-environment resources (or direct APE) comprises the three separate project element sites, as described above in the project description. The APE for the current undertaking was limited to the direct project footprint, because the project has no potential to directly or indire ctly impact any historic resources within the vicinity of the APE. The areas surrounding the project APEs are developed with residential, commercial and institutional properties, includ ing several properties which are considered historic properties for the purposes of Sect ion 106 and historical resources in accordance with CEQA. The proposed undertaking includ es the installation of underground water treatment equipment, construction subterranean water tanks, solar pa nel arrays and several holding tanks. These activities are very minor construction elements and will not significantly change the existing setting or di minish the historic integrity of any potential resources within the vicinity of the APE. Field Visits Rincon Senior Architectural Hi storian Shannon Carmack conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the project APE on Monday June 27, 2016. The APE was walked and inspected for cultural resources. All built environment feat ures within the APE and immediate vicinity were inspected and photographed. An archae ological survey was not conducted because the project APE is entirely developed with standing buildings and structures and paved surfaces and landscaping which obstruct an y native ground surface. Ms. Carmack documented the fieldwork using field notes an d digital photographs which are on file at Rincon’s Ventura, California office. Historic Consultation Rincon prepared and mailed letters to the Los Angeles Conservancy, the City of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission, the Santa Moni ca Conservancy, and the Santa Monica Historical Museum on June 21, 2016. FINDINGS Field Survey The APE is occupied by several standing structures, maintenance and water treatment equipment, landscaping and paved surfaces (s uch as parking lots and sidewalks). At the time of the survey, bare ground visibility was negligible throughout the APE due to onsite Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Cultural Resources Section 106 Findings June 30, 2016 Page 4 of 9 Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers development, including the SMURRF, BMY, se veral parking lots and Memorial Park. The project APE is occupied by several buildings and structures all of which are of modern construction and less than 45 years of age. Archaeological Findings Drennan’s (2016) City of Santa Monica Proposed Sustainab le Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) Archaeological and Historical Resources Study, Los Angeles County, California includes a discussion of cultural resources, an overview of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the methods and results of a cult ural resources records search and Native American scoping. The study area for the repo rt consisted of all three Project Elements. However, Element 1 was excluded from the re cords search because it will not include any excavation or ground disturbance and will be built on an existing concrete pad. The cultural resources records search requested from SCCIC identified a total of 39 previous studies within a 0.5-mile radius of project Elem ents 2 and 3. Of those studies, one included a portion of Element 3 and was negative for cult ural resources. The records search identified five previously recorded resources within th e search area, none of which were located within either project element. Of the resources recorded within the project vicinity, three are isolated historical archaeolog ical resources. Drennan states that given the results of the previous studies, the project vi cinity has potential to be arch aeologically sensitive due to historic use of the region. Drennan recommend s that archaeological monitoring take place within 50 feet of two previously recorded bu ilt-environment resources and associated trash scatters, CA-LAN-001403H and CA-LAN-003803H. However, Rincon finds that because those resources and associated refuse deposits are recorded more than 50 feet from the project APE, no archaeological monitoring is necessary. Table 1. Archaeological Resources Resource Name Level of Historic SignificanceRelationship to APE CA-LAN-001403H Insufficient information Located 2251 feet to the southeast of Element 2 CA-LAN-003803H Insufficient information Located 2589 feet to the northeast of Element 3 Built Environment Findings The cultural resources records search notes the location of several built environment resources within the vicinity of the APE (Dre nnan 2016; Table 2). The Santa Monica Looff Hippodrome, also known as the Santa Monica Amusement Pier Carousel Building, is located at 176 Santa Monica Pier, approximatel y 740 feet to the southeast of Element 1B, 250 feet to the southwest of Element 1A and 140 fe et southwest of the So lar Panels . The Santa Monica Looff Hippodrome is listed in the Nation al Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Reso urces (CRHR) and is a City Landmark. Project Elements 1A, 1B and the Solar Panels are also located near the Santa Monica Pier and the Santa Monica Pier Sign, both of whic h are designated City Landmarks. The Santa Monica Pier Sign was also determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and is listed in the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Cultural Resources Section 106 Findings June 30, 2016 Page 5 of 9 Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers CRHR. Element 1A is approximately 370 feet nort heast and Element 1B is 560 feet west of the Santa Monica Pier. The Pier Sign is loca ted approximately 230 feet north of Element 1A and 400 feet northeast of Element 1B. The Solar Element is located 380 feet southeast of the Pier Sign and 240 feet northeast of the Pier. The Santa Monica Courthouse, the Santa Moni ca Civic Auditorium and Santa Monica City Hall are located near Element 2 and 3B. The Santa Monica Civic Auditorium is located southwest and adjacent to the parking lot wher e Element 2 and 3B will be constructed. The Santa Monica Courthouse is located northwes t and adjacent to the parking lot where Element 2 and 3B will be constructed. The Santa Monica Civic Auditorium is a City Landmark and is considered a historical resource under CEQA. The Santa Monica Courthouse was found eligible for listing as a Ci ty Landmark and is considered a historical resource under CEQA. The parking lot where pr oject Element 2 and 3B will be constructed is located approximately 1,200 feet southeast of the Santa Monica City Hall. The Santa Monica City Hall is a City Landmark and is liste d in the CRHR and was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. Table 2. Built Environment Resources Resource Name Level of Historic SignificanceRelationship to APE Santa Monica Looff Hippodrome; Santa Monica Amusement Pier Carousel Building Listed in the NRHP, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and is a City Landmark. Considered a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 and a historical resource under CEQA. Located 740 feet to the southeast of Element 1B Located 250 feet to the southwest of Element 1A. Located 140 feet southwest of Element 1 Solar Panels Santa Monica Pier Determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, is listed in the CRHR and is a City Landmark. Considered a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 and a historical resource under CEQA. Located 370 feet northeast of Element 1A Located 560 feet west of and Element 1B Located 140 feet southwest of Element 1 Solar Panels Located 240 feet northeast of Element 1 Solar Panels Santa Monica Pier Sign Determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, is listed in the CRHR and is a City Landmark. Considered a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 and a historical resource under CEQA. Located 230 feet north of Element 1A Located 400 feet northeast of Element 1B. Located 380 feet northwest of Element 1 Solar Panels Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Cultural Resources Section 106 Findings June 30, 2016 Page 6 of 9 Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers Table 2. Built Environment Resources Resource Name Level of Historic SignificanceRelationship to APE Santa Monica Civic Auditorium A City Landmark. Considered a historical