City of Culver City, California
Joint City Council and Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report
1
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency adopt respective
resolutions transmitting the official City and Agency responses to the January 2009
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Exposition Corridor Transit
Project Phase 2 (Attachments No. 1 and No. 2). Staff recommends the City and
Agency request that the Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 utilize the
existing Exposition Right-of-Way.
BACKGROUND:
The Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (Expo Authority) has prepared and
circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), dated January 2009, to
assess potential environmental impacts associated with a proposed extension of the
Expo Phase 1 project beyond the terminus at Washington and National Boulevards
in Culver City.
The City received the DEIR on February 3
rd
and immediately distributed it to City
Departments and the City Council for review. The County established a 45-day
review and comment period that began on January 28
th
and ends on March 13
th
.
Staff immediately commenced with preparing comments. Typically, a City Council
meeting is held to discuss and seek early Council and community input while staff
analyzes the DEIR and formulates detailed comments for Council consideration.
The truncated review period for this DEIR does not allow for a preliminary meeting.
Therefore, at tonight’s meeting Council and the Agency are asked to consider staff’s
Meeting Date: 03/09/09 Item Number: J-1
AGENDA ITEM: JOINT ITEM - Adoption of a Resolution Transmitting the Official
City and Agency Responses to the January 2009 Draft Environmental Impact
Report for the Proposed Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2.
Contact Person/Dept.: Glenn Heald/CDD
Phone Number: (310) 253-5752
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: Posted on Culver City web page 03/03/09; Master E-Mail Notification
List (03/04/09).
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld, CDD (03/04/09)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (03/04/09)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by N. Kimball) (03/04/09)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (03/05/09) City of Culver City, California
Joint City Council and Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report
2
recommended comments, listen to public comment, and then accept or modify these
comments for transmittal to the Expo Authority.
The City of Culver City, in a resolution adopted on June 11, 2001, stated that “the
City of Culver City supports rapid transit on the Exposition right-of-way corridor, with
an overriding priority for light rail” and “the City of Culver City categorically opposes
any deviation off the existing right-of-way on to Venice and Sepulveda Boulevards”
for the Phase 2 of the Exposition Light Rail Project.
The City Attorney and Agency Counsel will provide a final review and may provide
additional comments prior to submission to the Expo Authority to deal with any
outstanding legal issues.
In light of the short time frame for review of the draft document, Agency Counsel has
also recommended that the Agency be listed as a responsible party whose review of
the DEIR and project approval is required.
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of the DEIR is to assist decision-makers and the public in assessing
the impacts associated with the implementation of the alternatives under
consideration. Six alternatives are evaluated in the DEIR:
1. The No-Build Alternative consists of the existing transit services as well as
improvements explicitly committed to be constructed by the year 2030 as defined
in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP).
2. The TSM Alternative would involve three basic components: addition of a rapid
bus route connecting downtown Culver City with downtown Santa Monica;
associated service improvements on selected north/south routes to feed stations
along the new rapid bus route; and service improvements on selected routes
connecting Westside communities to the Expo Phase 1 terminus.
3. LRT Alternative 1 - Expo ROW to Olympic Boulevard. This alternative would
utilize approximately 5 miles of the existing Exposition ROW from the Expo
Phase 1 terminus in Culver City to the intersection with Olympic Boulevard in
Santa Monica, from which point the alignment would follow Olympic Boulevard to
the proposed terminus station.
4. LRT Alternative 2 - Expo ROW to Colorado Avenue. This alternative would also
utilize the existing Exposition ROW from the Expo Phase 1 terminus in Culver
City to the intersection with Olympic Boulevard in Santa Monica, from which point
the alignment would continue within the Exposition ROW to west of 19
th
Street,
diverging from the ROW onto Colorado Avenue to the proposed terminus station. City of Culver City, California
Joint City Council and Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report
3
5. LRT Alternative 3 – Venice/Sepulveda to Olympic Boulevard. This alternative
would divert from the Exposition ROW at the Expo Phase 1 terminus and follow
Venice Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard until reaching the intersection with
the Exposition ROW. The alignment would then continue westward along the
Exposition ROW and Olympic Boulevard identical to LRT Alternative 1.
6. LRT Alternative 4 – Venice/Sepulveda to Colorado Avenue. This alternative
would divert from the Exposition ROW at the Expo Phase 1 terminus and follow
Venice Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard until reaching the intersection with
the Exposition ROW. The alignment would then continue westward along the
Exposition ROW and Colorado Avenue identical to LRT Alternative 2.
According to the DEIR, all of the LRT Alternatives have been identified as
environmentally superior to the No-Build and TSM Alternatives. LRT Alternatives 1
and 2 do not result in any traffic or parking impacts that could not be mitigated. The
other two LRT Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in significant impacts to one Venice
Boulevard intersection (Girard Avenue/Midvale Avenue/Venice Boulevard) that could
not be mitigated due to right of way constraints. The project would require the
closure of some of the existing Venice Boulevard intersections. Also, in order to
maintain the roadway capacity along Venice Boulevard, on-street parking will be
eliminated and the roadway area used for the bike lane and a curbside through-lane.
This will require buses to stop in the relocate bike lane and curb-side through-lane,
possibly impeding traffic flow and increasing the potential for accidents.
As stated above, in addition to traffic impacts Alternatives 3 and 4 would eliminate
most if not all on-street parking spaces along the length of Venice Boulevard. The
project will also create new parking demands at the two proposed LRT Stations
along Venice Boulevard at Venice/Sepulveda and Venice/Motor. Metro is not
proposing to provide any parking at either of the Venice Boulevard stations.
Replacement parking for the eliminated on-street parking is proposed but would be
less than the total demand created by the combination of eliminated on-street
parking and the new demand at the LRT Stations.
The Venice Boulevard Alignment (Alternatives 3 and 4) therefore has the potential to
significantly increase spillover traffic and parking impacts in the surrounding areas.
These potential impacts and appropriate mitigation measures are not adequately
identified and discussed in the DEIR. Because of the significant impacts on traffic
circulation and impacts to the residents and businesses of the City, Culver City
should strongly oppose Alternatives 3 and 4.
As identified in the DEIR, the four Light Rail Transit options will result in impacts to
Land Use and Circulation that without proper mitigation may result in a degradation
of the surrounding environment and the physical division of an established
community. The DEIR Executive Summary also states that LRT Alternative 1 (Expo City of Culver City, California
Joint City Council and Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report
4
ROW to Olympic) would “result in the least amount of traffic disruption during
construction.”
The Draft EIR is divided into eight major sections that include the following:
1. Introduction
2. Project Alternatives
3. Environmental Analysis
4. Construction Impacts
5. Other CEQA Considerations
6. Financial Considerations
7. Comparison of Alternatives
8. Community participation and Public Engagement
Section 3 contains 18 subsections:
3.1. Introduction to the environmental Analysis
3.2. Transportation/Traffic
3.3. Aesthetics
3.4. Air Quality
3.5. Global Climate change
3.6. Biological Resources
3.7. Cultural Resources
3.8. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
3.9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.10. Hydrology/Water Quality
3.11. Land use/Planning
3.12. Noise and Vibration
3.13. Paleontological Resources
3.14. Parks and Community facilities
3.15. Safety and Security
3.16. Socioeconomics
3.17. Energy Resources
3.18. CEQA Impact Summary Table
The DEIR was circulated among various City departments to compile comments for
the Council’s and Agency’s consideration. In the official City and Agency responses,
Council and the Agency may add to, modify, or omit these comments. Staff
comments are detailed in Exhibit A to Attachment No. 1.
City of Culver City, California
Joint City Council and Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report
5
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact to the City or Agency from the No-Build Alternative,
the TSM Alternative, or LRT Alternatives 1 or 2, and only negligible direct fiscal
impact from LRT Alternatives 3 or 4.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Council and Agency Resolutions.
2. Public Draft Environmental Impact Report Exposition Corridor Transit Project
Phase 2 Executive Summary, January 2009
Please note, the entire DEIR is comprised of several hundred pages. To conserve
resources, the entire DEIR has been provided to the City Council/Agency Board prior
to this meeting. A copy of the DEIR is available for public inspection at the Office of
the City Clerk and the Office of the Agency Secretary. A copy of the DEIR is also
available at the Culver City Library. A link to the Metro webpage has also been
placed on the City’s website to allow interested members of the public easy
electronic access to the full DEIR.
MOTION:
That the City Council:
Adopt a Resolution Transmitting the Official City Response to the January 2009
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Exposition Corridor Transit Project
Phase 2.
That the Redevelopment Agency:
Adopt a Resolution Transmitting the Official Agency Response to the January
2009 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Exposition Corridor Transit
Project Phase 2.
03/09/09
JOINT ITEM - Consideration of Resolutions Transmitting the
Official City and Agency Responses to the January 2009
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2.
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. City Resolution 2009-, Agency Resolution 2009- 1-26
2. Draft Environmental Impact Report Exposition
Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 Executive Summary 27-70RESOLUTION NO. 2009-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA, TRANSMITTING THE
OFFICIAL CITY COMMENTS ON THE JANUARY 2009
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
PROPOSED EXPOSITION CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT
PHASE II (SCH #2007021109).
WHEREAS, in January 2009 the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro) released the Draft Environmental Impact report (the "Draft EIR") for the
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2; and
WHEREAS, the City of Culver City has reviewed and considered the Draft
EIR and provided the opportunity for interested parties to offer comments at a public
meeting on March 9, 2009; and
WHEREAS, portions of the Exposition Light Rail Project are located within,
and would have significant impacts on, the City of Culver City; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified portions of the Draft EIR containing
alternatives for Phase II of the Project, which will have impacts on Culver City, depending
on the alternative selected by Metro.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Culver City, California,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE as follows:
I. This Resolution, including attached Exhibit A, constitutes the City of
Culver City's official comments on the Draft EIR that was prepared for the proposed
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2.
2. Staff is hereby directed to transmit this Resolution to the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for consideration by the Metro Board.
I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28,
Approved and adopted this day of March, 2009.
D. SCOTT MALSIN, Mayor
ATTEST:
MARTIN R. COLE, City Clerk
-2-|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28Page 1 of 11
EXHIBIT A
Staff Comments to the January 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Report for
the Proposed Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2.
Executive Summary
Fire Department staff comments on the six alternatives:
1. No-Build — No Comments
2. TSM Alternative — No Comments
3. LRT 1 - Preferred—No Comments
4. LRT2 - Preferred — No Comments
5. LRT3 Least Preferred — Significant unavoidable delays along
Venice and Sepulveda may affect our response times along Venice from
Exposition to Sepulveda.
6. LRT4 - Least Preferred - Significant unavoidable delays along
Venice and Sepulveda may affect our response times along Venice from
Exposition to Sepulveda.
LRT 3 and 4 note significant impacts to Clarington at Venice and Hughes at
Venice — both intersections are in close proximity of Brotman Emergency and
may affect our ability to access the emergency room in a timely manner.
Police Department staff comments on the six alternatives:
Based upon the increase in traffic and people the police department would face
an increase in criminal activity and calls for service in the following areas:
• All of the parking structures and lots within the project will see the
following crimes occurring: auto burglaries, auto theft and theft from motor
vehicles, and vandalism.
• The increase in pedestrians coming to and from the location will increase
thus the amount of violent crime, including robbery, assaults, purse
snatches, etc. would cause an increase to the Department's resources.
• This project will also increase the number of people coming into the area
at any given time.Page 2 of 11
• Traffic related issues such as accidents involving both pedestrians and
vehicles will increase.
• Traffic congestion will also increase in the area.
Additionally, the Department is concerned that when the Washington/National
Specific Plan takes place the number of issues related to traffic and crime will
increase proportionally due to the new businesses and residential units that are
expected to be developed in the future.
Redevelopment Agency staff comments on the six alternatives:
• The DE1R does not clearly specify Metro's Sustainability Guidelines.
• Parking at station areas for all alternatives is anticipated to be deficient.
The DEIR states that Metro will monitor parking and implement a permit
parking program if there's an increase in permit demand, but the DE1R
does not specify where those additional people wanting to ride the LRT
would park if parking is not available near the station. If parking is not
readily available, it seems those persons would decline to use the LRT
service.
• Please release a graphic that depicts the properties in Culver City needed
for Alternatives 3 and 4.
Specific staff comments:
• Page xiii. Alternatives Considered — The TSM Alternative, deploying a
new rapid bus route connecting Culver City and Santa Monica, would
cause the presently designed LRT terminus in Culver City to undergo
significant operational changes in and around the Washington / National
LRT station. It would require transit patrons .to change type of modal
transportation causing undo delay to the patrons and area traffic
movements solely because of the lack of straight-through modal
continuity. (See page 3,15.7-7 - TSM)
• Page xvii Table 2. Transportation/Traffic — Table 2 does not identify
spillover traffic impacts of closed roadways, loss of on-street parking,
concentrated replacement parking and traffic circulating in neighborhoods
looking for on-street parking.
• Page xxiv. Table 8. 3.2 Transportation/Traffic - The DEIR indicates that for
all alternatives, there would be some spillover parking in the
neighborhoods around the stations. As indicated in Page 3.2-35 of the
DEIR, LRT Alternatives 3 and 4 (Segment I a) displaces much more
parking than Alternatives 1 and 2. Therefore, the DEIR should state thatPage 3 of
Alignments 3 and 4, the Venice/Sepulveda alignments, will create
significantly more impacts involving parking intrusion into adjacent
neighborhoods than Alternatives 1 and 2.
• Page xxiv. Table 8. 3.2 Transportation/Traffic — Mitigation Measures MM
TR-1 Clarington Ave.Nenice BI. And MM TR-2 Hughes Ave.Nenice BI.
both would remove on-street parking. One of the proposed locations for
replacement parking is at the southwest corner of Hughes Ave. and
Venice BI., which is an existing parking lot. Neither mitigation measure
identifies how much replacement parking will be provided. Failure to
provide adequate replacement parking in close proximity to the area of
demand will result in increased demand on the remaining existing on-
street parking and an increase in spillover traffic in the area as drivers
search adjacent streets for convenient parking. These potential impacts
are not adequately identified in the DE1R and should be discussed.
• Page xxiv. Table 8. 3.2 Transportation/Traffic — Mitigation Measures MM
TR-4 in the DEIR acknowledges that the parking demand at the
Alternative 3 and 4 Venice BI. Stations will exceed the supply of parking
provided. Neither proposed Venice BI. station is proposed to have parking
provided (Page 2-21). This will result in spillover parking and traffic
impacts to surrounding areas. Mitigation measure MM TR-4 proposes to
address this impact by monitoring the spillover parking impact for 6
months after the start of opening LRT service and if an impact is identified
Metro would work with the local jurisdiction to implement a permit parking
program. Metro proposes to pay for only the setup of the program and not
the reoccurring costs to the jurisdiction or the residents. There are
multiple problems with this proposed mitigation measure. The 6 month
monitoring period is too short to allow adequate time for the ridership
patterns to develop. Metro should monitor the spillover impacts for up to
one year after opening of the LRT. In addition, Metro's failure to provide
adequate parking to meet anticipated parking demands will potentially cost
area residents while saving Metro money. Metro should provide all the
parking to meet the anticipated demand at the stations while still
monitoring the spillover parking impacts for one year to ensure that the
demand was accurately estimated. Finally, the mitigation measure does
not adequately take into account that the project will also be eliminating
on-street parking along Venice BI. and potentially not replace all the
parking removed. By not providing all the parking anticipated by demand
in the station area this is guaranteed to create spillover parking impacts for
residents and businesses along Venice BL and surrounding areas.
