SR 03-27-2018 3A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: March 27, 2018
Agenda Item: 3.A
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Susan Cline, Director, Public Works, Architecture Services
Subject: Award Contract for Fire Station No. 1 Construction Services
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Award Bid #2235 to Bernards Bros., Inc., a California -based corporation, for the
construction of Fire Station No. 1.
2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with Bernards
Bros., Inc., in an amount not to exceed $26,525,000, and authorize an additional
$2,652,500 for contingency (10%) for a total of $29,177,500.
3. Authorize the Director of Public Works to issue any necessary change orders to
complete additional work within contract authority.
Executive Summary
For more than a decade, the City has been working to make Fire Station No. 1 in the
downtown core seismically safe, code compliant and appropriately sized. The City is
now ready to award the contract to construct the new Fire Station No. 1 at 1337-45 7th
Street, which will replace the existing Fire Station No. 1 at 1444 7th Street. This project
is important because the existing fire station:
1. is not consistent with existing seismic standards (retrofit is needed), and cannot
be retrofitted in a way that meets all the needs of a modern fire station
2. is not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards
3. does not have facilities that would accommodate both male and female
firefighters, including bathrooms and dormitories
4. lacks interior spaces large enough to meet the programming needs required by
the firefighters, associated equipment and does not include a community meeting
place
The new Fire Station No. 1 will be fully compliant with current seismic safety and
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. The facility will include:
2 of 6
Five appropriately sized and equipped apparatus bays;
Living facilities including sleeping quarters and restrooms that are appropriate for
all staff members;
Community room;
Sufficient parking for all on-duty personnel;
Rooftop solar panels;
Large openable windows and a heat chimney to utilize natural ventilation;
A large light shaft bringing natural light to the apparatus bay floor and
Drought tolerant landscaping.
The design of the new Fire Station No. 1 is complete, as is bidding for the project. Staff
recommends Bernards Bros. Inc. to provide construction services for the Fire Station
No. 1 project, in an amount not to exceed $26,525,000. This amount is $2 million above
the engineers estimate due to inflation. Staff anticipates that construction will be
completed in early 2020. The existing Fire Station No. 1 site will no longer be needed
for its current purpose in 2020. Staff will begin to evaluate the potential reuse
opportunities for the site. As the building is included in the Historic Resources Inventory,
an assessment of its historic status is recommended as a first step in the process.
Based on the historical assessment and site evaluation, staff would return to council for
further consideration.
Background
On June 26, 2007, Council authorized staff to execute a contract to study whether the
existing Fire Station No. 1 could be retrofitted or if it should be rebuilt (Attachment A).
The study indicated that the existing facility is in need of a seismic retrofit, facility
upgrades, and building improvements to be in compliance with all current codes,
including ADA, and to meet current staffing requirements. The seismic upgrades
needed to retrofit the existing facility would add wall thickness and additional corridors,
which would further narrow the interior spaces and compromise the functional and
equipment storage needs of the firefighters. Therefore, retrofitting the existing fire
station structure was not a viable option, and construction of a new, larger Fire Station
3 of 6
No. 1 was approved to address all issues.
In October 23, 2012 and May 26, 2016, Council authorized a professional services
agreement and one modification (respectively) with Rob Wellington Quigley FAIA
Corporation (RWQ), a California-based company, to provide design and preconstruction
services for the Fire Station No. 1 project (Attachments B, C, D).
During the design process the entire design went through a “value engineering” review.
Value engineering is a systematic and organized approach to providing the necessary
functions in a project at the lowest cost. Value engineering promotes the substitution of
materials and methods with less expensive alternatives, without sacrificing functionality
or quality. It is focused solely on the functions of various components and materials,
rather than their physical attributes.
On December 17, 2013, Council approved the proposal to finance the construction of
Fire Station No. 1, and authorized staff to continue with project design (Attachment E).
On April 6, 2016, the project was approved by the Planning Commission. On June 6,
2016, the project was approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
The FY 2016-18 Capital Improvement Budget of $41.6 million for the project included all
project costs, including construction, construction management, testing and inspection
services, technology infrastructure, furniture, equipment, unforeseen conditions (site
hazardous material), and prevailing wage monitoring.
Discussion
Fire Station No. 1 services mostly the downtown and northwest areas of Santa Monica
with two fire engines allocated to citywide response. The facility is also an Essential
Services Building, as defined by the California Essential Services Buildings Seismic
Safety Act of 1986. An Essential Services Building should be operational and capable of
providing services to the public after a natural disaster. However, the existing Fire
Station No. 1 does not meet current seismic code.
4 of 6
On February 27, 2018, the City finalized a land swap agreement, exchanging public
property located at 1338-42 and 1321 5th Street, for property located at 1337-45 7th
Street (“7th Street Property”). The 7th Street Property will serve as the new site to build
the replacement facility for Fire Station No. 1. The existing Fire Station No. 1 will remain
operational throughout construction until the new fire station is ready for occupancy.
The estimated completion date for the project is early 2020.
Contractor Selection
On August 2, 2017, the City published a Notice Inviting Submission of Contractor’s
Qualifications (SOCQ) to provide construction services for the Fire Station No. 1 project.
The SOCQ was posted on the City's on-line bidding site, and notices were advertised in
the Santa Monica Daily Press in accordance with City Charter and Municipal Code
Section 2.24.071(a) provisions. Sixty-eight vendors downloaded the bid. Seven
Statements of Qualifications were received and publicly opened on August 31, 2017.
Qualifications were evaluated based on the criteria in SMMC 2.24.072, including
previous experience, capacity and skill, ability to deliver, quality of product, and
compliance with City specifications and scope of work, specifically experience
constructing a fire station, work in and for the City of Santa Monica, and work in
congested urban areas. Based on these criteria, the City pre-qualified the following list
of vendors as best bidders: Bayley Construction, Bernards Bros., Inc., and Morley
Construction Company.
On November 27, 2017, the City issued the Request for Bids (RFB) to the pre-qualified
vendors to provide bids for construction services for the Fire Station No. 1 project in
accordance with City specifications. Three bids were received and publicly opened on
January 22, 2018.
Vendor Bid
Bayley Construction $25,478,806
Bernards Bros., Inc. $26,525,000
Morley Construction Company $27,739,501
5 of 6
Bids were evaluated based on the criteria in SMMC 2.24.072, including price, previous
experience, capacity and skill, ability to deliver, quality of product, and compliance with
City specifications and scope of work. Bernards Bros., Inc. is not the lowest bidder, but
offered comprehensive knowledge and experience having previously successfully
completed two fire station projects and a number of high profile and complex projects in
Santa Monica, most notably at Santa Monica College (SMC). Bernards Bros., Inc.
demonstrated its understanding of the importance of site controls, cleanliness, and
communication with the neighborhood, including at their SMC campus project. Bernards
Bros., Inc. provides extensive in-house Building Information Management (BIM)
services, which will proactively identify building system conflicts and create detailed as-
built documentation to aid in future maintenance of the facility. Additionally, Bernards
Bros., Inc. received positive references from other municipalities and institutions for
project completion timeliness, project management, and project billing professionalism.
Based on these criteria, Bernards Bros., Inc. is recommended as the best bidder.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The contract to be awarded to Bernards Bros., Inc. is for an amount not to exceed
$26,525,000 with authorization of an additional $2,652,500 for contingency (10%) for a
total authorization of $29,177,500. Funds are available in the FY 2017-18 Capital
Improvement Program budget in account C014063.589000. The total project cost is
$41.6 million. Approximately $6.5 million of this total has been set aside to be funded
from cash on hand. Consistent with the previously approved financing plan, the
remainder of the project will be financed with a lease revenue bond and staff will return
to Council in May to seek approval for bond issuance.
6 of 6
Prepared By: Alex Parry, Senior Architect
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. June 26, 2007 Staff Report
B. October 23, 2012 Staff Report
C. October 23, 2012 Resolution
D. May 26, 2016 Staff Report
E. December 17, 2013 Staff Report
F. Bernards - Oaks Initiative Form
City Council Report
1
City Council Meeting: October 23, 2012
Agenda Item: 3-P
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Andy Agle, Director of Housing and Economic Development
Subject: Fire Station No.1 Land Exchange: CEQA Review
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution adopting the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for
Fire Station No. 1 Land Exchange.
Executive Summary
Subject to environmental review, the City Council authorized an exchange of City
property for private property to serve as a replacement site for Fire Station No. 1. The
environmental review has now been completed pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. A City-prepared Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration has concluded that the proposed project would have no significant impact
on the surrounding environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. This
report recommends that City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the final
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for Fire Station No. 1 Land Exchange, allowing staff to proceed with the
property exchange.
Background
Fire Station No. 1 was built in 1955 and has surpassed its expected useful life span as a
“Critical Facility.” A new fire station on a larger site is necessary to support the Fire
Department’s operating and service needs. On January 10, 2012, City Council
authorized the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) to exchange real property in
Downtown Santa Monica for a new site to build a replacement facility for Fire Station
No. 1. The City received one response from NMS Properties Inc.
On August 14, 2012, City Council adopted a resolution waiving advertising requirements
related to an exchange of property and authorized the City Manager to negotiate and
2
execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with NMS Properties Inc. to exchange City-
owned property located at 1338-42 and 1321 5th Street, for property located at 1337-45
7th Street, owned by 1337 NMS Properties/7th Street LLC, subject to the condition that
closing of escrow and the undertaking of any obligations or commitments under the
Agreement should not occur until the City complies with the applicable requirements of
the CEQA, including any requirement that the City Council make findings and approvals
in accordance with CEQA. The CEQA guidelines require the City to assess the
project’s potential impact on the environment.
Discussion
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to the
requirements of CEQA to determine whether any significant impacts on the environment
would result from the land exchange and construction of a Fire Station
at 1337-45 7th Street.
A draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30-day public
review on August 8, 2012, with the public review comment period ending on September
8, 2012. Three letters commenting on the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration were received. Responses to public comments are included in the final
Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Public Comment (Attachment B).
The final Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that there would be no significant
impacts on the environment with incorporation of mitigation measures in the areas of
biological resources, construction effects, cultural resources, geology and soils, and
transportation/traffic. To ensure that these mitigation measures are properly enacted, a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is necessary and will be enforced during
the construction and operation of the project. The proposed mitigation measures are
provided in the final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
3
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
Adoption of the resolution has no fiscal impact.
Prepared by: Elana Buegoff, Sr. Development Analyst
Approved: Forwarded to Council:
Andy Agle, Director
Housing and Economic Development
Rod Gould
City Manager
Attachments:
A. Resolution
B. Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1
City Council Meeting: October 23, 2012 Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE FIRE STATION NO.1 LAND EXCHANGE AND
CONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Fire Station No. 1 Land Exchange and Construction was published in
the Santa Monica Daily Press and City Planning Website on August 8, 2012, in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Santa
Monica CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was made
available for public comment for 30-days, beginning on August 8, 2012 and ending on
September 8, 2012; and
WHEREAS, on October 23, 2012, the City Council, as Lead Agency, reviewed the
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration identified that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
Attachment A
2
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. The proposed project
would have less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated on Biological
Resources, Construction Effects, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and
Transportation/Traffic and that these impacts would be reduced to less than significant
levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures imposed on the project. No impacts
would occur or impacts would be less than significant with respect to the following issues:
Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use
and Planning, Mineral Resources Neighborhood Effects, Noise, Population and
Housing, Recreation, Shadows, Utilities and Service Systems, and Mandatory Findings
of Significance.
SECTION 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, together with the
comments received during the public review process, prior to acting on the project.
SECTION 3. The City Council finds, based on the whole record before it,
including the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and any comments
received, that with incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures, there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment,
and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City’s independent judgment
and analysis. Therefore, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Negative
Declaration.
SECTION 4. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (a) (1), the
City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program, which is included as Exhibit A, to
3
mitigate or avoid significant effects of the project on the environment and ensure
compliance during project implementation.
SECTION 5. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (a) (2), the
documents which constitute the record of proceedings for approving this project are
located in the Planning and Community Development Department, 1685 Main Street,
Room 212, Santa Monica, California.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and
thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
MARSHA J. MOUTRIE
C i t y A t t o r n e y
City of Santa Monica
Fire Station No. 1
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Comments
Mitigation Monitoring Program
September 2012
City of Santa Monica
Planning and Community Development Department
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
City of
Santa Monica
Table of Contents
Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ……………………………………………..1
Mitigation Monitoring Program…………………………………………………………………..….77
Responses to Comments…………………………………………………..…………………………83
Appendix A – Air Quality Analysis
Appendix B – Noise Modeling Analysis
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 1
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT STATEMENT
1. Project title:
City of Santa Monica Fire Station #1 Land Exchange and Construction
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, CA 90407
3. Contact person and phone number:
Rachel Kwok
(310) 458-8341
4. Project location:
1) 1337-45 7th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401
This parcel addressed as 1337-45 7th Street (Assessor’s Parcel Number 4291008802) is the
proposed site of the new Fire Station No. 1 Building. The project site is approximately 22,500
square feet in size and is currently developed as a parking lot with 84 spaces. The project
site is bound generally by a one-story dental office building and associated surface parking
lot on the north, 7th Court alley on the east, a three-story office building on the south, and 7th
Street on the west.
2) 1338-42 and 1321 5th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401
This property consists of two parcels addressed as 1338-42 5th Street (Assessor’s Parcel
Number 4291011906) and one parcel addressed as 1321 5th Street (Assessor’s Parcel Number
4291-010-901). The parcels at 1338-42 5th Street comprise a total of approximately 15,000
square feet in size and the parcel at 1321 5th Street is approximately 7,500 square feet in size.
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
City of Santa Monica
Housing and Economic Development
1901 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Contact: Jennifer Taylor
6. General plan designation:
Downtown Core
7. Zoning:
C3
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 2
8. Description of project:
The proposed project includes the land exchange of the privately-owned property
addressed at 1337-45 7th Street and the City-owned properties addressed as 1338-42 and
1321 5th Street.
1337-45 7th Street - Under the proposed project, the parcel addressed as 1337-45 7th Street
would be acquired by the City and a new Fire Station No. 1 for the Santa Monica Fire
Department (SMFD) would be constructed on this site.
The new Fire Station No. 1 building would be a replacement for the existing 11,362 square
foot Fire Station No. 1 located at 1444 7th Street. The existing Fire Station No. 1 was built in
1955 and has surpassed its expected useful life span as a “Critical Facility.” A City-
commissioned structural evaluation has indicated that the existing facility is in need of
seismic retrofitting, facility upgrades and building improvements required to comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Additional analysis has concluded that retrofitting the
existing facility would not meet current and future service demands for a fire station that
serves Downtown and the northwestern portion of Santa Monica. A new fire station on a
larger site is necessary to support the Fire Department’s operating and service needs.
The proposed project would develop a new two-story Fire Station No. 1 building for the SMFD
at1337-45 7th Street. The proposed project site is located approximately 530 feet north (0.1
mile) of the existing station. The proposed project would develop a new fire station to
provide additional space for expanded staff and equipment as well as improved amenities
for the SMFD and the public. SMFD staffing is anticipated to increase from 14 per shift (per 24-
hour shift) at the existing fire station to up to 24 per shift (per 24-hour or 48-hour shift) at the
new fire station.
The new fire station building to be developed would comprise a total of 25,000 square feet
of space and would include office areas, a kitchen, conference rooms, dorm rooms, shop
rooms, watch rooms, sew shop, clothing room, day room, the turn-out closets (where fire
fighter’s uniforms are stored), utility closet, storage space, exercise room, locker rooms,
restrooms, and a sports court. The new fire station would provide up to 6 apparatus bays with
up to 4 being pull through.
The new building would have a maximum height of approximately 37 feet and a floor area
ratio (FAR) of 1.11. The proposed project would be constructed to achieve at minimum LEED
Silver certification.
Parking for SMFD staff’s personal vehicles would be provided within a subterranean parking
to the garage would be provided from 7th Court.
In addition, the new fire station would include an aboveground fuel storage tank and gas
pump, oxygen tanks, drums of engine oil, and an emergency generator.
Construction of the proposed project would take approximately 2 years (2 months for
demolition, 4 months for site grading, and 18 months for building construction). Construction
is anticipated to begin within 6 months of City approval. Based on the area for the
subterranean parking (22,500 square feet) and depth of excavation (25 feet), approximately
21,000 cubic yards of export is estimated. There are currently no plans to demolish, improve,
or alter the existing Fire Station No. 1 building.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 3
Upon completion of the new fire station, the existing Fire Station No. 1 building would be
vacated by the SMFD. The existing Fire Station No.1 would continue to remain fully
operational until construction of the new fire station is complete.
1338-42 and 1321 5th Street – Under the proposed project, the properties addressed as 1338-
42 and 1321 5th Street would be acquired by the private seller. Currently, there are no
development plans for these properties. Per CEQA Section 15384, it would be too
speculative to predict or analyze future development that could occur on these properties.
In addition, future development that would occur would be subject to its own CEQA review.
Therefore, this IS/MND focuses on the potential physical environmental impacts that would
occur with the acquisition of 1337-45 7th Street and subsequent construction of a new Fire
Station No. 1 building.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting:
The proposed project site (1337-45 7th Street) lies within the eastern portion of the City’s
Downtown district. The surrounding area is primarily mixed-use in nature with a mix of retail,
restaurant, office, residential, and institutional uses.
• North - Immediately to the north bordering the project site is a one-story office
building; one to three-story office buildings are located further north and northeast of
the project site.
• East - East of the project site across 7th Court is a one-story fast food restaurant with
surface parking; a gas station is located to the southeast at the corner of Lincoln
Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard.
• South - Immediately to the south bordering the project site is a three-story office
building at the northeast corner of 7th and Santa Monica Boulevard; one-story
commercial buildings (t hat include a dry cleaners, retail shops, restaurants) are
located further south fronting Santa Monica Boulevard.
• West - West of the project site across 7th Street is the three-story Main Branch of the
Santa Monica Public Library and surface parking lot; to the northwest of the project
site across 7th Street is a five-story Verizon utility building that functions in part as a
switching station with offices.
Local vehicular access to the project site is provided by 7th Street and 7th Court alley.
Regional access to the project site is provided by the I-10 Freeway which is located less than
0.25 mile south of the project site.
10. Public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
• Santa Monica City Council (Adoption of a MND and Mitigation Monitoring Program)
• City of Santa Monica Architectural Review Board (Architectural Design Review)
• City of Santa Monica City Council (Project Approval)
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 1
FIGURE 1 – VICINITY MAP
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 1
FIGURE 2 – EXISTING SITE PHOTOS
Existing project site looking east with view
of fast-food restaurant across 7th Court in
the rear
Existing project site looking northeast with
view of adjacent one-story dental office
to the north
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 2
FIGURE 3 – SURROUNDING LAND USES
(above) View of three-story office building
to the north of the project site at 7th Street
and Santa Monica Boulevard
(above) View of one-story commercial
uses along at 7th and Santa Monica Blvd.
(above) View of Santa Monica Main
Library across 7th Street
(above) View of one-story fast food
restaurant across 7th Court
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Construction Effects Cultural Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources
Neighborhood Effects Noise Population/Housing
Public Services Recreation Shadows
Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 4
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
_________________________________________________________
Francie Stefan
Planning Manager
___________________
Date
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 5
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
a) No Impact. A scenic vista is typically defined as a public view of highly valued visual and
scenic resources such as the ocean and distant mountain ranges, particularly from public
vantage points. Scenic resources visible from vantage points in the project area include the
Santa Monica Mountains to the north; historic buildings located throughout the Downtown
area; and the Pacific Ocean, the coastline, and Palisades Park to the west.
The topography of the project site and vicinity is generally flat. Development proximate to
the project site is generally mid-rise and includes predominantly mixed commercial and
residential uses. Due to the built-out urban nature of the area and flat topography, views of
these scenic resources are generally limited to the immediate vicinity of the resource and
channelized views along streets.
Views in all directions from within the project site are generally limited to the urban
streetscape in the immediate project vicinity (i.e., buildings, roadways/sidewalks, trees,
billboards). Scenic views, including ocean and mountain views, are not available on or
through the project site. Therefore, the project’s development of a two-story building would
not block existing scenic vistas. The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on
a scenic vista. Impacts associated with scenic vistas would not occur.
b) No Impact. The project site is not located adjacent to an officially designated state scenic
highway. Currently, there are no scenic highways officially designated by the State of
California within the City of Santa Monica. The Pacific Coast Highway (PCH/SR-1/Lincoln
Boulevard), located approximately 180 feet east of the project site, is eligible for State
scenic highway designation but it is not currently designated as scenic by the State or
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 6
County of Los Angeles.1 While portions of the project site are visible from Lincoln Boulevard,
the proposed project would not be a significant visual deviation from the existing urban
development that is visible from Lincoln Boulevard.