resource under CEQA. Located adjacent (southwest) to Element 2 and 3B Santa Monica Courthouse Found eligible for listing as a City Landmark. Considered a historical resource under CEQA. Located adjacent (northwest) of Element 2 and 3B. Santa Monica City Hall Determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, is listed in the CRHR and is a City Landmark. Considered a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 and a historical resource under CEQA. Located 1,200 feet northwest of Element 2 and 3B. Drennan states that the proposed undertaking’s APE is not located within the footprint of any of these historic properties or historical resources and th e project will not involve any direct modifications to any of these resources (Drennan 2016). Local Consultation Follow-up calls and emails will be placed for the historic letters within the next month. As of June 22, 2016 no responses from any of th e groups contacted have been received. CONCLUSIONS The City of Santa Monica retained Rincon to complete the Section 106 findings for the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project, in the City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles County. The findings were based on the results of the previously prepared cultural resources technical report for the project (Drennan 2016). Rincon prepared this letter to present the results of the previously prepared cultur al resources technical report and provide supplemental tasks to ensure that the unde rtaking complies with Section 106. Rincon’s scope included the development of the APE, hi storic group consultation, a field survey of the APE and this summary findings letter. None of the historic groups responded to th e letters sent by Rincon. The field survey identified no buildings or structures older than 45 years of age within the APE, which developed with modern structures and heavily urbanized. The previously prepared cultural resources study included a background reco rds search which identified several built environment resources within the vicinity of the APE that are considered historic properties for the purposes of Section 106 and histo rical resources under CEQA. Although these resources are near to the APE, the project will not have an adverse effect to any of these Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Cultural Resources Section 106 Findings June 30, 2016 Page 7 of 9 Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers historic properties as the proposed undertak ing involved minor modifications to existing water treatment sites, most of which are to be installed undergro und. The previously identified historic properties and historical resources are located outside the APE, and will not be impacted by the proposed undertaking (Drennan 2016). The CHRIS and SLF records searches resulted in the presence of no known archaeological resources or cultural resources within the APE. Ground visibility within the APE was determined to be poor (zero percent) and each project element is covered with paved surfaces, landscaping and developed with mode rn infrastructure and institutional-related properties (Drennan 2016). Although Drennan recommends ar chaeological monitoring within 50 feet of two historical resources in the records search area (CA-LAN-001403H and CA-LAN-003803H), both resources are more than 50 feet outside of the project APE and thus do not require monitoring. Based on these facts, Rincon recommends a findin g of no historic properties affected for the current undertaking. Furthermore, Rincon re commends no further cultural resources work for the project. The following measures ar e recommended in case of unanticipated discoveries. Recommendations Rincon recommends the following meas ures regarding cultural resources: Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources If archaeological resources are encounte red during ground-disturbing activities when a monitor is not present, work in the immediate area must halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of th e Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) must be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA, additional work such as data recovery excavation may be warranted. Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remain s, the county coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are dete rmined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commi ssion, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD sha ll complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human rema ins and items associated with Native American burials. Sincerely, RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Cultural Resources Section 106 Findings June 30, 2016 Page 8 of 9 Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers Christopher Duran, M.A.,RPA Principal Investigator, Cultural Resources Shannon Carmack, B.A. Architectural Historian Attachments A. Project Figures B. City of Santa Monica Proposed Sustainabl e Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) Archaeological and Historical Resources Study (Drennan 2016). C. Site Visit Photographs D. Resumes of qualified personnel Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project Cultural Resources Section 106 Findings June 30, 2016 Page 9 of 9 Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers References California Office of Historic Preservation 1990 Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR) Guidelines: Recommended Contents and Format . Electronic document accessed March 15, 2013. Online at: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/armr.pdf Drennan, Trisha M. 2016 City of Santa Monica Proposed Sustaina ble Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) Archaeological and Historical Resources St udy, Los Angeles County, California. On file with the City of Santa Monica. National Park Service 1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Electronic document accessed May 21, 2013. Online at http://www.nps.gov/history/loc al-law/Arch_Standards.htm. P i c o -K e n t e r O u t f a l l I n i t i a l S t u d y /M i t i g a t e d N e g a t i v e D e c l a r a t i o n S u s t a i n a b l e W a t e r I n f r a s t r u c t u r e P r o j e c t C u l t u r a l R e s o u r c e s L o c a t i o n M a p F i g u r e 1 C i t y o f S a n t a M o n i c a ± I m a g e r y p r o v i d e d b y G o o g l e , E S R I a n d i t s l i c e n s o r s ©2 0 1 6 . S W I P E l e m e n t 1 S W I P E l e m e n t 2 S W I P E l e m e n t 3 E l e m e n t 1 S o l a r P a n e l s 0 1 ,0 0 0 5 0 0 F e e t ± ^_S a n t a M o n i c a C A L I F O R N I A S a c r a m e n t o S a n F r a n c i s c o S a n t a B a r b a r a ^_P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n ¥¦4 0 5 ¥¦5 ¥¦1 0 ¥¦1 1 0 ¥¦7 1 0 S O U T H E R N L O S A N G E L E S C O U N T Y A r e a o f P o t e n t i a l E f f e c t s M a p U S G S B e v e r l y H i l l s T o p o g r a p h i c Q u a d r a n g l e , 2 0 1 5 . C i t y o f S a n t a M o n i c a C u l t u r a l R e s o u r c e s S t u d y ± E l e m e n t 1 S o l a r P a n e l s S W I P E l e m e n t 1 a S W I P E l e m e n t 1 b S W I P E l e m e n t 3 b E l e m e n t 2 a n d 3 a 0 8 5 0 4 2 5 F e e t Photograph 1 . View northeast of Element 1 Solar Panels Photograph 2 . View southwest towards Pier, Element 1 Solar Panels parking lot adjacent (southeast) Photograph 3 . View northeast towards View northeast of Element 1 Solar Panels parking lot Photograph 4. View northeast of Element 1A, SMURRF Photograph 5 . View to the east of Element 1A, the SMURRF Photograph 6. View southwest towards Pier from SMURRF. Photograph 7. View to the southwest of Element 1B, the BMY Photograph 8. View to the southwest of Element 1B, the BMY Photograph 9. View northwest of Element 3B, within Memorial Park Photograph 10. View northwest of maintenance yard adjacent to Element 3B Photograph 11. View southwest of Santa Monica Auditorium, from Element 2 and 3A Photograph 12. View northwest of Santa Monica Courthouse, from Element 2 and 3A SHANNON CARMACK Architectural Historian /Historian Rincon Consultants, Inc. Shannon Carmack is an Architectural Historian and Historian for Rincon Consultants. Ms. Carmack has more than 1 6 years of professional experience providing cultural resources management and historic preservation planning for large -scale and high -profile projects. She has worked throughout California in numerous sectors including local planning, development/co nstruction, public utilities, Department of Defense, transportation, recreation, and education. Ms. Carmack prepares documentation to satisfy CEQA/NEPA, CEQA Plus and Section 106, and Local Historic Preservation Ordinances. She also provides reports and studies that are in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) and the California Historic Building Code. She has developed and implemented successful mitigation for countless projects that included Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation, oral histories and interpretive programs. Ms. Carmack meets and exceeds requirements in the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in Architectural History and History. TEC HNICAL CAPABILITIES  Ms. Carmack has extensive knowledge implementing Federal, State and local Agency regulations and requirements  Ms. Carmack is experienced in development and review of Historic Resource documents related to discretionary efforts, including Initial Studies (IS), Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs), Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and Technical Reports.  