• Page xxiv. Table 8. 3.2 Transportation/Traffic - As indicated on Page 3.2-
35 of the DEIR, the operation of the LRT Alternatives 3 and 4 (Segment
la) would result in the redistribution of traffic along Sepulveda and Venice
Boulevards into adjacent neighborhoods and onto adjacent parallel streetsPage 4 of 11
or arterials, primarily due to the left-turn restrictions and proposed closures
of existing median openings. LRT Alternatives 3 and 4 create additional
vehicle miles traveled by traveling around the block to reach the street
onto which they would otherwise have turned left. The extra travel caused
by Alternatives 3 and 4 should be quantified. Therefore, the DEIR should
indicate that Alternatives 3 and 4 will cause a much greater increase in
bypass traffic on neighborhood residential streets than LRT Alternatives 1
and 2.
• Page xxiv. Table 8. 3.2 Transportation/Traffic - LRT Alternatives 3 and 4
convert the Venice Boulevard curb lane, which is used for parking, Bike
Lane and bus turn-outs, to Bike Lane and travel lane. The stopped buses
would encroach into a travel lane and increase the rear-end accident
potential between motor vehicles and buses. The lack of a pull-out for
buses would impede the flow of motor vehicles and bicycles along Venice
Boulevard at the bus stops. This impact is not identified in the DEIR and
should be discussed.
• Page xxv. Table 8. 3.2 Transportation/Traffic — Mitigation Measures MM
TR-6 (a) through (e) — The DEIR estimates that along Venice BI. on-street
parking utilization is 50%. The DEIR estimates of utilization along Venice
BL are based on survey conducted on weekday daytime hours (Page 3.2-
12). The DEIR also does not recognize that the majority of the properties
fronting Venice BL between the Glendon Ave/Midway Ave. and Bentley
Ave. intersections are multi-family dwellings with little or no off-street
parking. The night time utilization along Venice BI. is substantially higher
than the utilization estimated in the DEIR. Proposed Mitigation Measure
MM TR-6 (a) through (e) does not specify how many replacement parking
spaces will be provided and whether or not it would be based on the
estimated utilization or the actual number of on-street parking spaces
removed. The mitigation measures and the corresponding discussion also
do not identify the potential impact eliminating on-street parking that is
spread out along the length of Venice BL and replacing it with off-street
parking in centralized lots that could be up to 3 blocks away from the
actual demand. The failure of Metro to provide adequate and convenient
replacement parking to meet the real demands of existing users and
anticipated LRT riders who may drive to the Venice BI. stations will create
spillover parking and traffic impacts in the adjacent areas. All the issues
discussed above must be identified in the DEIR and implementable
mitigation measures provided.
• Page xlii. Table 8. 3.15 Safety and Security - The DE1R states that all
alternatives would have a significant impact or potentially significant
impact on the delivery of community safety services, such as police, fire,
or emergency services. The DEIR should state that the Alternatives 3 and
4, in which the LRT traverses Venice and Sepulveda Boulevards, wouldPage 5 of 11
incur significantly more delay to emergency services using routes that
cross Venice and Sepulveda Boulevards than Alternatives 1 and 2, which
use the Expo ROW.
• Page xlii. 3.15 Safety and Security. - LRT Alternatives 3 and 4 increase
the potential conflict between north-south traffic that crosses Venice
Boulevard and the LRT vehicles. This has been the case with all at-grade
crossings of an LRT. Therefore, the DEIR should state that LRT
Alternatives 3 and 4 would have a significantly greater accident potential
for right-angle accidents between vehicles and the LRT vehicles than
Alternatives 1 and 2_
• Page xlii. 3.15 Safety and Security — As stated above LRT Alternatives 3
and 4 convert the Venice Boulevard curb lane, which is used for parking,
Bike Lane and bus turn-outs. At the bus stops, the stopped buses will
force bicyclists to ride around the buses into a travel lane. This would
increase the accident potential between motor vehicles, bicycles and/or
buses. The DEIR should discuss this impact.
2. Project Alternatives
• Page 2-4 (Project Alternative — paragraph below Table 2.2-1).
Please correct the name of Culver City's transit agency to Culver CityBus.
This applies to other areas throughout the DEIR where "Culver City
Municipal Bus Lines" is referenced.
• Page 2-4 (Table 2.2-2). Metro Rapid 706 as listed under the Metro Rapid
lines will be operated by Culver CityBus and is called the Rapid 6. This
applies to other areas throughout the Project Alternative section where
Metro Rapid 706 is referenced.
• Page 2-5 (Table 2.2-2). "Culver City Municipal Bus Lines" should be
corrected to be "Culver CityBus."
• Page 2-5 (Table 2.2-2). Under Culver CityBus lines, the 8th bus line
(Playa Vista - LAX Limited) should be taken out because it is still under
discussion and will likely be a part of Culver CityBus' limited stop service
on Sepulveda (Rapid 6). This applies to other areas throughout the
Project Alternative section where Culver CityBus' service is referenced.
• Page 2-10 (Section 2.3.4 — Fleet Requirements). Where did the proposed
requirement of two additional Culver City buses come from? Culver
CityBus service as listed under the TSM Alternative and the No-Build
Alternative are identical except for Line 7's frequencies, which improvedPage 6 of 11
from 40-minute headway (No-Build Alternative) to 30-minute headway
(TSM Alternative). This would only require one additional bus.
• Page 2-20. The elimination of the on street parking spaces will force the
buses that run on Venice and Sepulveda Boulevards to stop at the
relocated curb-side trough lane and bike lane, thereby potentially
impeding on the traffic flow.
• Page 2-20. The DEIR states that in Alternatives 3 and 4, on-street parking
would be eliminated over much of the alignment. The loss of parking
would significantly impact business along Venice Boulevard in Culver City.
It would also impact the residential neighborhoods in Culver City south of
Venice Boulevard. Usable and convenient replacement parking must be
provided.
• Page 2-21. 1 5t Paragraph — No parking will be provided at any Venice Bl.
station. Usable and convenient replacement parking must be provided.
• Page 2-40 (Table 2.4-4). The fleet requirements for Culver CityBus as
indicated in this table have different numbers between LRT 1&2 and
LRT2&4. What is it based on because the difference between the fleet
required is 9 buses? In Table 2_4-3 on page 2-37 to 2-38 where it
describes the anticipated increase in bus service for both the No-Build
Alternative and the 2003 LRT Alternatives, there is only one set of
data/information for the LRT Alternative.
• Page 2-53. 1 st Paragraph - Up to 1,100 parking spaces would be lost
along Venice Boulevard in the LRT Venice/Sepulveda Alternative. The
discussion doesn't include information on the fact that there are also Multi-
family dwellings, with little or no off-street parking, on Venice BI. Usable
and convenient replacement parking must be provided.
• Page 2-63. Station Parking — Alternatives 3 and 4 would remove
approximately 1,100 on-street parking spaces spread along Venice BI.
And add an estimated demand for 1,096 parking spaces at the proposed 2
stations along Venice BI. This would potentially create a parking demand
along Venice for 2,196 spaces_ However the project is only proposing to
provide only 990 off-street parking spaces in lots at various points along
Venice BI., with no parking provided at the Stations (Page 2-21). Usable
and convenient replacement parking must be provided.
2.4 LRT Alternatives
The Planning Division has reviewed the Land Use/Planning Section of the DEIR
to determine the compatibility of the alternatives with the Culver City General
Plan and Design for Development for the Exposition Light Rail Transit andPage 7 of 11
Station Area (adopted June 6, 2005), and has identified the following areas for
comment:
• Pages 2-10. The Planning Division is opposed to LRT Alternatives 3 and
4, which would divert from the Exposition Right-of-Way onto Venice and
Sepulveda Boulevards. Section 2.4.2 of the DEIR identifies a proposed
alignment and stations along the Venice Boulevard/Sepulveda Boulevard
route ("Segment la"). Segment la will include three stations before
returning to the Exposition right-of-way and terminating in Santa Monica.
• In accordance with the Culver City General Plan and the Design for
Development (DFD), the Planning Division is opposed to the proposed at-
grade Venice/Motor Station. In addition, portions of Segment 1 a will cross
north-south thoroughfares at grade where the Expo Line intersects with
Motor Avenue and Midvale Avenue. The at-grade crossing would further
restrict movement by pedestrians and automobiles traveling between
neighborhoods to the north and the Culver City Downtown district to the
south. At present, Venice Boulevard's six lanes of fast moving traffic
presents a significant barrier to the path of travel for pedestrians. Further
constraining the roadway with a light rail system moving down the median
would result in additional impediments to the pedestrian path of travel.
? The Segment la Alternative would increase congestion at all the
intersections along Venice Boulevard and along the local streets and
arterial highways that cross Venice Boulevard, resulting in less capacity at
intersections, which would consequently constrain potential projects in
Downtown Culver City and nearby areas.
• As noted in the DE1R, the Venice/Sepulveda alternatives would require a
significant disruption along both streets during construction, including the
costly acquisition of parcels fronting both streets. The benefits realized
from the alignment on Venice/Sepulveda are outweighed by the disruption
to local businesses and residents within the immediate vicinity and the
cost of the construction and property acquisition.
3.11.3 Regulatory Setting
• Page 3.11-4. The DEIR specifically references the Culver City General
Plan's Land Use Element (adopted 1996, amended through 2000), for
determining compatibility and consistency of the Expo Line, Phase 2 with
existing and future land uses. However, the DE1R fails to acknowledge or
discuss the adopted Design for Development for Exposition Light Rail and
Station Area (June 2005), which addresses development standards and
prohibitions for land uses around the proposed Light Rail Transit stations.Page 8 of 11
111.5 Physical Division
• Page 3.11-8. For all LRT alternatives, the DEIR identifies access
restrictions or modifications between neighborhoods along the north and
south side of the proposed Expo Line route. However, these access
restrictions are determined to be less than significant as pedestrians will
be permitted to move between neighborhoods at signalized intersections.
While physical access will be permitted, no mention is made of the impact
of sound walls and berms, discussed as a mitigation measure in Section
3.12, to reduce noise impacts of the LRT system. As described, the sound
walls and berms will act as a physical barrier between neighborhoods,
interfering with line of sight and essentially acting like a wall cutting
through a community. Specific design specifications and elevations
showing the location and appearance of the sound walls or berms are
necessary for further review by Planning staff.
3.2 Traffic/Transportation
• Page 3.2.-12. On-Street Parking inventories to determine impacted
percentages of available parking were completed during weekday daytime
hours. This is fine for commercial / retail impacts but where multi-dwelling
units exist the evening / night parking demands are greater. Those
impacts should be considered.
• Page 3.2-14. Table 3.2-2 Existing Parking Availability within Potentially
Impacted Areas — According to this table there are only 302 on-street
parking spaces that potentially would be lost along Venice Bl. (Segment
la). However, on Page 2.53, 1 st Paragraph, the DEIR states that up to
1,100 spaces along Venice BI. would be lost. The DEIR should be revised
to correct this inconsistency.
• Page 3.2-32. Table 3.2-10 Proposed Road Closures and Limited Turning
Movements by Segments — Glendon Ave. / Midway Ave.Nenice Bl.
signalized intersection is proposed for closure. The DEIR needs to
discuss where the traffic from this intersection would be re-routed to and
what the potential impacts of such rerouting are.
• Page 3.2-48. Segment la. Venice/Sepulveda — The discussion in this
section doesn't analyze the impacts of the road closures resulting from the
alignment and the concentration of traffic to the remaining streets, nor is
there any discussion of traffic resulting from vehicles circling the area
looking for parking because the project will eliminate approximately 1,100
on-street parking spaces that are spread along Venice Bl. The proposed
replacement parking is less than what was eliminated and even less than
the parking anticipated to be required to meet the demands of the two
proposed Venice BI. Stations, which will not have any new parkingPage 9 of 11
provided. To complicate the impact of the loss of on-street parking the
proposed replacement parking is concentrated in off-street parking lots
that may be as much as 3 blocks away from the farthest potential user and
in some case not even adjacent to the proposed stations. The DEIR must
identify and discuss these impacts and propose implementable mitigation
measures.
• Page 3.2-65. Culver City highly recommend the widening of Hughes
Avenue between Venice Boulevard and Washington Boulevard to
accommodate either two (2) lanes northbound or a two-way left turn
median to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic. This street
segment is already significantly congested.
• Page 3.2-68. Table 3.2-30 Parking Supply and Demand at Stations — Year
2030. This table anticipates that only approximately 3% of the daily
boardings at the Venice/Motor and Venice/Sepulveda Stations will arrive
by auto and all of those riders will be drop-offs, thereby generating no
parking demand and therefore no station parking is needed. However, the
discussion at the top of Page 3.2-69 states that "It can be expected that
some LRT patrons will attempt to park in the neighborhoods surrounding
each of these stations." The DEIR also includes proposed mitigation
measures: MM TR-4 for a 6 month monitoring program to determine the
level of spillover parking impacts and the provision for Metro to reimburse
the City's cost of implementing any needed permit parking program to
address that impact, except that Metro would not reimburse the cost to the
residents of the impacted areas. The DEIR should be revised to estimate
the potential spillover parking impact in Table 3.2-30 and the discussion
on Page 3.2-69. The DEIR should also be expanded to discuss the loss
of on-street parking caused by the project in the station areas, further
exacerbating the spillover parking impact. MM TR-4 should be revised to
extend the monitoring period to up to 1 year to ensure the impact is
identified after ridership patterns have had a reasonable chance to
develop. Finally, MM TR-4 should be revised to require Metro to provide
replacement off-street parking if a spillover impact is identified, not simply
implement a permit parking program for already heavily utilized on-street
parking.
• Page 3.2-69. MM TR-4. The DEIR should be revised to require Metro to
reimburse Culver City for all costs associated with the permit parking
programs within one-half mile of the stations, rather than one-quarter mile
as indicated in the DE1R. One-half mile is about a ten minute walk and
with the scarcity of on-street parking the LRT patrons may be willing to
walk farther to access the project.
• Page 3.2-75. Table 3.2-34 Section D Venice BI. Glendon Ave./Midway
Ave. to Sepulveda BI. The table estimates "Overall Utilization" at 65%.Page 10 of 11
However, this is based on a utilization analysis done in the weekday
daytime hours and not at nighttime. As well, the description of the area is
not accurate as it does not reflect that the majority of the properties along
the south side of Venice BI. in Section D are occupied by older multi-family
dwellings with little or no off-street parking. The nighttime utilization of the
on-street parking along this portion of Venice BI. is probably close to
100%. Removal of the on-street parking, without replacement with
convenient off-street public parking will have a significant negative impact
to residents and businesses in the area.
• Page 3.2-80. MM TR-6. If parking replacement is not acquired to replace
the loss of parking along Venice BI. after the LRT is in operation, there will
be impacts to the businesses and residential communities. Usable and
convenient replacement parking must be provided.
• Page 3.2-86. See comments regarding Executive Summary Pages xxiv
and xlii.