Additionally, the City of Santa Monica’s Scenic Corridors General Plan Element or the City’s
Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP) does not designate 7th Street or Lincoln
Boulevard as scenic corridors.2 In addition, the project site is currently developed as existing
surface parking. No desirable vegetation, valued natural features (i.e., rock outcroppings),
historic buildings, or other scenic resources exist within the project site. As such,
development of the proposed project would not damage scenic resources and impacts on
scenic resources would not occur.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed with surface parking
with minimal landscaping. The visual quality of the project site is considered low. There are
no buildings on the site and the existing surface parking offers little visual quality. The
proposed project would alter the visual character of the project site by demolishing the
existing surface parking and constructing a new two story fire station building. The new
building would comprise approximately 25,000 square feet of building area and would be
approximately 37 feet in height. The proposed project would be consistent in height and
scale to the existing surrounding uses. Specifically, the project area includes a mix of
predominantly one to five story buildings. As such, the proposed project’s two story building
would not contrast with existing development. (Please see Section XI(a) Land Use for a
discussion of the proposed project’s height consistency with the LUCE and FAR).
While specific details and design elements of the new fire station have yet to be
determined, it is anticipated that the new station would be designed to improve the visual
character of the project site and area since the project would be subject to design review
and approval by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). As required by the ARB , the
proposed project would be required to meet the City’s standards regarding site design and
architecture. As stated, the mission of the Architectural Review Board is to “preserve
existing areas of natural beauty, cultural importance and assure that buildings, structures,
signs or other developments are in good taste, good design, harmonious with surrounding
developments, and in general contribute to the preservation of Santa Monica's reputation
as a place of beauty, spaciousness and quality.” The design review process would ensure
that the project would not degrade the visual character or quality of the area. Therefore,
the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City
where ambient nighttime lighting levels are medium to medium high. The project site is
currently illuminated by pole mounted lights. Existing off-site light sources include interior and
exterior lighting from nearby commercial and residential uses, pole-mounted street lights
along nearby streets including 7th Street and Lincoln Boulevard, as well as light generated
by vehicular traffic traveling on these streets. There are no light sensitive uses in close
proximity to the project site. The nearest light sensitive uses are residential uses that are
1 California Department of Transportation; State Scenic Highways;
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm; accessed July 2, 2012.
2 Santa Monica Local Coastal Program, Map 13, Scenic and Visual Resources Map.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 7
located more than 200 feet to the south across Santa Monica Boulevard at the southwest
corner of 7th Street/Santa Monica Boulevard.
The proposed project would introduce new building lighting as well as exterior lighting on
the project site that would incrementally increase nighttime lighting levels. Project lighting
would not be significant given the existing medium to medium-high ambient nighttime
lighting levels in the downtown area. Lighting levels would not be substantial enough to
affect the residential uses which are located approximately 200 feet to the south. In
addition, in accordance with Section 9.04.10.02.270 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
(SMMC), all outdoor lighting associated with commercial uses would be shielded and
directed away from surrounding residential uses. Such lighting would not exceed 0.5
footcandles of illumination beyond the project site. Therefore, the proposed project’s
lighting would not substantially affect nighttime views nor substantially illuminate light-
sensitive uses. Therefore, impacts associated with light would be less than significant.
Glare is primarily a daytime occurrence caused by the reflection of sunlight or artificial light
from highly polished surfaces, such as window glass or reflective materials, and, to a lesser
degree, from broad expanses of light-colored surfaces. To address the potential impacts
associated with glare, the proposed project would be required to comply with SMMC
Section 9.04.10.02.070 (Reflective Materials), which requires that no more than 25 percent of
the surface area of any façade on any new building contain black or mirrored glass or
other mirror-like material that is highly reflective, and that materials for roofing be of a non-
reflective nature. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with
SMMC Section 9.04.10.02.280 (Glare), which requires that direct glare not be visible beyond
the boundaries of the property. To ensure compliance with the SMMC, the proposed
project would be subject to design review by the city’s Architectural Review Board.
Therefore, impacts associated with glare would be less than significant.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 8
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less 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 Assessment Model (1997), prepared
by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest
carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use?
a) No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area and is completely developed
with surface parking. No agricultural uses occur on the site. Furthermore, the California
Division of Land Resources Protection has not designated this area as Prime Farmland,
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 9
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.3 No such designated farmland
exists within the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert farmland to non-
agricultural use. No impacts would occur.
b) No Impact. The project site is completely developed with surface parking and zoned C3.
The project site is not zoned for agricultural uses nor do agricultural uses occur on the
project site. Only land located within an agricultural preserve is eligible for enrollment under
a Williamson Act contract. Accordingly, the project site is not covered by a Williamson Act
contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing agricultural
zoning or a Williamson Act Contract. No impacts would occur.
c) No Impact. The project site is completely developed with surface parking. No forest land
occurs on the project site or surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed project would not
conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of forest land. No impacts would occur.
d) No Impact. The project site is completely developed with surface parking. Surrounding
land uses consists predominantly of commercial and residential uses. As previously
described, no forest land occurs on the project site or surrounding area. Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use. No impacts would occur.
e) No Impact. The project site is completely developed with surface parking. Surrounding
land uses consists predominantly of commercial and residential uses. No farmland or forest
land occurs on the project site or in the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed project
would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses or the conversion of
forest land to non-forest use. No impacts would occur.
3 California Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Los Angeles County Map;
online at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2008/los08.pdf; 2008.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 10
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 control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is in non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions that exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located with the South Coast Air Basin
(SCAB), which is regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, SCAQMD has prepared the 2007 Air Quality Management
Plan (AQMP) to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants in the SCAB. The AQMP contains a
comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing emissions and
achieving ambient air quality standards.
The SCAQMD has adopted criteria for determining consistency with regional plans and the
regional AQMP in its CEQA Air Quality Handbook. These include: (1) identifying whether a
project would increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or
contribute to new air quality violations and (2) identifying whether a project would exceed
the assumptions utilized in preparing the AQMP. Under the second criterion, a significant
impact would occur if a project is inconsistent with the growth assumptions upon which the
regional AQMP was based.
According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the consistency criteria for the first criterion
pertain to pollutant concentrations rather than to total regional emissions. As such, an
analysis of the pollutant emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations is used as the
basis for evaluating project consistency with the first criterion. As analyzed in Section III(c),
project construction and operation would not exceed localized significance thresholds.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 11
Therefore, the proposed project meets the first criterion for determining project consistency
with the 2007 AQMP.
With regard to the second criterion, projects that are consistent with the regional population,
housing, and employment forecasts identified by SCAG are considered to be consistent with
the AQMP growth projections, since the forecast assumptions by SCAG forms the basis of the
land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. Since SCAG’s regional growth
forecasts are based upon, among other things, land uses designated in City general plans, a
project that is consistent with the land use designated in a City’s general plan would also be
consistent with the SCAG’s regional forecast projections, and thus also with the AQMP
growth projections. As discussed in Section XV(a), Population and Housing, the proposed
project is a the new construction of a replacement fire station to serve existing and
forecasted population in the City of Santa Monica. The proposed project would not
generate significant permanent population growth that would exceed regional growth
forecasts. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the growth assumptions of the
AQMP and meets the second criterion of determining consistency with the AQMP. Impacts
would be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. As indicated above, the project site is located within the South
Coast Air Basin, which is in non-attainment for several of the criteria air pollutants. The
proposed project would contribute to local and regional air pollutant emissions during
construction (short-term) and operation (long-term). However, based on the following
analysis, construction and operation of the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD
significance thresholds for criteria air pollutant emissions and thus, impacts would be less
than significant.
Construction
Construction of the proposed project would have the potential to create air quality impacts
due to constructed-related emissions from grading/demolition activities; operation of
construction equipment/trucks; and construction worker vehicle trips.
The SCAQMD establishes the following construction regional (mass daily) thresholds for the
criteria air pollutants:
• 75 pounds per day ROG
• 100 pounds per day NOx
• 550 pounds per day CO
• 150 pounds per day of PM10
• 55 pounds per day of PM2.5
Project construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the
level of activity, the specific type of operation and, for dust, the prevailing weather
conditions. Construction-related daily emissions associated with the proposed project were
calculated using CALEEMOD, an air quality emissions model developed by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB). [Model results are provided in Appendix A]. A summary of the
maximum daily emissions by construction phase along with the regional significance
thresholds for each air pollutant are presented in Table 2. As shown therein, maximum daily
construction-related emissions would not exceed the regional thresholds for any of the
criteria air pollutants.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 12
In addition, local significance thresholds (LSTs) were devised in response to public concern
regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. The LSTs
represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an air
quality exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard at the nearest sensitive receptor, taking into consideration ambient concentrations
in each source receptor area (SRA), project size, and distance to the sensitive receptor, etc.
LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. As
presented in Table 2, construction-related maximum daily emissions would not exceed LSTs.
Based on the above, construction of the proposed project would result in less than significant
impacts related to air quality.
TABLE 2
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (LBS/DAY)
Unmitigated Emissions (lbs/day)a
VOC NO x SO x CO PM 10 PM 2.5
Demolition – 1week (2013)
On-Site 2.00 13.95 0.02 9.51 1.04 1.04
Off-Site 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.64 0.13 0.01
Total 2.06 14.91 0.02 10.15 1.17 1.05
Site Preparation – 2 months (2013)
On-Site 1.72 12.58 0.01 8.68 0.92 0.81
Off-Site 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.32 0.07 0.00
Total 1.75 12.61 0.01 9.00 0.99 0.81
Grading – 1 week (2013)
On-Site 2.00 13.91 0.02 9.51 1.83 1.46
Off-Site 1.64 16.56 0.02 9.58 62.01 0.69
Total 3.64 30.47 0.04 19.09 63.84 2.15
Building Construction – 18 months (2014)
On-Site 2.02 15.03 0.02 10.68 0.92 0.92
Off-Site 0.09 0.64 0.00 0.84 0.17 0.02
Total 2.11 15.67 0.02 11.52 1.09 0.94
Paving – 1 week (2014)
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 13
On-Site 2.18 13.77 0.02 9.69 1.10 1.10
Off-Site 0.09 0.09 0.00 1.07 0.24 0.01
Total 2.27 13.86 0.02 10.76 1.34 1.11
Architectural Coating – 4 weeks (2014)
On-Site 34.50 2.77 0.00 1.92 0.24 0.24
Off-Site 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.12 0.03 0.00
Total 34.51 2.78 0.00 2.04 0.27 0.24
Maximum Daily Emissions
(highest of the phases) 34.51 30.47 0.04 19.09 63.84 2.15
SCAQMD Regional
Thresholds 75 100 150 550 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Localized Significant
Thresholds b(LSTs) - 103 562 - 4 3
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Summer Emissions output (see Appendix A for data sheets). a Maximum daily emissions based on highest of the construction phase from construction year 2013 through
2014.
b LSTs are for a 1-acre project in SRA-2 within a distance of 25 meters from the site boundary
Operation
The SCAQMD has established separate significance thresholds to evaluate potential impacts
associated with the incremental increase in criteria air pollutants associated with project
operation:
• 55 pounds per day ROG
• 55 pounds per day NOx
• 550 pounds per day CO
• 150 pounds per day of PM10
• 55 pounds per day of PM2.5
Project operation could potentially increase mobile source (i.e., vehicle trips) emissions as
well as emissions generated by area sources (e.g., natural gas combustion, landscape fuel
combustion, consumer products, and architectural coatings).
Due to the operating nature of fire stations as emergency responders, it is not possible to
predict their daily trip generation (or when trips would be generated throughout a day).
Only the commute trips by fire station staff are predictable. As previously stated in the
Project Description, SMFD staffing is anticipated to increase from 14 per shift (per 24-hour
shift) at the existing fire station to up to 24 per shift (per 24-hour or 48-hour shift) at the new
fire station. As analyzed in Section XIX(a) Transportation/Traffic, conservatively assuming that
the net increase of 10 personnel per 24 hour shift would drive alone to the new fire station,
the proposed project could result in a net daily increase of 10 inbound and 10 outbound
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 14
trips. Additionally, the proposed project would result in an increase in the consumption of
fossil fuels for comfort heating and the generation of electricity for cooling, lighting, and
power needs. The number of emergency generators would not increase from existing
conditions. Operational emissions related to the fire station personnel vehicle trips and
stationary sources were estimated using CALEEMOD (see Appendix A). The results of the
detailed emissions calculations are provided in Table 3. As indicated therein, the proposed
project would not result in criteria pollutant emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD daily
regional significance thresholds.
TABLE 3
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (LBS/DAY)
Unmitigated Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NO x SO x CO PM 10 PM 2.5
Area 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00
Mobile 0.14 0.33 0.00 1.41 0.30 0.02
Total Emissions 0.80 0.39 1.46 0.00 0.30 0.02
SCAQMD Regional
Thresholds 55 55 150 550 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Localized air quality impacts could occur as a result of carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots.
Vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO in urban settings. Consequently, the highest CO
concentrations are generally found within close proximity to congested intersection
locations. Under typical meteorological conditions, CO concentrations tend to decrease as
distance from the emissions source (i.e., congested intersection) increase. The SCAQMD
recommends a hot-spot evaluation of potential localized CO impacts when a project
causes an intersection to go from a Level of Service (LOS) of C to a LOS of D or worse and
when the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio increases by 2 percent or more for intersections
rated D or worse. As identified in Section XIX Transportation/Traffic, fire station personnel
would work a 24 hour shift or 48 hour shift beginning at 7:00 AM and ending at 7:00 PM, prior
to the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, trips associated with fire station personnel would
not have an impact on the LOS of existing intersections during peak hours. Therefore, no
CO hotspot impacts would occur.
Based on the above, operation of the proposed project would result in less than significant
impacts related to air quality.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. As the proposed project is not part of an ongoing regulatory
program, the SCAQMD recommends that project specific air quality impacts be used to
determine the potential cumulative impacts to regional air quality. As discussed above,
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 15
peak daily emissions of operation-related pollutants would not exceed SCAQMD regional
significance thresholds.
By applying SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality impact methodology, implementation of the
proposed project would not result in an addition of criteria pollutants such that cumulative
impacts, in conjunction with related projects in the region, would occur. Therefore, the
proposed project’s contribution of operational emissions would be less than significant
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Certain population groups are especially sensitive to air
pollution and should be given special consideration when evaluating potential air quality
impacts. These population groups include children, the elderly, persons with pre-existing
respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and athletes or others who engage in frequent exercise.
As defined in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a sensitive receptor to air quality is
defined as any of the following land use categories: (1) long-term health care facilities; (2)
rehabilitation centers; (3) convalescent centers; (4) retirement homes; (5) residences; (6)
schools (i.e. elementary, middle school, high schools); (7) parks and playgrounds; (8)child
care centers; and (9) athletic fields. The closest sensitive receptors are the residential uses
located more than 200 feet to the south across Santa Monica Boulevard. As described in
Section III(b) above, construction and operation of the proposed project would result in a
less than significant impact for both regional and localized air pollution emissions. Therefore,
the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. As such, impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. Objectionable odors are typically associated with industrial uses
such as agricultural facilities (e.g., farms and dairies), refineries, wastewater treatment
facilities, and landfills. The proposed project involves the development of a fire station,
which would not generate significant odors. Limited odors during project operation may
occur as a result of trash areas and the use of certain cleaning agents, all of which would be
consistent with existing conditions on-site and in the surrounding area. In addition, limited
and temporary odors may occur during project construction from diesel operated
machinery/equipment and application of architectural coatings. However, any odors that
may be generated would be localized and temporary in nature, and would not affect a
substantial number of people or result in a nuisance as defined by SCAQMD Rule 402.
Therefore, impacts with regard to odors would be less than significant.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 16
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
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 or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, 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
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan?
a) No Impact. The project site is completely developed and is located in a highly urbanized
area in the City of Santa Monica. No special status/sensitive species occur on the project
site or surrounding area. Additionally, given the urbanized nature of the project area and
considering that the project site has already been disturbed, the likelihood of the presence
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 17
of any sensitive or special status species is unlikely. Species expected to occur on-site would
be limited to terrestrial species (such as squirrels) and birds that are commonly found in
urban environments. The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on
any sensitive or special status species. No impacts would occur.
b) No Impact. As stated previously, the project site is completely developed and located in an
urbanized area within the City. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
exists on the project site or in the surrounding area. The proposed project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and
no impacts would occur.
c) No Impact. As stated previously, the project site is completely developed and located in an
urbanized area within the City. There are no wetlands on the project site or in the
surrounding area. As such, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse
effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
and no impacts would occur.
d) No Impact. As stated above, the project site is completely developed and located in an
urbanized area within the City. Surrounding land uses consists predominantly of commercial
and residential uses. No wildlife corridors, native wildlife nursery sites, or bodies of water in
which fish are present are located on or near the project site. Furthermore, due to the
urbanized nature of the project area, the potential for native resident or migratory wildlife
species movement to occur through the site is highly unlikely. The proposed project would
not interfere with any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites. No impacts would occur.
e) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As stated above, the project site is completely
developed and is located in a highly urbanized area in the City. No biological resources,
including trees, occur on the project site. There are two public street trees (palm trees)
located on the public sidewalks adjacent to the project site. Depending on the proposed
project’s design and location of the apparatus bays, the proposed project could require
the removal and/or relocation of the two street trees on 7th Street. As such, the following
mitigation measures would be required if the two street trees are to be removed or
relocated:
BIO-1 Tree Protection Zone. Prior to commencement of construction activities
and/or the removal or planting of any tree species within the public realm,
the SMFD shall coordinate with the Santa Monica Public Landscape Division
to obtain the proper tree permits and delineate any applicable Tree
Protection Zone areas, in compliance with the Santa Monica Tree Code and
the Santa Monica Urban Forest Master Plan.
BIO-2 Tree Relocation and Removal Plan. If public trees are to be removed or
relocated, a Tree Relocation and Removal Plan shall be prepared that clearly
identifies the public trees to be impacted, the reasons for the proposed
removals or relocations, and shall contain the following information:
■ The appraised value of the tree in relation to its relocation cost
■ Existing utilities and other elements of the city’s infrastructure
■ The suitability of the tree for relocation, i.e., tree age, health, root and
canopy structure
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 18
■ The mature size of the tree
■ Impact the relocated tree will have on the new site
■ Long-term and short-term maintenance and irrigation requirements
■ Chances of surviving relocation
■ Public input obtained as part of the project’s community design process
■ Environmental benefits of the tree
■ Aesthetic and/or cultural value
The final Tree Relocation and Removal Plan shall be approved by the City
Council as part of their approval of final project design.
With implementation of the mitigation measures, the proposed project would not conflict
with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources (including trees).
Impacts would be less than significant.
f) No Impact. No habitat for any special status or sensitive biological species exists on the
project site or in the vicinity. Accordingly, no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved habitat conservation plan applies to the project site.
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted
habitat conservation plan. No impacts would occur.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 19
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
V. CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS. Would the project:
a) Have considerable construction-period
impacts due to the scope, or location of
construction activities?
a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Construction of the proposed project would result in
short-term impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions,
hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and traffic. As analyzed in
the respective sections of this IS/MND, construction impacts would be less than significant or
less than significant with mitigation. Please refer to Section I - Aesthetics; Section II - Air
Quality; Section VI – Cultural Resources; Section VI - Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Section IX -
Hazards; Section X - Hydrology and Water Quality; Section XIV - Noise; and Section XIX -
Transportation/Traffic, for a detailed analysis of construction related effects associated with
the proposed project.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 20
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
a) No Impact. A historical resource is defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines as
a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; a
resource included in a local register of historical resources; or any object, building, structure,
site, area, place, record or manuscript determined to be historically significant or significant
in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social,
political, military or cultural annals of California. Generally, a resource is considered to be
“historically significant” if it meets one of the following criteria:
o Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
o Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
o Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or
possesses high artistic values; or
o Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In general, structures over 40 years of age are eligible for consideration as a historic
resource in the City of Santa Monica.
The project site is developed with existing surface parking. No buildings exist on the project
site. The proposed project would not demolish existing buildings that could be potential
historic resources. In addition, currently, there are no plans to demolish, improve, or alter
the existing Fire Station No. 1 building at 1444 7th Street, which is listed on the Santa Monica
Historic Resources Inventory (the Inventory) – December 2010 with a historic resources code
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 21
of 5S3*.4 Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect a historical resource.
