The URL can be used to link to this page

CC RESOLUTION 5149 - Exhibit BRESOLUTION NO. 5149 EXHIBIT B FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT 7 — DEM08L-5235(012) Final Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact Prepared by the State of California, Department of Transportation and City of EI Segundo The environmental review, consultation, and any other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by Caltrans pursuant to 23 USC 327 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated December 23, 2016 and executed by FHWA and Caltrans. February 2019 This page intentionally left blank General Information About This Document The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), as assigned by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has prepared this Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA), which examines the potential environmental impacts of the alternatives being considered for the proposed project located in EI Segundo, Los Angeles County, California. Caltrans is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The City of EI Segundo is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document tells you why the project is being proposed, what alternatives we have considered for the project, how the existing environment could be affected by the project, the potential impacts of each of the alternatives, and the proposed avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures. The Draft EIR/EA circulated to the public for 45 days between September 27, 2018 and November 13, 2018. Comments received during this period are included in Chapter 4 (Elsewhere throughout this document, a vertical line in the margin indicates a change made since the draft document circulation. Minor editorial changes and clarifications have not been so indicated. Additional copies of this document and the related technical studies are available for review at the following locations: Caltrans District 7 City of EI Segundo City of EI Segundo Public Library 100 S. Main Street 350 Main Street 111 West Mariposa Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90012 EI Segundo, CA 90245 EI Segundo, CA 90245 This document may be downloaded at the following website: www.elsegundo.org and http://www.dot.ca.gov/d7/env-docs/. Alternative formats: For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document can be made available in Braille, in large print, on audiocassette, or on computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please call or write to Department of Transportation, Attn: Quint Chemnitz, Environmental Planning, Caltrans District 7, 100 S. Main Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012-3606; Paul Samaras, Principal Planner, City of EI Segundo, 350 Main Street, EI Segundo, CA 90245; (213) 897-2863 Voice; or use the California Relay Service 1 (800) 735-2929 (TTY), 1 (800) 735-2922 (Voice) or 711. SCH #2016101075 District 7 DEM08L-5235(012) Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project in the City of EI Segundo Los Angeles County, California FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WITH FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Submitted Pursuant to: (State) Division 13, California Public Resources Code (Federal) 42 USC 4332(2)(c), 49 USC 303, and/or 23 USC 138 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation and City of EI Segundo Date of Approval Ron Kosinski Deputy District Director California Department of Transportation District 7 NEPA Lead Agency Date of Approval Paul Samaras Principal Planner City of EI Segundo CEQA Lead Agency The following persons may be contacted for more information about this document: Michael Enwedo Caltrans District 7 Senior Environmental Planner 100 S. Main Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 897-3245 Paul Samaras City of EI Segundo Principal Planner 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 524-2380 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) FOR Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), in cooperation with the City of EI Segundo, has determined that Alternative 1C (Preferred Alternative) will have no significant impact on the human environment. This FONSI is based on the attached Environmental Assessment (EA), which has been independently evaluated by Caltrans and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the need, environmental issues, and impacts of the proposed project and appropriate mitigation measures. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. Caltrans takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the attached EA (and other documents as appropriate). The environmental review, consultation, and any other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by Caltrans pursuant to 23 USC 327 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated December 23, 2016 and executed by FHWA and Caltrans. Date Caltrans Deputy District Director This page intentionally left blank Summary SUMMARY Introduction/NEPA Assignment California participated in the "Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program" (Pilot Program) pursuant to 23 USC 327, for more than five years, beginning July 1, 2007, and ending September 30, 2012. MAP -21 (P.L. 112-141), signed by President Obama on July 6, 2012, amended 23 USC 327 to establish a permanent Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program. As a result, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to 23 USC 327 (NEPA Assignment MOU) with FHWA. The NEPA Assignment MOU became effective October 1, 2012, and was renewed on December 23, 2016 for a term of five years. In summary, Caltrans continues to assume FHWA responsibilities under NEPA and other federal environmental laws in the same manner as was assigned under the Pilot Program, with minor changes. With NEPA Assignment, FHWA assigned and Caltrans assumed all of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Secretary's responsibilities under NEPA. This assignment includes projects on the State Highway System and Local Assistance Projects off of the State Highway System within the State of California, except for certain categorical exclusions that FHWA assigned to Caltrans under the 23 USC 326 CE Assionment MOU, projects excluded by definition, and specific project exclusions. Caltrans is the lead agency for the proposed project under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The City of EI Segundo is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of EI Segundo (City) proposes to extend Park Place from Allied Way to Nash Street with a railroad grade separation to implement a critical project as identified in the City's 2005 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update, and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). The proposed project is a joint project by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and is subject to state and federal environmental review requirements. Project documentation, therefore, has been prepared in compliance with both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Caltrans is the lead agency under NEPA. The City of EI Segundo is the lead agency under CEQA. In addition, FHWA's responsibility for environmental review, consultation, and any other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by Caltrans pursuant to 23 United States Code Section 327 (23 USC 327) and the Memorandum of Understanding dated December 23, 2016 and executed by FHWA and Caltrans. Some impacts determined to be significant under CEQA may not lead to a determination of significance under NEPA. Because NEPA is concerned with the significance of the project as a whole, often a "lower level" document is prepared for NEPA. One of the most common joint document types is an Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA). After receiving comments from the public and reviewing agencies, this Final EIR/EA was prepared. This Final EIR/EA includes responses to comments received on the Draft EIR/EA and identifies the preferred alternative. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the FONSI has been sent to the affected units of federal, state, and local government, and to the State Clearinghouse in compliance with Executive Order 12372. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project S-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Summary Purpose The purpose of the project is to develop Park Place as an alternate east -west route between Sepulveda Boulevard and Douglas Street to relieve congestion along portions of Rosecrans Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard, as well as to improve local traffic circulation and access to and from the 1-105 freeway. Need Park Place is an east -west collector located in the southeast area of the City of EI Segundo north of and parallel to Rosecrans Avenue. Currently, there is a gap in the Park Place roadway between Allied Way and Nash Street that disrupts continuity along the corridor and results in increased trips on the already heavily congested Rosecrans Avenue corridor. Current and planned development near the Sepulveda Boulevard/Rosecrans Avenue intersection will further contribute to an increase in congestion. Proiect Description The City proposes to extend Park Place from Allied Way to Nash Street with a grade separation to implement a critical project as identified in the City's 2005 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update. By extending Park Place and closing the gap between Allied Way and Nash Street, the project would create an alternative route and provide much needed relief to Rosecrans Avenue, a heavily congested, east -west major arterial in the South Bay region of Los Angeles. The project would also improve access to the 105 Freeway by creating a direct route from Sepulveda Boulevard to Douglas Street. The project site includes a combination of both developed and vacant land. The northwesterly portion of the project site is developed and includes parts of the Plaza EI Segundo retail development, located along the east side of Sepulveda Boulevard. This portion of the project site includes part of the existing westerly segment of Park Place, portions of Allied Way, and paved/landscaped parking facilities associated with retail activities. Within this area, both Park Place and Allied Way are four -lane roadways (two lanes in each direction). The central portion of the project site consists of vacant land, formerly occupied by heavy industrial uses such as Honeywell and the H. Kramer foundry. The majority of the H. Kramer property within the northern portion of the project site has been capped as part of hazardous materials remediation. The majority of other vacant land within the central portion of the site is either overgrown with vegetation or graded with exposed soils. A number of soil mounds existing within the former Honeywell portion of the property, along the southerly boundary of the project site. Within this primarily vacant area are both Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail alignments that serve the Chevron Oil Refinery, which is directly west of the project site. Both the UPRR and BNSF rail alignments are elevated approximately 10-15 feet with embankments and chain-link fences along the right-of-way. From the Chevron Oil Refinery, both rail alignments traverse the project site in a northeasterly direction, ultimately leading off-site in a northerly direction towards an existing rail right-of-way adjacent to Aviation Boulevard. The easterly portion of the project site is developed with commercial uses and roadway facilities. Within this area, the project site extends along Nash Street, a four -lane roadway (two lanes in each direction) that terminates to the south at Rosecrans Avenue. This area of the project site also affects portions of the easterly segment of the existing Park Place, which is a two-lane roadway (one lane in each direction with a center turn lane). The project site also Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project S-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Summary includes a parking lot associated with the existing ArcLight Cinemas located along the westerly side of Nash Street. The existing parking lot is paved with landscaping along the perimeters and numerous planters within the interior of the project site. The parking lot is accessed via the northerly terminus of Nash Street. The proposed project consists of extending Park Place by constructing approximately 0.25 miles of new roadway, creating a continuous four -lane collector roadway from Sepulveda Boulevard to Douglas Street. The typical section for the proposed Park Place extension would include an 80 - foot right -of way consisting of a raised and landscaped center median, roadway with two travel lanes in each direction for shared vehicle and bicycle traffic, curb and gutter, a five-foot landscaped parkway, and a five-foot sidewalk. The proposed project would be required to cross the existing UPRR and BNSF rail alignments traversing the project site. As part of the preliminary design process for the proposed project, the City has developed a total of four build alternatives that meet the purpose and need of the project and one no -build alternative; a total of five alternatives. The four build alternatives feature varying intersection and rail crossing configurations. Alternatives Alternative 1 - No -Build Alternative Under the No -Build Alternative, Park Place would remain unchanged. This alternative would not address the need for an alternative route parallel to Rosecrans Avenue to provide increased capacity and improved traffic circulation. Anticipated increases in traffic volumes would likely result in increased congestion, degraded LOS, and increased delays at local intersections. As a result, the No -Build Alternative is not consistent with the need and purpose of this project. Common Design Features of the Build Alternatives A description of primary project features that are common to each of the four build alternatives is provided below: • Tvpical Section: As noted above, all build alternatives would include a typical roadway section consisting of an 80 -foot right -of way (raised and landscaped center median, roadway with two travel lanes in each direction to accommodate shared vehicle and bicycle traffic, curb and gutter, a five-foot landscaped parkway, and a five-foot sidewalk). • Drainaae Facilities: Drainage facilities associated with the roadway improvements would include new storm drain pipe and catch basins. Stormwater runoff would be conveyed via gravity flow to an existing detention pond located to the north of the project site. • Utility Relocation: The project would require relocation of various utilities, including petroleum pipelines within railroad right-of-way and a 42 -inch reclaimed water pipeline between the UPRR and BNSF alignments. Modifications to City water and sewer as well as various underground natural gas and electric infrastructure would also be necessary. • Riaht-of-Way: Right-of-way acquisition would be required under all build alternatives. This would include fee acquisitions for roadway extensions and realignments, slope easements, temporary construction easements, drainage easements for stormwater treatment and conveyance, and utility licenses/easements. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project S-3 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Summary Construction Staaina: Construction staging and storage activities would be required for all build alternatives. These staging areas would ultimately be selected by the construction contractor, but would be located entirely within the project site boundary. Construction staging would likely occur within the vacant, former industrial area located within the central portion of the site. Unique Design Features of Build Alternatives Alternative 1A Alternative 1A would consolidate the UPRR and BNSF alignments to facilitate a single grade separation immediately east of the proposed intersection of Park Place and Allied Way. This railroad consolidation would occur by relocating the BNSF yard and tracks to the west, adjacent to the existing UPRR tracks. The proposed grade separation would place the roadway beneath the consolidated railroad tracks. Alternative 1A would include a stop controlled "T" intersection at the proposed intersection of Park Place/Allied Way. Minor modifications to the existing signalized intersection providing access to Plaza EI Segundo parking areas (immediately west of the westerly terminus of the proposed roadway extension) would be required to match proposed roadway extension grade and geometry. Retaining walls would be required along both sides of existing Park Place and Allied Way, immediately west and north (respectively) of the proposed Park Place/Allied way "T" intersection. At the easterly terminus of the project, the proposed roadway would extend directly north of the existing ArcLight Cinemas building, through an existing surface parking lot. Modifications to the existing Park Place/Nash Street intersection would be required to match proposed roadway geometry with a roadway design speed at 35 miles per hour (mph). Access to the ArcLight Cinemas parking lot and driveway to the 2121 Park Place property from Nash Street would be reconstructed. Alternative 1A would be implemented via three -stage construction in order to maintain rail operations along the UPRR and BNSF facilities serving the Chevron facility. Stage 1 would consist of a temporary shoofly (a temporary rerouting of track to allow for continued rail operations) along the UPRR alignment in order to construct the rail crossing over the proposed Park Place alignment. Stage 2 would include construction of the realigned BNSF tracks to utilize the proposed grade separation, in addition to the central portion of the Park Place roadway extension between the existing UPRR and BNSF facilities. Stage 2 would also include elimination of the temporary UPRR shoofly to switch rail operations back to the existing UPRR alignment. Stage 3 would include completing the remaining Park Place roadway improvements, generally west of the UPRR alignment and east of the existing BNSF alignment. Stage 3 would switch BNSF operations to the new alignment, and removal of the vacated BNSF track and yard. Alternative 1C Similar to Alternative 1A, this alternative would consolidate the UPRR and BNSF alignments to facilitate a single grade separation (proposed roadway undercrossing of the railroad tracks) by relocating the BNSF tracks to the west. The primary difference between Alternatives 1A and 1C is that Alternative 1 C would include a roundabout at the Park Place/Allied Way intersection. With the implementation of this roundabout intersection, improvements at the existing signalized intersection along Park Place providing access parking areas at Plaza EI Segundo (immediately west of the westerly terminus of the proposed project) would be required to match the proposed grade of the Park Place extension. These improvements would primarily consist of lowering the northerly and southerly legs of the intersection to match grade. In addition, a slight realignment of Allied Way would be required to provide an adequate approach to the proposed roundabout intersection. Retaining walls would be required along both sides of existing Park Place and Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project S-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Summary proposed realigned Allied Way, immediately west and north (respectively) of the proposed Park Place/Allied Way roundabout intersection. At the easterly terminus of the project, improvements adjacent to the ArcLight Cinemas and intersection improvements at Park Place/Nash Street would be identical to Alternative 1A. Alternative 1 C would be implemented via three -stage construction in order to maintain rail operations along the UPRR and BNSF facilities serving the Chevron facility. Stage 1 would consist of a temporary shoofly along the UPRR alignment in order to construct the rail crossing over the proposed Park Place alignment. Stage 2 would include construction of the realigned BNSF tracks to utilize the proposed grade separation, in addition to the central portion of the Park Place roadway extension between the existing UPRR and BNSF facilities. Stage 2 would also include elimination of the temporary UPRR shoofly to switch rail operations back to the existing UPRR alignment. Stage 3 would include completing the remaining Park Place roadway improvements, generally west of the UPRR alignment and east of the existing BNSF alignment. Stage 3 would switch BNSF operations to the new alignment, and remove the vacated BNSF track and yard. Alternative 3A Under Alternative 3A, the proposed alignment and intersection configurations of the roadway extension would generally be similar to Alternative 1 C. However, the UPRR and BNSF tracks would maintain their existing alignments, and two grade separations (roadway undercrossings of the railroad tracks) would be constructed. In addition, a driveway ramp extending from the proposed extension of Park Place (immediately east of the BNSF grade separation) to the westerly portion of the ArcLight Cinemas surface parking lot would be provided for access. Alternative 3A would be implemented via three -stage construction in order to maintain rail operations along the UPRR and BNSF facilities serving the Chevron facility. Stage 1 would consist of a temporary shoofly along both the UPRR and BNSF alignments in order to construct the two rail crossings over the proposed Park Place alignment. Stage 2 would include construction of the central portion of the Park Place roadway extension between the existing UPRR and BNSF facilities. Stage 2 would also include elimination of the temporary shoofly facilities to switch UPRR/BNSF operations back to their existing alignments. Stage 3 would include completing the remaining Park Place roadway improvements, generally west of the UPRR alignment and east of the existing BNSF alignment. Alternative 3B Under Alternative 3B, the existing UPRR and BNSF tracks would maintain their existing alignments (similar to Alternative 3A). However, this alternative would include one grade separation at the UPRR rail alignment and one at -grade crossing at the BNSF rail alignment. The UPRR grade separation would consist of a roundabout intersection beneath the railroad alignment. Due to the design requirement for a 90 -degree at -grade crossing at the BNSF tracks, and Park Place extension alignment would be shifted slightly north with a design speed of 25 mph as compared to the other three build alternatives. This northerly shift would require improvements along existing Allied Way to match the proposed grade of the roundabout intersection, including retaining walls along both sides of the road, a retaining wall immediately south of the existing Dick's Sporting Goods retail facility, and intersection/driveway modifications at the signalized intersection immediately north of the proposed Park Place/Allied Way intersection. At the easterly terminus of the proposed project, the roadway would extend through the northerly extent of the ArcLight Cinemas parking lot. Modifications to the existing Park Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project S-5 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Summary Place/Nash Street intersection would be required to match proposed roadway geometry. At this location, access to the existing ArcLight surface parking lot and 2121 Park Place property would be configured as one of the following two options: • Drivewav Access Option 1: Nash Street would terminate at a cul-de-sac to the north of the proposed Park Place extension. Access to the 2121 Park Place property would be maintained via a reconstructed driveway with retaining walls. A driveway providing access to the westerly portion of the Arclight Cinemas surface parking lot would extend from Park Place immediately east of the proposed Park Place/BNSF at -grade crossing. • Drivewav Access Option 2: Under this option, access to the westerly portion of the Arclight Cinemas would be maintained by a driveway that extends north of Park Place and then curves to the southwest beneath Park Place (via an underpass structure), extending into the existing parking lot. A driveway providing access to the 2121 Park Place property would also be constructed similar to Driveway Access Option 1. Alternative 313 would be implemented via three -stage construction in order to maintain rail operations along the UPRR and BNSF facilities serving the Chevron facility. Stage 1 would consist of a temporary shoofly along the UPRR alignment in order to construct the rail crossing over the proposed Park Place alignment. Stage 1 would also include a reconfiguration of the BNSF yard and tracks and construction of the at -grade crossing for the Park Place alignment. Stage 2 would include construction of the central portion of the Park Place roadway extension between the existing UPRR and BNSF facilities. Stage 2 would also include elimination of the temporary UPRR shoofly facility to switch UPRR operations back to its existing alignment. Stage 3 would include completing the remaining Park Place roadway improvements, generally west of the UPRR alignment and east of the existing BNSF alignment. Permits and Approvals Needed The following permits, licenses, agreements, and certifications (PLACs) are required for project construction: PLAC National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-009-DWQ, as amended by 2010 -0014 -DWG and 2012- 0006-DWQ, NPDES Number CAS000002) NPDES Storm Water Permit, Order No. R4- 2012-0175, NPDES No. CAS004001 Air Quality Conformity Determination Memorandum of Understanding and/or Concurrence Letters Right of Way Certification Authorization for New Crossing Agency State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) SWRCB Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) SWRCB and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) City of EI Segundo California Public Utilities Commission Status Permit adopted on November 16, 2010, became effective on February 14, 2011. Required for short-term construction related water quality impacts. The Permit Registration Documents, including the Notice of Intent, will be submitted to the SWRCB prior to any project construction. Permit effective November 8, 2012, applies to all discharges from municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) facilities. The Air Quality Conformity Analysis (AQCA) for the project was submitted to FHWA on January 31, 2019. FHWA provided a Conformity Determination on February 22, 219. Memorandum of Understanding and/or Concurrence Letters would be required from regulatory agencies involved in hazardous materials remediation oversight (i.e., SWRCB, DTSC). Right of Way Certification is required for property acquisition necessary to construct the proposed project. Authorization is required for construction or modification of public crossings. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project S-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Summary Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Consequences Area of Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, & 3B (Build Alternatives) Build Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A & 313: Not Adverse Temporary Impacts: No temporary land use impacts are anticipated to occur with implementation of the Build The No -Build Alternative would not Land Use be consistent with the City's General Alternatives. Permanent Impacts: The Build Alternatives are consistent with State, regional, and local plans and programs. No Plan. adverse impacts would result in this regard. Cumulative Impacts: The roadway extension and grade separation to accommodate the Build Alternatives are consistent with local and regional goals to improve traffic operations and reduce congestion in the area. Effects would not be cumulatively considerable. Build Alternatives 1A,1 C, 3A& 313: Not Adverse Temporary Impacts: Due to the long-term nature of growth -related impacts, temporary impacts relative to growth are not analyzed for the Build Alternatives. No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Permanent Impacts: The proposed project would not be growth -inducing nor have growth -related impacts. No Growth No Impact operational growth -related impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed Build Alternatives. No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Cumulative Impacts: The Build Alternatives would not induce growth or remove obstacles to growth in the area, and therefore, would not contribute to cumulative adverse impacts related to growth. No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Build Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A& 3B: Not Adverse with Mitigation. Temporary Impacts: No permanent community character and cohesion impacts are anticipated to occur with implementation of the Build Alternatives. Temporary construction may result in traffic impacts due to short-term and long-term roadway closures; however, Measure TRA -1 would minimize effects in this regard. Community No Impact Permanent Impacts: No adverse permanent impacts would occur with regard to regional and local demographics, Impacts housing characteristics, or community character and cohesion under the Build Alternatives. No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Cumulative Impacts: No cumulative adverse impacts would occur with regard to regional and local demographics, housing characteristics, or community character and cohesion under the Build Alternatives. Effects would not be cumulatively considerable. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project S-7 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Summary Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Consequences [continued] Area of Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, & 3B (Build Alternatives) Build Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A& 313: Not Adverse With Mitigation Temporary Impacts: Implementation of Mitigation Measures U&ES-1, U&ES-2, and U&ES-3 would minimize temporary impacts regarding utilities and emergency services during construction, and impacts would not be Utilities/Emergency Services No Impact adverse. Permanent Impacts: With implementation of the project, the delivery of emergency services (police and fire protection, and emergency medical response) is expected to improve thereby resulting in a beneficial effect. Thus, permanent effects related to utilities and emergency services would not be adverse. Cumulative Impacts: With adherence to Measures U&ES-1, U&ES-2, and U&ES-3, impacts in this regard would not be cumulatively considerable. Analysis shows that under Opening Year 2021 No -Build Build Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A& 313: Not Adverse With Mitigation Traffic and conditions AM and PM peak Temporary Impacts: Implementation of Measure TRA -1 would minimize temporary impacts regarding roadway Transportation/ hour intersection traffic volumes, and intersection closures during construction, and impacts would not be adverse. Pedestrian and Bicycle a deterioration in LOS would Permanent Impacts: Implementation of Measure TRA -2 would ensure that traffic impacts would not be substantial. Facilities occur at an additional five (5) Cumulative Impacts: With adherence to Measures TRA -1 and TRA -2, the Build Alternatives would not contribute intersections as compared to to cumulatively considerable effects pertaining to traffic and transportation and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. existing conditions. Build Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A& 3B: Not Adverse With Mitigation Temporary Impacts: Implementation of Measures V-1 and V-2 minimize temporary construction visual impacts, and adverse effects in this regard would not occur. Visual/Aesthetics No Impact Permanent Impacts: The Build Alternatives would not result in permanent adverse impacts to the visual environment. No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures would be required. Cumulative Impacts: Implementation of Measures V-1 and V-2 minimize temporary construction visual impacts, and the Build Alternatives would not contribute to cumulatively considerable adverse effects to visual resources. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project S-8 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Summary Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Consequences [continued] Area of Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, & 3B (Build Alternatives) Build Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A & 313: Not Adverse Temporary Impacts: Project features (PF -CUL -1 and PF -CUL -2) would be implemented during construction to ensure construction -related impacts to potential cultural resources and unknown buried human remains are not Cultural Resources No Impact adverse. Permanent Impacts: Operation of the Build Alternatives would not result in any permanent impacts to cultural resources. No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures would be required. Cumulative Impacts: With implementation of project features, potential impacts related to cultural resources and unknown buried human remains are not adverse and would not be cumulatively considerable. Build Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A & 313: Not Adverse Temporary Impacts: Upon compliance with existing NPDES requirements, adverse temporary effects related to Water Quality and water quality would not occur. No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Storm Water Runoff No Impact Permanent Impacts: Upon adherence to existing requirements under the MS4 permit applicable to the City and implementation of required BMPs, adverse effects related to long-term operational water quality and stormwater runoff would not occur. No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Cumulative Impacts: Effects related to water quality would not be cumulatively considerable. Build Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A & 313: Not Adverse Temporary Impacts: Conformance with the California Building Code (CBC) as well as adherence to standard engineering and construction practices, would reduce the potential for geologic or seismic hazards during the construction process. Moreover, Project Feature PF-GEO-1 would require that a site-specific, geotechnical field investigation is performed for the proposed project during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) phase. Geology/Soils/Seismic/ No Impact Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not result in an adverse effect during the short-term construction process. Topography No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Permanent Impacts: No adverse effects related to seismic -related ground shaking, liquefaction, seismic settlement, or seismic slope instability would result. Adherence to the CBC and recommendations within the Geotechnical Design Report to be prepared during the PS&E phase as part of PF-GEO-1 would be required for all earthwork; therefore, impacts related to soil expansion and soil corrosivity would be minimized. No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project S-9 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Summary Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Consequences [continued] Area of Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, & 3B (Build Alternatives) Cumulative Impacts: The Build Alternatives have a limited capacity to interact or contribute cumulatively to geological hazards associated with cumulative development in the project area, and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Build Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A& 313: Not Adverse With Mitigation Temporary Impacts: With implementation of Measure PALEO-1, the proposed project would not result in any adverse impact on paleontological resources. Paleontology No Impact Permanent Impacts: Operation of any of the Build Alternatives would not adversely affect paleontological resources because operational activities would not involve the Pleistocene older flood plain deposits. No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures would be required. Cumulative Impacts: Potential impacts related to paleontological resources would be specific to the project site, and therefore, the Build Alternatives proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable effects. Build Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A & 313: Not Adverse With Mitigation Temporary Impacts: With adherence to Measures HW -1 through HW -6, no adverse impacts involving hazardous waste/materials would result during construction. Permanent Impacts: Operation of the Build Alternatives would not result to any permanent impacts related to Hazardous Waste/ hazardous materials/waste. No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Materials No Impact Cumulative Impacts: Each of the planned projects has the potential to be exposed to hazardous waste/materials through releases at adjacent or nearby properties or through renovation or demolition of buildings or other structures. Likewise, the planned projects would be required to comply with state and federal regulations with respect to the use, generation, and disposal of hazardous waste/materials during construction and operation, and mitigate as necessary. Therefore, with adherence to Measures HW -1 through HW -6, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable effects. Build Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A & 3B: Not Adverse Temporary Impacts: The proposed project would comply with any state, federal, and/or local rules and regulations Air Quality No Impact developed as a result of implementing control and minimization measures proposed as part of their respective State Implementation Plans (SIPs). Therefore, project construction is not anticipated to violate state or federal air quality standards or contribute to the existing air quality violations in the South Coast Air Basin. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project S-10 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Summary Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Consequences [continued] Area of Impacts Alternative 1 Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, & 3B (Build Alternatives) (No -Build Alternative) Permanent Impacts: The Build Alternatives conform with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The Build Alternatives would not worsen localized air quality or violate federal or state standards for current and projected emissions. Federal approval of the conformity determination for the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS was issued on June 1, and June 2, 2016 (RTP ID LAOG321). Federal approval of the conformity determination for the 2017 FTIP was issued on December 16, 2016 (FTIP ID LAOG321). In addition, construction and operational emissions associated with the proposed Build Alternatives would not exceed federal General Conformity de minimis emission levels. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not result in adverse operational impacts on air quality. No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Cumulative Impacts: Temporary air quality impacts would be minimized through implementation of dust control, equipment management, and other existing requirements. The Build Alternatives would not contribute to cumulative air quality impacts, as the Build Alternatives would not violate any air quality standard, would not contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Build Alternatives 1A,1 C, 3A& 313: Not Adverse With Mitigation Temporary Impacts: No adverse noise impacts from construction are anticipated as construction activities would occur between the City's allowable construction hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Construction activities would not occur on Sundays and Federal holidays. Further, implementation of Measures N-1 and N-2 would minimize the temporary noise impacts from construction, by requiring sound -control devices/mufflers on construction equipment and providing attenuation around stationary construction noise sources, among others. Permanent Impacts: Traffic noise levels under existing, design -year without -project conditions, and design -year with Build Alternatives project conditions, noise levels do not approach or exceed the applicable Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) of 72 dBA Uq(h) at the Activity Category E land uses. Since noise levels associated with the Build Noise Not Adverse Alternatives do not approach or exceed the applicable NAC for the project, noise abatement is not required. Further, the Build Alternatives would not involve permanent railroad noise impacts which would require avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures, and no noise abatement would be required. Cumulative Impacts: None of the identified cumulative projects identified within the project area would have the capacity to result in a substantial cumulative effect during long-term operation of the Build Alternatives. As with the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project, each cumulative project would be subject to its own environmental review that would consider noise, and attenuation and/or abatement would be required as applicable. There is the potential for a cumulative noise impact to occur during construction if one or more of the cumulative projects were in construction at the same time. However, these impacts would be minimized with the implementation of standard construction noise abatement procedures, which are anticipated to be included in other related projects. Effects in this regard would not be cumulatively considerable. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project S-11 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Summary Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Consequences [continued] Area of Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, & 3B (Build Alternatives) Build Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A& 313: Not Adverse Temporary Impacts: Construction -related energy consumption anticipated under the Build Alternatives would be minimal and would cease once construction of the project was complete. Permanent Impacts: Over the course of long-term operations, the Build Alternatives are expected to result in a beneficial impact, since it would provide a secondary (and more direct) east -west route for travelers in the project Energy Not Adverse area, thus resulting in reductions in fuel consumption. Adverse impacts related to energy consumption would not occur as part of the Build Alternatives. Cumulative Impacts: Construction -related energy consumption anticipated under the Build Alternatives would be minimal and would cease once construction of the project is complete (approximately 24 months). When balancing energy used during construction and operations against energy saved by enhancing safety and other transportation efficiencies, the project would not have substantial energy impacts. Other than relatively minor and temporary energy consumption during construction, these impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Build Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A& 3B: Not Adverse With Mitigation Temporary Impacts: In accordance with Measure PS -1, all undeveloped areas of the project site that are subject to temporary impacts would be revegetated with native plant species generally conforming to the plant composition in the immediate surrounding area. Therefore, temporary impacts to natural communities would not be substantial. Permanent Impacts: The permanent loss of deerweed scrub and non-native grassland that would occur under the Build Alternatives could result in potentially adverse effects regarding two plant species for which deerweed scrub Natural Communities No Impact and non-native grassland function as habitat. However, implementation of Measures PS -1 and PS -2 would ensure that adverse effects to natural communities do not occur. Cumulative Impacts: The natural communities existing on the project site area isolated within a heavily developed area adjacent to a range of commercial and industrial uses. The site has been previously disturbed by former heavy industrial uses, and sensitive biological resources are limited within the project area given the amount of development that has occurred. While the Build Alternatives and related cumulative projects may result in impacts to biological resources, each project would be subject to resource agency permits and requirements that would minimize impacts, such that effects would not be cumulatively considerable. Build Alternatives 1A, 1 C, 3A & 313: Not Adverse With Mitigation Temporary Impacts: With adherence to Measures PS -1 and PS -2, adverse temporary effects related to special Plant Species No Impact status plant species would not occur. Permanent Impacts: With implementation of Measures PS -1 and PS -2, permanent adverse impacts to special status plant species would not occur under the Build Alternatives. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project S-12 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Summary Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Consequences [continued] Area of Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, & 3B (Build Alternatives) Cumulative Impacts: The natural communities existing on the project site area isolated within a heavily developed area adjacent to a range of commercial and industrial uses. The site has been previously disturbed by former heavy industrial uses, and sensitive biological resources are limited within the project area given the amount of development that has occurred. While the Build Alternatives and related cumulative projects may result in impacts to biological resources, each project would be subject to resource agency permits and requirements that would minimize impacts, such that effects would not be cumulatively considerable. Build Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A& 3B: Not Adverse With Mitigation Temporary Impacts: Temporary impacts to special status animal species and nesting birds would be reduced to a less than substantial level with implementation of Measures AS -1 and AS -2. Permanent Impacts: With implementation of Measures AS -1 and AS -2, adverse permanent impacts to animal species would not occur. Animal Species No Impact Cumulative Impacts: The natural communities existing on the project site area isolated within a heavily developed area adjacent to a range of commercial and industrial uses. The site has been previously disturbed by former heavy industrial uses, and sensitive biological resources are limited within the project area given the amount of development that has occurred. While the Build Alternatives and related cumulative projects may result in impacts to biological resources, each project would be subject to resource agency permits and requirements that would minimize impacts, such that effects would not be cumulatively considerable. Build Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A& 3B: Not Adverse Temporary Impacts: Temporary impacts regarding threatened and endangered species are not anticipated under the Build Alternatives. Additionally, the biological study area for the project is not located within federally designated Critical Habitat. No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Permanent Impacts: Permanent impacts regarding threatened and endangered species are not anticipated under the Build Alternatives. Additionally, the biological study area for the project is not located within federally designated Threatened and No Impact Critical Habitat. The project is determined to have no effect on any federally listed species identified by the USFWS Endangered Species Species List, CNDDB, or CNPS. No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Cumulative Impacts: The natural communities existing on the project site area isolated within a heavily developed area adjacent to a range of commercial and industrial uses. The site has been previously disturbed by former heavy industrial uses, and sensitive biological resources are limited within the project area given the amount of development that has occurred. While the Build Alternatives and related cumulative projects may result in impacts to biological resources, each project would be subject to resource agency permits and requirements that would minimize impacts, such that effects in this regard would not be cumulatively considerable. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project S-13 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Summary Table S-1: Summary of Environmental Consequences [continued] Area of Impacts Alternative 1 Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, & 3B (Build Alternatives) (No -Build Alternative) Build Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A & 313: Not Adverse Temporary Impacts: Upon adherence to Executive Order on Invasive Species, EO 13112 requirements, adverse effects related to invasive species would not occur. No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Invasive Species No Impact Permanent Impacts: The discussion of invasive species is limited to temporary impacts only; no permanent impacts would result. Cumulative Impacts: The region in which the project site exists is heavily developed and urbanized. Opportunities for combined effects with related projects as a result of invasive species are not considered substantial, given the relatively minimal amount of open space and natural habitats available. Thus, impacts in this regard would not be cumulatively considerable. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project S-14 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page SUMMARY................................................................................................................................ S-1 CHAPTER 1 PROPOSED PROJECT.....................................................................................1-1 1.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need.............................................................................................1-4 1.2.1 Purpose of the Project...........................................................................1-4 1.2.2 Need for the Project..............................................................................1-4 1.2.3 Capacity and Transportation Demand..................................................1-4 1.2.4 Social Demands or Economic Development.........................................1-7 1.2.5 Modal Interrelationships and System Linkages.....................................1-7 1.2.6 Air Quality Improvements......................................................................1-8 1.2.7 Independent Utility and Logical Termini................................................1-8 1.3 Project Description.............................................................................................1-8 1.3.1 Alternatives...........................................................................................1-9 1.3.2 Identification of a Preferred Alternative...............................................1-35 1.3.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion .......1-36 1.4 Permits and Approvals Needed........................................................................1-37 CHAPTER 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES ......2-1 2.1 Human Environment.....................................................................................2.1.1-1 2.1.1 Land Use.........................................................................................2.1.1-1 2.1.2 Growth.............................................................................................2.1.2-1 2.1.3 Community Impacts........................................................................2.1.3-1 2.1.4 Utilities/Emergency Services...........................................................2.1.4-1 2.1.5 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ........... 2.1.5-1 2.1.6 Visual/Aesthetics.............................................................................2.1.6-1 2.1.7 Cultural Resources..........................................................................2.1.7-1 2.2 Physical Environment...................................................................................2.2.1-1 2.2.1 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff...........................................2.2.1-1 2.2.2 Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography ................................................2.2.2-1 2.2.3 Paleontology...................................................................................2.2.3-1 2.2.4 Hazardous Waste/Materials............................................................2.2.4-1 2.2.5 Air Quality........................................................................................2.2.5-1 2.2.6 Noise...............................................................................................2.2.6-1 2.2.7 Energy.............................................................................................2.2.7-1 2.3 Biological Environment.................................................................................2.3.1-1 2.3.1 Natural Communities.......................................................................2.3.1-1 2.3.2 Plant Species..................................................................................2.3.2-1 2.3.3 Animal Species...............................................................................2.3.3-1 2.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................2.3.4-1 2.3.5 Invasive Species.............................................................................2.3.5-1 2.4 Cumulative Impacts.........................................................................................2.4-1 2.4.1 Regulatory Setting..............................................................................2.4-1 2.4.2 Methodology.......................................................................................2.4-1 2.4.3 Affected Resources............................................................................2.4-5 2.4.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures .....................2.4-10 Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project i Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Table of Contents CHAPTER 3 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) EVALUATION... 3.1-1 3.1 Determining Significance Under CEQA...........................................................3.1-1 3.2 CEQA Environmental Checklist.......................................................................3.2-1 3.3 Climate Change...............................................................................................3.3-1 CHAPTER 4 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION.................................................................4-1 4.1 Project Development Team (PDT) Meetings......................................................4-1 4.2 Public Participation.............................................................................................4-1 4.3 Cultural Resources.............................................................................................4-2 4.4 Biological Resources..........................................................................................4-3 4.5 Hazardous Materials..........................................................................................4-4 4.6 Air Quality...........................................................................................................4-4 4.7 Comments and Responding to Comments.........................................................4-4 CHAPTER 5 LIST OF PREPARERS......................................................................................5-1 5.1 California Department of Transportation, District 7 ............................................5-1 5.2 City of EI Segundo..............................................................................................5-2 5.3 Michael Baker International, Inc......................................................................... 5-2 5.4 Cogstone Resources..........................................................................................5-3 CHAPTER 6 DISTRIBUTION LIST.........................................................................................6-1 6.1 Federal Agencies...............................................................................................6-2 6.2 State Agencies...................................................................................................6-2 6.3 Regional Agencies.............................................................................................6-2 6.4 County Agencies................................................................................................6-3 6.5 Local Agencies...................................................................................................6-3 6.6 Federal Legislators.............................................................................................6-3 6.7 State Legislators.................................................................................................6-3 6.8 Local Elected Officials........................................................................................ 6-4 6.9 Interested Groups, Organizations, and Individuals.............................................6-4 6.10 Utilities and Public Services...............................................................................6-6 APPENDICES A. Resources Evaluated Relative to Section 4(f) B. Title VI Policy Statement C. Notice of Preparation and Comments D. List of Acronyms E. List of Technical Studies F. Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Summary G. USFWS & NOAA Species List H. Transportation Conformity Working Group Determination I. California Office of Historic Preservation Concurrence Letter J. FHWA Conformity Determination Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 1-1 Regional Vicinity...........................................................................................1-2 Figure1-2 Site Vicinity...................................................................................................1-3 Figure 1-3 Alternative 1A Conceptual Site Plan...........................................................1-13 Figure 1-4 Alternative 1A Conceptual Bridge Plan......................................................1-15 Figure 1-5 Alternative 1C Conceptual Site Plan..........................................................1-17 Figure 1-6 Alternative 1C Conceptual Bridge Plan......................................................1-19 Figure 1-7 Alternative 3A Conceptual Site Plan...........................................................1-21 Figure 1-8 Alternative 3A Conceptual Bridge Plan (BNSF).........................................1-23 Figure 1-9 Alternative 3A Conceptual Bridge Plan(UPRR).........................................1-25 Figure 1-10 Alternative 3B Conceptual Site Plan — Option 1 .........................................1-27 Figure 1-11 Alternative 3B Conceptual Site Plan — Option 2 .........................................1-29 Figure 1-12 Alternative 3B Conceptual Bridge Plan......................................................1-31 Figure 2.1.1-1 Land Use Designations in the Project Vicinity........................................2.1.1-2 Figure 2.1.1-2 Proposed Projects Within the City of EI Segundo ..................................2.1.1-5 Figure 2.1.2-1 The First -Cut Screening Process...........................................................2.1.2-3 Figure 2.1.3-1 Alternative 1A ROW Acquisition...........................................................2.1.3-11 Figure 2.1.3-2 Alternative 1 C ROW Acquisition...........................................................2.1.3-13 Figure 2.1.3-3 Alternative 3A ROW Acquisition...........................................................2.1.3-15 Figure 2.1.3-4 Alternative 3B Option 1 ROW Acquisition ............................................2.1.3-17 Figure 2.1.3-5 Alternative 3B Option 2 ROW Acquisition ............................................2.1.3-19 Figure 2.1.4-1 Alternative 1A Existing and Proposed Utility Plan ..................................2.1.4-3 Figure 2.1.4-2 Alternative 1C Existing and Proposed Utility Plan ..................................2.1.4-5 Figure 2.1.4-3 Alternative 3A Existing and Proposed Utility Plan ..................................2.1.4-7 Figure 2.1.4-4 Alternative 3B Option 1 Existing and Proposed Utility Plan....................2.1.4-9 Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Table of Contents Figure 2.1.4-5 Figure 2.1.5-1 Figure 2.2.2-1 Figure 2.2.6-1 Figure 2.2.6-2 Figure 2.3.1-1 Figure 3.3-1 Figure 3.3-2 Figure 3.3.-3 Alternative 3B Option 2 Existing and Proposed Utility Plan..................2.1.4-11 Traffic Study Area...................................................................................2.1.5-3 Seismic Hazard Zones Map...................................................................2.2.2-3 Noise Levels of Common Activities........................................................2.2.6-2 Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations ........................................2.2.6-5 Biological Study Area and Vegetation Map ............................................2.3.1-3 2020 Business as Usual (BAU) Emissions Projection 2014 Edition .......... 3.3-6 Possible Use of Traffic Operation Strategies In Reducing On -Road CO2 Emissions.......................................................3.3-8 The Governor's Climate Change Pillars: 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals.................................................3.3-12 Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project iv Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table S-1 Summary of Environmental Consequences ................................................ S-7 Table 1-1 Existing Conditions Intersection Operations.................................................1-5 Table 1-2 Opening Year 2021 Conditions....................................................................1-6 Table 1-3 Comparison of Design Features and Improvements..................................1-33 Table 1-4 Permits and Approvals...............................................................................1-37 Table 2.1.1-1 Proposed Projects Within the City of EI Segundo ..................................2.1.1-4 Table 2.1.1-2 Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs...... 2.1.1-11 Table 2.1.3-1 Demographic Summary..........................................................................2.1.3-2 Table 2.1.3-2 Proposed Permanent Right -of -Way Acquisitions .................................2.1.3-10 Table 2.1.3-3 Ethnic Composition...............................................................................2.1.3-21 Table 2.1.3-4 Persons Living Below the Poverty Level ..............................................2.1.3-21 Table 2.1.5-1 LOS for Signalized Intersections............................................................2.1.5-4 Table 2.1.5-2 LOS for Unsignalized Intersections........................................................2.1.5-4 Table 2.1.5-3 Existing 2016 Conditions Intersection Analysis ......................................2.1.5-6 Table 2.1.5-4 Existing 2016 Plus Project Conditions Intersection and Impact Analysis, Without and With Traffic Diversion to Park Place Extension.......................................................................2.1.5-13 Table 2.1.5-5 Opening Year 2021 With Project Conditions Intersection and Impact Analysis Summary, Without and With Traffic Diversion to Park Place Extension.......................................................................2.1.5-14 Table 2.2.1-1 Beneficial Uses....................................................................................... 2.2.1-6 Table 2.2.1-2 Net New Impervious Surfaces and Disturbed Soil Areas .......................2.2.1-8 Table 2.2.2-1 Major Fault Characterization in the Project Vicinity................................2.2.2-2 Table 2.2.3-1 Paleontology Sensitivity Ratings............................................................2.2.3-2 Table 2.2.4-1 Reported Contamination Present On -Site ..............................................2.2.4-2 Table 2.2.4-2 Other Potential Hazardous Materials Present On -Site ...........................2.2.4-6 Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project v Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Table of Contents Table 2.2.4-3 ROW Acquisition Summary....................................................................2.2.4-7 Table 2.2.5-1 State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources..............................................................................2.2.5-4 Table 2.2.5-2 Ambient Air Quality Summary — Los Angeles -Westchester and Compton Monitoring Stations..........................................................2.2.5-7 Table 2.2.5-3 Estimated Daily Construction Emissions ................................................2.2.5-9 Table 2.2.6-1 Noise Abatement Criteria.......................................................................2.2.6-1 Table 2.2.6-2 Summary of Short -Term Measurements ................................................2.2.6-4 Table 2.2.6-3 Comparison of Measured to Predicted Sound Levels in the TNM Model...................................................................................2.2.6-4 Table 2.2.7-4 Existing Traffic Noise Levels..................................................................2.2.6-4 Table 2.2.7-5 Construction Equipment Noise...............................................................2.2.6-7 Table 2.2.7-6 Predicted Traffic Noise Levels — Future No Build...................................2.2.6-8 Table 2.2.7-7 Predicted Traffic Noise Levels —Alternative 1 A .....................................2.2.6-9 Table 2.2.7-8 Predicted Traffic Noise Levels — Alternative 1 C .....................................2.2.6-9 Table 2.2.7-9 Predicted Traffic Noise Levels — Alternative 3A ...................................2.2.6-10 Table 2.2.7-10 Predicted Traffic Noise Levels — Alternative 3B ...................................2.2.6-10 Table 2.2.7-11 Railroad Noise Levels...........................................................................2.2.6-11 Table 2.3.1-1 Vegetation Types and Other Areas in the Biological Study Area ...........2.3.1-1 Table 2.3.1-2 Vegetation Impacts by Alternative..........................................................2.3.1-6 Table 2.3.4-1 Listed Species, Proposed Species, Habitat, Potential to Occur, and USFWS Effect Determination ...........................2.3.4-3 Table 2.3.4-2 NOAA Listed Species, Proposed Species, Habitat, Potential to Occur, and Effect Determination .........................................2.3.4-4 Table 2.4-1 Reasonably Foreseeable Projects.............................................................2.4-2 Table 3.3-1 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled and Vehicle Hours Traveled Summary........ 3.3-9 Table 3.3-2 Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................3.3-10 Table 4-1 Summary of Native American Consultation..................................................4-2 Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project vi Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 1 Proposed Project Chapter 1 Proposed Project 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the lead agency for the proposed project under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The City of EI Segundo is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of EI Segundo (City) proposes to extend Park Place from Allied Way to Nash Street with a railroad grade separation to implement a critical project as identified in the City's 2005 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update, the City's 2004 General Plan Circulation Element Update and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). The proposed project is included in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (RTP ID LAOG321). The project is also included in the Southern California Association of Government's financially constrained 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) (FTIP ID LAOG321). Based on the FTIP, the project is funded through the engineering phase with a combination of Measure R, local agency, and Federal demonstration funds administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Park Place currently exists in two segments with a roughly quarter mile gap across an undeveloped area which consists of Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad tracks separated by open land. The segment on the west end of the project site is roughly 0.2 miles long and exists as a four -lane local road with raised median that provides access to the Plaza EI Segundo shopping center. The segment on the east end of the project site is approximately 0.35 miles long and is striped as a two-lane roadway with center left turn lane, although the pavement is wide enough to accommodate a four -lane facility. The project site is characterized by commercial, industrial, and mixed land uses; refer to Figure 1-1, Regional Vicinity, and Figure 1-2, Site Vicinity. Within the project limits, both UPRR and BNSF maintain storage yards with lead tracks into the Chevron refinery, situated immediately west of the project site. UPRR delivers railroad cars to Chevron from its yard near Los Angeles and maintains a three track yard at the site to facilitate the storage of loaded and empty railroad cars for Chevron. A third party switcher moves cars from the UPRR yard to the Chevron refinery. BNSF delivers railroad cars to Chevron from their Watson Yard located south of the project site in Wilmington, CA. The railroad uses the Harbor Subdivision owned by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) to deliver cars to a three track yard where cars are stored for Chevron. The City of EI Segundo's Circulation Element (2004) identified the need to provide additional roadway capacity in the southeast portion of the City, north of Rosecrans Avenue and east of Sepulveda Boulevard. The extension of Park Place from Nash Street to Sepulveda Boulevard was recognized as a potential transportation improvement to help satisfy this need and, as such, the existing segment of Park Place between Douglas Street and Nash Street was re- designated from a local street to a collector to be consistent with a future extension. In 2005, the City confirmed the need for a continuous Park Place corridor and identified the extension as a critical future project in its Traffic Impact Fee Study Update. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) K E R N j C O U N T Y 10 Lebec--------� — Gorman \ I I \ \ Lancaster I Pyramid I Lake \ D I \ © Palmdale I \ Castaic Lake I I \ I Lake \ ®� \ Castaie Piru \ I Piru \ Newhall LOS ANGELES I Fillmore /�� C O U N T Y \ Santa Clarita VENTURA \\ © I ® C 0 U N T Y \ Sylmar i � Moorpark Simi Pacoima I Valley Chatsworth ® — Canoga Burbank � Park Van I Glendale Thousand �-- Nuys Monrovia Oaks Agcura Hills Woodland ®i Azuza Hills Sherman Pasadena Claremont Westlake 101 Calabasas ) Oaks © Arcadia Upland Village 101 ® Baldwin ®i San ® Alhambra Park Covina Dimas �— Beverly Hollywood I' Hills Monterey West Pomona Santa Park Covina _ Malibu Q Monica INUP Walnut Culver Los Pico Chino City Angeles ® ivera Whittier La Habra Marina Del Rey Inglewood South Heights Playa Del Rey Gate Downey Brea \ ` Project Site ElSegundc Hawthorne it 0 La Yorba \ I irada_ I Linda Manhattan each � Compton Bellflower Fullerton Redondo BeachlTorrance Lakewood ) Anaheim ORANGE p q Carson J © Orange COUNTY C / Garden A,Palos ® Grove / C Verdes Estates Long Tustin San Beach Santa 0 Pedro Ana Huntington C F Beach Costa Irvine Lake Mesa Forest Newport Beach PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) Q NOT TO SCALE Regional Vicinity 08118 1 A 145070 Figure 1-1 NOR 1y �" �' .� _ r .t � rS � � • YJ je }4 A � R t ,•, .Alaska Avenue-- v Ifs ~ - � r �• � �� ! G -�� S Ca pu. tA 41 go FD ns Avenue ' x 7mr If Km G ^+ * - rn 41 Chapter 1 Proposed Project With the construction of the Plaza EI Segundo Development in 2006 and additional development planned for the area, congestion is only expected to worsen, magnifying the need for additional roadway capacity. A feasibility study was initiated by the City in 2013 with funding provided through Federal Demonstration funds in order to document feasible alternatives for extending Park Place and grade separating it from the UPRR and BNSF tracks. The study assessed alternatives for consolidating the two railroad yards (currently located along separate corridors) to one corridor, evaluated associated environmental and engineering constraints, and investigated alignments to minimize these impacts. 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.2.1 Purpose of the Project The purpose of the project is to develop Park Place as an alternate east -west route between Sepulveda Boulevard and Douglas Street to relieve congestion along portions of Rosecrans Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard, as well as to improve local traffic circulation and access to and from the 1-105 freeway. 1.2.2 Need for the Project Park Place is an east -west collector located in the southeast area of the City of EI Segundo north of and parallel to Rosecrans Avenue. Currently, there is a gap in the Park Place roadway between Allied Way and Nash Street that disrupts continuity along the corridor and results in increased trips on the already heavily congested Rosecrans Avenue corridor. Current and planned development near the Sepulveda Boulevard/Rosecrans Avenue intersection will further contribute to an increase in congestion. 1.2.3 Capacity and Transportation Demand Existing Capacity and Levels of Service (LOS) Level of service (LOS) is commonly used as a qualitative description of intersection operation and is based on the capacity of the intersection and the volume of traffic using the intersection. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis methodology was utilized to determine the operating LOS of the signalized intersections. For un -signalized intersections, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis methodology was utilized to determine the operating LOS. Intersection Operations Table 1-1, Existing Conditions Intersection Operations, shows the intersection analysis results for existing AM and PM peak hour conditions. As shown in Table 1-1, all study intersections are operating at acceptable LOS D or better for existing conditions, except for the following five intersections: 1. Sepulveda Boulevard at EI Segundo Boulevard — LOS F (PM) 4. Sepulveda Boulevard at Rosecrans Avenue — LOS E (PM) 18. Douglas Street at Park Place — LOS F (PM) 21. Aviation Boulevard at Utah Avenue/135th Street — LOS E (AM) 23. Aviation Boulevard at Rosecrans Avenue — LOS E (AM) Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 1 Proposed Project Table 1-1: Existing Conditions Intersection Operations No. Intersection Name Type' AM Peak VIC 1 Delay' Existing Conditions LOS 1 Sepulveda Boulevard / EI Segundo Boulevard TS 38.2 D 2 Sepulveda Boulevard / Hughes Way TS 8.3 A 3 Sepulveda Boulevard / Park Place TS 6.2 A 4 Sepulveda Boulevard / Rosecrans Avenue TS 40.4 D 5 Sepulveda Boulevard / Marine Avenue TS 53.5 D 6 Plaza EI Segundo Access / Park Place TS 0.181 A 7 Village Drive / Rosecrans Avenue TS 0.497 A 8 Cedar Avenue / Marine Avenue TS 0.480 A 9 Continental Boulevard / EI Segundo Boulevard TS 0.445 A 10 Allied Way / Hughes Way TS 0.199 A 11 Nash Street / EI Segundo Boulevard TS 0.513 A 12 Nash Street / Park Place AWS 7.7 A 13 Nash Street / Rosecrans Avenue TS 0.428 A 14 Apollo Street / Park Place AWS 8.8 A 15 Apollo Street / Rosecrans Avenue TS 0.487 A 16 Douglas Street / EI Segundo Boulevard TS 0.710 C 17 Douglas Street / Transit Center TS 0.357 A 18 Douglas Street / Park Place AWS 22.0 C 19 Douglas Street / Rosecrans Avenue TS 0.658 B 20 Aviation Boulevard / EI Segundo Boulevard TS 0.860 D 21 Aviation Boulevard / Utah Avenue TS 0.912 E 22 Aviation Boulevard /Alaska Avenue TS 0.577 A 23 Aviation Boulevard / Rosecrans Avenue TS 0.917 E Notes: Bold = intersection operating at a deficient LOS (LOS E or F). 1 Intersection Type: TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All -Way Stop 2 Signalized Intersections: Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Method, Volume/Capacity (VIC) Ratio. Source: Park Place Extension Traffic Impact Analysis, November 2016. PM Peak VIC 1 Delay' 84.5 25.2 10.8 79.8 32.9 0.387 0.703 0.610 0.406 0.288 0.503 8.6 0.575 10.6 0.659 0.813 0.383 54.2 0.765 0.890 0.788 0.722 0.879 LOS F C B E C A C B A A A A A B B D A F C D C C D Table 1-2, Opening Year 2021 Conditions, shows the intersection analysis results for opening year AM and PM peak hour conditions. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-5 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 1 Proposed Project Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Table 1-2: Opening Year 2021 Conditions OY2021 Plus Cumulative - No -Build OY2021 Plus Cumulative - with Build Alternatives Intersection AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 0Type' V/C / Delay' LOS V/C / Delay' LOS V/C / Delay' LOS V/C / Delay' LOS Sepulveda Boulevard / TS 129.5 F 149.0 F 127.9 F 146.8 F 1 EI Segundo Boulevard Sepulveda Boulevard / 2 Hughes Way TS 15.4 B 57.1 E 14.3 B 47.4 D Sepulveda Boulevard / 3 Park Place TS 8.9 A 17.4 B 15.5 B 16.0 B Sepulveda Boulevard / 4 Rosecrans Avenue TS 67.8 E 136.7 F 58.6 E 135.2 F Sepulveda Boulevard / 5 Marine Avenue TS 112.3 F 62.4 E 112.3 F 62.4 E Plaza EI Segundo Access / 6 Park Place TS 0.182 A 0.390 A 0.180 A 0.343 A Village Drive / Rosecrans 7 Avenue TS 0.514 A 0.761 C 0.495 A 0.690 B Cedar Avenue I 8 Marine Avenue TS 0.492 A 0.627 B 0.492 A 0.627 B Continental Boulevard I 9 EI Segundo Boulevard TS 0.557 A 0.646 B 0.555 A 0.640 B Allied Way / Hughes 10 Way TS 0.448 A 0.432 A 0.651 B 0.401 A Nash Street / 11 TS 0.931 E 1.104 F 0.929 E 1.102 F EI Segundo Boulevard 12 Nash Street / Park Place AWS 7.8 A 8.7 A 9.2 A 11.3 B -With Traffic Signal TS 0.163 A 0.287 A 13 Nash Street / TS 0.458 A 0.617 B 0.434 A 0.550 A Rosecrans Avenue 14 Apollo Street / AWS 8.8 A 10.7 B 10.2 B 15.0 B Park Place 15 Apollo Street / TS 0.524 A 0.701 C 0.537 A 0.716 C Rosecrans Avenue 16 Douglas Street / TS 1.219 F 1.137 F 1.217 F 1.143 F EI Segundo Boulevard Douglas Street I 17 Transit Center TS 0.363 A 0.390 A 0.368 A 0.398 A 18 Douglas Street I Park Place AWS 23.9 C 55.0 F 25.4 D 57.3 F -With Traffic Signal TS 0.296 A 0.586 A 19 Douglas Street / TS 0.685 B 0.809 D 0.684 B 0.809 D Rosecrans Avenue Aviation Boulevard / 20 EI Segundo Boulevard TS 1.324 F 1.199 F 1.324 F 1.199 F Aviation Boulevard / 21 TS 0.988 E 0.880 D 0.988 E 0.880 D Utah Avenue Aviation Boulevard / 22 TS 0.649 B 0.793 C 0.649 B 0.793 C Alaska Avenue Aviation Boulevard / Rosecrans 23 TS 0.969 E 0.933 E 0.969 E 0.933 E Avenue Allied Way/Park Place (Alt 1C) TS 0.133 A 0.231 A 24 -With Roundabout RBT 4.3 A 5.5 A -With SB Stop TWS 10.4 B 16.4 C Note: Bold = intersection operating at a deficient LOS (LOS E or F). Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 1 Proposed Project Regional Population/Traffic Forecasts Future Population Growth and Traffic Demand Forecast The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)'s 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) regional growth forecast represents the most likely growth scenario for the Southern California region in the future, taking into account a combination of recent and past trends, reasonable key technical assumptions, and local or regional growth policies. According to the SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Demographics and Growth Forecast Appendix, the SCAG region's population, which encompasses six counties including Riverside, Imperial, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles and Ventura, is projected to grow to 22.1 million people in 2040, an increase of approximately 3.3 million people from the 2015 population estimate of 18.8 million people. This translates into a percentage growth rate of approximately 18.1 percent from 2015 to 2040. For Los Angeles County only, SCAG projects growth to approximately 11.5 million people in 2040, an increase of approximately 1.3 million people from the 2015 population estimate of approximately 10.2 million (or about 11 percent growth from 2015 to 2040). Forecast growth within the project area was based on the 2010 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The five-year general traffic volume growth factor for EI Segundo is 1.013 (1.3%) from 2015 to 2020. The annual (1 -year) growth factor is calculated to be 1.0026 (0.26%). The assumption of 0.26% annual growth rate was established in consultation with Caltrans and the City of EI Segundo. In addition, the traffic analysis for the project accounts for a range of reasonably foreseeable development projects in the project area, that was developed in consultation with the cities of EI Segundo, Manhattan Beach, and Hawthorne. 1.2.4 Social Demands or Economic Development As discussed above, growth projections for Los Angeles County resulted in a forecasted population increase of approximately 11 percent growth from 2015 to 2040, which is substantially lower than the growth projection for the SCAG region as a whole (approximately 18.1 percent population growth from 2015 to 2040). While the majority of the project area is built out, portions of the project site and immediately adjacent are vacant. These areas were previously developed with heavy industrial uses, and are designated Commercial Center by the City's General Plan Land Use Element. Although no development for these vacant areas is considered reasonably foreseeable at this time, the proposed project may assist the City in providing for adequate infrastructure to support future development anticipated under the General Plan. The proposed extension of Park Place is also identified on the City's Master Plan of Streets within the General Plan Circulation Element. 1.2.5 Modal Interrelationships and System Linkages As noted above, the gap closure and extension of Park Place is identified in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Park Place is shown as a four -lane divided collector between Sepulveda Boulevard and Nash Street. The gap closure would establish Park Place as an additional east -west corridor within the project area, providing a continuous roadway connection between Sepulveda Boulevard on the west and Douglas Street to the east. This new roadway would provide for enhanced access between the various office and commercial uses east of the project site and retail, commercial, and restaurant uses located at the Plaza EI Segundo to the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-7 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 1 Proposed Project west. It would also serve as a secondary east -west corridor that would improve emergency access and response for areas between Sepulveda Boulevard and Douglas Street. 1.2.6 Air Quality Improvements The proposed project would provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities along Park Place, providing for enhanced mobility within the project area via non -vehicular modes, with resultant benefits related to air quality. Additionally, the project would implement an alternate east -west route between Sepulveda Boulevard and Douglas Street to relieve congestion along portions of Rosecrans Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard. It would improve local traffic circulation and access to and from the 1-105 freeway, with corresponding benefits related to reductions in vehicular pollutant emissions. 1.2.7 Independent Utility and Logical Termini FHWA regulations (23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 771.111 [f]) require that the action evaluated: 1. Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope. 2. Have independent utility or independent significance (be usable and require a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made). 3. Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements. The termini of the proposed project include Allied Way and Nash Street. As noted above, improvements between these termini would close an existing gap along Park Place, providing benefits related to circulation in the project area, and achieving consistency with the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Thus, the project has logical termini. No subsequent transportation improvements in the area would be needed in order to implement the proposed Park Place extension and grade separation. The proposed project would also not limit potential future improvements that might be proposed within the area. Accordingly, the proposed project has independent utility. Further, the proposed project would not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable local transportation improvements adjacent and/or in proximity to the project site. 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of EI Segundo (City) proposes to extend Park Place from Allied Way to Nash Street with a grade separation to implement a critical project as identified in the City's 2005 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update. By extending Park Place and closing the gap between Allied Way and Nash Street, the project would create an alternative route and provide much needed relief to Rosecrans Avenue, a heavily congested, east -west major arterial in the South Bay region of Los Angeles. The project would also improve access to the 105 Freeway by creating a direct route from Sepulveda Boulevard to Douglas Street. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-8 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 1 Proposed Project The project site includes a combination of both developed and vacant land. The northwesterly portion of the project site is developed and includes parts of the Plaza EI Segundo retail development, located along the east side of Sepulveda Boulevard. This portion of the project site includes part of the existing westerly segment of Park Place, portions of Allied Way, and paved/landscaped parking facilities associated with retail activities. Within this area, both Park Place and Allied Way are four -lane roadways (two lanes in each direction). The central portion of the project site consists of vacant land, formerly occupied by heavy industrial uses such as Honeywell and the H. Kramer foundry. The majority of the H. Kramer property within the northern portion of the project site has been capped as part of hazardous materials remediation. The majority of other vacant land within the central portion of the site is either overgrown with vegetation or graded with exposed soils. A number of soil mounds existing within the former Honeywell portion of the property, along the southerly boundary of the project site. Within this primarily vacant area are both UPRR and BNSF rail alignments that serve the Chevron Oil Refinery, which is directly west of the project site. Both the UPRR and BNSF rail alignments are elevated approximately 10-15 feet with embankments and chain-link fences along the right-of-way. From the Chevron Oil Refinery, both rail alignments traverse the project site in a northeasterly direction, ultimately leading off-site in a northerly direction towards an existing rail right-of-way adjacent to Aviation Boulevard. The easterly portion of the project site is developed with commercial uses and roadway facilities. Within this area, the project site extends along Nash Street, a four -lane roadway (two lanes in each direction) that terminates to the south at Rosecrans Avenue. This area of the project site also affects portions of the easterly segment of the existing Park Place, which is a two-lane roadway (one lane in each direction with a center turn lane). The project site also includes a parking lot associated with the existing ArcLight Cinemas located along the westerly side of Nash Street. The existing parking lot is paved with landscaping along the perimeters and numerous planters within the interior of the project site. The parking lot is accessed via the northerly terminus of Nash Street. The proposed project consists of extending Park Place by constructing approximately 0.25 miles of new roadway, creating a continuous four -lane collector roadway from Sepulveda Boulevard to Douglas Street. The typical section for the proposed Park Place extension would include an 80 - foot right -of way consisting of a raised and landscaped center median, roadway with two travel lanes in each direction for shared vehicle and bicycle traffic, curb and gutter, a five-foot landscaped parkway, and a five-foot sidewalk. The proposed project would be required to cross the existing UPRR and BNSF rail alignments traversing the project site. As part of the preliminary design process for the proposed project, the City has developed a total of four build alternatives that meet the purpose and need of the project and one no -build alternative; a total of five alternatives. The four build alternatives feature varying intersection and rail crossing configurations. 1.3.1 Alternatives This section describes the proposed action and the project alternatives developed to meet the purpose and need of the project, while avoiding or minimizing environmental impacts. Five alternatives are analyzed in this EIR/EA: the four build alternatives, including Alternative 1A, Alternative 1 C, Alternative 3A and Alternative 3B, and the No -Build Alternative. A description of the No -Build Alternative is also provided. This section also describes the alternatives that were initially considered during the formulation of the proposed project, but were later rejected. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-9 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 1 Proposed Project Common Design Features of the Build Alternatives A description of primary project features that are common to each of the four build alternatives is provided below: • Tvnical Section: As noted above, all build alternatives would include a typical roadway section consisting of an 80 -foot right -of way (raised and landscaped center median, roadway with two travel lanes in each direction to accommodate shared vehicle and bicycle traffic, curb and gutter, a five-foot landscaped parkway, and a five-foot sidewalk). • Drainage Facilities: Drainage facilities associated with the roadway improvements would include new storm drain pipe and catch basins. Stormwater runoff would be conveyed via gravity flow to an existing detention pond located to the north of the project site. • Utility Relocation: The project would require relocation of various utilities, including petroleum pipelines within railroad right-of-way and a 42 -inch reclaimed water pipeline between the UPRR and BNSF alignments. Modifications to City water and sewer as well as various underground natural gas and electric infrastructure would also be necessary. • Riaht-of-Way: Right-of-way acquisition would be required under all build alternatives. This would include fee acquisitions for roadway extensions and realignments, slope easements, temporary construction easements, drainage easements for stormwater treatment and conveyance, and utility licenses/easements. • Construction Staaina: Construction staging and storage activities would be required for all build alternatives. These staging areas would ultimately be selected by the construction contractor, but would be located entirely within the project site boundary depicted in Figure 1-2. Construction staging would likely occur within the vacant, former industrial area located within the central portion of the site. Unique Design Features of Build Alternatives Alternative 1A Alternative 1A would consolidate the UPRR and BNSF alignments to facilitate a single grade separation immediately east of the proposed intersection of Park Place and Allied Way. This railroad consolidation would occur by relocating the BNSF yard and tracks to the west, adjacent to the existing UPRR tracks; refer to Figure 1-3, Alternative 1A Conceptual Site Plan, and Figure 1-4, Alternative 1A Conceptual Bridge Plan. The proposed grade separation would place the roadway beneath the consolidated railroad tracks. Alternative 1A would include a stop controlled "T" intersection at the proposed intersection of Park Place/Allied Way. Minor modifications to the existing signalized intersection providing access to Plaza EI Segundo parking areas (immediately west of the westerly terminus of the proposed roadway extension) would be required to match proposed roadway extension grade and geometry. Retaining walls would be required along both sides of existing Park Place and Allied Way, immediately west and north (respectively) of the proposed Park Place/Allied way "T" intersection. At the easterly terminus of the project, the proposed roadway would extend directly north of the existing ArcLight Cinemas building, through an existing surface parking lot. Modifications to the existing Park Place/Nash Street intersection would be required to match proposed roadway geometry with a roadway design speed at 35 miles per hour (mph). Access to the ArcLight Cinemas parking lot and driveway to the 2121 Park Place property from Nash Street would be reconstructed. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-10 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 1 Proposed Project Alternative 1A would be implemented via three -stage construction in order to maintain rail operations along the UPRR and BNSF facilities serving the Chevron facility. Stage 1 would consist of a temporary shoofly along the UPRR alignment in order to construct the rail crossing over the proposed Park Place alignment. Stage 2 would include construction of the realigned BNSF tracks to utilize the proposed grade separation, in addition to the central portion of the Park Place roadway extension between the existing UPRR and BNSF facilities. Stage 2 would also include elimination of the temporary UPRR shoofly to switch rail operations back to the existing UPRR alignment. Stage 3 would include completing the remaining Park Place roadway improvements, generally west of the UPRR alignment and east of the existing BNSF alignment. Stage 3 would include switching BNSF operations to the new alignment, and removal of the vacated BNSF track and yard. Alternative 1C (Locally Preferred Alternative) Similar to Alternative 1A, this alternative would consolidate the UPRR and BNSF alignments to facilitate a single grade separation (proposed roadway undercrossing of the railroad tracks) by relocating the BNSF tracks to the west. The primary difference between Alternatives 1A and 1C is that Alternative 1 C would include a roundabout at the Park Place/Allied Way intersection; refer to Figure 1-5, Alternative 1C Conceptual Site Plan and Figure 1-6, Alternative 1C Conceptual Bridge Plan. With the implementation of this roundabout intersection, improvements at the existing signalized intersection along Park Place providing access to parking areas at Plaza EI Segundo (immediately west of the westerly terminus of the proposed project) would be required to match the proposed grade of the Park Place extension. These improvements would primarily consist of lowering the northerly and southerly legs of the intersection to match grade. In addition, a slight realignment of Allied Way would be required to provide an adequate approach to the proposed roundabout intersection. Retaining walls would be required along both sides of existing Park Place and proposed realigned Allied Way, immediately west and north (respectively) of the proposed Park Place/Allied Way roundabout intersection. At the easterly terminus of the project, improvements adjacent to the ArcLight Cinemas and intersection improvements at Park Place/Nash Street would be identical to Alternative 1A. Alternative 1C would be implemented via three -stage construction in order to maintain rail operations along the UPRR and BNSF facilities serving the Chevron facility. Stage 1 would consist of a temporary shoofly along the UPRR alignment in order to construct the rail crossing over the proposed Park Place alignment. Stage 2 would include construction of the realigned BNSF tracks to utilize the proposed grade separation, in addition to the central portion of the Park Place roadway extension between the existing UPRR and BNSF facilities. Stage 2 would also include elimination of the temporary UPRR shoofly to switch rail operations back to the existing UPRR alignment. Stage 3 would include completing the remaining Park Place roadway improvements, generally west of the UPRR alignment and east of the existing BNSF alignment. Stage 3 would switch BNSF operations to the new alignment, and removal of the vacated BNSF track and yard. Alternative 1C is considered the locally preferred alternative by the City of EI Segundo. With implementation of a roundabout, this alternative would result in reduced vehicle delay at the proposed new Allied Way/Park Place intersection (as compared to a stop -controlled intersection as proposed under Alternative 1A); refer to Chapter 2.1.5, Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities for vehicle delay information. In addition, this alternative would consolidate the UPRR and BNSF railroad alignments to allow for a single rail crossing (as opposed to two under Alternatives 3A and 3B, below). Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-11 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 1 Proposed Project Alternative 3A Under Alternative 3A, the proposed alignment and intersection configurations of the roadway extension would generally be similar to Alternative 1C. However, the UPRR and BNSF tracks would maintain their existing alignments, and two grade separations (roadway undercrossings of the railroad tracks) would be constructed; refer to Figure 1-7, Alternative 3A Conceptual Site Plan, Figure 1-8, Alternative 3A Conceptual Bridge Plan (BNSF); and Figure 1-9, Alternative 3A Conceptual Bridge Plan (UPRR). In addition, a driveway ramp extending from the proposed extension of Park Place (immediately east of the BNSF grade separation) to the westerly portion of the ArcLight Cinemas surface parking lot would be provided for access. Alternative 3A would be implemented via three -stage construction in order to maintain rail operations along the UPRR and BNSF facilities serving the Chevron facility. Stage 1 would consist of a temporary shoofly along both the UPRR and BNSF alignments in order to construct the two rail crossings over the proposed Park Place alignment. Stage 2 would include construction of the central portion of the Park Place roadway extension between the existing UPRR and BNSF facilities. Stage 2 would also include elimination of the temporary shoofly facilities to switch UPRR/BNSF operations back to their existing alignments. Stage 3 would include completing the remaining Park Place roadway improvements, generally west of the UPRR alignment and east of the existing BNSF alignment. Alternative 3B Under Alternative 3B, the existing UPRR and BNSF tracks would maintain their existing alignments (similar to Alternative 3A). However, this alternative would include one grade separation at the UPRR rail alignment and one at -grade crossing at the BNSF rail alignment. The UPRR grade separation would consist of a roundabout intersection beneath the railroad alignment. Due to the design requirement for a 90 -degree at -grade crossing at the BNSF tracks, and Park Place extension alignment would be shifted slightly north with a design speed of 25 mph as compared to the other three build alternatives. This northerly shift would require improvements along existing Allied Way to match the proposed grade of the roundabout intersection, including retaining walls along both sides of the road, a retaining wall immediately south of the existing Dick's Sporting Goods retail facility, and intersection/driveway modifications at the signalized intersection immediately north of the proposed Park Place/Allied Way intersection. At the easterly terminus of the proposed project, the roadway would extend through the northerly extent of the ArcLight Cinemas parking lot. Modifications to the existing Park Place/Nash Street intersection would be required to match proposed roadway geometry. At this location, access to the existing ArcLight surface parking lot and 2121 Park Place property would be configured as one of the following two options: Drivewav Access Option 1: Nash Street would terminate at a cul-de-sac to the north of the proposed Park Place extension. Access to the 2121 Park Place property would be maintained via a reconstructed driveway with retaining walls; see "Driveway 3" in Figure 1-10, Alternative 3B Conceptual Site Plan - Option 1. A driveway providing access to the westerly portion of the Arclight Cinemas surface parking lot would extend from Park Place immediately east of the proposed Park Place/BNSF at -grade crossing (see "Driveway 4" in Figure 1-10). Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-12 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) rq =GEND: . d� PROPOSED ROADWAY PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED RAILROAD -100— PROPOSED CONTOURS FILL CUT 4 P4 K P ,. 10 4ACF.; r3 7S 6 / \ REALIGNED,UUPRRh Y s � A V. a, Q0 C3 1V ROSE ANS AVENUE - dw ARW �, 1 -� ■ 4 � +.;! _ � � li ,i ■ ,'III - llli�i• �.. v s � —+tee � 7.� ��'- r LL -.: ;a"'-� t . � i _ J15i�i/��'7 � 3a � �'•i . -i�.,, _. ��--�'�-a�.s" 1t�'-"� Source: NCM Engineering Corporation, August 2017. ALTERNATIVE 1A (WITH RAIL OPTION 1) PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) NOT TO SCALE Alternative 1A Conceptual Site Plan 08/18 1 JN 145070 Figure 1-3 ry y , ROSE ANS AVENUE - dw ARW �, 1 -� ■ 4 � +.;! _ � � li ,i ■ ,'III - llli�i• �.. v s � —+tee � 7.� ��'- r LL -.: ;a"'-� t . � i _ J15i�i/��'7 � 3a � �'•i . -i�.,, _. ��--�'�-a�.s" 1t�'-"� Source: NCM Engineering Corporation, August 2017. ALTERNATIVE 1A (WITH RAIL OPTION 1) PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) NOT TO SCALE Alternative 1A Conceptual Site Plan 08/18 1 JN 145070 Figure 1-3 Chapter 1 Proposed Project Back of 11 x 17. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-14 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) 142'-8" MEASURED ALONG BNSF TRACK (� BENT BB 82'-8" 60'-0" �EB 13 9 3 TOP OF RAIL --------- - \\v/A\\\------- t- --- ---- /� ------------------------- -- ----------------- - Approx OG J � � 1 OZ Q Typ � u u 4 FG � ---i u /A\\.VA\\\ 1_l 1_� Abut 1 Abut 3 5 Typ&-- s -J ECJ 17'-6" Min BENT 2 Vert Clr DATUM LINE 127 128 129 I I I Elev 50.00 ELEVATION 1'' = 20' 17+59.51 BC A \ 27+88.37 CL BNSF TRACK = 16+87.48 GL PARK PLACE \ 12 4 5 EB Sta 128+48.37 5 5 TOE OF CUT, Typ Elev 114.79 4 8° 9�� f o.9- .�\ lJi9' \ 5 N F N 1 2 TOP OF FILL, Typ I RR R/W 128 CL BNSF TRACK 12 I N 50°26'56"E RR R/W O Typ 28°38'40" TO SEPULVEDA BLVD SKEW, Typ — - - - - - - - _ UPRR_TRACK TO DOUGLAS ST AA � 1 2 N� \ BB Sta 127+05.71 Elev 114.30 4 1 6' 5 ACCESS ROAD 1 ♦ L� X CURVE DATA RR R/W � R = 600.00' PLAN 1 0= 28°06'24" 1 = 20' T = 150.19' L = 294.33' DIG ALERT DIAL TO_22LL FREE AT LEAST TWO WORIONG DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG Source: NCM Engineering Corporation, August 2017. 08/18 i JN 145070 CL BRIDGE 42'-6" CL BNSF CL UPRR ° S 8"_9 , 2"-6 2 -6 6'-6'_ ll' -3" VARIES VAR 1"-0" o a l Min Min TYP TOP OF RAIL, PG (DTyp ® TYP 7 o x -I a 5'-0"0 Conc COLUMNS FG� © Ty p i TYPICAL SECTION GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE 1A PARK PLACE UNDERPASS PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) Alternative 1A Conceptual Bridge Plan Figure 1-4 DATE OF ESTIMATE = 8/10/2017 STRUCTURE DEPTH = 7'-0" NOTES: LENGTH = 142'-8" 1Q Point "Br No." WIDTH = 42'-6" O2 Paint "Bridge Name" AREA = 6,063 SOFT O3 Structure Approach Slab COST/SOFT INCLUDING Q4 Retaining Wall No. 1 25% CONTINGENCY - $425 Q Retaining Wall No. 2 TOTAL BRIDGE COST = $2,580,000 Q CIDH Concrete Pile Q7 Precast Concrete Bulb -Tee Girder RETAINING WALL AREA = 3,125 SOFT ® Cast -in-place Concrete Maintenance Walkway COST/SOFT INCLUDING ( Chain Link Fence 25% CONTINGENCY = $175 ® Retaining Wall, See "Road Plans" TOTAL RETAINING 1Q Existing Retaining Wall, Protect in Place WALL COST = $550,000 QSecurity Fencing (by others) 1© Cable Railing Point of minimum vertical clearance TOTAL STRUCTURES COST = $3,130,000 GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE 1A PARK PLACE UNDERPASS PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) Alternative 1A Conceptual Bridge Plan Figure 1-4 Chapter 1 Proposed Project Back of 11 x 17. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-16 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) LEGEND, � 'r +�,-;�,.��!! ► � ' !fill I .�iI_i��" 4. ;zg PROPOSED ROADWAY - �1 - PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED RAILROAD — 100— PROPOSED CONTOURS "'-��f ; •'- "� — — — — FILL f��r .- 1 � -- - - -- CUT � �� `'#� _ 5 " Z* r ter- rte■■_" " m - MCC LU Ira s LU co .. pq p �p _ 44C 3 711' 41 74 /5 6 k�v R_EALIGNED UPRR -- A' (LEAD TRACK - _ UNDERPASS STRUCTURE f 'n, W Z I ROSECRANS AVENUE ' l�'iF� r • � •N �'j �ll.�� ^� � � �vP +'.` �1�_ �.l►t�- r.- i dot Source: NCM Engineering Corporation, August 2017 ALTERNATIVE 1C (WITH RAIL OPTION 1) PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) NOT TO SCALE Alternative 1C Conceptual Site Plan 08/18 i JN 145070 Figure 1-5 Chapter 1 Proposed Project Back of 11 x 17. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-18 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) EB L 238'-0" MEASURE ALONG CL BNSF TRACK CL BENT 11 L BB TOP OF RAI L- 17'-6" Min STEEL PLATE FG Vert Cl' �FGGIRDER - - - - - - - - - - - - - -=inn � FG ---� - n Approx OG U u u Liz TTl u "lnJ '4riT'ctn<-__ _�� tnrn�n �rr i��n rinr Inn-rn rid• FG �� u uu u u uuuu u w w u�� TYPL " uuu u w w DATUM Abut 1 3Typ "BENT'2" Abut 3 Elev = 60 108 Typ EB 108+59.70 "114.84 _TO SEA BLVD_ A S68°52'04"E 108 BC 101+92.41 TOP OF SLOPE PROPOSED ACCESS RD,-�, BC ?Z'+8fi,4 1 109 ELEVATION G G Le v ,P� P \ 'b- b50°15'48"E CURVE DATA 50' 15'4 8"E i _107 108 / - i ,T� + •� -��-� © © 109 / ALERT R = TOE C F SLOPE r- LAIN 1" = 20' Source: NCM Engineering Corporation, August 2017. 110 ME@ EC 33+24.3 30+00.00 CL ALLIED WAY -BC 30+70.84 B I a,1 109 ./7Z,/ 111 F T -�I i� CL UPRR TRACK i- !L(�-BNSF TRACK N50° 1 5'487E DTYP TO DOUGLAS ST 71 STOP OF SLOPE PROPOSED ACCESS RD TOE OF SLOPE _ BB 110+97.70 Elev 113.89 DATE OF ESTIMATE STRUCTURE DEPTH LENGTH WIDTH AREA COST/SOFT INCLUDING 25% CONTINGENCY TOTAL BRIDGE COST NOTES: 1O Paint "Br No." O2 Paint "Bridge Name" O3 Driven Steel HP Pile O4 Retaining Wall Structure Approach Slab © Retaining Wall, See "Road Plans" Point of minimum vertical clearance 44'-0'' _ 22'-0" 22'-0" I I CL GIRDER, Typ BRIDGE / UPRR \ / CL BNSF \ 22'-0" r�CLEARANCE STEEL PLAT 11'-0" 11'-0" ENVELOPE GIRDER, Typ-,Typ I I 1 _h I I I I I II I STEEL TIE I I\ T/R ) (DECK I I I FLOOR BEAM - STEEL DIAPHRAGM LLAST 5'-0"0 FG Typ Conc COLUMN Typ L_1_ i :i i 17777 - rtJ Lr -'r 77F- rtJ Lr r4r Ty P .,,. 49 49-�i il� il ..,. - l� il - 8/10/2017 9'-0" Min & Var 238'-0" 44'-0" 10,472 SOFT $750 $7,850,000 TYPICAL SECTION I�8" = 1'-0'' GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE 1C PARK PLACE UNDERPASS PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) Alternative 1C Conceptual Bridge Plan 08/181 A 145070 Figure 1-6 CURVE DATA 0 © © 0 ALERT R = 625.80 R = 425.00 R = 850.00 R = 1800.00 DIAL TOLL FREE DIAL TOLL FREE 17�DIG Q = 60°52'07° A- 34°10'26° Q = 34°27'04" Q = 15°49'36° AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS T = 367.66 T = 130.64 T = 263.53 T = 250.20 BEFORE YOU DIG L = 664.83 L = 253.49 L = 511.09 L = 497.21 Source: NCM Engineering Corporation, August 2017. 110 ME@ EC 33+24.3 30+00.00 CL ALLIED WAY -BC 30+70.84 B I a,1 109 ./7Z,/ 111 F T -�I i� CL UPRR TRACK i- !L(�-BNSF TRACK N50° 1 5'487E DTYP TO DOUGLAS ST 71 STOP OF SLOPE PROPOSED ACCESS RD TOE OF SLOPE _ BB 110+97.70 Elev 113.89 DATE OF ESTIMATE STRUCTURE DEPTH LENGTH WIDTH AREA COST/SOFT INCLUDING 25% CONTINGENCY TOTAL BRIDGE COST NOTES: 1O Paint "Br No." O2 Paint "Bridge Name" O3 Driven Steel HP Pile O4 Retaining Wall Structure Approach Slab © Retaining Wall, See "Road Plans" Point of minimum vertical clearance 44'-0'' _ 22'-0" 22'-0" I I CL GIRDER, Typ BRIDGE / UPRR \ / CL BNSF \ 22'-0" r�CLEARANCE STEEL PLAT 11'-0" 11'-0" ENVELOPE GIRDER, Typ-,Typ I I 1 _h I I I I I II I STEEL TIE I I\ T/R ) (DECK I I I FLOOR BEAM - STEEL DIAPHRAGM LLAST 5'-0"0 FG Typ Conc COLUMN Typ L_1_ i :i i 17777 - rtJ Lr -'r 77F- rtJ Lr r4r Ty P .,,. 49 49-�i il� il ..,. - l� il - 8/10/2017 9'-0" Min & Var 238'-0" 44'-0" 10,472 SOFT $750 $7,850,000 TYPICAL SECTION I�8" = 1'-0'' GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE 1C PARK PLACE UNDERPASS PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) Alternative 1C Conceptual Bridge Plan 08/181 A 145070 Figure 1-6 Chapter 1 Proposed Project Back of 11 x 17. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-20 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) LEGEND: R PROPOSED ROADWAY k PROPOSED RETAINING WALL fs M. PROPOSED RAILROAD •., sL;i 100- PROPOSED CONTOURS `JEA 1�1 — — — — FILL ��' _�f R'' ryy, :ral=rr.t `�" dt .. �'�� %� +� S�1-- ------ CUT .r ,+ r-•`�." d1- ��„ 1 r a r i'r +-`-T y4 _ `'i - - F. A. JV Owl ��► HUG , _ �,, —94 r 1 � t l'I ry } �:� •sc1lE .sa- .3�I¢11'�, � 'Jj�s` s 3 i �, , UjLU0 CO s• Zk pqA may, `yamv�i4 PARK PLACE'',. tiffs -� K _ `• 1'4C4e 4q Yl d + 70 `z 41 (UNDERPASS STRUCTURE h.- hR 75 III♦ - - . .4' i --� — n zTOW s 27 28_, 9.i . �?��y "-+ Miii �, L•.0 REALIGNED UPRR4 x. } 22 23ij c 1- *'•ST , :�. ' + '� LEAD TRACK ,.il' - - - - - - - - - - -- — - - • ... UNDERPASS STRUCTURE( SHIFT SWITCHES -a S µ.,, E SOUTH, f.: 3+.TO TH. i,.{�{yg4r. ` ''• ;7 _ ' 1 OFF OF BRIDGE Lu • •� '- y, f (RAIL OPTION 3A) � "71� �tii_,rr r1 - � _- -�- - �_ ' !'1! rte= � - i —� 1 "�• tt -to � -.. y �` a � T rte., •. .1 - ROSECRANS AVENUE - ; 1L , 'r "I" "�� r+:r..a+: ^.. t O �i1�al�- - _.' fi .��"Rf.i�--"`•`. - + _ r _ �' + .'11jS 11 I.iA{ '4 _ M 1 _ I ALTERNATIVE 3A (WITH RAIL OPTION 3A) Source: NCM Engineering Corporation, August 2017. FIX.! r! i� } ..e :• � ! • r hilt � � r PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) NOT TO SCALE Alternative 3A Conceptual Site Plan 08/181 JN 145070 Figure 1-7 Chapter 1 Proposed Project Back of 11 x 17. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-22 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) L! 127'- 1 27'-1 " MEASURED ALONG (L BNSF TRACK #2 BB EB BENT 65'-1 0" 61'-3 9 Approx OG 9 TOP OF RAIL � i 7 -IT �-U U IU I III IV V II V �I I 1 � -Jlert Min rJ Clr f-1 f -----L- UI II LTI--IT- �T_J �T_J 1T_J / TJJ__ U-it-1TJ ul ul F G vi vi - vi vi ^ �Lrt �n-T+J ?, �,-J rt��-J V-Jmn�R�rr 4-1rr-rt-n u u ul 1 2Typ FG BNT DATUM Elev 60.0' Abut 1 Typ Abut 3 1 1 1 10 11 12 TOE OF SLOPE - TOE OF SLOP \2: 0© CL BNSF TRACK #1� - - - CL BNSF TRACK #2 26, N43°32'19"E-��-��- 10 11 CL BNSF_ TRACK #3 �+ -�I-f- - N4 3* 32'1 9"E TO SEPULVEDA BLVD CL BNSF TRACK #4-/ T�-� TOP OF SLOPE Typ BB 10+50.00 Elev 109.03 / TOE OF SLOPE 26+22.63 EC CURVE DATA O R = 850' A= 12°45'50" T = 95.07' L = 189.36' DIG ALERT DIAL TOLL FREE 1-800-227-2600 AT LEAST TWO WORIONG DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG Source: NCM Engineering Corporation, August 2017. 08/181 JN 145070 ELEVATION 1" = 20' 11+15.88 CL BNSF TRACK #2 = 26+06.87 CL PARK PLACE -TOE OF SLOPE EB 11+77.08 Elev 108.36 / -C�) } -TOP OF SLOPE S6 \ \ 9� \ \ PLAN 1" = 20' 2 TO DOUGLAS ST - 6 691 T -11- 1 m- T�__TOP OF SLOPE DE OF SLOPE 60'-0" r CL BRIDGE 30'-0" 30'-0" CL BNSF CL BNSF 7'-0" 7'-0" CL BNSF CL BNSF TRACK #1 TRACK #2 - -- - TRACK #3 TRACK #4 14'-0" 14'-0" 14'-0'' r 9'-0" 1 8'- 0" 8'- 0" L _ T T/R ~ TIE Typ T" BALLAST (Typ ul ©Typ I RAISED Conc MEDIAN FG 1 5'-0"0 Conc COLUMN, Typ ----------------------------------- ___L__r___I________i L -Tr -r T -r T_J7_i r--r-i-r-1------u777-777 J-----_T� - ---I-------Lr 7 -r 7 -r 7 7 -I Typ o-�h DATE OF ESTIMATE = 8/10/2017 STRUCTURE DEPTH = 4'-10" LENGTH = 127'-1" WIDTH = 60'-0" AREA = 7,625 SOFT COST/SOFT INCLUDING 25% CONTINGENCY = $640 TOTAL BRIDGE COST = $4,880,000 TYPICAL SECTION 3�6 = 1 -0" NOTES: Paint "Br No." 2O Paint "Bridge Name" O3 Structure Approach Slab Oq Raised Concrete Median O5 Driven Steel HP Pile © Steel Girder w/ Steel Deck Handrailing with Fence ® Retaining Wall O9 Cable Railing Point of minimum vertical clearance GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE 3A PARK PLACE/BNSF UNDERPASS PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) Alternative 3A Conceptual Bridge Plan (BNSF) Figure 1-8 Chapter 1 Proposed Project Back of 11 x 17. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-24 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) 238'-0" MEASURED ALONG CL UPRR TRACK BB� CL BENT-- t EB TOP OF RAIL _ 119'-0" 119'-0" Typ qSTEEL FG- FVer 6" Min GIRDER PLATE \i Vert Clr .- rnr—�—�------------------ - ----- —i . FG --b -----�i/d- 1 ---Ag u Intir-gin, i FG� rR RS u,u w u`APProx OG 17 -7, W - - ---- I- �-FG W 4 u I':Tl 4rr�\\�F___n� �wrr�rn rinrJ nrrn r�l T," 4 uh;:uuuu u u�o TYP�L oUQ uu 4 DATUM Abut 1 0Typ BENT'2" Abut 3 Elev = 60 I I I 107 108 109 110 D"! BB 107+06.70 Elev 114.88 TO SEPULVEDA\ S 68° BLVD IA 52'04"E 1 BC 101+52.54 ELEVATION 1" = 20' N6' C \'48 N5015 108 TOP OF SLOPE EC 106+94,00 TOE OF SLOPE i ' EC' -2 4478.7,0 PROPOSED ACCESRb, �Wow BG Z.3"+81.49 17+00.00 CL PARK PLACE _ 30+00.00 CL ALLIED WAY Source: NCM Engineering Corporation, August 2017. 08/18 l JN 145070 NOTES: 0 Paint "Br No." (D Paint "Bridge Name" 0 Driven Steel HP Pile (24 Retaining Wall QS Structure Approach Slab © Retaining Wall, See "Road Plans" (D Cable Railing je Point of minimum vertical clearance EC 33+24.33 E I CL UPRR = / CL GIRDER, Typal -BRIDGE -BC 30+70.84 B /CLEARANCE STEEL PLATE ENVELOPE GIRDER, Typ I Typ 25°SKEW I T/R� STEELI Typ 6 ITIE� \ DECI _ \ \\\111th\\\��III4K/, y-' 5 Typ T 109 M - - _ CL UPRR TRACK BALLAST v I N50'1 5'48''E g a , , , \ J TO DOUGLAS ST BC 17+23.17 1 2 7 I FLOOR BEAM 4 + TOP OF SLOPE STEEL DIAPHRAGM 5'-0"0 Typ FG TOE OF EB 109+44,70 Typ COLUMN 5' SLOPE Elev 113.74 aiTva�o 111"71,m• .m � Typ 5 r__________� r i � TYPRD Lr _ _ „J L77t. _ 7' PROPOSED ACCESS C Q Typ TYPICAL SECTION DATE OF ESTIMATE 0/2017 9,- STRUCTURE DEPTH 9'-0" LENGTH 238'-0" �>>o WIDTH = 22'-0" 7 EC 22+34.26 2 S2„ AREA = 5,236 SOFT PLAN F COST/SOFT INCLUDING 25% CONTINGENCY = $800 1" = 20' TOTAL BRIDGE COST = $4,190,000 GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE 3A PARK PLACE/UPRR UNDERPASS PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) Alternative 3A Conceptual Bridge Plan (UPRR) Figure 1-9 CURVE DATA DIG ALERT © © OD DIAL TOLL FREE R = 603.80 R = 425.00 R = 850.00 R = 1800.00 I-800-227-2600 AT LEAST TW O WORIONG DAYS Q= 60°52'07° Q= 34°10'26" Q= 34°27'04° Q= 15°49'36" BEFORE YOU DIG T = 354.74 T = 130.64 T = 263.53 T = 250.20 .-.a...� L = 641.46 L = 253.49 L = 511.09 L = 497.21 Source: NCM Engineering Corporation, August 2017. 08/18 l JN 145070 NOTES: 0 Paint "Br No." (D Paint "Bridge Name" 0 Driven Steel HP Pile (24 Retaining Wall QS Structure Approach Slab © Retaining Wall, See "Road Plans" (D Cable Railing je Point of minimum vertical clearance EC 33+24.33 E I CL UPRR = / CL GIRDER, Typal -BRIDGE -BC 30+70.84 B /CLEARANCE STEEL PLATE ENVELOPE GIRDER, Typ I Typ 25°SKEW I T/R� STEELI Typ 6 ITIE� \ DECI _ \ \\\111th\\\��III4K/, y-' 5 Typ T 109 M - - _ CL UPRR TRACK BALLAST v I N50'1 5'48''E g a , , , \ J TO DOUGLAS ST BC 17+23.17 1 2 7 I FLOOR BEAM 4 + TOP OF SLOPE STEEL DIAPHRAGM 5'-0"0 Typ FG TOE OF EB 109+44,70 Typ COLUMN 5' SLOPE Elev 113.74 aiTva�o 111"71,m• .m � Typ 5 r__________� r i � TYPRD Lr _ _ „J L77t. _ 7' PROPOSED ACCESS C Q Typ TYPICAL SECTION DATE OF ESTIMATE 0/2017 9,- STRUCTURE DEPTH 9'-0" LENGTH 238'-0" �>>o WIDTH = 22'-0" 7 EC 22+34.26 2 S2„ AREA = 5,236 SOFT PLAN F COST/SOFT INCLUDING 25% CONTINGENCY = $800 1" = 20' TOTAL BRIDGE COST = $4,190,000 GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE 3A PARK PLACE/UPRR UNDERPASS PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) Alternative 3A Conceptual Bridge Plan (UPRR) Figure 1-9 Chapter 1 Proposed Project Back of 11 x 17. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-26 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) LEGEND: r r Ii"4%` . i PROPOSED ROADWAY p [1' PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED RAILROAD` ' dt 100- ell PROPOSED CONTOURS=+I1� �`'' LL„ _ f y M — — — — FILL �� -iii�'•I— •� � y — — — — — — CUT y. JL ♦ s Wit-- LU ca W � id DRIVEWAY 1 REcor YARD ANC (RA it y • -' _ -- BNSF AT GRADE CROSSING A ' ,Q CF —23" 24 2'517. 9 26 2 is ie UNDERPASS STRUCTURE 2y N a A f C. = I.. I I . • �. �„ ✓�' t _ W W ROSECRANS AVENUE4 z ,arr II, da 4. F�r.�• x SSE �• F k � -- • - 'F _ #• Source: NCM Engineering Corporation, August 2017. ALTERNATIVE 3B - Opt 1 (WITH RAIL OPTION 3B) PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) NOT TO SCALE Alternative 3B Conceptual Site Plan — Option 1 08/18 1 JN 145070 Figure 1-10 '•— ,LST_:. y� is ie UNDERPASS STRUCTURE 2y N a A f C. = I.. I I . • �. �„ ✓�' t _ W W ROSECRANS AVENUE4 z ,arr II, da 4. F�r.�• x SSE �• F k � -- • - 'F _ #• Source: NCM Engineering Corporation, August 2017. ALTERNATIVE 3B - Opt 1 (WITH RAIL OPTION 3B) PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) NOT TO SCALE Alternative 3B Conceptual Site Plan — Option 1 08/18 1 JN 145070 Figure 1-10 Chapter 1 Proposed Project Back of 11 x 17. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-28 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) LEGEND: PROPOSED ROADWAY PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED RAILROAD 100 — PROPOSED CONTOURS — — — — FILL -- - - -- CUT IBNSF AT GRADE CROSSING p4 A F 21 70✓' 22 23 24. 25 V _ 26 •' +� s _ >> 'z iL. � �� _ _ - - - - - `- ' .2I 9 i - r ti. J!!�� _ �3•� f � pAa, �_ 7 9 15-15 {UNDERPASS STRUCTURE 29 �2, ♦A MJh;: �; Ifs 0 3 i j � i►1: �4 � C'l.t'' T e rt '�— N • '?` PROPOSED BRIDGE CROSSING OVER DRIVEWAY 4r' LU ROSECRANS AVENUE'~+ _ • r � i�li Ji!': ! b. -r.4 ti ! Nrr i� •1 3 � ti =� fC \`�. r� � It � �- ' � w� � - e� Source: NCM Engineering Corporation, August 2017. A�3 ALTERNATIVE 36 - Opt 2 (WITH RAIL OPTION 36) PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) NOT TO SCALE Alternative 313 Conceptual Site Plan — Option 2 08/181 JN 145070 Figure 1-11 Chapter 1 Proposed Project Back of 11 x 17. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-30 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) 221'-10" MEASURED ALONG CL UPRR TRACK BB CL BENT EB TOP OF RAIL �; 110'-11° _ = 110'-11" STEEL PLATE Types GIRDER \\'L ----------X1--6" Min �FG — — Vert Clr FG� I, IF 5� FG r�ir - i, I R ;uu Approx OG _� __ iLr ir5r 4,1 f1f1 r,� Ir, 1J__L J --iJ I�,rnrc�rrf nrlrnr q w u I i n I n w w ww ��u� Typ uu uuuu,. ",IQ uu 4 Abut 1L-OTyp BENTI12 Abut 3 DATUM Elev = 60 110 111 112 113 114 ELEVATION 1" = 20' --------------- PRC 17+74.83 _ _ 19 B — EC 20+10.32 TOP OF SLOPE } N 1 2,' I TO SEPULVEDA BLVD I ! ' _ CL UPRR TRACK 110 N50' 9'55"E _ 1 1 ` `• j TOP OF SLOPE) BB 1V 5 `� ��P 1 Elev x� �zZ TOE OF SL _ �40l 20+33.84 CL PARK PLACE _ 30+00.00 CL ALLIED WAY DIG ALERT DUAL TOLL FREE 1-800-227-2600 AT LEAST TWO WORIONG DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG Source: NCM Engineering Corporation, August 2017. 08/18 I JN 145070 CURVE DATA 0 R = 604.05 R = 300.00 A = 6°47'07" A = 44°58'27" T = 35.81 T = 124.18 L = 71.53 L = 235.48 ------------------------- 6 -- 6 Cw � 20°SKEW Typ EB 113+31.96 Elev 113.74 A EC 113+93.76 20 N42° 44� 4 1 1 2 1 r 3 1 ' 5 Typ 11 To DOUGLAS ST BC 113+22.23 I TOP OF SLOPE =j N 11 2 4 TOE OF SLOPE PLAN 1" = 20' NOTES: 1Q Paint "Br No." Q2 Paint "Bridge Name" O3 Driven Steel HP Pile O4 Retaining Wall Q Structure Approach Slab © Retaining Wall, See "Road Plans" Q7 Cable Railing Point of minimum vertical clearance 22'-0" I C UPRR = CL GIRDER, Typal BRIDGE / I L�CLEARANCE STEEL PLATE ENVELOPE GIRDER, Typ TYp I T/R STEELS \TIE DECK � \ I m v BALLAST 8 � J FLOOR BEAM STEEL DIAPHRAGM 5'-0--0 TYp FG Conc COLUMN ---- Typ ---7,.mri1.—\, r r__________� r___- _________� Lr _ LTJ Lr t,7 - RJ TYPICAL SECTION DATE OF ESTIMATE = 8/10/2017 STRUCTURE DEPTH = 9'-0" LENGTH = 221'-10" WIDTH = 22'-0" AREA = 4,880 SOFT COST/SOFT INCLUDING 25% CONTINGENCY = $800 TOTAL BRIDGE COST = $3,904,000 GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE 313 PARK PLACE UNDERPASS PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) Alternative 3B Conceptual Bridge Plan Figure 1-12 Chapter 1 Proposed Project Back of 11 x 17. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-32 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 1 Proposed Project DrivewavAccess Option 2: Under this option, access to the westerly portion of the Arclight Cinemas would be maintained by a driveway that extends north of Park Place and then curves to the southwest beneath Park Place (via an underpass structure), extending into the existing parking lot. A driveway providing access to the 2121 Park Place property would also be constructed similar to Driveway Access Option 1 (refer to Figure 1-11, Alternative 3B Conceptual Site Plan - Option 2). The bridge plan for Alternative 3B is depicted on Figure 1-12, Alternative 3B Conceptual Bridge Plan. Alternative 3B would be implemented via three -stage construction in order to maintain rail operations along the UPRR and BNSF facilities serving the Chevron facility. Stage 1 would consist of a temporary shoofly along the UPRR alignment in order to construct the rail crossing over the proposed Park Place alignment. Stage 1 would also include a reconfiguration of the BNSF yard and tracks and construction of the at -grade crossing for the Park Place alignment. Stage 2 would include construction of the central portion of the Park Place roadway extension between the existing UPRR and BNSF facilities. Stage 2 would also include elimination of the temporary UPRR shoofly facility to switch UPRR operations back to its existing alignment. Stage 3 would include completing the remaining Park Place roadway improvements, generally west of the UPRR alignment and east of the existing BNSF alignment. No -Build Alternative Under the No -Build Alternative, no roadway improvements or modifications to existing railroad facilities within the project site would occur. Park Place and the remainder of the project site would be left in its existing condition. As a result, the No -Build Alternative is not consistent with the purpose and need of this project, since it would not provide for congestion relief or improvements in local traffic circulation. Table 1-3 shows a comparison of the differences between the No -Build and Build Alternatives in terms of improvements, traffic patterns, and cost. The main similarity between the Build Alternatives is the effect of the proposed project on existing congestion and delay. Table 1-3: Comparison of Design Features and Improvements Alternative 1A Improvements Extend Park Place to close gap between Allied Way and Nash Street. BNSF yard and tracks relocated to the west, adjacent to the existing UPRR tracks. The grade separation would place the new roadway (Park Place) beneath the consolidated railroad tracks. Alternative 1 C Extend Park Place to close gap between Allied Way and Nash Street. BNSF yard and tracks relocated to the west adjacent to the existing UPRR tracks. The grade separation would place the new Roundabout beneath the consolidated railroad tracks. Alternative 3A Extend Park Place to close gap between Allied Way and Nash Street. UPRR and BNSF tracks would maintain their existing alignments. Two grade separations (roadway undercrossings of the railroad tracks) would be constructed. Alternative 3B Extend Park Place to close gap between Allied Way and Nash Street. UPRR and BNSF tracks would maintain their existing alignments. One grade separation at the UPRR rail alignment and one at -grade crossing at the BNSF rail alignment would be constructed. No Build No Improvements Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-33 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 1 Proposed Project Table 1-3: Comparison of Design Features and Improvements [continued] MIternative 1A Improvements (continued) Three-way intersection at Park Place and Allied Way, minor modifications of existing signalized intersection (immediately west of the westerly terminus of the proposed roadway extension). The roadway would be depressed taking the roadway beneath the railroads with a two -span railroad bridge spanning the roadway. Retaining walls constructed along portions of Park Place and Allied Way in order to minimize impacts caused by lowering the roadways. Cut slopes at 2:1 used where possible although retaining walls would be required near the existing Plaza EI Segundo shopping center to minimize impacts to the existing development. Four -lane roadway along Park Place extension Four-way stop controlled intersection at Park Place and Nash Street. Realignment of existing intersection would be required. Alternative 1C u� Roundabout intersection at Park Place and Allied Way, minor modifications (lowering the northerly and southerly legs of the intersection) of existing signalized intersection (immediately west of the westerly terminus of the proposed roadway extension) as well as a slight realignment of Allied Way. The roundabout intersection and the approaching roadways would be depressed taking the roadways beneath the railroads with a two -span railroad bridge spanning the roundabout. Retaining walls constructed along portions of Park Place and Allied Way in order to minimize impacts caused by lowering the roadways. Cut slopes at 2:1 where possible although retaining walls would be required near the existing Plaza EI Segundo shopping center to minimize impacts to the existing development. Four -lane roadway along Park Place extension Four-way stop controlled intersection at Park Place and Nash Street. Realignment of existing intersection would be required. Alternative 3A Roundabout intersection at Park Place and Allied Way, minor modifications (lowering the northerly and southerly legs of the intersection) of existing signalized intersection (immediately west of the westerly terminus of the proposed roadway extension) as well as a slight realignment of Allied Way. The roundabout intersection and the approaching roadways would be depressed taking the roadways beneath the railroads with a two -span railroad bridge spanning the roundabout. Retaining walls constructed along portions of Park Place and Allied Way in order to minimize impacts caused by lowering the roadways. Cut slopes at 2:1 where possible although retaining walls would be required near the existing Plaza EI Segundo shopping center to minimize impacts to the existing development. Four -lane roadway along Park Place extension with BNSF underpass. Four-way stop controlled at Park Place and Nash Street. Realignment of existing intersection would be required Alternative 313 N UPRR grade separation would consist of a roundabout intersection beneath the railroad alignment. BNSF tracks would require a 90 -degree at -grade crossing. Park Place extension alignment would be shifted slightly north. This northerly shift would require improvements along existing Allied Way, and intersection/driveway modifications at the signalized intersection immediately north of the proposed Park Place/Allied Way intersection. Retaining walls constructed along portions of Park Place and Allied Way in order to minimize impacts caused by lowering the roadways. Retaining walls would also be constructed along portions of the easterly terminus of the proposed project. Cut slopes at 2:1 where possible although retaining walls would be required near the existing Plaza EI Segundo shopping center to minimize impacts to the existing development. Four -lane roadway along Park Place extension with BNSF at - grade crossing. Four-way stop controlled intersection at Park Place and Nash Street. The roadway would extend through the northerly extent of the ArcLight Cinemas parking lot. Realignment of existing intersection would be required. No Improvements Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-34 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 1 Proposed Project Table 1-3: Comparison of Design Features and Improvements [continued] Alternative 1A I Alternative 1C I Alternative 3A Alternative 3B Access to the ArcLight Cinemas Access to the ArcLight A driveway ramp would Option 1: Nash Street would parking lot and driveway to the Cinemas parking lot and provide access to the ArcLight terminate at a cul-de-sac to the 2121 Park Place property from driveway to the 2121 Park Cinemas parking lot. north. Access to 2121 Park Nash Street would be Place property from Nash Place would be a reconstructed reconstructed. Street would be driveway with retaining walls. reconstructed. Access to the westerly portion of the Arclight Cinemas surface parking lot would extend from Park Place immediately east of the proposed Park Place/BNSF at -grade crossing. Option 2: access to the Arclight Cinemas would be a driveway that extends north of Park Place and then curves to the southwest beneath Park Place (via an underpass structure). Access to 2121 Park Place would be a reconstructed driveway with retaining walls. Cost $43.9 million $57.5 million $47.2 million Option 1 - $44.2 million Option 2 - $45.2 million Iva No Build After the public circulation period, all comments have been considered, and the Department and City of EI Segundo have selected a preferred alternative and made the final determination of the project's effect on the environment. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has certified that the project complies with CEQA. The City will file a Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse that identifies the mitigation measures that were included as conditions of project approval. Similarly, the Department, as assigned by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), determined the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) action does not significantly impact the environment, and the Department has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). It has been determined that the project does not have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared. 1.3.2 Identification of a Preferred Alternative On November 16, 2018, the Project Development Team (PDT) decided to identify Build Alternative 1 C as the Preferred Alternative. Build Alternative 1 C was identified as the Preferred Alternative based on the following: • Build Alternative 1 C fully accomplishes the project's established purpose and need; • Build Alternative 1C includes a single, consolidated grade crossing over the UPRR and BNSF railroad alignments, eliminating the need for the construction of two grade separations; • Build Alternative 1C does not include any at -grade rail crossings, thus eliminating a potential point of conflict and associated safety concerns; • Build Alternative 1 C provides the highest degree of benefit in reducing vehicle delay at the proposed new Allied Way/Park Place intersection (as compared to a stop -controlled intersection as proposed under Alternative 1A) as a result of the proposed roundabout; Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-35 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 1 Proposed Project refer to Chapter 2.1.5, Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities for vehicle delay information. 1.3.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion Prior to Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) The Project Study Report (PSR), approved on January 27, 2015, identified and evaluated five build alternatives (Alternatives 1 through 2B) as well as a no build alternative for the proposed project. Three of these alternatives were eliminated for consideration (Alternatives 1 B, 2A, and 2B) due to various circumstances. A discussion of each alternative considered but eliminated from further discussion is found below. Transportation Demand Management, Transportation System Management, and Mass Transit alternatives were not considered viable options because the proposed project is not a major highway project and is located in an area with a population under 200,000. Alternative 1 B This alternative is similar to Alternative 1A except that the intersection of Park Place and Allied Way would be roundabout controlled rather than stop controlled. In order to facilitate the wider footprint required for a roundabout, the UPRR lead track would be shifted slightly to the east. Allied Way would also be slightly realigned as it approaches the roundabout. Because of the relatively flat grade requirements for optimal roundabout design, impacts extend further along Park Place to the west and Allied Way to the north compared to Alternative 1A. In addition, this alternative would relocate the BNSF railroad tracks further to the south of the existing UPRR tracks, where known hazardous materials contamination exists. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. Alternative 2A This alternative combines the roadway layout from Alternative 1 B with a relocation of the UPRR track and yard to the west adjacent to the existing BNSF corridor. The UPRR relocation would begin just north of Douglas Street and would require reconstruction of the crossing diamond and existing at -grade crossing at Douglas Street. The lead tracks of each yard would be angled to cross the Park Place extension near the center of the vacant parcel. BNSF tracks would be relocated to the north along the newly relocated UPRR tracks, and would lead into Chevron to the west of the project site. The central location of and a portion of their storage yard. Due to the relocation of both the UPRR and BNSF tracks to the central portion of the project site (where known hazardous materials contamination is located), and cost ($49 million), this alternative was eliminated for further consideration. Alternative 2113 This alternative is similar to Alternative 2A except the roundabout would be shifted to the east to be directly beneath the proposed rail bridge. Like Alternative 1 C, this alternative facilitates a future extension of Allied Way southward to Rosecrans via the addition of a fourth leg from the roundabout. Similar to Alternative 2A, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration due to the relocation of the UPRR and BNSF tracks to the central portion of the project site (where known hazardous materials contamination is located), and cost ($54.8 million). Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-36 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 1 Proposed Project 1.4 PERMITS AND APPROVALS NEEDED Table 1-4 demonstrates the permits required for project approval and also the permits, licenses, agreements, and certifications (PLACs) required for project construction. The timeliness obtaining the permits and the agencies that are responsible are listed below: Table 1-4: Permits and Approvals PLAC National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-009-DWQ, as amended by 2010 -0014 -DWG and 2012- 0006-DWQ, NPDES Number CAS000002) NPDES Storm Water Permit, Order No. R4- 2012-0175, NPDES No. CAS004001 Air Quality Conformity Determination Memorandum of Understanding and/or Concurrence Letters Right of Way Certification Authorization for New Crossing Agency State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) SWRCB Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) SWRCB and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) City of EI Segundo California Public Utilities Commission Status Permit adopted on November 16, 2010, became effective on February 14, 2011. Required for short-term construction related water quality impacts. The Permit Registration Documents, including the Notice of Intent, will be submitted to the SWRCB prior to any project construction. Permit effective November 8, 2012, applies to all discharges from municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) facilities. The Air Quality Conformity Analysis (AQCA) for the project was submitted to FHWA on January 31, 2019. FHWA provided a Conformity Determination on February 22, 2019. Memorandum of Understanding and/or Concurrence Letters would be required from regulatory agencies involved in hazardous materials remediation oversight (i.e., SWRCB, DTSC). Right of Way Certification is required for property acquisition necessary to construct the proposed project. Authorization is required for construction or modification of public crossings. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-37 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 1 Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 1-38 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures This chapter describes the current state of the resources in the project area and identifies the potential effects of implementing the proposed project. Each subsection describes the present conditions, discusses the potential impacts of building the proposed project, and indicates what measures would be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those impacts. The environmental analysis contained within the following chapter considers the potential environmental consequences associated with implementation of four Build Alternatives and the No -Build Alternative. The environmental impact analyses discuss potential impacts in three general categories: human environment, physical environment, and biological environment. The following discussion of potential effects is presented by environmental resource area. As part of the scoping and environmental analysis conducted for this project, the following environmental issues were considered, but no adverse impacts were identified. Consequently, there is no further discussion regarding the following issues in this document: • Coastal Zone — The project site is not located within a coastal zone. • Wild and Scenic Rivers — No wild or scenic rivers exist within the vicinity of the project site. • Farmlands / Timberlands — There are no farmlands or timberlands within the vicinity of the project site. • Hvdroloav and Floodplain — According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 06037C1770F, the project is located outside the regulatory 100 -year floodplain. This project site is located within the Zone X, which is an area determined to be outside the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain. • Wetlands and Other Waters — There are no creeks, rivers, lakes, wetlands, or other potentially jurisdictional aquatic features within the vicinity of the project site. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 2.1.1 Land Use The proposed project is located in the southeastern portion of the City of EI Segundo (City), California. The City is located in Los Angeles County, approximately 18 miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles. The project site is generally located east of Sepulveda Boulevard, north of Rosecrans Avenue, west of Douglas Street, and south of Hughes Way. The City's current general Plan, El Segundo General Plan (General Plan), was adopted by the City in 1992. 2.1.1.1 Affected Environment 2.1.1.1.1 Existing and Future Land Use Within the project limits, Park Place is designated as a four -lane divided collector from Allied Way to Nash Street by the General Plan Circulation Element (updated 2004). Figure 2.1.1-1, Land Use Designations in the Project Vicinity, shows land use designations in the project vicinity, as shown in the City's General Plan Land Use Map. The General Plan land use designations for the project site include Light Industrial, Heavy Industrial, and Urban Mixed -Use South. There are no residential land uses within proximity to the project site. As a roadway facility, Park Place does not have a designation under the City of EI Segundo Zoning Code (Zoning Code). However, the project site is zoned Commercial Center (C-4), Heavy Manufacturing (M-2), and Urban Mixed -Use South (MU -S). The project site includes a combination of both developed and vacant land. The northwesterly portion of the project site is developed and includes parts of the Plaza EI Segundo retail development, located along the east side of Sepulveda Boulevard. This portion of the project site includes part of the existing westerly segment of Park Place, portions of Allied Way, and paved/landscaped parking facilities associated with retail activities. Within this area, both Park Place and Allied Way are four -lane roadways (two lanes in each direction). The central portion of the project site consists of vacant land, formerly occupied by heavy industrial uses such as Honeywell and the H. Kramer foundry. The majority of the H. Kramer property within the northern portion of the project site has been capped as part of hazardous materials remediation. The majority of other vacant land within the central portion of the site is either overgrown with vegetation or graded with exposed soils. A number of soil mounds existing within the former Honeywell portion of the property, along the southerly boundary of the project site. Within this primarily vacant area are both UPRR and BNSF rail alignments that serve the Chevron Oil Refinery, which is directly west of the project site. Both the UPRR and BNSF rail alignments are elevated approximately 10-15 feet with embankments and chain-link fences along the right-of-way. From the Chevron Oil Refinery, both rail alignments traverse the project site in a northeasterly direction, ultimately leading off-site in a northerly direction towards an existing rail right-of-way adjacent to Aviation Boulevard. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.1-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) ciource: Los Angeles County, City of Manhattan Beach, City of EI Segundo, ESRI World Imagery. 0 NOT TO SCALE 08/18 1 A 145070 PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) Land Use Designations in the Project Vicinity Figure 2.1.1-1 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The easterly portion of the project site is developed with commercial uses and roadway facilities. Within this area, the project site extends along Nash Street, a four -lane roadway (two lanes in each direction) that terminates to the south at Rosecrans Avenue. This area of the project site also affects portions of the easterly segment of the existing Park Place, which is a two-lane roadway (one lane in each direction with a center turn lane). The project site also includes a parking lot associated with the existing ArcLight Cinemas located along the westerly side of Nash Street. The existing parking lot is paved with landscaping along the perimeters and numerous planters within the interior of the project site. The parking lot is accessed via the northerly terminus of Nash Street. According to the General Plan Land Use Element, the City is almost entirely built out. The City occupies an area of approximately 5.46 square miles and is home to approximately 16,929 residents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau 2015 American Community Survey population estimates. Housing supply and cost are greatly affected by the amount of land designated for residential use and the density at which development is permitted. In EI Segundo, 15 percent of the City's land area (533 acres) is designated for residential use. Multi -family units are by far the most common residential uses, accounting for over one-half of the residential units in the City. Industrial and commercial uses have historically comprised a large portion of the City. In addition, heavy manufacturing includes about 30 percent of the City's area; 93 percent of this area is the Chevron Refinery, which is located immediately adjacent to the project site's western border. The Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project is one of a number of roadway projects planned within the City, as discussed in the General Plan Circulation Element. Other approved land development and transportation infrastructure projects under consideration by the City in the vicinity of the proposed project are listed in Table 2.1.1-1, Proposed Projects Within the City of EI Segundo and shown in Figure 2.1.1-2, Proposed Projects Within the City of EI Segundo, below. 2.1.1.1.2 Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs California Transportation Plan 2040 (CTP) The CTP (June 2016) is a long-range transportation policy plan that explores the social, economic, and technological trends and demographic changes anticipated through the 2040 planning horizon and their potential influence on travel behavior. The CTP provides a vision for California's future transportation system and defines goals, policies, and strategies to achieve the vision. The CTP proposes a balanced approach to the projected increase in demand for mobility and accessibility. By providing a common framework for decision makers at all levels of government and the private sector, the CTP seeks to guide transportation decisions and investments that will enhance our economy, support our communities, and safeguard our environment for the benefit of all. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.1-3 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.1-1: Proposed Projects Within the City of EI Segundo Project No. Name Jurisdiction Proposed Uses Status Land Development Projects 1 Data Center 445 North Douglas Street 332,137 square -foot Data Center. Approved on October 23, 2008. Construction complete. 2 Hotel 199 Continental Boulevard 152 -room hotel (71,000 square feet). Construction complete. 304 -unit Senior Housing/Assisted Under construction. Completion 3 Senior Housing 540 East Imperial Avenue Living Facility; or 58 Single and Multi- estimated in December 2019. Family Residential Units. Construction is anticipated to Office, Retail, Warehouse, 2,089,090 square feet of existing; begin in February 2018. 4 Light Industrial 2100 East EI Segundo Boulevard 2,142,457 square feet proposed; Construction will be completed Development 4,231,547 total square feet. in September 2019. Full buildout projected by 2022. 5 Fast Food with Drive-Thru 600-630 Sepulveda Boulevard 7,100 square -foot In -N -Out Burger Construction complete. restaurant. 6 Data Center 444 North Nash Street Demolish existing 11,769 square -foot Construction complete. data center. 7 Research and Development 455 Continental Boulevard and Add 300,000 square feet of Research Entitlements pending. Build -out Office 1955 East Grand Avenue and Development, and office space. projected by 2024. 8 Hotel 888 North Sepulveda Boulevard Five -story, 190 -room hotel (111,350 square feet). Construction complete. Demolish between 90,000 to 170,000 9 New High School 201 North Douglas Street square feet of existing building and Construction complete. construct new building. 10 Office/Retail 710 North Nash Street 611,545 square feet Office; 13,660 Construction complete. square feet Retail. 11 Office 400 Duley Road 67,000 square -foot office. Full buildout projected by 2019. Add 6,952 square feet to existing 12 Addition to existing Hotel 525 North Sepulveda Boulevard 98,548 square -foot hotel. New total of Construction complete. 105,500 square feet. Addition to existing Add 4,986 square feet to existing 13 Industrial Building 750 South Douglas Street industrial building. New total of 20,061 On hold. square feet. Corporate Office and New 52,000 square -foot corporate 14 Athletic Training Facility 2275 Mariposa Avenue office building; 68,380 square -foot Construction complete. athletic training facility. 15 Office Building 500 South Douglas Street and 78,000 square -foot office. Under construction. Completion 2330 Utah Avenue by end of 2018. 16 Commercial/Office Condo 123 Nevada Street New four -unit commercial/office condo Under construction. Completion (14,998 square feet). by June 2018. Under review. Entitlements 17 Office/Private Hotel Building 2125 Campus Drive 121,450 square -foot hotel; 63,550 approved. Construction will square -foot office. begin in July 2018. Completion anticipated in early 2020. 18 Addition to existing Office 1700 East Imperial Avenue 86,521 square -foot addition to existing Under construction. Completion Building Boeing S-50 office building. anticipated in December 2018. 19 Residential 535 Indiana Street Four -unit residential building (7,200 square feet). Construction complete. 178 -room hotel (98,945 square feet); Office construction complete. 20 Hotel and Office 2130 East Maple Drive Two four -unit office buildings (20,955 Hotel under construction. Anticipated completion in June square feet). 2019. Office/Warehouse/Researc 7,692 square -foot 21 h and Development 140 Sheldon Street Office/Warehouse/Research and On hold. Development building. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.1-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) �`m fir' -j lmperlal Avenue I ' 'I .+yi ! I •: S feI 41 _ Fr . , _� � �_ � � t 1 r , _I�•' � ' "� I � � per,,, - � ,.,,a;. ^• - _ _ + y ''T se~• .e+=.:.l y.li_'•?!.. `.._''s1us '� t,' _ ..+'- Q iY{cipleenue %� ,-S.s.4tRia`r•` �a �`�a' �T �`�►-�'. _ - - ` - 4 '� _.I� 4 Via, b I� •'';_'i a..>; -..r.0 �•T � ��A�r--`�� ' ... - ■. �f� �� 7_6 '� �!'_n. I • ~ 1 ac..t ail-posaA&W �. n :.i _ + 4 t M a Win• _ - • r 7 r Grand ' oil `R e[a`o- Be ppb �i 'Jt 9 c Y m jlk �y41"~"#� ase' jj M., rz, ■ El Segundo Boulevard 7 r..� . . _ n �K. �� W ilk {+ ■ Fi E A 405 r,... iIjlyg I� G �I'•� CIL fIlr „y,.•sirj' .�aY".... ■ .� -lop • i' Y. c15 [Jtah v nue r ' _ _.. / � � t � �-�•.. ��^* � '� - f� +ej� �iju 1ism Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The transportation system must provide equitable and effective mobility and accessibility. It must be safe and secure, and support the State's economic prosperity. It must co -exist with and enhance our natural and human environments. The following goals, while identified and discussed as separate issues, are interdependent. For example, if the system is not well maintained, the level of mobility and safety will decline. Each goal supports one or more concepts contained in the vision for California's transportation system and is followed by supporting policies and strategies. • Goal 1 — Improve Multi -Modal Mobility and Accessibility for All People — Policy 1 — Manage and Operate an Efficient Integrated System. — Policy 2 — Invest Strategically to Optimize System Performance. — Policy 3 — Provide Viable and Equitable Multi -modal Choices Including Active Transportation. • Goal 2 — Preserve the Multi -Modal Transportation System — Policy 1 — Apply Sustainable Preventative Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategies. — Policy 2 — Evaluate Multi -modal Life Cycle Costs in Project Decision Making. — Policy 3 — Adapt the Transportation System to Reduce Impacts from Climate Change. • Goal 3 — Support a Vibrant Economy — Policy 1 — Support Transportation Choices to Enhance Economic Activity. — Policy 2 — Enhance Freight Mobility, Reliability, and Global Competitiveness. — Policy 3 — Seek Sustainable and Flexible Funding to Maintain and Improve the System. • Goal 4 — Improve Public Safety and Security — Policy 1 — Reduce Fatalities, Serious Injuries, and Collisions. — Policy 2 — Provide for System Security, Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. • Goal 5 — Foster Livable and Healthy Communities and Promote Social Equity — Policy 1 — Expand Engagement in Multi -modal Transportation Planning and Decision Making. — Policy 2 — Integrate Multi -modal Transportation and Land Use Development. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.1-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures - Policy 3 - Integrate Health and Social Equity in Transportation Planning and Decision Making. • Goal 6 - Practice Environmental Stewardship - Policy 1 - Integrate Environmental Considerations in All Stages of Planning and Implementation. - Policy 2 - Conserve and Enhance Natural, Agricultural, and Cultural Resources. - Policy 3 - Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Other Air Pollutants. - Policy 4 - Transform to a Clean and Energy Efficient Transportation System. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS): A Plan for Mobility, Accessibility, Sustainability, and a High Quality of Life The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS provides a vision for transportation investments throughout the region. Using growth forecasts and economic trends that project out over a 20 -year period, the RTP considers the role of transportation in the broader context of economic, environmental, and quality -of -life goals for the future, identifying regional transportation strategies to address our mobility needs. The RTP seeks to identify regional solutions to transportation issues in Southern California. This comprehensive approach to regional planning is imperative to maintaining the unique social, environmental, cultural, and economic vitality for the tens of millions of people who will live, work, and play in Southern California. Federal and State regulations require SCAG, as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), to develop an RTP every four years in order for the region's transportation projects to qualify for federal and State funding. The RTP is updated to reflect changes in trends, progress made on projects, and to adjust the growth forecast for population changes. The 2016 RTP was adopted by SCAG's Regional Council on April 7, 2016, which subsequently received the required conformity determination letter from the FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on June 1, 2016. SCAG's 2016 RTP provides the basic policy and program framework for long-term investment in the regional transportation system. Transportation investments in the SCAG region that receive State or Federal transportation funds must be consistent with the RTP and must be included in the FTIP (see below) when ready for funding. The project is included in SCAG's 2016-2040 RTP/SCS as RTP ID 1AL04. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) The FTIP, formerly referred to as the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), is a capital listing of all transportation projects proposed over a six-year period for the SCAG region. The projects include highway improvements, transit, rail and bus facilities, high occupancy vehicle lanes, signal synchronization, intersection improvements, freeway ramps, etc. In the SCAG region, a biennial FTIP update is produced on an even -year cycle. The FTIP is prepared to implement projects and programs listed in the RTP and developed in compliance with State and federal requirements. County Transportation Commissions have the responsibility under State law of proposing county projects, using the current RTP's policies, programs, and projects as a guide, from among submittals by cities and local agencies. The Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.1-7 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures locally prioritized lists of projects are forwarded to SCAG for review. From this list, SCAG develops the FTIP based on consistency with the current RTP, inter -county connectivity, financial constraint, and conformity satisfaction. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) submitted the proposed project to SCAG for approval and inclusion on the FTIP. The project is listed in SCAG's 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (2017 FTIP) and 2016-2040 RTP/SCS (approved June 2016) for fiscal year FY 2016/2017-2021/2022 (FTIP ID LAOG321), and has $1,235,000 programmed for the project. The project entry in the 2017 FTIP identifies the following scope of work: Project Description: Park Place Extension and Rail Road Grade Separation project. (Grade separation is non -capacity). Completion of Park Place Extension and connection between Alaska Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard in the City of EI Segundo. Park Place four lane roadway extension between Nash and Allied Way. City of E/ Segundo General Plan The City adopted the comprehensive General Plan in 1992, which reflects the City's values and contains the City's goals with respect to development. The General Plan addresses a broad range of issues relating to the community's physical, economic, and social development. It contains an evaluation of existing conditions and provides the long-term goals and policies necessary to guide growth and development in the direction that the community desires through General Plan horizon year of 2010. Through the Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Programs it contains, the General Plan serves as a decision-making tool to guide future growth and development decisions. Air Qualitv Element Goals and Policies Air quality policies excerpted from the Air Quality Element of the City's General Plan, include the following: • Goal AQ15: Prevent Exposure of People, Animals, and Other Living Organisms to Unhealthful Levels of Air Pollution. Reduce unsafe levels of air pollutants impacting the City. — Policy AQ15-1.2: It is the policy of the City of EI Segundo to coordinate with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to ensure that all elements of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) regarding reduction of all air pollutant emissions are being met and are being enforced. Land Use Element (updated 2001) Goals and Policies Land use policies excerpted from the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, include the following: • Goal LU1: Maintenance of EI Segundo's "Small Town" Atmosphere. Maintain EI Segundo's "small town" atmosphere, and provide an attractive place to live and work. — Policy LU1-5.4: Adopt action programs which will provide for planting of trees in all the City streets, landscaping of median strips in major and secondary Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.1-8 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures highways, improvement and beautification of parking lots, railroad rights-of-way, unsightly walls or fences, and vacant lots. - Policy LU1-5.6: Require all projects to adhere to the processing and review requirements found in the City Zoning Ordinance and the guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). • Goal LU7: Provision of Quality Infrastructure. Provide the highest quality public facilities, services, and public infrastructure possible to the community. - Policy LU7-1.1: Continue the excellent public safety programs, including fire and police protection, currently enjoyed by the City. Circulation Element (updated 2004) Goals and Policies Traffic and circulation policies excerpted from the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, include the following: Goal C1: Provision for a Safe, Convenient, Cost -Effective Circulation System. Provide a safe, convenient, cost-effective circulation system to serve the present and future circulation needs of the EI Segundo community. - Policy C1-1.3: Provide adequate roadway capacity on all Master Plan roadways. - Policy C1-1.4: Construct missing roadway links to complete the roadway system designated in the Circulation Element when needed to improve traffic operating conditions and to serve development. - Policy C1-1.10: Ensure that new roadway links are constructed as designated in the Master Plan and link with existing roadways within the City such that efficient operation of the circulation system is maintained at an operating Level of Service of "D" or better. • Goal C2: Provisions for Alternate Modes of Transportation. Provide a circulation system that incorporates alternatives to the single -occupant vehicle, to create balance among travel modes based on travel needs, costs, social value, user acceptable, and air quality considerations. - Policy C2-1.4: Ensure the installation of sidewalks on all future arterial widening or new construction projects, to establish a continuous and convenient link for pedestrians. - Policy C2-2.6: Encourage design of new streets with for the potential for Class I or Class 11 bicycle routes that separate the automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian to the maximum extent feasible. • Goal C3: Development of Circulation Policies that are Consistent with Other City Policies. Develop a balanced General Plan, coordinating the Circulation Element with all other Elements, ensuring that the City's decision-making and planning activities are consistent among all City departments. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.1-9 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures — Policy C3-1.7: Require submittal and implementation of a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) for all projects within the Urban Mixed -Use area and encourage a TMP for all projects within the northeast quadrant. Sepulveda/Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza E/ Segundo Development Draft Environmental Impact Report The City of EI Segundo certified the Sepulveda/Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza EI Segundo Development Draft Environmental Impact Report (Sepulveda/Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza EI Segundo Development DEIR) on February 15, 2005. The certified EIR was a Program/Project EIR that analyzed the environmental effects of (1) a proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and a Zone Text Amendment that would affect a land use re- designation and rezoning of approximately 85.8 acres of an 110 -acre area located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue that would accommodate up to 850,000 square feet of commercial development in the Commercial Center (C-4) Zone; and (2) a proposed Development Agreement and Vesting Tentative Map to permit development of a shopping center of up to 425,000 square feet on a 43.3 gross acres (38.1 net acres) portion of the 110 -acre site (the "Plaza EI Segundo Development"). Based on the analysis, it was concluded that the site rezoning and Plaza EI Segundo would result in significant unavoidable environmental impacts relative to: traffic, air quality (construction and regional operation), construction noise and cumulative traffic, population and housing, and solid waste. The proposed project was programmatically analyzed as part of the Sepulveda/ Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza EI Segundo Development Draft EIR. 2.1.1.2 Environmental Consequences The impacts related to land use are similar between the build alternatives; therefore, the discussion of Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, and 3B below is combined into a single discussion of Build Alternatives, since implementation of any of the four Build Alternatives would result in similar impacts. 2.1.1.2.1 Temporary Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) No temporary land use impacts regarding existing or future land uses, or State, regional, and local plans and programs, would occur with implementation of the No -Build Alternative since no construction activity or land use changes would occur with this alternative. Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) All Build Alternative impacts related to land use are considered to be permanent and direct. Project construction would be contained within the direct impact area of the project, which consists of a combination of both developed and vacant land. Therefore, no temporary land use impacts are anticipated to occur with implementation of the Build Alternatives. 2.1.1.2.2 Permanent Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Alternative 1 would not improve the transportation infrastructure, nor would it improve circulation. Currently, there is a gap in Park Place between Allied Way and Nash Street that Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.1-10 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures disrupts continuity along the corridor and results in increased trips on the already heavily congested Rosecrans Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard. Current and planned development near the Sepulveda Boulevard/Rosecrans Avenue intersection would further contribute to an increase in congestion. The proposed project is identified within the City's General Plan Circulation Element as a planned transportation improvement; as such, the No -Build Alternative would not be consistent with the City's General Plan. In addition, the No -Build Alternative is not consistent with some State, regional, and local plans and programs. The goals and policies of the plans and programs discussed earlier in this section promote improvement in the transportation infrastructure and improving traffic circulation. Refer to Table 2.1.1-2, Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs, below. Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) The northwesterly portion of the project site is developed and includes parts of the Plaza EI Segundo retail development, located along the east side of Sepulveda Boulevard. This portion of the project site includes part of the existing westerly segment of Park Place, portions of Allied Way, and paved/landscaped parking facilities associated with retail activities. However, the proposed project is included as one of several infrastructure improvement projects within the approved Sepulveda/Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza EI Segundo Development EIR, and its implementation has been programmatically analyzed as part of this development. The Build Alternatives are consistent with existing and future land uses since no land use changes would occur with either of the Build Alternatives. The project is one of a number of roadway projects planned for the project area, and the project is in compliance with future land uses as discussed in the General Plan. In addition, the Build Alternatives are consistent with State, regional, and local plans and programs as discussed in Table 2.1.1-2 below. Table 2.1.1-2: Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs Policy State Plans and Programs California Transportation Plan (CTP) 2040 Regional Plans and Programs Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016- 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Build Alternatives Consistent. The Build Alternatives are consistent with the goals of the CTP 2040, particularly those excerpted above as part of the CTP 2040 discussion. The Build Alternatives would close an existing roadway gap and enhance circulation, thus addressing the projected increase in demand for transportation mobility. Consistent. The project is included in SCAG's 2016-2040 RTP/SCS as RTP ID 1AL04. As such, implementation of the Build Alternatives would be consistent with the 2016- 2040 RTP/SCS since the transportation improvements that would be provided by the project would be constructed under the Build Alternatives. No -Build Alternative Not Consistent. The No -Build Alternative is not consistent with the goals of the CTP 2040, particularly those excerpted above as part of the CTP 2040 discussion as they relate to the projected increase in demand for transportation mobility and accessibility. Not Consistent. The project is included in SCAG's 2016-2040 RTP/SCS as RTP ID 1AL04. As such, implementation of the No -Build Alternative would not be consistent with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS since the transportation improvements that would be provided by the project would not be constructed under the No -Build Alternative. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.1-11 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.1-2: Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs [continued] Policy Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Local Plans and Programs City of EI Segundo General Plan AirQuality: GoalAQ15, Policy AQ15-1.2 Land Use: Goal LU1, Policies LU1-5.4 and LU1-5.6; Goal LU7, Policy LL/7-1.1 Circulation: Goal C1, Policies C14.3, C1-1.4, and C1-1.10; Goal C2, Policies C2-1.4 and C2-1.6; Goal C3, Policy C347 Sepulveda/Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza EI Segundo Development EIR Build Alternatives Consistent. The project is included in SCAG's 2017 FTIP as FTIP ID LAOG321. As such, implementation of the Build Alternatives would be consistent with the 2017 FTIP since the transportation improvements that would be provided by the project would be constructed under the Build Alternatives. Consistent. Through its General Plan, the City has adopted goals and policies to guide development and to avoid land use conflicts and environmental hazards. The Build Alternatives are consistent with the City's General Plan Additionally, the project supports the City's air quality, land use, and circulation goals, particularly those excerpted above as part of the General Plan discussion. It is a type of infrastructure project that is not in conflict with surrounding land use designations pursuant to the City's General Plan. Consistent. The Build Alternatives are consistent with the Sepulveda/Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza EI Segundo Development because the proposed project is included as one of several infrastructure improvement projects within the approved Sepulveda/Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza EI Segundo Development EIR, and its implementation has been approved as part of this development. No -Build Alternative Not Consistent. The project is included in SCAG's 2017 FTIP as FTIP ID LAOG321. As such, implementation of the No -Build Alternative would not be consistent with the 2017 FTIP since the transportation improvements that would be provided by the project would not be constructed under the No -Build Alternative. Not Consistent. Under the No -Build Alternative, no changes to the existing roadways would occur in the project area. This alternative would not provide the proposed gap closure and grade separation that is anticipated to relieve existing and projected traffic congestion in the project area, nor would it contribute to the achievement of the City's air quality, land use, and circulation goals, particularly those excerpted above as part of the General Plan discussion. Not Consistent. The No -Build Alternative would not be consistent with the Sepulveda/Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza EI Segundo Development since the transportation improvements that would be provided by the project would not be constructed under the No -Build Alternative. 2.1.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. 2.1.1.4 Parks and Recreational Facilities 2.1.1.4.1 Affected Environment The following is a list of privately- and publicly -owned recreational resources within 0.5 -mile of the project site. These resources include a range of recreational easements, parks, clubs, bicycle facilities, schools with recreational facilities, golf courses, sports fields, and a parkway that include recreational facilities. • The Southern California Edison (SCE) easement is a landscaped, 10 -acre corridor located along the eastern side of the Lakes at EI Segundo golf course, approximately one mile south of Interstate 105 (1-105) and approximately 1.1 miles west of Interstate 405 (1-405). The facility is owned and operated by SCE and is not a publicly -owned facility or accessible to the public. • Raytheon Company's recreational facility is a 16 -acre, privately -owned recreational resource located along the northeasterly portion of the SCE easement, approximately Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.1-12 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures one mile south of 1-105. Amenities include tennis and basketball courts, and baseball fields. The facility is under the private ownership of Raytheon and is only accessible to Raytheon employees. The Manhattan Country Club is located approximately 1. 15 miles south of the project site and 1.1 miles west of 1-405 at 1330 Parkview Avenue, Manhattan Beach. Amenities include a 6,000 -square -foot fitness facility; 18 tennis courts; paddle tennis, squash, and racquetball courts; and a 25 -meter outdoor swimming pool. In addition, the Manhattan Country Club provides dining at their Poolside Bar and Grill, Atrium and Terrace, The Bar, and The Wine Lounge. The facility is under the ownership of The Bay Club Company and is open to members only. Based on the City of Manhattan Beach, Draft Manhattan Beach Mobility Plan (dated June 2014), there are several existing Class III bicycle facilities within a half mile of the project site: Valley Drive from 15th Street to Oak Avenue, Ardmore Avenue from 17th Street to Oak Avenue, and Pacific Avenue from 5th Street to Rosecrans Avenue. The Class III bicycle facilities are identified within the City's Mobility Plan, and are considered transportation facilities. They are not identified or designated within the City's General Plan Community Resources Element as recreational facilities. • There are several schools located within a half mile of the project site with recreational facilities: Richard Henry Dana Middle School, Da Vinci Innovation Academy, Peter Burnett Elementary School, and Vistamar School. However, the recreational facilities located on each campus are not open to the public. • The Lakes at EI Segundo is a 26.54 -acre nine -hole golf course and practice facility located approximately 0.25 -mile north of the project site boundary, within the City of EI Segundo at 400 South Sepulveda Boulevard. This facility is owned by the City of EI Segundo, and is open to the public. • The Marriott Municipal Golf Course is a 19.8 -acre nine -hole golf course and putting green located approximately 0.2 -mile south of the project site boundary, within the City of Manhattan Beach at 1400 Parkview Avenue. This facility is owned by the City of Manhattan Beach, and is open to the public. • The Manhattan Village Field is a 2.7 -acre park located approximately 0.25 -mile south of the project boundary at 1300 Parkview Avenue, within the City of Manhattan Beach. Amenities include a soccer field, play area, picnic facilities, and restrooms. This facility is owned by the City of Manhattan Beach, and is open to the public. • Veterans Parkway is a 1.7 miles trail that runs between Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue from Sepulveda Boulevard to 151h Street, in a northeast to southwest direction. The parkway is owned and maintained by the City of Manhattan Beach and is open to the public. 2.1.1.4.2 Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) No temporary, permanent, and/or indirect impacts on the aforementioned parks/recreational facilities would occur with implementation of the No -Build Alternative, since no construction activity or land use changes would occur with this alternative. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.1-13 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Alternatives 1A, IC, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) A detailed discussion of temporary, permanent, and indirect impacts of the Build Alternatives on the aforementioned parks/recreational facilities is provided in Appendix A to this Environmental Document. Potential project effects related to the Lakes at EI Segundo, Marriott Municipal Golf Course, Manhattan Village Field, and Veterans Parkway are discussed below. Lakes at El Segundo As discussed above, the Lakes at EI Segundo is a 26.54 -acre nine -hole golf course and practice facility located approximately 0.25 -mile north of the project site boundary, within the City of EI Segundo at 400 South Sepulveda Boulevard. This facility is owned by the City of EI Segundo, and is open to the public. Thus, it is considered a Section 4(f) property under the provisions Section 4(f). As shown in Figure A-1 of Appendix A, the proposed project site is limited to areas south of Hughes Way. The proposed project's facilities and construction activities would not encroach into the Lakes at EI Segundo facility. In addition, the project would not result in any constructive use (i.e., "proximity" impacts), that would substantially impair the activities, features, and/or attributes that qualify this facility for protection under Section 4(f), such as access, visual/aesthetics, water quality, air quality, noise, and the biological environment. Based on review of preliminary engineering efforts to -date for the proposed project, Caltrans anticipates concluding that the proposed project would result in no use of the Lakes at EI Segundo. Marriott Municipal Golf Course The Lakes at EI Segundo is a 19.8 -acre nine -hole golf course and putting green located approximately 0.2 -mile south of the project site boundary, within the City of Manhattan Beach at 1400 Parkview Avenue. This facility is owned by the City of Manhattan Beach, and is open to the public. Thus, it is considered a Section 4(f) property under the provisions Section 4(f). As shown in Figure A-1 of Appendix A, the proposed project site is limited to areas north of Rosecrans Avenue. The proposed project's facilities and construction activities would not encroach into the Marriott Municipal Golf Course. In addition, the project would not result in any constructive use (i.e., "proximity" impacts), that would substantially impair the activities, features, and/or attributes that qualify this facility for protection under Section 4(f), such as access, visual/aesthetics, water quality, air quality, noise, and the biological environment. Based on review of preliminary engineering efforts to -date for the proposed project, Caltrans anticipates concluding that the proposed project would result in no use of the Marriott Municipal Golf Course. Manhattan Village Field The Manhattan Village Field is a 2.7 -acre park located approximately 0.25 -mile south of the project boundary at 1300 Parkview Avenue, within the City of Manhattan Beach. Amenities include a soccer field, play area, picnic facilities, and restrooms. This facility is owned by the City of Manhattan Beach, and is open to the public. Thus, it is considered a Section 4(f) property under the provisions Section 4(f). Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.1-14 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures As shown in Figure A-1 of Appendix A, the proposed project site is limited to areas north of Rosecrans Avenue. The proposed project's facilities and construction activities would not encroach into the Manhattan Village Field. In addition, the project would not result in any constructive use (i.e., "proximity" impacts), that would substantially impair the activities, features, and/or attributes that qualify this facility for protection under Section 4(f), such as access, visual/aesthetics, water quality, air quality, noise, and the biological environment. Based on review of preliminary engineering efforts to -date for the proposed project, Caltrans anticipates concluding that the proposed project would result in no use of the Manhattan Village Field. Veterans Parkway (Hermosa Valley Greenbelt) Veterans Parkway is a 1.7 miles trail that runs between Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue from Sepulveda Boulevard to 15th Street, in a northeast to southwest direction. The parkway is owned and maintained by the City of Manhattan Beach. The facility is unpaved, and bordered with ornamental landscaping and mature trees. As a publicly -owned facility that is open to the public for recreational purposes, it is considered a Section 4(f) property under the provisions Section 4(f). As shown in Figure A-1 of Appendix A, the proposed project site is limited to areas north of Rosecrans Avenue. The proposed project's facilities and construction activities would not encroach into Veterans Parkway. In addition, the project would not result in any constructive use (i.e., "proximity" impacts), that would substantially impair the activities, features, and/or attributes that qualify this facility for protection under Section 4(f), such as access, visual/aesthetics, water quality, air quality, noise, and the biological environment. Based on review of preliminary engineering efforts to -date for the proposed project, Caltrans anticipates concluding that the proposed project would result in no use of Veterans Parkway. The above -referenced parks and recreational resources are shown on Figure A-1 in Appendix A. These resources were evaluated to assess whether they would trigger the requirements for protection under Section 4(f). As discussed in Appendix A, although there are Section 4(f) resources located within 0.5 -mile of the project area, the project would not result in a use of these Section 4(f) resources. Refer to Appendix A for additional discussion regarding evaluation of the project under Section 4(f). In California, public parks operated by public agencies are protected by the Park Preservation Act (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 5400-5409). As defined by the Park Preservation Act, "public park" means any park operated by a public agency. The Park Preservation Act prohibits local and State agencies from acquiring any property that is in use as a public park at the time of acquisition unless the acquiring agency pays sufficient compensation or land, or both, to enable the operator of the park to replace the park land and any park facilities on that land. Because the Build Alternatives would not result in the acquisition of land in use as a public park, the requirements of the Park Preservation Act do not apply to the proposed project. 2.1.1.4.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.1-15 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.1-16 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.1.2 Growth 2.1.2.1 Regulatory Setting The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, which established the steps necessary to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, require evaluation of the potential environmental effects of all proposed federal activities and programs. This provision includes a requirement to examine indirect effects, which may occur in areas beyond the immediate influence of a proposed action and at some time in the future. The CEQ regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1508.8) refer to these consequences as indirect impacts. Indirect impacts may include changes in land use, economic vitality, and population density, which are all elements of growth. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) also requires the analysis of a project's potential to induce growth. The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.2[d]), require that environmental documents "...discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment..." 2.1.2.2 Affected Environment Growth inducement is defined as the relationship between the proposed transportation project and growth within the project study area. Many factors influence land use and development in an area, such as population and economic growth, desirability of certain locations, the costs and availability of developable land, physical and regulatory constraints, transportation, and the costs of sewer and water services all strongly influence where, when, and what type of development takes place. Many of these factors also influence the policies and decisions associated with land use and growth. The affected environment for growth includes the City of EI Segundo, since there are no residential uses or cohesive neighborhoods located within the project area and the population within the study area census tracts is zero. Therefore, data for only the City of EI Segundo is used for this analysis. The City occupies an area of approximately 5.46 square miles, and is currently home to approximately 16,929 residents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau 2015 American Community Survey (ACS) population estimates. This represents a very minor population increase from 16,654 residents in the 2010 Census, and from 16,033 residents in the 2000 Census. According to the General Plan Economic Development Element, population growth in the South Bay and in EI Segundo slowed during the 1980's, and the population in EI Segundo has stabilized. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has forecasted population growth for every jurisdiction within its boundaries, including the City of EI Segundo, as part of the approved 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). According to the SCAG RTP/SCS Growth Forecast, the projected population of the City is anticipated to be 17,300 residents by 2040. This represents a small projected rate of population growth rate of 3.9 percent.' Southern California Association of Governments 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (adopted June 2016), Demographics and Growth Forecast, Table 11, "City Forecast 2040." Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.2-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.1.2.3 Environmental Consequences First Cut Screening Analysis The proposed Build Alternatives are designed to close the existing gap in Park Place between Allied Way and Nash Street that disrupts continuity along the corridor and results in increased trips on the already heavily congested Rosecrans Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard. The project intends to help meet current and future traffic demands by improving circulation. Therefore, the proposed project would accommodate existing growth trends rather than induce new growth. Figure 2.1.2-1, The First Cut Screening Process, shows the steps of the first -cut screening analysis which helps answer the following questions: • To what extent would travel times, travel cost, or accessibility to employment, shopping, and other destinations be changed? Would this change affect travel behavior, trip patterns or the attractiveness of some areas to development over others? • To what extent would a change in accessibility affect the location, rate, type, or amount of growth or land use change? • To what extent would resources of concern be affected by this growth or land use change? The project footprint for all four Build Alternatives is similar; therefore, the discussion of Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, and 3B below is combined into a single discussion of Build Alternatives, since implementation of any of the four Build Alternative would result in similar impacts. 2.1.2.3.1 Temporary Impacts Due to the long-term nature of growth -related impacts, temporary impacts relative to growth are not analyzed for either the No -Build Alternative or the Build Alternatives. 2.1.2.3.2 Permanent Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Alternative 1 would not close the existing gap in Park Place between Allied Way and Nash Street. The project site would remain in its existing condition. As such, Alternative 1 would not have the potential to result in impacts related to growth. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.2-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.1.2-1: The First -Cut Screening Process Does the project haveIf appropriately certain, you are the potential to change �� done. Document the results. accessibility? V YES MAYBE Consider factors such as Project type, project ocation, and growth pressure I Is project -related If appropriately certain, you are growth reasonably �� done. Document the results. foreseeable? V YES MAYBE I there is project - If appropriately certain, you are relate growth, could it impact �� done. Document the results. resources of concern? YES MAYBE N • Document the process and results for the files. • Budget the time and cost needed for an analysis. • Consider avoidance and minimization measures early when refining project alternatives. • Discuss any potential issues with the PDT. NA Continue to Chapter 6, Performing the Analysis ... see Figure 6-7. Source: California Department of Transportation, Guidance for Preparers of Growth -related, Indirect Impact Analyses (May 2006), p. 5-3, Figure 5-1. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.2-3 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Alternatives 1A, IC, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) The Build Alternatives would add a new grade -separated bridge structure, and therefore, would enhance access within the project area. The project would result in a substantial change with respect to accessibility within the project area because it would provide a gap closure. The project area is mostly developed and urbanized, although there is vacant land within the central portion of the project site. This land is privately owned, and there is a potential that development within this vacant area could occur in the future, that may not otherwise occur in the absence of the proposed extension of Park Place. However, no specific development is currently proposed, and no applications for development have been received by the City. While future development in this area is anticipated in the City's General Plan, it is not considered in this growth impact analysis due to the fact that no specific planning analysis or documentation is currently available, nor are any entitlement or permitting efforts pending. Accordingly, development on this vacant land is not considered to be reasonably foreseeable. As such, the change in accessibility resulting from the project is not anticipated to affect the location, rate, type, or amount of growth projected in the City. Rather, the project would improve the operational performance of the local street system by providing a gap closure and accommodating anticipated increased traffic demand in the area. Growth projections within the City are forecast to be very minor, as discussed above, and project implementation would not affect or alter projected growth. As discussed above, the project area is mostly built out which is not indicative of substantial new growth in the area. The pattern and rate of population and housing growth following implementation of the proposed project would be expected to remain consistent with the population anticipated by existing plans for the area. Furthermore, no new or expanded infrastructure, housing, or other similar permanent physical changes to the environment would be necessary as an indirect consequence of the proposed project. The current condition along with potential development in other areas of the City increases the need for the proposed Build Alternatives, which is necessary to correct the existing condition in the area and improve traffic flow. As such, project -related growth is not considered to be reasonably foreseeable with implementation of any of the Build Alternatives. In addition, the Build Alternatives are consistent with existing and future land uses since no land use changes would occur with either of the Build Alternatives. The project is one of a number of roadway projects planned for the project area, and the project is in compliance with future land uses as discussed in the General Plan. This analysis does not continue on past the first cut screening process because project -related growth is not reasonably foreseeable, which ends the growth analysis process as seen in Figure 2.1.2-1. Based on the first -cut screening analysis discussed above, the proposed project would not be growth -inducing nor have growth -related impacts. No operational growth -related impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed Build Alternatives. No additional analysis related to growth is warranted. 2.1.2.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.2-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.1.3 Community Impacts Community Character and Cohesion 2.1.3.1 Regulatory Setting The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, established that the federal government use all practicable means to ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings (42 United States Code [USC] 4331 [b][2]). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in its implementation of NEPA (23 USC 109[h]) directs that final decisions on projects are to be made in the best overall public interest. This requires taking into account adverse environmental impacts, such as destruction or disruption of human -made resources, community cohesion, and the availability of public facilities and services. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an economic or social change by itself is not to be considered a significant effect on the environment. However, if a social or economic change is related to a physical change, then social or economic change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant. Since this project would result in physical change to the environment, it is appropriate to consider changes to community character and cohesion in assessing the significance of the project's effects. 2.1.3.2 Affected Environment The primary sources used in the preparation of this section include information from the U.S. Census Bureau, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the City. In addition, the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference document, Community Impact Assessment, Environmental Handbook Volume 4 (October 2011) was used as a guiding document for the collection of data relative to the City's community character. Table 2.1.3-1, Demographic Summary, below presents a demographic summary for the City of EI Segundo, the County of Los Angeles, and the SCAG region. The City occupies an area of approximately 5.46 square miles, and is currently home to approximately 16,929 residents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau 2015 American Community Survey (ACS) population estimates. This represents a very minor population increase from 16,654 residents in the 2010 Census, and from 16,033 residents in the 2000 Census. There are no residential land uses or cohesive neighborhoods within proximity to the proposed project; according to U.S. Census Bureau data, the population within the two census tracts that cover the project area (Census Tracts 9800.13 and 9800.30) have a population of zero. In EI Segundo, only 15 percent of the City's land area is designated for residential use, all of which is located west of Sepulveda Boulevard and situated in the northwestern portion of the City. As such, the community boundaries used for the purpose of this analysis generally encompass one square mile bounded by EI Segundo Boulevard to the north; Aviation Boulevard to the east; Rosecrans Avenue to the south; and Sepulveda Boulevard to the west. The community character within this area is comprised solely of commercial/retail urban mixed uses, a golf course, and light and heavy industrial businesses uses which are similar to uses in approximately 85 percent of the City's land area. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.3-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.3-1: Demographic Summary Economic Development According to the General Plan Economic Development Element, EI Segundo is an employment - led community, meaning that its development has been led by employment rather than population growth. Employment growth is usually driven by "basic" employers, which are the focus of traditional economic development. Basic employers produce goods and services for customers outside the local economy, bringing new wealth, income, and jobs into an area. The City's basic employers, those industries which support the rest of the economy, are centered in the high-tech manufacturing/industrial sectors. In addition, EI Segundo is strategically located within the South Bay, with excellent air and ground transportation access, including proximity to freeways, to LAX, and the large customer base found within EI Segundo's business community. The City also benefits from its proximity to the 1-105 and 1-405 Freeways and the Metro Green Line, runs between the cities of Redondo Beach and Norwalk, within Los Angeles County. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.3-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Los Angeles EI Segundo Category, EI Segundo County Relative to Lose SCAG Region Angeles County Total Population (2016) 16,646 10,241,335 [0.16%] 18,954,083 Median Age (years) 41.0 36.4 4.6 36.0 Hispanic 17.2% 48.7% -31.5% 46.8% Non -Hispanic White 65.6% 26.3% 39.3% 31.2% Non -Hispanic Asian 9.4% 14.1% -4.7% 12.7% Non -Hispanic Black 2.4% 8.0% -5.6% 6.3% Non -Hispanic American 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% Indian All Other Non -Hispanic 5.1% 2.7% 2.4% 2.7% Number of Households 6,923 3,308,022 [0.21%] 6,132,938 Average Household Size 2.4 3.0 -0.6 3.1 Median Household $86,721 $57,864 $28,857 $61,792 Income Number of Housing Units 7,427 3,504,061 [0.21%] 6,629,879 Homeownership Rate 43.0% 54.3% -11.3% 54.3% Median Existing Home $1,025,000 $520,000 $505,000 $466,000 Sales Price Median Home Sales 22.8% 7.0% 15.8% 6.6% Price Change Drive Alone to Work 87.0% 76.5% 10.5% 78.8% Mean Travel Time to 25.0 33.0 -8.0 31.0 Work (minutes) Number of Jobs 40,033 4,424,056 [0.9%] 7,920,602 Total Jobs Change 234 25,840 [1 %] 117,499 Average Salary per Job $120,610 $56,700 $63,910 $53,962 K-12 Public School 3,546 1,471,103 0.2% 2,961,726 Student Enrollment Notes: 1 Data is from a range of years including 2014 through 2016. 2 Numbers with [ ] represent EI Segundo's share of Los Angeles County. The other numbers represent the difference between EI Segundo and Los Angeles County. Source: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Profile of the City of EI Segundo, May 2017. Economic Development According to the General Plan Economic Development Element, EI Segundo is an employment - led community, meaning that its development has been led by employment rather than population growth. Employment growth is usually driven by "basic" employers, which are the focus of traditional economic development. Basic employers produce goods and services for customers outside the local economy, bringing new wealth, income, and jobs into an area. The City's basic employers, those industries which support the rest of the economy, are centered in the high-tech manufacturing/industrial sectors. In addition, EI Segundo is strategically located within the South Bay, with excellent air and ground transportation access, including proximity to freeways, to LAX, and the large customer base found within EI Segundo's business community. The City also benefits from its proximity to the 1-105 and 1-405 Freeways and the Metro Green Line, runs between the cities of Redondo Beach and Norwalk, within Los Angeles County. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.3-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Employment and Income According to SCAG's Profile of the City of El Segundo (May 2015), approximately 23.3 percent of EI Segundo residents work in the city where they live, while 76.7 percent of EI Segundo residents commute to other places. The City's current employment base consists predominately of professional (26.1 percent), manufacturing (19.7 percent), leisure (10.5 percent), and retail sectors (8.4 percent). Other sectors including information, transportation, finance, construction, wholesale, education, agriculture, public, and other, comprised the balance of employment in the City. Major employers located within the community character study area include the following: • Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems • The Aerospace Corporation • Chevron Refinery (located outside of study area but immediately west of the project site) • Accenture • Xerox Corporation • Time Warner Cable • West Ba Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Public Transportation Transit service is provided by Metro light rail system and fixed bus routes operated by Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), and a Dial -A -Ride service by the City of EI Segundo. Within the study area, there is a Metrolink Green Line Station (Douglas Station) located within the eastern portion of the study area. In addition, Metro Local Line bus route numbers 125 and 232 traverse the study area along South Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue.' 2.1.3.3 Environmental Consequences The project footprint for all four Build Alternatives is similar; therefore, the discussion of Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, and 3B below is combined into a single discussion of Build Alternatives, since implementation of any of the four Build Alternative would result in similar impacts. 2.1.3.3.1 Temporary Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.1.3.3.2 Permanent Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Alternative 1 does not improve transportation infrastructure in the project area, nor does it improve circulation. The existing and planned uses in the project area do not contain any residential uses or neighborhoods, and therefore, does not represent a high level of community character or cohesion. However, the gap in Park Place between Allied Way and Nash Street that disrupts continuity along the corridor and results in increased trips on the already heavily congested Rosecrans Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard, will further contribute to increased traffic congestion for users of the commercial retail and recreational facilities located in the project area. Under the No -Build Alternative, the existing transportation network would be maintained and no permanent changes would occur within the community. It is unlikely that adverse impa Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Relocations and Real Property Acquisition 2.1.3.5 Regulatory Setting The Department's Relocation Assistance Program (RAP) is based on the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (Uniform Act) and Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 24. The purpose of the RAP is to ensure that persons displaced as a result of a transportation project are treated fairly, consistently, and equitably so that such persons will not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of projects designed for the benefit of the public as a whole. All relocation services and benefits are administered without regard to race, color, national origin, persons with disabilities, religion, age, or sex. Please see Appendix B for a copy of the Department's Title VI Policy Statement. 2.1.3.6 Affected Environment This section is based on the Final Relocation Imp Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.1.3.7.2 Permanent Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Under the No -Build Alternative, the existing transportation network would be maintained. No property acquisition would occur. Alternatives 1A, IC, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) According to the Relocation Impact Memorandum that was prepared for the project, the Build Alternatives would not result in significant impact to real property owners, tenants, businesses, or persons in possession of real property to be acquired. The Preferred Alternative proposes consolidation of the UPRR and BNSF alignments to facilitate a single grade separation (proposed roadway undercrossing of the railroad tracks) by relocating the BNSF tracks to the west, and construction of a roundabout at the Park Place/Allied Way intersection. With the implementation of this roundabout intersection, improvements at the existing signalized intersection along Park Place Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures spaces are shared in the evenings and weekends with the office uses at 2101 - 2141 Rosecrans Avenue (The Plaza). The City of EI Segundo Municipal Code requires a minimum of 965 parking spaces; thus, there is an existing surplus of 451 parking spaces. Approximately 90 to 110 parking spaces would be temporarily affected at the ArcLight Cinemas parking lot during construction under the Preferred Alternative, with approximately 75 to 95 parking spaces affected permanently through the acquisition of 0.49 acres of ROW. However, even with the temporary and permanent removal of parking as part of the project, the facility would have a surplus of between 341-376 parking spaces. In addition, direct access to the north parking lot for ArcLight Cinemas via Nash Street may be affected temporarily during construction. However, any closure of this access would be brief, and this parking lot would remain accessible via the exist Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No displacements or relocations will occur under the Preferred Alternative. However, while displacement or relocations would not occur, there is the possibility for moves of personal property from the partial permanent acquisition areas which may qualify for relocation assistance benefits under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Act of 1970, which states that, "Any person (individual, family, corporation, partnership, or association) who moves from real property or moves personal property from real property as a result of the acquisition of the real property, or required to relocate as a result of a written notice from the California Department of Transportation from the real property required for a transportation project is eligible for relocation assistance." ROW would be acquired in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.3-2: Proposed Permanent Right -of -Way Acquisitions APN Address Current Land Use Partial or Full Current 4138-015-044 700 S. Allied Way Commercial Shopping Center Take Property Owner 4138-015-042 760 S. Sepulveda Boulevard Commercial Shopping Center 770 S. Allied Way 4138-015-043 S. Sepulveda Boulevard Commercial Shopping Center 4138-015-044 700 S. Allied Way Commercial Shopping Center 4138-015-045 770 S. Allied Way Commercial Shopping Center 4138-015-046 2015 Park Place Commercial Shopping Center 4138-015-050 740 S. Sepulveda Boulevard Commercial Shopping Center Partial acquisition 4138-015-051 750 S. Sepulveda Boulevard Commercial Shopp - -_ - -„ "'MER H & CO _;•�.• --• - �'�.♦ -012-005 LEGEND: LEGEND: APN 4138 ® DEVELOPABLE LAND (1,679,000 SOFT) PARTIAL TAKE - RAIL (335,620 SOFT) _ PARTIAL TAKE - ROAD (77,670 SOFT) LANDSWAP (228,580 SOFT) _ SLOPE EASEMENT (19,980 SOFT) D BRAIL ASF ASE9E0TSOROM UPRR TOy,+ / / tF 7' ; ~�Y ' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION t �J--.�.�. / i'�, Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Back of 11 x 17. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.3-12 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) KRAMER H & CO LEGEND: rr ' fllA APN 4138-012-005 / _�] �•� /' DEVELOPABLE LAND (1,678,390 SOFT) 0 PARTIAL TAKE - RAIL (335,620 SOFT) - PARTIAL TAKE - ROAD (79,000 SOFT) 0 LANDSWAP (228,580 SOFT) / NVIS \ - - SLOPE EASEMENT (24,560 SOFT) BNAIL SF ASE9M8EONTSOFROM UPRR TO •all - +/� ,y,+ _,; �. �"'.3■__ fi.1ll , / / �, i / (J Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Back of 11 x 17. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.3-14 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) KRAMER H & CO - - •�' -- — -• T _ ' .affiS APN 4138-012-005 LEGEND* a _ - DEVELOPABLE LAND (1,699,620 SOFT) — PARTIAL TAKE - ROAD (94,830 SOFT) '.,_ _ ''� "-/�'�`"lllj•z ./ / i -� —PARTIAL TAKE - RAIL (2,230 SOFT) + s vIH `- _ r/, .L;. -,f ~yIL 0 SLOPE EASEMENT (42,740 SOFT) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION - I� K '� � ��- / '\,• �" '� / Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Back of 11 x 17. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.3-16 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) AMER H & CO - - 1 '�• - \ -- — -- T _ " 'as APN 4138-012-005 / /'I /• LEGEND: DEVELOPABLE LAND (1,728,770 SOFT) - PARTIAL TAKE - ROAD (77,720 SOFT) l _" _ �, ''� " - / •�'�`"lIII' / / I •/ SLOPE EASEMENT (35,480 SOFT �� 5 H �/• t_ + .!! 1 IIL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ^ / — EASEMENT (TCE) (103,870 SOFT) r iJ ' /,c, �'�� * \ �\ /' / I I I • Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Back of 11 x 17. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.3-18 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) 8 H & CO LEGEND* APN 41-012-00RAME35 / s" DEVELOPABLE LAND (1,728,720 SOFT) — PARTIAL TAKE ROAD (75,080 SOFT) 1 — a, SLOPE EASEMENT (35,480 SOFT) 51H `- - ;'. ~y .1 ry TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION -� r' ! ,/ +�$��•• •\ I I '�, /- - EASEMENT (TCE) (104,730 SOFT) rFTM LICENSE FROM UPRR TO CITY (41,670 SOFT)' < / / r \ '/ / �A \ \ /• / Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Back of 11 x 17. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.3-20 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low- income populations, and to avoid or minimize such effects to the extent feasible. In general, the threshold percentage of 50 percent or more of the population identified as poverty level or minority in the census has historically constitu Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.1.3.11 Environmental Consequences The project footprint for all four Build Alternatives is similar; therefore, the discussion of Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, and 3B below is combined into a single discussion of Build Alternatives, since implementation of any of the four Build Alternative would result in similar impacts. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures populations. Potential adverse impacts specific to low-income or minority populations would not occur with project implementation. 2.1.3.12 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Based on the above discussion and analysis, the Build Alternatives will n Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.3-24 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.1.4 Utilities/Emergency Services 2.1.4.1 Affected Environment Utilities The following utilities exist within the project area and its vicinity: • Electrical Service: Southern California Edison • Natural Gas Service: Southern California Gas Company • Water and Sewer Service: City of EI Segundo • Storm Drain Lines: City Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Alternatives 1A, IC, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) It is anticipated that the proposed project would require the permanent realignment of existing railroad facilities, as well as relocation of existing utilities and underground pipelines described above, located within the project limits. Refer to Figures 2.1.4-1 through 2.1.4-5 for the existing and proposed locations of the above -referenced facilities and utility lines. While no existing utilities are known to conflict with the proposed bridge locations, there are two existing petroleum lines (running parallel to the current BNSF right-of-way [ROW] to the southeast, and parallel to the UPRR ROW to the northwest) and one reclaimed waterline (running perpendicular between the existing railways just north of the proposed improvements) that would be impacted by roadway and retaining wall construction. Measure U&ES-1 requires that utility coordination with all affected agencies be conducted, and that all proposed utility relocations would be subject to preparation of utility relocation plans, which would include the following: descriptions of existing facilities; proposed utility changes/demolition; identification of potential conflicts and resolutions; a work plan that describes the nature of construction activity. Partial relocation, protection in place, or realignment of these facilities would be considered as part of the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) and construction phases of the project to minimize any service interruptions to end users and that improvements are performed to utility agency standards. While the proposed project would require relocation of the above -referenced utilities, any potential disruption in service would be short-term and cease upon project completion. Prior to completion of PS&E, coordination with the affected utility providers in the vicinity of the improvements would be completed to verify that the project will not disrupt services. For any utilities affected, all required coordination would be completed during the PS&E and construction phases to establish exact procedures and specifications for addressing facilities impacted by the project. With implementation of required noticing to the affected utilities in advance of project construction, the City would be able to plan for relocation of their facilities. In addition, the City would coordinate with UPRR and BNSF regarding railroad realignments and with Plains All American, West Basin Municipal Water District, and Torrance Logistics regarding relocation of their respective associated pipelines. The Build Alternatives could result in short-term construction impacts to emergency access due to traffic delays associated with a construction zone; however, such delays would be for a short period of time and would cease upon completion of project construction. Travel through the project area would be maintained for emergency service vehicles during project construction. Short-term congestion would be addressed with implementation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP), which would serve to minimize disruption to emergency services. Measure U&ES-2 provides that prior to and during construction, the City and the Construction Contractor will coordinate all temporary ramp closures and detour plans with fire, emergency medical, and law enforcement providers to minimize temporary delays in emergency response times as part of the Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to be prepared for project (refer to Measure TRA -1), including the identification of alternative routes and routes across the construction areas for emergency vehicles, developed in coordination with the affected agencies. Implementation of Mitigation Measures U&ES-1 and U&ES-2 would minimize temporary impacts regarding utilities and emergency services during construction, and impacts would not be adverse. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.4-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) LEGEND: ►n� —.—ow �.4 1 �i4" L . ;` IV7.' ■ PROPOSED ROADWAY — --S PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED RAILROAD — RCW PROPOSED RECYCLED WATER --s EXISTING SANITARY SEWER --W— PROPOSED WATER�- - — rcw EXISTING RECYCLED WATER ---0- PROPOSED PETROLEUM - w— EXISTING WATER ---- JT• PROPOSED JOINT TRENCH/.,; — --o- EXISTING PETROLEUM — FO — PROPOSED FIBER OPTIC fo — EXISTING FIBER OPTIC • / AO Ilk. RELOCATE 42" Y i` �/ _ +� -' RELOCATE 8" `.d •I RECYCLED WATER /• �� _PETROLEUM} - - z C' (WEST BASINr- LINE (TORRANCE MUNICIPAL WATER ;. - 14 .. LOGISTICS/ % \ DISTRICT) r '�" \� PBF ENERGY) 10" PIPELINE (CRIMSON)7upr I rcw— �N4 //JL8" LAX PDX (SHELL) Ampa� BOG W % �d �� _5 _`Q /// 'y RELOCATE 16' \ _ a._ �- 3- JI /�/,��•v/ 9�r � (PLA NSPETROLEUALLINE W IJ I ��• �/ +`c�/ '`s •-1 '- +SRs AMERICAN LINE \ lal' , o -- *� 9 93) OPTION 2 .� } "a�J/ �i �!Q � .I,Tr i'► 1y ti. _ Lam_-- � A 5a / Q' P PLAC g K .. / % G R E PIC / PROPOSED - �� +!. i®/ O ° r ± w A WATER a 5 y 4111 IN4 lee PROPOSED sANITARv sEwER W/ E • PROPOSED °\\ JOINT TRENCH- \�! ! - •\ o�' // \� LOWER 16 PETROLEUMr•'k�ir- \ LINE ON EXISTING 4 PROPOSED ° ALINGMENT (PLAINS.- �' SANITARY ALL AMERICAN LINE ±�• oa SEWER PUMP r93) - OPTION •1 STATION LOWER 20' PETROLEUM LINE 2000 OPTIC LINE ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT \'�oi //�/_• ! - "•� �� `i:�" ' �p "--,�y'5� �!• (PLAINS ALL AMERICAN) - OPTION 2 .I ��__o-�� c'� / h j F' 4 e I�f�' 'al �T -'�' •� i^�7 a �- 1 r 1 RELOCATE 20' PETROLEUM LINE 2000 11 AND FIBER OPTIC LINE ONTO BRIDGE f ° z = W q_.. —A a -` • _ ,. , (PLAINS ALL AMERICAN) OPTION 1 y W H, - ROSECRANS AVENUE �.�, �. x 'f7wly L• r �� ~. _ ��,r \\ ! 1, .f '_itr'�` >��+�yin_,`!�-, k �.,�.is I _ + •lye_ -± w i � i, ,`, � �,' - �� UTILITY PLAN •� - >Q � - . � � - ,ter=,: - . .M-- r. a 'fill �r _ (ALTERNATIVE 1A) .. r Source: NCM Engineering Corporation, August 2017. PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) NOT TO SCALE Alternative 1A Existing and Proposed Utility Plan 08/18 1 JN 145070 Figure 2.1.4-1 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Back of 11 x 17 Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.4-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) LEGEND: ■ PROPOSED ROADWAY ---S PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER s PROPOSED RAILROAD • — RCW PROPOSED RECYCLED WATER - •� r' ^•.M r / --s EXISTING SANITARY SEWER --W- PROPOSED WATER —rcw EXISTING RECYCLED WATER ---0- PROPOSED PETROLEUM - w- EXISTING WATER ----JT• PROPOSED JOINT TRENCH ''a^i'� -`',} ,`t e - ---o- EXISTING PETROLEUM —FO- PROPOSED FIBER OPTIC ' r _ ;r fo- EXISTING FIBER OPTIC '^ \\/�+ ��xrh // _ `dam RELOCATE 42" ,a �aK RELOCATE 8' �• ' RECYCLED WATER PETROLEUM PETROLEUM= (' _ [ • 1 (WEST BASINLINE (TORRANCE .I• r MUNICIPAL WATER y I- - - DISTRICT LOGISTICS/ - •, . .a r �. ,\ PBF ENERGY)AL p - -- -•�� of o °\\�f offt(CRIMSON)( �k \ LAX PDX (SHELL} GP's �1�-• \ V. rs! 5� __``QQj / M RELOCATE 16r, J �`-00. PETROLEUM LINE°\ \ a Q I I /! `y VO ; r *g AMERIICANALL LINE \ W - � V+L° ' h 93) - OPTION 2 'y ° s• y y - i P ,. _=t1 C7 �ov K PLAC . ^Idw mow` A PROPOSED °�. V `+� 4/�a�`. a -r re 1 iiw.• ^IAF l r� tiR _P* i �`•. 4A0 PROPOSED v\ .-.. PROPOSED _--`- (SANITARY SEWER �� / t. I _ \ •� -moi 1��`- • °-_. JROPOSED o\��,D JOINT TRENCH - _ter-=�i '3, \}°`__4�/� / j \ � �I^ � ! � � L _1 ',•{� kip 4i, —°'� �/� . I, LOWER 16 PETROLEUM �: _ v. J. LINE ON EXISTING J kR r J • • `-� '.° PROPOSED ' .r ° SANITARY ALINGMENT (PLAINS w. S` - �•= _ I. i .�� ALL AMERICAN LINE a - r SEWER PUMP �- 93) - OPTION 1 N STATIO_ -lid LOWER 20 PETROLEUM LINE 2000 AND FIBER'� �r.�l 1 - _ ^' - m OPTIC LINE ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT \'-o;/// - r- - "'� -�`1- - `-��',_ „-� (PLAINS ALL AMERICAN) - OPTION 2 RELOCATE 20" PETROLEUM LINE 2000' %` y�. a � w. - l1 AND FIBER OPTIC LINE ONTO BRIDGE �� = W;_.. \ tl��Mau (PLAINS ALL AMERICAN) OPTION 1 _ ,;. - [.: i� y W ' M ADA& miff ROSECRANS AVENUE'S .I. I.rp0 _•-t��`Il"`rl y�', � _ ! � ;! •Iyer �� Of !_� UTILITY PLAN _' fill ^b- _ -`�R I ¢ (ALTERNATIVE 1C) r$ ! IIII11jII4_"'$ L� �'- c� iiia, i�- -- -. !i ,� 'rf. � ^e � Ri ^S �_��..r� i' 1 i �•� Source: NCM Engineering Corporation, August 2017. PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) NOT TO SCALE Alternative 1C Existing and Proposed Utility Plan 08/18 1 JN 145070 Figure 2.1.4-2 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Back of 11 x 17 Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.4-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) LEGEND: t.�! . ► -K •4a' 4. la t .iii►� ti. a 1� �/ ■ PROPOSED ROADWAY ---S PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER s PROPOSED RAILROAD — RCW PROPOSED RECYCLED WATER • r r -'.M r --s EXISTING SANITARY SEWER --W- PROPOSED WATER 1-"•:00 —rcw EXISTING RECYCLED WATER ---0- PROPOSED PETROLEUM. '��" i� /} - w- EXISTING WATER ---- JT • PROPOSED JOINT TRENCH "IF _f �- e - — --o- EXISTING PETROLEUM — FO — PROPOSED FIBER OPTIC r f fo— EXISTING FIBER OPTIC :. N zP LU ird -j LU RELOCATE 42"s ' 3 '- - 3 RECYCLED WATER o 1<- *s S �. ILA (WEST BASIN + _� �t� LAY _ V'0 MUNICIPAL WATER P DISTRICT) /- y * K - '\ qR a .1Y PAR PLACES , - , - - - PROPOSED -r , *3. , ��1 �C. QII WATER F° \ o ♦/` a -r lr 1 x .. �� U ... %/ \ ~ i� //1•�� SI. ,-® 1 -rte yy��. - '-4 \ .. _ PROPOSED 1 `_ ��\ - r '-.'4•.. _ - (SANITARY SEWER / '.,d�T�, s! E _ •� y '�~; ' ROPOSED -.. •�� JOINT TRENCH k'' - 's---� - -- �• - - _ LOWER 10" WATER AND 10" SEWER LINE ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT i�•,_ + m �p(CITY OF EL SEGUNDO) I,s _. � . JJ •.- ', � PROPOSED w rR ' i• °�. �i SANITARY -�--'� '� _- '•r�ir \ 0; o SEWER PUMP /�_ AbdiNk RELOCATE 16" PETROLEUM LINE /i •. _ .. I,` STATION _ I ONTO BRIDGE (PLAINS ALL �• '�� "a i ___ AMERICAN LINE 93) - OPTION 1q. " rr LOWER 20" PETROLEUM LINE 2000 AND FIBER4.,� - LOWER 16" PETROLEUM LINE OPTIC LINE ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT - / - Mei ` ON EXISTING ALINGMENT r (PLAINS ALL AMERICAN) - OPTION 2 r h II (PLAINS ALL AMERICAN LINE - �' F•. 93) - OPTION 2 4 1 RELOCATE 20" PETROLEUM LINE 2000 f AND FIBER OPTIC LINE ONTO BRIDGE, = W ! r,... (PLAINS ALL AMERICAN) - OPTION 1 9 _ "� y W --f!{- :'s =__ � Q � T; `'�� i,�a; � '� moi. � Gr _ ;j -•\" �' ROSECRANS AVENUE'S — - v> r I UTILITY PLAN ! R �`� ` d II ■ fill �b a aR ' `.:` a :� (ALTERNATIVE 3A) - r" - •.;S .c', 1 if —._.. _� w•^ !f .. IL Source: NCM Engineering Corporation, August 2017. PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) NOT TO SCALE Alternative 3A Existing and Proposed Utility Plan 08/18 1 JN 145070 Figure 2.1.4-3 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Back of 11 x 17 Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.4-8 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) LEGEND: PROPOSED ROADWAY PROPOSED RAILROAD --s EXISTING SANITARY SEWER — rcw EXISTING RECYCLED WATER - w— EXISTING WATER ___0_ EXISTING PETROLEUM fo — EXISTING FIBER OPTIC Source: NCM Engineering Corporation, August 2017. +s# f NV GN i � rte_ 1 IIWilli I ii'' - \O. 7J ._. \\ 0 0 50 r rs s, rt • �+1 i LU � LU I 'I F^ 20" PETROLEUM LINE 2000 AND FIBER -r _ __� ' ,/y�,� - F' I•' 19 OPTIC LINE ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT (PLAINS ALL AMERICAN) - OPTION 2 +1�'rIM —� RELOCATE 20" PETROLEUM.LINE 2000' AND FIBER OPTIC LINE ONTO BRIDGE t (PLAINS ALL AMERICAN) - OPTION 1 + ROSECRANS AVEIJUE 44 1 PARK: PE �. + � 1 `i •.V - VIII 3 _ 7y� _4 a s UTILITY PLAN (ALTERNATIVE 36 - Opt 1) PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) NOT TO SCALE Alternative 313 Option 1 Existing and Proposed Utility Plan 08/18 1 JN 145070 Figure 2.1.4-4 -- ---S PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER - RCW PROPOSED RECYCLED WATER moo --W— PROPOSED WATER 44 •i ___0- PROPOSED PETROLEUM ---- JT • PROPOSED JOINT TRENCH ''a^i'1• —FO— PROPOSED FIBER OPTIC' +s# f NV GN i � rte_ 1 IIWilli I ii'' - \O. 7J ._. \\ 0 0 50 r rs s, rt • �+1 i LU � LU I 'I F^ 20" PETROLEUM LINE 2000 AND FIBER -r _ __� ' ,/y�,� - F' I•' 19 OPTIC LINE ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT (PLAINS ALL AMERICAN) - OPTION 2 +1�'rIM —� RELOCATE 20" PETROLEUM.LINE 2000' AND FIBER OPTIC LINE ONTO BRIDGE t (PLAINS ALL AMERICAN) - OPTION 1 + ROSECRANS AVEIJUE 44 1 PARK: PE �. + � 1 `i •.V - VIII 3 _ 7y� _4 a s UTILITY PLAN (ALTERNATIVE 36 - Opt 1) PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) NOT TO SCALE Alternative 313 Option 1 Existing and Proposed Utility Plan 08/18 1 JN 145070 Figure 2.1.4-4 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Back of 11 x 17 Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.4-10 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) LEGEND: PROPOSED ROADWAY PROPOSED RAILROAD --s EXISTING SANITARY SEWER — rcw EXISTING RECYCLED WATER - w- EXISTING WATER — --o- EXISTING PETROLEUM fo — EXISTING FIBER OPTIC i�"! "� — ► j''�1 `�'�� .'�ii_i►�' ., y' ,. ;qtr 4 \ --S PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER ' — RCW PROPOSED RECYCLED WATER --W- PROPOSED WATER ---0- PROPOSED PETROLEUM ' �•='�" it ---- JT • PROPOSED JOINT TRENCH ! ''a^�• - -`' —FO— PROPOSED FIBER OPTIC v ^yam S '1. YID Imp W LU co P,qR " \ p�4cF., PRGW°TES �I PROPOSED JOINT TRENCH _ - L JJ4. O ° LU- 11 LU IT� J LOWER 20" PETROLEUM LINE 2000 AND FIBER Il�y / _ -• H F 41l OPTIC LINE ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT r (PLAINS ALL AMERICAN) - OPTION 2 ,i - �'r _ f � `.��x _ j 2 RELOCATE 20'rPETROLEUM LINE 2000 cs/ _ A -4 U) AND FIBER OPTIC LINE ONTO BRIDGE I (PLAINS ALL AMERICAN) - OPTION 1 -`- ROSECRANS AVENUE k Source: NCM Engineering Corporation, August 2017. p pRK.PSE#' 1 \.° UTILITY PLAN (ALTERNATIVE 313 - Opt 2) PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) NOT TO SCALE Alternative 313 Option 2 Existing and Proposed Utility Plan 08/18 1 JN 145070 Figure 2.1.4-5 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Back of 11 x 17 Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.4-12 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.1.4.2.2 Permanent Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Alternative 1 would not result in any impacts related to existing utilities or emergency services, since the existing roadway network would remain in place and no transportation improvements would be implemented. Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) The Build Alternatives would require the realignment of railways and relocation of utilities and pipelines described above during construction. As discussed above and required by Measures U&ES-1 and U&ES-2, specifics related to the relocation of utilities would occur during the PS&E phase and coordination with affected utility and emergency service providers would be required to minimize impacts in this regard. Upon completion of construction, any relocated utilities would function similar to current conditions. The Build Alternatives would improve the operational performance of the local street system by providing a gap closure and accommodating anticipated increased traffic demand and associated potential congestion from planned development in the area. With implementation of the project, the delivery of emergency services (police and fire protection, and emergency medical response) is expected to improve thereby resulting in a beneficial effect. Thus, permanent effects related to utilities and emergency services would not be adverse. 2.1.4.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures U&ES-1 The City of EI Segundo will conduct utility coordination activities with affected utility agencies, and all proposed utility relocations shall be subject to preparation of utility relocation plans, which shall include the following: descriptions of existing facilities; proposed utility changes/demolition; identification of potential conflicts and resolutions; and a work plan that describes the nature of construction activity. Chevron shall be consulted on the existing underground pipelines that may need to be relocated or protected in place during construction. The pipelines that supply product to Chevron shall be evaluated and work shall be coordinated to minimize the length of time that service would be interrupted in the event that relocation of the pipelines is necessary, and to minimize or eliminate impacts to the refinery's operations that may result from that relocation. U&ES-2 Prior to and during construction, the City of EI Segundo and the Construction Contractor shall coordinate all temporary ramp closures and detour plans with fire, emergency medical, and law enforcement providers to minimize temporary delays in emergency response times as part of the Traffic Management Plan (TMP), including the identification of alternative routes and routes across the construction areas for emergency vehicles, developed in coordination with the affected agencies. U&ES-3 A Construction and Maintenance Agreement between the City of EI Segundo and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) outlining responsibilities shall be developed during the final design phase of the project. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.4-13 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.4-14 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.1.5 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 2.1.5.1 Regulatory Setting Caltrans, as assigned by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), directs that full consideration should be given to the safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists during the development of Federal -aid highway projects (see 23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 652). It further directs that the special needs of the elderly and the disabled must be considered in all Federal -aid projects that include pedestrian facilities. When current or anticipated pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic presents a potential conflict with motor vehicle traffic, every effort must be made to minimize the detrimental effects on all highway users who share the facility. In July 1999, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) issued an Accessibility Policy Statement pledging a fully accessible multimodal transportation system. Accessibility in federally assisted programs is governed by the USDOT regulations (49 CFR 27) implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 United States Code [USC] 794). The FHWA has enacted regulations for the implementation of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including a commitment to build transportation facilities that provide equal access for all persons. These regulations require application of the ADA requirements to federal -aid projects, including Transportation Enhancement Activities. 2.1.5.2 Affected Environment The following section is based on traffic information included in the Park Place Extension Traffic Impact Analysis (November 2016) (Traffic Impact Analysis) which was prepared for the proposed project, and approved by Caltrans on May 16, 2017. The analysis focused on multiple traffic analysis scenarios, as summarized in this document: • Existing (2016) Conditions; • Existing (2016) Year Plus Project Traffic; • Opening Year (2021) Without Project; and • Opening Year (2021) With Project. Figure 2.1.5-1, Traffic Study Area, shows the traffic study area as defined in the Traffic Impact Analysis. As shown in Figure 2.1.5-1, the traffic study area includes the following twenty-four (24) intersections located within Cities of EI Segundo, Manhattan Beach, and Hawthorne. 1. Sepulveda Boulevard at EI Segundo Boulevard (signalized) — EI Segundo; 2. Sepulveda Boulevard at Hughes Way (signalized) — EI Segundo; 3. Sepulveda Boulevard at Park Place (signalized) — EI Segundo; 4. Sepulveda Boulevard at Rosecrans Avenue (signalized) — EI Segundo and Manhattan Beach; 5. Sepulveda Boulevard at Marine Avenue (signalized) — Manhattan Beach; 6. Plaza EI Segundo Access at Park Place (signalized) — EI Segundo; 7. Village Drive at Rosecrans Avenue (signalized) — EI Segundo and Manhattan Beach; 8. Cedar Avenue at Marine Avenue (signalized) — Manhattan Beach; 9. Continental Boulevard at Sepulveda Boulevard (signalized) — EI Segundo; 10. Allied Way at Hughes Way (signalized) — EI Segundo; 11. Nash Street at Sepulveda Boulevard (signalized) — EI Segundo; Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.5-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 12. Nash Street at Park Place (unsignalized) — EI Segundo; Nash Street/Park Way at Rosecrans Avenue (signalized) — EI Segundo and Manhattan Beach; 13. Apollo Street at Park Place (unsignalized) — EI Segundo; 14. Apollo Street/Market Place at Rosecrans Avenue (signalized) — EI Segundo and Manhattan Beach; 15. Douglas Street at EI Segundo Boulevard (signalized) — EI Segundo; 16. Douglas Street at Transit Center (signalized) — EI Segundo; 17. Douglas Street at Park Place (unsignalized) — EI Segundo; 18. Redondo Avenue at Rosecrans Avenue (signalized) — EI Segundo and Manhattan Beach; 19. Aviation Boulevard at EI Segundo Boulevard (signalized) — EI Segundo and Hawthorne; 20. Aviation Boulevard at Utah Avenue/135th Street (signalized) — EI Segundo and Hawthorne; 21. Aviation Boulevard at Alaska Avenue (signalized) — EI Segundo and Hawthorne; 22. Aviation Boulevard at Rosecrans Avenue (signalized) — EI Segundo, Manhattan Beach and Hawthorne; and 23. Allied Way at Park Place (future intersection) — EI Segundo. 2.1.5.1.1 Existing Facilities Intersection Analysis To determine the existing traffic volumes at the study area intersections, existing AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic counts were collected in support of the proposed project's Traffic Impact Analysis. Intersection Analysis Methodology Level of service (LOS) is commonly used as a qualitative description of intersection operation and is based on the capacity of the intersection and the volume of traffic using the intersection. LOS is commonly used as a qualitative description of intersection operation and is based on the capacity of the intersection and the volume of traffic using the intersection. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis methodology is utilized to determine the operating LOS of the signalized intersections. For unsignalized intersections, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis methodology is utilized to determine the operating LOS. Signalized Intersections The signalized intersections are analyzed using the ICU method. The ICU technique estimates the volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio for an intersection based on the individual V/C ratios for the conflicting traffic movements. The ICU value represents the percent signal green time or capacity of the intersection movements. It should be noted that the ICU method assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing. The ICU value translates to a LOS estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The grade scales of LOS have been defined with the corresponding ICU value range as shown in Table 2.1.5-1, LOS for Signalized Intersections. The ICU value is the sum of the critical volume -to -capacity ratios at an intersection; it is not intended to be indicative of the LOS of each of the individual turning movements. ICU calculations use a lane capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) for left -turn, through and right -turn lanes, and a dual left -turn capacity of 2,880 vph. A 10 percent clearance interval is included in the analysis calculations based on City of EI Segundo requirements. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.5-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) EL SEGUNDO BLVD 0 0 J J 00 co J H Q Z W w Z J F-- D Z Lu 0 U) U HUGHES WAYm D r r_ m m c� o r OD PARK PL ROSECRANS AVE _i Aft MARINE AVE TQ ry Q D w U Source: Preliminary Geotechnical Report, October 2013. pla W U) Q Z Q W � Q Y � � O Q Z 75 0 W ry i UTAH TAL'A TH ST SKA AVE PARK PL Legend: © Existing Study Intersection OFuture Planned Study Intersection Existing Roadway — — — Future Planned Roadway PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) Q NOT TO SCALE Traffic Study Area 08118 1 JN 145070 Figure 2.1.5-1 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.5-1: LOS for Signalized Intersections Level of Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Service Volume/Capacity (V/C) Description A B C D E F Unsignalized Intersections <_ 0.600 Excellent > 0.601 <_ 0.700 Very Good > 0.700 to <_ 0.800 Good > 0.800 to <_ 0.900 Fair > 0.900 to <_ 1.000 Poor > 1.000 Failure The 2010 HCM analysis methodology describes the operation of an unsignalized intersection using a range of LOS from LOS A (free-flow conditions) to LOS F (severely congested conditions), based on the corresponding ranges of stopped delay experienced per vehicle for unsignalized intersections shown in Table 2.1.5-2, LOS for Unsignalized Intersections. LOS is based on the average stopped delay per vehicle for all movements of all -way stop -controlled intersections; for one-way or two-way stop -controlled intersections, LOS is based on the worst stop -controlled approach. The HCM analysis is conducted using the Synchro analysis software. Table 2.1.5-2: LOS for Unsignalized Intersections Level of I Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Service Delay (seconds/vehicle) Description A <_ 10.0 Little or no delay B > 10.0 to <_ 15.0 Short traffic delay C > 15.0 to <_ 25.0 Average traffic delay D > 25.0 to <_ 35.0 Long traffic delay E > 35.0 to <_ 50.0 Very long traffic delay F > 50.0 Severe congestion City of El Segundo, City of Manhattan Beach, and City of Hawthorne Traffic Impact Criteria and Thresholds Both the City of EI Segundo and City of Manhattan Beach goal for peak hour intersection operation is LOS D or better. Since intersection LOS performance criteria is not stated in the traffic study guidelines for the City of Hawthorne, this report assumes a goal for peak hour operation at the study intersections of LOS D or better. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology Traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted at the unsignalized intersections to ascertain the need for installation of traffic signals, using the signal warrant criteria presented in the 2014 edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.5-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The signal warrant criteria for existing conditions are based upon several factors, including volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, and location of school areas. The California MUTCD indicates that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or more of the signal warrants are met. Specifically, the study utilized the Peak Hour Warrant (#3) (Figures 4C-3 and 4C-4 of the California MUTCD) as the appropriate and representative traffic signal warrant analyses. Since the warrants provide specialized warrant criteria for intersections with rural characteristics (e.g., located in communities with populations of less than 10,000 persons or with adjacent major streets operating at or above 40 miles per hour), this factor was considered in preparation of the warrants. For the purposes of this analysis, the posted speed limit is the basis of determining whether "Urban" or "Rural" warrants were used. Since the posted speed limits on Park Place is 25 miles per hour, the "Urban" area warrant was used. Existing Conditions Intersection Analysis Table 2.1.5-3, Existing 2016 Conditions Intersection Analysis, shows the intersection analysis results for existing 2016 AM and PM peak hour conditions. As shown in Table 2.1.5-3, all study intersections are operating at acceptable LOS D or better for existing 2016 conditions, except for the following five (5) intersections: 1. Sepulveda Boulevard at EI Segundo Boulevard — LOS F (PM) 4. Sepulveda Boulevard at Rosecrans Avenue — LOS E (PM) 18. Douglas Street at Park Place — LOS F (PM) 21. Aviation Boulevard at Utah Avenue/135th Street — LOS E (AM) 23. Aviation Boulevard at Rosecrans Avenue — LOS E (AM) Existing Conditions Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis A traffic signal warrant analysis has been conducted at the following three (3) intersections to ascertain the need for installation of a traffic signal at otherwise an unsignalized intersection: 12. Nash Street at Park Place; 14. Apollo Street at Park Place; and 18. Douglas Street at Park Place. Based on the signal warrant analysis, a traffic signal is currently warranted at the intersection of Douglas Street and Park Place [Intersection #18] based on existing 2016 conditions. For the other locations, no traffic signals are currently warranted based on existing 2016 conditions. 2.1.5.3 Environmental Consequences 2.1.5.3.1 Temporary Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Under the No -Build Alternative, no construction would occur; therefore, temporary construction impacts to existing transportation facilities would not occur. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.5-5 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.5-3: Existing 2016 Conditions Intersection Analysis Build Alternative 1A The proposed project would result in temporary impacts related to trips generated during the construction process, such as haul trucks, equipment deliveries, and construction employee vehicle trips. While these trips may result in short-term effects to local roadways in the project area, these trips would occur for a relatively short period of time, and would cease upon the completion of the construction process. Moreover, many of these trips are anticipated to occur outside of peak AM and PM traffic periods. In addition, construction of Build Alternative 1A would result in temporary construction impacts that may temporarily restrict vehicular accessibility within the construction area. The majority of the project improvements would occur within the central portion of the project site (on vacant land) and would not affect travel on existing roadways. However, in order to establish and connect the new portion of Park Place with the existing intersections of Park Place/Allied Way Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.5-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Existing Conditions AM Peak PM Peak No. Intersection Name Type' VIC I Delay' Los VIC I Delay' LOS 1 Sepulveda Boulevard / EI Segundo Boulevard TS 38.2 D 84.5 F 2 Sepulveda Boulevard / Hughes Way TS 8.3 A 25.2 C 3 Sepulveda Boulevard / Park Place TS 6.2 A 10.8 B 4 Sepulveda Boulevard / Rosecrans Avenue TS 40.4 D 79.8 E 5 Sepulveda Boulevard / Marine Avenue TS 53.5 D 32.9 C 6 Plaza EI Segundo Access / Park Place TS 0.181 A 0.387 A 7 Village Drive / Rosecrans Avenue TS 0.497 A 0.703 C 8 Cedar Avenue / Marine Avenue TS 0.480 A 0.610 B 9 Continental Boulevard / EI Segundo Boulevard TS 0.445 A 0.406 A 10 Allied Way / Hughes Way TS 0.199 A 0.288 A 11 Nash Street / EI Segundo Boulevard TS 0.513 A 0.503 A 12 Nash Street / Park Place AWS 7.7 A 8.6 A 13 Nash Street / Rosecrans Avenue TS 0.428 A 0.575 A 14 Apollo Street / Park Place AWS 8.8 A 10.6 B 15 Apollo Street / Rosecrans Avenue TS 0.487 A 0.659 B 16 Douglas Street / EI Segundo Boulevard TS 0.710 C 0.813 D 17 Douglas Street / Transit Center TS 0.357 A 0.383 A 18 Douglas Street / Park Place AWS 22.0 C 54.2 F 19 Douglas Street / Rosecrans Avenue TS 0.658 B 0.765 C 20 Aviation Boulevard / EI Segundo Boulevard TS 0.860 D 0.890 D 21 Aviation Boulevard / Utah Avenue TS 0.912 E 0.788 C 22 Aviation Boulevard /Alaska Avenue TS 0.577 A 0.722 C 23 Aviation Boulevard / Rosecrans Avenue TS 0.917 E 0.879 D Notes: Bold = intersection operating at a deficient LOS (LOS E or F). 1 Intersection Type: TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All -Way Stop 2 Signalized Intersections: Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Method, Volume/Capacity (V/C) Ratio. Source: Park Place Extension Traffic Impact Analysis, November 2016. Build Alternative 1A The proposed project would result in temporary impacts related to trips generated during the construction process, such as haul trucks, equipment deliveries, and construction employee vehicle trips. While these trips may result in short-term effects to local roadways in the project area, these trips would occur for a relatively short period of time, and would cease upon the completion of the construction process. Moreover, many of these trips are anticipated to occur outside of peak AM and PM traffic periods. In addition, construction of Build Alternative 1A would result in temporary construction impacts that may temporarily restrict vehicular accessibility within the construction area. The majority of the project improvements would occur within the central portion of the project site (on vacant land) and would not affect travel on existing roadways. However, in order to establish and connect the new portion of Park Place with the existing intersections of Park Place/Allied Way Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.5-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures (on the west) and Park Place/Nash Street (on the east), both short-term and long-term closures would be required. Details regarding long-term closures are as follows: • Park Place/Allied Wav Intersection: Under Build Alternative 1A, approximately 250 feet of Park Place would be closed west of Allied Way, and approximately 400 feet of Allied Way would be closed north of Park Place. This closure would last approximately four to five months. • Park Place/Nash Street Intersection: Under Build Alternative 1A, no long-term closure of this intersection would be required; only a short-term closure (up to approximately one week) would be necessary. Measure TRA -1 has been included to minimize effects in regards to temporary roadway and intersection closures during construction. Measure TRA -1 would require that access is maintained to all business and properties within the project area throughout the duration of the construction process. Preparation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) would be required, and would include a public information campaign to provide advanced notice to affected business owners and the surrounding community, in addition to detour signage and routing to ensure access to existing businesses is maintained. Thus, temporary impacts under Build Alternative 1A would not be adverse. Build Alternative 1C The proposed project would result in temporary impacts related to trips generated during the construction process, such as haul trucks, equipment deliveries, and construction employee vehicle trips. While these trips may result in short-term effects to local roadways in the project area, these trips would occur for a relatively short period of time, and would cease upon the completion of the construction process. Moreover, many of these trips are anticipated to occur outside of peak AM and PM traffic periods. In addition, construction of Build Alternative 1 C would result in temporary construction impacts that may temporarily restrict vehicular accessibility within the construction area. As with Build Alternative 1A, the majority of the project improvements would occur within the central portion of the project site (on vacant land) and would not affect travel on existing roadways. However, in order to establish and connect the new portion of Park Place with the existing intersections of Park Place/Allied Way (on the west) and Park Place/Nash Street (on the east), both short-term and long-term closures would be required. Details regarding long-term closures are as follows: • Park Place/Allied Wav Intersection: Under Build Alternative 1 C, approximately 250 feet of Park Place would be closed west of Allied Way, and approximately 500 feet of Allied Way would be closed north of Park Place. This closure would last approximately five to six months. • Park Place/Nash Street Intersection: Under Build Alternative 1 C, no long-term closure of this intersection would be required; only a short-term closure (up to approximately one week) would be necessary. As noted above, Measure TRA -1 has been included to minimize effects in regards to temporary roadway and intersection closures during construction. Thus, temporary impacts under Build Alternative 1 C would not be adverse. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.5-7 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Build Alternative 3A The proposed project would result in temporary impacts related to trips generated during the construction process, such as haul trucks, equipment deliveries, and construction employee vehicle trips. While these trips may result in short-term effects to local roadways in the project area, these trips would occur for a relatively short period of time, and would cease upon the completion of the construction process. Moreover, many of these trips are anticipated to occur outside of peak AM and PM traffic periods. In addition, construction of Build Alternative 3A would result in temporary construction impacts that may temporarily restrict vehicular accessibility within the construction area. As with the other Build Alternatives, the majority of the project improvements would occur within the central portion of the project site (on vacant land) and would not affect travel on existing roadways. However, in order to establish and connect the new portion of Park Place with the existing intersections of Park Place/Allied Way (on the west) and Park Place/Nash Street (on the east), both short-term and long-term closures would be required. Details regarding long-term closures are as follows: • Park Place/Allied Wav Intersection: Under Build Alternative 3A, approximately 250 feet of Park Place would be closed west of Allied Way, and approximately 500 feet of Allied Way would be closed north of Park Place. This closure would last approximately five to six months. • Park Place/Nash Street Intersection: Under Build Alternative 3A, approximately 300 feet of Park Place would be closed east of Nash Street, and approximately 300 feet of Nash Street would be closed south of Park Place. This closure would last approximately one to two months. As noted above, Measure TRA -1 has been included to minimize effects in regards to temporary roadway and intersection closures during construction. Thus, temporary impacts under Build Alternative 3A would not be adverse. Build Alternative 3B The proposed project would result in temporary impacts related to trips generated during the construction process, such as haul trucks, equipment deliveries, and construction employee vehicle trips. While these trips may result in short-term effects to local roadways in the project area, these trips would occur for a relatively short period of time, and would cease upon the completion of the construction process. Moreover, many of these trips are anticipated to occur outside of peak AM and PM traffic periods. In addition, construction of Build Alternative 3B would result in temporary construction impacts that may temporarily restrict vehicular accessibility within the construction area. As with the other Build Alternatives, the majority of the project improvements would occur within the central portion of the project site (on vacant land) and would not affect travel on existing roadways. However, in order to establish and connect the new portion of Park Place with the existing intersections of Park Place/Allied Way (on the west) and Park Place/Nash Street (on the east), both short-term and long-term closures would be required. Details regarding long-term closures are as follows: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.5-8 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures • Park Place/Allied Wav Intersection: Under Build Alternative 3B, approximately 250 feet of Park Place would be closed west of Allied Way, and approximately 700 feet of Allied Way would be closed north of Park Place. This closure would last approximately five to six months. • Park Place/Nash Street Intersection: Under Build Alternative 3B, approximately 300 feet of Park Place would be closed east of Nash Street, and approximately 300 feet of Nash Street would be closed south of Park Place. This closure would last approximately three to four months. As noted above, Measure TRA -1 has been included to minimize effects in regards to temporary roadway and intersection closures during construction. Thus, temporary impacts under Build Alternative 3B would not be adverse. 2.1.5.3.2 Permanent Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Under the No -Build Alternative, the grade separation and gap closure improvements associated with the proposed project would not be constructed. For Opening Year 2021 without project conditions, all study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better, except for the following ten (10) intersections: 1. Sepulveda Boulevard and EI Segundo Boulevard — LOS F (AM, PM) 2. Sepulveda Boulevard at Hughes Way — LOS E (PM) 4. Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue — LOS E (AM), LOS F (PM) 5. Sepulveda Boulevard at Marine Avenue — LOS F (AM), LOS E (PM) 11. Nash Street at Sepulveda Boulevard — LOS E (AM), LOS F (PM) 16. Douglas Street at EI Segundo Boulevard — LOS F (AM, PM) 18. Douglas Street and Park Place — LOS F (PM) 20. Aviation Boulevard at EI Segundo Boulevard — LOS F (AM, PM) 21. Aviation Boulevard and Utah Avenue/135th Street — LOS E (AM) 23. Aviation Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue — LOS E (AM, PM) Exhibit 14 (Opening Year 2021 Without Project Intersection Volumes) of the Traffic Impact Analysis shows Opening Year 2021 without project conditions AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes, without diverted traffic. As shown, a deterioration in LOS would occur at an additional five (5) intersections compared to existing conditions under Alternative 1. Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Under all the Build Alternatives, beneficial traffic and circulation impacts would occur because the project would improve traffic circulation within the project area, as described in the analysis below. Proiect-Related Traffic Diversion From a traffic analysis standpoint, all the Build Alternatives have the same intersection connectivity between the quarter -mile gap as well as the same traffic flow patterns. The potential amount of traffic diversion, due to the construction of the project, was estimated based on identifying currently congested intersection locations where existing traffic may want to avoid by using the new Park Place Extension as an alternate travel route. For intersection locations Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.5-9 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures where there are available traffic capacities, potential traffic diversion may also occur along these alternate routes in combination with the new Park Place Extension to utilize the excess capacities and avoiding congested intersections and reduce travel time. The amount of traffic diversion was estimated based on the following considerations: • For an intersection that experiences deficient operations (LOS E or F), a significant amount of existing traffic movement may be assumed to divert to the new Park Place Extension, if there is an alternate route with excess capacity. • For an intersection that continues to operate at satisfactory operations or below deficient operations (LOS A through D), none or a very limited amount of existing traffic may be assumed to divert to the new Park Place Extension. Exhibit 6 (Diversion Redistribution Patterns for Southbound Left and Westbound Right at Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue) of the Traffic Impact Analysis shows a 20 percent traffic diversion to Park Place for the southbound left and westbound right at the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue (Intersection #4). Since Intersection #4 is currently operating at LOS D during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour where the delay at the intersection is high, a high amount of diversion traffic is assumed to distribute to Park Place where there will be less delay. Motorists travelling west on Rosecrans Avenue would divert to Apollo Street and Nash Street, then head westbound on Park Place until they reach Sepulveda Boulevard. Motorists travelling south on Sepulveda Boulevard would divert eastbound on Park Place, then head south to Rosecrans Avenue by Nash Street and Apollo Street. No traffic diversion is assumed to Douglas Street and Park Place (Intersection #18) because it is already operating at critical LOS, which is undesirable for motorists to use as an alternate route. Since the intersection of Douglas Street and Park Place (Intersection #18) is currently warranted for a traffic signal based on existing 2016 traffic conditions, Measure TRA -2 provides for installation of a new traffic signal, because the City has been receiving complaints about the traffic operations at this location. Measure TRA -2 would reduce permanent traffic impacts, and impacts would not be substantial. Exhibit 7 (Diversion Redistribution Patterns for Southbound Right and Eastbound Left at the Access of Plaza El Segundo on Park Place) of the Traffic Impact Analysis shows a 45 percent traffic diversion to Park Place for the southbound right and eastbound left at the access of Plaza EI Segundo on Park Place (Intersection #6). Although Intersection #6 is currently operating at LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours, diversion to Park Place is likely because it is a shorter and more convenient alternate route for motorists. Motorists travelling west on Rosecrans Avenue will divert north to Park Place by Apollo Street and Nash Street, then head westbound on Park Place until they reach the access of Plaza EI Segundo. Motorists travelling south on Douglas Street to Rosecrans Avenue would divert directly into Park Place and continue on to the access of Plaza EI Segundo. Motorists exiting the access of Plaza EI Segundo would divert eastbound on Park Place, then head south to Rosecrans Avenue by Nash Street and Apollo Street, or continue on to Douglas Street. Although the intersection of Douglas Street and Park Place (Intersection #18) is currently operating at critical LOS, a small amount of traffic diversion is likely because it is a shorter alternate route. Exhibit 8 (Diversion Redistribution Patterns for Northbound Right and Westbound Left at Sepulveda Boulevard and Hughes Way) of the Traffic Impact Analysis shows a 40 percent traffic diversion to Park Place for the northbound right and westbound left at the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Hughes Way (Intersection #2). Although Intersection #2 is currently operating at LOS A during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour, a diversion Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.5-10 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures is assumed to Park Place because it is a shorter and more convenient route for motorists. Using Park Place as an alternate route also allows motorists to avoid Intersection #4, which is currently operating at critical LOS. Motorists travelling west on Rosecrans Avenue would divert north to Park Place by Apollo Street and Nash Street, head westbound on Park Place, and head northbound on Allied Way to the destination. Motorists travelling west on Hughes Way would divert south on Allied Way, head eastbound Park Place, then head south to Rosecrans Avenue by Nash Street and Apollo Street. No traffic diversion is assumed to Douglas Street and Park Place (Intersection #18) because it is already operating at critical LOS, which is undesirable for motorists to use as an alternate route. Exhibit 9 (Diversion Redistribution Patterns for Northbound Right and Westbound Left at Sepulveda Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard) of the Traffic Impact Analysis shows a 5 percent traffic diversion to Park Place for the northbound right and westbound left at the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and EI Segundo Boulevard (Intersection #1). Since Intersection #1 is currently operating at LOS D during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour where the delay is high, a diversion is assumed to Park Place where there is less delay. Motorists travelling west on EI Segundo Boulevard would divert south using Douglas Street, then divert westbound to Park Place until they reach Sepulveda Boulevard. Motorists travelling north on Sepulveda Boulevard would divert eastbound on Park Place, then head north on Douglas Street until EI Segundo Boulevard. Although Douglas Street and Park Place (Intersection #18) is currently operating at critical LOS, a small amount of traffic diversion is still assumed because the Intersection #18 has more capacity than Intersection #1. Exhibit 10 (Project -Related Diverted Traffic Volumes) of the Traffic Impact Analysis shows the project -related diverted traffic volumes based on the potential traffic redistribution patterns shown in Exhibits 6 through 9 of the Traffic Impact Analysis. Existina 2016 Plus Proiect For Existing 2016 plus project conditions, all study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better, except for the following five (5) intersections that would continue to experience deficient LOS with the diverted traffic conditions: 1. Sepulveda Boulevard and EI Segundo Boulevard — LOS E (PM) 4. Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue — LOS E (PM) 18. Douglas Street and Park Place — LOS F (PM) 21. Aviation Boulevard and Utah Avenue/135th Street — LOS E (AM) 23. Aviation Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue — LOS E (AM) All of the above intersections would experience improved LOS except for the unsignalized intersection of Douglas Street at Park Place (Intersection #18). However, even though this intersection is projected to operate at LOS F, none of the Build Alternatives would result in an adverse traffic impact at this intersection because the Build Alternatives would not generate trips that would cause an increase in delay of four (4) or more seconds. Although the Build Alternatives would not result in a significant impact, as discussed above, Measure TRA -2 provides for installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Douglas Street at Park Place (Intersection #18) to address the deficient LOS, due to numerous community concerns the City has received regarding traffic operations at this location. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.5-11 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.5-4, Existing 2016 Plus Project Conditions Intersection and Impact Analysis, Without and With Traffic Diversion to Park Place Extension, shows Existing 2016 plus project conditions AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes. As shown, a deterioration in LOS would occur at the same five (5) intersections as the existing conditions under Alternative 1. ODeninq Year 2021 Plus Proiect For Opening Year 2021 with project conditions, all study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better, except for the following nine (9) intersections that would continue to experience deficient LOS with the diverted traffic conditions: 1. Sepulveda Boulevard and EI Segundo Boulevard — LOS F (AM, PM) 4. Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue — LOS E (AM), LOS F (PM) 5. Sepulveda Boulevard at Marine Avenue — LOS F (AM), LOS E (PM) 11. Nash Street at Sepulveda Boulevard — LOS E (AM), LOS F (PM) 16. Douglas Street at EI Segundo Boulevard — LOS F (AM, PM) 18. Douglas Street and Park Place — LOS F (PM) 20. Aviation Boulevard at EI Segundo Boulevard — LOS F (AM, PM) 21. Aviation Boulevard and Utah Avenue/135th Street — LOS E (AM) 23. Aviation Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue — LOS E (AM, PM) All of the above intersections would experience improved LOS except for the unsignalized intersection of Douglas Street at Park Place (Intersection #18). Similar to Existing 2016 Plus Project conditions, although this intersection is projected to operate at LOS F, none of the Build Alternatives would result in an adverse traffic impact at this intersection because the Build Alternatives would not generate trips that would cause an increase in delay of four (4) or more seconds. Table 2.1.5-5, Opening Year 2021 With Project Conditions Intersection and Impact Analysis Summary, Without and With Traffic Diversion to Park Place Extension, shows Opening Year 2021 with project conditions AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes, without diverted traffic. As shown, a deterioration in LOS would occur at an additional four (4) intersections compared to existing conditions under Alternative 1. Traffic Signal Warrant Analvsis As discussed above, a traffic signal is currently warranted at the intersection of Douglas Street and Park Place (Intersection #18) based on existing 2016 conditions. Since this intersection is currently warranted for a traffic signal based on existing 2016 traffic conditions, a new traffic signal would be included as part of the project (Measure TRA -2) due to community complaints the City has received regarding traffic operations at this location. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.5-12 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.5-4: Existing 2016 Plus Project Conditions Intersection and Impact Analysis, Without and With Traffic Diversion to Park Place Extension Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.5-13 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Existing Conditions Existing 2016 Plus Project Conditions Project Change No. Intersection Name Type' ProjectAM AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Impact VIC Delay' LOS VIC 1 Delay' LOS VIC I Delay' LOS VIC 1 Delay' LOS Peak Peak 1 Sepulveda Boulevard / TS 38.2 D 84.5 F 37.4 D 83.8 F -0.8 -0.7 No EI Segundo Boulevard 2 Sepulveda Boulevard I TS 8.3 A 25.2 C 7.8 A 22.0 C -0.5 -3.2 No Hughes Way Sepulveda Boulevard / 3 Park Place TS 6.2 A 10.8 B 8.3 A 11.7 B 2.1 0.9 No 4 Sepulveda Boulevard / TS 40.4 D 79.8 E 35.8 D 78.5 E -4.6 -1.3 No Rosecrans Avenue 5 Sepulveda Boulevard I TS 53.5 D 32.9 C 53.5 D 32.9 C 0.0 0.0 No Marine Avenue 6 Plaza EI Segundo Access / TS 0.181 A 0.387 A 0.179 A 0.341 A -0.002 -0.046 No Park Place Village Drive / 7 Rosecrans Avenue TS 0.497 A 0.703 C 0.481 A 0.646 B -0.016 -0.057 No 8 Cedar Avenue / TS 0.480 A 0.610 B 0.480 A 0.610 B 0.000 0.000 No Marine Avenue 9 Continental Boulevard / TS 0.445 A 0.406 A 0.442 A 0.401 A -0.003 -0.005 No EI Segundo Boulevard 10 Allied Way / TS 0.199 A 0.288 A 0.410 A 0.335 A 0.211 0.047 No Hughes Way 11 Nash Street / TS 0.513 A 0.503 A 0.511 A 0.501 A -0.002 -0.002 No EI Segundo Boulevard 12 Nash Street / Park Place AWS 7.7 A 8.6 A 8.8 A 10.5 B 1.1 1.9 No -With Traffic Signal TS 0.139 A 0.257 A N/A N/A No 13 Nash Street / TS 0.428 A 0.575 A 0.423 A 0.534 A -0.005 -0.041 No Rosecrans Avenue 14 Apollo Street / AWS 8.8 A 10.6 B 9.7 A 13.8 B 0.9 3.2 No Park Place 15 Apollo Street / TS 0.487 A 0.659 B 0.499 A 0.670 B 0.012 0.011 No Rosecrans Avenue 16 Douglas Street / TS 0.710 C 0.813 D 0.708 C 0.818 D -0.002 0.005 No EI Segundo Boulevard 17 Douglas Street I TS 0.357 A 0.383 A 0.361 A 0.391 A 0.004 0.008 No Transit Center Douglas Street/ Park Place AWS C 23.3 C 57.2 F 1.3 3.0 No 18 -With Traffic Signal TS 22.0 54.2 F 0.292 A 0.575 A N/A N/A No 19 Douglas Street / TS 0.658 B 0.765 C 0.657 B 0.765 C -0.001 0.000 No Rosecrans Avenue Aviation Boulevard / 20 EI Segundo Boulevard TS 0.860 D 0.890 D 0.860 D 0.890 D 0.000 0.000 No Aviation Boulevard / 21 Utah Avenue TS 0.912 E 0.788 C 0.912 E 0.788 C 0.000 0.000 No 22 Aviation Boulevard / TS 0.577 A 0.722 C 0.577 A 0.722 C 0.000 0.000 No Alaska Avenue 23 Aviation Boulevard / TS 0.917 E 0.879 D 0.917 E 0.879 D 0.000 0.000 No Rosecrans Avenue Allied Way / Park Place TS 0.099 A 0.201 A No 24 -With Roundabout RBT 4.1 A 5.3 A No -With SB Stop TWS 9.5 A 12.5 B No Note: Bold = intersection ooeratino at a deficient LOS (LOS E or F). Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.5-13 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.1.5-5: Opening Year 2021 With Project Conditions Intersection and Impact Analysis Summary, Without and With Traffic Diversion to Park Place Extension OY2021 Plus Cumulative OY2021 Plus Cumulative Conditions Project Change Intersection and Project Conditions Project AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM PM Impact No. Name Type' VIC 1 Delay' LOS VIC I Delay' LOS VIC 1 Delay LOS VIC 1 Delay' LOS Peak Peak Sepulveda Boulevard / TS 129.5 F 149.0 F 127.9 F 146.8 F -1.6 -2.2 No 1 EI Segundo Boulevard Sepulveda Boulevard / 2 Hughes Way TS 15.4 B 57.1 E 14.3 B 47.4 D -1.1 -9.7 No Sepulveda Boulevard / 3 Park Place TS 8.9 A 17.4 B 15.5 B 16.0 B 6.6 -1.4 No Sepulveda Boulevard / 4 Rosecrans Avenue TS 67.8 E 136.7 F 58.6 E 135.2 F 9.2 1.5 No Sepulveda Boulevard / 5 Marine Avenue TS 112.3 F 62.4 E 112.3 F 62.4 E 0.0 0.0 No Plaza EI Segundo Access / 6 TS 0.182 A 0.390 A 0.180 A 0.343 A -0.002 -0.047 No Park Place Village Drive I 7 TS 0.514 A 0.761 C 0.495 A 0.690 B -0.019 -0.071 No Rosecrans Avenue Cedar Avenue I 8 TS 0.492 A 0.627 B 0.492 A 0.627 B 0.000 0.000 No Marine Avenue Continental Boulevard I 9 TS 0.557 A 0.646 B 0.555 A 0.640 B 0.002 0.006 No EI Segundo Boulevard Allied Way / 10 Hughes Way TS 0.448 A 0.432 A 0.651 B 0.401 A 0.203 -0.031 No Nash Street / 11 TS 0.931 E 1.104 F 0.929 E 1.102 F -0.002 -0.002 No EI Segundo Boulevard 12 Nash Street / Park Place AWS 7.8 A 8.7 A 9.2 A 11.3 B 1.4 2.6 No -With Traffic Signal TS 0.163 A 0.287 A N/A N/A No 13 Nash Street / TS 0.458 A 0.617 B 0.434 A 0.550 A -0.024 -0.067 No Rosecrans Avenue 14 Apollo Street / AWS 8.8 A 10.7 B 10.2 B 15.0 B 1.4 4.3 No Park Place 15 Apollo Street / TS 0.524 A 0.701 C 0.537 A 0.716 C 0.013 0.015 No Rosecrans Avenue 16 Douglas Street / TS 1.219 F 1.137 F 1.217 F 1.143 F -0.002 0.006 No EI Segundo Boulevard 17 Douglas Street I TS 0.363 A 0.390 A 0.368 A 0.398 A 0.005 0.008 No Transit Center Douglas Street / Park Place AWS 25.4 D 57.3 F 1.5 2.3 No 18 -With Traffic Signal TS 23.9 C 55.0 F 0.296 A 0.586 A NIA N/A No 19 Douglas Street / TS 0.685 B 0.809 D 0.684 B 0.809 D -0.001 0.000 No Rosecrans Avenue 20 Aviation Boulevard I TS 1.324 F 1.199 F 1.324 F 1.199 F 0.000 0.000 No EI Segundo Boulevard Aviation Boulevard / No 21 TS 0.988 E 0.880 D 0.988 E 0.880 D 0.000 0.000 Utah Avenue Aviation Boulevard / No 22 TS 0.649 B 0.793 C 0.649 B 0.793 C 0.000 0.000 Alaska Avenue Aviation Boulevard I No 23 TS 0.969 E 0.933 E 0.969 E 0.933 E 0.000 0.000 Rosecrans Avenue Allied Way/Park Place (Alt 1A) TS 0.133 (V/C) A 0.231 (V/C) A No 24 . With Roundabout RBT 4.3 (delay) A 5.5 (delay) A No With SB Stop TWS 10.4 (delay) B 16.4 (delay) C No Note: Bold = intersection operating at a deficient LOS (LOS E or F). Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.5-14 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures For all other locations, no traffic signals are warranted for existing and future traffic conditions. Implementation of Measure TRA -2, discussed below in the "Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures" subsection, would ensure that traffic impacts would not be substantial. Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Act of 1990 Design facilities for all Build Alternatives would be fully accessible as described in the Caltrans' Design Information Bulletin 82-03 "Pedestrian Accessibility Guidelines for Highway Projects," and allows Americans with Disabilities Act -compatible crossings. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would be in compliance with the ADA. 2.1.5.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures TRA -1 A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) shall be implemented to reduce short-term construction -related impacts in the project vicinity. The TMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following provisions: • Public Information: Provide advanced notice and project updates to affected businesses and the general public, via brochures and mailers, community meetings, signage, and website information. • Motorist Information: Provide project information using changeable message signs and ground -mounted signs regarding closures, available detours, and alternate access points to existing businesses. • Traffic Manaqement: Prepare a traffic lane closure chart, detour routes, pedestrian routes, residential and commercial access routes, and temporary traffic signals during construction. TRA -2 To minimize potential traffic -related impacts during operation of the project, a new traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Douglas Street and Park Place. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.5-15 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.5-16 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.1.6 Visual/Aesthetics 2.1.6.1 Regulatory Setting The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, establishes that the federal government use all practicable means to ensure all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically (emphasis added) and culturally pleasing surroundings (42 United States Code [USC] 4331 [b][2]). To further emphasize this point, the Federal Highway administration (FHWA), in its implementation of NEPA (23 USC 109[h]), directs that final decisions on projects are to be made in the best overall public interest taking into account adverse environmental impacts, including among others, the destruction or disruption of aesthetic values. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes that it is the policy of the state to take all action necessary to provide the people of the state "with... enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic and historic environmental qualities" (CA Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21001 [b]). 2.1.6.2 Affected Environment The Visual Resources Technical Memorandum (December 2016) was prepared to analyze the potential effects of project features on existing visual and aesthetic resources in the project area and the following discussion incorporates a summary of the findings detailed in the Visual Resources Technical Memorandum. The proposed project site is located within an urbanized area. The landscape surrounding the proposed project site is characterized by various developments including existing commercial retail, utility, and vacant industrial land uses, associated with past on-site and adjoining industrial uses. There are no designated State Scenic Highways, or locally -designated scenic routes or corridors in the vicinity of the project site. The nearest designated State Scenic Highway is State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway), located approximately 6.19 miles to the north of the project site. The proposed project would not be visible from this segment of Pacific Coast Highway at this distance. There are no designated scenic vistas within the viewshed of the project site. 2.1.6.3 Environmental Consequences The project footprint for all four Build Alternatives is similar; therefore, the discussion of Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, and 3B below is combined into a single discussion of Build Alternatives, since implementation of any of the four Build Alternative would result in similar impacts. 2.1.6.3.1 Temporary Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Project improvements would not occur under the No -Build Alternative; therefore, the No -Build Alternative would not alter existing views. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.6-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Alternatives 1A, IC, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Construction of the Build Alternatives would not be visible to sensitive uses within the project area. The nearest residential uses are located greater than 950 feet to the southwest of the project site. The only viewers of the project would be motorists traveling along adjacent roadways in the project area and patrons of the adjacent retail and commercial businesses. Construction -related vehicle access and staging of construction materials would occur within City right-of-way (ROW) and disturbed or developed areas within project site boundaries. Measure V-1 would be implemented and would require the City to implement a Construction Management Plan that would identify measures such as temporary opaque fencing around staging areas, the location for staging areas and stockpiling of materials, and construction haul routes, consistent with the Caltrans' Standard Specifications for Construction. Compliance with Measure V-1 would reduce temporary visual impacts, and impacts would not be substantial. Construction -related impacts would be short-term and would cease upon project completion. It is anticipated that the Build Alternatives may require nighttime construction activities to minimize traffic impacts during daytime hours. Existing sources of light within the project area include vehicle headlights and street lighting on adjacent roadways, and lighting emanating from the retail and commercial businesses adjacent to the project site. Although no sensitive uses exist in proximity to the project site, light and glare from nighttime construction lighting could potentially cause a nuisance to these motorists and patrons. Measure V-2 would require that any lighting required for nighttime construction activities would be consistent with Section 2-208, Night Work, of the Caltrans Construction Manual (July 2017). This provision provides for adequate lighting for the safety of construction workers, but necessitates shielding so that lighting does not blind approaching drivers. Necessary lighting for safety and construction purposes would be directed away from land uses outside the project area, and contained and directed toward the specific area of construction. Implementation of Measures V-1 and V-2 minimize temporary construction visual impacts, and adverse effects in this regard would not occur. 2.1.6.3.2 Permanent Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Project improvements would not occur under the No -Build Alternative; therefore, the No -Build Alternative would not permanently alter existing views or visual characteristics of the project area. Alternatives 1A, IC, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) The proposed project would grade the project site and realign railroads, construct new railroad bridge structures, and pave the new roadway connection. Visual changes to quality and character in the project area would be considered moderate due to the introduction of a new bridge structure and increased visible hardscape. However, these improvements would not result in degradation to the character and quality of existing conditions, as the project area is already highly developed and does not contain sensitive views. The project would be similar to, and would retain, the existing urbanized character of the project area. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.6-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Landscape palettes associated with hardscape enhancements and concept plans would be implemented compliant with the City of EI Segundo Municipal Code requirements for streetscape. The nearest residential uses are located greater than 950 feet to the southwest of the project site and views to the project site are blocked by intervening structures and ornamental trees. In addition, the proposed project would install new ornamental landscaping, and a new roundabout feature under Alternatives 1 C, 3A, and 3B (for both design options), which would be a visual benefit to this disturbed landscape. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not result in permanent adverse impacts to the visual environment. 2.1.6.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures V-1 The City of EI Segundo shall implement a Construction Management Plan that identifies measures to avoid visual impacts during construction activities, such as temporary opaque fencing around staging areas, the location for staging areas and stockpiling of materials, and construction haul routes, consistent with the Caltrans' Standard Specifications for Construction. V-2 Any lighting required for nighttime construction activities shall be consistent with Section 2-208, Night Work, of the Caltrans Construction Manual (July 2017). Necessary lighting for safety and construction purposes shall be directed away from land uses outside the project area, and contained and directed toward the specific area of construction. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.6-3 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.6-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.1.7 Cultural Resources 2.1.7.1 Regulatory Setting The term "cultural resources," as used in this document, refers to the "built environment" (e.g., structures, bridges, railroads, water conveyance systems, etc.), places of traditional or cultural importance, and archaeological sites (both prehistoric and historic), regardless of significance. Under federal and state laws, cultural resources that meet certain criteria of significance are referred to by various terms including "historic properties," "historic sites," "historical resources," and "tribal cultural resources." Laws and regulations dealing with cultural resources include: The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, sets forth national policy and procedures for historic properties, defined as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects included in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACNP) the opportunity to comment on those undertakings, following regulations issued by the ACHP (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 800). On January 1, 2014, the First Amended Section 106 Programmatic Agreement (PA) among the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the ACHP, the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and Caltrans went into effect for Caltrans projects, both State and local, with FHWA involvement. The PA implements the ACHP's regulations, 36 CFR 800, streamlining the Section 106 process and delegating certain responsibilities to Caltrans. The FHWA's responsibilities under the PA have been assigned to Caltrans as part of the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program (23 United States Code [USC] 327). Historic properties may also be covered under Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act, which regulates the "use" of land from historic properties (in Section 4(f) terminology—historic sites). See Appendix A, Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(f): No -Use Determination, for specific information about Section 4(f). 2.1.7.2 Affected Environment The cultural resource studies completed for the project include the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) (June 2017); Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) (July 2017); and Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) (July 2016). The methods used to support these studies include intensive -level pedestrian field surveys conducted on September 24, 2015 and November 30, 2016; and a literature search with the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California Historical Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) conducted on September 8, 2015. In addition to the records at the SCCIC, a variety of sources were consulted in September 2017 to obtain information regarding the Area of Potential Effects (APE) including the NRHP, CRHR, California Historical Resources Inventory (CHRI), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI), Caltrans Bridge Inventory, Bureau of Land Management patent records, historic topographic and aerials maps, and local historical registers. The process of Native American consultation was initiated as part of the cultural resources investigation for the project. A Sacred Lands File search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on September 8, 2015 and on October 17, 2016. The NAHC responded on September 29, 2015 and on October 18, 2016, stating that there are no known Native American cultural resources within the APE. The NAHC recommended that 11 Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.7-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures representatives from local Native American tribal organizations be contacted for further information regarding the general project vicinity. Letters were sent via certified mail to the 11 contacts on September 25, 2015 and September 29, 2015, requesting information related to cultural resources or heritage sites within or adjacent to the APE. Three responses for Section 106 consultation were received: • September 25, 2015. A Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation representative requested monitoring during ground disturbing activities. • September 29, 2015. A Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation representative requested an AB 52 letter. The City of EI Segundo responded and asked for comments for scoping purposes. No response has been received. • September 30, 2015. A Soboba Band of Mission Indians representative requested monitoring during future ground disturbing proceedings, including surveys and archaeological testing, associated with this project. However, the tribe requested to defer to the Gabrielino tribes, who are closer to the project area. The local historical society/historic preservation groups, including the Hawthorne Historical Society, Los Angeles Conservancy, and Manhattan Beach Historical Society, were contacted on September 21, 2015, October 12, 2015, and on April 24, 2017; however, no response was received. 2.1.7.2.1 Area of Potential Effects (APE) The APE for the proposed project was established in accordance with Section 106 Programmatic Agreement Stipulation VIII.A. The APE maps are located in Attachment A in the HPSR. The proposed project is composed of both a Direct and Indirect APE. The Direct APE measures approximately 60 acres and encompasses all areas that may be directly and physically impacted by the project. The Indirect APE is approximately 46 acres and consists of the Direct APE, as well as adjacent parcels containing buildings or structures which may be affected indirectly by project -related activities. Properties included in the Indirect APE may be affected by visual, audible, or atmospheric intrusions, shadow effects, vibrations from construction activities, or changes in access or use. Right-of-way (ROW) acquisition would be required under all build alternatives. This would include fee acquisitions for roadway extensions and realignments, slope easements, temporary construction easements, drainage easements for stormwater treatment and conveyance, and utility licenses/easements. No other permanent ROW acquisition is anticipated. The vertical extent of the proposed project, also known as the vertical APE, is the maximum depth of any project -related ground -disturbing work. The direct vertical APE includes excavation within the Direct APE: • 80 feet below original ground surface for cast -in -drilled -hole (CIDH) piles for bridge bents; • 50 feet for steel piles associated with bridge abutments; • 30-40 feet for excavation for utilities; and • 28 feet for creation of the roadway underpass. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.7-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.1.7.2.2 Historic Resources According to the HPSR and HIRER prepared for the proposed project, the APE is occupied by two previously unrecorded built environment resources of historic age, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) (P-19-192401) and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) P-19-192402), along with remnants of the historic Kramer Foundry brass manufacturing plant (P-19-186856) recorded in 2000. Both the BNSF and UPRR maintain integrity of association of a portion of the original line only, but has lost substantial portions of location, setting, feeling, workmanship, design, and materials. It is determined not eligible for listing on the NRHP nor for listing on the CRHR. Extensive foundation remnants of the Kramer Foundry complex remain on-site. The site was previously recorded, but to a very limited extent due to lack of access to most of the site. It was not evaluated for eligibility for the National or California Registers by a qualified archaeologist at that time. The ASR and HIRER found that the remnants of the site have integrity of location, but have lost most integrity of materials, and all integrity of setting, feeling, workmanship and design. It is determined not eligible for listing on the NRHP nor for listing on the CRHR. There are no Section 4(f) historic resource types that would be affected by the proposed project. 2.1.7.2.3 Archaeological Resources The only archaeological resource encountered within the APE is the Kramer Foundry site (P-19- 186856; MR3), dating from 1951. As stated, the ASR and HIRER found that the remnants of the site have integrity of location, but have lost most integrity of materials, and all integrity of setting, feeling, workmanship and design. It is determined not eligible for listing on the NRHP nor for listing on the CRHR. 2.1.7.3 Environmental Consequences The project footprint for all four Build Alternatives is similar; therefore, the discussion of Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, and 313 below is combined into a single discussion of Build Alternatives, since implementation of any of the four Build Alternative would result in similar impacts. 2.1.7.3.1 Temporary Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) No temporary impacts regarding cultural resources would occur with implementation of the No - Build Alternative since no construction activity or ground disturbance would occur with this alternative. Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Caltrans determined a Finding of No Historic Properties Affected as no historic or archaeological resources are located within the project APE. The BNSF and UPRR, along with remnants of the Kramer Foundry were identified within the APE; however, the analysis found that the BNSF, UPRR, and Kramer Foundry are not eligible for listing on the NRHP nor for listing on the CRHR. Based on the ASR, no areas of concern were identified within the APE. The APE has been heavily disturbed; portions were subject to hazardous materials removal and other portions are considered brownfields. Sediments show a very low probability for buried sites. In addition, no previously recorded prehistoric sites are known within one mile of the APE. Based on these Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.7-3 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures findings, no further archaeological study, identification, or monitoring efforts were recommended for implementation of the Build Alternatives. Therefore, Caltrans has determined a Finding of No Historic Properties Affected for the purpose of Section 106 of the NHPA or historical resources in accordance with CEQA, either individually or as a historic district. Caltrans has notified the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) of its determination that no properties within the APE are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and received concurrence in its determination of Finding of No Historic Properties Affected on August 11, 2017. Implementation of either of the Build Alternatives may result in construction -related impacts to undiscovered cultural resources. The possibility exists that previous unknown buried historical and archaeological deposits could be discovered during grading and excavation work associated with construction activities. In accordance with Caltrans standard requirements, if cultural materials are discovered during construction, the project feature described below (PF - CUL -1) would be implemented, which would require that all earth -moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area be diverted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find. This project feature would minimize construction -related impacts to cultural resources. PF -CUL -1 Unknown Buried Cultural Resources. If unknown buried cultural resources are discovered during construction, all earth -moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area shall be diverted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find. No human remains, including those of Native American decent, are known to exist within the APE. However, the possibility exists that unknown buried human remains could be unearthed during construction. The project feature described below (PF -CUL -2) would reduce potential construction -related impacts regarding human remains. PF -CUL -2 Human Remains. If human remains are discovered during construction, California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) Section 7050.5 states that further disturbances and activities shall stop in any area or nearby area suspected to overlie remains, and the County Coroner be contacted. If the remains are thought by the coroner to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who, pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98, would then notify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). At this time, the person who discovered the remains shall contact Joshua Knudson, Associate Environmental Planner, Caltrans District 7 so that he may work with the MLD on the respectful treatment and disposition of the remains. Further provisions of PRC 5097.98 shall be followed as applicable. These project features would be implemented under the Build Alternatives to ensure that undiscovered sensitive cultural resources would not be adversely affected due to project implementation. Since construction staging areas would not be permitted outside of the APE, no other temporary effects on cultural resources are anticipated. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.7-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.1.7.3.2 Permanent Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Under the No -Build Alternative, cultural resources would not be impacted because no ground disturbance or physical changes to the existing environment would occur. Alternatives 1A, IC, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Caltrans determined a Finding of No Historic Properties Affected as no historic or archaeological resources are located within the project APE. Additionally, operation of the Build Alternatives would not result in any permanent impacts to cultural resources. Cultural resource impacts would be temporary in nature due to ground -disturbing activities occurring during construction, which are addressed above. 2.1.7.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required with adherence to the project features described above. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.7-5 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.1.7-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 2.2.1 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff 2.2.1.1 Regulatory Setting Federal Requirements: Clean Water Act In 1972, Congress amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, making the addition of pollutants to the waters of the United States (U.S.) from any point source' unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This act and its amendments are known today as the Clean Water Act (CWA). Congress has amended the act several times. In the 1987 amendments, Congress directed dischargers of storm water from municipal and industrial/construction point sources to comply with the NPDES permit scheme. The following are important CWA sections: • Sections 303 and 304 require states to issue water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines. • Section 401 requires an applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the U.S. to obtain certification from the state that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the act. This is most frequently required in tandem with a Section 404 permit request (see below). • Section 402 establishes the NPDES, a permitting system for the discharges (except for dredge or fill material) of any pollutant into waters of the U.S. Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) administer this permitting program in California. Section 402(p) requires permits for discharges of storm water from industrial/construction and municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). • Section 404 establishes a permit program for the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the U.S. This permit program is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The goal of the CWA is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." The USACE issues two types of 404 permits: General and Individual. There are two types of General permits: Regional and Nationwide. Regional permits are issued for a general category of activities when they are similar in nature and cause minimal environmental effect. Nationwide permits are issued to allow a variety of minor project activities with no more than minimal effects. Ordinarily, projects that do not meet the criteria for a Regional or Nationwide Permit may be permitted under one of the USACE's Individual permits. There are two types of Individual permits: Standard permits and Letters of Permission. For Individual permits, the USACE decision to approve is based on compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA) Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 230), and whether the permit approval is in the public interest. The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines A point source is any discrete conveyance such as a pipe or a man-made ditch. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.1-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures (Guidelines) were developed by the U.S. EPA in conjunction with the USACE, and allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system (waters of the U.S.) only if there is no practicable alternative which would have less adverse effects. The Guidelines state that the USACE may not issue a permit if there is a least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) to the proposed discharge that would have lesser effects on waters of the U.S. and not have any other significant adverse environmental consequences. According to the Guidelines, documentation is needed that a sequence of avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures has been followed, in that order. The Guidelines also restrict permitting activities that violate water quality or toxic effluentz standards, jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, violate marine sanctuary protections, or cause "significant degradation" to waters of the U.S. In addition, every permit from the USACE, even if not subject to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, must meet general requirements. See 33 CFR 320.4. A discussion of the LEDPA determination, if any, for the document is included in the Wetlands and Other Waters section. State Requirements: Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act California's Porter -Cologne Act, enacted in 1969, provides the legal basis for water quality regulation within California. This act requires a "Report of Waste Discharge" for any discharge of waste (liquid, solid, or gaseous) to land or surface waters that may impair beneficial uses for surface and/or groundwater of the state. It predates the CWA and regulates discharges to waters of the state. Waters of the State include more than just waters of the U.S., like groundwater and surface waters not considered waters of the U.S. Additionally, it prohibits discharges of "waste" as defined, and this definition is broader than the CWA definition of "pollutant." Discharges under the Porter -Cologne Act are permitted by Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and may be required even when the discharge is already permitted or exempt under the CWA. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and RWQCBs are responsible for establishing the water quality standards (objectives and beneficial uses) required by the CWA and regulating discharges to ensure compliance with the water quality standards. Details about water quality standards in a project area are included in the applicable RWQCB Basin Plan. In California, RWQCBs designate beneficial uses for all water body segments in their jurisdictions and then set criteria necessary to protect those uses. As a result, the water quality standards developed for particular water segments are based on the designated use and vary depending on that use. In addition, the SWRCB identifies waters failing to meet standards for specific pollutants. These waters are then state -listed in accordance with CWA Section 303(d). If a state determines that waters are impaired for one or more constituents and the standards cannot be met through point source or non -point source controls (NPDES permits or WDRs), the CWA requires the establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). TMDLs specify allowable pollutant loads from all sources (point, non -point, and natural) for a given watershed. State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards The SWRCB administers water rights, sets water pollution control policy, and issues water board orders on matters of statewide application, and oversees water quality functions throughout the state by approving Basin Plans, TMDLs, and NPDES permits. RWCQBs are responsible for protecting beneficial uses of water resources within their regional jurisdiction using planning, permitting, and enforcement authorities to meet this responsibility. 2 The U.S. EPA defines "effluent" as "wastewater, treated or untreated, that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or industrial outfall." Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.1-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Svstems (MS4) Section 402(p) of the CWA requires the issuance of NPDES permits for five categories of storm water discharges, including Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). An MS4 is defined as "any conveyance or system of conveyances (roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, human -made channels, and storm drains) owned or operated by a state, city, town, county, or other public body having jurisdiction over storm water, that is designed or used for collecting or conveying storm water." The SWRCB has identified the Department as an owner/operator of an MS4 under federal regulations. The Department's MS4 permit covers all Department rights-of-way, properties, facilities, and activities in the state. The SWRCB or the RWQCB issues NPDES permits for five years, and permit requirements remain active until a new permit has been adopted. The Department's MS4 Permit, Order No. 2012-0011-DWQ (adopted on September 19, 2012 and effective on July 1, 2013), as amended by Order No. 2014 -0006 -EXEC (effective January 17, 2014), Order No. 2014-0077-DWQ (effective May 20, 2014) and Order No. 2015 -0036 -EXEC (conformed and effective April 7, 2015) has three basic requirements: 1. The Department must comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit (see below); 2. The Department must implement a year-round program in all parts of the State to effectively control storm water and non -storm water discharges; and 3. The Department storm water discharges must meet water quality standards through implementation of permanent and temporary (construction) Best Management Practices (BMPs), to the maximum extent practicable, and other measures as the SWRCB determines to be necessary to meet the water quality standards. To comply with the permit, the Department developed the Statewide Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to address storm water pollution controls related to highway planning, design, construction, and maintenance activities throughout California. The SWMP assigns responsibilities within the Department for implementing storm water management procedures and practices as well as training, public education and participation, monitoring and research, program evaluation, and reporting activities. The SWMP describes the minimum procedures and practices the Department uses to reduce pollutants in storm water and non -storm water discharges. It outlines procedures and responsibilities for protecting water quality, including the selection and implementation of BMPs. The proposed project will be programmed to follow the guidelines and procedures outlined in the latest SWMP to address storm water runoff. Construction General Permit Construction General Permit, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ (adopted on September 2, 2009 and effective on July 1, 2010), as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ (effective February 14, 2011) and Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ (effective on July 17, 2012). The permit regulates storm water discharges from construction sites that result in Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.1-3 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures a Disturbed Soil Area (DSA) of one acre or greater, and/or are smaller sites that are part of a larger common plan of development. By law, all storm water discharges associated with construction activity where clearing, grading, and excavation result in soil disturbance of at least one acre must comply with the provisions of the General Construction Permit. Construction activity that results in soil disturbances of less than one acre is subject to this Construction General Permit if there is potential for significant water quality impairment resulting from the activity as determined by the RWQCB. Operators of regulated construction sites are required to develop Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs); to implement sediment, erosion, and pollution prevention control measures; and to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit. The Construction General Permit separates projects into Risk Levels 1, 2, or 3. Risk levels are determined during the planning and design phases, and are based on potential erosion and transport to receiving waters. Requirements apply according to the Risk Level determined. For example, a Risk Level 3 (highest risk) project would require compulsory storm water runoff pH and turbidity monitoring, and before construction and after construction aquatic biological assessments during specified seasonal windows. For all projects subject to the permit, applicants are required to develop and implement an effective SWPPP. In accordance with the Department's SWMP and Standard Specifications, a Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP) is necessary for projects with DSA less than one acre. Section 401 Permitting Under Section 401 of the CWA, any project requiring a federal license or permit that may result in a discharge to a water of the U.S. must obtain a 401 Certification, which certifies that the project will be in compliance with state water quality standards. The most common federal permits triggering 401 Certification are CWA Section 404 permits issued by the USACE. The 401 permit certifications are obtained from the appropriate RWQCB, dependent on the project location, and are required before the USACE issues a 404 permit. In some cases, the RWQCB may have specific concerns with discharges associated with a project. As a result, the RWQCB may issue a set of requirements known as WDRs under the State Water Code (Porter -Cologne Act) that define activities, such as the inclusion of specific features, effluent limitations, monitoring, and plan submittals that are to be implemented for protecting or benefiting water quality. WDRs can be issued to address both permanent and temporary discharges of a project. 2.2.1.2 Affected Environment A Preliminary Drainage Assessment (July 2014) was prepared for the proposed project, and the conclusions discussed in this subsection are based upon information contained within that report. Figure 2.2.1-1, Dominguez Channel Hydrologic Unit Map, shows the proposed project area in relation to the existing watershed, which is the Dominguez Channel Hydrologic Unit. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.1-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.2.1.2.1 Surface Hydrology The proposed project lies within the Dominguez Channel hydrologic unit, within an undefined Hydrologic Sub Area (HSA) 411.01.3 According to the Preliminary Drainage Assessment, the existing site is currently 85 percent impervious. There is an existing detention basin located north of the project site (south of Hughes Way and east of Allied Way); runoff is conveyed via gravity flow to the detention basin. There are high percolation rates within the existing detention basin and the pumps have not been used for several years. The City currently does not operate pumps until the depth in the basin exceeds about 20 feet. There are no lakes, rivers, or streams that flow through or near the proposed project site. Receiving waters in the proposed project area include the local drainage system along Rosecrans Avenue, and the Dominguez Channel located four miles east of the project site (near the intersection of Rosecrans and Crenshaw), which then flows south to the Los Angeles Harbor. The project lies within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles LARWQCB. 2.2.1.2.2 Groundwater According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (October 2013) prepared for the proposed project, several aquifers underlie the site. Historically high groundwater levels are deeper than 40 feet below ground surface (bgs) at the project site. Groundwater was not encountered to depths of 80 feet bgs in the geotechnical borings that were conducted in the project vicinity. Based on groundwater level measurements in monitoring wells at the site, the groundwater elevation is estimated to be approximately 20 feet, which is about 75 to 100 feet bgs. Allowing for seasonal variations, the design groundwater level for preliminary design was assumed to be near an elevation of 30 feet with depths ranging from about 65 to 90 feet bgs. The groundwater at the site has been impacted by hazardous materials contamination by a range of historical industrial uses in the project area; groundwater remediation activities are ongoing. 2.2.1.2.3 Pollutants of Concern The Basin Plan identifies toxic pollutants that are found in the coastal watersheds of Los Angeles County. These pollutants are mostly associated with the mobilization of urban contaminants during storm events and can transport naturally occurring contaminants such as arsenic and other heavy metals. Contaminants such as pesticides, trash, oil, gasoline, radiator fluid, and animal wastes accumulate during dry months and are then mobilized at concentrated levels during storm events. Implementation of control measures for different types of nonpoint sources are discussed in the Basin Plan to help prevent water quality problems associated with contamination. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act identifies waters that fail to meet standards for specific pollutants. If a State determines that waters are impaired for one or more constituents and the standards cannot be met through point source or non -source point controls (i.e., NPDES permits or Waste Discharge Requirements), the CWA requires the establishment of TMDLs. TMDLs specify allowable pollutant loads from all sources (point, non -point, and natural) for a given watershed. The following receiving water bodies are on the 2012 303(d) list; the impairments are listed below. 3 California Department of Transportation Stormwater Website, Water Quality Planning Tool. hftp://svctenvims.dot.ca.gov/wqpt/wqpt.aspx. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.1-5 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures • Dominguez Channel (lined portion above Vermont Avenue) is listed as impaired for ammonia, copper, diazinon, indicator bacteria, lead, toxicity and zinc. • Dominguez Channel (lined portion below Vermont Avenue) is listed as impaired for ammonia, benthic community effects, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene (3,4 - benzopyrene -7-d), chlordane (tissue), chrysene (C1-C4), coliform bacteria, DDT (tissue and sediment), dieldrin (tissue), lead (tissue), polychlorinated biphenyls, phenanthrene, pyrene, sediment toxicity, and zinc (sediment). Los Angeles Harbor — Consolidated Slip is listed as impaired for 2 -methylnaphthalene, benthic community effects, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene (3,4 -benzopyrene -7- d), cadmium (sediment), chlordane (tissue and sediment), chromium (sediment), chrysene (C1-C4), copper (sediment), DDT (tissue and sediment), dieldrin, lead (sediment), mercury (sediment), polychlorinated biphenyls (tissue and sediment), phenanthrene, pyrene, sediment toxicity, toxaphene (tissue) and zinc (sediment). 2.2.1.2.4 Beneficial Uses The Basin Plan designates existing, potential, and intermittent beneficial uses for all water bodies in the region, including inland surface waters. These uses are the foundation of the water quality protection measures in the Basin Plan. The Basin Plan identified water quality beneficial uses for the waterbodies in the project area, as shown in Table 2.2.1-1, Beneficial Uses. Table 2.2.1-1: Beneficial Uses Waterbody Name I COM I EST I MUN MAR I MIGR I NAV I REC I I REC III SPWN WARM WILD RARE Dominguez Channel ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Estuary Dominguez Channel ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ to Estuary LA - Long Beach Harbor -Dominguez ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Channel Estuary Notes: COMM Commercial and Sport Fishing EST Estuarine Habitat MUN Municipal and Domestic Supply MAR Marine Habitat MIGR Migration of Aquatic Organisms NAV Navigation REC I Water Contact Recreation REC II Non -Contact Water Recreation SPWN Spawning, Reproduction WARM Freshwater Habitat WILD Wildlife Habitat RARE Preservation of Rare, Threatened, or Endanqered Species Source: California Department of Transportation Water Quality Planning Tool, http://svctenvims.dot.ca.gov/wgpVwgpt.aspx accessed 2-5-18 2.2.1.3 Environmental Consequences The project footprint for all four Build Alternatives is similar; therefore, the discussion of Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, and 3B below is combined into a single discussion of Build Alternatives, since implementation of any of the four Build Alternatives would result in similar impacts. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.1-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.2.1.3.1 Temporary Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) No construction -related impacts regarding water quality and storm water runoff would occur with implementation of the No -Build Alternative since no construction activity would occur with this alternative. Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Construction of any of the Build Alternatives is not anticipated to result in an appreciable change in the quantity or quality of runoff from the project site during the construction phase. However, the proposed project could result in short-term construction impacts to surface water quality from clearing, grading, and other construction -related activities. Storm water runoff from the project site during construction could contain sediments resulting from these activities. Spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery, construction staging areas, or building sites could also enter runoff and would typically include petroleum products such as fuel, oil and grease, and heavy metals. In order to avoid and minimize these potential construction -related water quality impacts, standard measures would be implemented during construction. The project would be required to conform to the requirements of the City of EI Segundo's NPDES Storm Water Permit, Order No. R4-2012-0175, NPDES No. CAS004001, adopted by the Los Angeles RWQCB on November 8, 2012, and any subsequent permit in effect at the time of construction. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the requirements of the NPDES Permit for Construction Activities, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, as well as the County of Los Angeles NPDES Permit within the Dominguez Channel Watershed, Order No. R4-2012-0175, NPDES No. CAS004001 (for work outside of the city's jurisdiction). The project would be required to develop a SWPPP in accordance with the requirements stated in the NPDES General Permit, Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activities (Construction General Permit, Order Number 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES Number CAS000002), or subsequent permit in effect at the time of construction. The SWPPP would contain BMPs that have demonstrated effectiveness at reducing stormwater pollution. The SWPPP would address all construction -related activities, equipment, and materials that have the potential to affect water quality. The SWPPP would include BMPs to control pollutants, sediment from erosion, stormwater runoff, and other construction -related impacts. Upon compliance with NPDES requirements as described above, adverse temporary effects related to water quality would not occur. 2.2.1.3.2 Permanent Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Under Alternative 1, the existing water quality and runoff conditions of the proposed project site would not be affected since no physical changes to the site would occur. No increase in runoff flow velocities, volumes, or peak flow rates would occur. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.1-7 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Alternatives 1A, IC, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Operation of any of the Build Alternatives would result in an incremental increase in storm water runoff. The introduction of new project features could have the potential to increase the rate of storm water runoff, leading to the potential for increased erosion and contribution to additional sources of polluted runoff such as oil, gas, grease, lead, and dust. Table 2.2.1-2, Net New Impervious Surfaces and Disturbed Soil Areas, shows the approximate acreages of net new impervious surfaces and disturbed soil areas that would result under the Build Alternatives. Table 2.2.1-2: Net New Impervious Surfaces and Disturbed Soil Areas Alternative Net New Impervious Disturbed Soil Areas (acres) Surfaces (acres) Alternative 1A 1.54 26.90 Alternative 1C 2.02 28.28 Alternative 3A 2.00 22.31 Alternative 313 (Option 1) 1.84 14.97 Alternative 313 (Option 2) 1.88 14.98 The Build Alternatives would result in approximately 15 to 28 acres of disturbed soil area — when the disturbed soil area of the Build Alternatives is compared with the size of the Dominguez Channel Watershed (70,000 acres), it equals less than 0.0002 to 0.0004 percent of the watershed. The amount of new impervious surface, as a result of the proposed project, would be negligible and would not result in a substantial increase in runoff leading to negative impact to surface water quality. No substantial impacts to the receiving water bodies, including the local drainage system along Rosecrans Avenue, the Dominguez Channel, and the Los Angeles Harbor, are anticipated. The City of EI Segundo is a co -permittee on the Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, Except those Discharges Originating from the City of Long Beach MS4, Order No. R4-2012-0175, was adopted on November 8, 2012. As a part of this permit, new construction is required to control pollutants, pollutant loads and runoff volume emanating from a project site by: (1) minimizing the impervious surface area; and (2) controlling runoff from impervious surfaces through infiltration, bioretention, and/or rainfall harvest and use. The project will comply with MS4 Permit requirements and thus will ensure that water quality standards will be maintained through implementation of permanent BMPs. Post -construction storm water management BMPs will be implemented on the project site, in accordance with Section D. Storm Water Management Program Minimum Control Measures, 7.b.i.(1)(g) for street and road construction of 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area. The NPDES submittal package will provide an outline for the post -construction BMPs. Implementation of any of the Build Alternatives would be required to construct storm drain improvements to the existing "Line A" storm drain. The existing Line A alignment currently traverses through the limits of the Plaza EI Segundo development north of the project area; however, it does not extend through the proposed project area. As part of the proposed project, Line A would be extended underneath the UPRR tracks and to the grade separation. Upon adherence to existing requirements under the MS4 permit applicable to the City and implementation of required BMPs, adverse effects related to long-term operational water quality and stormwater runoff would not occur. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.1-8 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.2.