3.15 Safety and Security
• Page 3.15-6. Right-of-Way Accidents — The discussion should include the
potential for increased accidents between bicycles and motor vehicles
and/or buses along the Venice BI. LRT route caused by buses stopped
without a pull-out area, the delay to motor vehicles, and increased rear-
end accidents caused by buses stopped without a pull-out area.
• Page 3.15-11. The DEIR should state there would be an increased
accident potential between bicycles and motor vehicles along the LRT
route caused by buses stopped without a pull-out area.
• Page 3.15-8. Although not directly related or abutting to the City of Culver
City, the expected gate down time period of 42 seconds and up to 82
seconds at the Overland Avenue, Westwood Boulevard and Sepulveda
Boulevard at grade crossings may alter the commuter selection of north-
south streets during peak hours in Culver City. The potential re-routing of
current traffic patterns should be addressed in this section. (Motor,
Duquesne etc).
3.16 Socioeconomics
1. No-Build — Transit station would have less patronage. Would prefer
alternatives that encourage Santa Monica residents to take transit to work
in Culver City (Sony, Hayden Tract, etc.) to have more people stop in
Culver City and patronize local businesses while reducing traffic.
2. TSM Alternative — Transit station would have less patronage.
11Page 11 of 11
3. LRT 1 - Preferred — Colorado Avenue is better — it would run at grade and
save the coral trees along Olympic Boulevard. The Colorado Avenue
option would eliminate the overpass by coming directly into Downtown at
ground level. This would serve Downtown Santa Monica better by making
the train an integral part of the district. The Colorado Avenue route would
enliven the Mid-city neighborhood and put the train closer to hospitals and
businesses.
4. LRT2 - Less Preferred —Olympic Boulevard route would require a 50-foot-
high elevated rail structure that swoops into downtown Santa Monica.
5. LRT3 - Least Preferred — Too costly_ Too many relocations. Longer route
time.
6. LRT4 - Least Preferred - Too costly. Too many relocations. Longer route
time.
3.7 Cultural Resources
• The DEIR Executive Summary states: LRT Alternatives 1 and 2 would
have the least potential to impact cultural resources due to the near small
number of such resources along these two Alternatives. Staff agrees with
this assessment and therefore proposes LRT Alternatives 1 and 2 to be
the preferred routes from the perspective of Cultural Resources.
4. Construction Impacts
• Page 4-22. The truck loads for each of the alternatives should be totaled
for comparison purposes.RESOLUTION NO. 2009-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CULVER CITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TRANSMITTING THE
OFFICIAL AGENCY COMMENTS ON THE JANUARY 2009
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
PROPOSED EXPOSITION CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT
PHASE II (SCH #2007021109).
WHEREAS, in January 2009 the los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(Metro) released the Draft Environmental Impact report (the "Draft EIR") for the Exposition
Corridor Transit Project Phase 2; and
WHEREAS, the Culver City Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") has reviewed
and considered the Draft EIR and provided the opportunity for interested parties to offer
comments at a public meeting on March 9, 2009; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to its authority under the California Community
Redevelopment Law, the Agency has concurrent jurisdiction to review and approve all
projects within any Culver City Redevelopment Project Area, such as the Exposition Light
Rail Project; and
WHEREAS, there exists a Design for Development for the Expo Line, and portions
of the Exposition Light Rail Project are located in the area subject to this Design for
Development, and portions of the Exposition Light Rail Project are located within, and
would have significant impacts on, a Culver City Redevelopment Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the Agency has identified portions of the Draft EIR where the options
to be decided upon by Metro will have impacts on a Culver City Redevelopment Project
Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Culver City Redevelopment Agency DOES HEREBY|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28RESOLVE as follows:
1. This Resolution, including Attached Exhibit A which is incorporated herein,
constitutes the Agency's official comments on the Draft E1R that was prepared for the
proposed Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2.
2. Staff is hereby directed to transmit this Resolution to the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority for consideration by the Metro Board.
Approved and Adopted this day of March, 2009.
ANDREW WEISSMAN, Agency Chair
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALICE PRASAD, Agency Secretary MURRAY 0. KANE, Agency General Counsel
-2-|1010|I|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28Page 1 of 11
EXHIBIT A
Staff Comments to the January 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Report for
the Proposed Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2.
Executive Summary
Fire Department staff comments on the six alternatives:
1. No-Build — No Comments
2. TSM Alternative — No Comments
3. LRT 1 - Preferred — No Comments
4. LRT2 Preferred — No Comments
5. LRT3 - Least Preferred — Significant unavoidable delays along
Venice and Sepulveda may affect our response times along Venice from
Exposition to Sepulveda.
6. LRT4 - Least Preferred - Significant unavoidable delays along
Venice and Sepulveda may affect our response times along Venice from
Exposition to Sepulveda.
LRT 3 and 4 note significant impacts to Clarington at Venice and Hughes at
Venice — both intersections are in close proximity of Brotman Emergency and
may affect our ability to access the emergency room in a timely manner.
Police Department staff comments on the six alternatives:
Based upon the increase in traffic and people the police department would face
an increase in criminal activity and calls for service in the following areas:
• All of the parking structures and lots within the project will see the
following crimes occurring: auto burglaries, auto theft and theft from motor
vehicles, and vandalism_
• The increase in pedestrians coming to and from the location will increase
thus the amount of violent crime, including robbery, assaults, purse
snatches, etc. would cause an increase to the Department's resources.
• This project will also increase the number of people coming into the area
at any given time.Page 2 of 11
• Traffic related issues such as accidents involving both pedestrians and
vehicles will increase.
• Traffic congestion will also increase in the area.
Additionally, the Department is concerned that when the Washington/National
Specific Plan takes place the number of issues related to traffic and crime will
increase proportionally due to the new businesses and residential units that are
expected to be developed in the future.
Redevelopment Agency staff comments on the six alternatives:
• The DEIR does not clearly specify Metro's Sustainability Guidelines.
• Parking at station areas for all alternatives is anticipated to be deficient.
The DEIR states that Metro will monitor parking and implement a permit
parking program if there's an increase in permit demand, but the DEIR
does not specify where those additional people wanting to ride the LRT
would park if parking is not available near the station. If parking is not
readily available, it seems those persons would decline to use the L.RT
service.
• Please release a graphic that depicts the properties in Culver City needed
for Alternatives 3 and 4.
Specific staff comments:
• Page xiii. Alternatives Considered — The TSM Alternative, deploying a
new rapid bus route connecting Culver City and Santa Monica, would
cause the presently designed [RI terminus in Culver City to undergo
significant operational changes in and around the Washington / National
LRT station. It would require transit patrons to change type of modal
transportation causing undo delay to the patrons and area traffic
movements solely because of the lack of straight-through modal
continuity. (See page 3.15.7-7 - TSM)
• Page xvii Table 2. Transportation/Traffic — Table 2 does not identify
spillover traffic impacts of closed roadways, loss of on-street parking,
concentrated replacement parking and traffic circulating in neighborhoods
looking for on-street parking.
• Page xxiv. Table 8. 3.2 Transportation/Traffic - The DE1R indicates that for
all alternatives, there would be some spillover parking in the
neighborhoods around the stations. As indicated in Page 3.2-35 of the
DEIR, LRT Alternatives 3 and 4 (Segment la) displaces much more
parking than Alternatives 1 and 2. Therefore, the DEIR should state thatPage 3 of 11
Alignments 3 and 4, the Venice/Sepulveda alignments, will create
significantly more impacts involving parking intrusion into adjacent
neighborhoods than Alternatives 1 and 2.
• Page xxiv. Table 8. 3.2 Transportation/Traffic — Mitigation Measures MM
TR-1 Clarington Ave.Nenice BI. And MM TR-2 Hughes Ave.Nenice BI.
both would remove on-street parking. One of the proposed locations for
replacement parking is at the southwest corner of Hughes Ave. and
Venice BI., which is an existing parking lot. Neither mitigation measure
identifies how much replacement parking will be provided. Failure to
provide adequate replacement parking in close proximity to the area of
demand will result in increased demand on the remaining existing on-
street parking and an increase in spillover traffic in the area as drivers
search adjacent streets for convenient parking. These potential impacts
are not adequately identified in the DEIR and should be discussed.
• Page xxiv. Table 8. 3.2 Transportation/Traffic — Mitigation Measures MM
TR-4 in the DEIR acknowledges that the parking demand at the
Alternative 3 and 4 Venice BI. Stations will exceed the supply of parking
provided. Neither proposed Venice Bl. station is proposed to have parking
provided (Page 2-21). This will result in spillover parking and traffic
impacts to surrounding areas. Mitigation measure MM TR-4 proposes to
address this impact by monitoring the spillover parking impact for 6
months after the start of opening LRT service and if an impact is identified
Metro would work with the local jurisdiction to implement a permit parking
program. Metro proposes to pay for only the setup of the program and not
the reoccurring costs to the jurisdiction or the residents. There are
multiple problems with this proposed mitigation measure. The 6 month
monitoring period is too short to allow adequate time for the ridership
patterns to develop. Metro should monitor the spillover impacts for up to
one year after opening of the LRT_ In addition, Metro's failure to provide
adequate parking to meet anticipated parking demands will potentially cost
area residents while saving Metro money. Metro should provide all the
parking to meet the anticipated demand at the stations while still
monitoring the spillover parking impacts for one year to ensure that the
demand was accurately estimated. Finally, the mitigation measure does
not adequately take into account that the project will also be eliminating
on-street parking along Venice BI. and potentially not replace all the
parking removed. By not providing all the parking anticipated by demand
in the station area this is guaranteed to create spillover parking impacts for
residents and businesses along Venice BI. and surrounding areas.
• Page xxiv. Table 8. 3.2 Transportation/Traffic - As indicated on Page 3.2-
35 of the DEIR, the operation of the LRT Alternatives 3 and 4 (Segment
la) would result in the redistribution of traffic along Sepulveda and Venice
Boulevards into adjacent neighborhoods and onto adjacent parallel streetsPage 4 of 11
or arterials, primarily due to the left-turn restrictions and proposed closures
of existing median openings. LRT Alternatives 3 and 4 create additional
vehicle miles traveled by traveling around the block to reach the street
onto which they would otherwise have turned left. The extra travel caused
by Alternatives 3 and 4 should be quantified. Therefore, the DEIR should
indicate that Alternatives 3 and 4 will cause a much greater increase in
bypass traffic on neighborhood residential streets than LRT Alternatives 1
and 2.
• Page xxiv. Table 8. 3.2 Transportation/Traffic - LRT Alternatives 3 and 4
convert the Venice Boulevard curb lane, which is used for parking, Bike
Lane and bus turn-outs, to Bike Lane and travel lane. The stopped buses
would encroach into a travel lane and increase the rear-end accident
potential between motor vehicles and buses. The lack of a pull-out for
buses would impede the flow of motor vehicles and bicycles along Venice
Boulevard at the bus stops. This impact is not identified in the DEIR and
should be discussed.
• Page xxv. Table 8. 3.2 Transportation/Traffic — Mitigation Measures MM
TR-6 (a) through (e) — The DEIR estimates that along Venice BI. on-street
parking utilization is 50%. The DEIR estimates of utilization along Venice
BI. are based on survey conducted on weekday daytime hours (Page 3.2-
12). The DE1R also does not recognize that the majority of the properties
fronting Venice BI. between the Glendon Ave/Midway Ave. and Bentley
Ave. intersections are multi-family dwellings with little or no off-street
parking. The night time utilization along Venice BI. is substantially higher
than the utilization estimated in the DEIR. Proposed Mitigation Measure
MM TR-6 (a) through (e) does not specify how many replacement parking
spaces will be provided and whether or not it would be based on the
estimated utilization or the actual number of on-street parking spaces
removed. The mitigation measures and the corresponding discussion also
do not identify the potential impact eliminating on-street parking that is
spread out along the length of Venice BI. and replacing it with off-street
parking in centralized lots that could be up to 3 blocks away from the
actual demand. The failure of Metro to provide adequate and convenient
replacement parking to meet the real demands of existing users and
anticipated LRT riders who may drive to the Venice Bl. stations will create
spillover parking and traffic impacts in the adjacent areas. All the issues
discussed above must be identified in the DEIR and implementable
mitigation measures provided.
• Page xlii. Table 8. 3.15 Safety and Security - The DEIR states that all
alternatives would have a significant impact or potentially significant
impact on the delivery of community safety services, such as police, fire,
or emergency services. The DEIR should state that the Alternatives 3 and
4, in which the LRT traverses Venice and Sepulveda Boulevards, wouldPage 5 of 11
incur significantly more delay to emergency services using routes that
cross Venice and Sepulveda Boulevards than Alternatives 1 and 2, which
use the Expo ROW.
• Page xlii. 3.15 Safety and Security. - LRT Alternatives 3 and 4 increase
the potential conflict between north-south traffic that crosses Venice
Boulevard and the LRT vehicles. This has been the case with all at-grade
crossings of an LRT. Therefore, the DEIR should state that LRT
Alternatives 3 and 4 would have a significantly greater accident potential
for right-angle accidents between vehicles and the LRT vehicles than
Alternatives 1 and 2.
• Page xlii. 3.15 Safety and Security — As stated above LRT Alternatives 3
and 4 convert the Venice Boulevard curb lane, which is used for parking,
Bike Lane and bus turn-outs. At the bus stops, the stopped buses will
force bicyclists to ride around the buses into a travel lane. This would
increase the accident potential between motor vehicles, bicycles and/or
buses. The DEIR should discuss this impact.
2. Project Alternatives
• Page 24 (Project Alternative — paragraph below Table 2.2-1).
Please correct the name of Culver City's transit agency to Culver CityBus.
This applies to other areas throughout the DEIR where "Culver City
Municipal Bus Lines" is referenced.
• Page 2-4 (Table 2.2-2). Metro Rapid 706 as listed under the Metro Rapid
lines will be operated by Culver CityBus and is called the Rapid 6_ This
applies to other areas throughout the Project Alternative section where
Metro Rapid 706 is referenced.
• Page 2-5 (Table 2.2-2). "Culver City Municipal Bus Lines" should be
corrected to be "Culver CityBus."
• Page 2-5 (Table 2.2-2). Under Culver CityBus lines, the 8th bus line
(Playa Vista - LAX Limited) should be taken out because it is still under
discussion and will likely be a part of Culver CityBus' limited stop service
on Sepulveda (Rapid 6). This applies to other areas throughout the
Project Alternative section where Culver CityBus' service is referenced.
• Page 2-10 (Section 2.3.4 — Fleet Requirements). Where did the proposed
requirement of two additional Culver City buses come from? Culver
CityBus service as listed under the TSM Alternative and the No-Build
Alternative are identical except for Line 7's frequencies, which improvedPage 6 of 11
from 40-minute headway (No-Build Alternative) to 30-minute headway
(TSM Alternative). This would only require one additional bus.
• Page 2-20. The elimination of the on street parking spaces will force the
buses that run on Venice and Sepulveda Boulevards to stop at the
relocated curb-side trough lane and bike lane, thereby potentially
impeding on the traffic flow.
• Page 2-20. The DEIR states that in Alternatives 3 and 4, on-street parking
would be eliminated over much of the alignment. The loss of parking
would significantly impact business along Venice Boulevard in Culver City.