No impacts would occur.
b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The project site is located within a highly urbanized
area and has been developed for a number of years. Therefore, any archaeological
resources on the site would likely have already been uncovered. Nonetheless, since the
proposed project would require excavation for the subterranean parking, there is a
potential to uncover archaeological resources that were never previously discovered. The
following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potential impacts on
archaeological resources to less than significant:
CUL-1 If archaeological materials are discovered during project grading and
excavation activities, all work within a 100-meter radius shall be temporarily
ceased. The materials shall be treated in accordance with Federal, State, and
local guidelines, including those set forth in California Public Resources Code
Section 21083.2. In addition, if it is determined that an archaeological site is a
historical resource, the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code
and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 would be implemented.
With adherence to the above mitigation measure, impacts on archaeological resources
would be reduced to less than significant levels.
c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The project site is located within a highly urbanized
area, and has been developed for a number of years.
As such, the likelihood of uncovering paleontological resources is low. Nonetheless, since
the proposed project would require excavation for the subterranean parking, there is a
potential to uncover significant vertebrate fossils in older Quaternary deposits during
grading/excavation activities. Vertebrate fossil remains have been recovered within older
Quaternary sediments within the City of Santa Monica and its surrounding areas. The
following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce potential impacts on
paleontological resources to less than significant:
CUL-2 If paleontological materials are discovered during project grading and
excavation activities, all work within a 100-meter radius shall be temporarily
ceased. A qualified paleontologist shall be secured by contacting the Los
Angeles County Natural History Museum to assess the resources and evaluate the
impact. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a report of the findings and a
copy of the report shall be submitted to the Los Angeles County Natural History
Museum.
With adherence to the above mitigation measure, impacts on paleontological resources
would be reduced to less than significant levels.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. There is no evidence that the project site was previously used as
a cemetery or other human burial grounds. Furthermore, the project site is located within a
highly urbanized area and has been developed for a number of years. Therefore, any
4 A historic resources code of 5S3* indicates that the structure appears to be individually eligible as a Santa Monica
Structure of Merit through survey evaluation.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 22
human remains on the site would likely have already been uncovered. Nonetheless, since
the proposed project would require excavation for the subterranean parking, there is a
potential to uncover human remains that were never previously discovered. However, if
human remains are uncovered during project grading and excavation activities, state
requirements would be followed. Specifically, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
enumerate specific requirements for the evaluation and treatment, in the event of an
accidental discovery, of human remains. The regulations require that if human remains are
found, no further disturbance shall occur until the County coroner has made the necessary
findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the
remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to
notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then contact the
most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who will then serve as consultant
on how to proceed with the remains. Therefore, with adherence to regulations, impacts on
human remains would be less than significant.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 23
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
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
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued
by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
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?
a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation.
(i) Fault rupture is the displacement that occurs along the surface of a fault during an
earthquake. The California Geological Survey (CGS) designates Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 24
Fault Zones, which are regulatory zones around active faults.5 These zones, which extend
from 200 to 500 feet on each side of known active faults, identify areas where potential
surface ruptures along active faults could prove hazardous and identify where special
studies are required to characterize hazards to habitable structures. There are no Alquist-
Priolo Fault Zones located within the City of Santa Monica.6 The City of Santa Monica,
however, is crossed by the south branch and north branch of the Santa Monica Fault.7 The
City of Santa Monica treats the Santa Monica Fault as an active fault, and as such, has
designated Fault Hazard Management Zones, which extend 380 to 500 feet north of the
north branch and 100 to 600 feet south of the south branch of the Santa Monica Fault.8 The
project site is not located in these zones. As such, the potential for fault rupture to occur at
the project site is low. Impacts related to fault rupture would be less than significant.
(ii) The project site is located in the seismically active region of southern California. As such,
the project site would be subject to strong groundshaking in the event of an earthquake on
the Santa Monica fault or any other fault in the area. Therefore, the proposed project
improvements could be adversely affected by seismic groundshaking if design measures to
the project site and proposed project are not implemented. Adherence to the seismic safety
design standards established through the SMMC and SMBC (which adopts CBC standards by
reference with local amendments) would ensure the maximum practicable seismic
protection for the proposed project. Notwithstanding, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is required
to ensure that site-specific geotechnical design considerations are incorporated to reduce
potential seismic hazards to a less-than-significant level.
GEO-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City shall contract with a California-
licensed Civil Engineer (Geotechnical) to prepare and submit to the Santa Monica
Building and Safety Department a site specific design-level geotechnical report
addressing seismic and soils hazards (including but not limited to unstable soils, expansive
soils, etc.) for the proposed project. The report shall be performed in accordance with
the most current Santa Monica Guidelines for Geotechnical Reports. The requirements
and recommendations, as established in the Geotechnical Report project shall be
implemented in the design of the project, including but not limited to measures
associated with grading (site preparation, compaction, materials, utility trench backfill,
shrinkage), foundation design (foundation reinforcement, lateral design, settlement),
retaining wall design (including waterproofing, drainage, and backfill), temporary
excavations, shoring, slab-on-grade construction, overall site drainage, stormwater
disposal, design review, and construction monitoring). Permits shall not be issued for
grading or construction until the Santa Monica Building and Safety Department has
reviewed and approved project plans.
(iii) Liquefaction is a form of earthquake induced ground failure that occurs primarily in
relatively shallow, loose, granular, water-saturated soils. Liquefaction can occur when these
types of soils lose their inherent shear strength due to excess water pressure that builds up
during repeated movement from seismic activity. Liquefaction potential is greatest where
5 Active faults are those having historically produced earthquakes or shown evidence of movement within the past
11,000 years.
6 California Geological Survey, Beverly Hills Quadrangle – Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones; online at
http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/ap/pdf/BEVHILLS.PDF; accessed May 3, 2011.
7 City of Santa Monica, Online Property Information System; online at http://gismap.santa-
monica.org/imf/imf.jsp?site=property; accessed May 3, 2011.
8 City of Santa Monica, Geologic Hazards Map; online at http://gismap.santa-monica.org/GISMaps/pdf/geohaz.pdf;
accessed June 28, 2012.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 25
the groundwater level is shallow, and where submerged loose, fine sands occur. The project
site is not mapped by the City as being located in a Liquefaction Risk Area9 nor is the site
designated by the CGS as a Liquefaction Hazard Zone.10 As such, the potential for
liquefaction to occur at the project site is unlikely, and impacts related to liquefaction would
be less than significant.
(iv) Landslides are movements of large masses of rock and/or soil. Landslide potential is
generally the greatest for areas with steep and/or high slopes, low sheer strength, and
increased water pressure. The project site and surrounding area is characterized by a
relatively flat topography. Thus, the potential for landslides to occur at the project site is very
low. Additionally, the project site is not mapped by the City as being located in a Landslide
Risk Area 11 or mapped by the CGS as an Earthquake-Induced Landslide Area.12 Therefore,
no impacts related to landslides would occur.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed further in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality,
in accordance with the City’s Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance, Best Management
Practices (BMPs) would be implemented during project construction to minimize erosion and
stormwater runoff. In addition, an Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan would be in place
throughout the operational life of the proposed project to reduce erosion or siltation effects.
As such, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in substantial
erosion or siltation. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The soils underlying the project site consists of
Hanford Soils, which tend to be sandy loams and loamy sands on alluvial fans and plains.13
Potential impacts related to unstable soils could arise if project design did not consider the
specific nature of the underyling soils. In addition, excavation for the subterranean parking
could result in unstable soils for the proposed new fire station. Therefore, mitigation measure
GEO-1 is required to reduce impacts to less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The soils underlying the project site consists of
Hanford Soils, which tend to be sandy loams and loamy sands on alluvial fans and plains.
These soils are well drained and have low potential for expansion and erosion. Potential
impacts related to expansive soils could arise if project design did not consider the specific
nature of the underyling soils. With incorporation of the mitigation measure above (GEO-1),
impacts related to expansive soils would be reduced to less than significant.
e) No Impact. The project site is located in the City of Santa Monica, which is entirely
supported by existing wastewater infrastructure. Alternative wastewater disposal systems
would not be necessary to support the new fire station. The new fire station would connect
to existing wastewater infrastructure. Therefore, no impacts related to soils supporting septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur.
9 Ibid.
10 California Geological Survey, Beverly Hills Quadrangle – Seismic Hazards Map; online at
http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/pdf/ozn_bevh.pdf; accessed June 28, 2012
11 City of Santa Monica, Online Property Information System; online at http://gismap.santa-
monica.org/imf/imf.jsp?site=property; accessed July 2, 2012.
12 Ibid.
13 City of Santa Monica Land Use and Circulation Element, Final Environmental Impact Report, April 2010; online at
http://www.shapethefuture2025.net/PDF/eir/luce_feir_I.pdf; accessed July 6, 2012.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 26
Potentially
Significant
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 impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
a and b) Less Than Significant Impact. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gases that trap heat in
the earth’s atmosphere. GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), ozone (O 3 ),
water vapor, nitrous oxide (N 2 O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF 6 ). The international scientific communities have recognized that GHGs are
contributing to global climate change. Predicted effects of global climate change include sea
level rise, water supply changes; changes to ecosystems and habitat; and human health
effects. Not all GHGs exhibit the same ability to induce climate change; CO 2 is the primary
driver of global climate change. As a result, GHG contributions are commonly quantified in the
equivalent mass of CO 2 , denoted as CO 2 e. Most of the CO 2 e produced in California is
associated with transportation. Electricity generation is the second largest source.
In response to concern regarding GHGs and global climate change, the State passed Assembly
Bill 32 (AB 32) also known as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32
mandated a reduction in the State’s greenhouse gas levels. In addition, SB375 passed by the
State of California in 2009, requires metropolitan regions to adopt transportation plans that
reduce vehicle miles travelled.
The City of Santa Monica has also adopted the Sustainable City Plan (SCP) which includes
targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2015
for City government operations and 15 percent below 1990 levels by 2015 Citywide. In 1990,
GHG emissions for the City were 924,293 metric tons of CO 2 e. In 2007 (the most recent
inventory), GHG emissions for the City were 941,625 metric tons of CO 2 e. Therefore, the 2015
Citywide target is 785,649 metric tons CO 2 e by 2015 (a 15 percent reduction from 1990 levels or
a reduction of 16.6 percent below the 2007 inventory of CO 2 e).
In addition, the City’s LUCE links new development and urban character and form with a shift in
transportation to reduce GHG emissions in accordance with the SCP. The LUCE goals and
policies align with State regulations and policies for GHG reductions. In addition, the LUCE is
intended to achieve the GHG reduction targets reflected in the SCP.
Neither the SCAQMD nor the CEQA Guidelines have established numeric or qualitative
thresholds of significance for greenhouse gas emissions. The CEQA Guideline Amendments,
adopted in December 2010, state that each local lead agency must develop its own
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 27
significance criteria based on local conditions, data, and guidance from public agencies and
other sources.
The information provided in this section is based on recently established California goals for
reducing GHG emissions, as well as a project specific emissions inventory developed for the
proposed project. How a proposed project might contribute to GCC and the overall effect of
an individual project based on that contribution are still being debated. As previously discussed,
no statewide thresholds or methodologies for determining the significance of a project’s
potential cumulative contribution to GCC have been adopted to date. An individual project
(unless it is a massive construction project, such as a dam or a new freeway project, or a large
fossil fuel fired power plant) does not generate sufficient GHG emissions to directly influence
GCC; therefore, the issue of global climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a
project’s contribution towards a cumulative impact is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.
The significance threshold utilized for the City of Santa Monica is based on the methodologies
recommended by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), CEQA, and
the Climate Change white paper (January 2008). CAPCOA conducted an analysis of various
approaches and significance thresholds, ranging from a zero threshold (all projects are
cumulatively considerable) to a high of 40,000 to 50,000 metric tons (MT) of CO2.
An approach assuming a zero threshold and compliance with AB 32 2020 targets would require
all discretionary projects to achieve a 33 percent reduction from projected BAU emissions to be
considered less than significant. A zero threshold approach could be considered on the basis
that climate change is a global phenomenon, and not controlling small source emissions would
potentially neglect a major portion of the GHG inventory. However, the CEQA Guidelines also
recognize that there may be a point where a project’s contribution, although above zero,
would not be a considerable contribution to the cumulative impact (CEQA Guidelines, Section
15130(a)). Therefore, a threshold of greater than zero is considered more appropriate for the
analysis of GHG emissions under CEQA.
Another method would use a quantitative threshold of greater than 900 MT CO2e per year
based on a market capture approach that requires mitigation for greater than 90 percent of
likely future discretionary development. This threshold would generally correspond to office
projects of approximately 35,000 sf, retail projects of approximately 11,000 sf, or supermarket
space of approximately 6,300 sf.
Another potential threshold would be the 10,000 MT standard used by the Market Advisory
Committee for inclusion in a GHG Cap and Trade System in California. A 10,000 MT significance
threshold would correspond to the GHG emissions of approximately 550 residential units, 400,000
sf of office space, 120,000 sf of retail, and 70,000 sf of supermarket space. This threshold would
capture roughly half of new residential or commercial development.
The basic concepts for the various approaches suggested by CAPCOA are used herein to
determine whether or not the proposed project’s GHG emissions are “cumulatively
considerable.” development on sites at the periphery of metropolitan areas, also known as
“greenfield” sites, where there would be an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and
associated GHG emissions than to infill development, which would generally reduce regional
VMT and associated emissions. As the City of Santa Monica is generally built out, most
commercial development within the City is infill or redevelopment and would be expected to
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 28
generally reduce VMT and reliance on the drive-alone automobile use as compared to further
suburban growth at the periphery of the region. A reduction in vehicle use and VMT can result in
a reduction in fuel consumption and in air pollutant emissions, including GHG emissions. Recent
research indicates that infill development reduces VMT and associated air pollutant emissions, as
compared to greenfield sites. For example, a 1999 simulation study conducted for the USEPA,
comparing infill development to greenfield development, found that infill development results in
substantially fewer VMT per capita (39 percent compared to 52 percent) and generates fewer
emissions of most air pollutants and GHGs. For this reason, the most conservative (i.e., lowest)
thresholds, suggested by CAPCOA, would not be appropriate for the proposed project given
that it is located in a community that is highly urbanized. Similarly, the 900-ton threshold was also
determined to be too conservative for general development in the South Coast Air Basin. Thus, a
project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to global climate change is considered
cumulatively considerable if the proposed project would generate 10,000 MT CO2e.
Consequently, the threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e is used as a quantitative benchmark for
significance.
In addition, qualitative consideration is given to the project’s consistency with GHG emissions
reduction strategies and policies. In particular, the Climate Action Team produced the CAT
Report, which contains greenhouse gas reduction strategies that California agencies can
implement. The CAT published a public review draft of Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate
Climate Change in California. Most of the strategies were in the 2006 CAT Report or are similar to
the 2006 CAT strategies. In addition, the Attorney General and CAPCOA includes policies aimed
at reducing GHG emissions. At the local level, the City of Santa Monica’s GHG policies are
contained in the Sustainable City Plan and LUCE.
As indicated below, based on the above criteria, the proposed project would result in GHG
emissions but such emissions would not be cumulatively considerable.
Construction
Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary greenhouse gas emissions from
operation of construction equipment/trucks as well as construction worker vehicles. It is
estimated that approximately 21,000 cubic yards of export would be required for the proposed
project. Based on the maximum daily CO2 emissions generated by construction of the
proposed project (see Appendix A for greenhouse gas emissions modeling results), construction
of the proposed project would generate an estimated 583 tons of CO 2 e over the 2 year
construction period. Amortized over a 30 year period (operational life of the project as
recommended by SCAQMD), this would equate to 19 tons of CO 2 e per year. Unlike the
operational emissions that would occur over the life of the project, construction emissions would
be temporary and short term.
Operation
Project operation would result greenhouse gas emissions on a long term basis as a result of GHG
emissions coming from vehicle traffic, as well as the on-site consumption of natural
gas/electricity. However, the proposed project would be designed to achieve at minimum LEED
Silver certification. Table 4 shows the estimated operational emissions of GHGs from the
proposed development. As shown therein, operation of the proposed would generate 212.23
metric tons of CO 2 E per year. The proposed project’s GHG emissions of 212.23 metric tons
CO 2 e/year would not exceed the City’s threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO 2 e/year. It should
be noted that the existing fire station currently generate greenhouse gas emissions, and as such,
the estimated 212.23 metric tons of CO2E per year does not represent net new emissions.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 29
In addition, as shown in Table 5, the proposed project would be consistent with the greenhouse
gas strategies and policies established by the Climate Action Team (CAT), Attorney General,
and CAPCOA. Furthermore, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s LUCE and
Sustainable City Plan as it would be constructed to achieve a LEED Silver Certification.
Thus, because the project would result in total GHG emissions less than the 10,000 metric ton
threshold recommended by the CAPCOA and is consistent with applicable GHG goals, the
project is not considered to have a significant impact on a cumulative level.
TABLE 4
ESTIMATED PROJECT OPERATION
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (ANNUAL CO 2 E METRIC TONS)
Annual CO 2 E
Area 0.00
Energy 127.17
Mobile 41.25
Waste 10.58
Water 33.23
Total 212.23
See Appendix A for modeling results
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 30
TABLE 5
PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH GREENHOUSE GAS PLANS AND REGULATIONS
GHG Strategy/Policy Consistency
California Air Resources Board
Vehicle Climate Change Standards: AB 1493 required
the state to develop and adopt regulations that achieve
the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of
climate change emissions emitted by passenger vehicles
and light duty trucks. Regulations were adopted by the
CARB in September 2004.
Not Applicable. These are CARB enforced standards for
vehicle manufacturing. Therefore, this strategy is not
applicable to the project.
Diesel Anti-Idling: The CARB adopted a measure to limit
diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicle idling in July
2004.
Consistent: Current State law restricts diesel truck idling
to five minutes or less. Diesel trucks that travel to and
from the project site would be subject to this State-wide
law. Construction vehicles would also subject to this
regulation.
Hydrofluorocarbon Reduction
1) Ban retail sale of HFC in small cans.
2) Require that only low GWP refrigerants be used in new
vehicular systems.
3) Adopt specifications for new commercial refrigeration.
4) Add refrigerant leak-tightness to the pass criteria for
vehicular inspection and maintenance programs.
5) Enforce federal ban on releasing HFCs.
Not Applicable: This strategy applies to the sale,
manufacturing, and regulation of consumer products.
Therefore, this strategy is not applicable to the project.
Alternative Fuels: Biodiesel Blends: CARB would develop
regulations to require the use of 1 to 4 percent biodiesel
displacement of California diesel fuel.
Not Applicable: These are CARB strategies for regulating
the use of alternative fuels and increasing heavy duty
vehicle efficiency. Therefore, this strategy is not
applicable to the project.
Alternative Fuels: Ethanol: Increased use of E-85 fuel.
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission Reduction Measures:
Increased efficiency in the design of heavy duty vehicles
and an education program for the heavy duty vehicle
sector.
Achieve 50 Percent Statewide Recycling Goal:
Achieving the State’s 50 percent waste diversion
mandate as established by the Integrated Waste
Management Act of 1989, (AB 939, Sher, Chapter 1095,
Statutes of 1989), will reduce climate change emissions
associated with energy intensive material extraction and
production as well as methane emission from landfills.
Consistent: The proposed project would include on-site
recycling containers to support the statewide recycling
goal. In addition, the proposed project would comply
with Section 8.108.010 Subpart C of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code, which requires that demolition and/or
construction projects over 1000 square feet divert at
least 65 percent of construction and demolition material
from landfills.
See above. Zero Waste – High Recycling: Efforts to exceed the 50
percent goal would allow for additional reductions in
climate change emissions.
Department of Forestry
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 31
Urban Forestry: A new statewide goal of planting 5
million trees in urban areas by 2020 would be achieved
through the expansion of local urban forestry programs.
Consistent: Although detailed site plans have not been
developed yet, it is anticipated that the proposed
project would include the planting of new trees on the
project site and along the adjacent public right of ways.
Department of Water Resources
Water Use Efficiency: Approximately 19 percent of all
electricity, 30 percent of all natural gas, and 88 million
gallons of diesel are used to convey, treat, distribute and
use water and wastewater. Increasing the efficiency of
water transport and reducing water use would reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Use both potable and non-potable water to maximum
extent practicable; low flow appliances (i.e., toilets,
dishwashers, showerheads, washing machines, etc);
automatic shut off valves for sinks in restrooms; drought
resistant landscaping; Place “Save Water” signs near
water faucets.
Consistent: The proposed project would be USGBC LEED
Silver certified at minimum. The proposed project would
be required to comply with all pre-requisites in the five
primary categories of Sustainable Sites, including water
efficiency. As part of the LEED Silver Certification, the
proposed project would be required to include low flow
appliances. In addition, the proposed project’s
landscaping would be required to comply with the City’s
Water-Efficient Landscape and Irrigation Standards.