Ms. Carmack’s experience includes Evaluations and Nominations for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, Califo rnia Register of Historical Resources and local designations.  Ms. Carmack has conducted Archival Research, Surveys, Evaluations and prepared California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR 523) Series Forms for thousands of properties’.  Ms. Carmack has provided Plan and Design Guideline review for historic buildings and districts.  Ms. Carmack has developed and implemented mitigation for projects, including HABS/HAER documentation, interpretive programs, and oral histories.  Ms. Carmack has successfully assisted clients in the adaptive reuse of historic buildings in Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. EDUCATION, REGISTRAT IONS AND AFFILIATION S B.A., History, emphasis in American History, California State University, Long Beach, 20 07 A.A., Anthropology, Orange Coast College; California, 2003 California Historic Building Code, California Preservation Foundation, December 2013 Green Strategies for Historic Buildings, National Preservation Institute, 2008 CEQA Workshop Training, Associ ation of Environmental Professionals, October 2007 Oral History Methods, California State University Long Beach, Spring 2005 Identification and Evaluation of Mid -20th Century Buildings, National Preservation Institute , 2004 California Council for the Promotion of History, Member California Preservation Foundation, Member Los Angeles Conservancy, Member National Trust for Historic Preservation, Member Long Beach Heritage, Member Historical Society of Long Beach, Member Shannon Carmack Page 2 Cultural Heritage Commission, City of Long Beach, Commissioner EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Rincon Consultants, Inc. (201 5 – Present ) SWCA Environmental Consultants (20 09 – 20 15 ) Sapphos Environmental, Inc. (2007 – 2009) LSA Associates, Inc. (2000 – 2007 ) SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE  City of San Luis Obispo Waste Water Recovery Facility Project, San Luis Obispo County  City of El Paso De Rob les Waste Water Treatment Plant Project; San Luis Obispo County  Terminal Island Historic Survey Evaluation and Historic Context Statement; City and County of Los Angeles  South Los Angeles Wetlands Park Project, Bureau of Engineering, City and County of Los Angeles  Port of Los Angeles Berths 167 -169 Rehabilitation Project; City and County of Los Angeles  Pacific Beach Pipeline Improvement Project, City and County of San Diego  Everport Terminal Cultural Resources Assessment , Port of Los Angeles , City and County of Los Angeles  Metro Regional Connector Transit Corridor Project; City and County of Los Angeles  Port of Los Angeles Al Larson Boat Shop Historic Assessment; City and County of Los Angeles  Bello Bridge Replacement Project, City of Shell Beach, County of San Luis Obispo  Rivergrove Drive Bridge Rehabilitation , Community of Whitley Gardens, San Luis Obispo County  Fort McArthur “Hey Rookie” Pool Historic Habitation, C ity and County of Los Angeles  Woodland Hills Fire Station Historic Assessment and HABS, Recreation and Parks, City and County of Los Angeles  Long Beach Courthouse Historic Impacts Assessment, City of Long Beach, County of Los Angeles  Chapman’s Millrace Re location and Rehabilitation; San Gabriel Mission, Los Angeles County  Cypress Park Community Center , Bureau of Engineering, City and County of Los Angeles  El Sereno Recreation Center, Recreation and Parks, City and County of Los Angeles  Edwards Air Force Base Cold War Historic Context , EAFB, Los Angeles and Kern Counties  Venice Post Office Rehabilitation , Venice Beach , City and County of Los Angeles  San Pedro Plaza Park Project, Bureau of Engineering, City and County of Los Angeles  Woodland Hills Recreation Center Project, Recreation and Parks, City and County of Los Angeles  East Los Angeles College Firestone Project ; South Gate , County of Los Angeles  Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Intermodal Parking Facility Project; Azusa, Los Angeles County  Metro Green Line to LAX Project , City and County of Los Angeles  Sa n Fernando Valley Park -and -Ride, Bureau of Engineering, Encino, City and County of Los Angeles  Metro Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor EIR Cultural Resources Services; City and County of Los Angeles  Olympic Boulevard and Mateo Street Improvements; Bureau of Engineering, City and County of Los Angeles  ACE San Gabriel Trench Project Cultural Resources Services; Los Angeles County, California  Port of Los Angeles Berths 301 -306 American Presiden ts Line Project ; City and County of Los Angeles  Citywide Historic Context Statement, City of Long Beach , Los Angeles County  HABS Level 2 Documentation, Rancho Los Amigos Historic District; City of Downey , Los Angeles County Rincon Consultants, Inc. CHRISTOPHER A. DURAN , M.A., RPA Principal Investigator Rincon Consultants, Inc. Chris Duran is a Principal Investigator and Project Manager at Rincon Consultants, Inc. Mr. Duran has seven years of professional experience and has worked extensively in California and the Los Angeles Basin. Mr. Duran has more than 8 years of professional experience procuring, conducting, and managing cultural resources investigation projects in compliance with Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the California Environmental Quality Act as they pertain to cultural resources. Mr. Duran also has extensive experience conducting cultural resources investigations and monitoring projects for various construction projects including projects led by the Water Replenishment District . SELECTED PROJECT EXP ERIENCE Cultural Resources Principal Investigator , Groundwater Reliability Improvement Program (GRIP) Advanced Water Treatment Facility (AWTF), Water Replenishment District, Los Angeles County California. The project included the cultural resources monitoring for the ground disturbing activities of the 5.2 acre property on the San Gabriel River Parkway in the City of Pico Rivera. Mr. Duran managed cultural resources and Native American monitors providing review of daily logs and addressing potential finds. Cultural Resources Principal Investigator , 001B Turn -out Structure and Basin No. 2 Inlet/Turn -out Structure Projects, City of Pico Rivera, Los Angeles County, California . The project included the cultural resources monitoring for the ground disturbing activities of the turn -out structure and basin inlet /turn -out structures. Mr. Duran managed cultural resources and Native American monitors providing review of daily logs and addressing potential finds. Cultural Resources Principal Investigator, Woodland Hills Water Recycling Project, Phase I Cultural Reso urces Study, Los Angeles County , California . The p roject included the survey and reporting for the installation of water recycling pipelines in the Calabasas area of Los Angeles County. Mr. Duran directed the cultural resources study and addressed finding s associated with the project. The project fell within the jurisdiction of the State Water Resources Control Board and was completed in compliance with CEQA Plus. ADDITIONAL PROJECT E XPERIENCE  Principal Investigator: Cultural Resources Study for the Padres Trail Desilting Basin Project, La Cañada Flintridge, Los Angeles County, California . Client: City of La Cañada Flintridge Education M.A.-Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, 2009 B.S.-Anthropology, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, 2007 Years of Experience Rincon Consultants, Inc., Ventura, CA - Principal Investigator/Project Manager (2015 -Present) Leidos , Inc., Carpinteria, CA – Senior Cultural Resources Specialist (2014 - 2015) CH2M Hill, Edwards Air Force Base, CA – Principal Archaeologist (2013 -2014) Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc., Ridgecrest, CA – Cultural Resources Program Director (2009 -2013) Nation al Park Service, Tonto National Monument, Roosevelt, AZ – Archaeological Technician (2008) Certifications/Registrations Registered Professional Archaeologist (ID# 415730) Society for American Archaeology Society for California Archaeology Areas of Exp ertise Archaeology Lithic Analysis Section 106 CEQA/NEPA Los Angeles Basin Southern California Hunter -gatherer societies Christopher Duran Page 2 Rincon Consultants, Inc.  Principal Investigator : Cultural Resources Study for the Cherry Canyon Citizens’ Trail Project, La Cañada Flintridge, Los Angeles County, California . Client: City of La Cañada Flintridge  Principal Investigator, Sharon Heights Satellite Treatment Facility, Phase I Cultural Resourc es Study, San Mateo County, CA. Project conducted in compliance with CEQA -Plus regulations. Client: RMC Water  Field Director: Partial or Complete Closure of Defense Fuel Support Point Cultural Resources Investigation, San Pedro, Los Angeles County, Califor nia. Client: Naval Facilities Engineering Command.  Principal Investigator : Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Water Resource Recovery Facility Project, San Luis Obispo County, California. Client, County of San Luis Obispo.  Principal Investigator : Lemonwood elementary School Reconstruction Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation, City of Oxnard, Ventura County, California (2015): Managing field crews and reporting. Client: Caldwell Flores Winter, Inc.  Principal Investigator: Transmission Line Rati ng Remediation Program Tower Replacement Project Cultural Resources Study, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties, CA. Client : Southern California Edison  Principal Investigator: Southern California Edison Magunden -Springville #1 & #2 220 -kV Transmission Line Project in Bakersfield, Kern County, CA – Client: Environmental Intelligence, LLC  Principal Investigator: Line 33 -37 Coupon Extraction Phase I Cultural Resources Study, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Los Angeles C ounty, CA. Client: Southern California Gas Company  Principal Investigator: San Joaquin Valley Habitat Conservation Plan Environmental Assessment, Santa Barbara County, San Luis Obispo County, Ventura County, Los Angeles County, Kern County, and Kings Count y, CA.  Principal Investigator: Phase I Cultural Resources Study for the Milpitas Recycled Water Pipeline Extension Project, Santa Clara County, California. Client: RMC Water  Project Manager: Braverman Drive Tentative Map Project Phase II Cultural Resources Investigation, City of Santee, San Diego County, California. Client: Watt Communities, LLC.  Field Director: Stuart Mesa West Phase II Archaeological Investigation, Camp Pendleton , San Diego County, California . Client: Naval Facilities Engineering Command.  Principal Investigator : Goetz Road Potable Water Storage Tank & Transmission Pipeline Project, Riverside County, CA. Client: Keith Dunbar & Associates, Inc.  Principal Investigator : Eastvale Industrial Development Project, Phase I Cultural Resources Study, City of Eastvale, Riverside County, CA - Client: City of Eastvale  Principal Investigator : Trumark Homes Mixed Use Development Project Cultural Resources Investigation, Chino Hills, CA - C lient: City of Chino Hill s.  Principal Investigator, San Miguel Community Plan Environmental Impact Report. Client: County of San Luis Obispo  Project Manager: Canyon Lake Fuels Reduction Cultural Resources Inventory Project, Riverside County, California. Client: Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs South Coast Field Office. A ppendix 6 Archaeological and Historical Resources Study CITY OF SANTA MONICA PROPOSED SUSTAINABLE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT (SWIP) ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES STUDY LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (CONFIDENTIAL) Submitted to: City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Tom W atson, Water Resources Division Submitted by: Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure , Inc. 104 West Anapamu Street, Suite 204A Santa Barbara, California 93101 Trisha M. Drennan, M.Sc ., RPA – Senior Archaeologist June 2016 City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page i TABLE OF C ONTENT S Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 -1 1.1 Project Location and Description .......................................................................1 -1 2.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES LITERATURE RECORDS SEARCH ................................. 2 -1 3.0 METHODS AND RESULTS ......................................................................................... 3 -1 3.1 Overview of Cultural Resources ........................................................................3 -1 3.2 Regulatory Framework ......................................................................................3 -1 3.3 Records Search ................................................................................................3 -2 3.3.1 National Register of Historic Places ......................................................3 -7 3.3.2 California Register of Historical Resources ...........................................3 -7 3.3.3 City of Sa nta Monica Designated City Landmarks .................................3 -8 3.3.4 Archaeological and Paleontological Resources .....................................3 -8 3.3.5 Native American Consultati on ...............................................................3 -9 4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 4 -1 4.1 Recommendations ............................................................................................4 -1 5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 5 -1 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Previous Archaeological Studies within the Study Area ................................... 3 -2 Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Study Area ....................... 3 -5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Area Overview. .................................................................................... 1 -3 Figure 2. Project Area Location. ...................................................................................... 1 -4 Figure 3. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within the Study Area (listed by report number ) ........................................................................................................... 3 -6 LIST OF APPENDICES CONFIDENTIAL APPENDI X A. PREVIOUS CULTU RAL RESOURCES WITHIN 0.5 -MILE RADIUS OF THE PROJEC T APE, AS DEPICTED O N A 7.5' USGS TOPO MAP APPENDIX B. NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATIO N CORRESPONDANCE APPE NDIX C. CITY OF SAN TA MONICA HISTORICAL MAPS City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page 1 -1 1.0 IN TRODUCTION Th is Archaeological and Historical Resources Study was prepared to support the City of Santa Monica (City) Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP or Project ). This P roject is subject to “CEQA -Plus” standards, which parallel requirements set forward by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as it will fall within the purview of the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) under th e Federal nexus of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The intent of this report is to provide the City and the SWRCB with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the P roject would have any adverse effects on "historic properties ". In order to identify potential cultural resources and/or historic properties located within or near the Project , Amec Foster Wheeler conducted historical background research, completed an archaeological and historical resources records search , consulted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a Sacred Lands File search; and consulted with Native America n tribal representatives concerning the SWIP . Th is study include s the results of the records search of the historical/archaeological resources to gather information on known archaeological sites, previously conducted archaeological surveys, and regional overviews for other projects that may have been conducted within or near the proposed Project . It also includes consultation results w ith the NAHC, a Sacred Lands Files search, and consultation with Tribal representatives . As part of the outreach, c onsultation letters seeking input on cultural resources n ear the Project area were addressed to each Tribal representative recommended by the NAHC, including Native American individuals and organizations that may be knowledgeable about the Project vicinity. Responses are pending as of the publication date of this report. The following report presents the methods, results , and conclusi on s of th e study. This report shall be submi tted to the SWRCB to assist in determining whether the proposed Project would have any effects on "historic properties." 