It would also impact the residential neighborhoods in Culver City south of
Venice Boulevard. Usable and convenient replacement parking must be
provided.
• Page 2-21. 1 st Paragraph — No parking will be provided at any Venice BI.
station. Usable and convenient replacement parking must be provided.
• Page 2-40 (Table 2.4-4). The fleet requirements for Culver CityBus as
indicated in this table have different numbers between LRT 1&2 and
LRT2&4. What is it based on because the difference between the fleet
required is 9 buses? In Table 2.4-3 on page 2-37 to 2-38 where it
describes the anticipated increase in bus service for both the No-Build
Alternative and the 2003 LRT Alternatives, there is only one set of
data/information for the LRT Alternative.
• Page 2-53. 1 st Paragraph - Up to 1,100 parking spaces would be lost
along Venice Boulevard in the LRT Venice/Sepulveda Alternative. The
discussion doesn't include information on the fact that there are also Multi-
family dwellings, with little or no off-street parking, on Venice BI. Usable
and convenient replacement parking must be provided.
• Page 2-63. Station Parking — Alternatives 3 and 4 would remove
approximately 1,100 on-street parking spaces spread along Venice BI.
And add an estimated demand for 1,096 parking spaces at the proposed 2
stations along Venice BI. This would potentially create a parking demand
along Venice for 2,196 spaces. However the project is only proposing to
provide only 990 off-street parking spaces in lots at various points along
Venice BI., with no parking provided at the Stations (Page 2-21). Usable
and convenient replacement parking must be provided.
2.4 LRT Alternatives
The Planning Division has reviewed the Land Use/Planning Section of the DEIR
to determine the compatibility of the alternatives with the Culver City General
Plan and Design for Development for the Exposition Light Rail Transit and
2.4Page 7 of
Station Area (adopted June 6, 2005), and has identified the following areas for
comment:
• Pages 2-10. The Planning Division is opposed to LRT Alternatives 3 and
4, which would divert from the Exposition Right-of-Way onto Venice and
Sepulveda Boulevards. Section 2.4.2 of the DEIR identifies a proposed
alignment and stations along the Venice Boulevard/Sepulveda Boulevard
route ("Segment la"). Segment 1 a will include three stations before
returning to the Exposition right-of-way and terminating in Santa Monica.
• In accordance with the Culver City General Plan and the Design for
Development (DFD), the Planning Division is opposed to the proposed at-
grade Venice/Motor Station. In addition, portions of Segment la will cross
north-south thoroughfares at grade where the Expo Line intersects with
Motor Avenue and Midvale Avenue. The at-grade crossing would further
restrict movement by pedestrians and automobiles traveling between
neighborhoods to the north and the Culver City Downtown district to the
south. At present, Venice Boulevard's six lanes of fast moving traffic
presents a significant barrier to the path of travel for pedestrians. Further
constraining the roadway with a light rail system moving down the median
would result in additional impediments to the pedestrian path of travel.
• The Segment la Alternative would increase congestion at all the
intersections along Venice Boulevard and along the local streets and
arterial highways that cross Venice Boulevard, resulting in less capacity at
intersections, which would consequently constrain potential projects in
Downtown Culver City and nearby areas.
• As noted in the DEIR, the Venice/Sepulveda alternatives would require a
significant disruption along both streets during construction, including the
costly acquisition of parcels fronting both streets. The benefits realized
from the alignment on Venice/Sepulveda are outweighed by the disruption
to local businesses and residents within the immediate vicinity and the
cost of the construction and property acquisition.
3.11.3 Regulatory Seftinq
• Page 3.11-4. The DEIR specifically references the Culver City General
Plan's Land Use Element (adopted 1996, amended through 2000), for
determining compatibility and consistency of the Expo Line, Phase 2 with
existing and future land uses. However, the DE1R fails to acknowledge or
discuss the adopted Design for Development for Exposition Light Rail and
Station Area (June 2005), which addresses development standards and
prohibitions for land uses around the proposed Light Rail Transit stations.
7:2_Page 8 of 11
3.11.5 Physical Division
Page 3.11-8. For all LRT alternatives, the DEIR identifies access
restrictions or modifications between neighborhoods along the north and
south side of the proposed Expo Line route. However, these access
restrictions are determined to be less than significant as pedestrians will
be permitted to move between neighborhoods at signalized intersections.
While physical access will be permitted, no mention is made of the impact
of sound walls and berms, discussed as a mitigation measure in Section
3.12, to reduce noise impacts of the LRT system. As described, the sound
walls and berms will act as a physical barrier between neighborhoods,
interfering with line of sight and essentially acting like a wall cutting
through a community_ Specific design specifications and elevations
showing the location and appearance of the sound walls or berms are
necessary for further review by Planning staff.
3.2 Traffic/Transportation
• Page 3.2.-12. On-Street Parking inventories to determine impacted
percentages of available parking were completed during weekday daytime
hours. This is fine for commercial / retail impacts but where multi-dwelling
units exist the evening / night parking demands are greater. Those
impacts should be considered.
• Page 3.2-14. Table 3.2-2 Existing Parking Availability within Potentially
Impacted Areas — According to this table there are only 302 on-street
parking spaces that potentially would be lost along Venice BI. (Segment
la). However, on Page 2.53, 1 st Paragraph, the DEIR states that up to
1,100 spaces along Venice BI. would be lost. The DE1R should be revised
to correct this inconsistency.
• Page 3.2-32. Table 3.2-10 Proposed Road Closures and Limited Turning
Movements by Segments — Glendon Ave. / Midway Ave.Nenice BI.
signalized intersection is proposed for closure. The DEIR needs to
discuss where the traffic from this intersection would be re-routed to and
what the potential impacts of such rerouting are.
• Page 3.2-48. Segment la. Venice/Sepulveda — The discussion in this
section doesn't analyze the impacts of the road closures resulting from the
alignment and the concentration of traffic to the remaining streets, nor is
there any discussion of traffic resulting from vehicles circling the area
looking for parking because the project will eliminate approximately 1,100
on-street parking spaces that are spread along Venice BI. The proposed
replacement parking is less than what was eliminated and even less than
the parking anticipated to be required to meet the demands of the two
proposed Venice BI. Stations, which will not have any new parkingPage 9 of 11
provided. To complicate the impact of the loss of on-street parking the
proposed replacement parking is concentrated in off-street parking lots
that may be as much as 3 blocks away from the farthest potential user and
in some case not even adjacent to the proposed stations. The DEIR must
identify and discuss these impacts and propose implementable mitigation
measures.
• Page 3.2-65. Culver City highly recommend the widening of Hughes
Avenue between Venice Boulevard and Washington Boulevard to
accommodate either two (2) lanes northbound or a two-way left turn
median to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic. This street
segment is already significantly congested.
• Page 3.2-68. Table 3.2-30 Parking Supply and Demand at Stations — Year
2030. This table anticipates that only approximately 3% of the daily
boardings at the Venice/Motor and Venice/Sepulveda Stations will arrive
by auto and all of those riders will be drop-offs, thereby generating no
parking demand and therefore no station parking is needed. However, the
discussion at the top of Page 3.2-69 states that "It can be expected that
some LRT patrons will attempt to park in the neighborhoods surrounding
each of these stations." The DEIR also includes proposed mitigation
measures: MM TR-4 for a 6 month monitoring program to determine the
level of spillover parking impacts and the provision for Metro to reimburse
the City's cost of implementing any needed permit parking program to
address that impact, except that Metro would not reimburse the cost to the
residents of the impacted areas. The DEIR should be revised to estimate
the potential spillover parking impact in Table 3.2-30 and the discussion
on Page 3.2-69. The DEIR should also be expanded to discuss the loss
of on-street parking caused by the project in the station areas, further
exacerbating the spillover parking impact. MM TR-4 should be revised to
extend the monitoring period to up to 1 year to ensure the impact is
identified after ridership patterns have had a reasonable chance to
develop. Finally, MM TR-4 should be revised to require Metro to provide
replacement off-street parking if a spillover impact is identified, not simply
implement a permit parking program for already heavily utilized on-street
parking.
• Page 3.2-69. MM TR-4. The DEIR should be revised to require Metro to
reimburse Culver City for all costs associated with the permit parking
programs within one-half mile of the stations, rather than one-quarter mile
as indicated in the DEIR. One-half mile is about a ten minute walk and
with the scarcity of on-street parking the LRT patrons may be willing to
walk farther to access the project.
• Page 3.2-75. Table 3.2-34 Section D Venice BI. Glendon Ave./Midway
Ave. to Sepulveda BI. The table estimates "Overall Utilization" at 65%.
2_9Page 10 of 11
However, this is based on a utilization analysis done in the weekday
daytime hours and not at nighttime. As well, the description of the area is
not accurate as it does not reflect that the majority of the properties along
the south side of Venice BI. in Section D are occupied by older multi-family
dwellings with little or no off-street parking. The nighttime utilization of the
on-street parking along this portion of Venice BI. is probably close to
100%. Removal of the on-street parking, without replacement with
convenient off-street public parking will have a significant negative impact
to residents and businesses in the area.
• Page 3.2-80. MM TR-6. If parking replacement is not acquired to replace
the loss of parking along Venice BI. after the LRT is in operation, there will
be impacts to the businesses and residential communities. Usable and
convenient replacement parking must be provided.
• Page 3.2-86. See comments regarding Executive Summary Pages xxiv
and xlii.
3.15 Safety and Security
• Page 3.15-6. Right-of-Way Accidents — The discussion should include the
potential for increased accidents between bicycles and motor vehicles
and/or buses along the Venice BI. LRT route caused by buses stopped
without a pull-out area, the delay to motor vehicles, and increased rear-
end accidents caused by buses stopped without a pull-out area.
• Page 3.15-11. The DEIR should state there would be an increased
accident potential between bicycles and motor vehicles along the LRT
route caused by buses stopped without a pull-out area.
• Page 3.15-8. Although not directly related or abutting to the City of Culver
City, the expected gate down time period of 42 seconds and up to 82
seconds at the Overland Avenue, Westwood Boulevard and Sepulveda
Boulevard at grade crossings may alter the commuter selection of north-
south streets during peak hours in Culver City. The potential re-routing of
current traffic patterns should be addressed in this section. (Motor,
Duquesne etc).
3.16 Socioeconomics
1. No-Build — Transit station would have less patronage. Would prefer
alternatives that encourage Santa Monica residents to take transit to work
in Culver City (Sony, Hayden Tract, etc.) to have more people stop in
Culver City and patronize local businesses while reducing traffic.
2. TSM Alternative — Transit station would have less patronage.Page 11 of 11
3. LRT 1 - Preferred — Colorado Avenue is better — it would run at grade and
save the coral trees along Olympic Boulevard. The Colorado Avenue
option would eliminate the overpass by coming directly into Downtown at
ground level. This would serve Downtown Santa Monica better by making
the train an integral part of the district. The Colorado Avenue route would
enliven the Mid-city neighborhood and put the train closer to hospitals and
businesses.
4. LRT2 - Less Preferred —Olympic Boulevard route would require a 50-foot-
high elevated rail structure that swoops into downtown Santa Monica.
5. LRT3 - Least Preferred — Too costly. Too many relocations. Longer route
time.
6. LRT4 - Least Preferred - Too costly. Too many relocations. Longer route
time.
3.7 Cultural Resources
• The DEIR Executive Summary states: LRT Alternatives I and 2 would
have the least potential to impact cultural resources due to the near small
number of such resources along these two Alternatives. Staff agrees with
this assessment and therefore proposes LRT Alternatives 1 and 2 to be
the preferred routes from the perspective of Cultural Resources.
4. Construction Impacts
• Page 4-22. The truck loads for each of the alternatives should be totaled
for comparison purposes.
aDRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
for
THE EXPOSITION CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT PHASE 2
LOS ANGELES, CULVER CITY, AND SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
STATE CLEARING HOUSE NUMBER: 2007021109
Prepared Pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code 2100, at seq.
by the
EXPOSITION METRO L/NE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY
Send comments to:
THE EXPOSITION CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT PHASE 2
Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority
Monica Born, P.E., Project Director
707 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Fax: 213-243-5553
Email: Phase2Qexporail_net
Online at: BUILDEXPO.ORGExecutive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
introduction
The Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (Expo Authority) has prepared this Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DER) in order to extend high capacity, high frequency transit
service from the Westside of Los Angeles to Santa Monica This project, called the Exposition
Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 (Expo Phase 2), would improve transportation mobility and
connectivity for residents and commuters in the project study area, provide faster, more reliable
public transportation services; increase the capacity of the transportation system; and provide
more travel choices. The area is currently underserved by mass transit.
The primary purpose of this DER is to assist decision-makers and the public in assessing the
impacts associated with the implementation of the alternatives under consideration. This DEIR
will be circulated for review to interested parties, including private citizens, community groups,
the business community, elected officials and public agencies in accordance with state
requirements.
Project Purpose
The underlying purpose of The Expo Phase 2 project is to provide high-capacity transit service
on the Westside of Los Angeles to Santa Monica, extending the mobility benefits of the Expo
Phase 1 project beyond the terminus in Culver City. This proposed high-capacity, major transit
investment would:
• Accommodate existing population and employment growth and transit-supportive land
use densities
• Improve mobility for the large VVestside transit-dependent population who have modest
incomes or do not drive
• Provide enhanced access to activity centers,
including a linkage to downtown Los Angeles,
Culver City, Santa Monica and other
destinations in the corridor
• Serve existing and future travel demand for
east/west commute trips, with improved
connectivity to a regional transit system
• Attract more riders by greatly improving transit
services and facilities in the corridor for both
work and non-work trips
• Provide an effective transit alternative to the
current and expected increase in roadway
congestion in the corridor
a Address system capacity constraints of heavily-
used highway and transit networks
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 DER page 1 25
January 2009= - -
Executive Summary
•
Realize economic benefits from travel time savings, increasing the attractiveness of the
corridor to employers and workers
Spur redevelopment and revitalization plans through the availability of efficient and
reliable high-capacity transit service
• Realize environmental benefits associated with increased transit usage, such as
improved air quality and energy efficiencies
Corridor issues and Opportunities
The need for transit improvements in the corridor is reflected in the following:
• The study area includes job densities in excess of 20 jobs per acre in portions, with
additional job growth projected at 24 percent by 2030. In 2000, there were 8,535
employees per square mile in the study area By 2030, the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) projects that job densities will increase to 10,558
employees per square mile in the study area.
• The study area includes transit-dependent populations equivalent in percentage with
other areas of Los Angeles County. Improved transit in the study area would improve
mobility options for students, seniors, the disabled, and those without access to an
automobile.
• The 1-10 Freeway currently experiences considerable congestion, operating at Level of
Service F during peak periods. Congestion on the freeway is expected to increase
through 2030. East/west arterials in the study area also experience congestion. Average
travel volumes on these streets are expected to increase 15 to 35 percent by 2030, with
peak hour volumes increasing 13 to 32 percent by 2030.
• Daily vehicle miles traveled within the study area will increase by 27 percent between
the years 2005 and 2030. The increase in vehicles miles traveled will be even greater
during the peak periods, increasing by 32 percent during the AM peak period and
31 percent during the PM peak period.