Landscaping may include drought resistant plant
species.
Energy Commission (CEC)
Building Energy Efficiency Standards in Place and in
Progress: Public Resources Code 25402 authorizes the
CEC to adopt and periodically update its building
energy efficiency standards (that apply to newly
constructed buildings and additions to and alterations to
existing buildings).
Not Applicable: This strategy is aimed at the California
Energy Commission to adopt energy efficiency
standards. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the
proposed project intends to achieve LEED Silver
certification under the USGBC, and therefore would be
energy efficient. Furthermore, the project will comply
with the City’s Green Building Ordinance, which requires
that the project exceed Title 24 standards.
Building Energy Efficiency Standards in Place and in
Progress: Public Resources Code 25402 authorizes the
CEC to adopt and periodically update its building
energy efficiency standards (that apply to newly
constructed buildings and additions to and alterations to
existing buildings).
Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards in Place and in
Progress: Public Resources Code 25402 authorizes the
Energy Commission to adopt and periodically update its
appliance energy efficiency standards (that apply to
devices and equipment using energy that are sold or
offered for sale in California).
Not Applicable: This strategy is aimed at manufacturers
and sellers of appliances. Therefore, this strategy is not
applicable to the project.
Fuel-Efficient Replacement Tires & Inflation Programs:
State legislation established a statewide program to
encourage the production and use of more efficient
tires.
Not Applicable: This strategy is aimed at manufacturers
and sellers of tires. Therefore, this strategy is not
applicable to the project.
Municipal Utility Energy Efficiency Programs/Demand
Response: Includes energy efficiency programs,
renewable portfolio standard, combined heat and
power, and transitioning away from carbon-intensive
generation.
Not Applicable: These strategies are aimed at energy
companies/agencies that buy and sell energy.
Therefore, this strategy is not applicable to the project.
Municipal Utility Renewable Portfolio Standard:
California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS),
established in 2002, requires that all load serving entities
achieve a goal of 20 percent of retail electricity sales
from renewable energy sources by 2017, within certain
cost constraints.
Municipal Utility Combined Heat and Power: Cost
effective reduction from fossil fuel consumption in the
commercial and industrial sector through the application
of on-site power production to meet both heat and
electricity loads.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 32
Alternative Fuels: Non-Petroleum Fuels: Increasing the
use of non-petroleum fuels in California’s transportation
sector, as recommended as recommended in the CEC’s
2003 and 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Reports.
Not Applicable: These strategies are aimed at the
transportation sector. Therefore, this strategy is not
applicable to the project.
Alternative Fuels: General: The project shall include the
necessary infrastructure to encourage the use of
alternative fuel vehicles (e.g., electric vehicle charging
facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling
stations.
Consistent: The City of Santa Monica has existing
infrastructure that encourage the use of alternative fuel
vehicles. These include electric vehicle charging
facilities at some of the parking facilities in Downtown as
well as a natural gas station at 5th Street and Olympic
Boulevard. SMFD vehicles have and would continue to
have access to such infrastructure and facilities.
Business, Transportation, and Housing
Smart Land Use and Intelligent Transportation Systems
(ITS): Smart land use strategies encourage jobs/housing
proximity, promote transit-oriented development, and
encourage high-density residential/commercial
development along transit corridors.
Not Applicable: The proposed project consists of the
construction of a replacement fire station. This goal is
applicable to new mixed-use development and
therefore, is not applicable to the project.
State and Consumer Service Agency (Department of General Services)
Green Buildings Initiative: Green Building Executive
Order, S-20-04 (CA 2004), sets a goal of reducing energy
use in public and private buildings by 20 percent by the
year 2015, as compared with 2003 levels. The Executive
Order and related action plan spell out specific actions
state agencies are to take with state-owned and -leased
buildings. The order and plan also discuss various
strategies and incentives to encourage private building
owners and operators to achieve the 20 percent target.
Consistent: The proposed project intends to achieve
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
certification under the US Green Building Council
(USGBC). Specifically, the project intends to pursue LEED
Silver Certification for New Buildings and Major
Renovations.
Smart Land Use and Intelligent Transportation Systems:
Require pedestrian-only streets and plazas within the
project site that may be reached conveniently by public
transportation, walking or bicycling.
Not Applicable: The proposed project site is not of
sufficient size to accommodate pedestrian-only street.
However, the proposed project site can be reached
easily by walking and bicycling.
Attorney General
Diesel Anti-Idling: Set specific limits on idling time for
commercial vehicles, including delivery vehicles.
Consistent: CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure to
Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling
restricts diesel truck idling to five minutes or less. Diesel
trucks at the project site would be subject to this state-
wide law.
Transportation Emissions Reduction: The project
applicant shall promote ride sharing program by
designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for
high-occupancy vehicles, providing larger parking
spaces to accommodate vans used for ride-sharing, and
designating adequate passenger loading and
unloading waiting areas.
Consistent: The City of Santa Monica implements ride
sharing programs, vanpools, and other TDM measures for
City employees. SMFD personnel have and would
continue to have access to such TDM measures.
Transportation Emissions Reduction: Contribute
transportation impact fees per residential and
commercial unit to the City to increase transit service.
Not applicable: The proposed project would develop a
new replacement fire station, which is an
institutional/governmental uses. Furthermore, the City of
Santa Monica does not have a transportation impact
fee.
Transportation Emissions Reduction: Provide shuttle
service to public transportation.
Not applicable: Shuttle service to public transportation
would be unnecessary as the proposed project would
be located within walking distance of the future
Downtown station for the Expo Light Rail.
Transportation Emissions Reduction: Incorporate bike
lanes into the project circulation system.
Consistent: The project site is readily accessible to many
bicycle facilities in the Downtown area.
Transportation Emissions Reduction: Provide on-site
bicycle and pedestrian facilities (showers, bicycle
parking, etc.) for commercial uses, to encourage
employees to bicycle or walk to work.
Consistent: The project would provide bicycle parking
racks. Moreover, as discussed above, the project is in
close proximity to mass transit options.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 33
Transportation Emissions Reduction: Coordinate
controlled intersections so that traffic passes more
efficiently through congested areas. Where signals are
installed, require the use of Light Emitting Diode traffic
lights.
Not applicable: This strategy is aimed at City and
County transportation agencies and not applicable to
individual development projects.
Solid Waste and Energy Emissions
Solid Waste Reduction Strategy: Project construction
shall require reuse and recycling of construction and
demolition waste.
Consistent: The proposed project would include on-site
recycling containers to support the statewide recycling
goal. In addition, the proposed project would comply
with Section 8.108.010 Subpart C of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code, which requires that demolition and/or
construction projects over 1000 square feet divert at
least 70percent of construction and demolition material
from landfills.
Water Use Efficiency: Require measures that reduce the
amount of water sent to the sewer system. (Reduction in
water volume sent to the sewer system means less water
has to be treated and pumped to the end user, thereby
saving energy.
Consistent: The proposed project intends to achieve
LEED Silver certification under the USGBC. The proposed
project will be required to comply with all pre-requisites in
the five primary categories of Sustainable Sites, including
water efficiency. The proposed project would include
low flow appliances as part of its LEED Silver certification.
In addition, the proposed project’s landscaping would
be required to comply with the City’s Water-Efficient
Landscape and Irrigation Standards
Land Use Measures, Smart Growth Strategies and Carbon Offsets
Smart Land Use and Intelligent Transportation Systems:
Encourage mixed-use and high density development to
reduce vehicle trips, promote alternatives to vehicle
travel and promote efficient delivery of services and
goods.
Consistent: The proposed project conssits of the
development of a replacement fire station to serve the
high densely developed area of Downtown Santa
Monica. The project site would be accessbile to
alternative transportation as it is locatednear many
public transit routes and would be within 0.5 miles of the
future Downtown station for Exposition Light Rail.
CAPCOA
T2: Proximity to Bike Path/ Bike Lanes: Project is located
within 0.5 miles of an existing/planned Class I or Class II
bike lane and project design includes a network that
connects the project uses to the existing offsite facility.
Project design includes a designated bicycle route
connecting all units, onsite bicycle parking facilities,
offsite bicycle facilities, site entrances, and primary
building entrances to existing Class I or Class II bike
lane(s) within 0.5 miles. Bicycle route connects to all
streets contiguous with project site.
Consistent: The project site is accessible via various
bicycle facilities in the Downtown area, including the
bike lanes on 7th Street.
T3: Minimum Parking: Provide minimum amount of
parking required.
Consistent: The proposed project would include a level
of subterranean parking that would provide
approximately 50 spaces for fire station personnel.
T6: Wood Burning Fireplaces/ Stoves: Project does not
feature fireplaces or wood burning stoves.
Consistent: The proposed project would not include
fireplaces or wood burning stoves.
T7: Low-Water Use Appliances: Require the installation
of low -water Use Appliances.
Consistent: The proposed project would include low flow
appliances to comply with LEED pre-requisites of
Sustainable Sites, including water efficiency.
T8: Landscaping: Project shall use drought resistant
native trees, trees with low emissions and high carbon
sequestration potential.
Consistent: The proposed project’s landscaping would
be required to comply with the City’s Water-Efficient
Landscape and Irrigation Standards. Landscaping may
include drought resistant plant species.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 34
T9: LEED Certification: Promote building approach to
sustainability by recognizing performance in sustainable
site development, water savings, energy efficiency,
materials selection, and indoor environment quality.
Consistent: The proposed project intends to achieve
LEED certification under the USGBC. Specifically, the
project intends to pursue LEED Silver Certification for New
Buildings and Major Renovation.
T10: Energy Star Roof: Project installs Energy Star labeled
roof materials, where feasible.
Potentially Consistent: Specific design details of the
project have yet to be determined. However, the
proposed project could include the installation of energy
star labeled roof materials.
T11: Exceed Title 24: Project exceeds title 24
requirements.
Consistent: The proposed project would achieve LEED
silver certification and would comply with the City’s
Green Building Ordinance a, which require that the
project exceed Title 24 standards.
T12: Energy Efficient Appliance Standard: Project uses
energy efficient appliances.
Consistent: The proposed project intends to achieve
LEED Silver certification under the USGBC. Certification
includes the use of energy efficient appliances.
T13: Green Building Materials: Project uses materials
which are resource efficient and recycled, with long life
cycles and manufactured in environmentally friendly
way.
Consistent: The proposed project intends to achieve
LEED Silver certification under the USGBC. Certification
includes the use of green building materials.
Sustainable City Plan
Resource Conservation Goal 1
Significantly decrease overall community consumption,
specifically the consumption of non-local, non-
renewable, non-recyclable and non-recycled materials,
water, and energy and fuels. The City should take a
leadership role in encouraging sustainable procurement,
extended producer responsibility and should explore
innovative strategies to become a zero waste city.
Consistent - T The proposed project intends to achieve
LEED Silver certification under the USGBC. The proposed
project would include on-site recycling containers to
support the City’s recycling goal. In addition, the
proposed project would comply with Section 8.108.010
Subpart C of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, which
requires that demolition and/or construction projects
over 1000 square feet divert at least 70 percent of
construction and demolition material from landfills.
Resource Conservation Goal 2
Within renewable limits, encourage the use of local, non-
polluting, renewable and recycled resources (water,
energy – wind, solar and geothermal – and material
resources)
Potentially Consistent - The proposed project intends to
achieve LEED Silver certification under the USGBC. As
such, the proposed project could include the use of
alternative renewable resources.
Transportation Goal 2
Facilitate a reduction in automobile dependency in favor
of affordable alternative, sustainable modes of travel.
Consistent - The project site is located within walking
distance of the future Downtown Station for the
Exposition Light Rail at 5th Street and Colorado. In
addition, the project site is accessible via various bicycle
facilities including bicycle lanes. As such, fire station
personnel would have opportunities to take alternative
modes of transportation.
Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE)
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 35
Policy S2.1 Implement the VMT reduction policies of the
Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan,
including, but not limited to: focusing new growth in
mixed-use, transit oriented districts; focusing new growth
along existing corridors and nodes; support the creation
of complete, walkable neighborhoods with goods and
services within walking distance of most homes; and
promoting and supporting a wide range of pedestrian,
bicycle and transit improvements in the City.
Consistent. The project site would be within walking
distance of the future Downtown Station for the
Exposition Light Rail. The proposed project would serve
existing and forecasted future City growth in a dense
Downtown neighborhood.
Policy S2.3 Advance the No Net New Trips goal in the
Land Use and Circulation Element with TDM projects such
as expanded rideshare programs, parking management
strategies, as well as development impact fees for public
transit infrastructure.
Consistent. The proposed project consists of the
construction of a replacement fire station. 24-hour and
48 hour shifts for fire station personnel begin at 7:00 AM
and end at 7:00 PM. Due to these shift hours of the fire
station personnel, no net new PM peak hour trips would
be generated.
Policy S2.9 Consider incorporating the No Net New Trips
policy into the City’s CEQA environmental analysis and
require mitigation of significant impacts for projects that
will generate new vehicle trips.
Policy S5.5 As part of future updates to the City’s Green
Building Ordinance, explore a requirement for shade
trees on south- and west-facing sides of all new buildings
to reduce building energy loads.
Consistent. The proposed project would include the
planting of new trees around the project site.
Policy S5.6 Encourage cool roofs or green roofs on new
buildings.
Potentially Consistent. Specific sustainability features of
the project have yet to be determined. However, during
final building plan designs and/or application for LEED
Silver Certification, the City would consider the use of
cool roofs, cool paving and installation of electrical
outlets in loading zones and on the exterior of buildings.
Policy S5.7 Encourage cool paving on new plazas and
parking lots.
Policy S5.8 Encourage installation of electrical outlets in
loading zones and on the exterior of new buildings to
reduce emissions from gas-powered landscape
maintenance and operating refrigeration for delivery
trucks.
Policy S6.1 Ensure sufficient water supplies for new
development.
Consistent. As indicated in this IS/MND, the City would
have adequate water supplies to serve the proposed
project.
Policy S6.3 Implement landscape water conservation
requirements for new construction projects.
Consistent. The proposed project’s landscaping would be
required to comply with the City’s Water-Efficient
Landscape and Irrigation Standards o
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 36
Policy S6.7 Expand solid waste diversion strategies such
as increased commercial recycling collection and
outreach, expanded food waste collection, composting
and waste to energy conversion programs.
Consistent. The proposed project would include on-site
recycling containers to encourage recycling. In addition,
construction of the proposed project would occur in
accordance with Section 8.108.010 Subpart C of the
Santa Monica Municipal Code, which requires that
demolition and/or construction projects over 1000 square
feet divert at least 70 percent of construction and
demolition material from landfills.
Policy LU8.3 Pedestrian Bicycle and Transit Connections.
Ensure transit mobility by creating facilities for
comfortable walking throughout the City, a complete
and safe bicycle network, and convenient and frequent
transit service that will make transit an attractive option
for all types of trips.
Consistent. The project site would also be within walking
distance of the future Downtown Station for Exposition
Light Rail. In addition, the project site is readily accessible
via many bicycle facilities, including the bike lane on 7th
Street.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 37
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code §65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan area or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or a public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
g) Impair implementation of, or physically
interfere with, an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 38
a and b) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities for the project would involve the
use of potentially hazardous materials including vehicle fuels, oils, transmission fluids,
paint, adhesives, surface coatings and other finishing materials, cleaning solvents, and
pesticides for landscaping purposes. However, the use of these hazardous materials
would be temporary, and all potentially hazardous materials would be stored, used, and
disposed of in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications, applicable federal, state,
and local health and safety regulations. As such, impacts associated with the transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant during construction.
With regard to operation, the new fire station would include an aboveground fuel
storage tank and gas pump, oxygen tanks, and drums of engine oil. All potentially
hazardous materials would be handled, used, and stored in accordance with
manufacturers’ specifications and applicable federal, state, and local health and safety
regulations. Specifically, Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Chapter 5.24 establishes
Hazardous Materials Reporting and Response Planning (HMRRP) and Hazardous Materials
Management Plans (HMMP) requirements for the preparation of business and area plans
relating to the handling and release or threatened release of hazardous materials. The
requirements are established to prevent or mitigate the damage to the health and
safety of persons and the environment from the release or threatened release of
hazardous materials into the workplace and environment. Additionally, as required by
Health & Safety Code, Section 25270.5, the new fire station would be required to prepare
a Spill and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan for the aboveground storage tank. As such,
operational impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal and accidental release of
hazardous materials would be less than significant.
c) No Impact. The project site is not located within one quarter mile of an existing school.
The nearest school to the project site is Santa Monica High School located approximately
0.50 mile to the south. Therefore, the proposed project would not emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No impacts would occur.
d) No Impact. The following hazardous material sites were checked in July 2012 for known
hazardous materials contamination at the project site pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5:
• Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Envirostor database for hazardous waste
and substances sites;
• State Water Board’s Geotracker Database for leaking underground storage tanks;
• State Water Board’s list of solid waste disposal sites with waste constituents above
hazardous waste levels
• State Water Board’s list of active Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and
Abatement Orders
The project site is not listed on any hazardous material sites lists compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, no impacts related to hazardous waste
site listing pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 would occur.
e) No Impact. The project site is located approximately 2 miles north of the Santa Monica
Airport. However, the project site is not located in the area covered by an airport land
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 39
use plan.14 Furthermore, the proposed project does not include any elements that
would create an airport-related safety hazard for the people residing or working the
area. No impacts would occur.
f) No Impact. See above.
g) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would construct a new fire station
that would facilitate and improve emergency access for fire trucks and apparatus.
Currently, the existing Fire Station No. 1 does not have pull through apparatus bays. As a
result, fire trucks and apparatus must back into the existing bays. The proposed new Fire
Station No. 1 would include up to new 6 apparatus bays, with 4 being pull through. With
the new pull-through bays, fire trucks can enter and exit the project site via 7th Street or
7th Court alley. Therefore, the proposed project would not have adverse impacts on an
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Rather, the proposed project
would result in beneficial impacts on emergency access and response. Impacts would
be less than significant.
h) No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area where no wildlands are
present. Furthermore, the project site is not designated by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. 15 Therefore, no wildfire
impacts would occur.
14 Santa Monica Airport Influence Area Map; available online at http://gismap.santa-
monica.org/GISMaps/pdf/airportinfluencearea.pdf; accessed July 6, 2012.
15 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; Los Angeles County Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map; online at
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/fhsz_maps_losangeles.php; accessed July 6, 2012.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 40
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
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 nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltuation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner that
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
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 redirect flood
flows?
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 41
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of a failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
a) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would require
approximately 21,000 cubic yards of earthwork. During earthwork activities, exposed and
stockpiled soils on the construction site could be subject to minor erosion and conveyed via
stormwater runoff into municipal storm drains. However, construction activities are required
to occur in accordance with the City of Santa Monica Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance
(Chapter 7.10 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code). In accordance with the ordinance,
Best Management Practices (BMPs) and pollutant control measures would be employed
during project construction to minimize pollutants and reduce runoff to levels that comply
with applicable water quality standards. The following urban runoff reduction requirements
are required to be implemented during construction:
• Polluted runoff (including runoff containing sediments and/or construction wastes)
shall not leave the construction parcel. No wash water from any type of cement and
concrete machinery or concrete mix truck shall be allowed to leave the construction
parcel. Any washing of equipment in the right-of-way shall be contained and
properly disposed.
• Any sediment or other materials that are tracked off the parcel by vehicles and
equipment shall be removed the same day as they are tracked off the parcel. Where
determined to be necessary, a temporary sediment control BMP shall be installed.
• For any paint removal, paint preparation, or sandblasting activities that will result in
particles entering the air or landing on the ground, BMP steps shall be implemented
to prevent or minimize to the maximum extent practicable such particle releases into
the environment.
• Plastic covering shall be utilized to prevent erosion of an otherwise unprotected area,
e.g., exposed or open to elements, along with treatment control BMPs to intercept
and safely convey the runoff to the MS4.
• No washing of construction or other vehicles shall be allowed adjacent to a
construction parcel. No polluted runoff from washing vehicles on a construction
parcel shall be allowed to leave the parcel.
• Erosion drainage controls shall be utilized depending on the extent of proposed
grading and topography of the parcel to prevent runoff, including, but not limited to,
the following:
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 42
With compliance with the above regulatory requirements, pollutant levels in urban runoff during
construction would be minimized. Therefore, project construction impacts related to the
violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than
significant.