1.1 Project Location and Description The SWIP is comprised of three integrated project elements to impro ve drought resiliency, increase water supply, and enhance flexibility in the management of the City’s water resources. The proposed Project would involve installation of a containerized reverse osmosis unit at the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facili ty (SMURRF), several sets of solar panels, and a shallow groundwater well at the City’s Beach Maintenance Yard , constructing a below grade municipal wastewater advanced treatment facility, and installing two below grade stormwater harvest tanks , as further described herein. Project Element 1 is the installation of a containerized, off -the -shelf saline reverse osmosis unit at the SMURRF on an existing concrete pad. No excavation or soil disturbance would be required for this activity. The proposed well woul d be 8 inches in diameter and installed under a Los Angeles County permit. Solar panels to offset grid power would be added at the SMURRF and nearby SMURRF pump station site (a .k .a ., Pico -Kenter outfall), and a City parking lot adjacent to the SMURRF (a .k .a ., Hot Dog on a Stick). When operational, the reverse osmosis unit w ould be utilized to advance treat non -potable water resources , such as urban and wet weather runoff harvested by the recently funded Clean Beaches Initiative (CBI) Project storage tanks . The below City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page 1 -2 grade CBI tanks are scheduled for construction next year at a location adjacent to the City’s Beach Maintenance Yard (a .k .a ., Deauville Parking Lot ). These tanks w ould capture runoff from the 90 - acre Pier Drainage Area that would normally be disc harged to the ocean at the Pier Outfall. When runoff is scarce, the tanks would be replenished with brackish/saline impaired groundwater from a proposed shallow groundwater well located at the Beach Maintenance Yard. Project Element 2 includes the constr uction of a below grade recycled water treatment plant beneath the Civic Center Pa rking Lot. The recycled water plant would advance treat approximately 1.0 million gallons/day (MGD) of municipal wastewater for beneficial reuse. Project components to be loc ated under the Civic Center Parking L ot would be constructed to accommodate future development on the site. Project Element 3 consists of two below grade stormwater harvest tanks. One tank would be constructed beneath Memorial Park (3.0 MG), and the other tank (1.5 MG) would be sited adjacent to the below grade recycled water treatment facility at the Civic Center Parking Lot . These tanks would utilize the City’s existing Municipal Separate S torm Sewer S ystem (MS4 ) to collect up to 4.5 MG of stormwater fro m any single rain event that is typically wasted to the o cean at the Pico - Kenter outfall where it adversely affects beach water quality. After a storm , the harvested water would be diverted to the Civic Center recycled water facility where it would be adva nced treated for reuse. Benefits provided by the stormwater harvest tanks include capturing stormwater and urban runoff for treatment and reuse, improving beach water quality and complying with approved State Water Board Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP) and MS4 non -point source pollution control requirements. Together, the Project E lements would produce approximately 1.5 MGD (1,680 acre -feet/year) of new water for immediate non -potable reuse and , when properly permitted, for indirect pota ble (IPR) reuse via aquifer recharge. All treated water would be distributed via the City’s existing recycled water system. The three combined Project Elements comprise the cultural and historic resources study area (Figure 1). The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is defined as any area with potential excavation or ground disturbance associated with the Project , as described above. Accordingly, the only Project Elements that may have potential for adversely affecting cultural or historic resources are Elements 2 an d 3, which involv e excavation and shoring to install the below -grade components. This construction activity is proposed for area s that are currently highly developed with urban uses, including a parking lot at the Civic Center and a ball field at Memorial Park. Project Element 1 would not involve any excavation or ground disturbance and, as a result, would not have any adverse impact on cultural or historic resources. Therefore, t he study area for this Project includes a half -mile buffer only from Elements 2 and 3 (Figure 2). City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page 1 -3 Figure 1. Project A rea O verview (Based on USGS, Los Angeles County , Calif., 1:250,000 quadrangles [National Geographic Society, i -cubed, 2013 ]) City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page 1 -4 Figure 2. Project A rea L ocation (Based on USGS, Calif., Beverly Hills, Topanga, V enice 1:24,000 quadrangle [National Geographic Society , i -cubed, 2013 ]) City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page 2 -1 2.0 CULTURAL RESOURCES LITERATURE RECORDS SEARCH On April 25, 2016 , a cultural resource record s search for this study was performed at the South Central Coast Information Center (SCCIC ), located on the campus of California State University, Fullerton. The SCCIC is one of is one of twelve regional Information Centers that comprise the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS ) offices found throughout the State of Californi a, and created under the auspices of the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). It is the official historical and archaeological records repository for the County of Los Angeles (OHP 2016). The records search was initiated by Trisha Drennan, RPA , on beha lf of Amec Foster Wheeler for the City’s SWIP (SCCIC File No. 16356.2394 ). Other sources consulted during the SCCIC records search include: the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI), the California Historical Landmarks (CHL), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the OHP, Historic Property Data File (HPD) for Los Angeles County, and the Archaeological Determination of Eligibility (ADOE) list. The NAHC was contacted on April 20, 20 16 for a review of the Sacred Lands File to determine if any known Native American cultural properties (e.g., traditional use or gathering areas, places of religious or sacred activity, etc.) are present within or adjacent to the Project vicinity . The NAHC responded on April 21, 2016, stating that the Sacred Lands File indicates the presence of Native American cultural resources within the Project vicinity was "negative". In addition, consultation letters were sent to Native American individuals and T rib al representatives provided by the NAHC. The results of the consultation is discussed below. City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page 3 -1 3.0 METHODS AND RESULTS 3.1 Overview of Cultural Resources Cultural resources are defined as buildings, sites, districts, structures, or objects having historical, architect ural, archaeological, cultural, or paleontological importance. This section includes an historical overview and a discussion of known cultural resources in the City. Applicable federal, state, and local regulations are identified, followed by disclosure of known resources and analysis of impacts . This report also recommen ds measures to reduce adverse impacts on cultural resources, where available. There are three general types of designations for significant historical resources, including federal designat ion in the NRHP for resources of importance and relevance to national heritage, state level designation in the CRHR, and local designation in the City as Structures of Merit, Landmarks , and Historic Districts for resources of importance to local history an d culture. 