• Between 2005 and 2030, daily average speeds within the study area will decrease by
25 percent, from 32 mph in 2005 to 24 mph in 2030. Average speeds during the AM
peak period will decrease by 32 percent, from 28 mph to 19 mph; while average speeds
during the PM peak period will decrease by 39 percent, from 26 mph to 16 mph.
• Between 2005 and 2030, daily vehicle hours traveled within the study area will increase
by 74 percent. The increase in vehicle hours traveled will be even greater during the
peak periods, increasing by 93 percent during the AM peak period and 105 percent
during the PM peak period.
• Connectivity exists with the Expo Phase 1 project and will be enhanced by the extension
of the Expo Phase 2 project Average weekday person trips 1 from the Expo Phase 1
study area to the Expo Phase 2 study area increase 20 percent between 2005 and 2030.
Average weekday person trips from the Expo Phase 2 study area to the Expo Phase 1
study area increase 11 percent from 2005 to 2030.
Weekday person trip is a trip taken on any transportation mode (walk, bus, rail, auto) on a weekday.
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 DEIR page 2 %C
January 2009Executive Summary'
O Connectivity between the Expo Phase 1 project and the Expo Phase 2 study area is
important. Average weekday transit trips 2 from the Expo Phase I study area to the Expo
Phase 2 study area are forecast to increase 45 percent from 2005 to 2030. Average
weekday transit trips from the Expo Phase 2 study area to the Expo Phase 1 study area
increase 26 percent from 2005 to 2030.
Bus transit will experience increased challenges in meeting the needs of the study area.
Peak hour loads on buses traveling in the east and west directions within the study area
will increase by 111 percent between the years 2005 and 2030, from 8,095 to 17,701,
During the same period, the average peak hour speeds of the buses will decrease by
8 percent to 11 mph.
• Land use plans being developed by the City of Los Angeles and the City of Santa
Monica support transit oriented development and the expansion of transit into the
VVestside.
• Air quality, greenhouse gas, and energy conservation efforts in the Los Angeles basin
including the Westside are heavily reliant on the expansion of transit to achieve
conservation goals.
Alternatives Considered
Six alternatives are evaluated in this DEUR. Two include the No-Build and Transportation
System Management (TSM) Alternatives, described as follows:
• No-Build Alternative consists of the existing transit services as well as improvements
explicitly committed to be constructed by the year 2030 as defined in the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).3
• The TSM Alternative would involve three basic components: addition of a rapid bus route
connecting downtown Culver City with downtown Santa Monica; associated service
improvements on selected north/south routes to feed stations along the new rapid bus
route; and service improvements on selected routes connecting Westside communities
to the Expo Phase 1 terminus.
The four proposed LRT Alternatives would begin at the terminus of the Expo Phase 1 in Culver
City and would terminate in downtown Santa Monica in the vicinity of the intersection of 4th
Street and Colorado Avenue. Figure 1 (Project Map—By Segment) shows the alignment of each
of the Alternatives. This figure, which is included at the back of this Executive Summary, may be
folded out and used as a reference while reading the summary. Depending upon the alternative,
the alignments would vary as follows:
• LRT 1 Expo ROW–Olympic Alternative (LRT Alternative 1) would utilize approximately
5 miles of the existing Exposition ROW from the Expo Phase 1 terminus in Culver City to
the intersection with Olympic Boulevard in Santa Monica. From that point, the alignment
would follow Olympic Boulevard to the proposed terminus station.
• LRT 2 Expo ROW–Colorado Alternative (LRT Alternative 2) would also utilize the
existing Exposition ROW from the Expo Phase 1 terminus in Culver City to the
intersection with Olympic Boulevard in Santa Monica_ From that point, the alignment
2 Any trip taken on transit (bus or rail) on a weekday.
3 2008 Regional Transportation Plan: Making the Connections, adopted May 2008.
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 DEIR
page 3
January 2009-
Executive Summary
would continue within the Exposition ROW to west of 19 th Street, then diverge from the
ROW and enter onto Colorado Avenue east of 17th Street and follow the center of
Colorado Avenue to the proposed terminus.
o
LRT 3 Venice/Sepulveda—Olympic Alternative (LRT Alternative 3) would divert from the
Exposition ROW at the Expo Phase 1 terminus and follow Venice Boulevard and
Sepulveda Boulevard until reaching the intersection with the Exposition ROW. The
alignment would then continue westward along the Exposition ROW and Olympic
Boulevard identical to the LRT 1 Expo ROW—Olympic Alternative.
LRT 4 Venice/Sepulveda—Colorado Alternative (LRT Alternative 4) would divert from the
Exposition ROW at the Expo Phase 1 terminus and follow Venice Boulevard and
Sepulveda Boulevard until reaching the intersection with the Exposition ROW. The
alignment would then continue westward along the Exposition ROW and Colorado
Avenue identical to the LRT 2 Expo ROW—Colorado Alternative.
Summary Comparison of Alternatives
Table 1 (Performance Measures of the TSM and LRT Alternatives) provides the results of
ridership analysis of the different Alternatives as a way to gauge the effectiveness of the
Alternatives relative to one another.
The results show that the TSM has only one-third of the weekday boardings of the LRT
Alternatives. The TSM does show benefit to transit dependents, but would attract very few New
Transit Trips, particularly when compared to any of the LRT Alternatives. Thus, the TSM does
not achieve the basic transportation goals of the project.
When compared to each other, the four LRT Alternatives show similar results with respect to
weekday boardings, passenger miles, new transit trips, and percent of new transit trips. The
variation between Alternatives is not significant and is generally within the margin of error for the
travel forecasting model, described in the Modeling Results Technical Report. The combined
forecast ridership for The Expo Phase 2 project and Expo Phase 1 project (now under
construction) is shown as well, and is consistent with the Phase 2 only Weekday Boarding
results.
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2
DEIR
January 2009 page 4 s2i
Executive Summary
Table 1 Performance Measures of the TSIVI and LRT Alternatives
Measures Tsm
LRT I
Expo ROVV
Olympic
LRT 2
Expo ROW-
Colorado
LRT 3
Venice/
Sepulveda-
Olympic
LRT 4
Venice/
Sepulveda-
Colorado
Performance Measures
2030 Weekday Boardings
(Phase 2 Only)
10,296 36,653 36,412 35,880 35,849
Annual Transit Dependent
Passenger Miles
5,819,772 42,325,305 41,643,183 41,200,002 40,811,658
Percent of User Benefits to
Transit Dependents
63.0% 63.1% 62.8% 62.5% 62.3%
New Transit Trips 3,397 11,010 10,980 10,250 10,322
Phase 1 and Phase 2 Combined
2030 Weekday Boardings N/A I 64,048 63,998 62,105 62,077
SOURCE: AECOM, SUMMIT Model, June 2048.
Environmental Benefits and Impacts
All of the LRT Alternatives have been identified as environmentally superior to the No-Build and
TSIVT Alternatives. While the No-Build and TSM Alternatives avoid some impacts that occur
under the LRT Alternatives, neither Alternative would meet the project objectives. Table 2
(Environmental Impacts—Comparison of LRT Alternatives) summarizes the environmental
differences between the LRT Alternatives.
LRT Alternative 1 offers the greatest opportunity to reduce regional vehicle miles traveled, serve
to expand the existing transit system and increase regional connectivity in the Expo study area,
Los Angeles County and the six-county Region. LRT Alternative 2 offers the next best reduction
of these factors for Los Angeles County and the Expo study area but does not perform as well in
the region. LRT Alternatives 3 and 4 do not perform as well as in Los Angeles County and the
Expo study area. The projected reduction in vehicle miles traveled would also translate into
reductions in air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions.
Implementation of the LRT Alternatives would result in an overall reduction in total single-
passenger vehicle and bus energy consumption within the study area. The LRT Alternatives
would result in less energy consumption than the No-Build Alternative and, as such, would
result in a beneficial energy impact. While the LRT Alternatives would lead to localized traffic
impacts and removal of parking spaces, as well as potential noise and vibration impacts, visual
quality and potential cultural resource impacts, and property acquisitions, these impacts would
largely be mitigated to less than significant.
LRT Alternatives 1 and 2 do not result in any traffic impacts that could not be mitigated. The
other two LRT Alternatives would result in impacts to two intersections that could not be
mitigated due to right of way constraints.
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 DEIR
page 5 s•--
Janualy 2009Executive Summary
LRT Alternative I would result in substantially fewer property acquisitions including 62 total
acquisitions with residential relocations impacting an estimated 5 residents. LRT Alternative 2
would have 83 total acquisitions resulting in the relocation of an estimated 3 residents; LRT
Alternative 3 would have 194 total acquisitions including an estimated 256 resident relocations;
and LRT Alternative 4 would have 215 total acquisitions including an estimated 254 resident
relocations.
LRT Alternative I would also result in the least amount of traffic disruption during construction;
LRT Alternative 2 would involve construction in the middle of Colorado Avenue, and LRT
Alternatives 3 and 4 would involve construction within the median of Venice and Sepulveda
Boulevards. LRT Alternative 4 would additionally include construction in the middle of Colorado
Avenue.
LRT Alternative I would result in aesthetic/visual quality impacts to the Expo/Westwood Station
area due to the change in the character of the area associated with the proposed station nnd
parking facility. LRT Alternative I would also result in aesthetic/visual quality impacts on
Olympic Boulevard due to the elimination of the Coral trees within the median_ The impacts to
the Coral trees would be avoided by implementation of LRT Alternative 2, but this Alternative
would result in traffic disruption on Colorado Avenue during construction. LRT Alternatives 3
and 4 would result in aesthetic/visual quality impacts along Venice and Sepulveda Boulevards
due to the construction of elevated guideway and stations along major portions of those streets
along with the acquisition and removal of many buildings. LRT Alternative 3 would also include
the afore-mentioned elimination of the Coral trees on Olympic Boulevard.
LRT Alternatives 1 and 2 would have the least potential to impact cultural resources due to the
near small number of such resources along these two Alternatives.
In summary, given the relative impacts associated with the various Alternatives, LRT
Alternatives I or 2 are considered to be the environmentally superior Alternatives_
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 DEIR
page 6
January 2009
31-1• 1•n•n1111.• 101=1.111M,
01111111•EMM.
Executive Summary
Table 2 Environmental Impacts—Comparison of LRT Alternatives
Alternatives Compared to Each Other - 0 = Least Impact, • Most Impact
Alternative I
impact Topic LRT 'I LRT 2 LRT 3 LRT 4 Differentiating Characteristics
Transportation/Traffic|10 10 10 10 10|fi)|10 10 10 10|—
intersection Delay: LRT Alts 3 and 4 have two Significant Unavoidable impacts,
Loss of On Street Parking: LRT Alts 3 and 4 displace twice as many on street
parking spaces as LRT Alts 1 and 2. LRT Alt 2 displaces 67 fewer spaces than
LRT Alt 1. Although replacement parking will be provided, the least disruption will
occur with LRT Alt 2.
Aesthetics
GI 0 6 ft
Important Aesthetic Features and Visual Character: LRT Alts 1 and 2 will
change the character of the ROW between Overland Avenue and Military Avenue
through the construction of an at-grade station arid roadway improvements, a
distance of approximately 3,000 feet. LRT Alt 'I will require the removal of mature
Coral trees on Olympic Boulevard from midway between Cloverfield Blvd. and
20th Street to 1014 Street (approximately 43 trees).
LRT Alt 3 will require the construction of street modifications and approximately
8,400 feet of elevated Guideway along Venice and Sepulveda Blvds, where no
such structure exists today, as well as the removal ef the Coral trees.
LRT Alt 4 will require the same type of construction as LRT Alt 3 on Venice and
Sepulveda Blvds, but will not require the removal of the Coral Trees.
Air Quality
0 0 0
LRT Alt 1 has the greatest reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled and thus provides
largest reduction in pollutants. LRT Alts 2, 3, and 4 also provide air quality
improvements, but to a lesser degree.
Global Climate Change 0
. 0 9
LRT Alt 1 has the greatest reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled and thus provides
largest reduction in pollutants. LRT Alts 2, 3, and 4 also provide air quality
improvements, but to a lesser degree.
Biological
0 0 0
All alternatives perform equally.
Cultural
0 0 9
LRT Alts 3 and 4 may require the physical taking of a portion of an eligible historic
architectural resource.
Geology
0 0 0 0
All alternatives have similar performance characteristics.
E)\)Executive Summary
Table 2 Environmental Impacts—Comparison of LRT Alternatives
Alternatives Compared to Each Other: 0 = Least Impact, 0= Most impact
Alternative!
Impact Topic LRT .1 LRT 2 LRT 3 LRT 4 Differentiating Characteristics
iiI
. _. ..
Land Use/Planning
0 0 0 I
•
Alternatives and 2. In particular, the widening and reconstruction of Venice and
Sepulveda Blvds. will be very disruptive with significant residential relocations.
all' II 'I
LRT Alts.3 and 4 require substantially more property acquisition than LRT
Construction
O
All alternatives have similar performance characteristics.
The widening and reconstruction of Venice and Sepulveda Blvds. associated with|10 9| 0 0 LRT Alts 2 and 4 will be very disruptive. Similarly, the reconstruction of Colorado
Blvd in LRT Alts 2 and 4 will be disruptive.
Pirnririfirin r!rwririnr Trnrmit Prniort Pha_q a 2 11P1PExecutive Summary
Effectiveness and Efficiency
The proposed project has been evaluated across a broad range of performance measures. The
discussion below considers capital and operating costs, as well as the overall efficiency of the
LRT Alternatives in meeting the Transportation elements of the Project Purpose. These
measures are generally of interest to decision-makers and the public alike.
Capital Costs—TSM Alternative
For the TSM Alternative, the capital costs are estimated to be $44.3 million in mid-2008 dollars,
as shown in Table 3 (TSM Capital Costs [000sj). The principal components of these costs are
vehicles, professional services (project management, engineering, construction management,
inspection, insurance, etc), construction of minor bus stops and street improvements, and
contingencies. There would be no ROW acquisition required for the TSM Alternative.
Table 3 TSM Capital Costs (000s
Principal Components (2008$) TS kil
Construction $1,610
Right-of-Way $0
Vehicles $32,814
Professional Services and Contingency $9;905
Total $44,329
SOURCE Capitai Construction Costs, DMJ11/1 HarrisiLenax, October 2005.
Capital Costs—LRT Alternatives
Table 4 (LRT Alternatives Capital Costs in 2008$s [000s]) shows the capital costs in mid-2008
dollars for each LRT Alternative_ Alternatives 1 and 2 are substantially less expensive than LRT
Alternatives 3 and 4 in all categories, primarily due to the extensive land acquisition and
structure costs associated with guideway construction on Venice and Sepulveda Boulevards.
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 DER
pace 9
January 2009-ecz.stfire Summary
Table 4 LRT Alternatives Capital Costs in 2008$ (000s)
Principal Components (2008$)
LRT 1
Expo ROW-
Olympic
LRT 2
Expo ROW-
Colorado
LRT 3
Venice/
Sepulveda-
Olympic
LRT 4
Venice/
Sepulveda-
Colorado
Construction 3508,334 $454,378 $694,647 $640,648
Right-of-Way $151,167 $164,916 $277,054 $290803
Vehicles $79,013 $90,864 394,815 $102,716
Professional Services and Contingency $231,395 $222,265 $368,270 $356,643
Total $969,909 $932,423 $1,434,786 $1,390,811
SOURCE: Capita! Construction Costs, MUM Harris/Lanax, September 2008.