With regard to operation, good housekeeping practices and BMPs would be implemented to
minimize polluted runoff in accordance with the City’s Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance. In
addition, an Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan would be prepared to show that the proposed project
would store and use (for non-potable purposes), infiltrate, or evapotranspire project-generated
runoff during a 0.75 inch storm event, or alternatively, the City would pay an urban runoff
reduction fee.16 In addition, the following BMP requirements would be implemented during
operation:
• Urban runoff shall not be allowed to come into contact with the
loading/unloading dock areas; vehicle repair and maintenance bays; vehicle
and equipment wash areas; and fueling areas.
• Where there are outdoor areas for the storage of material that may contribute
pollutants to the stormwater conveyance system, these materials must be
enclosed and protected by secondary containment structures. The outdoor
storage area for materials must be paved and impervious and covered with a
roof or awning to minimize collection of stormwater within the secondary
containment area.
• Drainage from adjoining roofs and pavement must be diverted away from the
trash storage areas.
• Trash areas must be covered, screened or walled to prevent off-site transport of
trash, and must be connected to the sanitary sewer.
• Trash bins must have solid covers and be covered at all times except while being
emptied.
The above requirements and other BMP provisions set forth in the Urban Runoff Mitigation
Plan would be implemented throughout the operational life of the proposed project to
reduce the discharge of polluted runoff from the project site. Therefore, project operational
impacts related to violation of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements
would be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no active groundwater production wells located
within a half-mile radius of the project site. The closest active groundwater production wells
are located approximately 1.25 miles to the north of the site, in the Olympic subbasin. Two
City production wells are located on the beach south of the Santa Monica Pier
approximately 1 mile from the site. As nearby site borings indicate the anticipated
groundwater beneath the site is between 40 and 50 feet below the ground surface (bgs)
16 As defined by the Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance, the project-generated runoff required to be mitigated is one
hundred percent of the runoff produced by a 0.75 inch storm event falling on all impermeable surfaces of a parcel for
new developments/projects that would replace greater than 50 percent of the existing buildings on the site.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 43
and flows in a southerly direction.17 Excavation for the proposed project would reach
approximately 25 feet bgs. Therefore, no withdrawal of groundwater (i.e., dewatering
system) would be necessary for the proposed project.
The proposed project would generate an incremental increase in water demand. The water
supply for the City of Santa Monica’s Water Department (which would serve the project site)
comes mostly from groundwater. The water demand of the proposed project would not
result in an exceedance of the City of Santa Monica’s current and projected water supplies
(see Section XX Utilities). As such, operation of the proposed project would not substantially
deplete groundwater supplies.
Furthermore, the project site is 100 percent impervious (i.e., completely developed with
existing surface parking). Minimal groundwater infiltration and recharge occurs on the
project site under existing conditions. In accordance with Section 9.04 10.4 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code, the proposed project would incorporate new landscaping and
increase the amount of pervious surface areas. Therefore, the proposed project would
create new pervious areas for groundwater infiltration and recharge. Based on the above,
construction and operation of the project would not substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, project impacts would be less
than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is 100 percent impervious (i.e., completely
developed with existing surface parking). In accordance with Section 9.04 10.4 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code, the proposed project would incorporate new landscaping and
increase the amount of pervious surface areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not
increase the amount of stormwater runoff. Rather, the amount of stormwater runoff would
be expected to decrease due to opportunities for groundwater infiltration. Additionally, in
accordance with the City’s Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance, the proposed project would
include appropriate on-site design measures to store and use (for non-potable purposes),
infiltrate, or evapotranspire project-generated runoff during a 0.75 inch storm event or
alternatively pay a fee. Site-generated surface water runoff would continue to flow into
nearby municipal drains and/or catch basins. Thus, the existing drainage patterns would not
substantially change. In addition, as previously stated, an Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan
would be in place throughout the operational life of the project to reduce erosion or siltation
effects. Project construction would also comply with the requirements of the City’s Urban
Runoff Pollution Ordinance, including those regarding the implementation of good
housekeeping practices and BMPs, to reduce erosion and siltation. Furthermore, there are no
streams or rivers within the project site or in the surrounding area. As such, implementation of
the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern such that substantial
erosion or siltation would occur. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is 100 percent impervious (i.e., completely
developed with existing surface parking). In accordance with Section 9.04 10.4 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code, the proposed project would incorporate new landscaping and
increase the amount of pervious surface areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not
increase the amount of stormwater runoff. Rather, the amount of stormwater runoff would
be expected to decrease due to opportunities for groundwater infiltration. Additionally, the
17 Santa Monica New Main Library, Final Environmental Impact Report, January 2003; online at
http://www01.smgov.net/planning/eir/MainLibraryFEIR.pdf
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 44
proposed project would include appropriate on-site design measures to store and use (for
non-potable purposes), infiltrate, or evapotranspire project-generated runoff during a 0.75
inch storm event or alternatively pay a fee. Site-generated surface water runoff would
continue to flow into nearby municipal drains and/or catch basins. Thus, the existing
drainage patterns would be maintained. Furthermore, there are no streams or rivers within
the project site or in the surrounding area. Thus, project implementation would not
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern such that substantial flooding on- or off-site
would occur. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is 100 percent impervious (i.e., completely
developed with existing surface parking). In accordance with Section 9.04 10.4 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code, the proposed project would incorporate new landscaping and
increase the amount of pervious surface areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not
increase the amount of stormwater runoff. Rather, the amount of stormwater runoff would
be expected to decrease due to opportunities for groundwater infiltration. Furthermore, the
City’s Department of Public Works would have final review and approval of all project site
plans to ensure that adequate drainage would be provided to accommodate the project’s
stormwater flows. Therefore, the proposed project would not create or contribute to runoff
water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than
significant.
f) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously, in accordance with the City’s Urban
Runoff Pollution Ordinance, Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented
during project construction to minimize erosion and pollutants in stormwater runoff. In
addition, an Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan would be in place throughout the operational life
of the project to minimize pollutant runoff. As such, implementation of the proposed project
would not substantially degrade water quality. Impacts would be less than significant.
g) No Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the City of Santa Monica, the project site is not located
within a 100-year flood plain.18 Therefore, the proposed project would not place housing
within a 100-year flood plain. No impacts would occur.
h) No Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for the City of Santa Monica, the project site is not located
within a 100-year flood plain. Therefore, the project would not place structures within a 100-
year flood plain such that flood flows would be impeded. No impacts would occur.
i) No Impact. No dams, levees, or above-ground flood control channels exist in the City of
Santa Monica. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam. No impacts would occur.
j) No Impact. A seiche is a standing wave occurring in an enclosed or partially enclosed body
of water, such as a lake, reservoir, or bay. There are no enclosed or partially enclosed
bodies of water near the project site. Therefore, the potential for inundation from a seiche is
considered remote. No impacts relative to a seiche would occur.
18 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 45
A tsunami is a large ocean wave caused by a significant undersea disturbance such as
earthquakes. Areas susceptible to a tsunami in the City include areas below the Palisades
Bluff and approximately ¼ mile from the ocean. The project site is located approximately
one mile inland (east) from the Pacific Ocean. In addition, the project site is not located in a
City designated tsunami hazard area.19 Therefore, inundation risk from a tsunami is
considered low. No impacts would occur.
Mudflows (also called debris flows) result from the downslope movement of soil and/or rock
under the influence of gravity. The project site and vicinity is characterized by relatively flat
topography. Given the absence of any steep slopes nearby, the project site would not be
at risk from inundation by mudflow. No impacts would occur.
19 City of Santa Monica, Online Property Information System; online at http://gismap.santa-
monica.org/imf/imf.jsp?site=property; accessed May 3, 2011.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 46
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. 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 avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
a) No Impact. The project site is located in the urbanized City of Santa Monica, which is
generally built out. The proposed project is an infill development and does not include any
physical improvements that would divide the project site or surrounding area (e.g., new
through roads).
Furthermore, the proposed project would not introduce a new land use in the Downtown
area. Rather, the proposed project would provide for the relocation and continuation of
existing fire protection services in the Downtown area. Therefore, the proposed project
would not alter the existing land use relationships in the area. Therefore, development of
the proposed project would not divide an established community. No impacts would
occur.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE)
designates the project site as Downtown Core. As stated in the LUCE, this designation
allows for the broadest mix of uses and highest intensity development in the city. The
downtown area is the City’s major regional retail and employment district, with pedestrian-
oriented design incorporated at the street level. The Downtown Core designation is
defined in the adopted LUCE as follows:
Santa Monica’s Downtown Core designation maintains and enhances the Downtown area
as the heart of the City and as a thriving, mixed use urban environment in which people
can live, work, be entertained and be culturally enriched. The Downtown has the greatest
concentration of activity in the City, anchored by the core commercial district, which
includes the Third Street Promenade and the revitalized Santa Monica Place open-air mall.
The Downtown Light Rail Station will serve as a gateway to the Downtown, Civic Center and
coastal destinations, transforming the southern edge of the district. The Downtown
continues to provide a substantial number of new housing units in mixed-use projects.
Affordable, workforce and market-rate housing are highly desirable. The LUCE expands the
Downtown boundaries to include Wilshire Boulevard to the north and Lincoln Boulevard to
the east. These important mixed-use boulevards appropriately define the edge of the
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 47
district and help with the transition from the intensity of the Downtown to adjacent
residential neighborhoods to the north and the east…The Downtown Core designation
allows for the broadest mix of uses and highest intensity development. The area is the City’s
major regional retail and employment district, with a human-scale and pedestrian-
orientation at the street level. A balance of uses generates activity during both daytime
and evening hours. Development intensities are lower on the northern and eastern edges of
the district in order to transition to the lower-density character of adjacent neighborhoods.
New development and infrastructure strengthens the Downtown’s connection with the
Civic Center, Beach and Pier. While specific uses will be established by a specific plan,
allowed uses include residential, commercial, retail, cultural and entertainment uses, and
other visitor-serving uses, such as hotels. Existing parameters and review processes for 100
percent affordable housing projects will continue to apply.
The LUCE did not establish development parameters for the Downtown Core designation,
instead deferring such standards until the preparation of a Downtown Specific Plan. Until this
specific plan is adopted, the 1984 LUCE destinations will apply. The 1984 LUCE designated
the project site as general commercial.
The project site is also located in the C3 zone (Downtown Commercial district). Pursuant to
Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 9.04.08.20, the C3 zone is intended to
maintain and enhance the downtown area and to provide a concentration and variety of
commercial, residential, cultural, and recreational opportunities including comparison and
general retail, office, cultural uses, and complementary uses such as hotels, housing, and
visitor serving uses.. Structures may be a maximum of 50 feet in height and 1.5 floor-to-area
ratio(FAR).
The proposed project would construct a new Fire Station No. 1 to replace the existing fire
station in the Downtown area. The fire station would not represent a new land use in the
Downtown area. The project is intended to serve the public and ensure the safety of all the
surrounding land uses. In addition, the building would be a maximum of 37 feet with a FAR
of 1.11; and as such would not exceed zoning standards. Therefore, impacts relative to land
use consistency would be less than significant.
c) No Impact. As previously stated in Section IV, Biological Resources, no Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved habitat conservation plan
applies to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the
provisions of an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan. No impacts would occur.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 48
FIGURE 5 – ZONING MAP
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 49
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
a) No Impact. No mineral extraction operations occur on the site or in the nearby vicinity.
Additionally, the project site is not designated as an existing mineral resource extraction area
by the State of California. Given that the project site is located within a highly urbanized
area of the City and has been previously disturbed by development, the potential for
mineral resources to occur on-site is low. Therefore, construction and operation of the
proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource. No impacts
would occur.
b) No Impact. As stated above, no mineral extraction operations occur on the site or in the
nearby vicinity. Additionally, the project site is not designated as an existing mineral resource
extraction area by the State of California. Given that the project site is located within a
highly urbanized area of the City and has been previously disturbed by development, the
potential for mineral resources to occur on-site is low. Therefore, construction and operation
of the proposed project would not result in the loss of a mineral resource recovery site. No
impacts would occur.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 50
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 project
neighborhood?
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not
result in significant impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, noise, and traffic. As analyzed in
the respective sections of this IS/MND, these neighborhood impacts would be less than
significant or less than significant with mitigation. Please refer to Section I - Aesthetics;
Section II - Air Quality; Section XIV - Noise; and Section XIX - Transportation/Traffic, for a
detailed analysis of neighborhood related effects associated with the proposed project.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 51
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance or
of applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan area or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
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?
a) Less Than Significant Impact. Chapter 4.12 of the Santa Monica Code establishes the City’s
Noise Ordinance. The ordinance sets forth allowable exterior noise standards based on
zones. Noise zone I includes residential districts; Noise zone II includes commercial districts;
and Noise zone III includes manufacturing and industrial districts (i.e., the project site). Noise
standards for the zones are more restrictive during sleeping hours (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM).
Table 6 provides the exterior noise standards by zone.
Construction
The City’s Noise Ordinance (SMMC §4.12.110) restricts construction activity to between the
hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM on
Saturday. The Noise Ordinance does not allow construction activity to occur on Sunday or
major national holidays. In general, the equivalent noise level during construction cannot
exceed the standard on the receiving property, plus 20 dB. The maximum instantaneous
noise level during construction cannot exceed the standard plus 40 dB. However,
construction-related noise exceeding these thresholds is permitted, provided that it is
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 52
restricted to the hours between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM. The project site is classified as Noise
Zone II and has an exterior noise standard of 65 dBA during the day for a 15 minute
continuous measurement period. Based on the above, construction-related equivalent
noise level generated on the project site (Noise Zone II) would not be permitted to exceed
85 dBA, or 110 dBA for instantaneous noise (except for between the hours of 10:00 AM and
3:00 PM).
TABLE 6
CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS
Noise Zone Time Interval Allowable Leq
15 minute continuous
measurement period
5 minute continuous
measurement period
I
Monday—Friday
10 p.m. to 7 a.m.: 50 dBA 55 dBA
7 a.m. to 10 p.m.: 60 dBA 65 dBA
Saturday and Sunday
10 p.m. to 8 a.m.: 50 dBA 55 dBA
8 a.m. to 10 p.m.: 60 dBA 65 dBA
II
All days of Week
10 p.m. to 7 a.m.: 60 dBA 65 dBA
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 65 dBA 70 dBA
III Anytime 70 dBA 75 dBA
There are no sensitive noise receptors in close proximity to the project site. The nearest
receptors are the residential uses that are more than 200 feet to the south across Santa
Monica Boulevard.
During construction, the proposed project would temporarily result in an increase in noise
levels. Construction noise would be generated by construction vehicles and equipment
involved during various stages of construction operations: demolition, site grading, and
building construction. Maximum construction noise levels would occur during the site
preparation phase.
The noise levels created by construction equipment will vary depending on the type of
equipment and the specific model, the mechanical/operational condition of the equipment
and the type of operation being performed. Individual pieces of typical construction
equipment that would be used for project construction would produce maximum noise
levels of 73 dBA to 90 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source, as shown
in Table 7.20 Noise levels anticipated from operation of individual pieces of construction
equipment would be below the City’s standard of 110 dBA for instantaneous noise in Noise
Zone II.
20 These maximum noise levels would occur when equipment is operating under full power conditions. However,
equipment used on construction sites often operates under less than full power conditions, or part power.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 53
TABLE 7
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Description Noise Levels @ 50 feet
(dBA, slow)
Compactor (ground) 80
Compressor (air) 80
Concrete Mixer Truck 85
Concrete Saw 90
Crane 85
Dozer 85
Drill Rig Truck 84
Dump Truck 84
Excavator 85
Front End Loader 80
Paver 85
Tractor 84
Welder/Torch 73
Noise from localized point sources (such as construction sites) typically decreases by about 6
dBA with each doubling of distance from source to receptor. In addition, intervening
development between the project site and sensitive receptors provide further attenuation of
approximately 15 dBA. As shown in Table 8, construction-related noise levels associated with
project construction would not exceed noise standards (of 85dBA for the equivalent noise
level and 110 dbA for instantaneous noise) at the nearest residential uses approximately 200
feet south of the project site at 7th Street and Santa Monica Boulevard (see Appendix B for
noise analysis worksheets). Therefore, construction noise impacts would be less than
significant.
Operation
The existing noise environment in the project vicinity is dominated by traffic noise along
adjacent streets. Long-term noise generated by the proposed project would occur primarily
due to project-generated traffic and on-site noise sources such as fire truck sirens and
mechanical equipment.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 54
TABLE 8
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL AT NEARBY SENSITIVE RECEPTOR
Estimated Construction Noise Levels at the Noise
Sensitive Receptor by Construction Phase (dBA)
Maximum Allowable
Noise – Zone II
Demolition Site
Preparation/Grading
Building
Construction
Leq 74 73.7 67.9 85 dBA
Lmax 77.5 73 68.5 110 dBA
See Appendix B for noise modeling results.
With regard to project-generated traffic noise, typically a doubling of vehicle traffic would
be required before a noticeable increase (i.e., 3 dBA or greater) in traffic noise levels would
occur. As indicated in Section XIX, Transportation/Traffic, the proposed project would
conservatively result in a net increase of 10 daily inbound trips and 10 daily outbound trips,
which would occur outside of the peak hours. Given that a doubling of vehicle traffic would
not occur, the increase in traffic noise levels would not be perceptible. As a result, operation
of the proposed project would not be expected to result in a noticeable increase in ambient
noise levels that would exceed applicable noise standards.
On-site noise sources of the proposed project would primarily be associated with the fire
truck sirens and operation of mechanical equipment. However, there are no sensitive noise
receptors adjacent to the project site. The nearest receptors are the residential uses that are
approximately 200 feet to the south across Santa Monica Boulevard. Furthermore, such
noises already occur at the existing fire station which is located approximately 0.1 mile south
of the project site.
Long-term operation of the proposed project would have a minimal effect on the
surrounding noise environment and on sensitive receptors. Therefore, operational noise
impacts would be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Typical construction techniques would be employed during
project construction. Pile driving and impact methods would not be necessary. Heavy
construction equipment (e.g. bulldozer and excavator) would generate a limited amount of
ground-borne vibration at short distances away from the source. However, such vibration
would not be significant and would not affect the sensitive receptors which are 200 feet to
the south.
No permanent sources of vibration are proposed on the site during project operation. The
proposed project includes the development of commercial and residential uses. These uses
would not generate vibration.
Construction and operation of the proposed project would not expose people to excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 55
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The existing noise environment in the project area is dominated
by traffic noise along roadways, as well as nearby commercial activities. Long-term
operation of the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the ambient noise
environment in proximity to the project site. The project’s net increase in traffic, as discussed
in Section XIV(a), would have a less than significant impact on ambient noise levels. Noise
levels associated with on-site operations (e.g., fire truck sirens) would also be less than
significant as discussed in Section XI(a). As such, operational (permanent) noise impacts
would be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction activities would generate noise on a
temporary basis and would increase the existing ambient noise in the immediate vicinity of
the project site. Construction-period noise impacts are discussed in Section XIV(a). As
described therein, noise generated by on-site construction activities would not exceed City
standards and would not affect nearby sensitive receptors. Construction noise impacts
would be less than significant.
e) No Impact. The project site is located approximately 2 miles north of the Santa Monica
Airport. However, the project site is located outside of the 60, 65, and 75 CNEL Airport Land
Use Plan Noise Contour.21 Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from an airport or airstrip. No impacts
would occur.
f) No Impact. See Section XIV(a).
21 Santa Monica Airport; Year 2009 CNEL Contours Report; online at
http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/2009%20SMO%20CNEL%20Report.pdf; accessed March 15, 2011.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 56
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
a) No Impact. No permanent residences or major infrastructure that could induce population
growth are included as part of the proposed project. The proposed project consists of the
development of a new building that would replace existing Fire Station No. 1. The proposed
project would serve existing and forecasted population in the City of Santa Monica.
Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth. No
impacts would occur.
b) No Impact. The project site is currently developed as surface parking. No housing exists on-
site. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace existing housing or people, nor
necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur.
c) No Impact. See Section XV(b) above.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 57
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
a) No Impact. The proposed project consists of the acquisition of property and construction of
a new replacement Fire Station No. 1 to serve existing and forecasted population in the
City. The new Fire Station No. 1 building would be a replacement for the existing 11,362
square foot Fire Station No. 1 located at 1444 7th Street. The proposed new fire station is
located approximately 530 feet north (0.1 mile) of the existing station. Therefore,
emergency response times to incidents would not change from existing conditions. Existing
Fire Station No. 1 is equipped with two paramedic engine companies, one paramedic
rescue squad, one 100’ ladder truck, one air/light rescue unit, and one command vehicle.
The existing station has a staff of approximately 14 per 24-hour shift. The existing Fire Station
No. 1 building is undersized to house the existing SMFD equipment and personnel. The
proposed project would develop a new fire station to provide additional space for
expanded staff and equipment as well as improved amenities for the SMFD and the public.