3.2 Regulatory Framework The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as established in the State of California's Public Resources Code (PRC) defines the criteria for “historical resources.” CEQA is codified in Sections 21000 et seq . of the Publ ic Resources Code and requires state and local public agencies to identify the environmental impacts of proposed discretionary activities or projects, determine if the impacts will be significant, and identify alternatives and mitigation measures that will substantially reduce or eliminate significant impacts to the environment. As defined by to PRC §5020.1(j), a n “historical resource” consist s of, but is not limited to, “any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. In addition, CEQA guidelines define “historical resources ” as 1) resources listed in or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, 2) listed in a local register of cultural resources, or 3) determined to be significant by a Lead Agency (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)-(3)). A resource m ay be eligible for listing in the California Register if it meets any one of the ensuing criteria: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. 3. 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. 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1(c)) City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page 3 -2 3.3 Records Search The record search for this study compiled i nformation regarding previously identified cultural resources and existing cultural resources reports within the study area for this Project. Resources consulted by the S CCIC indicate that a total of 39 cultural resources studies have been conducted within a half -mile of the P roject (Figure 3 & Table 1 ). Only one of the studies was conducted within the APE of Project Element 3 within Memorial Park, namely the Cultural Resource Feasibility Study, Water Infrastructure Santa Monica Reliability Improvement Project (Loftus and Turner 2008). The results of the study were negative for historical resources. No previously ide ntified sites have been recorded within the P roject vicinity . Site types found within the bounds of the record search were historic, consisting of the Spencer House Site (CA - LAN -001403H ) and the Santa Monica Air Line Segment (CA -LAN -003803H), as well as th ree (3) isolates , for a total of five (5) resources documented within a one -half mile radius of the P roject APE . The nearest resource to the P roject area is the Spencer House Site (CA -LAN -001403H), which is located within about 2 ,251 feet (0.43 mile or 686 meters) from SWIP Element 2 (see Appendix A for distances). Given the results of previous archaeological studies in the P roject vicinity and the proximity of previously documented resources, the subterranean areas of the Project APE have potential to be archaeologically sensitive due to historic habitation and use of the Santa Monica region . These resources are summarized in the Table 2 , which is presented below. Table 1. Previous Archaeological Studies within the Study Area SCCIC Report No. Recorded b y/Date Title LA -01535 Breece, William H. (1988 ) The Results of an Archaeological Survey on the Two Parcels Located in Santa Monica LA -01975 Neuenschwander, Neal J. (1989 ) Cultural Resource Survey and Clearance Report for the Proposed American Telephone a nd Telegraph Los Angeles Airport Central Office to the Santa Monica Central Office Fibero ptic Communication Route LA -02262 Farnsworth, Laurie A. Wilkie, Edward Johnson, and Paul Farnsworth (1991) 1990 Te st Excavations at CA -LAN -1403 (J oe's Place) LA -0340 2 King, Chester (1996) Archaeological Reconnaissance at 1436 -1444 16th Street, Santa Monica, California LA -03857 Bonner, Wayne H. (1998) Cul tural Resources Monitoring L.A. Cellular Site C5552.2, Venice, California LA -04406 Duke, Curt (1999) Cultural R eso urce Assessment for the AT&T Wireless Services Facility Number R0122, Located at 1918 North Main Street, City of Santa Monica, County of Los Angeles, California LA -04550 Duke, Curt (1999) Cultural Resource Assessment for Pacific Bell Mobile Services Facil ity La 416 -03, in the County of Los Angeles, California City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page 3 -3 SCCIC Report No. Recorded b y/Date Title LA -04665 Wlodarski, Robert J. (1999) A Phase I Archaeological Study for Proposed Improvements to Santa Monica High School, City of Santa Monica, County of Los Angeles, California LA -05007 Lapin, Phi lippe (2000) Cultur al Resource Assessment for AT&T Wireless Services Facility Number R329, County of Los Angeles, Ca LA -05032 Duke, Curt (2000) Cultu ral Resource Assessment for AT&T Wireless Services Facility Number R239.2, County of Los Angeles, Ca LA -0 5038 Lapin, Philippe (2000) Cultur al Resource Assessment for AT&T Wireless Services Facility Number R325, County of Los Angeles, Ca LA -06498 McKenna, Jeanette A. (2002) Highway Project Involving Upgrading of Intersection Within the City of Santa Monica Lo cated Between San Vicente Blvd. (north; Ocean Park (south); 9th Street (west); and 30th Street (east) LA -06503 Bissell, Ronald M. (1999) Environmental Assessment for Federal E mergency Management Agency (FEMA ) Funding Under the Seismic Hazard Mitigati on Pr ogram for Hospitals of the Santa Monica -UCLA Medical Center Facilities Reconstruction Project 1250 16th St. Santa Monica, Ca 90404 LA -06505 Smith, Philomene C. ((2000) Highway Project of Replacing the Existing Overhead Reflective Sign Panels In -kind with Reto -reflective Panels LA -06506 Duke, Curt (2000) Cultural Resource Assessment for AT&T Wireless Services Facility Number, R322.1 County of Los Angeles, California LA -06522 Maki, Mary K. (2001) Phase I Archaeological Survey of Approximately 0.62 Acres 22 09 Main Street/ 214, 218, 218 1/2 Pacific Street Santa Monica, Los Angeles County, California LA -07120 Maki, Mary K. (2004) Archaeological Investigation Results for the 1548 Fifth Street Project, City of Santa Monica LA -07121 McKenna, Jeanette A. (2004) An Evaluation of the Residential Complex Located at 125 Pacific Street, Santa Monica, Los Angeles County, California LA -07426 McMorris, Christopher (2004) Caltrans Historic Bridges Inventory Update: Concrete Arch Bridges LA -07527 Feldman, Jessica B., Lem on, David, and Hope, Andrew (2006) Caltrans Statewide Historic Bridge Inventory Update Tunnels LA -07841 Sylvia, Barbara (2001) Project Proposes to Construct Curb Ramps at Various Locations on Pacific Coast Highway from Pier Avenue to Topanga Canyon Boulev ard and on Route 27 Mulholland Drive LA -09415 Maki, Mary K. (2008) 2418 Renovation Project, City of Santa Monica LA -09453 Ehringer, Candice and Strauss, Monica (2009) Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 Archaeological Survey Report LA -09487 Wlod arski, Robert J. (2008) Negative Phase 1 Archaeological Study for the Charnock Well Field Restoration Project, City of Santa Monica, California City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page 3 -4 SCCIC Report No. Recorded b y/Date Title LA -09677 * Loftus, Shannon and Robin D. Turner (2008) Cultural Resource Feasibility Study, Water Infrastructure -Santa Monica Reliability Improvement Project, XP -96945401 -0. Memorial Park, City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles County, California LA -10564 Wlodarski, Robert J. (2006) Archaeological Survey Report finding of no Historic Properties affected for the City of S anta Monica, County of Los Angeles, California LA -10578 Fortier, Jana (2009) TEA21 Rural Roadside Inventory: Native American Consultation and Ethnographic Study Caltrans District 7, County of Los Angeles LA -10602 Duke, Curt and Phillipe Lapin (2000) Cult ural Resource Assessment for AT&T Wireless Services Facility Number R332.1, County of Los Angeles, California LA -10603 Ehringer, Candace and Sara Dietler (2009) Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Proposed Santa Monica High