These capital costs are based on the conceptual engineering design. More detailed cost
estimates will be developed during Preliminary Engineering (PE) following selection of the
Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).
Table 5 (Project Costs for each LRT Alternative [Year of Construction] [000s]) shows the year of
construction (escalated) dollar costs for each LRT Alternative_
Table 5 Project Costs for each LRT Alternative (Year of Construction) (000s)
Principal Components
LRT I
Expo ROW-
Olympic
LRT 2
Expo ROW-
Colorado
LRT 3
Venice/
Sepulveda-
Olympic
LRT 4
Venice/
Sepulveda-
Colorado
Construction $718,077 $642,992 $979,028 $903,882
Right-of-Way $197,341 $215,289 $361,679 $379,628
Vehicles $117,072 $134,633 $140,486 $152,194
Professional Services and Contingency $320,886 $308,206 $510,761 $494,624
Total $1,353,375 $1,301,121 $1,991,956 $1,930,328
SOURCE: Capital Construction Costs, DAUM Harris/Lenax, September 2008.
Costs are escalated to year of construction using a T5 percent escalation through 2010,
5 percent from 2011 through 2013, and 3 percent through completion of construction_
Operating and Maintenance Costs
This section presents the operating and maintenance costs for the TSM and LRT Alternatives.
Operating and maintenance costs for the Alternatives are based on the service and fleet
assumptions, as well as the bus and rail vehicle revenue miles and hours described in
Chapter 2 (Project Alternatives). Table 6 (2030 TSM and LRT Alternative Annual Operating and
Maintenance Costs in 2008 Dollars [000s]) shows the annual operating and maintenance costs
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 DOR
page 10
January 2009LRT 1 LRT 2 LRT 3 LRT 4
Expo Expo Venice/ Vnicl
TSM ROW- ROW- Sepulveda- Sepulveda-
Alternative Olympic Colorado Olympic Colorado
$10,853 $22,531 $23,788
I
$25,654 $26,891
NA $11,678 $12,935 $14,801 $16,038
Operating Cost Increment
over TSM
Operating Cost Increment
over No-Build
Mode
Executive Summary
in 2008
dollars for 2030 service levels. Operating cost for the LRT Alternatives are similar, but
reflect the longer length of LRT Alternatives 3 and 4.
Tahfe 6
2030 Tsm and LRT Alternative Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs
in 2008 Doilars (000s)
SOURCE: Connetics Transportation Group (August 2008)
Table 7 (Cost Effectiveness of the TSM and LRT Alternatives) provides the results of cost-
effectiveness of the different Alternatives using the methodology of the Federal Transit
Administration as a way to gauge the relative efficiency and effectiveness of the Alternatives
relative to one another.
The significant performance difference between the Alternatives emerges with the examination
of the cost of providing the transportation benefits. As seen on Table 1 (Performance Measures
of the TSM and LRT Alternatives), LRT Alternatives 1 and 2 show slightly higher ridership as
LRT Alternatives 3 and 4. However, the Cost of per Annual Hour of User Benefit on Table 7
shows that LRT Alternatives 1 and 2 provide this better ridership at 2/3 the the cost of LRT
Alternatives 3 and 4 for this key performance measure. It is worth noting that were the Expo
Authority competing for funds under the Federal New Starts process, LRT Alternatives 3 and 4
would not be eligible to continue in the project development process because of their high cost
per Annual Hour of User Benefit.
Table 7 Cost Effectiveness of the ISM and LRT Alternatives
•
Measures TSM
LRT I
Expo ROW-
Olympic
LRT 2
Expo ROW-
Colorado
LRT 3
Venice/
Sepulveda-
Olympic
LRT 4
Venice/
Sepulveda-
Colorado
Cost Effectiveness Measures
Annual User Benefit Hours 1,160,871 3,972,637 3,949,064 3,557,885 3,571,264
Cost per Annual Hour of
User Benefit
$13.70 $20.21 $20.01 $32.76 $32.23
SOURCE: AECOM, SUMMIT Model, June 2008,
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 DER
January 2009
page 11 lotExecutive Summary
Summary of Significant Environmental impacts and Proposed
Mitigation Measures
Table 8 (Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation, and
Significant Unavoidable Impacts for LRT Alternatives) provides a summary of the significant
environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the LRT Alternatives. Table 8 can
be found at the back of this Executive Summary, immediately before Figure 1 (Project Map—By
Segment). Section 3.18 (CEQA Impact Summary Table) of the DER provides a comprehensive
summary of all impacts by topic and mitigation measures_ For a more detailed discussion and
description, refer to the applicable sections and chapters of this DER.
The following abbreviations are used to classify impacts by level of significance in Table 1
(Performance Measures of the TSM and LRT Alternatives):
S = Significant or Potentially Significant Impact (before mitigation)
LTS = Less Than Significant (below threshold either before or after mitigation)
SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact (mitigation would not reduce to less-than-
significant)
The differences among the LRT Alternatives in terms of impacts, mitigation, and level of
significance are called out in the exhibit. If only one level of significance classification is
provided, then the impacts, mitigation, and level of significance are the same among the LRT
Alternatives_ Further, the exhibit focuses exclusively on the LRT Alternatives because the ISM
Alternative would not have any impacts that would require mitigation measures_
In addition to the proposed mitigation measures, the Expo Authority will comply with the
following in the design and implementation of all LRT Alternatives:
• Metro Design Criteria
• California Building Code
• Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems (NFPA 130)
• National Electrical Code (NFPA 70)
• American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association Standards
(AREMA)
• Metro Operating Rules
• Expo Fire/Life Safety Design Criteria
• California, Public Utility Commission (CPUC) General Orders (Including but not limited to
88, 95, 143-B and 164-D)
• Metro Sustainability Guidelines
• South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403
• National Pollution Discharge Elimination Standards (NPDES)
• Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP)
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 DE1R
page 12
January 2009Executive Summary
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SVVPPP)
Areas of Contd oversytissues to Be Resolved
This DER addresses environmental issues that are known or were raised by agencies or
interested parties during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) public review period and/or during the
Scoping Meetings for the Proposed Project All of the NOP/Scoping comment letters, and the
Scoping Meeting Summary Report, are readily available for review at wv ,r,i.t.-,,ui!clexL-)o_c•rq. The
following were identified as issues to be resolved:
• Selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative, choosing among:
LRT 1: Expo ROW—Olympic Alternative
LRT 2: Expo ROW—Colorado Alternative
LRT 3: Venice/Sepulveda—Olympic Alternative
LRT 4: Venice/Sepufveda—Colorado Alternative
• Final locations for traction power substations
? On-street replacement parking final amounts and locations
? Final specific noise mitigation measures for each required location
O Final traffic detour plans and haul routes for construction
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase
9 DER
page 13
January 2009Executive Summary
Table 6 Summary of AU Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
3.2 Transportation/Traffic
Development of some of the LRT Alternatives would
result in increased delays at local intersections or
reduction of the intersection level of service to below
E or F. Some of the study intersections in the vicinity
of the project LRT Alternatives would experience a
potentially significant increase in delay without
mitigation. Five out of the 86 study intersections would
be significantly impacted under the LRT Alternatives.
Impact at three of these five intersections would be
, considered less than significant after mitigation.
Two intersections are expected to remain with
significant unavoidable impacts, These are the
intersection of Sepulveda and Palms Boulevards, and
Girard Avenue and Venice Boulevard (LRT 3 and 4),
These intersections cannot be mitigated because of
right of way constraints.
LRT 3 & 4: S
LRT 1 & 2: LTS
MM TR-1 Clarington Avenue/Venice
Boulevard. Adjust signal timing and add a
southbound left-turn lane. This additional lane
will require the removal of on-street parking.
Property would have to be acquired to provide
replacement parking. Potential parcels at the
northwest and southwest corners of the
Hughes Avenue/Venice Boulevard
intersection have been identified.
INIVI TR-2 Hughes AvenueNenice Boulevard.
Adjust signal timing and add a northbound
left-turn lane, a southbound left-turn lane, and
an eastbound right-turn lane. These additional
lanes will require the removal of on-street
parking. Property would have to be acquired
to provide replacement parking. Potential
parcels at the northwest and southwest
corners of the Hughes Avenue/Venice
Boulevard intersection have been identified.
MM TR-3 20th St/Olympic Boulevard. Adjust
signal timing and add a northbound right-turn
lane. To make it a feasible mitigation, partial
acquisitions will be required for corner cuts at
all four corners of the intersection.
LRT 3, & 4: SU
LRT 'I & 2: LTS
Based on the ridership and mode of transit access
forecasts at the proposed LRT stations, the demand
for parking will exceed the proposed supply at several
stations, potentially resulting in some parking intrusion
into adjacent neighborhoods. Spillover parking in the
neighborhoods around the stations can be expected
All LRT: S IVIM TR-4 In the quarter mile area surrounding
each station where spillover parking is
anticipated, a program shall be established to
monitor the on-street parking activity in the
area prior to the opening of service and shall
monitor the availability of parking monthly for
All LRT, LTS
=10Executive Summary
Table 8 Summary of All Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
.
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
to occur around all of the stations except the
Sepulveda/National and Colorado/4 th Street Stations,
six months following the opening of service. If
a parking shortage is determined to have
occurred due to the parking activity of the
LRT patrons, Metro shall work with the
appropriate local jurisdiction and affected
communities to assess the need for and
specific elements of a permit parking program
for the impacted neighborhoods. The
guidelines established by each local
jurisdiction for the assessment of permit
parking programs and the development of
community consensus on the details of the
permit program shall be followed. Metro shall
reimburse the local jurisdictions for the costs
associated with developing the local permit
parking programs within one-quarter mile of
the stations and for the costs of the signs
posted in the neighborhoods. Metro will not
be responsible for the costs of permits for
residents desiring to park on the streets in the
permit districts.
Development of the proposed project would result in
loss of existing on-street parking spaces along the
project corridor, However, the overall utilization of
parking is less than 50 percent along most of the
segments. Along most roadway segments,
replacement parking options are available on adjacent
streets, within the Exposition ROW or acquired
parcels as part of the project. At locations where
replacement parking options are not available along
adjacent streets or the Exposition ROW, the identified
mitigation measures would be implemented,
All LRT: S MM TR-5 Overland Avenue. The parking time
limit of adjacent streets should be lengthened
to accommodate parking spaces being
displaced on Overland Avenue.
MM TR-6 Venice Boulevard. The loss of on-
street parking on Venice Boulevard cannot be
accommodated on adjacent streets due to the
high overall parking demand in adjacent
neighborhoods. Replacement parking would
be required along the affected sections of
All LRT: LTSExecutive Summary
Table 8 Summary of All Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
Venice Boulevard. The potential replacement
parking lots are listed below:
MM TR-6(a) South Side of Venice Boulevard,
between Robertson Boulevard to Watseka
Avenue. Property would have to be acquired
to provide replacement parking. A potential
parcel at the southeast corner of Venice
Boulevard and Main Street has been
identified.
MM TR-6(b) North side of Venice Boulevard,
between Robertson Boulevard and Watseka
Avenue. Property would have to be acquired
to provide replacement parking. A potential
parcel at the northeast corner of the Canfield
Avenue and Venice Boulevard intersection
has been identified.
MM TR-6(c) Venice Boulevard, between
Watseka Avenue and Jasmine Avenue.
Property would have to be acquired to provide
replacement parking. Potential parcels at the
northwest and southwest corners of the
Hughes AvenueNenice Boulevard
intersection have been identified.
MM TR-6(d) Venice Boulevard, between
Jasmine Avenue and Glendon
Avenue/Midway Avenue. Property would have
to be acquired to provide replacement
parking. Potential parcels at the northwest
corners of Venice Boulevard/Motor Avenue
and Venice Boulevard/Keystone Avenue have
been identified.
nnif inn rnrririnr Trangit Prniont Ph.e-t p 2 11FIRExecutive S LIM mary
Table 8 Summary of Al! Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
MM TR-6(e) Venice Boulevard, between
Glendon Avenue/Midway Avenue and
Sepulveda Boulevard. Property would have to
be acquired to provide replacement parking.
Potential parcels on the south side ofVenice
Boulevard have been identified.
MM TR-7 Sepulveda Boulevard. Replacement
parking would be required along the affected
portions of Sepulveda Boulevard. The
potential replacement parking lots are listed
below:
MM TR-7(a) Sepulveda Boulevard, between
Venice Boulevard and Charnock Road.
Property would have to be acquired to provide
replacement parking. Potential parcels at the
northeast corner of Venice Boulevard and
Sepulveda Boulevard, and northwest corner
of Charnock Road (South) and Sepulveda
Boulevard, have been identified.
MM TR-7(b) Sepulveda Boulevard, between
Chamock Road and 'Sepulveda Channel.
Property would have to be acquired to provide
replacement parking. Potential parcels at the
northeast corner of Venice Boulevard and
Sepulveda Boulevard, and northwest corner
of Charnock Road (South) and Sepulveda
Boulevard, have been identified,
MM TR-7(c) Sepulveda Boulevard, between
Sepulveda Channel and Clover Avenue.
Property would have to be acquired to provide
replacement parking. A potential parcel at theExecutive Summary
Table 8 Summary of All Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
-
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
northwest corner of Clover Avenue and
Sepulveda Boulevard has been identified.
MM TR-7(d) Sepulveda Boulevard, between
Clover Avenue and 1-10. Property would have
to be acquired to provide replacement
parking. Potential parcels on the west side of
the street have been identified.
MM TR-7(e) Sepulveda Boulevard, between
1-10 and Exposition Boulevard. Property
would have to be acquired to provide
replacement parking. Potential parcels along
the east side of the street have been
identified. .
MM TR-8 Olympic Boulevard (20 111 Street to
Euclid Street). Property would have to be
acquired to provide replacement parking.
Potential parcels at the southwest corners of
17 1h Street/Olympic Boulevard and 16th
Street/Olympic Boulevard have been
identified.
MM TR-9 Colorado Avenue. Replacement
parking would be required along the impacted
portions of Colorado Avenue. The potential
replacement parking lots are listed below:
MM TR-9(a) South side of Colorado Avenue,
between le Street and 11 16 Street. Property
would have to be acquired to provide
replacement parking. Potential parcels on the
south side of Colorado Avenue between 13'h
Street and 16' h Street have been identified.
Emosition Corridor Transit Proiect Phase 2 DEIRExecutive Summary
Table 8 Summary of Ail Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
.
impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
MM TR-9(b) South side of Colorado Avenue,
between 11 11 Street and 4 fh Street. Property
would have to be acquired to provide
replacement parking. Potential parcels at the
southwest corner of Lincoln Boulevard and
Colorado Avenue have been identified.
3.3 Aesthetics
Implementation of the proposed project would result in
an impact on a scenic vista, or damage or remove
important aesthetic features (e.g., removal of
vegetation originally intended to enhance the
appearance of the constructed environment) as the
result of the removal of coral trees in Segment 3
(Olympic) (LRT Alternatives 1 and 3).