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.1-9 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.1-10 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.2.2 Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography 2.2.2.1 Regulatory Setting For geologic and topographic features, the key federal law is the Historic Sites Act of 1935, which establishes a national registry of natural landmarks and protects "outstanding examples of major geological features." Topographic and geologic features are also protected under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This section also discusses geology, soils, and seismic concerns as they relate to public safety and project design. Earthquakes are prime considerations in the design and retrofit of structures. Structures are designed using the Department's Seismic Design Criteria (SDC). The SDC provides the minimum seismic requirements for highway bridges designed in California. A bridge's category and classification will determine its seismic performance level and which methods are used for estimating the seismic demands and structural capabilities. For more information, please see Caltrans' Division of Engineering Services, Office of Earthquake Engineering, Seismic Design Criteria. 2.2.2.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (October 2013) that was prepared for the proposed project. 2.2.2.2.1 Geologic Setting The project site is located in the western portion of the Los Angeles Basin, which is characterized by a coastal belt of Pleistocene age', stabilized dunes, and sand deposits referred to as the EI Segundo Sand Hills. There is an unlined natural depression (UND) located within the southwestern portion of the site. At the site, artificial fills are present above the older dune sands that overlie alluvial deposits. The artificial fills are present at the railroad embankments, soil remediation areas, stockpiles, and bottom of the UND. The artificial fills encountered in previous borings generally consisted of silty sands and sands. Previous borings within the UND area contained fills up to 10 feet thick that contained carbon fragments, petroleum residue, and concrete/asphalt debris. Based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Report, the loose artificial fills are compressible when subjected to new fill loads and ground improvement will be required if settlement sensitive structures are planned on new fill. However, most of the loose material that contain carbon fragments have since been removed from the site and replaced with compacted backfill. The natural soils (older sand dunes) typically consist of sands and silty sands (with occasional thin lenses of finer -grained materials) that increase in density with depth. Dense to very dense conditions exist below depths of 40 feet and clayey silts exist at depths of about 120 feet below ground surface (bgs). 2.2.2.2.2 Topography The ground surface within the project reach and vicinity varies with elevated railroad embankments to the north and south, the UND to the southwest, and approximately level surface to the northeast (former Air Products facility and Kramer Foundry parcel). The natural surface drainage is from the northeast to the southwest, which collects in the UND and percolates into the ground. The railroad elevations vary from about 110 feet to 115 feet above The Pleistocene age is defined as the time period that began about 2.6 million years ago, lasting until about 11,700 years ago. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.2-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures mean sea level (amsl) across the site. The ground surface elevations range from about 110 feet amsl along the level ground to about 95 amsl feet at the bottom of the UND. 2.2.2.2.3 Geologic Hazards The project site is located in a seismically active area. Major active and potentially active faults in the vicinity of the project site include the Palos Verdes, Newport -Inglewood, Puente Hills, and Santa Monica faults. The nearest known potentially active or active fault is the Palos Verdes fault, which is located approximately four miles from the site. The characteristics of these faults are summarized in Table 2.2.2-1, Major Fault Characterization in the Project Vicinity, below. Table 2.2.2-1: Major Fault Characterization in the Project Vicinity Fault Name Approximate Distance' Maximum Magnitude (km2) Earthquake' (Mw) Palos Verdes 6.3 7.3 to 7.7 Newport -Inglewood 7.3 7.5 Puente Hills (Los Angeles) 14.9 7.0 Santa Monica 15.6 7.4 Malibu Coast 18.5 7.0 Source: Preliminary Geotechnical Report, October 2013, p. 8. No mapped surface faults are reported through the project area, and the site is not located within a California Geological Survey (CGS) Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Earthquake Fault Zone. In addition, the site is not located within a liquefaction zone or landslide potential zone, as indicated by the CGS seismic hazard zone maps. Refer to Figure 2.2.2-1, Seismic Hazard Zones Map. 2.2.2.2.4 Groundwater Based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Report, several aquifers underlie the site. For the proposed project, only the upper old dune sand aquifer is relevant. Historically high groundwater levels are deeper than 40 feet bgs at the project site. Groundwater was not encountered to depths of 80 feet in the geotechnical borings in the project vicinity. Based on groundwater level measurements in monitoring wells at the site, the groundwater elevation is estimated to be approximately elevation 20 feet, which is about 75 to 100 feet bgs. Allowing for seasonal variations, the design groundwater level for preliminary design was assumed to be near elevation 30 feet with depths ranging from about 65 to 90 feet bgs. The groundwater at the site has been impacted by numerous sources of contamination related to former industrial/manufacturing uses in the project area. Groundwater remediation activities are ongoing; refer to Section 2.2.4, Hazardous Waste/Materials, of this EIR/EA for a discussion of groundwater remediation activities. 2.2.2.3 Environmental Consequences The project footprint for all four Build Alternatives is similar; therefore, the discussion of Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, and 3B below is combined into a single discussion of Build Alternatives, since implementation of any of the four Build Alternative would result in similar impacts. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.2-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) -� '� � •MPERIAL � Y W im enal Hwy=wr�?irrlrr '� �• rylaple Ave, DOWNTOWN � � ip � ro ui a7 4 Z :I_d AIn (ifond A.v3" i Air S� •SMOKY HOLLgW COt;RsboR SEP EDA ! BOII ASID • y T I a GAS•U1Np _ _ REE SECTION` �i V =H - , . ... ,,,•� Marine Ave ��...•.--... Marine.A SECTION �yy SA SE4TIi3N Q ■ A U MA ryHATTAIJ �LIBERTv lAtion Jill" IRAN❑ �,.i.d �- EIGHTS _ ��j VILLAGE'. •' t- -W! r f � lateanho;—. ,5,—.,..,.,�,Man}►attariBeach BlvdTOWN'' 4th 5t LL 3 rn w \S .HILL SEM6 2nd St EAST MANHATTAN BEACH a m 19 Claris Ave Legend NOpjWREDONDO'BEACH CGS Landslide Hazard Zo&.Arte'sia.Rlvid,- V. `DEL AIRES_ T I a GAS•U1Np _ _ REE SECTION` �i V =H - , . ... ,,,•� Marine Ave ��...•.--... Marine.A SECTION �yy SA SE4TIi3N Q ■ A U MA ryHATTAIJ �LIBERTv lAtion Jill" IRAN❑ �,.i.d �- EIGHTS _ ��j VILLAGE'. •' t- -W! r f � lateanho;—. ,5,—.,..,.,�,Man}►attariBeach BlvdTOWN'' 4th 5t LL 3 rn w \S .HILL SEM6 2nd St EAST MANHATTAN BEACH a m 19 Claris Ave Legend NOpjWREDONDO'BEACH CGS Landslide Hazard Zo&.Arte'sia.Rlvid,- V. Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.2.2.3.1 Temporary Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) No temporary impacts regarding geology, soils, seismicity, or topography would occur with implementation of the No -Build Alternative since no construction activity would occur with this alternative. Insert Figure 2.2.2-1 Seismic Hazard Zones Map Alternatives 1A, IC, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Potential temporary impacts to the geological environment are expected to occur as a result of cut and fill operations, which include soil erosion and siltation. Cut and fill operations necessary to provide embankments would result in an alteration to the existing topography and may increase the risk of soil erosion and siltation. The soil types in the study area are not expected to pose a constraint to any of the Build Alternatives. However, implementation of erosion control measures as required by Caltrans and adherence to all requirements set forth in the NPDES permit required for construction activities would address any potential construction - related erosion and siltation impacts. Refer to Chapter 2.2.1, Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff, for a detailed analysis of short-term construction water quality impacts, and a further description of existing NPDES regulations applicable to the project. The proposed project could expose construction workers and the traveling public to potential impacts associated with seismic ground shaking during the short-term construction process. Conformance with the California Building Code (CBC) as well as adherence to standard engineering and construction practices, would reduce the potential for geologic or seismic hazards during the construction process. Earthwork shall be performed in accordance with CBC standards related to compacted fill, overexcavation and recompaction, and retaining walls, among other requirements. Moreover, Project Feature PF-GEO-1 would require that a site- specific, geotechnical field investigation is performed for the proposed project during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) phase. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not result in an adverse effect in this regard during the short-term construction process. 2.2.2.3.2 Permanent Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Under Alternative 1, the existing topography would not be affected since no physical changes to the project site would occur. Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Fault -Induced Ground Rupture No mapped surface faults are reported through the project area. The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture at the site is anticipated to be low. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.2-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Seismic -Related Ground Shakina The proposed project site is located within an area where strong seismic shaking occurs; all Build Alternatives would be equally affected. The Build Alternatives would require the construction of a new grade -separated bridge structure. Geologic and seismic hazards associated with a potential earthquake occurrence include strong ground shaking and seismically induced settlement. Therefore, there is the potential that ground shaking from seismic activity could impact the site, causing surface shaking and potentially surface displacement of soils. Conformance with the CBC, as well as adherence to standard engineering practices and design criteria, would reduce the effects of seismic ground shaking. Moreover, PF-GEO-1 would require that a site-specific, geotechnical field investigation is performed for the proposed project during the PS&E phase. This Geotechnical Design Report would include a field investigation and project -specific geotechnical recommendations to be incorporated into final design and project specifications. Thus, adverse effects related to seismic -related ground shaking would not occur. Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement The project site is not located within a liquefaction zone as indicated by the CGS seismic hazard zone map; the groundwater level at the site is estimated to be more than 65 feet bgs. Based on the groundwater level, density description of soil within the previous borings, and the design peak ground acceleration, it is anticipated that the liquefaction potential at the site is nil to very low. The upper loose to medium -dense sandy soils that are likely to be present at the project site could settle due to shaking during a design seismic event. Since the proposed roadway excavations would likely remove these loose upper soils, the seismic settlement below the proposed roadway levels is expected to be minimal. Soil Expansion Potential Since onsite soils are primarily silty sands, the sandy soils are anticipated to be non -expansive or have a very low expansion potential. Adherence to the CBC and recommendations within the Geotechnical Design Report to be prepared during the PS&E phase as part of PF-GEO-1 would be required for all earthwork; therefore, impacts related to soil expansion would be minimized. Seismic Slone Instabilitv The site is not located within a landslide potential zone designated on a seismic hazard map. Based on limited geologic reconnaissance, existing and proposed topography, and low potential for liquefaction, the potential for seismic slope instability in the natural and engineered slopes is low. Soil Corrosivitv The subsurface soils at the project site are severely corrosive to ferrous material and have high sulfate content. Cement that is resistant to sulfate and corrosion protection measures for ferrous material may therefore be required at the site. Corrosion tests would be further examined during PS&E as part of the site-specific Geotechnical Design Report required under PF-GEO-1. Thus, adverse effects would not occur in this regard. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.2-5 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures PF-GEO-1 Geotechnical Recommendations. The project shall adhere to the earthwork recommendations provided in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report. The recommendations pertain to bridge foundations, retaining walls, embankments, pavement, and requirements for preparation of geotechnical field investigations and a design -level Geotechnical Report for the proposed project during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) phase. 2.2.2.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measure No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required with adherence to the project feature described above. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.2-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.2.3 PALEONTOLOGY 2.2.3.1 Regulatory Setting Paleontology is a natural science focused on the study of ancient animal and plant life as it is preserved in the geologic record as fossils. A number of federal statutes specifically address paleontological resources, their treatment, and funding for mitigation as a part of federally authorized projects. • 23 United States Code (USC) 1.9(a) requires that the use of federal -aid funds must be in conformity with all federal and state laws. • 23 United States Code (USC) 305 authorizes the appropriation and use of federal highway funds for paleontological salvage as necessary by the highway department of any state, in compliance with 16 USC 431-433 above and state law. Under California law, paleontological resources are protected by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2.2.3.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the combined Paleontological Identification Report and Paleontological Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) (January 2017) prepared for the proposed project. 2.2.3.2.1 Stratigraphic Inventory The surface of the project is mapped as modern artificial fill and late to middle Pleistocene older wind-blown (eolian) sand dunes. The dunes are underlain by Older Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits to the depths anticipated by the proposed project. Dense to very dense conditions were generally encountered below depths of 40 feet. Artificial Fill: Modern artificial fill deposits are typically less than 200 years old in California. These deposits are up to 10 feet thick in the project area and overlie the late to middle Pleistocene older eolian sand dunes. • Older Eolian Sand Dunes: Late to middle Pleistocene (between 10,000 and 500,000 years old) older eolian sand dunes deposits are present throughout the project site. Sediments consist of poorly consolidated, well sorted, fine- to coarse-grained sand to silty sands. • Older Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits: Occurring to the east of the project site and underlying the older sand eolian dunes are late to middle Pleistocene older flood plain deposits. These fluvial deposits consist of layered poorly sorted, moderately well indurated slightly dissected gravels to clays. 2.2.3.2.2 Records Search Results No fossils are known within the proposed project boundaries. Over forty localities are known within a five -mile radius in Pleistocene alluvial deposits (locally named Pleistocene older flood plain deposits). Large terrestrial mammals encountered include ground sloths, mammoths, Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.3-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures mastodons, horses, bison, camels, llamas, deer, peccary, lion, sabre-toothed cat, dire wolf, coyote, and human. Small terrestrial mammals include rodents, rabbits, weasel, and diminutive pronghorn. Birds and reptiles included loon, grebe, duck, raven, and pond turtle. Near the coast, these terrestrial deposits interfinger with marine deposits from which marine animals have been recovered: harbor seal, whale, sea birds, and fish. 2.2.3.2.3 Paleontological Field Survey As part of the PIR/PER that was prepared for the proposed project, an intensive -level pedestrian survey of the accessible portions of the original project area was conducted on September 24, 2015 and November 30, 2016. Ground visibility was moderate to poor. Most of the study area was covered in thick vegetation or ice plant. Other areas were covered in dumped rock fill, and ballast. One outcrop of Pleistocene older eolian sand dune deposits was observed and inspected for fossils. No fossils were observed during the survey. 2.2.3.2.4 Paleontological Sensitivity Caltrans utilizes a tripartite scale to characterize paleontological sensitivity consisting of no, low and high. Geologic units are classified based on the relative abundance of vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils and their sensitivity to adverse impacts. This ranking applies to an entire geological unit and not to specific paleontological localities or small areas within the unit. As shown in Table 2.2.3-1, Paleontology Sensitivity Ratings below, the artificial fill is assigned a Caltrans "no" sensitivity ranking while the older eolian sand dune deposits are assigned a Caltrans "low" sensitivity ranking. Because the proposed project plans deep cuts, it is very likely that the older flood plain deposits would be impacted. Based on the number of localities occurring in similar sediments, these deposits are assigned a Caltrans "high" sensitivity ranking. Generally, only fine-grained sediments produce fossils. Table 2.2.3-1: Paleontology Sensitivity Ratings Caltrans Ranking I High I Low I No Rock Units Artificial fill, late Holocene (af) X Older eolian sand dune deposits, late to middle Pleistocene (Qoe) X Older flood plain deposits, late to middle Pleistocene (Qoa) X Source: Paleontological Identification Report and Paleontological Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) (January 2017), p. 15. 2.2.3.3 Environmental Consequences The project footprint for all four Build Alternatives is similar; therefore, the discussion of Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, and 3B below is combined into a single discussion of Build Alternatives, since implementation of any of the four Build Alternatives would result in similar impacts. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.3-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.2.3.3.1 Temporary Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) No temporary impacts regarding paleontological resources would occur with implementation of the No -Build Alternative since no construction activity would occur with this alternative. Alternatives 1A, IC, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) While there is no known, recorded paleontological resource in the project area, earth -moving activities associated with construction of any of the Build Alternatives might result in the disturbance or loss of paleontological resources, including scientifically important fossil remains, associated fossil specimen data, and corresponding geologic and geographic locality data. Any loss of paleontological resources would most likely occur in areas underlain by Pleistocene older flood plain deposits (Qoa). Because grading and excavation associated with construction activities could have the potential to adversely impact paleontological resources associated with the Pleistocene older flood plain deposits, a Paleontological Mitigation Program would be required (refer to Measure PALEO-1). This measure would require paleontological sensitivity training for construction workers, requirements for the recovery and investigation of any discovered resources, and reporting requirements. With implementation of Measure PALEO-1, the proposed project would not result in any adverse impact on paleontological resources. 2.2.3.3.2 Permanent Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Under the No -Build Alternative, no project construction would occur and, therefore, no permanent impacts on paleontological resources would occur. Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Operation of any of the Build Alternatives would not adversely affect paleontological resources because operational activities would not involve the Pleistocene older flood plain deposits. Impacts to paleontological resources would occur during the short-term construction phase during earthmoving activities, and have been addressed above. 2.2.3.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures PALEO-1 Prior to construction activities, the City of EI Segundo shall ensure that a Paleontological Mitigation Plan is prepared and implemented during construction of the project in those parts of the project area that have been identified as having a high potential to impact significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. The Paleontological Mitigation Plan shall be prepared by a qualified paleontologist and shall include the following: a) Preconstruction paleontological sensitivity training for earth -moving personnel, with documentation of training that includes, but is not limited to, sign -in sheets and hardhat stickers. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.3-3 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures b) A signed repository agreement. c) Proposed field and laboratory methods that are consistent with repository requirements. d) Reporting requirements to document that compliance with paleontological measures is being achieved. e) Submission of the final Paleontological Mitigation Compliance Report to the City of EI Segundo upon completion of project earth -moving activities. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.3-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.2.4 Hazardous Waste/Materials 2.2.4.1 Regulatory Setting Hazardous materials, including hazardous substances and wastes, are regulated by many state and federal laws. Statutes govern the generation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, substances, and waste, and also the investigation and mitigation of waste releases, air and water quality, human health, and land use. The primary federal laws regulating hazardous wastes/materials are the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (RCRA). The purpose of CERCLA, often referred to as "Superfund," is to identify and cleanup abandoned contaminated sites so that public health and welfare are not compromised. The RCRA provides for "cradle to grave" regulation of hazardous waste generated by operating entities. Other federal laws include: • Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) of 1992; • Clean Water Act; • Clean Air Act; • Safe Drinking Water Act; • Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA); • Atomic Energy Act; • Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); and • Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In addition to the acts listed above, Executive Order (EO) 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, mandates that necessary actions be taken to prevent and control environmental pollution when federal activities or federal facilities are involved. California regulates hazardous materials, waste, and substances under the authority of the CA Health and Safety Code and is also authorized by the federal government to implement RCRA in the state. California law also addresses specific handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning of hazardous waste. The Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act also restricts disposal of wastes and requires cleanup of wastes that are below hazardous waste concentrations but could impact ground and surface water quality. California regulations that address waste management and prevention and cleanup of contamination include Title 22 Division 4.5 Environmental Health Standards for the Management of Hazardous Waste, Title 23 Waters, and Title 27 Environmental Protection. Worker and public health and safety are key issues when addressing hazardous materials that may affect human health and the environment. Proper management and disposal of hazardous material is vital if it is found, disturbed, or generated during project construction. 2.2.4.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the Phase I Initial Site Assessment (ISA) (July 10, 2017) that was prepared for the proposed project. The Phase I ISA generally consisted of a database record review, regulatory agency review, a review of historical sources, a site visit, and interviews. As discussed in Section 3.3, File Record Reviews, of the Phase I ISA, Michael Baker conducted a review of available online records maintained by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Supplemental Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.4-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures review of records maintained at agency office locations was also conducted in March 2017. For files reviewed at the local offices, Michael Baker requested files from the DTSC, RWQCB, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH), and EI Segundo Fire Department (ESFD). Although minor limitations/deviations were encountered during the preparation of the Phase I ISA, discussed in Section 1.5, Limitations, Deviations, and Exceptions, no significant data gaps were reported. Based on the findings presented in the Phase I ISA, releases of hazardous materials/waste from past on-site and off-site industrial uses have resulted in contamination to on-site soil, soil gas, and groundwater, which are summarized below. Past Industrial Operations By 1911, the project site was developed with rail spurs that supported an off-site industrial use (Standard Oil Company refinery) to the west, which later became the Chevron Refinery. By 1919, General Chemical Corporation was constructed adjoining the project site to the south, which used hazardous waste from the refinery to produce other chemicals for product. This intensive chemical manufacturing operation was present for approximately 70 years and included operations such as, sulfuric acid production, pesticides grinding, and other chemicals manufacturing operations. By the 1960s, General Chemical, expanded to the north both on-site and adjoining the project site, and sold this expansion area to Allied Signal (Honeywell). During this time, an on-site pond (situated in the western portion of the project site) accepted waste water/runoff from both General Chemical and Honeywell. By 2005 and 2013, the Honeywell and General Chemical operations were demolished and replaced with commercial uses. During this time, stockpiled soil is noted in the western portion of the project site. Other past industrial operations that were present on the project site included Air Products (in the central portion of the project site), a lumber yard (in the southwestern portion of the project site), and a smelting operation formerly situated in the eastern portion of the project and off-site to the northeast. The smelting operation was owned by Harshaw Chemical Company in the 1930s and then was purchased by H. Kramer & Company by 1951, at which time it operated as a brass foundry until the mid-1980s. 2.2.4.2.1 Known Contamination On -Site The past industrial operations have reported multiple releases to the soil, soil gas, and groundwater. Section 6.1.2, Past On -Site Uses, of the Phase I ISA discusses each of these past industrial uses, reported past releases, types of contaminants, their concentrations, and the level and extent of reported contamination in relation to the project site boundaries. The reported past releases are summarized in Table 2.2.4-1, Reported Contamination Present On - Site. Table 2.2.4-1: Reported Contamination Present On -Site Past Facility Description Honeywell/General Chemical There is known soil and groundwater contamination at the project site as a result of former on- and off-site Honeywell facility. With implementation of recorded Covenants and Restrictions, this regulatory site has received case closure by the RWQCB for shallow soils with restricted land uses. Notwithstanding, soils deeper than 4 to 10 feet below ground surface (bgs) have not received case closure. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.4-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.4-1: Reported Contamination Present On -Site [continued] Past Facility Air Products On -Site Unlined Natural Depressions Description Further, groundwater remediation remains ongoing. Known chemicals of concern that are reported on-site above maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) include 1,1- Dichloroethane (ranging from 14 pg/L to 1,200 pg/L [MCL is 6.0 pg/L]), 1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane (1.9 pg/L [MCL is 1 pg/L]), 1,2-Dichloroethane (1.6 pg/L to 150 pg/L [MCL is 0.5 pg/L]), Carbon tetrachloride (1.1 pg/L to 1,100 pg/L [MCL is 0.5 pg/L]), Chloroform (110 pg/L to 180,000 pg/L [MCL is 80 pg/L]), Trichlorofluoromethane (420 pg/L to 170 pg/L to 3,600 pg/L [MCL is 150 pg/L]), and Methylene Chloride (5.1 pg/L to 14,000 pg/L [MCL is 5 pg/L]). This facility has not received case closure with the RWQCB with regard to deeper on-site soils or contaminated groundwater. The RWQCB determined that Covenants and Environmental Restrictions of the project site were necessary for the protection of public health, safety, and the environment due to the presence of hazardous materials remaining in the soil and groundwater at the project site. On November 22, 2005 and December 1, 2014, Honeywell recorded approved Covenants in the Official Record's Office, Los Angeles County, California. Restrictions on these portions of the site include restriction of land use to industrial, commercial, retail, or office space uses (no hospitals, schools, day care centers for children or senior citizens, or residence for human habitation [with exceptions] are permitted). Excavation work would be confined to between 4 to 10 feet bgs (depending upon the area of excavation) or wholly within refilled soils, unless pursuant to a health and safety plan approved in writing by the RWQCB. Any contaminated soils brought to the surface by grading, excavation, trenching, or backfilling must be managed in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal law. All uses/future development must preserve the integrity of any existing or future remedial measures pursuant to the requirements of the RWQCB, including, without limitation, any cap, remedial equipment, groundwater monitoring system, or any other RWQCB-approved work, unless otherwise expressly permitted in writing by the RWQCB and Covenantor. Water extraction activities for the purposes of domestic, potable, or industrial use are not permitted. The Covenant also acknowledges the presence of vapor barriers under each building on the property. There has been known soil and groundwater contamination at the project site at the former Air Products property (due to the Honeywell facility, discussed above). With implementation of remedial activities and a recorded Covenant, this regulatory site has received case closure by the RWQCB for the top 10 feet of soils at the project site with land use restrictions. Notwithstanding, contaminated soils deeper than 10 feet bgs as well as contaminated groundwater are present at the project site (on the Air Products property). The former off-site industrial uses (Honeywell and General Chemical) historically released wastewater to unlined natural depressions on-site. Soil remediation occurred and the RWQCB issued case closure for the top 10 feet of soils. However, known soil and groundwater contamination remains present on-site at the former unlined natural depressions located in the western portion of the project site. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.4-3 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.4-1: Reported Contamination Present On -Site [continued] Past Facility Description H. Kramer & Company This facility is located on-site, within the eastern portion of the project site. H. Kramer & Company operated a brass foundry at this property from 1951 through mid -1985. Slag generated from site operations was disposed in a waste pile, filling. Operations by a previous owner, Harshaw Chemical Company (Harshaw), included the smelting of antimony. Harshaw generated wastes containing heavy metals, which included arsenic. With the exception of the building foundations in the southwest portion of the property, all structures have been demolished. Based on files reviewed, on-site soil samples, conducted in 2009, indicate that, for metals, detectable concentrations of beryllium, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc exceeded Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) values. A soil sample collected from beneath the slag pile (on-site boring B-3 at a depth of 15.5 to 16.0 feet bgs) also indicated an arsenic concentration of 2,060 mg/kg. The arsenic concentration detected in the soil sample exceeded the TTLC for arsenic of 500 mg/kg. The soil borings advanced near the high voltage tower (on-site soil borings EB -1 and EB -2) indicated slag debris to a depth of 8 feet bgs, and elevated concentrations of arsenic, zinc, and copper. Borings advanced along the low voltage lines (on-site borings EB -3, EB -4, and EB -5) also appeared to contain slag material. Elevated concentrations of arsenic were detected in samples collected from all three borings. Analytical results only indicated a 1,1,1 -trichloroethane (TCA) concentration of 0.015 mg/kg. At the request of SCE, two soil samples were also analyzed for pH and sulfate. On-site samples EB1-5' and EB1-10' indicated a pH of 7.9 and 8.4, respectively. Sulfate was detected at concentrations of 67 mg/kg and 330 mg/kg, respectively. Remedial activities were conducted at this facility in July 2001, which may have included portions of the project site. The remedial action consisted of the excavation and removal of arsenic -impacted soil to a maximum depth of two feet bgs along the northwestern property boundary. Approximately 915 tons of soil were excavated, stockpiled, characterized, and subsequently loaded into rail cars for transport. The soil was transported as nonhazardous waste to a disposal facility in Utah. Upon completion of the excavation activities, the area was backfilled with clean fill, compacted, and graded to match previous site conditions. Removal of additional impacted soil was not possible due to the proximity of the excavation to a petroleum pipeline, access road, and powerline pole. Two soil samples collected from the excavation indicated arsenic concentrations of 63 mg/kg and 53 mg/kg at these locations. There are currently three monitoring wells situated on-site, MW 4, MW10, and MW12, within the northern portion of the project site. Monitoring well, MW2, is situated immediately north of the project site (up gradient). Based on the 2016 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, depth to groundwater is approximately 72 feet bgs or deeper, flowing in an east/southeast direction. The metals of potential concern for groundwater at the project site include arsenic, boron, and lead. The VOCs of potential concern for groundwater at the project site include 1,1- dichloroethane; 1,1,1-trichlorethane; trichloroethene (TCE); tetrachloroethene (PCE); carbon tetrachloride; chloroform; trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11); and cis-1,2- dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE). Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.4-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.4-1: Reported Contamination Present On -Site [continued] Past Facility Description Based on the 2016 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, the most prevalent VOCs detected in groundwater at the project site are TCE and PCE. Evaluation of the areal distribution of VOCs suggests the primary source may originate off-site. With the exception of TCE, the concentrations indicate that Honeywell may be the source of the VOCs in groundwater beneath the H. Kramer Site. Concentrations of TCE detected beneath the H. Kramer Site indicate another possible off-site source for TCE located up -gradient. An Environmental Data Resources, Inc. record search requested by ARCADIS did not identify any potential off-site sources for the TCE concentrations. However, a search of the SWRCB's GeoTracker online database identified one active environmental case (Apollo Associates) located up/cross gradient of the project site. A TCE groundwater investigation is also being conducted at this Aerospace Corporation property. The RWQCB recently requested permission for Aerospace Corporation's consultant to gauge selected H. Kramer wells. The GeoTracker website does not list an active case for this off-site property. Additional research is necessary to determine if either of these sites could be the source of the TCE detected in groundwater beneath the H. Kramer Site. Per the RWQCB-approved Program, the monitoring frequency for all parameters was reduced from a semiannual to an annual basis beginning in 2002. However, due to the elevated arsenic concentrations detected, Chevron Environmental Management Company proposed supplemental sampling activities in September 2016. The supplemental activities include collecting groundwater samples from on-site well MW10 and the nearby well MW2 for arsenic analysis. Based on the 2016 Supplemental Groundwater Monitoring Report, supplemental sampling conducted in September 2016, arsenic concentrations in well MW2 were reported at 8.84 milligrams per liter (mg/L), and at 0.907 mg/L at MW10. Thus, these past industrial operations at the eastern portion of the project site have reported the presence of contamination in soil and groundwater. Soil remediation activities have occurred for shallow soils. However, known elevated levels of TCE and VOCs in deeper soils and groundwater are present and this case remains open with the RWQCB. Rail Operations and MTA/BNSF Active and inactive railroad beds frequently have concentrations of petroleum Property products and lead elevated above natural background conditions. Petroleum product concentrations and lead concentrations are derived from drippings from rail vehicles and flaked paint, respectively. Wooden railroad ties may contain preservatives (i.e., creosote), some of which may contain hazardous constituents. Track switch locations often have elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons. Inorganic and organic herbicides, along with diesel fuel, may have been used for vegetation control. Existing railroad right-of-way (ROW) has been present on-site since prior to 1896. On-site rail spurs appear to support past industrial uses both on-site and at adjoining properties. These industrial uses handled/stored and transported hazardous materials. It is likely that railroad cars transported hazardous materials, which were also periodically stored on-site. It is the opinion of Michael Baker that elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons, lead concentrations, hazardous materials associated with treated wood as well as chemicals stored in railroad cars, and herbicide/pesticide residues are likely to be present within on-site soils associated with railroad ROW. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.4-5 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.4-1: Reported Contamination Present On -Site [continued] Past Facility Description Petroleum Pipelines Evidence of underground petroleum pipeline(s) was noted during the October 25, 2016 site inspection. Based on information provided by the Project Engineer, these petroleum pipelines are present on-site (as mapped on Exhibit 10, Petroleum Pipeline Locations, of the Phase I ISA). Due to the high likelihood that these pipelines have leaked, it is anticipated that VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons associated with these pipelines are likely present in on-site soils. 2.2.4.2.2 Other Hazardous Materials Anticipated to be Present Based on the Phase I ISA, other hazardous materials anticipated to be present, but have not yet resulted in a release to soil/soil gas or groundwater, include those discussed in Table 2.2.4-2, Other Potential Hazardous Materials Present On -Site. Table 2.2.4-2: Other Potential Hazardous Materials Present On -Site Hazardous Material Description Traffic Striping Material Lead -Based Paints (LBPs) were commonly used in traffic striping materials before the discontinued use of lead chromate pigment in traffic striping/marking materials and hot -melt Thermoplastic stripe materials (discontinued in 1996 and 2004, respectively). According to the Phase I ISA, based on the dates of roadway improvements, the eastern segment of Park Place and S. Nash Street may involve small amounts of LBPs. However, based on the quantity of traffic striping materials proposed for removal, this hazardous material is not anticipated to be present above regulatory thresholds for disposal purposes. Pole -Mounted Transformers Pole -mounted transformers, which could currently or historically contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), were noted in the western portion of the project site. However, it is noted that no evidence of dielectric fluid or staining was noted. 2.2.4.2.3 Aerially Deposited Lead Considerations ADL refers to lead deposited on highway shoulders from past leaded fuel vehicle emissions. According to the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) ADL webpage (Caltrans 2014), although leaded fuel has been prohibited in California since the 1980's, ADL may still be present in soils adjacent to highways in use prior to that time. According to the Phase I ISA, most on-site roadways were constructed in the 2000s, with the exception of the eastern segment of Park Place and S. Nash Street, which were constructed in the 1960s. However, these roadways do not appear to have been heavily traveled. Therefore, the potential for aerially deposited lead contamination from vehicle exhaust to exist within soils along on-site roadways is unlikely. 2.2.4.3 Environmental Consequences The project footprint for all four Build Alternatives is similar; therefore, the discussion of Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, and 3B below is combined into a single discussion of Build Alternatives, since implementation of any of the four Build Alternatives would result in similar impacts. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.4-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.2.4.3.1 Temporary Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) No temporary impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials would occur with implementation of the No -Build Alternative since no construction activity would occur with this alternative. Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Implementation of the Build Alternatives would involve acquisition of contaminated properties. Table 2.2.4-3, ROW Acquisition Summary, discusses anticipated contamination per Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) proposed for right-of-way (ROW) acquisition. The project would result in partial acquisitions of the APNs; no full acquisitions would be required. Table 2.2.4-3: ROW Acquisition Summary APN Number I Address Description 4138-015-042 760 S. Sepulveda Boulevard Currently, these APNs are owned by PES Partners LLC, 4138-015-043 770 S. Sepulveda Boulevard and are associated with a commercial/retail shopping 4138-015-044 700 S. Allied Way center. Historically, these properties were associated with 4138-015-045 770 S. Allied Way Allied and Honeywell. As discussed above, Honeywell has 4138-015-046 2015 Park Place reported contamination to soil and groundwater within the boundaries of the project site. 4138-015-050 740 S. Sepulveda Boulevard 4138-015-051 750 S. Sepulveda Boulevard 4138-015-053 2015 Park Place 4138-015-054 2009 Park Place 4138-015-055 2005 Park Place 4138-015-058 2004 Park Place 4138-015-059 2008 Park Place 4138-015-060 2014 Park Place Currently, these APNs are owned by Allied Chemical 4138-015-005 No address reported. Corporation, and are associated with a commercial/retail shopping center. Historically, these properties were associated with Allied/Honeywell and General Chemical. It is acknowledged that contaminated fill materials were 4138-015-006 No address reported. placed at these properties by General Chemical and groundwater contamination is known to be present from Honeywell and General Chemical. 4138-012-803 No information available. 4138-012-810 No address reported. Currently, these APNs are owned by BNSF/Chevron, and 4138-015-801 No address reported. are associated with railroad ROW. As discussed above, it 4138-015-803 No address reported. is likely that soil contamination has resulted at these properties from railroad activities. 4138-015-809 No information available. Currently, these APNs are owned by Continental Rosecrans Nash LLC, and are currently associated with a commercial/theatre use. As this property was listed in the EDR for generating/handling/storing/ transporting 4138-015-029 831 S. Nash Street hazardous materials for a past use (TRW, Inc). No contamination to groundwater has been reported and this past use has since been redeveloped into a theatre. Based on the findings presented in the Phase I ISA, contamination is not anticipated to have resulted from this property. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.4-7 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.4-3: ROW Acquisition Summary [continued] APN Number Address Description Currently, these APNs are owned by 2121 Park Place LP, and are currently associated with commercial use. 4138-015-015 2121 Park Place Historically, these properties were associated with uses associated with the handling/storage/transport of hazardous materials. However, these properties have been redeveloped and no releases to soil or groundwater have been reported. Further, implementation of the proposed project would result in the acquisition of vacant portions of 4138-015-016 No information available. these properties associated with landscaping. Based on the findings presented in the Phase I ISA, contamination is not anticipated to have resulted from this property. Currently, these APNs are owned by Kinecta FCU, and are currently associated with commercial use. Historically, this property was associated with handling/storage/transport of hazardous materials. However, this property has been 4138-011-025 830 S. Nash Street redeveloped and no releases to soil or groundwater have been reported. Further, implementation of the proposed project would result in the acquisition of vacant portions of this property associated with landscaping. Based on the findings presented in the Phase I ISA, contamination is not anticipated to have resulted from this property. Currently, these APNs are owned by Rosecrans Sepulveda 4138-015-007 No address reported. 4 LLC, and are currently associated with vacant disturbed land historically owned by Air Products. As discussed 4138-015-008 No address reported. above, soil and groundwater contamination has been reported at this property. 4138-012-004 655 S. Douglas Street Currently, these APNs are owned by Kramer H & Company, and are associated with vacant industrial uses. As 4138-012-005 No address reported. discussed above, soil and groundwater contamination has been reported at this property. 4138-015-800 No address reported. Currently, these APNs are owned by UPRR, and are 4138-012-805 No address reported. associated with railroad ROW. As discussed above, it is likely that soil contamination has resulted at these 4138-015-805 No information available. properties from railroad activities. Based on the location of properties that have reported contamination on-site, it is not feasible to avoid ROW acquisition for any of the proposed Build Alternatives. There is a potential for exposure of contractors to hazardous materials/wastes in soil, soil gas, and groundwater. Soil excavation and earth -moving activities associated with the Build Alternatives could expose workers to contaminants associated with past uses on-site, which are discussed in Tables 2.2.4- 1 and 2.2.4-2 above. During construction, exposure to these contaminants can be minimized through adherence to protocols for the removal, handling, and disposal of said materials. Implementation of Measure HW -1 would require the City to retain a Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) stage to define the extent of on-site contamination and recommend appropriate coordination with other off-site properties owners and remediation, as necessary, for implementation of the proposed project. The Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist would be required to review available files and recorded covenants and deed restrictions pertaining to hazardous materials for the project site as well as coordinate with the RWQCB regarding proposed construction activities within the former Honeywell and H. Kramer & Company properties (Measure HW -2). The Specialist would Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.4-8 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures be required to prepare a Soil Management Plan that identifies necessary sampling efforts, necessary actions to satisfy covenant and deed restrictions, and soil management practices necessary during site disturbance (including safety precautions to ensure worker safety) (Measure HW -3). The Plan would also consider necessary sampling efforts, management of soils, and proper disposal of waste materials during demolition within railroad ROW as well as any work within the vicinity of a petroleum pipeline. The Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist would be required to identify and coordinate property relocation of existing on-site monitoring wells. All well relocation would be conducted in consultation with, and per the standards of, the RWQCB. The Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist would be required to identify the location of on-site petroleum pipelines (Measure HW -4). Any site disturbance activities within any easements for petroleum pipelines would be required to be conducted under the purview of the local purveyor, and must comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations pertaining to the handling and/or disposal of contaminated soils. Last, construction activities could result in the disturbance of potential hazardous materials during construction, including traffic striping materials and on-site transformers. Although traffic striping materials are not anticipated to be present above regulatory thresholds for the purposed of disposal, all handling/disposal activities must comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials/wastes. Further, any on-site transformers to be relocated/removed during site disturbance activities would be required to be conducted under the purview of the local purveyor to identify property -handling procedures regarding PCBs (Measure HW -5). In the event that unknown hazardous materials/waste are uncovered during site disturbance activities, the contractor would be required to implement a Construction Contingency Plan (CCP) in accordance with the Caltrans Unknown Hazards Procedures for Construction (Measure HW -6). The CCP would be required to include provisions for emergency response in the event that unidentified hazardous materials, petroleum hydrocarbons, or hazardous or solid wastes are discovered during construction activities. The CCP would be required to address field screening, contaminant materials testing methods, mitigation and contaminate management requirements, and health and safety requirements for construction workers, including limiting exposure to potential residual contamination in on-site surface soils. The CCP would be prepared in consideration of the Phase II/Site Characterization Specialists' Soil Management Plan (Measure HW -2). 2.2.4.3.2 Permanent Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Under Alternative 1, impacts pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials would not occur, since no physical changes to the project site would result. Alternatives 1A, IC, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Operation of the Build Alternatives would not result to any permanent impacts related to hazardous materials/waste. Hazardous materials/waste impacts would be temporary in nature due to ground -disturbing activities occurring during construction, which are addressed above. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.4-9 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.2.4.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures HW -1 Phase 11 Site Investigation: The City of EI Segundo shall retain a Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) stage to define the extent of on-site contamination and recommend appropriate coordination with other off-site properties owners and remediation, as necessary, for implementation of the proposed project. HW -2 Soil Management Plan: The City of EI Segundo shall retain a Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) stage to review available files and recorded covenants and deed restrictions pertaining to hazardous materials for the project site as well as coordinate with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regarding proposed construction activities within the former Honeywell and H. Kramer & Company properties. The Specialist shall prepare a Soil Management Plan that identifies necessary sampling efforts, necessary actions to satisfy covenant and deed restrictions, and soil management practices necessary during site disturbance (including safety precautions to ensure worker safety). The Plan shall also consider necessary sampling efforts, management of soils, and proper disposal of waste materials during demolition within railroad ROW as well as any work within the vicinity of a petroleum pipeline. The handling and/or disposal of contaminated soils shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. HW -3 On -Site Monitorina Wells: The City of EI Segundo shall retain a Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) stage to identify and coordinate property relocation of existing on-site monitoring wells, as necessary, with the contractor for the project. All well relocation shall be conducted in consultation with, and per the standards of, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). HW -4 On -Site Petroleum Pipelines: The City of EI Segundo shall retain a Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) stage to identify the location of on-site petroleum pipelines. Any site disturbance activities within any easements for petroleum pipelines shall be conducted under the purview of the local purveyor. HW -5 PCBs: Any transformer to be relocated/removed during site disturbance activities shall be conducted under the purview of the local purveyor to identify property -handling procedures regarding PCBs. HW -6 Unknown Hazardous Materials: Prior to the start of construction, the contractor shall prepare a Construction Contingency Plan (CCP) in accordance with the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) Unknown Hazards Procedures for Construction. The CCP shall include provisions for emergency response in the event that unidentified hazardous materials, petroleum hydrocarbons, or hazardous or solid wastes are discovered during construction activities. The CCP shall address field screening, contaminant materials testing methods, mitigation and contaminate management requirements, and health and safety requirements for construction workers, including limiting exposure to potential residual contamination in on-site surface soils. The CCP shall be prepared in consideration of the Phase II/Site Characterization Specialists' Soil Management Plan. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.4-10 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.2.5 Air Quality 2.2.5.1 Regulatory Setting The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), as amended, is the primary federal law that governs air quality while the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) is its companion state law. These laws, and related regulations by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (ARB), set standards for the concentration of pollutants in the air. At the federal level, these standards are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). NAAQS and state ambient air quality standards have been established for six transportation -related criteria pollutants that have been linked to potential health concerns: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (Os), particulate matter (PM)—which is broken down for regulatory purposes into particles of 10 micrometers or smaller (PM,o) and particles of 2.5 micrometers and smaller (PM2.5)—and sulfur dioxide (SO2). In addition, national and state standards exist for lead (Pb), and state standards exist for visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride. The NAAQS and state standards are set at levels that protect public health with a margin of safety, and are subject to periodic review and revision. Both state and federal regulatory schemes also cover toxic air contaminants (air toxics); some criteria pollutants are also air toxics or may include certain air toxics in their general definition. Federal air quality standards and regulations provide the basic scheme for project -level air quality analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition to this environmental analysis, a parallel "Conformity" requirement under the FCAA also applies. 2.2.5.1.1 Conformity The conformity requirement is based on FCAA Section 176(c), which prohibits the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) and other federal agencies from funding, authorizing, or approving plans, programs, or projects that do not conform to State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining the NAAQS. "Transportation Conformity" applies to highway and transit projects and takes place on two levels: the regional (or planning and programming) level and the project level. The proposed project must conform at both levels to be approved. Conformity requirements apply only in nonattainment and "maintenance" (former nonattainment) areas for the NAAQS, and only for the specific NAAQS that are or were violated. EPA regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 93 govern the conformity process. Conformity requirements do not apply in unclassifiable/attainment areas for NAAQS and do not apply at all for state standards regardless of the status of the area. Regional conformity is concerned with how well the regional transportation system supports plans for attaining the NAAQS for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (Os), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and in some areas (although not in California), sulfur dioxide (SO2). California has nonattainment or maintenance areas for all of these transportation -related "criteria pollutants" except SO2, and also has a nonattainment area for lead (Pb); however, lead is not currently required by the FCAA to be covered in transportation conformity analysis. Regional conformity is based on emission analysis of Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) and Federal Transportation Improvement Programs (FTIPs) that include all transportation projects planned for a region over a period of at least 20 years (for the RTP) and 4 years (for the FTIP). RTP and FTIP conformity uses travel demand and emission models to determine whether or not the implementation of those projects would conform to emission budgets or other tests at various analysis years showing that requirements of the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.5-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures FCAA and the SIP are met. If the conformity analysis is successful, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) make the determinations that the RTP and FTIP are in conformity with the SIP for achieving the goals of the FCAA. Otherwise, the projects in the RTP and/or FTIP must be modified until conformity is attained. If the design concept and scope and the "open -to - traffic" schedule of a proposed transportation project are the same as described in the RTP and FTIP, then the proposed project meets regional conformity requirements for purposes of project - level analysis. Project -level conformity is achieved by demonstrating that the project comes from a conforming RTP and TIP; the project has a design concept and scope that has not changed significantly from those in the RTP and TIP; project analyses have used the latest planning assumptions and EPA -approved emissions models; and in PM areas, the project complies with any control measures in the SIP. Furthermore, additional analyses (known as hot -spot analyses) may be required for projects located in CO and PM nonattainment or maintenance areas to examine localized air quality impacts. 2.2.5.2 Affected Environment This analysis is based upon the Air Quality Assessment prepared for the proposed project in June 2017. This analysis described the existing regional and local air quality, identified the potential air quality impacts related to the proposed project, and demonstrated air quality conformity of the proposed project with SIPs, as required by the federal CAA. This separately prepared technical report serves as the basis for this analysis of impacts to air quality; it is incorporated by reference. 2.2.5.2.1 Environmental Setting The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and California Air Resources Board (CARB). The Basin is a 6,600 -square mile area bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Basin includes all of Orange County and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, in addition to the San Gorgonio Pass area of Riverside County. Its terrain and geographical location determine the distinctive climate of the Basin, as it is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. The Basin is characterized as having a "Mediterranean" climate (a semi -arid environment with mild winters, warm summers, and moderate rainfall). The general region lies in the semi-permanent, high- pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild and tempered by cool sea breezes. The climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The extent and severity of the air pollution problem in the Basin is a function of the area's natural physical characteristics (weather and topography), as well as man-made influences (development patterns and lifestyle). Factors such as wind, sunlight, temperature, humidity, rainfall, and topography all affect the accumulation and/or dispersion of pollutants throughout the Basin. 2.2.5.2.2 Climate The average annual temperature varies little throughout the Basin, and averages about 75 degrees Fahrenheit. However, with a less pronounced oceanic influence, the eastern inland portions of the Basin show greater variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures. All portions of the Basin have had recorded temperatures over 100 degrees in recent years. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.5-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures January is usually the coldest month at all locations, while July and August are usually the hottest months of the year. Although the Basin has a semi -arid climate, the air near the surface is moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the Basin by off -shore winds, the ocean effect is dominant. Periods with heavy fog are frequent; low stratus clouds, occasionally referred to as "high fog," are a characteristic climate feature. Annual average relative humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern part of the Basin. Precipitation in the Basin is typically 9 to 14 inches annually and is rarely in the form of snow or hail due to typically warm weather. The frequency and amount of rainfall is greater in the coastal areas of the Basin. Within the project vicinity, the City of EI Segundo experiences fairly mild weather, with average temperatures typically ranging from 49 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter to 75 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer. On average, the warmest month is August with a mean temperature of approximately 80 degrees Fahrenheit and the coolest month is generally December with a mean average of 43 degrees Fahrenheit. The project vicinity experiences the greatest amount of precipitation in the month of February.' The Southern California region frequently experiences temperature inversions in which pollutants are trapped and accumulate close to the ground. The inversion, a layer of warm, dry air overlaying cool, moist marine air, is a normal condition in the southland. The cool, damp, and hazy sea air capped by coastal clouds is heavier than the warm, clear air that acts as a lid through which the marine layer cannot rise. The height of the inversion is important in determining pollutant concentration. When the inversion is approximately 2,500 feet above sea level, the sea breezes carry the pollutants inland to escape over the mountain slopes or through the passes. At a height of 1,200 feet, the terrain prevents the pollutants from entering the upper atmosphere, resulting in a settlement in the foothill communities. Below 1,200 feet, the inversion puts a tight lid on pollutants, concentrating them in a shallow layer over the entire coastal basin. Usually, inversions are lower before sunrise than during the daylight hours. Mixing heights for inversions are lower in the summer and more persistent, being partly responsible for the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in the Basin. Smog in Southern California is generally the result of these temperature inversions combining with coastal day winds and local mountains to contain the pollutants for long periods of time, allowing them to form secondary pollutants by reacting with sunlight. The Basin has a limited ability to disperse these pollutants due to low wind speeds. The area in which the proposed project is located offers clear skies and sunshine; however, it is still susceptible to air inversions. This traps a layer of stagnant air near the ground where it is further loaded with pollutants. These inversions cause haziness, which is caused by moisture, suspended dust, and a variety of chemical aerosols emitted by trucks, automobiles, furnaces, and other sources. 2.2.5.2.3 Regional Air Quality Attainment Status Air quality management areas were designated as "attainment," "nonattainment," or "unclassified" for individual pollutants depending on whether or not they achieve the applicable NAAQS and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for each pollutant. States with air quality that did not achieve the NAAQS were required to develop and maintain SIPs. These plans constitute a federally enforceable definition of the state's approach (or "plan") and schedule for the attainment of the NAAQS. It is important to note that because the NAAQS and The Weather Channel, Monthly Averages for EI Segundo, accessed July 31, 2017. https://weather.com/ weather/monthly/I/USCA0341:1: US. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.5-3 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures CAAQS differ in many cases, it is possible for an area to be designated attainment by the EPA (meets NAAQS) and nonattainment by CARB (does not meet CAAQS) for the same pollutant. The Basin is an attainment area for NO2, and SO2 for both state and federal standards. The Basin is an attainment area for CO for state standards and attainment/maintenance for federal standards. The Basin is a nonattainment area for 03 and PM2.5 under both state and federal standards. The Basin is a nonattainment area for PM10 under state standards and a maintenance area under federal standards. Refer to Table 2.2.5-1, State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources, which provides additional details relative to the federal and state air quality standards and the status of the Basin. Table 2.2.5-1: State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources Pollutant Averaging Time State',3 Standard Federal2,3,4 Standard Principal Health and Atmospheric Effects Typical Sources Project Area Attainment Status Ozone (03)2 1 hour 0.09 ppm --- 4 High concentrations irritate Low -altitude ozone is almost Federal: lungs. Long-term exposure entirely formed from reactive Non -attainments may cause lung tissue organic gases/volatile organic 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm damage and cancer. Long- compounds (ROG or VOC) and State: term exposure damages nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the Non -attainment (4th highest in plant materials and reduces presence of sunlight and heat. 3 years) crop productivity. Precursor Common precursor emitters organic compounds include include motor vehicles and other many known toxic air internal combustion engines, contaminants. Biogenic solvent evaporation, boilers, VOC may also contribute. furnaces, and industrial processes. Carbon 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm CO interferes with the Combustion sources, especially Federal: Monoxide transfer of oxygen to the gasoline -powered engines and Attainment/Maintenance (CO) 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm blood and deprives sensitive motor vehicles. CO is the --- tissues of oxygen. CO also traditional signature pollutant for State: 8 hours 6 ppm is a minor precursor for on -road mobile sources at the Attainment (Lake photochemical ozone. local and neighborhood scale. Tahoe) Colorless, odorless. Respirable 24 hours 50 pg/m3 150 pg/m3 Irritates eyes and respiratory Dust- and fume -producing Federal: Particulate tract. Decreases lung industrial and agricultural Attainment/Maintenance Matter Annual 20 pg/m3 --- 2 capacity. Associated with operations; combustion smoke & (PM,o) increased cancer and vehicle exhaust; atmospheric State: mortality. Contributes to chemical reactions; construction Non -attainment (expected haze and reduced visibility. and other dust -producing number of days Includes some toxic air activities; unpaved road dust and above standard < contaminants. Many toxic & re -entrained paved road dust; or equal to 1) other aerosol and solid natural sources. compounds are part of PM,o. Fine 24 hours --- 35 pg/m3 Increases respiratory Combustion including motor Federal: Particulate disease, lung damage, vehicles, other mobile sources, Non -attainment Matter Annual 12 pglm3 12.0 pglm3 cancer, and premature and industrial activities; residential (PM2.e) death. Reduces visibility and agricultural burning; also State: 24 hours 35 pg/m3 and produces surface formed through atmospheric Non -attainment (conformity soiling. Most diesel exhaust chemical and photochemical process s) particulate matter — a toxic reactions involving other pollutants air contaminant— is in the including NOx, sulfur oxides Secondary --- 15 pg/m3 PM2e size range. Many (SOx), ammonia, and ROG. Standard toxic & other aerosol and (annual; also (981h percentile solid compounds are part of for over 3 years) PM2.e. conformity process s) Nitrogen 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm s Irritating to eyes and Motor vehicles and other mobile or Federal: Dioxide (98th percentile respiratory tract. Colors portable engines, especially Attainment/ (NO2)5 over 3 years) atmosphere reddish -brown. diesel; refineries; industrial Maintenance Contributes to cid rain & operations. Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm nitrate contamination of State: stormwater. Part of the Attainment "NOx" group of ozone precursors. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.5-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.5-1: State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources [continued] Pollutant Averaging StateB FedTypical Sources eral$ Principal Health and Project Area Time Standard Standard Atmospheric Effectsiiiiiiiiiimi Attainment Status Sulfur 1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm I Irritates respiratory tract; injures Fuel combustion (especially Federal: Dioxide (99th percentile lung tissue. Can yellow plant coal and high -sulfur oil), Unclassified/ (S02)' over 3 years) leaves. Destructive to marble, chemical plants, sulfur Attainment iron, steel. Contributes to acid recovery plants, metal 3 hours --- 0.5 ppm s rain. Limits visibility. processing; some natural State: sources like active volcanoes. Attainment 24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm (for Limited contribution possible certain areas from heavy-duty diesel vehicles if ultra-low sulfur fuel not used. Lead Monthly 1.5 pg/m3 --- Disturbs gastrointestinal Lead-based industrial Federal: (Pb)7,8,10 Calendar system. Causes anemia, processes like battery Non -attainment Quarter --- 1.5 pg/m3 kidney disease, and production and smelters. neuromuscular and Lead paint, leaded gasoline. State: Rolling 3- 0.15 pg/m3 11 neurological dysfunction. Also, Aerially deposited lead from Attainment month a toxic air contaminant and older gasoline use may exist average water pollutant. in soils along major roads. Visibility- 8 Hours (10 Extinction premature death, Combustion including motor Federal: N/A Reducing a.m. to 6 coefficient = hospitalizations and emergency vehicles, other mobile Particles9 p.m., PST) 0.23 department visits for worsened sources, and industrial State: km@<70 heart and lung diseases activities; residential and Unclassified percent RH agricultural burning. Sulfate 24 hours 25 pg/m3 --- Premature mortality and Industrial processes, Federal: NA respiratory effects. Contributes refineries and oil fields, to acid rain. Some toxic air mines, natural sources like State: contaminants attach to sulfate volcanic areas, salt -covered Attainment aerosol particles. dry lakes, and large sulfide rock areas. Hydrogen 1 hour 0.03 ppm --- Colorless, flammable, Industrial processes such as: Federal: NA Sulfide poisonous. Respiratory irritant. refineries and oil fields, (H2S) Neurological damage and asphalt plants, livestock State: premature death. Headache, operations, sewage treatment Unclassified nausea. Strong odor. plants, and mines. Some natural sources like volcanic areas and hot springs. Vinyl 24 hours 0.01 ppm --- Neurological effects, liver Industrial processes Federal: NA Chloride' damage, cancer. Also considered a toxic air State: N/A contaminant. Notes: pg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion; km = kilometer(s); RH = relative humidity; PST = Pacific Standard Time; N/A = Not Applicable 1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8 -hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8 -hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 pg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. 3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. 5. To attain the 1 -hour national standard, the 3 -year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1 -hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1 -hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1 -hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm. 6. On June 2, 2010, anew 1 -hour S02 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1 -hour national standard, the 3 -year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1 -hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 S02 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. Note that the 1 -hour national standard is in units of ppb. California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1 -hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm. 7. CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. 8. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3 -month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 pg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved. 9. In 1989, CARIB converted both the general Statewide 10 -mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30 -mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the Statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively. 10. Lead NAAQS are not considered in Transportation Conformity analysis. Source: California ARB Air Quality Standards chart, http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aags2.pdf, accessed January 10, 2019. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.5-5 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.2.5.2.4 Sensitive Receptors Sensitive populations (sensitive receptors) are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics and CO are of particular concern. According to the SCAQMD, a sensitive receptor is a person in the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, motels/hotels, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. The closest sensitive receptors to the proposed project include residential uses approximately 1,500 feet away. 2.2.5.2.5 Local Ambient Air Quality The SCAQMD operates several air quality monitoring stations throughout the Basin. The project site is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 3 (Southwest Coastal LA County). The communities within an SRA are expected to have similar climatology and subsequently, similar ambient air pollutant concentrations. The Los Angeles -Westchester Parkway Station is the closest monitoring station within SRA 3 to the project site (approximately 3.5 miles north). However, PM2.5 is not monitored at the Los Angeles -Westchester Monitoring Station and the nearest station to the project site monitoring PM2.5 is the Compton Monitoring Station. The data collected at these stations is considered to be representative of the air quality experienced on- site. Air quality data from 2011 to 2016 is provided in Table 2.2.5-2, Ambient Air Quality Summary — Los Angeles -Westchester and Compton Monitoring Stations. 2.2.5.2.6 Mobile Source Air Toxics Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Federal Clean Air Act. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non -road equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline. The EPA issued a Final Rule on Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources, 66 FR 17229 (March 29, 2001) and a subsequent Final Rule of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources, 40 CFR Parts 59, 80, 85, and 86 (February 26, 2007). These rules were issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Federal Clean Air Act. In its rules, the EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control programs, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle (NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements, and its proposed heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards and on -highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements. Even if vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increases by 45 percent as assumed between years 2010 and 2050, FHWA projects would reduce on -highway emissions by an average of 91 percent. Thus, the EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel standards were necessary to control MSATs. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.5-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.5-2: Ambient Air Quality Summary - Los Angeles -Westchester and Compton Monitoring Stations ppm = parts per million PM,o = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less µg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter PM2s = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less NM = Not Measured NA = Not Applicable Notes: 1. Maximum concentration is measured over the same period as the California Standard. 2. Measurements taken at the Los Angeles -Westchester Parkway Monitoring Station located at 7201 West Westchester Parkway, Los Angeles, California 90045. 3. Measurements taken at the Compton Monitoring Station located at 700 North Bullis Road, Compton, California 90221. 4. PM,o exceedances are based on State thresholds established prior to amendments adopted on June 20, 2002. 5. PM,o and PM2 a exceedances are derived from the number of samples exceeded, not days. Source: California Air Resources Board, ADAM Air Quality Data Statistics, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.5-7 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Primary Standard Maximum Number of Days PollutantYear Concentrations State/Federal 2012 2.82 0/0 California Federal 35 ppm 2013 Std. Exceeded ppm = parts per million PM,o = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less µg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter PM2s = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less NM = Not Measured NA = Not Applicable Notes: 1. Maximum concentration is measured over the same period as the California Standard. 2. Measurements taken at the Los Angeles -Westchester Parkway Monitoring Station located at 7201 West Westchester Parkway, Los Angeles, California 90045. 3. Measurements taken at the Compton Monitoring Station located at 700 North Bullis Road, Compton, California 90221. 4. PM,o exceedances are based on State thresholds established prior to amendments adopted on June 20, 2002. 5. PM,o and PM2 a exceedances are derived from the number of samples exceeded, not days. Source: California Air Resources Board, ADAM Air Quality Data Statistics, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.5-7 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) 2011 2.33 ppm O/0 2012 2.82 0/0 Carbon Monoxide (CO)2 20 ppm 35 ppm 2013 3.07 0/0 (1 -Hour) for 1 hour for 1 hour 2014 2.72 0/0 2015 1.68 0/0 2016 1.58 0/0 2011 1.79 ppm 0/0 2012 1.51 0/0 Carbon Monoxide (CO)2 9.0 ppm 9 ppm 2013 2.50 0/0 (8 -Hour) for 8 hours for 8 hours 2014 1.90 0/0 2015 1.40 0/0 2016 1.30 0/0 2011 0.078 ppm O/0 2012 0.106 1/0 Ozone (03)2 0.09 ppm N/A 2013 0.105 1/0 (1 -Hour) for 1 hour 2014 0.114 1/0 2015 0.096 1/0 2016 0.087 0/0 2011 0.067 ppm 0/0 2012 0.075 1/1 Ozone (03)2 0.07ppm 0.070 ppm 2013 0.082 1/1 (8 -Hour) for 8 hours for 8 hours 2014 0.080 6/3 2015 0.078 3/1 2016 0.080 3/2 2011 0.098 ppm 0/0 2012 0.077 0/0 Nitrogen Dioxide (NOx)2 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm 2013 0.078 0/0 (1 -Hour) for 1 hour for 1 hour 2014 0.087 0/0 2015 0.087 0/0 2016 0.082 0/0 2011 41.0 pg/m3 0/0 2012 31.0 0/0 Particulate Matter (PMIo)2,4 50 pg/m3 150 pg/m3 2013 38.0 0/0 (24 -Hour) for 24 hours for 24 hours 2014 46.0 0/0 2015 42.0 0/0 2016 43.0 0/0 2011 35.3 pg/m3 NM/0 2012 51.2 NM/1 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)3,5 No Separate 35 pg/m3 2013 52.1 NM/1 (24 -Hour) State Standard for 24 hours 2014 35.8 NM/1 2015 41.3 NM/3 2016 36.3 NM/1 ppm = parts per million PM,o = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less µg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter PM2s = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less NM = Not Measured NA = Not Applicable Notes: 1. Maximum concentration is measured over the same period as the California Standard. 2. Measurements taken at the Los Angeles -Westchester Parkway Monitoring Station located at 7201 West Westchester Parkway, Los Angeles, California 90045. 3. Measurements taken at the Compton Monitoring Station located at 700 North Bullis Road, Compton, California 90221. 4. PM,o exceedances are based on State thresholds established prior to amendments adopted on June 20, 2002. 5. PM,o and PM2 a exceedances are derived from the number of samples exceeded, not days. Source: California Air Resources Board, ADAM Air Quality Data Statistics, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.5-7 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The EPA is preparing a subsequent rule under the authority of Section 202(1) of the Federal Clean Air Act that would address these issues and make adjustments to the primary and secondary MSATs. FHWA released updated guidance in October 2016 for determining when and how to address MSAT impacts in the NEPA process for transportation projects. FHWA identified three levels of analysis: • Tier 1: No analysis for projects with no potential for meaningful MSAT effects; • Tier 2: Qualitative analysis for projects with low potential MSAT effects; or Tier 3: Quantitative analysis to differentiate alternatives for projects with higher potential MSAT effects. According to the Air Quality Assessment prepared for the proposed project, the project would fall into the second category above, and the qualitative analysis was performed. 2.2.5.2.7 Naturally -Occurring Asbestos Chrysotile and amphibole asbestos (such as tremolite) occur naturally in certain geologic settings in California, most commonly in association with ultramafic rocks and along associated faults. Asbestos is a known carcinogen and inhalation of asbestos may result in the development of lung cancer or mesothelioma. The asbestos contents of many manufactured products have been regulated in the United States for a number of years. For example, the CARB has regulated the amount of asbestos in crushed serpentinite used in surfacing applications, such as for gravel on unpaved roads, since 1990. In 1998, new concerns were raised about possible health hazards from activities that disturb rocks and soil containing asbestos and may result in the generation of asbestos laden dust. These concerns recently lead CARB to revise their asbestos limit for crushed serpentinite and ultramafic rock in surfacing applications from 5 percent to less than 0.25 percent, and to adopt a new rule requiring best practices dust control measures for activities that disturb rock and soil containing naturally occurring asbestos (NOA). NOA in bedrock is typically associated with serpentine and peridotite deposits. Note that during demolition activities, the likelihood of encountering structural asbestos is low due to the nature of the demolished materials. The material would consist primarily of concrete. Therefore, the potential for NOA to be present within the project limits is considered to be low. Furthermore, prior to the commencement of construction, qualified geologists would further examine the soils and makeup of the existing structure. Should the project geologist encounter asbestos during the analysis, proper steps shall be executed to handle the materials. 2.2.5.3 Environmental Consequences 2.2.5.3.1 Temporary Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) No temporary impacts regarding air quality would occur with implementation of the No -Build Alternative since no construction activity would occur with this alternative. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.5-8 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Alternatives 1A, IC, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Project construction would occur over a 24 -month period beginning in December 2020 and ending in December 2022. Project construction activities would not last more than five years at one general location, so construction -related emissions do not need to be included in regional and project -level conformity analysis (40 CFR 93.123(c)(5)). Project construction would result in temporary emissions of CO, NOx, ROG, PM2.5, and PM10. Stationary or mobile powered on-site construction equipment typically include trucks, tractors, signal boards, excavators, backhoes, concrete saws, crushing and/or processing equipment, graders, scrapers, trenchers, pavers, and other paving equipment. Based on the relatively minor amount of daily work trips required for project construction, construction worker trips are not anticipated to significantly contribute to or affect traffic flow on local roadways and are therefore not considered significant. During the demolition phase, some asphalt concrete (AC) pavement and curbs and gutters would have to be removed. Table 2.2.5-3, Estimated Daily Construction Emissions, depicts the estimated daily emissions associated with each construction phase. The emissions were estimated based on the assumptions described above and using the Roadway Construction Emissions Model (RCEM) (Version 8.1.0) developed by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). The emissions modeling is based on a conservative assumption of 250 cubic yards (CY) of earthwork per day. Limited detailed construction information was available at the time of this analysis; therefore, the analysis mostly relies on RCEM default assumptions, including the equipment fleet mix (refer to Appendix D of the Air Quality Assessment for a full list of default construction equipment assumptions). The construction schedule indicates that overlapping activities would occur throughout the project corridor. Table 2.2.5-3: Estimated Daily Construction Emissions ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter up to 10 microns; PM2.e = particulate matter up to 2.5 microns Notes: 1. Emissions were calculated using the Roadway Construction Emissions Model (RCEM) (Version 8.1.0) developed by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2. PMio and PM2.® estimates assume control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures. 3. Emissions include the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust. RCEM is a data -entry spreadsheet that utilizes various sources to estimate construction emissions, including OFFROAD and EMFAC2014. RCEM is recommended by Caltrans and the SCAQMD as it is specifically developed to estimate emissions associated with roadway construction projects since the default equipment, activities, and typical phasing are different than those of land use development projects and building construction projects. The RCEM phasing assumptions were used to allocate the project specific construction equipment to the specific phases. The methodologies and assumptions used in RCEM are appropriate for road Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.5-9 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Pollutant (pounds/day)' Construction Phase ROG CO NOx PM102, 3 PM2.52, 3 Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.97 6.90 11.59 50.52 10.82 Grading/Excavation 5.44 44.37 59.70 52.80 12.89 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 4.19 36.94 41.97 52.01 12.26 Paving 1.50 16.92 14.70 0.86 0.77 Maximum 5.44 44.37 59.70 52.80 12.89 ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter up to 10 microns; PM2.e = particulate matter up to 2.5 microns Notes: 1. Emissions were calculated using the Roadway Construction Emissions Model (RCEM) (Version 8.1.0) developed by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2. PMio and PM2.® estimates assume control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures. 3. Emissions include the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust. RCEM is a data -entry spreadsheet that utilizes various sources to estimate construction emissions, including OFFROAD and EMFAC2014. RCEM is recommended by Caltrans and the SCAQMD as it is specifically developed to estimate emissions associated with roadway construction projects since the default equipment, activities, and typical phasing are different than those of land use development projects and building construction projects. The RCEM phasing assumptions were used to allocate the project specific construction equipment to the specific phases. The methodologies and assumptions used in RCEM are appropriate for road Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.5-9 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures construction projects, including new road construction, road widening and bridge or overpass construction. In order to further minimize construction -related emissions, all construction vehicles and construction equipment would be required to be equipped with CARB-mandated emission control devices pursuant to state emission regulations and standard construction practices. After construction of the proposed project is complete, all construction -related impacts would cease, thus impacts would not be adverse. Short-term construction particulate matter emissions would be further reduced through the implementation of dust suppression measures outlined within SCAQMD Rule 403. The proposed project would comply with any state, federal, and/or local rules and regulations developed as a result of implementing control and minimization measures proposed as part of their respective SIPs. Therefore, project construction is not anticipated to violate state or federal air quality standards or contribute to the existing air quality violations in the Basin. Naturallv-Occurrinq Asbestos The California Geological Survey Geological Map Index includes geological maps indicate geological formations, which are overlaid on a topographic map. Some maps focus on specific issues (i.e., bedrock, sedimentary rocks, etc.), while others may identify artificial fills (including landfills). Geological maps can be effective in estimating permeability and other factors that influence the spread of contamination. According to the California Geological Survey (formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology [CDMG]) document entitled A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California — Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report (August 2000), the proposed project is not located in an area where NOA is likely to be present. The likelihood of encountering structural asbestos during demolition activities would also be remote due to the nature of the demolished materials (primarily concrete). Furthermore, qualified geologists would further examine the soils and makeup of existing onsite structures prior to the commencement of construction. Should the project geologist encounter asbestos during the analysis, proper steps shall be executed to handle the materials. Lead In the Basin, atmospheric lead is generated almost entirely by the combustion of leaded gasoline and contributes less than one percent of the material collected as Total Suspended Particulate (TSP). Atmospheric lead concentrations have been reduced substantially in recent years due to the lowering of average lead content in gasoline. Exceedances of the state air quality standard for lead (monthly average concentration of 1.50 pg/m3) now are confined to the densely populated portions of Riverside County, where vehicle traffic is greatest. The project site is not located within Riverside County and, thus, is not anticipated to involve disturbance of soils containing elevated levels of aerially -deposited lead. Further, the project would not involve the painting or modification of structures with lead-based coatings. As a result, the project has fully addressed the lead impact and no further analysis is required. 2.2.5.3.2 Permanent Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Under the No -Build Alternative, the grade separation and gap closure improvements as well as the pedestrian and bicycle facilities associated with the proposed project would not be Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.5-10 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures constructed. Thus, the project purpose to relieve congestion along portions of Rosecrans Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard, as well as improve local traffic circulation and access to and from the 1-105 freeway (all resulting in air quality benefits) would not occur. Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Reqional Conformitv The proposed project is listed in the 2016 financially constrained Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (RTP ID LAOG321), which was found to conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) by the FHWA and FTA on June 1, and June 2, 2016. The project is also included in SCAG's financially constrained 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). The FTIP was determined to conform to the State Implementation Plan by the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration on December 16, 2016 (FTIP ID LAOG321). The design concept and scope of the proposed project is consistent with the project description in the 2016 RTP/SCS and 2017 FTIP and the assumptions in the SCAG regional emissions analysis. Proiect-Level Conformitv The Transportation Conformity Rule requires that federal projects not cause or contribute to any new localized CO, PM,o, and/or PM2.5 violations, or increase the frequency or severity of any existing CO, PM,o, and/or PM2.5 violations in CO, PM,o, and PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas; refer to Table 2.2.5-1. Project effects related to these pollutants are discussed in the following paragraphs. An Air Quality Conformity Analysis (AQCA) was prepared for the project and submitted to the FHWA on January 31, 2019. The FHWA issued their Project Level Conformity Determination on February 22, 2019. The FHWA Conformity Determination is provided as Appendix J of this E I R/EA. Particulate Matter The proposed project is located within a maintenance area for federal PM10 standards and nonattainment area for federal PM2.5 standards. Thus, a particulate matter conformity analysis is required pursuant to 40 CFR Part 93. However, the EPA does not require a qualitative or quantitative hot -spot analysis for projects which are not listed in Section 93.213(b)(1) as a project of air quality concern (POAQC). 40 CFR 93.101 defines a hot -spot analysis as an estimation of future localized pollutant concentrations resulting from a new transportation project and a comparison of those concentrations to the relevant air quality standard. According to PM analysis guidance, a substantial volume for a new highway or expressway is defined as an ADT volume of 125,000 or more, and a substantial number of diesel vehicles is defined as 8 percent or more of that total ADT, or more than 10,000 truck ADT. A substantial increase in diesel truck traffic is usually considered to be approximately 10 percent. The proposed project is not a new or expanded highway project that would have a significant number of, or increase in, diesel vehicles. The project would result in additional capacity and would improve the overall operational performance of Park Place and other congested roadways within the project vicinity (i.e., Rosecrans Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard) and access to and from the 1-405. Opening Year traffic volumes would range between 80 to 70,880 ADT in the project study area, which include truck volumes which range from 2 to 15,321 ADT; Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.5-11 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures refer to Table 5, Opening Year 2021 Traffic Volumes, in the Air Quality Assessment. The existing ADT in the project area are well below 125,000 ADT, and diesel truck trips represent approximately two percent of the overall traffic volumes in the area. Based on the analysis, the proposed improvements would not affect truck travel in the project area. Vehicle and truck volumes would generally increase along local roadways within the project vicinity (i.e., Allied Way, Nash Street, Douglas Street, and Park Place); however, these improvements would result due to the circulation improvements in the proposed gap closure project. Truck volumes would be less than 10,000 ADT in both the Opening Year and the Horizon Year (2040); refer to Table 6, Horizon Year 2040 Traffic Volumes, in the Air Quality Assessment. Additionally, the overall percentage of trucks would remain at approximately two percent within the project area, as in compliance with the RTP/FTIP. The proposed improvements would improve overall performance, reduce congestion increase ramp and mainline capacity, and improve operational deficiencies at merge and diverge locations within the project limits and would not induce additional growth in the area. As a result, the proposed project would not result in a significant increase of diesel vehicles. Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.123(b)(i) and (ii), any new or expanded highway project that does not involve a substantial number (8 percent or more of total ADT) or increase in the number of diesel vehicles (greater than 10 percent) is not of air quality concern and, consequently, does not require a PM2.5 or PM,o hot -spot analysis. FHWA has assigned its NEPA responsibilities to Caltrans for highway projects. There are two forms of assignment: Title 23 of the United States Code Section 326 (23 USC 326), which covers most Categorical Exclusion (CE) determinations, and 23 USC 327, the broader NEPA assignment program. Projects covered under 23 USC 326 are processed using certain NEPA CEs only, and the conformity determination is made along with NEPA approval by Caltrans. Projects covered under 23 USC 327 may include some that use a NEPA CE, and include all that use a more robust document leading to a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision (ROD). Projects under 23 USC 327 require a conformity determination from FHWA, although all other NEPA-related actions are assigned to Caltrans. The proposed project is being processed under 23 USC 327. It should be noted that 23 USC 326 and 23 USC 327 were codified by the surface transportation reauthorization act, MAP -21. Projects that are approved under MAP -21 must include evidence in the project file that one of the three following situations applies: Conformity does not apply to the project area. This would be true if the area is "attainment/unclassifiable" for all NAAQS (i.e., it has never been nonattainment for any of the current NAAQS). As of January 2014, this was true in all of District 1, most of District 2, and parts of Districts 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10. The official source of area designation information is the EPA's "Green Book" and the area designation regulations at 40 CFR 81.305 California. 2. The project is exempt from all conformity analysis requirements. This would be true if the project fits one of the categories listed in "Table 2" of the conformity regulations at 40 CFR 93.126, or is a signal synchronization project using only existing signals covered by 40 CFR 93.128. In areas subject to conformity requirements, these projects do not require a project -level analysis or conformity determination. If the project area is designated "attainment/unclassifiable" for CO, PM1o, and PM2.5, or if the project type is listed in "Table 3" of the conformity rule at 40 CFR 93.127, the project would also be considered exempt from conformity analysis requirements. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.5-12 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 3. The project is subject to project -level conformity analysis requirements, and meets the criteria for a conformity determination. This is true if all relevant conformity procedures have been completed, including interagency consultation if a particulate matter hot -spot analysis (including finding that the project is not a POAQC for PM10 or PM2.5) is needed, and the project is found to meet all hot -spot and regional (if applicable) conformity criteria. The proposed project is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which is a federally designated nonattainment area for 03 and PM2.5 and maintenance for PM10; thus, situation 1 would not apply. "Table 2" of 40 CFR 93.126 describes the projects that are exempt from the requirement to determine conformity. Such projects may proceed toward implementation even in the absence of a conforming transportation plan and FTIP. The proposed project does not fall under any of the classifications outlined under "Table 2;" thus, situation 2 would not apply. Situation 3 requires interagency consultation to meet all hot -spot conformity criteria. The proposed project was submitted to stakeholders at a Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) meeting on January 24, 2017, pursuant to the interagency consultation requirement of 40 CFR 93.105 (c)(1)(i). EPA, CARB, SCAQMD, and other interagency consultation participants concurred that the project is not a POAQC. The project would not add diesel truck capacity or be a major truck traffic generator, and diesel heavy truck traffic makes up approximately 2 percent of the total traffic volumes within the project limits; refer to Appendix B, PM Interagency Consultation, of the Air Quality Assessment. Therefore, the proposed project would not be considered a POAQC under 40 CFR 93.126 as it would not create a new or worsen an existing PM2.5 violation. Consequently, PM2.5 and PM10 hot -spot analyses are not required for this project, and were not undertaken as part of this analysis. Carbon Monoxide In California, the procedures of the local analysis for CO are modified pursuant to 40 CFR 93.123(a)(1) of the Transportation Conformity Rule. A CO hot -spot analysis was performed per the 1997 Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol) developed by the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis (UC Davis). The analysis concluded that implementation of the proposed project would reduce congestion and overall travel time due to overall improvements during build conditions. Additionally, the proposed project does not involve parking lots, and therefore would not increase the number of vehicles operating in cold start mode. The percentage of trucks within the project limits is less than two percent, which is below the national average of 8 percent and equates to substantially less than 10,000 vehicles; refer to the discussion above. Further, the project would not result in higher background CO concentrations than those existing within the region at the time of attainment demonstration. As a result, the proposed project has sufficiently addressed the carbon monoxide impact and no further analysis is needed. Mobile Source Air Toxics Incomplete or Unavailable Information for Project -Specific MSAT Health Impact Analysis According to FHWA, information is incomplete or unavailable to credibly predict the project - specific health impacts due to changes in MSAT emissions associated with a proposed set of highway alternatives. The outcome of such an assessment, adverse or not, would be influenced more by the uncertainty introduced into the process through assumption and Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.5-13 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures speculation rather than any genuine insight into the actual health impacts directly attributable to MSAT exposure associated with a proposed action. The EPA is responsible for protecting the public health and welfare from any known or anticipated effect of an air pollutant. They are the lead authority for administering the Clean Air Act and its amendments and have specific statutory obligations with respect to hazardous air pollutants and MSAT emissions. The EPA is in the continual process of assessing human health effects, exposures, and risks posed by air pollutants. They maintain the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which is "a compilation of electronic reports on specific substances found in the environment and their potential to cause human health effects .112 Each report contains assessments of non -cancerous and cancerous effects for individual compounds and quantitative estimates of risk levels from lifetime oral and inhalation exposures with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude. Other organizations are also active in the research and analyses of the human health effects of MSAT, including the Health Effects Institute (HEI). Two HEI studies are summarized in Appendix D of FHWA's Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. Among the adverse health effects linked to MSAT compounds at high exposures are cancer in humans in occupational settings; cancer in animals; and irritation to the respiratory tract, including the exacerbation of asthma. Less obvious is the adverse human health effects of MSAT compounds at current environmental concentrations3 or in the future as vehicle emissions substantially decrease.4 The methodologies for forecasting health impacts include emissions modeling; dispersion modeling; exposure modeling; and then final determination of health impacts — each step in the process building on the model predictions obtained in the previous step. All are encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete differentiation of the MSAT health impacts among a set of project alternatives. These difficulties are magnified for lifetime (i.e., 70 year) assessments, particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over that time frame, since such information is unavailable. It is particularly difficult to reliably forecast 70 -year lifetime MSAT concentrations and exposure near roadways; to determine the portion of time that people are actually exposed at a specific location; and to establish the extent attributable to a proposed action, especially given that some of the information needed is unavailable. There are considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various MSAT, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure data to the general population, a concern expressed by HE1.5 As a result, there is no national consensus on air dose -response values assumed to protect the public health and welfare for MSAT compounds, and in particular for diesel particulate matter. 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), November 2013. http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.html 3 Health Effects Institute, Mobile -Source Air Toxics: A Critical Review of the Literature on Exposure and Health Effects, January 2007. 4 Health Effects Institute, Traffic -Related Air Pollution: A Critical Review of the Literature on Emissions, Exposure, and Health Effects, May 2009. 5 Health Effects Institute, Mobile -Source Air Toxics: A Critical Review of the Literature on Exposure and Health Effects, January 2007. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.5-14 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The EPA and the HE 17 have not established a basis for quantitative risk assessment of diesel particulate matter in ambient settings. There is also the lack of a national consensus on an acceptable level of risk. The current context is the process used by the EPA as provided by the Clean Air Act to determine whether more stringent controls are required in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental effect for industrial sources subject to the maximum achievable control technology standards, such as benzene emissions from refineries. The decision framework is a two-step process. The first step requires EPA to determine a "safe" or "acceptable" level of risk due to emissions from a source, which is generally no greater than approximately 100 in a million. Additional factors are considered in the second step, the goal of which is to maximize the number of people with risks less than one in a million due to emissions from a source. The results of this statutory two-step process do not guarantee that cancer risks from exposure to air toxics are less than one in a million; in some cases, the residual risk determination could result in maximum individual cancer risks that are as high as approximately 100 in a million. In a June 2008 decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld EPA's approach to addressing risk in its two-step decision framework. Information is incomplete or unavailable to establish that even the largest of highway projects would result in levels of risk greater than safe or acceptable. Because of the limitations in the methodologies for forecasting health impacts described, any predicted difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with predicting the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to weigh this information against project benefits, such as reducing traffic congestion, accident rates, and fatalities plus improved access for emergency response, that are better suited for quantitative analysis. MSAT Emissions in the Project Area The proposed project's emitted MSAT's would be proportional to the VMT. Each alternative would involve localized areas where the VMT would increase, and other areas where VMTs would decrease. Thus, localized increases and decreases in MSATs could occur. The localized increases in MSAT emissions would likely be most pronounced along the new roadway sections for the Park Place Extension (i.e., Park Place from Allied Way to Nash Street), proposed in each alternative. However, even if these increases do occur, impacts would be substantially reduced due to the future implementation of EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations.8 Additionally, MSAT emissions under the Build Alternatives would be offset compared to the No Build scenario due to traffic flow improvements and the more direct routing that would be provided with project implementation. As such, the proposed project would not result in any adverse MSAT impacts. 2.2.5.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. 6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Portal, Accessed February 2015. http://www.epa.gov/risk#g Health Effects Institute, Summaries of Studies of Diesel Exhaust, November 2007. b The U.S. EPA's national control programs are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by over 90 percent from 2010 to 2050 (Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents, Federal Highway Administration, October 12, 2016). Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.5-15 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.2.5.5 Climate Change Neither the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) nor the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has issued explicit guidance or methods to conduct project -level greenhouse gas analysis. FHWA emphasizes concepts of resilience and sustainability in highway planning, project development, design, operations, and maintenance. Because there have been requirements set forth in California legislation and executive orders on climate change, the issue is addressed in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) chapter of this document. The CEQA analysis may be used to inform the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) determination for the project. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.5-16 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.2.6 Noise 2.2.6.1 Regulatory Setting The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provide the broad basis for analyzing and abating highway traffic noise effects. The intent of these laws is to promote the general welfare and to foster a healthy environment. The requirements for noise analysis and consideration of noise abatement and/or mitigation, however, differ between NEPA and CEQA. 2.2.6.1.1 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA requires a strict baseline versus build analysis to assess whether a proposed project will have a noise impact. If a proposed project is determined to have a significant noise impact under CEQA, then CEQA dictates that mitigation measures must be incorporated into the project unless those measures are not feasible. The rest of this section will focus on the NEPA/23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772 (23 CFR 772) noise analysis; please see Chapter 3 of this document for further information on noise analysis under CEQA. 2.2.6.1.2 National Environmental Policy Act and 23 CFR 772 For highway transportation projects with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) involvement (and the Department, as assigned), the Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1970 and its implementing regulations (23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 772) govern the analysis and abatement of traffic noise impacts. The regulations require that potential noise impacts in areas of frequent human use be identified during the planning and design of a highway project. The regulations include noise abatement criteria (NAC) that are used to determine when a noise impact would occur. The NAC differ depending on the type of land use under analysis. For example, the NAC for residences (67 dBA) is lower than the NAC for commercial areas (72 dBA). The following table lists the noise abatement criteria for use in the NEPA/23 CFR 772 analysis. Table 2.2.6-1: Noise Abatement Criteria Activity NAC, Hourly A -Weighted Description of Activity Category Category Noise Level (dBA-Leq[h]) Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.6-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an A 57 (Exterior) important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B' 67 (Exterior) Residential. Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, C' 67 (Exterior) playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, television studios, trails, and trail crossings. Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of worship, D 52 (Interior) public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios. E 72 (Exterior) Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties, or activities not included in A–D or F. Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, maintenance F No NAC—reporting only facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment, electrical, etc.), and warehousing. G No NAC—reporting only Undeveloped lands that are not permitted. Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category. The LeQ(h) activity criteria values are for impact determination only and are not design standards for noise abatement measures. All values are A - weighted decibels (dBA). Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.6-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Figure 2.2.6-1, Noise Levels of Common Activities, lists the noise levels of common activities to enable readers to compare the actual and predicted highway noise levels discussed in this section with common activities. Figure 2.2.6-1: Noise Levels of Common Activities Common Outdoor Noise Level Common Indoor Activities (dBA) Activities 110 Rock Band Jet Fly -over at 300m (1000 ft) 100 Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft) 90 Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft), Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft) at 80 km (50 mph) $0 Garbage Disposal at 1 m (3 ft) Noisy Urban Area, Daytime Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft) 70 Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft) Commercial Area Normal Speech at 1 m (3 ft) Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft) 60 Large Business Office Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Dishwasher Next Room Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Theater, Large Conference Quiet Suburban Nighttime Room (Background) 30 Library Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (Background) 20 Broadcast/Recording Studio 10 Lowest Threshold of Human Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing O Hearing According to Caltrans' Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects, May 2011, a noise impact occurs when the predicted future noise level with the project substantially exceeds the existing noise level (defined as a 12 dBA or more increase) or when the future noise level with the project approaches or exceeds the NAC. Approaching the NAC is defined as coming within 1 dBA of the NAC. If it is determined that the project will have noise impacts, then potential abatement measures must be considered. Noise abatement measures that are determined to be reasonable and feasible at the time of final design are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. This document discusses noise abatement measures that would likely be incorporated in the project. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.6-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The Caltrans' Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol sets forth the criteria for determining when an abatement measure is reasonable and feasible. Feasibility of noise abatement is basically an engineering concern. A minimum 5 dBA reduction for all impacted receptors in the future noise levels must be achieved for an abatement to be considered feasible. Other considerations include topography, access requirements, other noise sources, and safety considerations. Additionally, a noise reduction of at least 7 dBA must be achieved at one or more benefited receptors for an abatement measure to be considered reasonable. The reasonableness determination is basically a cost -benefit analysis. Factors used in determining whether a proposed noise abatement measure is reasonable include: residents' acceptance and the cost per benefited residence. 2.2.6.2 Affected Environment This section is based on the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Noise Study Report (November 2017) prepared for the proposed project. 2.2.6.2.1 Surrounding Land Uses and Sensitive Receptors The project's existing conditions involve the conditions before construction of the proposed project. An inventory of land uses within the project area was identified through a field inspection on March 7, 2017. Land uses within the project area were categorized by land use type, NAC Activity Category (as defined in Table 2.2.6-1 above), and frequency of human use The project area is highly urbanized and is surrounded by commercial uses (retail and office, NAC Activity Category E). As noise abatement is only considered for areas of frequent human use that would benefit from a lowered noise level, the noise analysis focused on locations with defined outdoor activity areas, such as outdoor dining areas (there are no residences in the project area). Vehicular traffic along Park Place, Allied Way, and Nash Street represent the primary existing noise sources within the project area. Short -Term Monitoring On March 7, 2017, Michael Baker staff conducted three short-term noise measurements at the commercial uses (NAC Activity Category E); refer to Figure 2.2.6-2, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations. Short-term noise measurement locations were selected within the project area to determine existing noise levels, and verify or calibrate the noise prediction model. Measurements occurred over a 15 -minute duration at each site. Table 2.2.6-2, Summary of Short -Term Measurements, summarizes the results of the short-term noise monitoring conducted in the project area. Measured traffic noise levels were compared with modeled noise levels at field measurement locations using the FHWA's Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5 (TNM 2.5). Table 2.2.6-3, Comparison of Measured to Predicted Sound Levels in the TNM Model, compares measured and modeled noise levels at the measurement locations; refer to Figure 2.2.6-2, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations. As concluded within Table 2.2.6-3, the project's modeled (predicted) sound levels are within 2 dB of the measured traffic sound levels and are considered to be in reasonable agreement with the measured sound levels. Thus, modeled sound levels did not require application of correction factors (K -factors). Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.6-3 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.6-2: Summary of Short -Term Measurements Notes: 1. Refer to Exhibit 4 for measurement locations. Source: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Noise Study Report, November 2017 Table 2.2.6-3: Comparison of Measured to Predicted Sound Levels in the TNM Model Measurement Location' ST -1 ST -2 ST -3 Measured Sound Level (dBA) 61.0 58.7 54.4 Predicted Sound Level (dBA) 59.4 60.3 52.5 Notes: 1. Refer to Exhibit 4 for measurement locations. Source: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Noise Study Report, November 2017 Existing Noise Levels Measured minus Predicted (dB) 1.6 -1.6 1.9 The worst-case traffic volumes and posted vehicle speeds were coded into TNM 2.5 with existing roadway conditions. The results of the existing traffic noise modeling are shown in Table 2.2.6-4, Existing Traffic Noise Levels. Table 2.2.6-4: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Receiver Type of Land Noise Impact Measured Noise Modeled Existing No. Location/APN Use Abatement Autos Medium Heavy Observed Locations APN ArealLand Start Date Duration Measured 58.7 Trucks Trucks Speed 72 58.7 Use Time3 E (minutes) Leq 54 M-4 4138-015-045 Commercial E 72 58.7 51 M-5 4138-015-060 Commercial E 72 61.0 48 EB WB EB WB EB WB (mph) ST -1 4138- E/Commercial 10:37 a.m. 3/7/17 15 61.0 31 37 3 2 1 1 25 dBA = A -weighted decibel; N/A = not available 015-060 Notes: 1. The measured noise level was taken during off-peak hours. ST -2 4138- E/Commercial 11:00 a.m. 3/7/17 15 58.7 34 32 2 1 1 1 25 015-053 Source: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Noise Study Report, November 2017 ST -3 4138- E/Commercial 11:31 a.m. 3/7/17 15 54.4 20 22 1 3 0 0 25 015-015 Notes: 1. Refer to Exhibit 4 for measurement locations. Source: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Noise Study Report, November 2017 Table 2.2.6-3: Comparison of Measured to Predicted Sound Levels in the TNM Model Measurement Location' ST -1 ST -2 ST -3 Measured Sound Level (dBA) 61.0 58.7 54.4 Predicted Sound Level (dBA) 59.4 60.3 52.5 Notes: 1. Refer to Exhibit 4 for measurement locations. Source: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Noise Study Report, November 2017 Existing Noise Levels Measured minus Predicted (dB) 1.6 -1.6 1.9 The worst-case traffic volumes and posted vehicle speeds were coded into TNM 2.5 with existing roadway conditions. The results of the existing traffic noise modeling are shown in Table 2.2.6-4, Existing Traffic Noise Levels. Table 2.2.6-4: Existing Traffic Noise Levels Receiver Type of Land Noise Impact Measured Noise Modeled Existing No. Location/APN Use Abatement Criteria Level' Noise Levelz Category M-1 4138-015-053 Commercial E 72 58.7 54 M-2 4138-015-053 Commercial E 72 58.7 54 M-3 4138-015-053 Commercial E 72 58.7 54 M-4 4138-015-045 Commercial E 72 58.7 51 M-5 4138-015-060 Commercial E 72 61.0 48 M-6 4138-015-029 Commercial E 72 54.4 48 M-7 4138-015-015 Commercial E 72 54.4 56 M-8 4138-015-025 Commercial E 72 54.4 50 dBA = A -weighted decibel; N/A = not available Notes: 1. The measured noise level was taken during off-peak hours. 2. The modeled noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel and are based on traffic volumes within the Traffic Impact Assessment November 29, 2016. Source: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Noise Study Report, November 2017 As indicated in Table 2.2.6-4, none of the eight modeled receptor locations approach or exceed the applicable NAC under existing conditions. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.6-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Source: NCM Engineering Corporation, August 2017. Note: Alternative 1A is shown, however, noise measurement and monitoring locations are the same for each Build Alternative. -0 NOT TO SCALE 08/18 1 A 145070 PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations Figure 2.2.6-2 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Back of 11 x 17. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.6-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.2.6.3 Environmental Consequences The project footprint and operational characteristics for all four Build Alternatives is similar; therefore, the discussion of Alternatives 1A, 1 C, 3A, and 3B below is combined into a single discussion of Build Alternatives, since implementation of any of the four Build Alternative would result in similar impacts. 2.2.6.3.1 Temporary Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Project improvements would not occur under the No -Build Alternative; therefore, the No -Build Alternative would not involve temporary noise impacts. Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) During construction of the project, noise from construction activities may intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area of construction. Construction noise would result from the transport of construction workers, equipment and materials to and from the project site, as well as from actual roadway construction activities. However, construction activities would occur between the City's allowable construction hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and are prohibited on Sundays and Federal holidays (EI Segundo Municipal Code, Chapter 7-2-10). Table 2.2.6-5, Construction Equipment Noise, summarizes noise levels produced by construction equipment that is commonly used on roadway construction projects. Construction equipment is expected to generate noise levels up to 95 dB at a distance of 25 feet, 89 dB at 50 feet, and 83 at 100 feet. Noise produced by construction equipment would be reduced over distance at a rate of about 6 dB per doubling of distance. Table 2.2.6-5: Construction Equipment Noise Maximum Noise Maximum Noise Level Maximum Noise Level Maximum Noise Equipment Level (dBA at 50 feet) (dBA at 100 feet) Level (dBA at 25 feet) (dBA at 600 feet) Scrapers 95 89 83 67 Bulldozers 91 85 79 63 Heavy Trucks 94 88 82 66 Backhoe 86 80 74 58 Pneumatic Tools 91 85 79 63 Concrete Pump 88 82 76 30 Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006. There are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. The closest receivers are the commercial uses located along Park Place. These commercial areas would be subject to short- term noise levels between 86 and 95 dBA Lmex generated by construction activities along the project alignment. However, no adverse noise impacts from construction are anticipated as construction activities would occur between the City's allowable construction hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Construction activities would not occur on Sundays and Federal holidays. Construction noise would be short-term and intermittent, and would cease upon completion of the project. Further, implementation of Measures N-1 and N-2 would minimize the temporary noise impacts from construction, by requiring sound -control Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.6-7 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures devices/mufflers on construction equipment and providing attenuation around stationary construction noise sources, among others. 2.2.6.3.2 Permanent Impacts The project is considered a Type 1 project under 23 CFR 772 since it entails a "proposed federal or federal aid highway project for the construction of a highway on a new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway, which changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the number of through -traffic lanes." All Type I projects are required to consider noise abatement measures. To determine traffic -related noise attributed to the project, model runs for the No -Build and Build Alternatives were developed using TNM 2.5 computer modeling. As discussed in the Noise Study Report, the project would result in a traffic noise impact if either the traffic noise level at a sensitive receiver location is predicted to "approach or exceed" the NAC or if the predicted traffic noise level is 12 dBA or more over the corresponding modeled existing peak noise level at the sensitive receiver locations analyzed. When traffic noise impacts occur, noise abatement measures must be considered. Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Table 2.2.6-6, Predicted Traffic Noise Levels — Future No Build, summarizes the traffic noise modeling results for existing conditions and design year (2021) conditions without the project. To determine whether a traffic noise impact would occur, predicted design -year traffic noise levels without the project (No -Build Alternative) are compared to existing conditions. The modeled future noise levels for each receiver were also compared to their respective NAC Activity Category. Refer to Table 2.2.6-1 for a summary of NAC Activity Categories and their respective land use categories. Table 2.2.6-6: Predicted Traffic Noise Levels — Future No Build Receptor Land Use Noise Impact Measured Modeled Future No No. Location/APN Type Abatement Criteria Noise Level Existing Noise Build 2 Category Levell,z M-1 4138-015-053 Commercial E 72 58.7 54 53 M-2 4138-015-053 Commercial E 72 58.7 54 53 M-3 4138-015-053 Commercial E 72 58.7 54 52 M-4 4138-015-045 Commercial E 72 58.7 51 49 M-5 4138-015-060 Commercial E 72 61.0 48 47 M-6 4138-015-029 Commercial E 72 54.4 48 48 M-7 4138-015-015 Commercial E 72 54.4 56 56 M-8 4138-015-025 Commercial E 72 54.4 50 50 Notes: 1. Modeling results are rounded to the nearest decibel. 2. The modeled noise levels are based on traffic volumes within the Traffic Impact Assessment, November 29, 2016. Source: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Noise Study Report, November 2017 As concluded in Table 2.2.6-6, noise levels under the No -Build Alternative would not approach or exceed the NAC Activity Category of 72 dBA Leq(h) for Category E land uses or result in a substantial increase in noise. Therefore, the No -Build Alternative would not involve adverse permanent noise impacts which would require avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.6-8 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Alternatives 1A, IC, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Traffic noise modeling results for existing conditions and design year (2021) conditions under Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, and 3B are presented in Tables 2.2.6-7 through 2.2.6-10 below. To determine whether a traffic noise impact would occur, predicted design -year traffic noise levels with the project (Build Alternatives) are compared to existing conditions and to design -year (2021) conditions without the project. The predicted future noise levels for each receiver were also compared to the predicted design -year (2021) conditions without the project. The modeled future noise levels for each receiver were also compared to their respective NAC Activity Category. Refer to Table 2.2.6-1 for a summary of NAC Activity Categories and their respective land use categories. Table 2.2.6-7: Predicted Traffic Noise Levels — Alternative 1A Receptor No. Location/APN Land Use Type Noise Abatement Category Impact Criteria Measured Noise Level Modeled Existing Noise Levell,2 Future No Build 1 2 Alternative 1A',2 1A M-1 4138-015-053 Commercial E 72 58.7 54 53 57 M-2 4138-015-053 Commercial E 72 58.7 54 53 55 M-3 4138-015-053 Commercial E 72 58.7 54 52 54 M-4 4138-015-045 Commercial E 72 58.7 51 49 52 M-5 4138-015-060 Commercial E 72 61.0 48 47 50 M-6 4138-015-029 Commercial E 72 54.4 48 48 58 M-7 4138-015-015 Commercial E 72 54.4 56 56 59 M-8 4138-015-025 Commercial E 72 54.4 50 50 54 Notes: 1. Modeling results are rounded to the nearest decibel. 2. The modeled noise levels are based on traffic volumes within the Traffic Impact Assessment November 29, 2016 Source: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Noise Study Report, November 2017 Table 2.2.6-8: Predicted Traffic Noise Levels —Alternative 1 C Receptor No. LocationlAPN Land Use Type Noise Abatement Category Impact Criteria Measured Noise Level Modeled Existing Noise Le el Future No Buildl,2 Alternative 1C1,2 M-1 4138-015-053 Commercial E 72 58.7 54 53 57 M-2 4138-015-053 Commercial E 72 58.7 54 53 52 M-3 4138-015-053 Commercial E 72 58.7 54 52 53 M-4 4138-015-045 Commercial E 72 58.7 51 49 52 M-5 4138-015-060 Commercial E 72 61.0 48 47 50 M-6 4138-015-029 Commercial E 72 54.4 48 48 57 M-7 4138-015-015 Commercial E 72 54.4 56 56 59 I M-8 4138-015-025 Commercial E 72 54.4 50 50 54 I Notes: 1. Modeling results are rounded to the nearest decibel. 2. The modeled noise levels are based on traffic volumes within the Traffic Impact Assessment November 29, 2016 Source: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Noise Study Report, November 2017 Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.6-9 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.2.6-9: Predicted Traffic Noise Levels — Alternative 3A Receptor Land Use Noise Impact Measured Modeled Future No Alternative No. LocationlAPN Type Abatement Criteria Noise Level Existing Noise Build' 3A Category Level',z M-1 4138-015-053 Commercial E 72 58.7 54 53 57 M-2 4138-015-053 Commercial E 72 58.7 54 53 53 M-3 4138-015-053 Commercial E 72 58.7 54 52 53 M-4 4138-015-045 Commercial E 72 58.7 51 49 52 M-5 4138-015-060 Commercial E 72 61.0 48 47 50 M-6 4138-015-029 Commercial E 72 54.4 48 48 57 M-7 4138-015-015 Commercial E 72 54.4 56 56 59 M-8 4138-015-025 Commercial E 72 54.4 50 50 54 Notes: 1. Modeling results are rounded to the nearest decibel. 2. The modeled noise levels are based on traffic volumes within the Traffic Impact Assessment November 29, 2016. Source: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Noise Study Report, November 2017 Table 2.2.6-10: Predicted Traffic Noise Levels — Alternative 313 Receptor Land Use Noise Impact Measured Modeled Future No Alternative No. Location/APN Type Abatement Criteria Noise Level Existing Noise Build z 3B 2 Category Level',2 M-1 4138-015-053 Commercial E 72 58.7 54 53 56 M-2 4138-015-053 Commercial E 72 58.7 54 53 55 M-3 4138-015-053 Commercial E 72 58.7 54 52 54 M-4 4138-015-045 Commercial E 72 58.7 51 49 52 M-5 4138-015-060 Commercial E 72 61.0 48 47 49 M-6 4138-015-029 Commercial E 72 54.4 48 48 53 M-7 4138-015-015 Commercial E 72 54.4 56 56 59 M-8 4138-015-025 Commercial E 72 54.4 50 50 53 Notes: 1. Modeling results are rounded to the nearest decibel. 2. The modeled noise levels are based on traffic volumes within the Traffic Impact Assessment November 29, 2016. Source: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Noise Study Report, November 2017 Modeling results in Tables 2.2.6-7 through 2.2.6-10 indicate that traffic noise levels under existing, design -year without -project conditions, and design -year with Build Alternatives project conditions, noise levels do not approach or exceed the applicable NAC of 72 dBA Leq(h) at the Activity Category E land uses. It should be noted that design Option 1 and Option 2 for Alternative 3B would not substantially affect the location or elevations of Park Place or affect any of the traffic volumes. Therefore, noise levels in Table 2.2.6-10 represent the noise levels associated with both Option 1 and Option 2. Since noise levels associated with the Build Alternatives do not approach or exceed the applicable NAC for the project, noise abatement is not required. Railroad Noise Alternatives 1A and 1 C would relocate the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad (BNSF) approximately 560 to 600 feet to the northeast so that it would be adjacent to the existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). Alternatives 3A and 3B (Options 1 and 2) would not relocate the BNSF railroad. Alterative 3A would construct an underpass to cross the existing BNSF alignment and Alternative 3B proposes an at -grade crossing at the existing BNSF alignment. Locomotive, rail car, and warning horn noise was modeled using the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Train Noise Impact Assessment model (July 3, 2007). Modeling was Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.6-10 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures conducted for freight trains to determine the noise levels resulting from the types of trains currently using the railroad. The following assumptions were utilized in the analysis of rail operations, based upon field observations and consultation with the Chevron Oil Refinery, whom the UPRR and BNSF facilities provide service to: • West of the project, the closest commercial receivers are located approximately 66 feet from the UPRR track centerline and approximately 580 feet from BNSF track centerline (there are no residential receivers in the project vicinity). • East of the project, the closest commercial receivers are located approximately 880 feet from the UPRR track centerline and approximately 90 feet from BNSF track centerline (there are no residential receivers in the project vicinity). • Fixed guideway source type. • Three freight trains per day (two during the daytime and one at night). • Each train on UPRR would have four locomotives and each train on BNSF would have two locomotives. Each train would have up to 60 cars traveling at 10 miles per hour (mph). • Warning horns would be used approaching the existing Sepulveda Boulevard crossing (all scenarios) and the proposed Park Place/BNSF crossing (included in Alternative 3B). Potential impacts related to train noise associated with project improvements were evaluated based upon the maximum instantaneous noise from each individual train pass -by and their contribution to the 24-hour Ldn level. Modeling results in Table 2.2.6-11, Railroad Noise Levels, indicate that train noise levels under existing and design -year build project conditions would not approach or exceed the applicable NAC of 72 dBA Leq(h) at the Activity Category E land uses. It is noted that the Table 2.2.6-11 depicts Lan noise levels (i.e., 24-hour energy average noise levels) instead of hourly noise (i.e., Leq[h]). However, Lan levels are typically louder than Leq due to the 10 -dB penalty applied to A -weighted sound levels occurring during nighttime hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Therefore, Leq(h) noise levels would be lower than what is depicted in Table 2.2.6-11 and project conditions would not approach or exceed the 72 dBA Leq(h) NAC. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not involve permanent railroad noise impacts which would require avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures, and no noise abatement would be required. Table 2.2.6-11: Railroad Noise Levels Scenario I Rail Noise (dBA Ldp) (with Warning Horns) Existing (at receivers to the west) 66 Existing (at receivers to the east) 61 Alternatives 1A/1C 69 Alternative 36 (at receivers to the west) 68 Alternative 313 (at receivers to the east) 62 Notes: 1. Receivers to the west are the commercial areas in Plaza EI Segundo. 2. Receivers to the east are the commercial/office areas at the northern terminus of South Nash Street. 3. Alternatives 1A and 1C would both relocate the BNSF railroad and have the same alignment. 4. Alternative 313 would include a new at -grade railroad crossing that would introduce warning horns at this location. Alternative 3A would not relocate the BNSF railway and would not include an at -grade crossing (an underpass is proposed). Therefore, Alternative 3A would not change railroad conditions from the existing scenario. Source: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Noise Study Report, November 2017 Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.6-11 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.2.6.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures N-1 All equipment shall have sound -control devices that are no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. No equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust. N-2 The contractor shall implement appropriate noise mitigation measures, including changing the location of stationary construction equipment, turning off idling equipment, notifying adjacent business owners in advance of construction work, rescheduling construction activity, and installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.6-12 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.2.7 Energy 2.2.7.1 Regulatory Setting The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code [USC] Part 4332) requires the identification of all potentially significant impacts to the environment, including energy impacts. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix F, Energy Conservation, state that Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) are required to include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. 2.2.7.2 Affected Environment The production of electricity requires the consumption of energy resources, including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear resources. Most of these resources are used as heat sources for steam turbines that drive electric generators. The electricity generated is distributed via a network of transmission and distribution lines, commonly known as a power grid. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates privately owned electric, telecommunications, natural gas, water, and transportation companies as well as household goods movers. In addition, the CPUC regulates local natural gas distribution facilities and services, natural gas procurement, intrastate pipelines, and intrastate production and gathering. It works to provide opportunities for competition when in the interest of consumers, takes the lead in environmental review of natural-gas related projects, recognizes the growing interaction of electric and gas markets, and monitors gas energy efficiency and other public -purpose programs. The CPUC's Energy Division works to set electric rates, protect consumers, and promote energy efficiency, electric system reliability, and utility financial integrity. 2.2.7.3 Environmental Consequences When balancing energy used during construction and operations against energy saved by enhancing safety and other transportation efficiencies, the project would not have substantial energy impacts. Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) No impacts regarding energy consumption would occur with implementation of the No -Build Alternative since no construction activity would occur with this alternative. However, under the No -Build Alternative, the extension of Park Place would not be implemented and a secondary (and more direct) east -west corridor for travelers in the project area would not be provided. Thus, the resultant savings in fuel consumption anticipated under the Build Alternatives would not occur with Alternative 1. Alternatives 1A, IC, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Construction under the Build Alternatives would result in short-term energy consumption related to the manufacture of construction materials, the use of construction equipment that requires petroleum fuels, and the use of construction motor vehicles as they travel to and from the site. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.7-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Construction activities are expected to take less than approximately 24 months. Thus, construction -related energy consumption anticipated under the Build Alternatives would be minimal and would cease once construction of the project was complete. Over the course of long-term operations, the Build Alternatives are expected to result in a beneficial impact, since it would provide a secondary (and more direct) east -west route for travelers in the project area, thus resulting in reductions in fuel consumption. Adverse impacts related to energy consumption would not occur as part of the Build Alternatives. 2.2.7.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.2.7-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.3 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 2.3.1 Natural Communities This section of the document discusses natural communities of concern. The focus of this section is on biological communities, not individual plant or animal species. This section also includes information on wildlife corridors and habitat fragmentation. Wildlife corridors are areas of habitat used by wildlife for seasonal or daily migration. Habitat fragmentation involves the potential for dividing sensitive habitat and thereby lessening its biological value. Habitat areas that have been designated as critical habitat under the Federal Endangered Species Act are discussed below in the Threatened and Endangered Species section (Section 2.3.4). As stated in the beginning of this chapter, there are no creeks, rivers, lakes, wetlands, or other potentially jurisdictional aquatic features within the vicinity of the Biological Study Area (BSA). Therefore, there is no further discussion of wetlands and other waters. 2.3.1.1 Affected Environment A Natural Environment Study (NES) (May 2017) was prepared for the proposed project. The BSA identified for the project includes the approximately 54 -acre project footprint and a 250 -foot buffer; the entire size of the BSA is approximately 131 acres. 2.3.1.1.1 Vegetation Types Table 2.3.1-1, Vegetation Types and Other Areas in the Biological Study Area, lists the vegetation types and other areas that occur in the BSA. The BSA boundaries and the vegetation types are shown in Figure 2.3-1, Biological Study Area and Vegetation Map. It should be noted that a total of two (2) natural communities of special concern were identified during the records search as potentially occurring on the BSA: southern coastal salt marsh and southern dune scrub. However, neither of these communities, nor any other communities of special concern, were found to be present within the BSA. Table 2.3.1-1: Vegetation Types and Other Areas in the Biological Study Area Vegetation Type Existing (acres) Deerweed Scrub 17.74 Non -Native Grassland 3.30 Concrete Slab/Unique Sandbar Willow Patch 6.62 Disturbed 1.64 Developed 101.69 Total 130.99 Source: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Natural Environment Study (May 2017) Deerweed Scrub: The deerweed scrub plant community encompasses approximately 17.74 acres in the southern half of the BSA. It is located within a mostly undeveloped area that is bounded around its perimeter by the two existing railroad tracks. The northeastern edge is bounded by the concrete slab/unique sandbar willow patch community. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.1-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures This plant community is generally dominated by four primary plant species: deerweed (Acmispon glaber); wavyleaf sealavender (Limonium sinuatum); hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulis); and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), with other species such as telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), brome grasses (Bromus spp.), and fountaingrass (Pennisetum cetaceum) scattered throughout. This area has been extensively disturbed in the past, with historic aerials showing portions of this area graded and devoid of vegetation. Several dirt access roads are present on-site. A portion of this community has been used for stockpiling dirt. Non-native Grassland: The non-native grassland plant community encompasses approximately 3.30 acres and is located near the southern end of the deerweed scrub community and at the southern end of the BSA. It consists of an excavated pit that has been heavily disturbed through vegetation clearance and is now mostly bare with a patchy to dense distribution of non- native brome grasses. According to historic aerials, this area was excavated between March and October 2011. Because this is the low point of the area between the railroad tracks, this area collects water after storm events. At the time of the field survey, which shortly followed a rain event from September 15 (1.02 inches), a small pool of water was present in one area of the pit. Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) seedlings were beginning to establish within the ponded area. Concrete Slab/Unique Sandbar Willow Patch: The concrete slab/unique sandbar willow patch encompasses approximately 6.62 acres and abuts the northeastern boundary of the undeveloped area within the northeastern portion of the BSA. This area is generally underlain by a concrete slab which now has plants growing on it through cracks in the concrete. The vegetation is dominated by two species: sandbar willow (Salix exigua) and pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana). The sandbar willows vary from growing in large, relatively dense bunches to growing as discreet plants from cracks in the concrete. It is unknown what water source has allowed them to establish in this particular area, as they are not present anywhere else within the BSA. It is possible that rainwater has collected under the concrete slab through openings on the surface and has allowed mesic growing conditions', or that there are leaky water pipelines underneath. No surface water was present anywhere within this area during the field survey. Building foundations are visible throughout the concrete slab; this area was previously used for heavy industrial facilities. Disturbed: Disturbed areas are the unpaved areas that are primarily or entirely devoid of vegetation. Within the BSA, there is a 1.64 -acre disturbed area located along the edge of the non-native grassland. This area has been mostly graded and connects to a gravel -lined access/haul road. Developed: Developed areas are those that are paved or extensively altered. Within the BSA, developed areas encompass approximately 101.69 acres and include generally all areas outside of the undeveloped area and the concrete slab. This includes a vehicle storage lot, commercial and industrial centers, the Chevron Oil Refinery, City streets, and other paved development. Mesic environments contain a moderate amount of moisture. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.1-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) now - a 400 r �. ♦ - oE,ti Nv9hCID 00°" it { - F f i } y C7 A _ t fir OO tam Q-a ' `Q Qa I fi: el 000 '�_ Legend r; Project Site * ' Biological Study Area (250-foot Buffer) r ® Proposed Resoration Vegetation !' ` ° 'Ilk: ' Deerweed Scrub (17.74 ac) Non-Native Grassland (3.30 ac) "� - , sry ` ♦ - ''r. [ Concrete Slab/Unique Sandbar Willow Patch (6.62 ac) iP- Q - Disturbed (1.64 ac) Rosecrans Ave Developed (101.69 ac) Source. Eagle Aerial, 2014. NOT TO SCALE 08/18 1 A 145070 PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EIR/EA) Biological Study Area and Vegetation Map Figure 2.3.1-1 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Back of 11 x 17. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.1-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.3.1.1.2 Habitat Connectivity Habitat linkages provide links between larger undeveloped habitat areas that are separated by development. Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages, but provide specific opportunities for animals to disperse or migrate between areas. A corridor can be defined as a linear landscape feature of sufficient width to allow animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments. Adequate cover is essential for a corridor to function as a wildlife movement area. It is possible for a habitat corridor to be adequate for one species but inadequate for others. Wildlife corridors are features for dispersal, seasonal migration, breeding, and foraging. Additionally, open space can provide a buffer against both human disturbance and natural fluctuations in resources. There are no habitat linkages or migration corridors within the BSA. The surrounding area is completely developed and provides no other naturally occurring vegetation communities or linear avenues for wildlife movement into or out of the BSA. The basin to the northwest of the BSA could possibly provide nearby habitat for birds to move into or out of the BSA, but due to the lack of water within the BSA (outside of rain events), these would primarily be limited to passerine bird species and large mammals such as coyotes (Canis latrans). 2.3.1.2 Environmental Consequences The project footprint for all four Build Alternatives is similar; therefore, the discussion of Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, and 3B below is combined into a single discussion of Build Alternatives. 2.3.1.2.1 Temporary Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) No temporary impacts regarding natural communities would occur with implementation of the No -Build Alternative since no construction activity would occur with this alternative. Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Temporary impacts would include impacts of a short -nature such as ground disturbance, grading areas, removal of vegetation, and temporary onsite parking for construction vehicles. Construction of the Build Alternatives may result in temporary effects to individual plant species that may be present in the general area surrounding the proposed project footprint, as a result of trampling by foot or vehicular traffic or exposure to excessive dust. However, in accordance with Measure PS -1 (from Section 2.16, Plant Species), all undeveloped areas of the project site that are subject to temporary impacts would be revegetated with native plant species generally conforming to the plant composition in the immediate surrounding area. Therefore, temporary impacts to natural communities would not be substantial. 2.3.1.2.2 Permanent Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Project improvements would not occur under the No -Build Alternative; therefore, the No -Build Alternative would not permanently impact any natural communities within the project area. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.1-5 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Alternatives 1A, IC, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Implementation of any of the Build Alternatives would result in the permanent loss of deerweed scrub and non-native grassland, as illustrated in Table 2.3.1-2, Vegetation Impacts by Alternative, below. As discussed in Section 2.3.2, Plant Species, these species serve as habitat for two plant species of concern that were determined to have a low potential to occur within the BSA (Southern tarplant and paniculate tarplant). As shown in Table 2.3.1-2, Alternative 1A would result in the fewest permanent impacts to deerweed scrub (0.77 acres), while Alternative 3B (both options) would result in the greatest permanent impacts to deerweed scrub (1.32 acres). Alternative 3B (both options), however, would result in the fewest permanent impacts to non-native grassland (0.42 acres), while Alternative 3A would result in the greatest permanent impacts to non-native grassland (0.92 acres). Table 2.3.1-2: Vegetation Impacts by Alternative Alternative Deerweed Scrub Alternative 1A 0.56 Alternative 1C 0.62 Alternative 3A 0.62 Impacts (Acres) Non -Native Grassland 0.77 0.91 0.92 Alternative 36 (Option 1) 1.32 0.42 Alternative 313 (Option 2) 1.32 0.42 Source: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Natural Environment Study (May 2017). TOTAL 1.33 1.53 1.54 1.74 1.74 The permanent loss of deerweed scrub and non-native grassland that would occur under the Build Alternatives could result in potentially adverse effects regarding two plant species for which deerweed scrub and non-native grassland function as habitat, as discussed above. However, implementation of Measures PS -1 and PS -2, as discussed in Section 2.3.2.4, Plant Species, would ensure that adverse effects to natural communities do not occur. 