SMFD staffing is anticipated to increase from 14 per shift (per 24-hour shift) at the existing fire
station to up to 24 per shift (per 24-hour or 48-hour shift) at the new fire station. Construction
of the new fire station would provide enhanced facilities and capacity for the SMFD to
provide fire protection and emergency services. Staffing for this station would increase.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a negative impact on fire protection
and emergency services provided by the SMFD. Rather, the proposed project would result
in a beneficial impact on fire protection services. Upon completion of the new fire station,
the existing Fire Station No. 1 building would be vacated by the SMFD. SMFD staffing and
equipment would then be relocated to the new Fire Station No. 1 building. Therefore, there
would be no disruption of SMFD services. Based on the above, no impacts on fire
protection and emergency services would occur.
b-e) No Impact. As discussed in Section XV(a) Population and Housing, the proposed project
consists of the acquisition of property and construction of a new replacement Fire Station
No. 1 to serve existing and forecasted population in the City. No population growth would
occur as a result of the proposed project. As such, the proposed project would not result in
an increased demand for public services including police protection, schools, parks, or
libraries. No impacts would occur.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 58
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities, or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
a-b) No Impact. As discussed in Section XV(a) Population and Housing, the proposed project
consists of the acquisition of property and construction of a new replacement Fire Station
No. 1 to serve existing and forecasted population in the City. No population growth would
occur as a result of the proposed project. As such, the proposed project would not result in
an increased demand for parks or recreational services. No impacts would occur.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 59
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. SHADOWS. Would the project:
a) Produce extensive shadows affecting adjacent
uses or property?
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would replace the existing surface
parking on the project site with a new two-story fire station building (maximum height 37
feet). As a result, new shadows would be produced by the proposed project’s building.
However, immediate land uses in all directions consists predominantly of commercial uses.
Figure 6 shows the project’s shadow during the winter solstice (worst case). As shown in
Figure 6, the proposed project would generate limited shadows on these commercial uses
and such shadows would be cast in a clockwise direction from north to northeast. The
closest residential uses are approximately 200 feet to the south and would not be shaded by
the project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 60
FIGURE 6 – PROJECT SHADOWS – DECEMBER 21 PACIFIC STANDARD TIME
9:00 AM Shadows 12:00 PM Shadows
Note: For illustrative purposes only. Model does not reflect actual project design. Shadows
based on maximum building height of 37 feet and a building area of 25,000 square feet.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 61
3:00 PM Shadows
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 62
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease
the performance or safety of such facilities?
a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The proposed project would develop a new
Fire Station No. 1 to replace the existing fire station at 1444 7th Street. Construction and
operation of the proposed project would generate a minor net increase in traffic.
Construction
Construction activities for the proposed project would generate additional traffic as a result
of construction worker vehicle trips and construction truck transport of equipment, building
and demolition materials, and the export of soil/material. Construction hours and days
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 63
would occur from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on
Saturday in accordance with Section 4.12.110 of the City of Santa Monica Municipal Code.
Construction of the proposed project would occur over a 2 year period.
The number of workers and the amount of equipment required during construction would
vary in order to maintain a reasonable schedule. However, based on the air quality analysis
provided within CALEEMOD (see Appendix A), it is estimated that during the demolition, site
preparation/grading, and building construction phases, construction worker vehicle trips
are anticipated. In addition, construction of the proposed project would generate
construction vendor truck trips and haul trips. Therefore, the following mitigation measure is
recommended to reduce construction traffic impacts to less than significant.
CON-1 Construction Impact Mitigation Plan. The City shall prepare, implement,
and maintain a Construction Impact Mitigation Plan which shall be designed to:
o Prevent traffic impacts on the surrounding roadway network.
o Minimize parking impacts both to public parking and access to private
parking to the greatest extent practicable.
o Ensure safety for both those constructing the project and the surrounding
community.
o Prevent truck traffic through residential neighborhoods by establishing truck
routes that utilize non-residential streets.
The Construction Impact Mitigation Plan shall be subject to review and approval
by the following City departments: Public Works Department, Fire, Planning and
Community Development and Police to ensure that the Plan has been designed in
accordance with this mitigation measure. This review shall occur prior to building
permit issuance for the project. It shall at a minimum, include the following:
Ongoing requirements throughout the duration of construction:
o A detailed traffic control plan for work zones shall be maintained which
includes, at a minimum, accurate existing and proposed: parking and
travel lane configurations; warning, regulatory, guide and directional
signage; and area sidewalks, bicycle lanes and parking lanes. The plan
shall include specific information regarding the project’s construction
activities that may disrupt normal pedestrian and traffic flow and the
measures to address these disruptions. Such plans must be reviewed and
approved by the Transportation Management Division prior to building
permit issuance and implemented in accordance with this approval.
o Work within the public right-of-way shall be performed between 9:00 AM
and 4:00 PM , including dirt and demolition material hauling and
construction material delivery. Work within the public right-of-way outside
of these hours shall only be allowed after the issuance of an after-hours
construction permit.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 64
o Streets and equipment should be cleaned in accordance with Santa
Monica’s established Environmental and Public Works Management
(EPWM) requirements.
o Trucks shall only travel on a City approved construction route. Truck
queuing/staging shall not be allowed on Santa Monica Streets. Limited
queuing may occur on the construction site itself.
o Materials and equipment should be minimally visible to the public; the
preferred location for materials is to be on-site, with a minimum amount of
materials within a work area in the public right-of-way, subject to a current
Use of Public Property permit.
o Any requests for work before or after normal construction hours within the
public right-of-way shall be subject to review and approval through the
After Hours Permit process administered by the Building and Safety Division.
With implementation of the above mitigation measure, construction traffic impacts would
be less than significant.
Operation
The City of Santa Monica has established specific CEQA criteria for assessing whether
project-related traffic increases would result in significant impacts on intersection operating
conditions. The significance criteria are summarized in Table 9.
TABLE 9
CITY OF SANTA MONICA TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Base Scenario Plus Project Scenario
Level of Service Intersection Type Significant Impact If:
A, B, or C
Collector Street Intersection Average vehicle delay is ≥ 15 seconds or LOS
becomes D, E, or F
Arterial Street Intersection Average vehicle delay is ≥ 15 seconds or LOS
becomes E or F
D
Collector Street Intersection Any net increase in average seconds of delay per
vehicle
Arterial Street Intersection Average vehicle delay is ≥ 15 seconds or LOS
becomes E or F
E Collector or Arterial
Intersection
Any net increase in average seconds of delay per
vehicle
F Collector or Arterial
Intersection HCM V/C ratio net increase is ≥ 0.005
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 65
Operation of the proposed project would generate a minor net increase in vehicle trips.
Due to the operating nature of fire stations as emergency responders, it is not possible to
predict their daily trip generation (or when trips would be generated throughout a day).
Only the commute trips by fire station staff are predictable. Currently, Fire Station No. 1 has
a staff of 14 firefighters on shift at any given time, with each 24-hour shift beginning at 7:00
a.m. and 7:00 p.m. SMFD staffing is anticipated to increase from 14 per shift (per 24-hour
shift) at the existing fire station to up to 24 per shift (per 24-hour or 48-hour shift) at the new
fire station, which is a net increase of 10 personnel per shift. Conservatively assuming that
the net increase of 10 personnel per shift would drive alone to the new fire station, the
proposed project could result in a net daily increase of 10 inbound and 10 outbound trips.
Based on the shift times (beginning at 7:00 AM and ending at 7:00 PM), these trips would
occur outside of the peak hours (7:30-9:30 AM and 5:00-7:00 PM). Therefore, the proposed
project would result in a less than significant impact on the existing surrounding
intersections. Furthermore, the project site is located in the highly commercialized
Downtown area. Therefore, no impacts to neighborhood (residential) street segments
would occur.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Within Los Angeles County, the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro) administers the 2010 Congestion Management Plan (CMP), a state
mandated program designed to address the impacts of urban congestion on local
communities and the region as a whole. The 2010 CMP requires a traffic impact analysis be
conducted where a project would (1) add 50 or more peak hour trips to any CMP arterial
intersection or (2) where a project would add 150 or more peak hour trips in any direction
to a CMP freeway monitoring segment. As previously stated, it is conservatively estimated
that the proposed project would generate a minor net increase of 10 daily inbound and 10
daily outbound trips, which would occur outside of the peak hours. Based on the small
amount of net new trips generated, the proposed project would result in a less than
significant impact on the regional transportation system and a traffic impact analysis
pursuant to the CMP is not required. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) No Impact. The proposed project does not propose any uses which would change air
traffic patterns or increase air traffic. Therefore, no impacts to air traffic patterns would
occur.
d) No Impact. The proposed project would develop a new two-story Fire Station No. 1 to
replace the existing station. The proposed project does not include any hazardous design
feature such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections on- or off-site, nor does the
proposed project propose any hazardous or incompatible uses. Furthermore, there are no
existing hazardous design features such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections on-site
or in the surrounding project area. No impacts would occur.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would construct a new fire station that
would facilitate and improve emergency access for fire trucks and apparatus. Currently,
the existing Fire Station No. 1 does not have pull through apparatus bays. As a result, fire
trucks and apparatus must back into the existing bays. The proposed new Fire Station No.
1 would include up to new 6 apparatus bays, with 4 being pull through. With the new pull-
through bays, fire trucks can enter and exit the project site via 7th Street or 7th Court alley.
Therefore, the proposed project would not have adverse impacts on an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Rather, the proposed project would result
in beneficial impacts on emergency access and response. Therefore, impacts would be
less than significant.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 66
f) No Impact. The Big Blue Bus serves the City of Santa Monica and has bus routes
throughout the area. The proposed project would not disrupt existing bus service nor
require the relocation of existing bus stops. Furthermore, the proposed project is located
within walking distance (within 0.5 mile) of the future Exposition Light Rail station at 5th Street
and Colorado Avenue. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with policies,
programs, or plans supporting alternative transportation. No impacts would occur.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 67
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand, in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently served by a 10 inch sewer main
within 7th Court which connects to a 24 inch sewer line within Broadway. Wastewater is
conveyed via this existing sewer main westward to the City’s Coastal Interceptor Sewer
System (CISS) and then ultimately to the City of Los Angeles’ Hyperion Treatment Plant in the
City of Los Angeles for treatment. Two flow metering stations for the CISS are located at 415
Pacific Coast Highway and at the 3000 block of Main Street. The CISS system is designed for
51.7 million gallons per day (mgd) at its terminus at the southern City boundary with the City
of Los Angeles. Presently the 13.07 mgd average flow at the CISS terminus represents
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 68
approximately 25.3 percent of its capacity.22 The Hyperion Treatment Plant has a dry
weather capacity of 450 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently processes an average
of 340 mgd. The proposed project would develop new commercial and residential uses on
the site, resulting in increased wastewater flows. As shown in Table 11 below, the proposed
project would generate a net increase of approximately 1,950 gpd of wastewater.
TABLE 11
PROJECT WASTEWATER GENERATION
Size Proposed Generation Rate Generation Per Day
Proposed
Fire Station No. 1 25000 0.15 3,750.00
Existing
Fire Station No. 1 12000 0.15 1,800.00
Total Net New 1,950.00
Generation rate from the County of Los Angeles Sanitation District
Pollutant loads for project wastewater flows would not substantially increase from the existing
flows at the existing fire station. Furthermore, at the time of final building plan check, a
sewer capacity study would be submitted to the City of Santa Monica Public Works
Department to ascertain that the existing sewer lines(s) can accommodate project flows. In
order to do these studies, the applicants will have to meter the flow of the sewer line(s) that
the project will be discharging to (to make sure that d/D is less than 50% with their additional
flow) and upsize the sewers accordingly as part of their project. Furthermore, project flows
would be within the remaining design capacity of the CISS and the Hyperion Treatment
Plant. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed any wastewater treatment
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and adequate wastewater
treatment capacity exists to serve the proposed project. Impacts would be less than
significant.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Santa Monica Water Department operates and owns the
water infrastructure systems within the City. Currently, the water infrastructure to the project
site includes an existing 16-inch water main within 7th Court which connects to a 12-inch
water main within Santa Monica Boulevard. The proposed project would redevelop the
project site with a new expanded fire station that would replace the existing station. There
are no City water demand rates for fire stations. Therefore, the water demand rate for a
governmental/institutional use was applied to the proposed project. Based on these water
consumption factors, the proposed project would result in a net water demand of
approximately 521,950 gallons per year or 1.60 acre foot per year as shown in Table 12. This
demand would not be significant increase compared to the projected 2020 water demand
for the City of 12,635 acre feet per year.23 Water conservation measures to be incorporated
22 City of Santa Monica Sewer System Management Plan; online at
http://www01.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2009/20090908/s2009090801-N-1.htm; accessed March 15, 2011.
23 Santa Monica Urban Water Management Plan 2010.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 69
as part of the project’s LEED Silver Certification would help to reduce this estimated water
demand. All water connections to serve the proposed new fire station would be
constructed to meet the standards of the Santa Monica Public Works Department. As in
current conditions, water demand for firefighting varies as such demand is dependent on
the specific fire incident and the frequency of such incidents.
TABLE 12
PROJECT WATER DEMAND
Size Proposed
(sf)
Water Demand Rate
(gpd)
Demand Per Year
(gpy)
Proposed
Fire Station No. 1 25000 0.11 1,003,750.00
Existing
Fire Station No. 1 12000 0.11 481,800.00
Total Net New 521,950.00
* Demand rates for institutional/government uses from the City of Santa Monica Land Use and
Circulation EIR, April 2010.
As discussed previously, project wastewater flows of 1,950 gallons per year would be within
the remaining design capacity of the CISS and the Hyperion Treatment Plant. Therefore, the
proposed project would not require the construction of new water and wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would replace the
existing impervious parking lot with new impervious surface areas in the form of a new fire
station building and hardscaped areas. Additionally, new pervious surface areas would be
introduced with the proposed project’s landscaping and the proposed project would be
required to comply with the Urban Runoff Pollution Ordinance. Thus, the amount of
stormwater runoff would decrease relative to existing conditions, and the overall amount of
run-off is not expected to exceed the capacity of the existing storm drain system.
Additionally, the proposed project would include appropriate minor on-site drainage
improvements such as roof drains to direct anticipated stormwater flows to existing storm
drains and/or catch basins and maintain existing drainage patterns. The proposed project
would not require the construction of new major stormwater facilities or the expansion of
facilities that would cause significant impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. Water for the Santa Monica service area is supplied from both
groundwater and imported sources. Six wells are in the Santa Monica Sub basin, and the
remaining five wells are in the Charnock Sub basin. In February 2010, the City opened the
Santa Monica Water Treatment Plant at the Charnock Well Field. The Metropolitan Water
District (MWD) of Southern California delivers imported water from the Colorado River and
State Water Project to the City. Table 9 summarizes the net increase in water demand that is
anticipated from the proposed project. As previously stated, this demand would not be
significant increase compared to the projected 2020 water demand for the City of 15,806
acre feet per year. Therefore, project water demand could be accommodated by the
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 70
City’s existing and future water supply. Therefore, impacts to the City’s water supply would
be less than significant.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. See Response XX(b).
f) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would
result in the need for solid waste disposal at the County’s landfills.
In particular, construction of the proposed project would generate construction and
demolition (C&D) waste such as asphalt, concrete, glass, and wood. Section 8.108.010
Subpart C of the SMMC requires that demolition and/or construction projects greater than
$50,000 or 1000 square feet divert at least 70 percent of C&D material from landfills. As the
project would involve the construction of new structures greater than 1,000 square feet, the
proposed project would be subject to this diversion requirement. Therefore, via compliance
with this ordinance, the project’s C&D waste disposal need would be reduced by at least 70
percent. As such, project construction impacts on landfill capacity would be less than
significant.
Municipal waste generated in the City is disposed of at several in-County and out of County
landfills. In addition, a portion of the wastes are transformed at Waste to Energy facilities.
Table 12 shows the landfills and wastes to energy facilities that served the City in 2011. Based
on information from the most recent Los Angeles County Countywide Integrated Waste
Management Plan Annual Report, the in-County municipal landfills serving the City has a
remaining capacity of 115.37 million tons as of January 2010 and a maximum daily capacity
of 33,000 tons.
TABLE 12
SOLID WASTE FACILITIES SERVING CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Remaining
Capacity (tons)
SWFP Daily
Capacity (tons)
City Disposal 2009
(tons)
In County Class III Landfills
Chiquita Canyon
Landfill 7,323,000 6,000 6,722
Lancaster Landfill 13,070,000 1,700 826
Puente Hills Landfill 14,351,000 13,200 73,243
Sunshine Canyon
Landfill 80,627,000 12,100 2,096
Subtotal 115,371,000 33,000 82,887
In County Inert Landfills
Azusa Land
Reclamation 46,425,000 6,500 470
Peck Road Gravel
Pit 9,374,000 1,210 0
Subtotal 55,799,000 7,710 470
In County Waste to Energy Facilities
Commerce Refuse
To Energy 466,640,000 1,000 15,616
Southeast
Resource
Recovery 1,602,450,000 2,240 2,209
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 71
Subtotal 2,069,090,000 3,240 17,825
Out of County Landfills
Simi Landfill and
Recycling Center 16,000,000 3,500 164
El Sobrante 132,000,000 16,054 437
Bakersfield Metro
1
Frank Bowerman 37,000,000 11,500 10
Olinda Alpha 14,000,000 8,000 108
Subtotal 199,000,000 39,054 720
Total Capacity/
Disposal 2,240,260,000 43,950 84,077
Total Transformed 470
Source: Los Angeles County Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan 2009 Annual
Report; California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Disposal
Reporting System – Jurisdiction Disposal By Facility for Santa Monica 2009
As shown in Table 14, operation of the proposed project would generate approximately a
net increase of 12.65 tons of solid waste per year or 0.03 tons per day. Daily solid waste
generated by the project would, therefore, account for less than 0.01 percent of the
permitted daily disposal of the in-County landfills serving the City. Furthermore, it should be
noted that this figure does not account for any waste diversion programs that would be
implemented by the project, such as recycling programs for cardboard boxes, paper,
aluminum cans, and bottles, in accordance with the City’s Source Reduction Recycling
Element. Since the project would not represent a substantial portion of the daily permitted
tonnage for in-County landfills serving the City, it is anticipated that the landfills would have
sufficient capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. As such,
operational impacts on landfill capacity would be less than significant.
TABLE 14 -
PROJECT SOLID WASTE GENERATION
Tons Per Year
Proposed
Fire Station No. 1 (25 ksf)23.25
Existing
Fire Station No. 1 (11.4 ksf)10.60
Net Increase 12.65
*Solid waste generation from the CALEEMOD model
based on CalRecycle generation factors.
g) No Impact. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) was passed
by the State legislature for the purpose of establishing an integrated waste management
hierarchy consisting of (in order of priority): source reduction, recycling and composting, and
environmentally safe transformation and land disposal. The Act requires each city, county,
and regional agency, if any, to develop a source reduction and recycling element of an
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 72
integrated waste management plan containing specified components. Those entities are
required to divert, from disposal or transformation, 50% of the solid waste through source
reduction, recycling, and composting.
In accordance with AB939, the City prepared the Source Reduction and Recycling Element,
which outlines efforts to reduce solid waste. Furthermore, the City has adopted the
Sustainable City Plan, which includes a number of goals to reduce solid waste disposal.
Specifically, solid waste generation is not to exceed 2000 generation levels by 2010, and
diversion rate of 70 percent of the total by 2010. The City is updating the Sustainable City
Plan to create a Zero Waste Strategic Plan, which would set a zero waste goal (or 90 percent
diversion) for 2030.
Section 8.108.010 Subpart C of the SMMC (Construction and Demolition Ordinance) requires
that demolition and/or construction projects costing $50,000 or more, projects 1000 square
feet or more, or all demolition only projects divert at least 70 percent of C&D material from
landfills. Applicants for construction or demolition permits involving these covered projects
shall complete and submit a waste management plan (WMP), on a WMP form approved by
the City for this purpose, as part of the application packet for the construction or demolition
permit.
The proposed project would not conflict with the goals of AB939, the Source Reduction and
Recycling Element, the City’s Sustainable City Plan, or the SMMC. During project
construction, the City would comply with Section 8.108.010 Subpart C of the SMMC to divert
at least 70 percent of C&D material from landfills.24 In accordance with the SMMC, a Waste
Management Plan would be prepared prior to commencement of construction work.
Additionally, throughout the operational life of the project, recyclable containers/ bins would
be provided on-site to ensure that project-generated solid waste would be recycled or
reused to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with
federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. No impacts would
occur.