School Science and Tech nology Building and Site Improvements Project LA -10821 Wilson, Jon (2008) Historic American Building Survey, Santa Monica Jail LA -11138 Pierson, Larry, Shiner, Gerald, and Slater, Richard (1987) California Outer Continental Shelf, Archaeological Resource Study: Morro Bay to Mexican Border, Final Report LA -11184 Born, Monica (2008) Exposition Corridor Project Phase 2 (FTA 070320A), Request for Concurrence --Detailed Reconnaissance Survey LA -11305 Meiser, M.K. (2009) Historical Resources Evaluation Report for the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2, Los Angeles County, California LA -11435 Supernowicz, Dana (2011) Archaeological Survey Report of the Santa Monica Place Project, AT&T Mobility Site No. LAR332, 227 Broadway Street, Santa Monica, Los Ang eles County LA -11743 Loftus, Shannon (2011) Historic Architectural Resource Inventory and Assessment AT&T Site LAR329 LTE, Colorado/12th Street, 1560 12th Street Santa Monica, Los Angeles County LA -11793 Meiser, M.K. (2009) Addendum to the Historical Res ources Evaluation Report and Archeological Survey Report for Project Changes and Design Options the Exposition Corridor Transit LA -11908 McKenna, Jeanette (2012) A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation and Architectural Evaluation of the 1802 Santa Mon ica Boulevard Mixed Use Project Area in the City of Santa Monica, LA -11972 Stewart, Noah (2011) Relinquishment to the City of Santa Monica state -owned right of way, State Route 1 (Lincoln Blvd) between Dewey Street and Interstate 10 LA -12373 Taft, Ryan, Garrison, Andrew, and Wiley, Nancy (2013) Results of Archaeological Monitoring and Excavation Santa Monica Village Project, Coastal Development Permit #5 -08 - 159, City of Santa Monica Redevelopment *Investigation conducted within Project APE City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page 3 -5 Table 2 . Pr eviously Recorded Cultural Resources within the Study Area Trinomial/Primary No. Recorded by/Date Description CA -LAN -001403H Farnsworth, Paul (1988) Museum of Cultural History, UCLA Spencer House Site with associated privies, dumps, and trash scatters CA -LAN -003803H Strauss, Monica, Sara Dietler, John Dietler, Candace Ehringer (2008), EDAW Santa Monica Air Line Segment; Los Angeles and Independence RR; Los Angeles Pacific RR; Pacific Electric; Southern Pacific RR P -19 -101025 Albanese, Amy (2012), Scient ific Resource Surveys Isolate 1745A - Privies/dumps/trash scatters P -19 -101026 Albanese, Amy (2012), Scientific Resource Surveys Isolate 1745B - Privies/dumps/trash scatters P -19 -101027 Albanese, Amy (2012), Scientific Resource Surveys Isolate 1745D – Wa ter conveyance system City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page 3 -6 Figure 3 . Previous C ultural R esources S tudies within the Study Area (listed by report number ) City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page 3 -7 In addition to the records search from the SCCIC, the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory and the City of Santa Monica Designated City Landmarks were reviewed (LUCE EIR 2010 , City of Santa Monica 2015 ). The results of these searches showed two historical structures within the study area to be eligible for both the NRHP and the CRHR , including the Santa Monica Looff Hippod rome (Carousel Building)—176 Santa Monica Pier , and the Parkhurst building , as well as 11 additional local landmarks, as described further below . R emnant portions of the extant railroad segments, as depicted on 1902/1921 historic maps (Appendix C) that we re operated by the Southern Pacific Railroad and the Los Angeles Pacific Electric Railroad (ICF Jones & Stokes 2010 ) may be present within the Project vicinity; as well as several isolated incidents of privies, dumps, and trash scatters (see Table 2). Howe ver, it is not anticipated the APE would overlap with these past uses. 3.3.1 National Register of Historic Places There are seven properties in the City that are listed in the NRHP. Of the se, four are located within the P roject ’s study area ; however, none lie wi thin the Project APE :  Parkhurst Building (Building #78000699): This building is located at 185 Pier Avenue, and historically functioned for Commerce/Trade. The building is presently used for the same commercial purposes, including business professional te nants . The buil ding was added to the NRHP in 1978.  Santa Monica Looff Hippodrome (Building #87000766): This resource is also known as the Santa Monica Amusement Pier Carousel Building, and is located at 176 Santa Monica Pier. This building represents signi ficance in Entertainment/Recreation during the period of 1900 to 1924. This resource is currently owned by the local government, and was added to the NRHP in 1987.  Horatio West Court (Building #77000302): This resource is an early example of attached house s with shared pedestrian and vehicle access. It is located at 140 Hollister Avenue and was added to the NRHP in 1977.  Club Casa Del Mar (Building #00001169): This resource was originally a private beach club d esigned by Los Angeles architect Charles F. Plu mmer to reflect an Italian Renaissance Revival aesthetic . It is located at 1910 Ocean Way and was added to the NRHP in 2000. 3.3.2 California Register of Historical Resources These properties are also listed in the CRHR.  Parkhurst Building - 185 Pier Avenue  Sant a Monica Looff Hippodrome (Carousel Building) - 176 Santa Monica Pier  Horatio West Court – 140 Hollister Avenue  Club Casa Del Mar – 1910 Ocean Way City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page 3 -8 3.3.3 City of Santa Monica Designated City Landmarks The City of Santa Monica adopted the Landmarks and Historic Di strict Ordinance (1975) that allowed for the establishment of a L andmarks C ommission to designate "Structures of Merit" and "Landmarks" and to make recommendations to the City Council regarding the designation of potential "Historic Districts" (LUCE EIR 20 10). There are 1 8 designated Landmarks listed that lie in the study area (City of Santa Monica 201 6 ): 1. Barnum Hall /Santa Monica High School - 601 Pico Blvd. 2. Phillips Chapel Christian Methodist Episcopal Church – 2001 Fourth Street 3. Santa Monica City Hall – 1685 Main Street 4. Santa Monica Civic Auditorium – 1855 Main Street 5. Sears Department Store – 302 Colorado Avenue 6. Horizons West Surf Shop – 2001 -2011 Main Street 7. Santa Monica Pier – 100 -400 Santa Monica Pier 8. Santa Monica Pier Sign – 200 Santa Monica Pier 9. Ch ain Reaction Sculpture – 1855 Main Street 10. Looff Hippodrome (Carouse l Building) @ Santa Monica Pier/Colorado Avenue 11. Parkhurst Building - 185 Pier Avenue/2940 Main Street 12. E.J. Vawter House - 504 Pier Avenue 13. Hollister Court - 2402 Fourth Street and 2401 Thi rd Street 14. Horatio West Court – 140 Hollister Avenue 15. Club Casa Del Mar – 1910 Ocean Way 16. George W. & Anna George House – 2424 Fourth Street 17. American Foursquare Residence – 1063 26 th Street 18. Turn of the Century Vernacular Beach Cottage – 2219 Ocean Avenue Th e nearest designated landmark to the Project is the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium, which lies approximately 300 feet west of the proposed location of SWIP Element 2 in the Civic Center Parking Lot. The Project APE does not overlap with any of these landmar ks. The Project would not involve any modifications to landmarks in the vicinity of SWIP Element 2. Additionally, the Project would involve installation of below -grade structures, which would not alter the context of surrounding landmarks or structures of merit. There are no landmarks or structures of merit in the vicinity of SWIP Element 3. Of the City’s Historic Districts, four addresses in the Bay Craftsman Cluster (0137, 0141, 0145, 0147) are contributing structures to the Bay Craftsman Cluster Histor ic District , which are near the Project study area (City of Santa Monica 2006). 