2.3.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Refer to Measures PS -1 and PS -2 in Section 2.3.2.4. No additional measures are required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.1-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.3.2 Plant Species 2.3.2.1 Regulatory Setting The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) have regulatory responsibility for the protection of special -status plant species. "Special -status" species are selected for protection because they are rare and/or subject to population and habitat declines. Special -status is a general term for species that are provided varying levels of regulatory protection. The highest level of protection is given to threatened and endangered species; these are species that are formally listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and/or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Please see the Threatened and Endangered Species section (Section 2.3.4) in this document for detailed information about these species. This section of the document discusses all the other special -status plant species, including CDFW species of special concern, USFWS candidate species, and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) rare and endangered plants. The regulatory requirements for FESA can be found at 16 United States Code (USC) Section 1531, et seq. See also 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 402. The regulatory requirements for CESA can be found at California Fish and Game Code, Section 2050, et seq. Department projects are also subject to the Native Plant Protection Act, found at California Fish and Game Code, Section 1900-1913, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), found at California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000-21177. 2.3.2.2 Affected Environment A Natural Environment Study (NES) (May 2017) was prepared for the proposed project. According to the literature search conducted as part of the habitat assessment, twenty-three (23) special -status plant species have the potential to occur within the project area. However, none of these species were observed within the Biological Study Area (BSA) during the field survey that was conducted as part of the habitat assessment. Based on habitat requirements for specific species, availability and quality of habitats needed by special -status plant species, and known distribution, the following two species were determined to have a low potential to occur within the BSA: • Southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis); and • Paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata). All other special -status plant species are presumed absent and are not expected to occur within the BSA. 2.3.2.2.1 Survey Results Neither southern tarplant nor paniculate tarplant were observed within the BSA during the habitat assessment. Southern tarplant occurs in disturbed areas near coastal salt marshes, grasslands, vernal pools, and coastal sage scrub; its closest recorded occurrence is at the Ballona Marsh approximately 5.5 miles northwest of the BSA. Paniculate tarplant occurs in mesic and/or sandy soils within coastal scrub, vernal pools, and valley and foothill grasslands; according to the CNPS, it has been previously recorded and is still presumed extant in the Venice United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 -minute quadrangle, but specific locale information is not available. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.2-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Marginal sandy, disturbed, habitat characterized by scrub species and grasses is present within the BSA, particularly within the large undeveloped area, to support these two species. Both species have blooming periods extending to November, but were not observed during the habitat assessment. Since neither of these species are currently listed under the FESA, there is no designated Critical Habitat for either of them. 2.3.2.3 Environmental Consequences The project footprint for all four Build Alternatives is similar; therefore, the discussion of Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, and 3B below is combined into a single discussion of Build Alternatives. 2.3.2.3.1 Temporary Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) No temporary impacts regarding special -status plant species would occur with implementation of the No -Build Alternative since no construction activity would occur with this alternative. Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Temporary impacts would include impacts of a limited duration such as ground disturbance, grading areas, removal of vegetation, and temporary onsite parking for construction vehicles. Construction of the Build Alternatives may result in temporary effects to individual plant species that may be present in the general area surrounding the proposed project footprint, as a result of trampling by foot or vehicular traffic or exposure to excessive dust. However, as discussed in Measure PS -2, all undeveloped areas subject to temporary impacts would be revegetated with native plant species generally conforming to the plant composition in the immediate surrounding area. Therefore, adverse temporary effects related to special -status plant species would not occur. 2.3.2.3.2 Permanent Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Project improvements would not occur under the No -Build Alternative; therefore, the No -Build Alternative would not permanently impact any special -status plant species within the project area. Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Southern tarplant and paniculate tarplant have not been documented within the BSA. However, implementation of any of the Build Alternatives would result in permanent losses of marginal habitat for these two species, as discussed in Section 2.3.1, Natural Communities. Specifically, the permanent loss of deerweed scrub and non-native grassland would occur under all the Build Alternatives, as illustrated in Table 2.3.1-2 in Section 2.3.1.2. Mitigation Measure PS -1, described in Section 2.3.2.4 below, requires a preconstruction rare plant survey to be conducted to determine whether southern tarplant and/or paniculate tarplant occur onsite. Of the proposed Build Alternatives, none provides a substantially reduced impact footprint over the other. All the Build Alternatives would be expected to have the same potential to affect either of these two special -status plant species, if determined to be present within the BSA during the preconstruction rare plant clearance survey. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.2-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures With implementation of the measures provided below, adverse impacts to special -status plant species would not occur under the Build Alternatives. 2.3.2.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures PS -1 A preconstruction rare plant clearance survey is recommended to be conducted within the Biological Study Area (BSA) during the appropriate blooming season (March to September) to determine whether southern tarplant and/or paniculate tarplant occur onsite. Surveys shall provide 100 percent clearance of suitable habitat within the BSA. If southern tarplant and/or paniculate tarplant, or any other special -status plant species, are present and unavoidable, they shall be salvaged and moved to a different location within the BSA that contains a similar habitat, in accordance with resource agency requirements. It is also recommended that fugitive dust be contained to the maximum extent possible via the use of an onsite water truck(s), and that all construction equipment be thoroughly cleaned of all weed seeds prior to entering the BSA to prevent the spread of invasive species. PS -2 To increase the availability of suitable habitat and general habitat quality within the BSA, all undeveloped disturbed areas shall be revegetated with native plant species generally conforming to the plant composition in the immediate surrounding area. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.2-3 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.2-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.3.3 Animal Species 2.3.3.1 Regulatory Setting Many state and federal laws regulate impacts to wildlife. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) are responsible for implementing these laws. This section discusses potential impacts and permit requirements associated with animals not listed or proposed for listing under the federal or state Endangered Species Act. Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered are discussed in the Threatened and Endangered Species Section (Section 2.3.4) below. All other special -status animal species are discussed here, including CDFW fully protected species and species of special concern, and USFWS or NOAA Fisheries Service candidate species. Federal laws and regulations relevant to wildlife include the following: • National Environmental Policy Act • Migratory Bird Treaty Act • Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act State laws and regulations relevant to wildlife include the following: • California Environmental Quality Act • Sections 1600 — 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code • Sections 4150 and 4152 of the California Fish and Game Code 2.3.3.2 Affected Environment A Natural Environment Study (NES) (May 2017) was prepared for the proposed project. Results of the habitat assessment conducted for the NES are discussed below. Fish: No fish or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would provide suitable habitat for fish were observed on or within the vicinity of the Biological Study Area (BSA). Therefore, no fish are expected to occur and are presumed absent. The closest aquatic habitat that would likely support fish is the wet basin located to the northwest of the BSA; however, there is no connectivity between this basin and the project site, and therefore no potential for any fish to move into the BSA. Amphibians: No amphibians or hydrogeomorphic features that would provide suitable habitat for amphibian species were observed on or within the vicinity of the BSA. The excavated pit at the southern end of the BSA collects water ephemerally after rains and this water eventually permeates through the soil or evaporates. However, because of the extensive urban development in the surrounding area, it is highly unlikely for any native or non-native amphibian species to occur on-site even when rainwater is present. Reptiles: No reptiles were observed in the BSA during the field survey. Since the BSA is a mixture of developed and undeveloped land surrounded by extensive development, it is expected to provide suitable habitat for a small number of reptilian species, primarily lizards that are acclimated to edge or urban environments. The most common reptile species that could occur in the BSA include western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), side -blotched lizard Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.3-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures (Uta stansburiana), and southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata). Due to the extensive degree of development surrounding the site, snakes are highly unlikely to occur. Birds: All of the live animal detections within the BSA were of birds. The plant communities found within the BSA provide suitable nesting and foraging opportunities for a limited variety of resident and migrant avian species. A total of twenty-two (22) avian species were detected during the habitat assessment, which occurred at a time when summer migrants are in the process of leaving southern California and winter migrants are just beginning to return again. As such, all detected avian species within the BSA except for white -crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), a typically early migrant, were year-round resident species. Canada geese (Branta candensis), which ordinarily are wintering birds in southern California, have adapted to a residency in more developed areas of southern California where ponds and lakes provide breeding and wintering habitat throughout the year. Most of the avian biodiversity within the BSA was low, with only a few species making up most of the individual detections. Some of the most common bird species observed in the BSA during the habitat assessment included Canada goose (flyovers), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), white -crowned sparrow, house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and scaly -breasted munia (Lonchura punctulata). Additional common winter migrants that may occur within the BSA include American pipit (Anthus rubescens), cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata), golden -crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla), vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), and migrant subspecies of savannah sparrow. Due to the general lack of both arboreal habitat and developed shrub habitat, most breeding migrants are probably unlikely to breed within the BSA. Arboreal habitat is primarily restricted to the development outside of the undeveloped area, including within adjacent shopping centers, and is generally isolated patches or linear plantings along fencelines. Nonetheless, migrants that arrive in spring and have the potential to breed in the BSA include lesser nighthawk (Chordeiles acutipennis), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), and hooded oriole (Icterus cucullatus). Most transitory migrants would probably avoid the BSA due to the extensive surrounding development and lack of any extensive arboreal habitat on their way north or south. However, Vaux's swift (Chaetura vauxi) may forage over the BSA, and MacGillivray's Warbler (Geothlypis tolmiei), which generally forages in shrubs instead of in trees like most warblers, may rest and forage in the undeveloped area during its migration. Mammals: No mammals were directly observed in the BSA during the field survey. The plant communities found within the BSA provide suitable habitat for a small number of mammalian species adapted to living in edge or urban environments. However, the extensive development surrounding the site limits potential mammalian species even further. Most mammal species are nocturnal and are difficult to observe during a diurnal field survey. Mammals and/or sign detected during the habitat assessment include coyote (Canis latrans) scat and various small rodent burrows. While bats occur throughout most of southern California, their habitat within the BSA is somewhat limited. They may forage throughout most of the open habitat, but there is little if any roosting habitat in the BSA or general vicinity. 2.3.3.2.1 Survey Results According to the literature search conducted as part of the habitat assessment, seventy-two (72) special status animal species have the potential to occur within the BSA. However, none of these species were observed within the BSA during the field survey that was conducted as part of the habitat assessment. Based on habitat requirements for specific species, availability and quality of habitats needed by special status wildlife species, and known distribution, the following two species were determined to have a moderate potential to occur within the BSA: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.3-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii). The closest known occurrence of the Cooper's hawk is approximately 0.9 mile to the south at Polliwog Park. The project site provides suitable foraging habitat, but no suitable nesting habitat. Northern harrier (Circus cvaneus). The closest known occurrence of the northern harrier is approximately 1.5 miles northwest in the vicinity of the Center Street Elementary School. The project site provides suitable foraging habitat, but no suitable nesting habitat. Based on habitat requirements for specific species, availability and quality of habitats needed by special status wildlife species, and known distribution, the following seven species were determined to have a low potential to occur within the BSA: • Short -eared owl (Asio flammeus). The closest known occurrence of short -eared owl is approximately 4.75 miles northwest at Ballona Marsh. The project site provides suitable foraging habitat, but no suitable nesting habitat. • Burrowina owl (Athene cunicularia). No suitable burrowing owl burrows were observed during the habitat assessment, likely as a result of previous grading/maintenance activities. However, burrowing owl have been previously documented on-site during biological assessments conducted in 2003 and 2004. • Ferruainous hawk (Buteo regalis). The closest known occurrence of ferruginous hawk is approximately 2 miles north at the fields at Los Angeles International Airport. The project site provides suitable foraging habitat, but no suitable nesting habitat. • California horned lark (Eremophila aloestris actia). The closest known occurrence of California horned lark is approximately 2 miles northwest at Dockweiler Beach. A historic (1962) location is available to the east, but the site has been developed and no longer supports suitable habitat. The project site provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat. • Merlin (Falco columbarius). The closest known occurrence of merlin is approximately 0.9 mile to the south at Polliwog Park. The project site provides suitable foraging habitat, but no suitable nesting habitat. • American perearine falcon (Falco perearinus anatum). The closest known occurrence of American peregrine falcon is approximately 0.9 mile to the south at Polliwog Park. The project site provides suitable foraging habitat, but no suitable nesting habitat. • Brewer's sparrow (SDizella breweri). The closest known occurrence of Brewer's sparrow is approximately 1 mile to the southwest at Sand Dune Park. This species is generally present in Los Angeles County through October before continuing to migrate out of the area. The dense shrub on the southern end of the undeveloped area has the potential to provide marginal habitat for this species. None of the nine special status wildlife species were observed within the BSA during the habitat assessment. These species all generally prefer open shrub, grassland, and/or marsh habitats. As indicated above, suitable or marginal habitat is available within the BSA to support all of these species, primarily in the large undeveloped area where natural vegetation occurs. Because none of the above -referenced species are currently listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), there is no designated Critical Habitat for any of them. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.3-3 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.3.3.3 Environmental Consequences The project footprint for all four Build Alternatives is similar; therefore, the discussion of Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, and 3B below is combined into a single discussion of Build Alternatives. 2.3.3.3.1 Temporary Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) No temporary impacts regarding special -status animal species would occur with implementation of the No -Build Alternative since no construction activity would occur with this alternative. Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Construction disturbance (e.g., noise, visual disruptions) during any time of year may directly but temporarily affect Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, burrowing owl, California horned lark, and American peregrine falcon, all of which are year-round residents in southern California. This would only disturb short -eared owl, ferruginous hawk, and merlin during the fall, winter, and early spring, as these species are all winter residents in southern California. Brewer's sparrow would only be directly affected during its short migration window in the spring and fall each year. None of these species would be expected to be directly injured or killed as a result of construction. Indirect impacts would be generally restricted to long-term habitat degradation, primarily through the unintended spread of non-native weed seeds within the BSA, which may result in changing plant composition and lower the quality of the onsite natural habitat. In addition, construction during the avian nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31) may disrupt avian nesting behaviors. Temporary impacts to special status animal species and nesting birds would be reduced to a less than substantial level with implementation of Measures AS -1 and AS -2, described below. 2.3.3.3.2 Permanent Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Project improvements would not occur under the No -Build Alternative; therefore, the No -Build Alternative would not permanently impact any special -status animal species within the BSA. Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Development of the Build Alternatives has the potential to have both direct and indirect impacts to the special -status species described above. Habitat within the proposed project footprint would be lost due to development. The specific acreage of habitat that would be lost under each alternative is displayed above in Table 2.3.1-2 in Section 2.3.1, Natural Communities. With implementation of Measures PS -1 and PS -2, described in Section 2.3.2, Plant Species, adverse permanent impacts to animal species would not occur. 2.3.3.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Refer to Measures PS -1 and PS -2 in Section 2.3.2, Plant Species AS -1 Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code, removal of any trees, shrubs, or any other potential nesting habitat shall Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.3-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures be conducted outside the avian nesting season. The nesting season generally extends from early February through August, but can vary slightly from year to year based upon seasonal weather conditions. If ground disturbance and vegetation removal cannot occur outside of the nesting season, a preconstruction clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted within three days of the start of any ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the preconstruction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside of a 300 -foot buffer around the active nest. For raptor species, this buffer is expanded to 500 feet. The biological monitor shall be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, normal construction activities can occur. AS -2 Burrowing owl breeding season focused surveys shall be conducted prior to ground disturbing activities. The surveys shall be conducted consistent with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Staff Report) dated March 7, 2012. Should burrowing owl be found within the Biological Study Area (BSA) during preconstruction clearance surveys, the CDFW shall be contacted for consultation prior to clearing and grubbing. If burrowing owl are found to occupy the BSA at the time of the survey, a relocation and management plan shall be written, approved by CDFW, and implemented prior to site development. Determination of the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall be based on the specific site conditions (e.g., distance to nearest suitable habitat and presence of burrows within that habitat) in coordination with the CDFW. Active relocation and eviction/passive relocation require the preservation and maintenance of suitable burrowing owl habitat determined through coordination with the CDFW. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.3-5 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.3-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 2.3.4.1 Regulatory Setting The primary federal law protecting threatened and endangered species is the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA): 16 United States Code (USC) Section 1531, et seq. See also 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 402. This act and later amendments provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Under Section 7 of this act, federal agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (and Caltrans, as assigned), are required to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Critical habitat is defined as geographic locations critical to the existence of a threatened or endangered species. The outcome of consultation under Section 7 may include a Biological Opinion with an Incidental Take statement or a Letter of Concurrence. Section 3 of FESA defines take as "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect or any attempt at such conduct." California has enacted a similar law at the state level, the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), California Fish and Game Code Section 2050, et seq. CESA emphasizes early consultation to avoid potential impacts to rare, endangered, and threatened species and to develop appropriate planning to offset project -caused losses of listed species populations and their essential habitats. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is the agency responsible for implementing CESA. Section 2080 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits "take" of any species determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species. Take is defined in Section 86 of the California Fish and Game Code as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development projects; for these actions an incidental take permit is issued by the CDFW. For species listed under both FESA and CESA requiring a Biological Opinion under Section 7 of the FESA, the CDFW may also authorize impacts to CESA species by issuing a Consistency Determination under Section 2080.1 of the California Fish and Game Code. Another federal law, the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, was established to conserve and manage fishery resources found off the coast, as well as anadromous species and Continental Shelf fishery resources of the United States, by exercising (A) sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing all fish within the exclusive economic zone established by Presidential Proclamation 5030, dated March 10, 1983, and (B) exclusive fishery management authority beyond the exclusive economic zone over such anadromous species, Continental Shelf fishery resources, and fishery resources in special areas. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.4-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.3.4.2 Affected Environment A Natural Environment Study (NES) (May 2017) was prepared for the proposed project. As part of the research conducted for the NES, a USFWS Species List was generated from the Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) database on September 25, 2015, and updated on October 18, 2016, May 1, 2017, and May 7, 2018. Previously recorded occurrences of special status wildlife species and their proximity to the Biological Study Area (BSA) were determined through a query of the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). A brief description of listed species, their potential to occur in the BSA, and the USFWS Effect Determination is listed in Table 2.3.4-1, Listed Species, Proposed Species, Habitat, Potential to Occur, and USFWS Effect Determination, below. In addition, a NOAA Fisheries Species List was acquired for the proposed project on May 7, 2018. The NOAA Fisheries Species List query area includes the entire USGS topographical quadrant in which the project is located, as compared to the USFWS query area which includes only the project BSA. The project falls within the boundaries of the Venice quadrant (quadrant number 33118-H4). However, it should be noted that the Venice quadrant includes a large portion of Pacific Ocean coastline, and therefore, includes several species that do not occur within the project BSA; refer to Appendix G for the correspondence and NOAA Fisheries Species List. No NOAA Fisheries listed species occur within the project BSA. 2.3.4.3 Environmental Consequences The project footprint for all four Build Alternatives is similar; therefore, the discussion of Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, and 3B below is combined into a single discussion of Build Alternatives. 2.3.4.3.1 Temporary Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) No temporary impacts regarding threatened and endangered species with the potential to occur within the project area would result with implementation of the No -Build Alternative, since no construction activity would occur with this alternative. Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Based on the USFWS Species List acquired for the proposed project, in addition to potential species listed or proposed for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), a total of 5 Federally listed and 5 State listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species were determined to have potential to occur in the general vicinity of the BSA; refer to Table 2.3.4-1. However, no federally listed plant or animal species were observed with the BSA during the habitat assessment. Based on the results of the habitat assessment and the proposed limits of project disturbance, all federally listed plant or animal species are presumed absent from the proposed project footprint. Therefore, temporary impacts regarding threatened and endangered species are not anticipated under the Build Alternatives. The BSA is not located within federally designated Critical Habitat. Additionally, no NOAA Fisheries listed species are present within the project BSA; refer to Table 2.3.4-2. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.4-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.3.4-1: USFWS Listed Species, Proposed Species, Habitat, Potential to Occur, and Effect Determination Common Name/ Status Habitat Potential to Occur USFWS Effect Scientific Name Prefers broad, level expanse of open sandy or gravelly beach, dredge spoil Presumed absent. No suitable Determination Birds California Least Tern Prefers broad, level expanse of open sandy or gravelly beach, dredge spoil Presumed absent. No suitable The Build Alternatives (Sterna antillarum FE/SE and other open shoreline areas, and broad river valley sandbars. habitat is present onsite would have no effect ww browni) this species. Obligate resident of sage scrub habitats that are dominated by California Coastal California sagebrush (Artemisia californica). This species generally occurs below 750 The Build Alternatives G (Polioca) FT/SCS feet elevation in coastal regions and below 1,500 feet inland. Ranges from Presumed absent. No suitable would have effect lifomicher californica californica) the Ventura County, south to San Diego County and northern Baja California habitat is present onsite. on this species. ie and it is less common in sage scrub with a high percentage of tall shrubs. Prefers habitat with more low -growing vegetation. Primarily occupy Riverine riparian habitat that typically feature dense cover within 1 -2 meters of the ground and a dense, stratified canopy. It is typically Presumed absent. No suitable Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo associated with southern willow scrub, cottonwood -willow forest, mule fat habitat is present. The site does The Build Alternatives bellii pusillus) FUSE scrub, sycamore alluvial woodlands, coast live oak riparian forest, arroyo not contain the large sections of would have no effect willow riparian forest, or mesquite in desert localities. It uses habitat which is riparian forest that this species on this species. limited to the immediate vicinity of water courses, 2,000 feet elevation in the prefers. interior. Western Snowy Plover Occurs on sandy beaches, salt pond levees and along the shores of large Presumed absent. No suitable The Build Alternatives (Charadrius FTISCS alkali lakes. Requires sandy or gravelly substrate for nesting. habitat is present onsite. would have no effect alexandrinus nivosus) on this species. Generally found in forested areas up to 3,000 feet in elevation, especially Moderate. There is marginal Cooper's hawk near edges and rivers. Prefers hardwood stands and mature forests but can foraging habitat. This species is The Build Alternatives (Accipiter cooperii) --/WL be found in urban and suburban areas where there are tall trees for nesting. adapted to urban environments would have no effect Common in open areas during nesting season. and occurs commonly. There is on this species. no suitable nesting habitat onsite. Insects EI Segundo Blue Found in the sand dunes of EI Segundo. Requires coast buckwheat Presumed absent. No suitable The Build Alternatives Butterfly (Euphilotes FE/-- (Eriogonum parviflorum) for all of its life cycles and appears to depend on habitat is present onsite. No would have no effect battoides allyni) habitats containing loose sand. coast buckwheat was found on this species. onsite. Notes: Federal Designations: FT = Listed as a Threatened species; FE = Listed as an Endangered species; IPaC = This designation is not a regulatory protection. This species was in the results of the species list obtained through the USFWS IPaC database. This indication refers to birds that USFWS believes could occur on-site that are federally listed and/or protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. State Designations: ST = Listed as a Threatened species; SE = Listed as an Endangered species; WL = Watch List; CSC = California Species of Concern; FP = California Fully Protected Source: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Natural Environment Study (May 2017); updated USFWS Species List obtained May 2018. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.4-3 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.3.4-2: NOAA Listed Species, Proposed Species, Habitat, Potential to Occur, and Effect Determination Common Name/ Status Habitat Potential to Occur NOAA Effect Scientific Name Determination ESA Anadromous Fish Migrating adults require a minimum depth of 7 inches and a temperature between 46 to 52 OF for successful migration. Preferred depth for spawning Southern California ranges from 6 to 24 inches with an average of 14 inches. Steelhead spawn in The Build Alternatives Presumed absent. suitable Steelhead DPS FE/-- areas with water velocities ranging from 1 to 3.6 ft/s but prefer velocities of would have no effect habitat is present onsite s (Oncorhynchus mykiss) about 2 ft/s. Adult steelhead have been reported to spawn in gravel substrates on this species. from 0.2 to 4.0 inches in diameter. Optimum temperature for spawning generally falls between 39 and 52 OF. Adults and subadult green sturgeon can be found in transit within nearshore coastal waters from Monterey Bay, California, to Graves Harbor, Alaska. In the summer and fall, large concentrations of these fish are observed within Southern DPS Green coastal bays and estuaries, including the Columbia River estuary, Willapa Bay, Presumed absent. No suitable The Build Alternatives Sturgeon (Acipenser FTI-- Winchester Bay, and Grays Harbor. During spawning runs, adults DPS fish habitat is present onsite. would have no effect medirostris) enter San Francisco Bay between mid-February and early May and migrate on this species. rapidly up the Sacramento River. Spawning mainly occurs in cool sections of the upper Sacramento River with deep, turbulent flows. This species may spawn several times returning to their natal rivers every 3 to 5 years. ESA Marine Invertebrates Marine snail with one large, oval-shaped shell and muscular foot used to move range black abalone and attach to rocks. Resides in rocky intertidal and subtidal reefs The Build Alternatives Presumed absent. suitable (Haliotis cracherodii) FE/-- (approximately 18 feet deep) along the California and Baja California coast. would have no effect s habitat is present onsite. Can withstand extreme variations in temperature, salinity, moisture, and wave on this species. action. Found on rocky substrates alongside sand channels, which accumulate algae The Build Alternatives range white abalone FE/ they consume. Usually found at depths of 50 to 180 feet. Today, extremely Presumed absent. No suitable would have no effect (Haliotis sorenseni) low numbers of white abalone can be found along the mainland coast of habitat is present onsite. on this species. southern California, and at a few of the offshore islands and banks. ESA Sea Turtles Generally found nearshore as well as in bays and lagoons, on reefs, and especially in areas with seagrass beds. In the Pacific, green turtles occur east pacific DPS green around almost all tropical islands, including the State of Hawaii, and U.S. The Build Alternatives Presumed absent. suitable turtle (Chelonia mydas) FE/-- territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern swould have no effect habitat is present onsite. Mariana Islands. The majority of adult green turtles that feed throughout the on this species. main Hawaiian Islands migrate to French Frigate Shoals in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands to nest. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.4-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.3.4-2: NOAA Listed Species, Proposed Species, Habitat, Potential to Occur, and Effect Determination [continued] Common Name/ Status Habitat Potential to Occur NOAA Effect Scientific Name Determination olive Ridley turtleGenerally found in coastal bays and estuaries but can be very oceanic over Presumed absent. No suitable The Build Alternatives (Lepidochelys olivacea) FT/-- some parts of its range. They typically forage off shore in surface waters or habitat is present onsite. would have no effect dive to depths of 500 feet to feed on bottom dwelling crustaceans. on this species. Leatherbacks occur in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. They occupy leatherback turtleU.S. waters in the West Pacific, East Pacific, and Northwest Atlantic. Western Presumed absent. No suitable The Build Alternatives (Dermochelys coriacea) FE/-- Pacific leatherbacks feed off the Pacific Coast of North America, and migrate habitat is present onsite. would have no effect across the Pacific to nest in Malaysia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and the on this species. Solomon Islands. This species is named for their relatively large heads, which support powerful north Pacific Ocean jaws and enable them to feed on hard -shelled prey, such as whelks and Presumed absent. suitable The Build Alternatives DPS loggerhead turtle FE/-- conch. They are circumglobal, occurring throughout the temperate and habitat is present onsite. s would have no effect (Caretta caretta) tropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. Loggerheads are on this species. the most abundant species of sea turtle found in U.S. coastal waters. ESA Whales blue whale Blue whales are found in all oceans except the Arctic. Along the West Coast (Balaenoptera of the United States, eastern North Pacific blue whales are believed to spend Presumed absent. suitable The Build Alternatives musculus) FE/-- winters off of Mexico and Central America. They likely feed during summer off habitat is present onsite . s would have no effect the U.S. West Coast and, to a lesser extent, in the Gulf of Alaska and central on this species. North Pacific waters. Fin whales are found in deep, offshore waters of all major oceans, primarily in The Build Alternatives fin whale (Balaenoptera FE/ __ temperate to polar latitudes. Fin whales are migratory, moving seasonally into Presumed absent. No suitable would have effect physalus) and out of feeding areas near the poles, but the overall migration pattern is habitat is present onsite. on this species. complex and specific routes have not been documented. Humpback whales live throughout the world's major oceans. The North Pacific features at least four humpback whale populations: 1) The Mexican population breeds along the Pacific coast of Mexico, the Baja California Peninsula, and the Revillagigedos Islands, and feeds across a broad humpback whale range from California to the Aleutian Islands (Alaska); Presumed absent. suitable The Build Alternatives (Megaptera FE/-- 2) The Central American population breeds along the Pacific coast of Costa habitat is present onsite. s would have no effect novaeangliae) Rica, Panama, Guatemala, EI Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua and feeds on this species. almost exclusively off California and Oregon. 3) The Hawaii population breeds in the main Hawaiian Islands and feeds in most of the known feeding grounds in the North Pacific, particularly Southeast Alaska and northern British Columbia. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.4-5 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.3.4-2: NOAA Listed Species, Proposed Species, Habitat, Potential to Occur, and Effect Determination [continued] Common Name/ Status Habitat Potential to Occur NOAA Effect Scientific Name Determination e western North Pacitic population breeds in the areas of Okinawa, Japan, and the Philippines, and feeds in the northern Pacific, primarily off the Russian coast. southern resident DPS Found in all oceans. While they are most abundant in colder waters like Presumed absent. No suitable The Build Alternatives killer whale (Orcinus FE/-- Antarctica, Norway, and Alaska, they are also found in tropical and subtropical habitat is present onsite. would have no effect orca) waters. Resident killer whales have been seen from California to Russia. on this species. Right whales have occurred historically in all the world's oceans from north Pacific right whale temperate to subpolar latitudes. Migration patterns of the North Pacific right Presumed absent. No suitable The Build Alternatives (Eubalaena japonica) FE/-- whale are unknown, although it is thought the whales spend the summer in far habitat is present onsite. would have no effect northern feeding grounds and migrate south to warmer waters, such as on this species. southern California, during the winter. Sei whales have a wide distribution and live in subtropical, temperate, and ser whale (Balaenoptera subpolar waters around the world. Prefer temperate waters in the mid Presumed absent. suitable The Build Alternatives borealis) FE/__ latitudes, and can be found in the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans. The habitat is present onsite. s would have no effect movement patterns of sei whales are not well known, but they are typically on this species. observed in deeper waters far from the coastline. sperm whale (Physeter Found inhabiting all of the world's oceans. Distribution is dependent on food Presumed absent. No suitable The Build Alternatives macrocephalus) FE/-- source and suitable conditions for breeding and varies with the sex and age habitat is present onsite. would have no effect composition of the group. on this species. ESA Pinnipeds Guadalupe fur seals live in the waters off southern California and the Pacific coast of Mexico. Found in coastal rocky habitats and caves during the Guadalupe Fur Seal breeding season. Guadalupe fur seals generally do not migrate, although they Presumed absent. No suitable The Build Alternatives (Arctocephalus FT/ST have been documented traveling great distances from their breeding grounds. habitat is present onsite. would have no effect townsendi) Their breeding grounds are almost entirely on Guadalupe Island, Mexico, on this species. although there are small populations off Baja California on San Benito Archipelago and off southern California at San Miguel Island. Essential Fish Habitat Essential Includes all waters from mean higher high water along the coasts of The Build Alternatives groundfish Fish Washington, Oregon and California seaward to 200 miles, and estuaries to the Presumed absent. No suitable would have no effect Habitat extent of salt water intrusion. Consists of estuarine, rocky shelf, non -rocky habitat is present onsite. on this species. shelf, canyon, continental slope/basin, neritic zone, and oceanic zone. Essential The fishery management plan for coastal pelagic species includes 5 species: Presumed absent. No suitable The Build Alternatives Coastal pelagics Fish northern anchovy, Pacific sardine, Pacific (chub) mackerel, jack mackerel (the habitat is present onsite. would have no effect Habitat CPS finfish), and market squid. Essential fish habitat for these coastal pelagic on this species. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.4-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.3.4-2: NOAA Listed Species, Proposed Species, Habitat, Potential to Occur, and Effect Determination [continued] Common Name/ Status Habitat Potential to Occur NOAA Effect Scientific Name Determination species is detined both through geographic boundaries and by sea -surface temperature ranges. The east -west geographic boundary of EFH for each individual coastal pelagic species finfish and market squid is defined to be all marine and estuarine waters from the shoreline along the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington offshore to the limits of the exclusive economic zone (200 miles) and above the thermocline where sea surface temperatures range between 50 F and 78 F. The southern extend of EFH for coastal pelagic species finfish is the U.S.-Mexico maritime boundary. The northern boundary of the range of coastal pelagic species finfish is more dynamic and variable due to the seasonal cooling of the sea surface temperature. Designated area for species considered highly migratory. In general, these species have a wide geographic distribution, both inside and outside countries' 200 -mile zones, and undertake migrations of significant but variable distances Essential across oceans for feeding or reproduction. They are pelagic species, which highly migratory species Fish means they do not live near the sea floor, and mostly live in the open ocean, Habitat although they may spend part of their life cycle in nearshore waters. They are harvested by U.S. commercial and recreational fishers and by foreign fishing fleets. Examples of species considered highly migratory include tunas, sharks, billfish/swordfish, and dorado. ESA and MMPA Cetacea is/Pinnipeds MMPA Cetaceans Whales, dolphins, porpoises. Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present onsite. Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present onsite. MMPA Pinnipeds Seals and sea lions. Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present onsite. Notes: Federal Designations: FT = Listed as a Threatened species; FE = Listed as an Endangered species State Desianations: ST = Listed as a Threatened species ESA = Endangered Species Act; DPS = Distinct Population Segment; EFH = Essential Fish Habitat; MMPA = Marine Mammal Protection Act Source: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Natural Environment Study (May 2017); updated NOAA Species List obtained May 2018. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) The Build Alternatives would have no effect on this species. The Build Alternatives would have no effect on this species. The Build Alternatives would have no effect on this species. 2.3.4-7 Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Since there are no NOAA Fisheries or USFWS listed species occurring within the project area, the project would have no effect on any listed species. A "No Effect" finding was determined for all species having the potential to occur in the BSA. Consultation with USFWS pursuant to the FESA is not required. 2.3.4.3.2 Permanent Impacts Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) Project improvements would not occur under the No -Build Alternative; therefore, the No -Build Alternative would not permanently impact any threatened and endangered species with the potential to occur within the project area. Alternatives 1A, IC, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) Based on the USFWS Species List acquired for the proposed project, in addition to potential species listed or proposed for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), a total of 5 Federally listed and 5 State listed threatened or endangered plant and animal species were determined to have potential to occur in the general vicinity of the BSA; refer to Table 2.3.4-1. However, no federally listed plant or animal species were observed with the BSA during the habitat assessment. Based on the results of the habitat assessment and the proposed limits of project disturbance, all federally listed plant or animal species are presumed absent from the proposed project footprint. Therefore, permanent impacts regarding threatened and endangered species are not anticipated under the Build Alternatives. The BSA is not located within federally designated Critical Habitat. Additionally, no NOAA Fisheries listed species are present within the project BSA. Since there are no NOAA Fisheries or USFWS listed species occurring within the project area, the project would have no effect on any listed species. A "No Effect" finding was determined for all species having the potential to occur in the BSA. Consultation with USFWS pursuant to the FESA is not required. 2.3.4.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.4-8 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.3.5 Invasive Species 2.3.5.1 Regulatory Setting On February 3, 1999, President William J. Clinton signed Executive Order (EO) 13112 requiring federal agencies to combat the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States. The order defines invasive species as "any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health." Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance issued August 10, 1999 directs the use of the State's invasive species list, maintained by the California Invasive Species Council to define the invasive species that must be considered as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis for a proposed project. 2.3.5.2 Affected Environment A Natural Environment Study (NES) (May 2017) was prepared for the proposed project. Noxious weed species include species designated as federal noxious weeds by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), species listed by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other exotic pest plants designated by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal -IPC). Invasive plant species are abundant throughout much of the Biological Study Area (BSA). Some of the more commonly occurring exotic plants in the BSA include wild oat (Avena sp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulis), pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), wavyleaf sealavender (Limonium sinuatum), fountaingrass (Pennisetum cetaceum), tumbleweed (Sa/sola tragus), and castor bean (Ricinus communis). 2.3.5.3 Environmental Consequences The project footprint for all four Build Alternatives is similar; therefore, the discussion of Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, and 3B below is combined into a single discussion of Build Alternatives. The discussion of invasive species is limited to temporary impacts only. Alternative 1 (No -Build Alternative) No impacts regarding invasive species would result with implementation of the No -Build Alternative, since no construction activity or roadway improvements would occur with this alternative. Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, 3B (Build Alternatives) The Build Alternatives would include landscaping of the slopes adjacent to the proposed grade separation improvements, in addition to revegetation of undeveloped areas affected by construction. In compliance with the Executive Order on Invasive Species, EO 13112, and guidance from the FHWA, the landscaping and erosion control included in the project will not use species listed as invasive. All equipment and materials will be inspected for the presence of invasive species and cleaned if necessary (Measure PS -1). In areas of particular sensitivity, extra precautions will be taken if invasive species are found in or next to the construction areas. These include the inspection and cleaning of construction equipment and eradication strategies to be implemented should an invasion occur. Upon adherence to these requirements, adverse effects related to invasive species would not occur. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.5-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.3.5.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.3.5-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 2.4.1 Regulatory Setting Cumulative impacts are those that result from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, combined with the potential impacts of the proposed project. A cumulative effect assessment looks at the collective impacts posed by individual land use plans and projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively substantial impacts taking place over a period of time. Cumulative impacts to resources in the project area may result from residential, commercial, industrial, and highway development, as well as from agricultural development and the conversion to more intensive agricultural cultivation. These land use activities can degrade habitat and species diversity through consequences such as displacement and fragmentation of habitats and populations, alteration of hydrology, contamination, erosion, sedimentation, disruption of migration corridors, changes in water quality, and introduction or promotion of predators. They can also contribute to potential community impacts identified for the project, such as changes in community character, traffic patterns, housing availability, and employment. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15130 describes when a cumulative impact analysis is necessary and what elements are necessary for an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts. The definition of cumulative impacts under CEQA can be found in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines. A definition of cumulative impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) can be found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 1508.7. 2.4.2 Methodology The potential for cumulative effects was evaluated by considering the direct and indirect effects of the proposed project and other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions ("cumulative projects") in the area to establish whether, in the aggregate, they could result in cumulative environmental effects. The cumulative effects analysis discussed in this section focuses on those issues and resources that would be affected by the aggregation of stress factors on the environment and does not address in detail those topics that would not have additional environmental effects from the cumulative condition, and need not be further evaluated. The analysis provided in this section considered the effects of the other cumulative projects and the Build Alternatives in assessing whether a particular environmental parameter would experience cumulative adverse effects. Resource Study Areas (RSAs) for cumulative effects have been identified for each respective environmental topic analyzed in this section. The following steps, based on Caltrans' "Guidance for Preparers of Cumulative Impact Analysis," were used as guidelines for identifying and assessing cumulative effects: Identify the project -specific resources to consider in the cumulative effect analysis by gathering input from knowledgeable individuals and reliable information sources. The analyses provided earlier in Sections 2.1 through 2.3 of this Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) were used as the basis for determining whether the proposed project, after any required mitigation, would potentially contribute to cumulative effects. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.4-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures • Define the geographic boundary, or RSA, for each resource to be addressed in the cumulative effect analysis. • Describe the current health and historical context of each resource. • Identify the direct and indirect effects of the proposed project that might contribute to a cumulative effect on the identified resources. • Identify other current and reasonably foreseeable future actions or projects and their associated environmental effects to include in the cumulative effect analysis. The cumulative transportation and land development projects are approved and planned projects. • Assess the potential cumulative effects and report the results of the cumulative impact analysis. • Report the results of the cumulative impact analysis in the environmental document, identifying the RSA, its current health and historical context, project impacts that might contribute to a cumulative impact, other current and reasonably foreseeable actions considered in the cumulative impact analysis, information sources and methodology, and conclusions. • Assess the need for additional avoidance, minimization, mitigation and/or recommendations for actions by other agencies to address a cumulative effect. The reasonably foreseeable projects considered in this analysis are presented in Table 2.4-1, Reasonably Foreseeable Projects. Table 2.4-1: Reasonably Foreseeable Projects Project No. Project Name Jurisdiction Proposed Uses Status City of EI Segundo 1 Data Center 445 North Douglas Street 332,137 square -foot Data Center. Approved on October 23, 2008. Construction complete. 2 Hotel 199 Continental Boulevard 152 -room hotel (71,000 square Construction complete. feet) 304 -unit senior housing/assisted Under construction. 3 Senior Housing 540 East Imperial Avenue living facility; or 58 single and Completion estimated in multi -family residential units. December 2019. Construction is anticipated to Office, Retail, 2,089,090 square feet of existing; begin in early 2018. 4 Warehouse, Light 2100 East EI Segundo Boulevard 2,142,457 square feet proposed; Construction anticipated to be Industrial Development 4,231,547 total square feet. completed in late 2019. Full buildout projected by 2022. 5 Fast Food with Drive- 600-630 Sepulveda Boulevard 7,100 square -foot In -N -Out Burger Construction complete. Thru restaurant. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.4-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.4-1: Reasonably Foreseeable Projects [continued] Project No. Project Name Jurisdiction Proposed Uses Status Demolish existing 11,769 square - 6 Data Center 444 North Nash Street foot data center and construct a Construction complete. 75,435 square -foot data center. Add 300,000 square feet of research 7 Research and 455 Continental Boulevard and and development, and office space. Entitlements pending. Build - Development Office 1955 East Grand Avenue Construct 810 -space parking out projected by 2024. structure. 8 Hotel 888 North Sepulveda Boulevard Five -story, 190 -room hotel (111,350 Construction complete. square feet). Demolish between 90,000 to 9 New High School 201 North Douglas Street 170,000 square feet of existing Construction complete. building and construct new 180,000 to 240,000 square -foot high school. Construct 611,545 square feet of 10 Office/Retail 710 North Nash Street office use and 13,660 square feet of Construction complete. retail use. 11 Office 400 Duley Road Construct 67,000 square -foot office. Full buildout projected by 2019. Add 6,952 square feet to existing 12 Addition to existing Hotel 525 North Sepulveda Boulevard 98,548 square -foot hotel. New total Construction complete. of 105,500 square feet. Addition to existing Add 4,986 square feet to existing 13 Industrial Building 750 South Douglas Street industrial building. New total of On hold. 20,061 square feet. Corporate Office and Construct new 52,000 square -foot 14 Athletic Training Facility 2275 Mariposa Avenue corporate office building and 68,380 Construction complete. square -foot athletic training facility. 15 Office Building 500 South Douglas Street and Construct 78,000 square -foot office. Under construction. 2330 Utah Avenue Completion by end of 2018. 16 Commercial/Office 123 Nevada Street New four -unit commercial/office Under construction. Condo condo (14,998 square feet). Completion by June 2018. Under review. Entitlements Office/Private Hotel 121,450 square -foot hotel; 63,550 approved. Construction will 17 Building 2125 Campus Drive square -foot office. begin in July 2018. Completion anticipated in early 2020. 18 Addition to existing 1700 East Imperial Avenue 86,521 square -foot addition to Under construction. Completion anticipated in Office Building existing Boeing S-50 office building. December 2018. 19 Residential 535 Indiana Street Four -unit residential building (7,200 Construction complete. square feet). 178 -room hotel (98,945 square Office construction complete. 20 Hotel and Office 2130 East Maple Drive feet); Two four -unit office buildings Hotel under construction. Anticipated completion in June (20,955 square feet). 2019. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.4-3 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.4-1: Reasonably Foreseeable Projects [continued] Project No. Project Name Jurisdiction Proposed Uses Status Office/Warehouse/Resea 7,692 square -foot 21 rch and Development 140 Sheldon Street Office/Warehouse/Research and On hold. 12,000 square -foot grocery store. amendment and height Development building. City of Manhattan Beach variance for the grocery store 22 Manhattan Village 3200-3600 North Sepulveda 110,000 square -foot shopping Construction complete. (Resolution No. PC 14-04). Shopping Center Boulevard center. 23 Retail/Office 213 Manhattan Beach Boulevard 3,371 square -foot retail. 3,073 Construction complete. approved a Draft Resolution square -foot office. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.4-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Planning Commission approved a use permit 24 Grocery Store 1133 Artesia Boulevard 12,000 square -foot grocery store. amendment and height variance for the grocery store (Resolution No. PC 14-04). Planning Commission approved a Draft Resolution 25 Office 865 Manhattan Beach Boulevard 15,000 square -foot office. for a use permit and variance for the proposed office building. 26 Chalk Preschool 1114 22nd Street Preschool/Daycare (119 students). Construction complete. 23,050 square -foot medical office; 27 Office/Pharmacy/Coffee 1000 North Sepulveda 665 square -foot pharmacy; 1,715 Under construction. Shop/Restaurant Boulevard square -foot coffee shop; and Less Existing Restaurant. 27,583 square -foot supermarket; Project approved by City 28 Gelson's Supermarket 707 North Sepulveda Boulevard 3,200 square -foot bank; and 3,800 Council in June 2017. square -foot retail. 40,000 square -foot medical office 29 Office 400 South Sepulveda Boulevard and Less General Office (40,000 Construction complete. square feet). City of Redondo Beach Demolition of approximately 207,402 square feet of existing structures; retention of 12,479 square feet of existing development; construction of Waterfront Development Waterfront; west of Catalina up to 511,460 square feet of retail, Final EIR was prepared July 30 Project Avenue, south of Portofino Way, restaurant, creative office, specialty 2016. and north of Torrance Boulevard cinema, a public market hall, and a boutique hotel; and total of new and remaining development on-site would be 523,939 square feet (304,058 square feet of net new development). Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.4-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Table 2.4-1: Reasonably Foreseeable Projects [continued] Project No. Project Name Jurisdiction Proposed Uses Status Increase existing square footage by 217,864 square feet, including department stores, mall shops, dining and entertainment. Overall density of development on the site 31 South Bay Galleria 1815 Hawthorne Boulevard (including retail, office, hotel, and Undergoing environmental Improvement Project housing) will increase to a maximum review. 1,943,965 square feet of building floor area. Project will also include a hotel of up to 150 rooms and up to 650 residential units (townhomes, condos, and/or apartment homes). Project construction ongoing 32 Residential Care Facility 320 Knob Hill Avenue 98 rooms (80,000 gross square feet) and completion expected in 2019. 33 Mixed -Use Development 1700 South Pacific Coast 149 residential units and 37,000 Undergoing entitlement Highway square feet of commercial. review. Three story, 6,451 square -foot Undergoing entitlement 34 Commercial Building 221 Avenue I commercial building with subterranean parking. review. 35 Hotel 2430 Marine Avenue 63,586 square -foot hotel with 121 Construction complete. guest rooms. 1914-1926 South Pacific 52 residential condominium units 36 Mixed -Use Development Highway and 10,000 square feet of Under construction. commercial use. City of Hawthorne Intersection of Imperial Highway 37 Condominium Project and Inglewood Avenue (4754 12 condominium units. Under construction. Imperial Highway) Intersection of Hawthorne 38 Hotel Boulevard/EI Segundo 120 -room Hotel Under construction. Boulevard 2.4.3 Affected Resources 2.4.3.1 Land Use The roadway extension and grade separation to accommodate the Build Alternatives are consistent with local and regional goals to improve traffic operations and reduce congestion in the area. The Build Alternatives are consistent with existing and future land uses since no land use changes would occur with either of the Build Alternatives. The project is one of a number of roadway projects planned for the project area, and the project is in compliance with future land uses as discussed in the General Plan. Therefore, no adverse cumulative impacts related to land use are expected. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.4-5 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 2.4.3.2 Growth The project would provide a gap closure and accommodate anticipated increased traffic demand in the area. As noted in Section 2.1.2, Growth, the project area is developed and urbanized, with the exception of privately owned vacant land within the central portion of the project site. While future development in this area is anticipated in the City's General Plan, no specific development is currently proposed, and no applications for development have been received by the City. Accordingly, development on this vacant land is not considered to be reasonably foreseeable. The pattern and rate of population and housing growth following implementation of any of the Build Alternatives would be expected to remain consistent with the population anticipated by existing plans for the area. No land use changes would occur with any of the Build Alternatives. Furthermore, no new or expanded infrastructure, housing, or other similar permanent physical changes to the environment would be necessary as an indirect consequence of the proposed project. The Build Alternatives would not induce growth or remove obstacles to growth in the area, and therefore, would not contribute to cumulative adverse impacts related to growth. 2.4.3.3 Community Impacts The Build Alternatives would not physically divide any established community, change any existing community boundaries, or create a new barrier to movement within the project area. The Build Alternatives would result in beneficial impacts related to connectivity and mobility, providing an additional east -west corridor in the project area. Furthermore, the Build Alternatives would be consistent with the City's General Plan. Therefore, no adverse impacts would occur with regard to regional and local demographics, housing characteristics, or community character and cohesion under the Build Alternatives. 2.4.3.4 Relocations and Real Property Acquisition Partial ROW acquisition consists of APNs 4138-011-025; 4138-012-004, -005, -803, -805, and - 810; and 4138-015-005 through -008, -015, -016, -029, -042 through -046, -050, -051, -053 through -055, -058 through -060, -800, -801, -803, -805, and -809. The permanent partial ROW acquisition anticipated for the Build Alternatives would not result in the displacement or relocation of existing residents, businesses, farms, non -profits, or government services in the project area. ROW would be acquired in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as Amended, and property owners would receive just compensation and fair market value for their property. Thus, adverse effects related to real property acquisition would not occur. 2.4.3.5 Environmental Justice The immediate project area consists entirely of commercial retail and recreational land uses and facilities, and does not contain any residences or neighborhoods. As such, no environmental justice populations exist within the project area. Therefore, the proposed project is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12898, and it is not anticipated that the Build Alternatives would contribute to cumulative adverse effects regarding environmental justice. 2.4.3.6 Utilities and Emergency Services The Build Alternatives would require the realignment of railways and relocation of utilities and pipelines during construction. However, short-term effects to utilities and emergency services would be minimized with adherence to Measures U&ES-1 and U&ES-2. Measure U&ES-1 Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.4-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures would require utility coordination and utility relocation plans. Measure U&ES-2 would require coordination with fire, emergency medical, and law enforcement providers regarding temporary ramp closures and detour plans as part of the Traffic Management Plan (TMP). The Build Alternatives would not result in long-term operational adverse effects to utilities and emergency services as any relocated utilities would function similar to current conditions. With implementation of the project, the delivery of emergency services is expected to improve thereby resulting in a beneficial effect. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not contribute to cumulative adverse effects to utility facilities and emergency service providers. 2.4.3.7 Traffic/Transportation The Build Alternatives would improve traffic operations and reduce congestion in the project area. The analysis of future traffic conditions in Section 2.1.5, Traffic and Transportation/ Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities of this EIR/EA for 2021 (Opening Year) is a cumulative analysis in that it considers traffic generated by existing and future planned land uses and the effect of future planned transportation improvements. This analysis determined that the Build Alternatives would result in improved traffic conditions as compared to the No -Build Alternative with implementation of Measure TRA -2. TRA -2 provides for installation of a new traffic signal. Short-term impacts would include temporary roadway and intersection closures. However, Measure TRA -1 has been included to minimize these effects during construction. Measure TRA -1 would require a TMP to ensure access is maintained to all business and properties within the project area throughout the duration of the construction process. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not contribute to cumulative adverse effects in this regard. 2.4.3.8 Visual/Aesthetics There are no designated scenic vistas within the viewshed of the project site. Construction of the Build Alternatives would not be visible to sensitive uses within the project area. However, Measures V-1 and V-2 would minimize potential short-term adverse effects. Measure V-2 requires a Construction Management Plan. Measure V-2 would ensure adequate lighting for nighttime construction activities for worker safety and shielding for driver safety. The lighting would be contained and directed toward the specific area of construction. Additionally, visual changes to quality and character in the project area would be considered moderate due to the introduction of a new bridge structure and increased visible hardscape. However, these improvements would not result in degradation to the character and quality of existing conditions, as the project area is already highly developed and does not contain sensitive views. The project would be similar to, and would retain, the existing urbanized character of the project area. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not contribute to cumulative adverse effects to visual resources. 2.4.3.9 Cultural Resources Operation of the Build Alternatives would not result in any permanent impacts to cultural resources. Cultural resource impacts would be temporary in nature due to ground -disturbing activities occurring during construction. As noted in Section 2.1.7, Cultural Resources, the BNSF, UPRR, and Kramer Foundry are not eligible for listing on the NRHP nor for listing on the CRHR. Caltrans has determined a Finding of No Historic Properties Affected. Additionally, no areas of concern were identified and no previously recorded prehistoric sites are known within one mile of the APE. However, in the event unknown cultural resources are discovered, PF - CUL -1 would minimize this short-term adverse effect. PF -CUL -1 would require that all earth- moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area be diverted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find. Additionally, PF -CUL -2 would Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.4-7 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures minimize potential construction -related impacts regarding human remains. Thus, the Build Alternatives would not contribute to adverse impacts related to cultural resources. 2.4.3.10 Water Quality The Build Alternatives would not result in adverse construction and operational water quality impacts because adherence to existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements implemented during construction and operation would avoid and minimize potential water quality impacts. In addition, the amount of new impervious surface, as a result of the Build Alternatives, would be negligible and would not result in a substantial increase in runoff leading to negative impact to surface water quality. No substantial impacts to the receiving water bodies, including the local drainage system along Rosecrans Avenue, the Dominguez Channel, and the Los Angeles Harbor, are anticipated. Cumulative development projects within the watershed would be subject to the same NPDES requirements, further minimizing the potential for cumulative impacts. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not contribute to cumulative adverse water quality effects. 2.4.3.11 Geology and Soils The potential impacts of the Build Alternatives related to geologic conditions and soils would be avoided or minimized based on implementation of geotechnical design features, Soil Management Best Management Practices (BMPs), and other design criteria consistent with existing State and local building regulations, such as the California Building Code (CBC). The project would also incorporate a project feature (PF-GEO-1) that would require implementation of various geotechnical recommendations provided in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report for the proposed project. The Build Alternatives have a limited capacity to interact or contribute cumulatively to geological hazards associated with cumulative development in the project area. As a result, the Build Alternatives would not contribute to cumulative adverse impacts related to geology and soils. 2.4.3.12 Paleontological Resources Implementation of a project -specific Paleontological Management Plan (PMP) is required for excavation associated with construction of the Build Alternatives, which would minimize potential adverse effects to buried paleontological resources. Potential impacts related to paleontological resources would be specific to the project site, and therefore, the Build Alternatives would not contribute to cumulative adverse effects related to paleontological resources. 2.4.3.13 Hazardous Waste/Materials Based on the findings presented in the Phase I Initial Site Assessment (Phase I ISA), releases of hazardous materials/waste from past on-site and off-site industrial uses have resulted in contamination to on-site soil, soil gas, and groundwater. Past facilities include Honeywell/General Chemical, Air Products, H. Kramer & Company, rail operations and MTA/BNSF property, and petroleum pipelines. Implementation of the Build Alternatives would involve acquisition of contaminated properties. Based on the location of properties that have reported contamination on-site, it is not feasible to avoid City -ROW acquisition for any of the proposed Build Alternatives. It is acknowledged that no Caltrans -ROW is proposed as part of the project. There is a potential for exposure of contractors to hazardous materials/wastes in soil, soil gas, and groundwater. Soil excavation and earth -moving activities associated with the Build Alternatives could expose workers to contaminants associated with past uses on-site, Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.4-8 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures which are discussed in Section 2.2.5, Hazardous Waste/Materials, Tables 2.2.5-1 and 2.2.5-2, above. During construction, exposure to these contaminants can be minimized through adherence to protocols for the removal, handling, and disposal of said materials. Implementation of Measure HW -1 would require a Phase II site investigation to define the extent of on-site contamination and recommend appropriate coordination with other off-site properties owners and remediation. Measure HW -2 would require a Soil Management Plan. Measure HW -3 would require identification and relocation coordination of on-site monitoring wells. The Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist would be required to identify the location of on-site petroleum pipelines (Measure HW -4). Any site disturbance activities within any easements for petroleum pipelines would be required to be conducted under local purview. Further, any on- site transformers to be relocated/removed during site disturbance activities would be required to be conducted under the purview of the local purveyor to identify property -handling procedures regarding PCBs (Measure HW -5). Measure HW -6 requires a Construction Contingency Plan be prepared in the event that unknown hazardous materials/waste are uncovered during site disturbance activities. Measures HW -1 through HW -6 would minimize potential adverse effects regarding hazardous waste/materials. Like the Build Alternatives, each of the planned projects has the potential to be exposed to hazardous waste/materials through releases at adjacent or nearby properties or through renovation or demolition of buildings or other structures. Likewise, the planned projects would be required to comply with state and federal regulations with respect to the use, generation, and disposal of hazardous waste/materials during construction and operation, and mitigate as necessary. Therefore, the project, in combination with other planned projects, would not result in substantial cumulative hazardous waste/materials impacts. 