24 Inert wastes are excluded from calculating compliance with this requirement. Inert wastes are defined as non-liquid
solid resources including, but not limited to, soil and concrete, that do not contain hazardous waste or soluble pollutants
and does not contain significant quantities of decomposable solid resources.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 73
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wild-life
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of rare or endangered
plants or animals, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? "Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.
c) Does the project have environmental effects
that will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) No Impact. As discussed in Responses IV(a) through IV(f) above, the project site is located
within a highly urbanized area and is completely developed. No biological species or
habitat for biological species exists on-site or within the surrounding vicinity. In addition, no
Habitat Conservation Plan, Community Conservation Plan, or other approved habitat
conservation plans apply to the project site. As such, the proposed project would not have
the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal. Furthermore, as discussed in Responses V(a) through V(d) above, with
implementation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would not have the
potential to eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or
prehistory as no historical resources exist on-site. Therefore, the proposed project would not
result in significant environmental impacts that have the potential to degrade the quality
of environment. No impacts would occur.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative impacts may occur when the proposed project
in conjunction with one or more related projects would result an impact that is greater
than what would occur with the development of only the proposed project.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 74
With regard to cumulative effects for the issues of agricultural, biological, and mineral
resources, the project site is located in an urbanized area and therefore, other
developments occurring in the area of the project would largely occur on previously
disturbed land and are not anticipated to have an impact. Thus, no cumulative impact to
these resources would occur. Impacts related to archaeological resources,
paleontological resources, geology/soils, and hazards and hazardous materials are
generally confined to a specific site and do not affect off-site areas.
However, the City’s approved and pending projects in the vicinity combined with the
proposed project may result in cumulative effects in other environmental issue areas due
to the aggregate development within an already urbanized area. However, as the
following analysis indicates, Project-related impacts that require mitigation measures to
reduce the level of significance would not result in cumulative impacts when combined
with cumulative growth.
Aesthetics - Project impacts to aesthetics resources have the potential to be cumulatively
considerable if project development in conjunction with related project development
were to alter existing views and the visual character of nearby aesthetic resources.
However, as with the proposed project, related projects would be reviewed on a case-by-
case basis by the City to comply with the LUCE and if appropriate, the SMMC regarding,
building heights, setbacks, massing and lighting. In addition, projects would be required to
undergo site-specific review by the Architectural Review Board regarding building density,
design, and light and glare effects. Therefore, it can be expected that no significant
impacts with regard to aesthetic resources would occur. Thus, cumulative impacts would
be less than significant.
Air Quality - The SCAQMD evaluates a project’s cumulative impacts in terms of its
relationship with regional emissions. Based on the SCAQMD’s recommended
methodology, the proposed project would have a significant cumulative impact on air
quality if the daily Project vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to daily county-wide VMT ratio
exceeds the ratio of daily Project employees to daily county-wide employees. As discussed
in Response III(c), the proposed project would have no significant cumulative air quality
impacts.
Hydrology and Water Quality - Additionally, related projects could potentially result in an
increase in surface water runoff and contribute point and non-point source pollutants to
the Pacific Ocean. However, related projects would be subject to the City’s Urban
Stormwater Ordinance requirements for both construction and operation, including
development of SWPPPs for construction projects greater than one acre, and SUSMPs, as
well as mandatory implementation of BMPs pertaining to hydrology and surface water
quality. Thus, cumulative impacts related to hydrology/water quality would be less than
significant.
Land Use - As with the proposed project, related projects would be reviewed on a case-
by-case basis to ensure consistency with existing land use policies and regulations. Where
inconsistencies occur, it is anticipated that discretionary review (e.g., Development
Agreement) would be undertaken to ensure that land use impacts would be less than
significant. Thus, cumulative land use impacts would be less than significant.
Noise - The proposed project would not generate a significant increase in ambient noise
levels. As previously stated, on-site noise sources of the proposed project would primarily
be associated with the fire truck sirens and operation of mechanical equipment. However,
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 75
such noises already occur at the existing fire station which is located approximately 0.1
mile south of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to noise levels
would not be considered cumulatively considerable.
Population/Housing – The proposed project would develop a new replacement Fire Station
No. 1 building to serve the existing and forecast City population. As the proposed project
would not include the development of new residential units, the proposed project would
not have any population and housing impacts and thus would not contribute to a
cumulative impact with regard to population and housing.
Public Services - Development of the proposed project in conjunction with the related
projects would not cumulatively increase the demand for public services. As stated
previously, the proposed project consists of the acquisition of property and construction of
a new replacement Fire Station No. 1 to serve existing and forecasted population in the
City. The new Fire Station No. 1 building would be a replacement for the existing 11,362
square foot Fire Station No. 1 located at 1444 7th Street. The proposed project would not
result in a cumulatively considerable increase in the demand for public services.
Traffic – As indicated in Section XIX Transportation/Traffic, the proposed project would result
in a net increase of 10 daily inbound and outbound vehicle trips that would occur outside
of the peak hours. Therefore, the proposed project’s incremental traffic impact would not
be cumulatively considerable.
Wastewater, Stormwater, and Water Utilities - Development of the proposed project in
conjunction with the related projects would cumulatively increase wastewater generation,
water demand, and solid waste disposal needs. Thus, there is potential for a cumulative
significant impact on these utilities services and associated infrastructure. However, each
related project would be subject to discretionary review by the Santa Monica Department
of Public Works and the Water Department to ensure that adequate infrastructure exists. As
the service providers conduct ongoing evaluations to ensure that facilities are adequate
to serve the forecasted growth of the City, cumulative impacts on wastewater,
stormwater, and water utilities are concluded to be less than significant.
Solid Waste - The proposed project in conjunction with related projects would increase the
need for solid waste disposal during their respective construction periods as well as on an
on-going basis during operations. Thus, there is potential for a cumulative significant
impact on solid waste. However, since unclassified landfills in the County do not generally
have capacity concerns, inert landfills serving the related projects would have sufficient
capacity to accommodate construction waste disposal needs. With regard to operational
waste disposal needs, each related project would be subject to discretionary review to
ensure that appropriate mitigation measures (e.g., implementation of recycling programs,
provision of recycling containers, etc) would be implemented to reduce solid waste
impacts. Furthermore, the County of Los Angeles conducts ongoing evaluations. In
addressing solid waste, the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County prepares an
annual report (the County Integrated Waste Management Plan) that analyzes future
disposal needs and ensures that landfill capacity is adequate to serve the forecasted
disposal needs of the region over the next 15 year planning horizon. With each annual
report, the planning horizon is extended by one year, thereby providing sufficient lead time
for the County to address any future shortfalls in landfill capacity. Therefore,
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 76
c) Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the analysis presented above, implementation of the
aforementioned mitigation measures would reduce environmental impacts such that no
substantial adverse effects on humans would occur.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 77
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Fire Station
No. 1 Land Exchange and Construction project, proposed in the City of Santa Monica,
California. Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a) requires that a Lead Agency adopt an
MMRP prior to approving a project in order to mitigate or avoid significant impacts that have
been identified in a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that
the required mitigation measures identified in the MND are implemented as part of the overall
project implementation.
The following table summarizes the mitigation measures for each issue area identified in the MND
for Fire Station No. 1. The table identifies each mitigation measure; the action required for the
measure to be implemented; the time at which the monitoring is to occur; the monitoring
frequency; and the agency or party responsible for ensuring that the monitoring is performed. In
addition, the table includes columns for compliance verification. These columns will be filled out
by the monitoring agency or party and would document monitoring compliance. Where an
impact was identified to be less than significant, no mitigation measures were required.
This MMRP will be used by City staff or the City’s consultant to determine compliance with permit
conditions. Violations of these conditions may cause the City to revoke the operating permit.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 78
Mitigation Measure Enforcement
Agency
Monitoring
Agency
Monitoring Phase
and Frequency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Compliance
Check
BIO-1 Tree Protection Zone. Prior to commencement
of construction activities and/or the removal or
planting of any tree species within the public realm,
the SMFD shall coordinate with the Santa Monica
Public Landscape Division to obtain the proper tree
permits and delineate any applicable Tree Protection
Zone areas, in compliance with the Santa Monica
Tree Code and the Santa Monica Urban Forest Master
Plan.
BIO-2 Tree Relocation and Removal Plan. If public
trees are to be removed or relocated, a Tree
Relocation and Removal Plan shall be prepared that
clearly identifies the public trees to be impacted, the
reasons for the proposed removals or relocations, and
shall contain the following information:
• The appraised value of the tree in relation to
its relocation cost
• Existing utilities and other elements of the
city’s infrastructure
• The suitability of the tree for relocation, i.e.,
tree age, health, root and canopy structure
• The mature size of the tree
• Impact the relocated tree will have on the
new site
• Long-term and short-term maintenance and
irrigation requirements
• Chances of surviving relocation
Santa Monica
Public Landscape
Division
Santa Monica
Public
Landscape
Division
Prior to issuance of
excavation and/or
grading permits,
whichever comes
first; during site
preparation
Construction
plan review/
site inspection;
verification of
implementation
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 79
Mitigation Measure Enforcement
Agency
Monitoring
Agency
Monitoring Phase
and Frequency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Compliance
Check
• Public input obtained as part of the project’s
community design process
• Environmental benefits of the tree
• Aesthetic and/or cultural value
The final Tree Relocation and Removal Plan shall be
approved by the City Council as part of their
approval of final project design.
CUL-1 If archaeological materials are discovered
during project grading and excavation activities, all
work within a 100-meter radius shall be temporarily
ceased. The materials shall be treated in accordance
with Federal, State, and local guidelines, including
those set forth in California Public Resources Code
Section 21083.2. In addition, if it is determined that an
archaeological site is a historical resource, the
provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources
Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 would be
implemented.
City of Santa
Monica Planning
and Community
Development
Department
On-site
contractor
Periodically during
construction
grading
Field inspection
signoff
CUL-2 If paleontological materials are discovered
during project grading and excavation activities, all
work within a 100-meter radius shall be temporarily
ceased. A qualified paleontologist shall be secured
by contacting the Los Angeles County Natural History
Museum to assess the resources and evaluate the
impact. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a
report of the findings and a copy of the report shall be
submitted to the Los Angeles County Natural History
Museum.
City of Santa
Monica Planning
and Community
Development
Department
On-site
contractor
Periodically during
construction
grading
Field inspection
signoff
GEO-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City
shall contract with a California-licensed Civil Engineer
City of Santa
Monica Building
City of Santa
Monica Building
Once prior to
issuance of
Approval of
Geotechnical
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 80
Mitigation Measure Enforcement
Agency
Monitoring
Agency
Monitoring Phase
and Frequency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Compliance
Check
(Geotechnical) to prepare and submit to the Santa
Monica Building and Safety Department a site specific
design-level geotechnical report addressing seismic
and soils hazards (including but not limited to unstable
soils, expansive soils, etc.) for the proposed project.
The report shall be performed in accordance with the
most current Santa Monica Guidelines for
Geotechnical Reports. The requirements and
recommendations, as established in the Geotechnical
Report project shall be implemented in the design of
the project, including but not limited to measures
associated with grading (site preparation,
compaction, materials, utility trench backfill,
shrinkage), foundation design (foundation
reinforcement, lateral design, settlement), retaining
wall design (including waterproofing, drainage, and
backfill), temporary excavations, shoring, slab-on-
grade construction, overall site drainage, stormwater
disposal, design review, and construction monitoring).
Permits shall not be issued for grading or construction
until the Santa Monica Building and Safety
Department has reviewed and approved project
plans.
and Safety
Division
and Safety
Division
grading permit
and Periodically
during
construction
Report and
field inspection
signoff
CON 1 Construction Impact Mitigation Plan. The
applicant shall prepare, implement, and maintain a
Construction Impact Mitigation Plan which shall be
designed to:
o Prevent traffic impacts on the surrounding
roadway network.
o Minimize parking impacts both to public
parking and access to private parking to the greatest
extent practicable.
o Ensure safety for both those constructing the
City of Santa
Monica Public
Works
Department,
Planning and
Community
Development
Department, Fire
Department, and
Police
Department
City of Santa
Monica Public
Works
Department,
Planning and
Community
Development
Department,
Fire
Department,
and Police
Department
Once Prior to
Construction and
Throughout
Construction
Preparation of
a Construction
Impact
Mitigation Plan
and
appropriate
signoff by the
City
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 81
Mitigation Measure Enforcement
Agency
Monitoring
Agency
Monitoring Phase
and Frequency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Compliance
Check
project and the surrounding community.
o Prevent truck traffic through residential
neighborhoods by establishing truck routes that utilize
non-residential streets.
The Construction Impact Mitigation Plan shall be
subject to review and approval by the following City
departments: Public Works Department, Fire, Planning
and Community Development and Police to ensure
that the Plan has been designed in accordance with
this mitigation measure. This review shall occur prior to
building permit issuance for the project. It shall at a
minimum, include the following:
Ongoing requirements throughout the duration of
construction:
o A detailed traffic control plan for work zones
shall be maintained which includes, at a minimum,
accurate existing and proposed: parking and travel
lane configurations; warning, regulatory, guide and
directional signage; and area sidewalks, bicycle lanes
and parking lanes. The plan shall include specific
information regarding the project’s construction
activities that may disrupt normal pedestrian and
traffic flow and the measures to address these
disruptions. Such plans must be reviewed and
approved by the Transportation Management Division
prior to building permit issuance and implemented in
accordance with this approval.
o Work within the public right-of-way shall be
performed between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM , including
dirt and demolition material hauling and construction
material delivery. Work within the public right-of-way
outside of these hours shall only be allowed after the
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 82
Mitigation Measure Enforcement
Agency
Monitoring
Agency
Monitoring Phase
and Frequency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Compliance
Check
issuance of an after-hours construction permit.
o Streets and equipment should be cleaned in
accordance with Santa Monica’s established
Environmental and Public Works Management
(EPWM) requirements.
o Trucks shall only travel on a City approved
construction route. Truck queuing/staging shall not be
allowed on Santa Monica Streets. Limited queuing
may occur on the construction site itself.
o Materials and equipment should be minimally
visible to the public; the preferred location for
materials is to be on-site, with a minimum amount of
materials within a work area in the public right-of-way,
subject to a current Use of Public Property permit.
o Any requests for work before or after normal
construction hours within the public right-of-way shall
be subject to review and approval through the After
Hours Permit process administered by the Building and
Safety Division.
Fire Station No. 1 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 83
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT IS/MND
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Neighborhood Impact Statement Checklist
(MND) for the Fire Station No. 1 Project was circulated for review and comment for a 30-day
public review period that began on August 8, 2012, and concluded on September 8, 2012. The
Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the MND was posted with the Los Angeles County Clerk and the
State Clearinghouse, mailed to all owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project site
boundaries, made available on the City’s website, distributed to all relevant public agencies,
and mailed to all City neighborhood groups. Three comment letters were received during the
public review period:
• Native American Heritage Commission
• California Department of Transportation
• Tistaert Dental
The complete text of the comments and the City’s response to those comments are presented
in this section, with written comments reproduced in their entirety, and the responses to those
comments presented thereafter. CEQA does not require written responses to comments
received on an MND; however, the City has reviewed the comments received and prepared
these responses to provide full information to the decision-makers and the public
Fire Station No. 1 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 84
Comment 1-1
Fire Station No. 1 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 85
Comment 1-1
(cont’d)
Fire Station No. 1 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 86
Comment 1-1
(cont’d)
Fire Station No. 1 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 87
Fire Station No. 1 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 88
Response 1-1
As discussed in the Cultural Resources section of the MND prepared for the proposed project,
the project site is located within a highly urbanized area and has been developed for a number
of years. Therefore, any archaeological resources on the site would likely have already been
uncovered. Nonetheless, since the proposed project would require excavation for the
subterranean parking, there is a potential to uncover archaeological resources that were never
previously discovered. Mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce potential impacts
on archaeological and paleontological resources to less than significant. Any discovery of
human remains would be treated in accordance with federal, State and local guidelines for
disclosure, recovery, preservation, and curation, as appropriate. Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Section 15064.5 of the California
Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) mandate procedures to be followed, including that
construction or excavation be stopped in the event of an accidental discovery of any human
remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery until the County coroner or medical
examiner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American.
Fire Station No. 1 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 89
Comment 2-1
Fire Station No. 1 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 90
Response 2-1
A transportation permit for the use of oversized-transport vehicles on State highways Department
will be requested of Caltrans, if necessary. The comment recommending that large size truck
trips be limited to off-peak periods is noted for the record and will be forwarded to decision-
makers for review and consideration.
Fire Station No. 1 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 91
Comment 3-1
Comment 3-2
Fire Station No. 1 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 92
Comment 3-4
Comment 3-3
Fire Station No. 1 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 93
Comment 3-5
Fire Station No. 1 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 94
Response 3-1
The commenter provides anectodal evidence regarding past fire incidents and risks and states
that today, there are greater risks of “catastrophic events”. As this comment is not related to the
environmental analysis provided in the MND, no further response is provided. However, this
comment is noted and will be forwarded to and considered by decision-makers prior to project
approval.
Response 3-2
The commenter states that the Santa Monica Fire Department has not kept up with the pace of
growth despite its high rating and further comments that the new proposed site of the fire station
would still be inadequate.
The new Fire Station No. 1 building would be approximately 25,000 square feet and would be a
replacement for the existing 11,362 square foot Fire Station No. 1 located at 1444 7th Street. The
existing Fire Station No. 1 was built in 1955 and has surpassed its expected useful life span as a
“Critical Facility.” A City-commissioned structural evaluation has indicated that the existing
facility is in need of seismic retrofitting, facility upgrades and building improvements required to
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Fire Station No. 1 has a service area that covers Downtown Santa Monica and extends from
Olympic Boulevard to the south, Ocean Avenue to the west, Adelaide Drive to the north, and
11th Street to the east. A full range of options, including rebuilding the existing station at its
current location (1444 7th Street), acquiring adjacent land to expand the station footprint, and
building a new station elsewhere in the District. In the course of this investigation, many of the
options were eliminated due to adverse impacts on emergency response times, overall
operational inefficiencies, and functional infeasibility.
In 2010, the Fire Department refined its criteria, focusing the site search on the area bounded by
Santa Monica Boulevard to the south, Washington Avenue to the north, 5th Court to the west,
and 7th Court to the east. It was determined that the new fire station would require a site of at
least 22,500 square feet with 150 feet of street frontage. This size would enable the Fire
Department to keep a minimum of five apparatus bays on site, the minimum requirement for
fifty-year growth. A new fire station on a larger site is necessary to support the Fire Department’s
operating and service needs.
Response 3-3
The commenter states that the existing fire station should remain as is and serve as a satellite
facility and a new main fire station should be built at 14th and Santa Monica Boulevard.
The current fire station location is functionally obsolete and retrofitting the existing facility would
not meet current and future service demands for a fire station that serves Downtown and the
northwestern portion of Santa Monica. A fire station on a larger site located within the station's
Fire Station No. 1 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Comments on the Public Review Draft IS/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
September 2012
Page 95
core response area is necessary. Based on this criterion, the Fire Department identified the area
bounded by Santa Monica Boulevard to the south, Washington Avenue to the north, 5th Court
to the west, and 7th Court to the east as the optimal location for the new fire station. A fire
station located at 14th and Santa Monica Boulevard would be outside of this area.
Response 3-4
The commenter states that the proposed site of the new fire station is inadequate given the
amount of traffic on 7th Street. As stated in the MND, the proposed site of the new fire station is
located approximately 530 feet north of the existing fire station, which is also located on 7th
Street. As in current conditions, fire and emergency vehicles responding to incidents would be
equipped with sirens and alarms to facilitate emergency response along traveled streets.
However, this comment is noted and will be forwarded to and considered by decision-makers
prior to project approval.
Response 1-5
The commenter repeats the previous comments regarding traffic surrounding the proposed site
of the new fire station and proposes that the project be located at an alternate site. The
commenter also provides attachment of photos showing the project site. Please see Responses
3-3 and 3-4.