The Expo Authority will implement an urban design
process that will endeavor to minimize community
aesthetic impacts and allow for the transit system to
become a source of civic pride. The urban design
vision would be implemented with a focus on
Landscaping and Station Design, Station Area
Planning, fully integrated Vertical Elements, and
Public Art.
LRT 1 & 3: S
LRT 2 & 4: LTS
MM AES-1 Prior to the issuance of grading
permits associated with construction along
Olympic Boulevard of Segment 3 (Olympic),
the Expo Authority shall consult with the City
of Santa Monica to determine whether the
coral trees could be relocated, If relocation is
not feasible, the Expo Authority shall
negotiate with the City of Santa Monica on
tree replacement.
LRT 1 & 3: SU
LRT 2 & 4: LTS
Implementation of the proposed project could
substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings. This is
considered a potential impact for a portion of
Segment 1 (Expo ROW) (LRT Alternatives 1 and 2)
(i.e., Expo/Westwood Station site) and all of
Segment la (Venice/Sepulveda) (LRT Alternatives 3
and 4) (i.e., visual dominance of the aerial structures).
All LRT: S MM AES-2 In the event that a property
acquisition along Segment 1a
(Venice/Sepulveda) results in residential uses
fronting directly onto a city street that was
previously shielded by the acquired property,
a barrier, such as fencing or landscaping,
shall be installed where feasible to shield the
existing residential uses from the reconfigured
All LRT: SUExecutive Summary
Table 8 Summary of All Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
For the ExpoNliestwooci Station, the Expo Authority
will implement an urban design process that will
endeavor to minimize community aesthetic impacts
and allow for the transit system to become a source of
civic pride. The urban design vision would be
implemented with a focus on Landscaping and Station
Design, Station Area Planning, fully integrated Vertical
Elements, and Public Art. Nevertheless, given the
substantial change In the character of this area, a
significant impact will remain, which cannot be fully
mitigated.
For the area along Venice and Sepulveda Blvds., the
opportunity for replacement landscaping is more
limited due to right of way constraints. The Expo
Authority will use the same design process described
above, but a significant impact will remain, which
cannot be fully mitigated.
streetscape.
3.7 Cultural Resources
Implementation of the proposed project could result in
impacts to previously unidentified archaeological
resources that may be potentially eligible for the
California Register.
.
All LRT: S MM CUL-1 This project involves ground-
disturbing activities throughout the area
defined as the archaeological APE. Because
buried or otherwise obscured archaeological
resources may be encountered, an
archaeological monitoring program shall be
implemented in accordance with the project's
MOA.
Archaeological monitoring of ground-
disturbing activities shall be limited to those
portions of the Expo ROW that are presently
obscured by pavement and/or buildings and
on Venice Boulevard where there exists a
All LRT: LTS
00 Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 DEIRExecutive Summary
Table 8 Summary of All Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Al ternatives
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
.
possibility of encountering archaeological
remnants associated with the Venice Short
Line. Monitoring shall be conducted by a
qualified archaeological monitor who is
working under the direct supervision of a
Project Manager or Principal Investigator
certified by the Register of Professional
Archaeologists (RPA) (qualifications derived
from 36 CFR Part 61). Ground-disturbing
activities include, but are not limited to,
pavement/asphalt removal, boring, trenching,
grading, excavating, and the demolition of
building foundations. The archaeological
monitor will observe representative ground-
disturbing activities in these locations to a
depth of 3 feet. A preconstruction information
and safety meeting should be held to make
construction personnel aware of
archaeological monitoring procedures and the
types of archaeological resources that might
be encountered.
In the event archaeological resources are
encountered during archaeological
monitoring, the monitor may halt work in the
immediate vicinity until the discovery is
assessed by the project archaeologist and
appropriate treatment determined. Additional
monitoring recommendations may be made at
that time. If archaeological resources are
encountered by construction personnel in
portions of the project area where a monitor is
not present, work in the immediate vicinityExecutive Summary
Table Summary of All Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
•
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
'
—
shall be suspended until the project
archaeologist investigates the discovery and
determines appropriate treatment.
In the event human remains are discovered,
work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery
will be suspended and additional measures
will be implemented as required by state law.
Prior to the commencement of construction
activities, a Cultural Resources Discovery
Plan shall be prepared describing treatment
methods that will be implemented in the event
archaeological resources are discovered
during construction. The Discovery Plan may
be part of the Historic Properties Treatment
Plan (H PIP).
Upon completion of all ground-disturbing
activities associated with this project, an
Archaeological Resources Monitoring Report
shall be prepared documenting construction
activities observed, including copies of all
daily archaeological monitoring logs. If
discoveries are made during ground-
disturbing activities, the report will also
document the associated cultural materials
and the methods of treatment as determined
appropriate by the archaeologist.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in
impacts to a proposed California Register-eligible
archaeological resource, the Santa Monica Air Line.
All LRT: S NM CUL-2 if it is determined from the SHP()
consultation process that there will be
adverse effects to California Register-eligible
resources, including the Santa Monica Air
Line se n ment, an MOA shall be prepared in
All LRT: LTS
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 DERmiss mot mom rime tom
awn inint
Executive Summary
Table 8 Summary of All Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
.
impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative
Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
consultation with the Si-(PO , The MOA would
define the actions of the Expo Authority in
implementing the project. The Expo Authority
shall prepare a HPTP to identify measures to
reduce the project's adverse effects to
significant cultural resources, including the
Santa Monica Air Line segment. The HPTP
will be submitted to the SHP° as part of the
MOA consultation and may be appended to
the MOA for reference.
Implementation of the proposed project could result in
a physical take of a portion of an eligible historic
architectural resource, the Citizens State Bank at
10341 Venice Boulevard, and this would constitute a
direct impact. A portion of the parcel could be
acquired for the project, requiring alterations to the
building itself. This impact could be avoided by
selection of LRT Alternatives I or 2, or installation of a
custom curb return and ramp.
LRT 3 & 4: S
LRT I & 2: NI
MM CUL-3 if it is determined from the SHP°
consultation process that there will be
adverse effects to California Register—eligible
resources, including the Citizens State Bank
at 10341 Venice Boulevard, an MOA shall be
prepared in consultation with the SHPO. The
MOA would define the actions of the Expo
Authority in implementing the project. The
Expo Authority shall prepare a HPTP to
identify measures to reduce the project's
adverse effects to significant cultural
resources. The HPTP will be submitted to the
SHP° as part of the MOA consultation and
may be appended to the MOA for reference.
LRT 3 & 4: LTS
LRT 1 & 2: NI
Implementation of the proposed project may have an
indirect impact on the setting of the historic Ivy
Substation associated with the installation of aerial
structures over Venice Boulevard in Segment I (Expo
ROW) and Segment /a (Venice/Sepulveda).
All LRT: $
_
MM CUL-4 If it is determined from the SHP°
consultation process that there will be
adverse effects to California Register—eligible
resources, including the Ivy Substation at
9015 Venice Boulevard, a MOA shall be
prepared by the Expo Authority in
consultation with the SHPO. The MOA would
All LRT: LTSExecutive Summary
Table 8 Summary of All Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
define the actions of the Expo Authority in
implementing the project. The Expo Authority
shall prepare a HPTP to identify measures to
reduce the project's adverse effects to
significant cultural resources. The HPTP will
be submitted to the SHP° as part of the MOA
consultation and may be appended to the
MOA for reference.
3.10 Hydrology/Water Quality
Implementation of LRT Alternative 1 and 2 could
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area in a manner that would cause substantial
localized flooding, or increase runoff that would
contribute to exceedance of the capacity of
stormwater drainage systems.
.
LRT 1 & 2: S
LRT 3 & 4: LTS
MM WQ-1 The Expo Authority shall grade the
Expo/Westwood Station and associated
station parking facility and provide a
stormwater drainage system with detention
facilities and/or pervious pavement adequate
to convey runoff from the Expo/Westwood
Station during a 100-year storm event to
prevent on-site flooding. The Expo Authority
shall also implement stormwater detention
facilities and/or pervious pavement for parking
lots to reduce the off-site peak runoff from the
Expo/Westwood Station and associated
parking lots to existing condition levels. All
detention facilities shall be designed to drain
within 48 hours to minimize vector control and
human safety concerns.
The Expo Authority shall include these
facilities and their design specifications in the
engineering plans. Use of pervious pavement
shall be consistent with the SUSMP and
Municipal NPDES Permit limitations on
infiltration EMPs. Construction and operation
LRT 1 & 2: LTS
LRT 3 & 4: LTS
-
i
tri s Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 DEIRMEMO I IMMOSI IMMO I ems= moms [mon MEM MEM sewn MN NSW
MEI REIS
Nale SSW
NM
Executive Summary
Table 8 Summary of All Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative
.
Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
of these BMPs shall be incorporated as part
of the proposed project and subject to all
applicable existing regulatory requirements.
Implementation of LRT Alternatives 1 and 2 may
place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area
that could impede or redirect flood flows, or otherwise
expose people and/or property to water-related
hazards, such as flooding,
LRT 1 & 2: S
LRT 3 & 4 • NI
MM WQ-2(a) The Expo Authority shall
conduct a detailed topographic survey of the
Segment 1 (Expo ROW) within the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-
defined 100-year flood hazard area, including
Westwood Boulevard, and extending at least
50 feet beyond the proposed project ROW.
The Expo Authority shall consult with the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works
and/or FEMA to determine the current flood
elevations within this area. The Expo
Authority shall submit an application to FEMA
for a LOMA, removing the proposed project
alignment from the FEMA 100-year flood
hazard area.
OR:
MM WQ-2(b) The Expo Authority shall design
drainage and flood protection improvements
to remove the portion of the LRT Alternative
from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA)-defined 100-year flood
hazard area. This shall include sufficient
drainage structures to pass existing flood flow
from areas up-gradient from the portion of the
LRT Alternative to areas down-gradient, such
that there is no net change in off-site flooding
and flood flows or on storm drain system
capacity. This may include rerouting of flood
LRT 1 & 2: LTS
LRT 3 & 4: NIEXeCiltiVe SLIf71117ary
Table B Summary of All Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
.
_
waters from Westwood Boulevard at locations
further north from the portion of the LRT
Alternative to bypass the alignment corridor
and Westwood Boulevard intersection.
Prior to the beginning of construction
activities, the Expo Authority shall submit to
FEMA an application for and obtain a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)
and shall implement all conditions imposed by
FEMA. The CLOMR would ensure that the
project design is sufficient for removing the
portion of the LRT Alternative from the 100-
year flood hazard area, Prior to the beginning
of operation, the Expo Authority shall obtain a
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), and
potentially a No Rise Certificate, indicating
that construction and implementation of the
designed improvements have been
conducted in accordance with the CLOMR
and FEMA requirements and that the
proposed project alignment corridor has been
effectively removed from the 100-year flood
hazard area.
Implementation of Segment 1 (Expo ROW)
would use fill material, or place other
structures (such as station platforms) in the
floodplain, that could impede flood flows or
reduce flood storage capacity. Therefore,
MM WQ-2(b) shall not include use of fill
material within an existing floodplain unless
sufficient additional detention and flood
storage is also provided. Any detention used
Trnn riff 1:3,,,er,,f oI nreN rtgioMon 1111tall PEN
Mil Min WAN ME
Executive Summary
Table 8 Summary of All impacts and Proposed Mitigation for un- Alternatives
-
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
as part of the flood improvements shall be
designed to drain within 48 hours to minimize
vector control arid human safety issues,
The Expo Authority shall include any facilities
used for flood improvements and their design
specifications in the engineering drawings. As
such, construction and operation of these
facilities shall be incorporated as part of the
proposed project and subject to existing
regulatory requirements,
3.12 Noise and Vibration
The proposed project could expose the public to, or
generate, noise levels in excess of standards
established by the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) noise impact criteria during the operational
phase,
All LRT: S
-
MM NOI-1 Solid, impervious objects that
block the direct path between the sound
source and the receiver shall be installed to
reduce the sound level at the receiver, with
sound walls being the preferred option. Sound
walls are a common noise mitigation measure
and have been widely used on highways and
on rail transit lines. Alternatively, the Expo
Authority may construct a landscaped berm
parallel to the rail line or use low berms with a
low wall along the top. As long as the wall,
berm, or berm/wall combination reaches the
same elevation, the acoustical performance
will be equivalent. Except where noise
impacts are due to special trackwork at
crossovers and turnouts, the predicted noise
Impact can be eliminated with sound wails or
berms that extend to heights of:
6 to 8 ft above the top of rail for
ballast and tie track sections
All LRT: LTSExecutive Sunnnary
Table 8 Summary of All impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
a 3.5 to 4 ft above the top of rail on
aerial structures
The wall heights can be reduced by 6 to
12 inches if an acoustically absorbent surface
treatment is used on the track side of the wall.
Additionally, in areas where crossovers would
be located near sensitive receptors, low-
impact frogs may be either an alternative to
sound walls or supplemental measure to
sound walls. There are several different types
of low-impact frogs that could be used,
11 during Final Engineering or Operations it is
determined that measures described above
are not practicable or do not provide sufficient
noise mitigation, the Expo Authority or Metro,
as appropriate, shall provide for sound
insulation of residences and other noise
sensitive facilities as a another alternative that
could be used. Sound insulation involves
upgrading or replacing existing windows and
doors, and weather stripping windows and
doors. Installing a mechanical ventilation
system may be needed so that windows do
not need to be opened for ventilation.
MM NO1-2 The volume of crossing bells shall
be reduced to the bottom of the CPUC-
approved range, This step is sufficient to
reduce the bell noise to below the applicable
FTA impact thresholds.
-
MM NOI-3 If wheel squeal occurs that ismica mem mem mm0E1 MUM 1111111111 VNIEN Am maw sew assi
gn ENni WRIN Mag IWN
SEW WM
Executive Summary
Table 8 Summary of Ali Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
-
impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
sufficient to cause community noise levels
that exceed the applicable FTA moderate
impact thresholds, measures to reduce wheel
squeal, such as rail or wheel lubrication, will
be considered by Metro. If, by the end of the
first year of service, noise from wheel squeal
cannot be reduced to below the FTA
Moderate noise impact thresholds, the noise
mitigation measures discussed in measure
MM N01-1 would be applied to further reduce
levels of wheel squeal so that the levels are
below the PTA moderate impact thresholds.
No additional mitigation is required.
MM NOI-4 Noise levels would be sufficient to
warrant mitigation at 7 of the 15 proposed
TPSS sites. All noise impacts can be
eliminated by (1) specifying a noise limit of
44 dBA at 60 ft from any part of the TPSS
units that would be used at sites 1, 2, 3, 8, 10,
12, and 13, and (2) locating the TPSS units at
sites 1 and 2 at a minimum of 20 ft from the
closest residential land use.
MM NOI-5 An 8- to 10-foot-high sound wall
shall be installed along the southern property
line of the Maintenance Facility. The wall
height can be reduced to 6 to 8 feet high if the
car wash and blowdown facilities are
designed to generate lower noise levels than
standard facilities. This can be achieved
through the use of silencers on compressors
and fans, minimizing openings on the south
side of the blowdown and car wash buildings,Executive Summary
Table 8 Summary of All Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
and constructing the south walls of the
facilities of masonry, brick, or wood studs with
insulation in the cavities instead of sheet
metal.