3.3.4 Archaeological and Paleontological Resources There are no known or identified archaeological resources located within the P roject vicinity . However, discovery of archaeological or paleontological resources is possible during excavation for below ground structures as this area has historically been inhabited. Excavation for SWIP Elements 2 and 3 may result in incidental discovery of buried resources , such as fossils, tools, bones , habitation sites, etc. City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page 3 -9 3.3.5 Native American Consultation T he NAHC was contacted on April 20, 2016 for a review of the Sacred Lands File to determine if any known Native American cultural properties (e.g., traditional use or gathering areas, places of religiou s or sacred activity, etc.) are present within or adjacent to the Project vicinity . The NAHC responded on April 21, 2016 , stating that the Sacred Lands File indicates the presence o f Native American cultural resources within the immediate Project vicinity was "negative". The NAHC also provided a list of contacts for consultation. A consultation letter (sent via electronic mail on May 2 7 , 2016) describing the P roject was sent to these individuals and organizations requesting their input . On May 28, 2016, a r esponse was received by Mr. Andrew Salas, Chairman of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, historically known as t he San Gabriel Band of Mission Indi ans (Confidential Appendix B). Mr. Salas has requested both archaeological and Native Amer ican monitoring for all portions of the P roject involvi ng ground disturbance. He also requested that one of their experienced and certified Native American monitors be on site during any and all ground disturbances (to include, but not limited to pavement removal, pot -holing or auguring, boring, grading, excavation and trenching). On June 11, 2016, telephone phone calls were made to tribal representatives who did not respond to the initial request for input. Telephone messages were left for the Soboba Band of Luise ñ o Indians (Carrie Gar cia, Cultural Resources Manager, and Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resource Department); and for the Gabrielin o -Tongva Tribe (Linda Candelaria, Co -Chair, Bernie Acuna, and Conrad Acuna). Mr. Anthony Morales, Chairperson of the Gabrielino -Tongva San G abriel Band of Mission Indians, was reached by telephone on June 11, 2016 . Mr. Morales said the P roject area is part of the western end of the tribe’s ancestral land . I n addition , the area is imbued with the spiritual and cultural va lues of the native people. The tribe is therefore requesting both archaeological and Native American monitoring for any and all ground disturbances associated with the P roject. Chairperson Sandonne Goad of the Gabrielino -Tongva Tribe provided a reference to Sam Dunlap , Cultural Resources Director, after consulting with her by telephone on June 11, 2016. Sam D unlap, advised that the tribe is currently reviewing the consultation letter , but in the interim is recommending Native American monitoring for all gr ound di sturbances in the P roject area. A telephone consultation with Mr. Robert F. Dorame, Tribal Chair/Cultural Resources, Gabrielino - Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council was made on June 11, 2016 . Mr. Dorame iterated, due to the highly sensitive nature of the P roject area (in particular SWIP Element 2), he will be drafting a consultation response letter to the City of Santa Monica related to his concerns. He said to expect his correspondence by the end of the week of June 17, 2016. An email corre spondence was received on June 17 , 2016 recommending N ative American monitoring throughout all stages of soil disturbance . City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page 4 -1 4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Recommendations Based on the records searches and Native American consultation, there are no known cu ltural or historic resources within the Project area and implementation of the Project would not affect any known cultural or historic resource. However, the Project area is potentially sensitive for previously undiscovered prehistoric and historic -age arc haeological remains below ground surfaces at Element s 2 and 3 , which may be encountered at unknown depths during any demolition or earth -moving activities associated with the Project. The re is a potential for encountering intact subsurface hi storic archaeo logical remains, i n addition to the pot ential presence for any structural remains or associated buried features , such as refuse scatters, trash pits, and privies. Prehistoric archaeological remains and or burials may also be present. For this reason, Ame c Foster Wheeler finds that due to the historic and prehistoric use of the area the proximity to Sites CA -LAN -001403H and CA -LAN -003803H (see Appendix A), subsurface components of those sites may potentially be unearthed during P roject -related ground disturbing activities. In order to discern the spacial nature of the find, Amec Foster Wheeler recommends that all ground disturbing activitie s shall be monitored within 50 feet of each site by a professional archaeologist and Native American monitor . If cultura l materials are encountered during archaeological or Native American monitoring, they s hall be evaluated to assist the C i ty in determining whether they constitute a “historical resource,” and whether they require further consideration. City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page 5 -1 5.0 REFERENCES City of Santa Monica 2016 . http://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Programs/Historic - Preservation/ Designated City Landmarks (2015) Designated Historic Districts (2006) City of Santa Monica 2016a . Historic Resources Inventory. https://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Historic -Resources -Inventory/. Accessed May 20, 2016 City of Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element Final Environmental Impact Report, 2010. Incorporating City Council/Planning Commission Hearing Modifications, Volume I: Final EIR, SCH No. 2009041117. Prepared for City of Santa Monica, City Planning Division. Prepared by PBS&J , Los Angeles. April 2010 National Park Service (NPS). National Register of Historic Places. Research Portal. https://www.nps.gov/nr/research/ - Accessed May 20, 2016 GLO , 1902. Thompson and Davis 1893. Santa Monica. 1921. The Chi ef of Engineers, Washington D.C . Santa Monica. ICF Jones & Stokes 2010. Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update. ICF Jones & Stokes, Los Angeles. Prepared for the City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department. Lof tus, Shannon and Robin D. Turner 2018. Cultural Resource Feasibility Study, Water Infrastructure -Santa Monica Reliability Improvement Project , XP -96945401 -0. Memorial Park, City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles County, California Office of Historic Preservatio n 2016. The California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). South Central Coastal Information Center , California State University, Fullerton Department of Anthropology 800 North State College Blvd. P.O. Box 6846 Fullerton, CA 92834 -6846 Smallwo od, Josh and Victoria D. Smith 2014. Archaeological and Historic Built Environment Assessment for the Santa Monica Downtown Specific Plan, City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles County, California. Prepared by Applied EarthWorks, Inc. Prepared for Amec Foster W heeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc., Santa Barbara. Submitted to Santa Monica City Planning. January 2014. USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1991 Map: Topanga, Calif. (7.5, 1:24,000); 1995 Edition. 1995 Map: Be verly Hills, Calif. (7.5, 1:24,000); 1999 Edition. 1964 Map: Venice, Calif. (7.5, 1:24,000); 1982 Edition. 1975 Map: Los Angeles, Calif. (60’, 1:250,000); 1977 Edition. 1957 Map: Long Beach, Calif. (60’, 1:250,000); 1979 Edition. City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page A -1 C onfidential Append ix A . Previous Cultural R esources within 0.5 -mile radius of the Project APE , as depicted on a 7.5' USGS Topo Map Resource Distances to SWIP Project Elements P -Number Trinomial Nearest feature Distance (ft/m) Bearing (°) 19 -101025 — SWIP Element 3 (Sou th) 1011/ 308 249 19 -101026 — SWIP Element 3 (South) 1019/ 311 253 19 -101027 — SWIP Element 3 (South) 1001/ 305 242 19 -003803 CA -LAN -003803H SWIP Element 3 (North) 2589/ 789 50 19 -001403 CA -LAN -001403H SWIP Element 2 2251/ 686 150 City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page A -2 This page intentionally left blank City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page A -3 Appendix B. Native American Consultation Correspondance City of Santa Monica SWIP Archaeological and Historical Resources Study Los Angeles County, California June 2016 Page A -4 This page intentionally left blank