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
August 2012
Page 77 of 87
APPENDIX A
1 of 22
Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
Vehicle Trips - assumes single occupancy vehicles per SMFD staff personnel; 100% all fire personnel commute trips; no delivery trips
Land Use - 25,000 sf fire station with net increase of 10 staff
Project Characteristics -
Grading - 25 feet in depth of excavation * 0.52 acres = 21000 cubic yards of export for subterranean parking
Construction Phase - demolition: 2 months; site preparation/grading: 4 months; building construction 18 months
South Coast Air Basin, Summer
Fire Statino No. 1
1.1 Land Usage
Government Office Building 25 1000sqft
Land Uses Size Metric
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
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Date: 7/6/2012CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1
2 of 22
Energy Mitigation -
Area Mitigation -
2.0 Emissions Summary
2014 34.51 15.67 11.52 0.02 0.23 1.11 1.35 0.00 1.11 1.11 0.00 2,138.65 0.00 0.21 0.00 2,142.99
2013 3.67 30.46 19.09 0.04 61.65 1.76 63.41 0.22 1.70 1.92 0.00 4,151.66 0.00 0.26 0.00 4,157.20
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
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
Mitigated Construction
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
2014 34.51 15.67 11.52 0.02 0.23 1.11 1.35 0.00 1.11 1.11 0.00 2,138.65 0.00 0.21 0.00 2,142.99
2013 3.67 30.46 19.09 0.04 62.08 1.76 63.84 0.45 1.70 2.15 0.00 4,151.66 0.00 0.26 0.00 4,157.20
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
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
Unmitigated Construction
3 of 22
Energy 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.35 0.00 0.00 66.75
Mobile 0.14 0.33 1.41 0.00 0.29 0.02 0.30 0.00 0.01 0.02 262.29 0.01 262.50
Area 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.80 0.39 1.46 0.00 0.29 0.02 0.30 0.00 0.01 0.02 328.64 0.01 0.00 329.25
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
Mitigated Operational
2.2 Overall Operational
Energy 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.28 0.00 0.00 77.75
Mobile 0.14 0.33 1.41 0.00 0.29 0.02 0.30 0.00 0.01 0.02 262.29 0.01 262.50
Area 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.80 0.39 1.46 0.00 0.29 0.02 0.30 0.00 0.01 0.02 339.57 0.01 0.00 340.25
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
Unmitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
4 of 22
3.2 Demolition - 2013
Off-Road 2.00 13.91 9.51 0.02 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1,476.12 0.18 1,479.88
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 2.00 13.91 9.51 0.02 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 1.04 1.04 1,476.12 0.18 1,479.88
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
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.64 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.01 107.26 0.01 107.40
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.06 0.06 0.64 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.01 107.26 0.01 107.40
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
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
5 of 22
3.2 Demolition - 2013
Off-Road 2.00 13.91 9.51 0.02 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 0.00 1,476.12 0.18 1,479.88
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 2.00 13.91 9.51 0.02 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 1,476.12 0.18 1,479.88
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
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.64 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.01 107.26 0.01 107.40
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.06 0.06 0.64 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.01 107.26 0.01 107.40
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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
6 of 22
3.3 Site Preparation - 2013
Off-Road 1.72 12.58 8.68 0.01 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 1,402.64 0.15 1,405.88
Fugitive Dust 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1.72 12.58 8.68 0.01 0.11 0.81 0.92 0.00 0.81 0.81 1,402.64 0.15 1,405.88
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
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.63 0.00 53.70
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.03 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.63 0.00 53.70
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
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
7 of 22
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.63 0.00 53.70
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.03 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.63 0.00 53.70
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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2013
Off-Road 1.72 12.58 8.68 0.01 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.00 1,402.64 0.15 1,405.88
Fugitive Dust 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1.72 12.58 8.68 0.01 0.05 0.81 0.86 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 1,402.64 0.15 1,405.88
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
Mitigated Construction On-Site
8 of 22
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.64 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.01 107.26 0.01 107.40
Hauling 1.61 16.50 8.94 0.02 61.16 0.71 61.88 0.03 0.66 0.68 2,568.27 0.08 2,569.92
Total 1.67 16.56 9.58 0.02 61.29 0.71 62.01 0.03 0.66 0.69 2,675.53 0.09 2,677.32
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
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2013
Off-Road 2.00 13.91 9.51 0.02 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1,476.12 0.18 1,479.88
Fugitive Dust 0.79 0.00 0.79 0.42 0.00 0.42 0.00
Total 2.00 13.91 9.51 0.02 0.79 1.04 1.83 0.42 1.04 1.46 1,476.12 0.18 1,479.88
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
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
9 of 22
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.64 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.01 107.26 0.01 107.40
Hauling 1.61 16.50 8.94 0.02 61.16 0.71 61.88 0.03 0.66 0.68 2,568.27 0.08 2,569.92
Total 1.67 16.56 9.58 0.02 61.29 0.71 62.01 0.03 0.66 0.69 2,675.53 0.09 2,677.32
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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2013
Off-Road 2.00 13.91 9.51 0.02 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 0.00 1,476.12 0.18 1,479.88
Fugitive Dust 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.00
Total 2.00 13.91 9.51 0.02 0.35 1.04 1.39 0.19 1.04 1.23 0.00 1,476.12 0.18 1,479.88
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
Mitigated Construction On-Site
10 of 22
Vendor 0.06 0.65 0.40 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.02 108.67 0.00 108.73
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.52 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 85.81 0.00 85.92
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.10 0.69 0.92 0.00 0.14 0.02 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.02 194.48 0.00 194.65
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
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2013
Off-Road 2.20 16.33 10.77 0.02 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1,945.40 0.20 1,949.52
Total 2.20 16.33 10.77 0.02 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1,945.40 0.20 1,949.52
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
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
11 of 22
Vendor 0.06 0.65 0.40 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.02 108.67 0.00 108.73
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.52 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 85.81 0.00 85.92
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.10 0.69 0.92 0.00 0.14 0.02 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.02 194.48 0.00 194.65
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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2013
Off-Road 2.20 16.33 10.77 0.02 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 0.00 1,945.40 0.20 1,949.52
Total 2.20 16.33 10.77 0.02 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 0.00 1,945.40 0.20 1,949.52
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
Mitigated Construction On-Site
12 of 22
Vendor 0.05 0.60 0.36 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.02 108.94 0.00 108.99
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 84.32 0.00 84.42
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.09 0.64 0.84 0.00 0.14 0.02 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.02 193.26 0.00 193.41
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
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2014
Off-Road 2.02 15.03 10.68 0.02 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1,945.40 0.18 1,949.18
Total 2.02 15.03 10.68 0.02 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 1,945.40 0.18 1,949.18
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
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
13 of 22
Vendor 0.05 0.60 0.36 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.02 108.94 0.00 108.99
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 84.32 0.00 84.42
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.09 0.64 0.84 0.00 0.14 0.02 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.02 193.26 0.00 193.41
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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2014
Off-Road 2.02 15.03 10.68 0.02 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.00 1,945.40 0.18 1,949.18
Total 2.02 15.03 10.68 0.02 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.00 1,945.40 0.18 1,949.18
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
Mitigated Construction On-Site
14 of 22
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.09 0.09 1.07 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.01 189.72 0.01 189.94
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.09 0.09 1.07 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.01 189.72 0.01 189.94
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
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2014
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 2.18 13.77 9.69 0.02 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1,408.52 0.20 1,412.63
Total 2.18 13.77 9.69 0.02 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1,408.52 0.20 1,412.63
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
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
15 of 22
3.6 Paving - 2014
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 2.18 13.77 9.69 0.02 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.00 1,408.52 0.20 1,412.63
Total 2.18 13.77 9.69 0.02 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.00 1,408.52 0.20 1,412.63
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
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.09 0.09 1.07 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.01 189.72 0.01 189.94
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.09 0.09 1.07 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.01 189.72 0.01 189.94
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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
16 of 22
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2014
Off-Road 0.45 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 281.19 0.04 282.03
Archit. Coating 34.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 34.50 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 281.19 0.04 282.03
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
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.08 0.00 21.10
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.08 0.00 21.10
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
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
17 of 22
4.0 Mobile Detail
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.08 0.00 21.10
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.08 0.00 21.10
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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2014
Off-Road 0.45 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.00 281.19 0.04 282.03
Archit. Coating 34.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 34.50 2.77 1.92 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.00 281.19 0.04 282.03
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
Mitigated Construction On-Site
18 of 22
Unmitigated 0.14 0.33 1.41 0.00 0.29 0.02 0.30 0.00 0.01 0.02 262.29 0.01 262.50
Mitigated 0.14 0.33 1.41 0.00 0.29 0.02 0.30 0.00 0.01 0.02 262.29 0.01 262.50
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
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
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Government Office Building 25.00 25.00 25.00 86,450 86,450
Total 25.00 25.00 25.00 86,450 86,450
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Government Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 100.00 0.00 0.00
Miles Trip %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW
5.0 Energy Detail
19 of 22
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Government Office
Building
656.849 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.28 0.00 0.00 77.75
Total 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.28 0.00 0.00 77.75
NaturalGas Use 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
Land Use kBTU lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.01 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.28 0.00 0.00 77.75
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.01 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.35 0.00 0.00 66.75
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
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
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Exceed Title 24
20 of 22
No Hearths Installed
Use Electric Leafblower
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Government Office
Building
0.563973 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.35 0.00 0.00 66.75
Total 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.35 0.00 0.00 66.75
NaturalGas Use 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
Land Use kBTU lb/day lb/day
Mitigated
21 of 22
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Consumer
Products
0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Architectural
Coating
0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
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
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Unmitigated
Unmitigated 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
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
22 of 22
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
9.0 Vegetation
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Consumer
Products
0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Architectural
Coating
0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
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
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Mitigated
1 of 27
Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
Vehicle Trips - assumes single occupancy vehicles per SMFD staff personnel; 100% all fire personnel commute trips; no delivery trips
Land Use - 25,000 sf fire station with net increase of 10 staff
Project Characteristics -
Grading - 25 feet in depth of excavation * 0.52 acres = 21000 cubic yards of export for subterranean parking
Construction Phase - demolition: 2 months; site preparation/grading: 4 months; building construction 18 months
South Coast Air Basin, Annual
Fire Statino No. 1
1.1 Land Usage
Government Office Building 25 1000sqft
Land Uses Size Metric
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
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Date: 7/6/2012CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1
2 of 27
Energy Mitigation -
Area Mitigation -
2.0 Emissions Summary
2014 0.55 1.91 1.41 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.13 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 235.20 235.20 0.02 0.00 235.64
2013 0.35 2.73 1.82 0.00 2.37 0.17 2.53 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.00 321.78 321.78 0.03 0.00 322.32
Total 0.90 4.64 3.23 0.00 2.39 0.29 2.66 0.01 0.28 0.29 0.00 556.98 556.98 0.05 0.00 557.96
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
Mitigated Construction
2.1 Overall Construction
2014 0.55 1.91 1.41 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.13 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 235.20 235.20 0.02 0.00 235.64
2013 0.35 2.73 1.82 0.00 2.38 0.17 2.55 0.02 0.16 0.18 0.00 321.78 321.78 0.03 0.00 322.32
Total 0.90 4.64 3.23 0.00 2.40 0.29 2.68 0.02 0.28 0.30 0.00 556.98 556.98 0.05 0.00 557.96
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
Unmitigated Construction
3 of 27
2.2 Overall Operational
Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.72 0.00 4.72 0.28 0.00 10.58
Mobile 0.02 0.06 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.22 41.22 0.00 0.00 41.25
Area 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 126.38 126.38 0.01 0.00 127.17
Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.70 28.70 0.15 0.00 33.23
Total 0.14 0.07 0.26 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.72 196.30 201.02 0.44 0.00 212.23
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
Unmitigated Operational
4 of 27
2.2 Overall Operational
Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.72 0.00 4.72 0.28 0.00 10.58
Mobile 0.02 0.06 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.22 41.22 0.00 0.00 41.25
Area 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 118.29 118.29 0.01 0.00 119.03
Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.70 28.70 0.15 0.00 33.23
Total 0.14 0.07 0.26 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.72 188.21 192.93 0.44 0.00 204.09
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
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
5 of 27
3.2 Demolition - 2013
Off-Road 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 7.36 7.36 0.00 0.00 7.38
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 7.36 7.36 0.00 0.00 7.38
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
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50
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
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
6 of 27
3.2 Demolition - 2013
Off-Road 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 7.36 7.36 0.00 0.00 7.38
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 7.36 7.36 0.00 0.00 7.38
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
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50
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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
7 of 27
3.3 Site Preparation - 2013
Off-Road 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.18 3.18 0.00 0.00 3.19
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.18 3.18 0.00 0.00 3.19
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
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.11
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.11
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
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
8 of 27
3.3 Site Preparation - 2013
Off-Road 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.18 3.18 0.00 0.00 3.19
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.18 3.18 0.00 0.00 3.19
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
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.11
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.11
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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
9 of 27
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.89 3.89 0.00 0.00 3.90
Hauling 0.07 0.70 0.40 0.00 2.33 0.03 2.37 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 98.82 98.82 0.00 0.00 98.89
Total 0.07 0.70 0.43 0.00 2.34 0.03 2.38 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 102.71 102.71 0.00 0.00 102.79
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
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2013
Off-Road 0.09 0.59 0.40 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 56.90 56.90 0.01 0.00 57.04
Fugitive Dust 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.09 0.59 0.40 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.00 56.90 56.90 0.01 0.00 57.04
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
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
10 of 27
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.89 3.89 0.00 0.00 3.90
Hauling 0.07 0.70 0.40 0.00 2.33 0.03 2.37 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 98.82 98.82 0.00 0.00 98.89
Total 0.07 0.70 0.43 0.00 2.34 0.03 2.38 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 102.71 102.71 0.00 0.00 102.79
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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2013
Off-Road 0.09 0.59 0.40 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 56.90 56.90 0.01 0.00 57.04
Fugitive Dust 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.09 0.59 0.40 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 56.90 56.90 0.01 0.00 57.04
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
Mitigated Construction On-Site
11 of 27
Vendor 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.67 7.67 0.00 0.00 7.67
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.72 5.72 0.00 0.00 5.73
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.39 13.39 0.00 0.00 13.40
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
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2013
Off-Road 0.17 1.27 0.84 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 137.62 137.62 0.01 0.00 137.91
Total 0.17 1.27 0.84 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 137.62 137.62 0.01 0.00 137.91
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
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
12 of 27
Vendor 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.67 7.67 0.00 0.00 7.67
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.72 5.72 0.00 0.00 5.73
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.39 13.39 0.00 0.00 13.40
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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2013
Off-Road 0.17 1.27 0.84 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 137.62 137.62 0.01 0.00 137.91
Total 0.17 1.27 0.84 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 137.62 137.62 0.01 0.00 137.91
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
Mitigated Construction On-Site
13 of 27
Vendor 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.67 11.67 0.00 0.00 11.68
Worker 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.54 8.54 0.00 0.00 8.55
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.01 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.21 20.21 0.00 0.00 20.23
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
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2014
Off-Road 0.24 1.78 1.27 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 209.08 209.08 0.02 0.00 209.48
Total 0.24 1.78 1.27 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 209.08 209.08 0.02 0.00 209.48
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
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
14 of 27
Vendor 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.67 11.67 0.00 0.00 11.68
Worker 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.54 8.54 0.00 0.00 8.55
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.01 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.21 20.21 0.00 0.00 20.23
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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2014
Off-Road 0.24 1.78 1.27 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 209.08 209.08 0.02 0.00 209.48
Total 0.24 1.78 1.27 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.00 209.08 209.08 0.02 0.00 209.48
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
Mitigated Construction On-Site
15 of 27
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.41
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.41
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
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2014
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.19 3.19 0.00 0.00 3.20
Total 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.19 3.19 0.00 0.00 3.20
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
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
16 of 27
3.6 Paving - 2014
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.19 3.19 0.00 0.00 3.20
Total 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.19 3.19 0.00 0.00 3.20
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
Mitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.41
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.41
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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
17 of 27
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2014
Off-Road 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.17 2.17 0.00 0.00 2.17
Archit. Coating 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.29 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.17 2.17 0.00 0.00 2.17
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
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.15
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.15
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
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
18 of 27
4.0 Mobile Detail
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.15
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.15
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
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2014
Off-Road 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.17 2.17 0.00 0.00 2.17
Archit. Coating 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.29 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.17 2.17 0.00 0.00 2.17
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
Mitigated Construction On-Site
19 of 27
Unmitigated 0.02 0.06 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.22 41.22 0.00 0.00 41.25
Mitigated 0.02 0.06 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.22 41.22 0.00 0.00 41.25
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
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
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Government Office Building 25.00 25.00 25.00 86,450 86,450
Total 25.00 25.00 25.00 86,450 86,450
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Government Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 100.00 0.00 0.00
Miles Trip %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW
5.0 Energy Detail
20 of 27
Electricity
Mitigated
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 107.30 107.30 0.00 0.00 107.97
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.98 10.98 0.00 0.00 11.05
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 113.58 113.58 0.01 0.00 114.30
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.79 12.79 0.00 0.00 12.87
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
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
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Government Office
Building
239750 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.79 12.79 0.00 0.00 12.87
Total 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.79 12.79 0.00 0.00 12.87
NaturalGas Use 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
Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Exceed Title 24
21 of 27
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Government Office
Building
390500 113.58 0.01 0.00 114.30
Total 113.58 0.01 0.00 114.30
Electricity Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Government Office
Building
205850 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.98 10.98 0.00 0.00 11.05
Total 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.98 10.98 0.00 0.00 11.05
NaturalGas Use 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
Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated
22 of 27
No Hearths Installed
Use Electric Leafblower
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Government Office
Building
368900 107.30 0.00 0.00 107.97
Total 107.30 0.00 0.00 107.97
Electricity Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated
23 of 27
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Consumer
Products
0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Architectural
Coating
0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
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
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated
Unmitigated 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mitigated 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
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
24 of 27
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
Consumer
Products
0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Architectural
Coating
0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
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
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated
25 of 27
7.2 Water by Land Use
Government Office
Building
4.96649 /
3.04398
28.70 0.15 0.00 33.23
Total 28.70 0.15 0.00 33.23
Indoor/Outdoor
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated
Unmitigated 28.70 0.15 0.00 33.23
Mitigated 28.70 0.15 0.00 33.23
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
26 of 27
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Government Office
Building
4.96649 /
3.04398
28.70 0.15 0.00 33.23
Total 28.70 0.15 0.00 33.23
Indoor/Outdoor
Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
Unmitigated 4.72 0.28 0.00 10.58
Mitigated 4.72 0.28 0.00 10.58
Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
tons/yr MT/yr
Category/Year
27 of 27
9.0 Vegetation
Government Office
Building
23.25 4.72 0.28 0.00 10.58
Total 4.72 0.28 0.00 10.58
Waste
Disposed
ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Government Office
Building
23.25 4.72 0.28 0.00 10.58
Total 4.72 0.28 0.00 10.58
Waste
Disposed
ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons tons/yr MT/yr
Unmitigated
FIRE STATION NO. 1 INITIAL STUDY/MND
Fire Station No. 1 IS/MND
August 2012
Page 78 of 87
APPENDIX B
file:///F|/StrategicAndTransportationPlanning/Share/Fire%20Station%20No.%201/Demolition.txt[08/02/2012 12:18:06 PM]
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 07/09/2012
Case Description: Fire Station No. 1 - Demolition
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Residential at 7th/SM Residential 65.0 60.0 60.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 200.0 0.0
Dozer No 40 85.0 200.0 0.0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 200.0 0.0
Backhoe No 40 80.0 200.0 0.0
Dump Truck No 40 76.5 200.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Lmax Leq
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Concrete Saw 77.5 70.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Dozer 73.0 69.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Front End Loader 67.1 63.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Backhoe 68.0 64.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Dump Truck 64.4 60.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Total 77.5 74.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
file:///F|/StrategicAndTransportationPlanning/Share/Fire%20Station%20No.%201/Site%20grading.txt[08/02/2012 12:18:06 PM]
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 07/09/2012
Case Description: Fire Station No. 1 - Site Grading
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Residential at 7th/SM Residential 65.0 60.0 60.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Excavator No 40 80.7 200.0 0.0
Dozer No 40 85.0 200.0 0.0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 200.0 0.0
Grader No 40 85.0 200.0 0.0
Dump Truck No 40 76.5 200.0 0.0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 200.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Lmax Leq
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Excavator 68.7 64.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Dozer 73.0 69.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Front End Loader 67.1 63.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Grader 73.0 69.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Dump Truck 64.4 60.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Backhoe 65.5 61.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Total 73.0 73.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
file:///F|/StrategicAndTransportationPlanning/Share/Fire%20Station%20No.%201/construction.txt[08/02/2012 12:18:06 PM]
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 07/09/2012
Case Description: Fire Station No. 1 - building construction
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
----------- -------- ------- ------- -----
Residential at 7th/SM Residential 65.0 60.0 60.0
Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- ---------
Crane No 16 80.6 200.0 0.0
Forklift No 40 75.0 200.0 0.0
Forklift No 40 75.0 200.0 0.0
Front End Loader No 40 79.1 200.0 0.0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 200.0 0.0
Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
Lmax Leq
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Crane 68.5 60.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Forklift 63.0 59.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Forklift 63.0 59.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Front End Loader 67.1 63.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Backhoe 65.5 61.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
Total 68.5 67.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
REFERENCE:
Contract No. 10643
(CCS)