The proposed project could expose the public to, or
generate, groundborne vibration, groundborne noise
levels, or vibration levels in buildings exceeding the
ETA vibration impact criteria during the operational
phase,
All LRT: S MM NOI-6 Further site-specific testing shall
be performed during the Preliminary
Engineering Design where potential for
vibration impact has been identified. Where
vibration impact is still predicted, the vibration
energy transmitted into the ground shall be
decreased by (1) use of low impact frogs to
reduce the banging at special trackwork,
and/or (2) installation of a resilient layer
between the tracks and the ground. There are
a number of different approaches to installing
resilient elements in track to reduce vibration.
Vibration-reducing design specifications for
the track sections shall be determined in
consultation with a qualified vibration scientist
or engineer during the design phase.
The specific locations where vibration
mitigations are expected to be required are
listed in Table 3.12-20 (Vibration Mitigation
Locations). Final type, location, and extent of
such mitigations will be determined in Final
Design.
All LRT: LTS
The proposed project could cause a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity.
All LRT: S MM NOI-1, MM NOI-2, MM NOI-3, MM NOI-4,
and MM NOI-5, listed above.
All LRT: LTS
gkerl yncifi'nrn re.•pit4tNe r)e-ran•-n f cm 9 ti.rmI l...•n•
mitsigra I
Executive SUMIllary
Table 8 Summary of Ail Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
.
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative
'
Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
3.13 Paleontological Resources
Implementation of the proposed project could disturb
or destroy unique paleontological resources or sites.
Ali LRT: S MM PAL-1 The Expo Authority shall retain a
qualified paleontologist to prepare and
implement a Paleontological Resources
Management Plan (PRMP) to the standards
detailed in the Paleontological Resources
Technical Background Report.
Monitoring is required at the surface and
below of Segment 1 (Expo ROW) from station
540+00 to 600+00, Segment la
(Venice/Sepulveda) from station 615+00 to
635+00, Segment 3 (Olympic) from station
790+00 to 856+00, Segment 3a (Colorado)
from station 830+00 to 855+00 where there
are known surface exposures of Quaternary
old alluvial fan deposits of high
paleontological sensitivity.
In other project areas, the paleontologist will
examine subsurface work to adjust monitoring
to cover Quaternary old alluvial fan sediments
only.
Upon completion of all monitoring and
mitigation activities, the paleontologist will
submit a final report to the Expo Authority
summarizing the work and confirming that all
recommendations were implemented.
All LRT: LTSExecutive Summary
Table 8 Summary of All Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
3.14 Parks and Community Facilities
Implementation of the proposed project may disrupt
community facilities and services through a reduction
in access to facilities or cause a substantial alteration
of service areas.
All LRT: S MM PAR-I For those community facilities that
utilize on street parking, the Expo Authority
shall provide reasonably proximate parking to
replace permanently lost parking spaces.
Prior to construction of the proposed project,
the Expo Authority shall complete a parking
demand study for affected community
facilities to determine the appropriate amount
of parking replacement that would be
required. The location of the replacement
parking would be in accordance with the
requirements listed in MM TR-5 through
MM TR-9(b) in Section 3.2
(Transportation/Traffic) listed above,
All LRT: LTS
3.15 Safety and Security
implementation of the proposed project could
substantially limit the delivery of community safety
services, such as police, fire, or emergency services,
to locations along the proposed alignments.
All LRT: S MM SAP-1 During operation of the LRT
Alternatives, Metro shall coordinate with the
cities of Culver City, Santa Monica, and Los
Angeles and inform the appropriate
community safety provider of Metro's
emergency response procedures as
incorporated into Metro's standard operating
procedures. Metro shall provide a detailed
description of their emergency response
procedures so as to provide other public
safety providers with the knowledge of
Metro's response plan in order to provide a
fast, controlled and coordinated response to
the various types of emergencies that may
occur on the Metro rail system. Additionally,
AU LRT: LTS
Exposition Corridor Transit Proiect Phase 2 DEIRPERII 1116 INEM
Executive Summary
Table 8 Summary of All Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
"
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
Metro shall encourage the cities of Culver
City, Los Angeles, and Santa Monica to
update their emergency response procedures
to address implementation of an LRT
Alternative.
4.0 Construction
Transportation/Traffic
The construction of the proposed project could result
in the closure of one or more lanes of a major traffic-
carrying street for an extended period of time during
construction (one month or more).
LRT 2, 3 & 4: S
LRT 1: NI
MM CON-1 To ensure that continued
vehicular access to community facilities is
maintained, the Expo Authority shall provide
at least one lane of traffic in each direction on
access cross streets that are not going to be
dead -ended during construction, If one lane of
traffic cannot be maintained, the Expo
Authority shall provide a detour route for
motorists.
MM CON-2 Before the start of construction,
Worksite Traffic Control Plans (WTCP) and
Traffic Circulation Plans, including
identification of detour requirements, will be
formulated in cooperation with the City of Los
Angeles, City of Santa Monica, Culver City
and other affected jurisdictions (County,
State) in accordance with the Work Area
Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH) manual
and Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) as required by the relevant
municipality. The VVTCPs will be based on
lane requirements and other special
requirements defined by the Los Angeles City
Department of Transportation (LADOT), the
LRT 2, 3 & 4: LTS
LRT 1: NIExecutive SUM/nary
Table 8 Summary of All Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
'|1010|,
City of Santa Monica, and Culver City for
construction within their city and from other
appropriate agencies for construction in those
jurisdictions.
MM CON-3 No designated Major or
Secondary Highway will be closed to
vehicular or pedestrian traffic except at night
or on weekends, unless approval is granted
by the jurisdiction in which it is located.
Construction activities for the proposed project could
result in the diversion of traffic through residential
areas.
All LRT: S MM CON-2 Listed above.
MM CON-4 The Expo Authority's contractor
will develop preferred haul route plans for the
removal of excavated material. Construction
will be scheduled and haul routes will be
planned to minimize conflicts during school
arrival and dismissal times.
MM CON-5 The Expo Authority will
coordinate with other major construction
projects within a 1-mile radius of the
construction site to avoid, to the maximum
extent practicable, overlapping haul routes
with other public or private construction
projects.
Ali LRT: LTS
Construction activities for the LRT Alternatives could
result in the long-term loss (three months or more) of
parking or pedestrian access that is essential for
continued operation of business during construction,
All LRT: S . MM C0N-6 Unless otherwise specified in the
worksite traffic control plan, the Expo
Authority shall maintain access to the
businesses that rely on on-street parking and
pedestrian access during construction. If it is
necessary to temporarily restrict access to a
business, the Ex o Authorit - shall rovide the
All LRT; LTS
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 DORExecutive Summary
Table 8 Summary of All Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
.
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
facility advance notice of restrictions. Unless
otherwise specified in the worksite traffic
control plan, the Expo Authority shall
schedule access restrictions to off-peak hours
or during times when the business is closed
and shall not fully restrict access for the total
hours of operation of a business on any given
day of operation.
MM CON-7 Relative to maintaining access to
businesses, construction activities shall be
sequenced to minimize the temporary
removal of multiple blocks of on-street parking
at one time unless otherwise specified by the
worksite traffic control plan.
MM CON-8 Contractors shall use temporary
special signage to inform the public of closure
information in advance of temporary closures.
Signage shall also provide special access
directions, if warranted.
Aesthetics
Implementation of the proposed project could
substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings for a portion of
Segment 1 (Expo ROW) (LRT Alternatives 1 and 2)
(i.e., the Sara Berman Greenway).
LRT 1 & 2: S
LRT 3 & 4: Ni
MM CON-9 To the extent possible, the Expo
Authority shall protect the Sara Berman
Greenway during construction of Segment 1
(Expo ROW) (LRT Alternatives 1 and 2),
including the placement of a construction
barrier around the perimeter of the Greenway,
and notifying contractors of restrictions.
Substantial damage to the Greenway caused
by construction activities shall be repaired as
appropriate during or after the course of
construction, which could include the
LRT 1 & 2: LTS
LRT 3 & 4: NIExecutive Summary
rft-
Table 8 Summary of All impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
provision of replacement landscaping.
Air Quality
Peak construction activities associated with the
proposed project could generate emissions that
exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Compliance with
SCAQMD Rule 403 would reduce this impact:
however, SCAQMD thresholds would still be
exceeded.
All LRT: S None All LRT: SU
The LRT Alternatives would result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of the criteria pollutant
(NO) during construction activities for which the
project region is classified non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions that exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 would reduce
emissions, but not NO emissions to a level below the
threshold of impact established by the SCAQMD.
All LRT: S None All LRT: SU
Construction activities associated with the LRT
Alternatives would generate emissions that could
result in an exceedance of localized significance
thresholds (LST) established by the SCAQMD, and,
therefore, could expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations. Implementation
of Rule 403 BMPs would reduce localized pollutant
levels for all regulated pollutants except PM 10. PM10
levels would still exceed the established thresholds.
The contractor(s) would be required to employ best
practices to minimize diesel emissions, but no feasible
measures exist today that would achieve the
All LRT: S None All LRT: SU
I*,- re reIrrir4nr Tranrirt Orr-dor-1, in. c1 9 ,-)P,P,Executive Summary
Table 8 Summary of All Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
standards on large construction projects.
Biological Resources
Implementation of the proposed project could result in
an impact on MBTA protected species and/or avian
species protected under Section 3503 of the Fish and
Game Code.
All LRT: S MM CON-10 During construction of the
proposed project, the removal of trees,
shrubs, or weedy vegetation should be
avoided during the February 1 through
August 31 bird nesting period. If the removal
of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation were to
occur during the nesting period, a survey for
nesting birds shall be conducted by a
qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than
14 days prior to the removal of trees, shrubs,
grassland vegetation, buildings, or other
construction activities. Survey results shall be
valid for 21 days following the survey. The
area surveyed should include all construction
areas with the potential to support nesting
birds protected by the MBTA and/or
Section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code, as
well as areas within 75 feet of the boundaries,
as practicable or as determined by the
biologist in the field, of the areas to be cleared
or as otherwise determined by the biologist. If
no vegetation or tree removal is proposed
during the nesting period, no surveys would
be required.
In the event that an active nest is discovered
in the areas to be cleared, or in other habitats
within 75 feet of construction boundaries,
clearing and construction should be
postponed within this area for at least two
All LRT: LTS
O'NExecutive Summary
Table 8 Summary of All Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
weeks or until a wildlife biologist has
determined that the young have fledged (left
the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no
evidence of second nesting attempts. Other
buffers or construction requirements may be
determined by the wildlife biologist in the field
as practicable.
Land Use/Planning
Implementation of the proposed project would result in
the physical division of a community through
temporary access restrictions.
All LRT: S MM CON-6 Listed above. All LRT: LTS
Noise and Vibration
The proposed project could expose the public to, or
generate, noise levels in excess FTA noise impact
criteria and Metro Design Criteria during the
construction phase.
.
.
All LRT: S MM CON-13 The Expo Authority's contractor
shall develop .a Noise Control Plan
demonstrating how he will achieve the more
restrictive of the Metro Design Criteria noise
limits and the noise limits of the city noise
control ordinance. The plan shall include
measurements of existing noise, a list of the
major pieces of construction equipment that
will be used, and predictions of the noise
levels at the closest noise-sensitive receptors
(residences, hotels, schools, churches,
temples, and similar facilities). The Noise
Control Plan will need to be approved by the
Expo Authority prior to initiating construction.
Where the construction cannot be preformed
in accordance with the requirements of the
Metro or applicable city noise limits, the
contractor shall investigate alternative
All LIST: LTS
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 DE1Rmi Ism WM En 11114 IINE4 MINA NM MA Me
05
Executive Surnmaiy
Table 8 Summary of All Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
_
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
construction measures that would result in
lower sound levels. The contractor shall
conduct noise monitoring to demonstrate
compliance with contract noise limits
MM CON-14 The contractor shall utilize a
combination of the following options of best
management practices for noise abatement to
comply with the Metro Design Criteria:
• The contractor shall utilize specialty
equipment equipped with enclosed
engines and/or high-performance
mufflers as commercially available,|109| The contractor shall locate equipment
and staging areas as far from noise-
sensitive receptors as possible,
• The contractor shall limit unnecessary
idling of equipment,
a The contractor shall install temporary
- noise barriers as determined by the
Noise Control Plan.
• The contractor shall reroute
construction-related truck traffic away
from residential streets to the extent
permitted by the relevant municipality,
• The contractor shall avoid impact pile
driving where possible. Where
geological conditions permit their use,
drilled piles or a vibratory pile driver is
generally quieter.Executive Summary
Table B Summary of All Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
Parks and Community Facilities
implementation of the proposed project may disrupt
community facilities and services through a reduction
in access to facilities or cause a substantial alteration
of service areas.
All LRT: S MM CON-1 Listed above.
MM CON-15 Unless otherwise specified in
the worksite traffic control plan, the Expo
Authority shall maintain vehicular and
pedestrian access to the identified community
facilities (refer to Table 4.6 4 [Access,
Parking, and Service Area Impacts on
Community Facilities]) during construction. If
it is necessary to temporarily restrict access
to a community facility, the Expo Authority
shall provide the facility notice of any
restriction. Unless otherwise specified in the
worksite traffic control plan, the Expo
Authority shall schedule access restrictions to
off-peak hours or during times when the
community facility is closed and shall not
restrict access for the total hours of operation
of a community facility on any given day of
operation.
MM CON-16 Near the identified community
facilities construction activities shall be
sequenced to minimize the temporary
removal of multiple blocks of on-street parking
at one time unless otherwise specified by the
worksite traffic control plan
All LRT: LTS
Safety and Security
Implementation of the proposed project could
substantially limit the delivery of community safety
services, such as police, fire, or emergency services,
All LRT: 6 MN' CON-17 The Expo Authority shall
maintain access to all police and fire stations
at all times during construction.
All LRT: LTS
Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 DERExecutive Summary
Table 8 Summary of All Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for LRT Alternatives
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation by
Alternative
'
Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation by
Alternative
to locations along the proposed alignments.
MM CON-18 During construction of the LRT
Alternatives, the Expo Authority shall
coordinate with the cities of Culver City, Santa
Monica, and Los Angeles and inform the
appropriate community safety provider of the
construction emergency response procedures
as incorporated into the Contractor's Systems
Safety Program Plan, The Plan will include a
detailed description of all emergency
response procedures that shall be
implemented by the contractor, so as to
provide other public safety providers with the
knowledge of the contractor's response plan
in order to provide a fast, controlled, and
coordinated response to the various types of
emergencies. Additionally, the Expo Authority
shall encourage the cities of Culver City,
Santa Monica, and Los Angeles to update
their emergency response procedures to
address construction of the LRT Alternatives.
Socioeconomics
Construction of the proposed project could disrupt a
business for a period of three months or more.
All LRT: S MM CON-1, MM CON-2, MM CON-3,
RAM CON-13, and MM CON-14 listed above.
All LRT: US
ICEY:
NI = No Impact
= Beneficial Impact
S =, Significant or Potentially Significant Impact (before mitigation)
LTS = Less Than Significant (below threshold either before or after mi(igation)
SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact (mitigation would not reduce to less than significant)t
/ / V
to4|109| A|1010|•
>