2.4.3.14 Air Quality The analysis of air quality provided in Section 2.2.6, Air Quality, of this EIR/EA is a cumulative analysis in that it considers the regional emissions of traffic generated by existing and future planned land uses and the effects of other future planned transportation improvements. Temporary air quality impacts would be minimized through implementation of existing requirements related to dust control, equipment management, and other measures. The Build Alternatives would not contribute to cumulative air quality impacts because the Build Alternatives would not violate any air quality standard, would not contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 2.4.3.15 Noise The analysis of noise impacts provided in Section 2.2.7, Noise, found that vehicular noise occurring as a result of extension of Park Place would not approach or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC), and that adverse effects would not occur. None of the identified cumulative projects identified within the project area would have the capacity to result in a substantial cumulative effect during long-term operation of the Build Alternatives. As with the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project, each cumulative project would be subject to its own environmental review that would consider noise, and attenuation and/or abatement would be required as applicable. There is the potential for a cumulative noise impact to occur during construction if one or more of the cumulative projects were in construction at the same time. However, these impacts Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.4-9 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures would be minimized with the implementation of noise abatement procedures (refer to Measures N-1 and N-2), which are also anticipated to be included in other related projects. 2.4.3.16 Energy Construction -related energy consumption anticipated under the Build Alternatives would be minimal and would cease once construction of the project is complete (approximately 24 months). When balancing energy used during construction and operations against energy saved by enhancing safety and other transportation efficiencies, the project would not have substantial energy impacts. Other than relatively minor and temporary energy consumption during construction, the Build Alternatives would not contribute to cumulative adverse effects related to energy. 2.4.3.17 Biological Environment Based on the Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts) (NES -MI) prepared for the proposed project, the Build Alternatives could result in impacts to natural communities in addition to sensitive plant and animal species. A range of measures has been incorporated into the analysis to minimize impacts in this regard. The natural communities existing on the project site area isolated within a heavily developed area adjacent to a range of commercial and industrial uses. The site has been previously disturbed by former heavy industrial uses, and sensitive biological resources are limited within the project area given the amount of development that has occurred. While the Build Alternatives and related cumulative projects may result in impacts to biological resources, each project would be subject to resource agency permits and requirements that would minimize impacts, such that adverse cumulative impacts would not occur. 2.4.3.18 Climate Change The analysis of air quality provided in Section 3.3, Climate Change, of this EIR/EA is a cumulative analysis in that it considers the emissions of traffic generated by existing and future planned land uses and the effects of other future planned transportation improvements. While construction activities associated with the Build Alternatives would result in a slight increase in GHG emissions during construction, operational emissions during the Build scenarios would decrease from the No -Build scenario. However, as discussed in Section 3.3, it is too speculative to make a determination regarding the project's direct impact and its contribution on a cumulative scale to climate change. 2.4.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No additional avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required with adherence to the project features and measures described above. A complete list of avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures can be found in Appendix F, Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Summary. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 2.4-10 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation 3.1 DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE UNDER CEQA The project is subject to federal, as well as City of EI Segundo and state environmental review requirements because the City of EI Segundo proposes the use of federal funds from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and/or the project requires an approval from FHWA. Project documentation, therefore, has been prepared in compliance with both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The City of EI Segundo is the project proponent and the lead agency under CEQA. FHWA's responsibility for environmental review, consultation, and any other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by Caltrans pursuant to 23 United States Code Section 327 (23 USC 327) and the Memorandum of Understanding dated December 23, 2016 and executed by FHWA and Caltrans. One of the primary differences between NEPA and CEQA is the way significance is determined. Under NEPA, significance is used to determine whether an EIS, or a lower level of documentation, will be required. NEPA requires that an EIS be prepared when the proposed federal action (project) as a whole has the potential to "significantly affect the quality of the human environment." The determination of significance is based on context and intensity. Some impacts determined to be significant under CEQA may not be of sufficient magnitude to be determined significant under NEPA. Under NEPA, once a decision is made regarding the need for an EIS, it is the magnitude of the impact that is evaluated and no judgment of its individual significance is deemed important for the text. NEPA does not require that a determination of significant impacts be stated in the environmental documents. CEQA, on the other hand, does require the Department to identify each "significant effect on the environment" resulting from the project and ways to mitigate each significant effect. If the project may have a significant effect on any environmental resource, then an EIR must be prepared. Each and every significant effect on the environment must be disclosed in the EIR and mitigated if feasible. In addition, the CEQA Guidelines list a number of "mandatory findinas of sianificance," which also require the preparation of an EIR. There are no types of actions under NEPA that parallel the findings of mandatory significance of CEQA. This chapter discusses the effects of this project and CEQA significance. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.1-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.1-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation 3.2 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This checklist identifies physical, biological, social, and economic factors that might be affected by the proposed project. In many cases, background studies performed in connection with the projects will indicate that there are no impacts to a particular resource. A NO IMPACT answer in the last column reflects this determination. The words "significant" and "significance" used throughout the following checklist are related to CEQA, not NEPA, impacts. The questions in this form are intended to encourage the thoughtful assessment of impacts and do not represent thresholds of significance. Project features, which can include both design elements of the project, and standardized measures that are applied to all or most Caltrans projects such as Best Management Practices (BMPs) and measures included in the Standard Plans and Specifications or as Standard Special Provisions, are considered to be an integral part of the project and have been considered prior to any significance determinations documented below; see Chapters 1 and 2 for a detailed discussion of these features. The annotations to this checklist are summaries of information contained in Chapter 2 in order to provide the reader with the rationale for significance determinations; for a more detailed discussion of the nature and extent of impacts, please see Chapter 2. This checklist incorporates by reference the information contained in Chapters 1 and 2. Aesthetics Would the project: Significant and Less Than Less Than No Impact Unavoidable Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect on aEl ❑ Elscenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rockF-1 ❑ F-1outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ❑ ® ❑ ❑ surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or ❑ Z ❑ ❑ nighttime views in the area? The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in significant impacts related to aesthetics was assessed in the Visual Resources Technical Memorandum (December 2016) and the Visual/Aesthetics section in Chapter 2. The following discussions are based on those analyses. a, b) No Impact The proposed project would have no impacts on either scenic vistas or scenic resources within a state scenic highway. As discussed in the Visual/Aesthetics section in Chapter 2, the project area does not include any scenic vistas or state scenic highways. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation c, d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated As discussed in the Visual/Aesthetics section in Chapter 2, construction of the Build Alternatives would not expose sensitive uses to views of the project site. The only viewers of the project would be motorists traveling along adjacent roadways in the project area and patrons of the adjacent retail and commercial businesses. Construction -related vehicle access and staging of construction materials would occur within the City right-of-way (ROW) and disturbed or developed areas along the length of the project site, and would be visible to motorists and patrons traveling adjacent to the project site. Construction -related impacts would be short-term and would cease upon project completion. Mitigation Measure V-1 would be implemented and would require the City to implement a Construction Management Plan that would identify measures such as temporary opaque fencing around staging areas, the location for staging areas and stockpiling of materials, and construction haul routes, consistent with the Caltrans' Standard Specifications for Construction. Compliance with Mitigation Measure V-1 would reduce temporary visual impacts, and impacts would be less than significant. It is anticipated that the Build Alternatives may require nighttime construction activities. These activities may be required to take place for several months. Existing sources of light within the project area include vehicle headlights on adjacent roadways and lighting emanating from the retail and commercial businesses adjacent to the project site. Light and glare from nighttime construction lighting could potentially cause a nuisance to these motorists and patrons. Mitigation Measure V-2 would require that any lighting required for nighttime construction activities would be consistent with Section 2-208, Night Work, of the Caltrans Construction Manual (July 2017). This provision provides for adequate lighting for the safety of construction workers, but necessitates shielding so that lighting does not blind approaching drivers. Necessary lighting for safety and construction purposes would be directed away from land uses outside the project area, and contained and directed toward the specific area of construction. With implementation of required mitigation, impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Agriculture and Forest Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Significant and Less Than Less Than No Impact Unavoidable Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance ❑ ❑ (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared ❑ ❑ 1:1pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Production (as defined by Government Code Monitoring Program of the California Resources section 51104(g))? Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ❑ ❑ 1:1use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section ❑ ❑ 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion El 1:1 1:1of forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, ❑ ❑ to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? The potential for the Build Alternatives to significantly impact agriculture and forest resources was assessed in the No Impact section of Chapter 2. The following discussions are based on the findings of that analysis. a, b, c, d, e) No Impact According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), there are no designated important farmlands in the project area. According to the City of EI Segundo General Plan Land Use Element, there are no agricultural land uses or timberlands within the vicinity of the project site. In addition, there are no parcels under a Williamson Act contract within the project limits. Therefore, the project would not result in the conversion of any farmland or timberland. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-3 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Air Quality Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Significant and Less Than Less Than No Impact Unavoidable Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ 1:11:1applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality 1:1® ❑ violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality ❑ Z standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ 1:1 ® 1:1pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a Elsubstantial number of people? El Z El The potential for the Build Alternatives to significantly impact air quality was assessed in the Air Quality Assessment (July 2017) and the Air Quality section in Chapter 2. The following discussion is based on those analyses. a, b, c, d, e) Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) and is within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The SCAQMD is the primary agency responsible for writing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in cooperation with SCAG, local governments, and the private sector. The AQMP provides the blueprint for meeting State and federal ambient air quality standards. As discussed in the Air Quality section of Chapter 2, the Basin is an attainment area for CO, NO2, and SO2 for both state and federal standards. The Basin is a nonattainment area for 03 and PM2.5 under both state and federal standards. The Basin is nonattainment for PM,o under state standards and serious maintenance under federal standards. The project would result in additional capacity and would improve the overall operational performance of Park Place and other congested roadways within the project vicinity (i.e., Rosecrans Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard) and access to and from the 1-405. The proposed project is included in Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) most recent Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and 2017 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), both of which were found to be conforming (see Section 2.2.5, Air Quality, of this EIR/EA). According to Particulate Matter analysis guidance, a substantial volume for a new highway or expressway is defined as an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume of 125,000 or more, and a substantial number of diesel vehicles is defined as 8 percent or more of that total ADT, or more than 10,000 truck ADT. A substantial increase in diesel truck traffic is usually Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation considered to be approximately 10 percent. Based on the analysis, truck volumes would be less than 10,000 ADT in both the Opening Year and the Horizon Year (2040). Additionally, the overall percentage of trucks would remain at approximately two percent within the project area, as in compliance with the RTP/FTIP. Mobile source emissions under the Build Alternatives would be offset compared to the No Build scenario due to traffic flow improvements and the more direct routing that would be provided with project implementation. The project would generate a less than significant amount of pollutants during construction due to the short duration of project construction. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the AQMP, violate any air quality standard, result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard and no mitigation is required. The closest sensitive receptors to the proposed project include residential uses approximately 1,500 feet away. In order to further minimize construction -related emissions, all construction vehicles and construction equipment would be required to be equipped with CARB-mandated emission control devices pursuant to state emission regulations and standard construction practices. After construction of the proposed project is complete, all construction -related impacts would cease, thus resulting in a less than significant impact. Short-term construction particulate matter emissions would be further reduced through the implementation of dust suppression measures outlined within SCAQMD Rule 403. The proposed project would comply with any state, federal, and/or local rules and regulations developed as a result of implementing control and mitigation measures proposed as part of their respective State Implementation Plan (SIP). Therefore, project construction is not anticipated to violate state or federal air quality standards or contribute to the existing air quality violations in the Basin. No mitigation is required. The proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial amount of people. Minor sources of odors would be present during construction. The predominant source of power for construction equipment is diesel engines and emissions associated with asphalt paving. However, because odors would be temporary and would disperse rapidly with distance from the source, construction -generated odors would not be expected to result in the frequent exposure of receptors to objectionable odorous emissions. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-5 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Biological Resources Would the project: Significant and Less Than Less Than No Impact Unavoidable Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in 1:1 ® 1:1 1:1local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the ❑ California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, ❑ vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife ❑ corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree z ❑ preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in significant impacts to biological resources was assessed in the Natural Environment Study (NES) (May 2017) and the following sections in Chapter 2: Section 2.3.1, Natural Communities; Section 2.3.2, Animal Species; Section 2.3.3, Plant Species; Section 2.3.4, Threatened and Endangered Species; and Section 2.3.5, Invasive Species. The following discussions are based on those analyses. a) Less Than Siqnificant with Mitiqation Incorporated As discussed in the Plant Species section of Chapter 2, a total of twenty-three (23) special status plant species were identified during the records search as potentially occurring on the project site. None of the 23 special status plant species were found to be present within the project area during the habitat assessment that was conducted for the project. Based on habitat requirements for specific species, availability and quality of habitats needed by special status plant species, and known distribution, southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) and paniculate tarplant (Deinandra paniculata) were determined to have a low potential to occur. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Construction of the Build Alternatives may result in temporary impacts to individual plant species that may be present in the general area surrounding the proposed project footprint, as a result of trampling by foot or vehicular traffic or exposure to excessive dust. Implementation of any of the Build Alternatives would result in road extension -related permanent losses of marginal habitat for southern tarplant and paniculate tarplant, as discussed in Section 2.3.2. Specifically, the permanent loss of deerweed scrub and non-native grassland would occur under all the Build Alternatives; see the Natural Communities section in Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion. Mitigation Measure PS -1 requires a preconstruction rare plant survey to be conducted to determine whether southern tarplant and/or paniculate tarplant occur onsite. Mitigation Measure PS -2 requires that all disturbed areas within the undeveloped area be revegetated with native plant species generally conforming to the surrounding plant composition in the immediate area. Implementation of Mitigation Measures PS -1 and PS -2 would reduce potentially adverse impacts to special status plant species that may occur under the Build Alternatives to a less than significant level. As discussed in the Animal Species section of Chapter 2, construction disturbance associated with the project (e.g., noise, visual disruptions) during any time of year may directly but temporarily affect Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, burrowing owl, California horned lark, and American peregrine falcon, all of which are year-round residents in southern California. This would only disturb short -eared owl, ferruginous hawk, and merlin during the fall, winter, and early spring, as these species are all winter residents in southern California. Brewer's sparrow would only be directly affected during its short migration window in the spring and fall each year. None of these species would be expected to be directly injured or killed as a result of construction. Indirect impacts would be generally restricted to long-term habitat degradation, primarily through the unintended spread of non-native weed seeds within the project area, which may result in changing plant composition and lower the quality of the onsite natural habitat. In addition, construction during the avian nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31) may disrupt avian nesting behaviors. Temporary impacts to special status animal species and nesting birds would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures AS -1 and AS -2. Mitigation Measure AS -1 requires a preconstruction clearance survey for nesting birds if construction and vegetation removal occurs within the avian nesting season. Mitigation Measure AS -2 requires that a preconstruction burrowing owl clearance survey be conducted to ensure that burrowing owl remain absent from the project site. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AS -1 and AS -2, potential impacts to nesting birds and burrowing owl would be reduced to a less than significant level. Development of the Build Alternatives has the potential to have both direct and indirect impacts to the above species. Habitat within the proposed project footprint would be lost due to development. Specifically, the permanent loss of deerweed scrub and non-native grassland would occur under all the Build Alternatives; see the Natural Communities section in Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion. Implementation of Mitigation Measures PS -1 and PS -2, described above, would reduce these potential permanent impacts to a less than significant level. b, c) No Impact According to the NES prepared for the proposed project, there are no creeks, rivers, lakes, wetlands, or other potentially jurisdictional aquatic features within the vicinity of the project site. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-7 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation d) No Impact According to the NES prepared for the proposed project, there are no habitat linkages or migration corridors within the project area. The project area and surrounding areas are completely developed and provides no other naturally occurring vegetation communities or linear avenues for wildlife movement into or out of the project area. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. e, f) Less Than Sicinificant Impact According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's California Regional Conservation Plans Map, the proposed project is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.' In addition, according to the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning's Significant Ecological Areas and Coastal Resource Areas Policy Map, the project is not located within the boundaries of an area identified as a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or a Coastal Resource Area.2 The EI Segundo Dunes are identified as a Coastal Resource Area, however, the project site is located over one mile away from the EI Segundo Dunes and will not have any impacts to this resource. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to biological resources, and impacts in this regard would be less than significant. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Regional Conservation Plans Map, August 2015. 2 Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, Significant Ecological Areas and Coastal Resource Areas Policy Map, February 2015. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-8 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Cultural Resources Would the project: Significant and Less Than Less Than No Impact Unavoidable Significant Significant Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ❑ 1:11:1of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ❑ 1:1 ® El an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological Elresource z El El or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred El ElEloutside of dedicated cemeteries? The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in significant impacts to cultural resources was assessed in the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) (June 2017); Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) (July 2017); Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) (July 2016); and the combined Paleontological Identification Report and Paleontological Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) and the following sections in Chapter 2: Section 2.1.7, Cultural Resources; and Section 2.2.3, Paleontology. The following discussions are based on those analyses. a, b) Less Than Significant Impact As detailed in Section 2.1.7, Cultural Resources, of the EIR/EA, no historic or archaeological resources are located within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE). Based on the analysis, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) (P-19-192401) and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) (P-19-192402) along with remnants of the Kramer Foundry were identified within the area of potential effect (APE); however, the analysis found that the BNSF, UPRR, and Kramer Foundry are not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nor for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Based on these findings, no further archaeological study, identification, or monitoring efforts are recommended for implementation of the Build Alternatives. Implementation of the proposed project may result in construction -related impacts to undiscovered cultural resources. The possibility exists that previously unknown buried historical and archaeological deposits could be discovered during grading and excavation work associated with construction activities. Therefore, project features have been proposed to reduce potentially significant impacts to cultural resources. PF -CUL -1 requires all earth -moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area be diverted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find. Refer to Section 2.1.7 for details regarding this project feature. Implementation of PF -CUL -1 during construction would reduce potentially significant impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level, and no mitigation is required. c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated No fossils are known within the proposed project boundaries. Over forty localities are known within a five -mile radius in Pleistocene alluvial deposits (locally named Pleistocene older flood plain deposits). Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-9 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation While there are no known recorded paleontological resources within the proposed project boundaries, earth -moving activities associated with construction of the Build Alternatives may affect paleontologically-sensitive deposits, which could result in the disturbance or loss of paleontological resources, including scientifically important fossil remains, associated fossil specimen data, and corresponding geologic and geographic locality data. Any loss of paleontological resources would be a significant impact and would most likely occur in areas underlain by areas in the proposed project boundaries mapped as Pleistocene older flood plain deposits (Qoa) (see the Paleontological Resources section in Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion). Therefore, Mitigation Measure PALEO-1 has been incorporated and would require preparation of a project -specific Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) prepared by a qualified principal paleontologist, once adequate project design information regarding subsurface disturbance location, depth, and lateral extent is available. This measure would also require paleontological worker training, and preparation of a Paleontological Mitigation Report, in addition to other provisions. With implementation of the above measure, potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources are considered to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. d) Less Than Siqnificant Impact No human remains are known to exist within the project APE. Therefore, construction of the Build Alternatives would not impact known human remains. However, if unknown human remains are exposed during construction, a significant impact could occur. Implementation of project features would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. PF - CUL -2 requires that, in compliance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, should human remains be unearthed during project construction, all disturbances and activities shall stop in any area or nearby area suspected to overlie remains, and the County Coroner shall be contacted. In addition, pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98, if the remains are thought to be Native American, the Coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which would then notify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). At this time, the person who discovered the remains shall contact Jonathan Wright, Associate Environmental Planner, Archaeology, so that he may work with the MLD on the respectful treatment and disposition of the remains. Further provisions of PRC 5097.98 shall be followed as applicable. With implementation of PF -CUL -2, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level and no mitigation is required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-10 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Geology and Soils Would the project: Significant Less Than Less Than No and Significant with Significant Impact Unavoidable Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence ❑ ❑ of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ® ❑ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ Z ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially 1:1 E] ® E]result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or ❑ ❑ Z ❑ property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers ❑ ❑ ❑ Z are not available for the disposal of waste water? The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in significant impacts to geology and soils was assessed in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (October 2013), and the Geology/ Soils/Seismic/Topography section in Chapter 2. The following discussions are based on those analyses. a, i) No Impact No mapped surface faults are reported through the project area. The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture at the site is anticipated to be low. a, ii), iii) and iv) Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project site is located within an area where strong seismic shaking occurs; all Build Alternatives would be equally affected. The Build Alternatives would require the construction of a new grade -separated bridge structure. Geologic and seismic hazards associated with a potential earthquake occurrence include strong ground shaking and seismically induced settlement. Therefore, there is the potential that ground shaking from seismic activity could impact the site, causing surface shaking and potentially surface displacement of soils. Conformance with the California Building Code (CBC), as well as adherence to standard engineering practices and construction practices, would reduce the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-11 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation effects of seismic ground shaking. Earthwork shall be performed in accordance with CBC standards related to compacted fill, overexcavation and recompaction, and retaining walls, among other requirements. Moreover, Project Feature PF-GEO-1 would require that a site- specific, geotechnical field investigation is performed for the proposed project during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) phase. With adherence to CBC standardized and Project Feature PF-GEO-1, potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. The project site is not located within a liquefaction zone as indicated by the CGS seismic hazard zone map; the groundwater level at the site is estimated to be more than 65 feet below ground surface (bgs). Based on the groundwater level, density description of soil within the previous borings, and the design peak ground acceleration, it is anticipated that the liquefaction potential at the site is nil to very low. The upper loose to medium -dense sandy soils that are likely to be present at the project site could settle due to shaking during a design seismic event. Since the proposed roadway excavations would likely remove these loose upper soils, the seismic settlement below the proposed roadway levels is not expected to be significant. In addition, the project site is not located within a landslide potential zone designated on a seismic hazard map. Based on limited geologic reconnaissance, existing and proposed topography, and low potential for liquefaction, the potential for seismic slope instability in the natural and engineered slopes is low. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Less Than Significant Impact As discussed in the Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography section in Chapter 2, potential temporary impacts to the geological environment are expected to occur as a result of cut and fill operations, which include soil erosion and siltation. Cut and fill operations necessary to provide embankments would result in an alteration to the existing topography and may increase the risk of soil erosion and siltation. The soil types in the study area are not expected to pose a constraint to any of the Build Alternatives. However, implementation of erosion control measures as required by Caltrans and adherence to all requirements set forth in the NPDES permit required for construction activities would address any potential construction -related erosion and siltation impacts. Refer to Chapter 2.2.1, Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff, for a detailed analysis of short-term construction water quality impacts, and a further description of existing regulations and standardized measures applicable to the project. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c, d) Less Than Significant Impact As discussed in the Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography section in Chapter 2, the soil types in the study area are not expected to pose a constraint to any of the Build Alternatives. Conformance with the CBC, as well as adherence to standard engineering practices and design criteria, would reduce the effects of seismic ground shaking. Earthwork shall be performed in accordance with CBC standards related to compacted fill, overexcavation and recompaction, and retaining walls, among other requirements. Moreover, Project Feature PF-GEO-1 would require that a site-specific, geotechnical field investigation is performed for the proposed project during the PS&E phase. With adherence to CBC standardized and Project Feature PF-GEO-1, potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Since onsite soils are primarily silty sands, the sandy soils are anticipated to be non -expansive or have a very low expansion potential. Adherence to the CBC and recommendations within the Geotechnical Design Report to be prepared during the PS&E phase as part of PF-GEO-1 would be required for all earthwork; therefore, impacts related to soil expansion would be minimized. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-12 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation e) No Impact The Build Alternatives would not use septic tanks or alternative methods for disposal of wastewater into subsurface soils, and would not connect to existing public wastewater infrastructure. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not result in impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal methods. No mitigation is required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-13 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project: Significant and Less Than Less Than No Impact Unavoidable Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the El El® ❑ environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of ❑ ❑ greenhouse gases? a) Less Than Significant Impact Project -related GHG emissions would include emissions from construction and operation activities. Construction of the project would result in direct emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 from the operation of construction equipment. Transport of materials and construction workers to and from the project site would also result in GHG emissions. Construction activities would be short-term in duration and would cease upon project completion. As noted in Section 3.3, GHG emissions associated with construction of the project would be 418 tons (379 metric tons) Of CO2eq. As stated in Section 3.3, daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle hours travelled (VHT) would decrease in the project area in both opening (2021) and horizon (2040) years. The project would implement a gap closure project to provide an alternate east -west route between Sepulveda Boulevard and Douglas Street and to relieve congestion and to improve local traffic circulation. As a result, the project would reduce travel distances and improve travel time in the project area by relieving congestion thereby providing a net reduction in GHG emissions. GHG emissions are projected to decrease as a result of implementation of the project, due to project benefits related to reduction of VMT and VHT. While construction activities would result in a slight increase in GHG emissions during construction (379 MTCO2eq), operational emissions during the Build scenarios would decrease from the No -Build scenario. Neither construction nor operation of the project would generate GHG emissions in excess of the SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2eq per year. GHG impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b) Less Than Significant Impact The City of EI Segundo adopted an Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan (EECAP) in December 2015. The EECAP estimated future emissions in the City and established GHG reduction targets consistent with the State's adopted AB 32 GHG reduction target. A key finding of the EECAP baseline GHG emissions inventory was that energy accounted for 63 percent of total community emissions in 2012 (all non -municipal sources, such as residential and business energy consumption, transportation, etc.). The City is working to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 (a 15 percent decrease from 2005 levels). A longer-term goal was established for 2035: to reduce emissions 49 percent below 2005 levels, which would put EI Segundo on a path toward the State's long-term goal to reduce emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Key emissions reduction strategies are targeted toward existing land uses that were built prior to the adoption of current high-performance energy efficiency standards and water conservation in landscaping regulations. Strategies aimed at new commercial land uses Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-14 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation emphasize reductions in energy demand through increased building energy efficiencies, higher water conservation efficiencies, and incorporation of heat island—reducing design measures such as cool roofs and increased tree plantings. As stated above, project implementation would reduce VMTs and VHTs thereby reducing GHG emissions. As such, the proposed project is consistent with the City's EECAP policies and goals and would have a less than significant impact involving a conflict with applicable GHG reduction plans, policies, or programs. No mitigation is required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-15 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: Significant and Less Than Less Than No Impact Unavoidable Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or El El ® ❑ disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset E] ® El Eland accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste ❑ ® ❑ ❑ within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, ® ❑ would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would FI ❑ the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people ❑ ❑ ❑ residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ❑ ® ❑ ❑ evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including ❑ ❑ 1:1where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in significant impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials was assessed in the Phase I Initial Site Assessment (Phase I ISA) (July 10, 2017) and the Hazardous Waste/Materials section in Chapter 2. The following discussions are based on those analyses. a) Less Than Sicinificant Impact The Build Alternatives would not create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment through any reasonably foreseeable hazard to the public through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. During long-term operations, it is anticipated that any use of hazardous materials on-site would consist of routine hazardous materials such as paint, solvents, and fuel for maintenance activities and landscaping. All such materials would be used, handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable local, State, and federal Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-16 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation regulations. Potential hazardous material impacts in this regard are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b) Less Than Significant with Mitiaation Incorporated As detailed in Section 2.2.4, Hazardous Waste/Materials, in this EIR/EA, releases of hazardous materials/waste from past on-site and off-site industrial uses have resulted in contamination to on-site soil, soil gas, and groundwater (refer to Tables 2.2.4-1 and 2.2.4-2). Past facilities include Honeywell/General Chemical, Air Products, H. Kramer & Company, rail operations and MTA/BNSF property, and petroleum pipelines. Implementation of the Build Alternatives would involve acquisition of contaminated properties (refer to Table 2.2.4-3). Based on the location of properties that have reported contamination on-site, it is not feasible to avoid City -ROW acquisition for any of the proposed Build Alternatives. There is a potential for exposure of contractors to hazardous materials/wastes in soil, soil gas, and groundwater. Soil excavation and earth -moving activities associated with the Build Alternatives could expose workers to contaminants associated with past uses on-site, which are discussed in Tables 2.2.4-1 and 2.2.4-2 above. During construction, exposure to these contaminants can be minimized through adherence to protocols for the removal, handling, and disposal of said materials. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HW -1 would require a Phase II site investigation to define the extent of on-site contamination and recommend appropriate coordination with other off-site properties owners and remediation. Mitigation Measure HW -2 would require a Soil Management Plan. Mitigation Measure HW -3 would require identification and relocation coordination of on-site monitoring wells. The Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist would be required to identify the location of on-site petroleum pipelines (Mitigation Measure HW -4). Any site disturbance activities within any easements for petroleum pipelines would be required to be conducted under local purview. Further, any on-site transformers to be relocated/removed during site disturbance activities would be required to be conducted under the purview of the local purveyor to identify property -handling procedures regarding PCBs (Mitigation Measure HW -5). Mitigation Measure HW -6 requires a Construction Contingency Plan be prepared in the event that unknown hazardous materials/waste are uncovered during site disturbance activities. Mitigation Measures HW -1 through HW -6 would reduce impacts regarding hazardous waste/materials to less than significant levels. c) Less Than Significant with Mitiaation Incorporated Vistamar School is located approximately 0.25 -mile east of the proposed project area at 737 Hawaii Street. As discussed in the responses to a) and b) above, the Build Alternatives could involve the potential for release of hazardous emissions or handling of acutely hazardous materials. However, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-6 would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Based on the Phase I ISA, EDR reported seven regulatory sites associated with the areas of proposed ROW acquisition within the boundaries of the subject site. As such, the project site consists of areas included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. However, as discussed in the responses to a) and b) above, impacts pertaining to reported releases at the project site would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures HW -1 through HW -6. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-17 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation e) Less Than Sianificant Impact The Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) is located approximately 1.8 miles north of the project site at 1 World Way. Although the project site is located within 2 miles of LAX, the site is not located within the boundaries of any Airport Safety Zones. In addition, the project does not involve any new structures, and does not involve a use that would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in that area. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not result in significant aviation -related safety impacts, and no mitigation is required. f) No Impact There are no private airports or airstrips in the vicinity of the project site. As a result, the Build Alternatives would not affect or be affected by aviation activities associated with private airports or airstrips. No mitigation is required. g) Less Than Sianificant with Miticlation Incorporated As described in Section 2.1.4, Utilities/Emergency Services, in this EIR/EA, the Build Alternatives could result in short-term construction impacts to emergency access due to traffic delays associated with a construction zone; however, Short-term congestion would be addressed with implementation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP), which would serve to minimize disruption to emergency services. Mitigation Measure U&ES-2 provides that prior to and during construction, the City and the Construction Contractor will coordinate all temporary ramp closures and detour plans with fire, emergency medical, and law enforcement providers to minimize temporary delays in emergency response times as part of the TMP to be prepared for project (refer to Mitigation Measure TRA -1), including the identification of alternative routes and routes across the construction areas for emergency vehicles, developed in coordination with the affected agencies. With implementation of Mitigation Measures U&ES-2 and TRA -1, potentially significant impacts related to short-term construction activities and effects on emergency response would be reduced to a less than significant impact. h) No Impact. Wildland fires occur in geographic areas that contain the types and conditions of vegetation, topography, weather, and structure density susceptible to risks associated with uncontrolled fires that can be started by lightning, improperly managed camp fires, cigarettes, sparks from automobiles, and other ignition sources. The project site and surrounding areas are developed with urban and suburban uses and do not include brush- and grass -covered areas typically found in areas susceptible to wildfires. As a result, the Build Alternatives would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death associated with wildland fires. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-18 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project: Significant Less Than Less Than No Impact and Significant with Significant Unavoidable Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge El ® ❑ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- ❑ ® ❑ existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a El El Z El stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount ❑ ® ❑ of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood 1:1® ❑ Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ ❑ would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a ❑ ® ❑ result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow ❑ ❑ ® ❑ A Preliminary Drainage Assessment (July 2014) was prepared for the proposed project; the conclusions discussed in this subsection are based upon information contained within the Preliminary Drainage Assessment; Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping data; and the Hydrology and Floodplain and Water Quality sections in Chapter 2. a, f) Less Than Significant Impact Construction of any of the Build Alternatives is not anticipated to result in an appreciable change in the quantity or quality of runoff from the project site. However, the proposed project could result in short-term construction impacts to surface water quality from clearing, grading, and other construction -related activities. Storm water runoff from the project site during construction could contain sediments resulting from these activities. Spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery, construction staging areas, or building sites could also enter runoff and would Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-19 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation typically include petroleum products such as fuel, oil and grease, and heavy metals. To avoid and minimize these potential construction -related water quality impacts, standard measures would be implemented during construction. The project would be required to conform to the requirements of the City of EI Segundo's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit, Order No. R4-2012-0175, NPDES No. CAS004001, adopted by the Los Angeles RWQCB on November 8, 2012, and any subsequent permit in effect at the time of construction. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the requirements of the NPDES Permit for Construction Activities, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, as well as the County of Los Angeles NPDES Permit within the Dominguez Channel Watershed, Order No. R4-2012-0175, NPDES No. CAS004001 (for work outside of the city's jurisdiction). The project would be required to develop a SWPPP prepared in accordance with the requirements stated in the NPDES General Permit, Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activities (Construction General Permit, Order Number 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012- 0006-DWQ, NPDES Number CAS000002), or subsequent permit in effect at the time of construction. The SWPPP would contain BMPs that have demonstrated effectiveness at reducing stormwater pollution. The SWPPP would address all construction -related activities, equipment, and materials that have the potential to affect water quality. The SWPPP would include BMPs to control pollutants, sediment from erosion, stormwater runoff, and other construction -related impacts. With adherence to the City's Storm Water Permit and SWPPP, potential impacts to water quality would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. b) Less Than Significant Impact According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Report (October 2013) prepared for the proposed project, several aquifers underlie the site. Historically high groundwater levels are deeper than 40 feet bgs at the project site. Groundwater was not encountered to depths of 80 feet bgs in the geotechnical borings that were conducted in the project vicinity. Based on groundwater level measurements in monitoring wells at the site, the groundwater elevation is estimated to be approximately 20 feet, which is about 75 to 100 feet bgs. Allowing for seasonal variations, the design groundwater level for preliminary design was assumed to be near an elevation of 30 feet with depths ranging from about 65 to 90 feet bgs. The groundwater at the site has been impacted by off-site sources of contamination; groundwater remediation activities are ongoing. It is not anticipated that the Build Alternatives would substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c, d, and e) Less Than Significant Impact The project site is located within the Dominguez Channel Watershed. Operation of any of the Build Alternatives would result in an incremental increase in storm water runoff. The introduction of new project features could have the potential to increase the rate of storm water runoff, leading to the potential for increased erosion and contribution to additional sources of polluted runoff such as oil, gas, grease, lead, and dust. According to information provided in the Water Quality section in Chapter 2 (Table 2.2.1-1) the net new impervious surfaces that would result with project implementation range from approximately 1.5 to 2.0 acres, depending on the Build Alternative. The disturbed soil areas that would result with project implementation range from approximately 15 to 28 acres, depending on the Build Alternative. When the disturbed soil Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-20 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation area of the Build Alternatives is compared with the size of the Dominguez Channel Watershed (70,000 acres), it equals less than 0.0002 to 0.0004 percent of the watershed. The amount of new impervious surface, as a result of the proposed project, would be negligible and would not result in a substantial increase in runoff leading to negative impact to surface water quality. No substantial impacts to the receiving water bodies, including the local drainage system along Rosecrans Avenue, the Dominguez Channel, and the Los Angeles Harbor, are anticipated. Implementation of any of the Build Alternatives would be required to provide for retention for 0.82 inches rainfall over the proposed project impervious surface. The water level in the detention basin drops about 7 feet in 24 hours. Based on the original basin configuration, there are 6.1 acre-feet of storage at a depth of 7.5 feet within the basin. Based on an average basin surface area for the lower 7.5 feet, this is equivalent to 4.1 inches per hour percolation rate, a typical percolation rate for sandy soils. The proposed amount of percolated runoff is less than current levels and is not anticipated to result in adverse water quality impacts. Implementation of any of the Build Alternatives would be required to construct storm drain improvements to the existing "Line A" storm drain. The existing Line A alignment currently traverses through the limits of the Plaza EI Segundo development north of the project area; however, it does not extend through the proposed project area. As part of the proposed project, Line A would need to be extended underneath the UPRR tracks and to the grade separation. Specifically, a 2,060 -foot length of 60 -inch diameter line, using Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP), is proposed from the existing constructed end of Line A to the proposed grade separation. To the west, an additional 220 -foot length of 36 -inch diameter storm drain and a 360 -foot length of 24 -inch diameter storm drain are proposed within the Park Place roadway. North of the proposed grade separation on Allied Way, a 440 -foot length of 24 -inch diameter storm drain is proposed. Some upstream lines could have a smaller diameter, but are shown as 24 -inch diameter to conform to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) Hydraulic Design Manual minimum diameter for main line conduits. The peak flow rate in the storm drain system proposed as part of the Build Alternatives can be conveyed by gravity with at least one -foot freeboard at all inlets, including the low point within the grade separation. Stormwater treatment would be provided via percolation in the detention pond. The storm drain system design is based on a minimum centerline grade of 88.46 at the grade separation low point. Any lowering of the grade would require a pump station or upsizing of previously constructed storm drain lines to drain the lowest portion of the grade separation. The City of EI Segundo is a co -permittee on the Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, Except those Discharges Originating from the City of Long Beach MS4, Order No. R4-2012-0175, was adopted on November 8, 2012. As a part of this permit, new construction is required to control pollutants, pollutant loads and runoff volume emanating from a project site by: (1) minimizing the impervious surface area; and (2) controlling runoff from impervious surfaces through infiltration, bioretention, and/or rainfall harvest and use. The project will comply with MS4 Permit requirements and thus will ensure that water quality standards will be maintained through implementation of permanent BMPs. Post -construction storm water management BMPs will be implemented on the project site, in accordance with Section D. Storm Water Management Program Minimum Control Measures, 7.b.i.(1)(g) for street and road construction of 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area. The NPDES submittal package will provide an outline for the post -construction BMPs. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-21 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Upon adherence to existing requirements under the MS4 permit applicable to the City and implementation of required BMPs, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels and no mitigation is required. g, h, i) Less Than Siqnificant Impact The entire City of EI Segundo, including the proposed project site, is considered to be in Zone X, or areas outside the 500 -year floodplain. The site falls within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map Number 06037C1 770F dated September 26, 2008; refer to Figure 2.2.1-1. The proposed project is not within a FEMA mapped floodplain, and there are no lakes, rivers, or streams that flow through or near the site. Construction and operation of any of the Build Alternatives would not result in the encroachment upon or impact a 100 -year floodplain as identified by FEMA, nor would they support incompatible floodplain development. Drainage components would be designed to maintain the existing flow patterns through the project limits. This would be achieved by the inclusion of drainage facilities as specified and approved in the detailed engineering plans so as not to induce downstream flooding nor deflect flows from their natural course. The proposed project would not result in a significant encroachment as defined in 23 CFR 650.105. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. j) Less Than Siqnificant Impact A tsunami is a sea wave generated by an earthquake, landslide, volcanic eruption, or even by a large meteor hitting the ocean. An event such as an earthquake creates a large displacement of water resulting in a rise or mounding at the ocean surface that moves away from this center as a sea wave. Tsunamis generally affect coastal communities and low-lying (low -elevation) river valleys in the vicinity of the coast. Buildings closest to the ocean and near sea level are most at jeopardy. According to the California Geological Survey Los Angeles County Tsunami Inundation Maps,3 the project site is not located within a tsunami inundation area. Therefore, there is no anticipated risk of inundation from a tsunami under the Build Alternatives, and a less than significant impact is anticipated. A seiche is an earthquake or slide -induced wave that can be generated in an enclosed body of water of any size from swimming pool, harbor, or lake. There are three ornamental enclosed bodies of water that are located on the golf course situated to immediate north of the project site. Due to the size, depth, and nature of these ornamental water features, it is unlikely that a seiche would cause significant inundation within the project site. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. Mudflows occur when soil is saturated and flows downhill. There are no hills adjacent to or in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, there is no anticipated risk to the Build Alternatives as a result of a mudflow and a less than significant impact is expected. 3 State of California, Department of Conservation Website, Los Angeles County Tsunami Inundation Maps (Venice Quadrangle). http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/tsunami/tsunami_maps.htm, Accessed December 30, 2017. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-22 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Land Use and Planning Would the project: Significant Less Than Less Than No Impact and Significant with Significant Unavoidable Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, Z ❑ local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or El El Z El natural community conservation plan? The potential for the Build Alternatives to significantly impact land use and planning was assessed in the Land Use section in Chapter 2. The following discussions are based on the findings of that analysis. a) No Impact As discussed in the Land Use section of Chapter 2, the project sites include industrial and commercial land uses. There are no residential land uses within proximity to the project site. The project would not physically divide an established community since the proposed improvements would occur on an existing transportation facility. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. b) Less Than Siqnificant Impact The Build Alternatives are consistent with State, regional, and local plans and programs as discussed in the Land Use section of Chapter 2, including the California Transportation Plan (CTP) 2040, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), SCAG 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP), and the City of EI Segundo General Plan. No land use conflicts would occur with existing or planned land uses. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c) Less Than Siqnificant Impact As discussed in the Biological Environment sections of Chapter 2, the proposed project is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. The project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and a less than significant impact would occur. No mitigation is required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-23 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Mineral Resources Would the project: Significant Less Than Less Than No Impact and Significant with Significant Unavoidable Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the El El❑ residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general ❑ ❑ ❑ plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a, b) No Impact No state -designated mines or mineral producers currently exist on the project site or in its vicinity. In addition, neither the City of EI Segundo General Plan nor the State of California has identified the project site or vicinity as a potential mineral resource of Statewide or regional significance. No mineral resources are known to exist either on the site or in the project area; therefore, project implementation would not result in impacts to mineral resources or the loss of any locally important mineral resource site. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-24 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Noise Would the project: Significant Less Than Less Than No Impact and Significant with Significant Unavoidable Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or ® ❑ noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ® 11 E]groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project ❑ ❑ ® ❑ expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project ❑ ® ❑ area to excessive noise levels? The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in significant impacts regarding noise was assessed in the Noise Study Report (NSR) (November 2017) and the Noise section in Chapter 2. The following discussions are based on those analyses. a) b) and d) Less Than Siqnificant with Miticiation Incorporated For short-term construction activities, the Section 7-2-10 of the EI Segundo Municipal Code creates an exemption for construction noise, provided said activities occur between the City's allowable construction hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, Construction is also prohibited on Sundays or Federal holidays. Section 7-2-10 also requires that construction activities do not exceed the noise standard of 65 dBA measured at a residential receptor's property line. The closest receivers are the commercial uses located along Park Place. These commercial areas would be subject to short-term noise levels between 86 and 95 dBA Ln,,. generated by construction activities along the project alignment. However, no significant noise impacts from construction are anticipated as construction activities would occur between the City's allowable construction hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Construction activities would not occur on Sundays and Federal holidays. It is not anticipated that construction noise would substantially interfere or interrupt ongoing commercial activities adjacent to the project site (e.g., Plaza EI Segundo, ArcLight Cinemas). In addition, there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site. The closest sensitive receptors to the project area are residential uses located approximately 1,500 feet away. Based on the NSR, maximum construction noise levels would reach a maximum of 67 dBA at 600 feet. Since the nearest residential receptors are approximately 1,500 feet away, construction noise levels are not anticipated to exceed the City's construction noise standard of Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-25 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation 65 dBA at residential receptors. Construction noise would be short-term and intermittent, and would cease upon completion of the project. Further, implementation of Mitigation Measures N- 1 and N-2 would minimize the temporary noise impacts from construction, by requiring sound - control devices/mufflers on construction equipment and providing attenuation around stationary construction noise sources, among others. The City's General Plan EIR provides land use compatibility standards for interior and exterior noise. The interior/exterior noise compatibility for commercial uses is 75 dBA, and for single- family residential it is 65 dBA (exterior) and 55 dBA (interior). Based on the NSR, predicted traffic noise levels associated with the Build Alternatives would reach a maximum of 59 dBA at the various modeled commercial receivers surrounding the project site. This would be below the City's noise compatibility standard for commercial uses of 75 dBA. Given the distance of the project site to any sensitive receptors (single-family residential approximately 1,500 feet away), it is not anticipated that the project would result in any exceedance of the City's interior/exterior noise compatibility standards for single-family residential uses. Thus, the potential noise impacts during construction and operation of the Build Alternatives would be less than significant, upon implementation of mitigation measures. c) Less Than Sianificant Impact Traffic noise modeling results for existing conditions and design year (2021) conditions under Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, and 3B were conducted as part of the noise analysis for the project. To determine whether a traffic noise impact would occur, predicted design -year traffic noise levels with the project (Build Alternatives) are compared to existing conditions and to design -year (2021) conditions with the project. The modeled future noise levels for each receiver were also compared to their respective Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) Activity Category. As concluded within the NSR, noise levels are not predicted to approach or exceed the NAC criterion or result in a substantial increase in noise. No noise abatement would be required. Modeling was conducted for freight trains to determine the noise levels resulting from the types of trains currently using the railroad. Potential impacts related to train noise associated with project improvements were evaluated based upon the maximum instantaneous noise from each individual train pass -by and their contribution to the 24-hour Ldn level. As concluded within the NSR, noise levels are not predicted to approach or exceed the NAC criterion or result in a substantial increase in noise. No noise abatement would be required. Therefore, permanent noise impacts resulting from the project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. e) and f) Less Than Significant Impact There are no private airstrips located within the project vicinity. The Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) is located approximately 1.8 miles north of the project site at 1 World Way. However, the project site is not located within the boundaries of any Airport Influence Area. In addition, the project would not result significant temporary construction noise impacts and would not result in significant permanent noise impacts, as noise levels would not approach or exceed the NAC criteria identified for the project. No mitigation is required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-26 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Population and Housing Would the project: Significant Less Than Less Than No Impact and Significant with Significant Unavoidable Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing ❑ ❑ elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the El El Elconstruction of replacement housing elsewhere? The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in significant impacts related to population and housing was assessed in the Growth section in Chapter 2. The following discussion is based on that analysis. a) Less Than Significant Impact The project would provide a gap closure and accommodate anticipated increased traffic demand in the area. As noted in Section 2.1.2, Growth, the project area is developed and urbanized, with the exception of privately owned vacant land within the central portion of the project site. While future development in this area is anticipated in the City's General Plan, no specific development is currently proposed, and no applications for development have been received by the City. Accordingly, development on this vacant land is not considered to be reasonably foreseeable. The pattern and rate of population and housing growth following implementation of any of the Build Alternatives would be expected to remain consistent with the population anticipated by existing plans for the area. No land use changes would occur with any of the Build Alternatives. Furthermore, no new or expanded infrastructure, housing, or other similar permanent physical changes to the environment would be necessary as an indirect consequence of the proposed project. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. b, c) No Impact The Build Alternatives would not result in the acquisition of any residential units, displacement of any residents, or the need for replacement housing and, therefore, would not result in impacts related to population and housing. No mitigation is required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-27 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Public Services Would the project: Significant Less Than Less Than No Impact and Significant with Significant Unavoidable Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which ❑ ❑ ❑ could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ FI Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ FI Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in significant impacts related to public services was assessed in the Utilities and Emergency Services section in Chapter 2. The following discussion is based on that analysis. a, i) and ii) Less Than Siqnificant with Mitiqation Incorporated Fire protection and emergency medical/paramedic services in the City of EI Segundo are provided by the EI Segundo Fire Department. Police protection services in the City of EI Segundo are provided by the EI Segundo Police Department. As described earlier in the response "g" in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of Chapter 3, construction of the Build Alternatives would result in temporary impacts to traffic circulation that could affect fire and police response times. However, these impacts would be temporary in nature. Emergency services providers could experience travel delays during the temporary construction process. Short-term congestion would be addressed with implementation of a TMP, which would serve to minimize disruption to emergency services. Mitigation Measure U&ES-2 provides that prior to and during construction, the City and the Construction Contractor will coordinate all temporary ramp closures and detour plans with fire, emergency medical, and law enforcement providers to minimize temporary delays in emergency response times as part of the TMP to be prepared for project (refer to Mitigation Measure TRA -1), including the identification of alternative routes and routes across the construction areas for emergency vehicles, developed in coordination with the affected agencies. With implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts related to short- term construction activities and effects on emergency response and evacuation plans would be less than significant. a, iii), iv) and v) No Impact As a roadway infrastructure improvement, the project would not result in the generation of new residents or populations capable of requiring additional services for schools, parks, or other public facilities. As such, no impacts would occur in this regard. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-28 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Recreation Would the project: Significant Less Than Less Than No Impact and Significant with Significant Unavoidable Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational ❑ ❑ 1:1facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which ❑ ❑ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The potential for the Build Alternatives to significantly impact recreation resources was assessed in the Land Use section in Chapter 2. The following discussions are based on the findings of that analysis. a) No Impact The Build Alternatives propose a roadway extension and grade separation in the project area. The Build Alternatives would not result in the construction of residential or other land uses that would attract visitors to parks in the cities adjacent to the project site or to regional parks and other recreation facilities. As a result, the Build Alternatives would not result in increased demand for those resources, and therefore, would not contribute to substantial or accelerated deterioration of those facilities. No impacts would occur in this regard. b) No Impact The Build Alternatives do not include the construction of new recreational facilities or expansion of existing recreational facilities. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would not result in adverse effects related to constructing new or expanded recreation facilities. No impacts would result. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-29 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Transportation/Traffic Would the project: Significant Less Than Less Than No Impact and Significant with Significant Unavoidable Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non- ❑ ® ❑ ❑ motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or otherEl El standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that ❑ ❑ ❑ results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or r771 El El incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ® ❑ ❑ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or E] El ® El decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in transportation/traffic impacts was assessed in the Traffic Impact Analysis (November 2016) and the Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities section in Chapter 2. The following discussion is based on those analyses. a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Construction of any of the Build Alternatives would result in temporary construction impacts that may temporarily restrict vehicular accessibility within the construction area. However, these disruptions would be temporary, designed to not completely prohibit access to adjoining properties and roads, and would cease once construction of the project is complete. Construction of the proposed improvements has been examined relative to the existing system and it has been determined that both short-term and long-term lane closures will be necessary (refer to Section 2.1.5 for a detailed description of long-term closures). However, Mitigation Measure TRA -1 would require that access is maintained to all business and properties within the project area throughout the duration of the construction process. Preparation of a TMP would be required that would include: a) a public information campaign to provide advanced notice to affected business owners and the surrounding community; b) detour signage; and c) re-routing to ensure access to existing businesses is maintained. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-30 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Operation of any of the Build Alternatives is anticipated to result in beneficial long-term traffic and circulation impacts because the project would improve traffic patterns for businesses in the project area, as described in the analysis in Section 2.1.5. For Existing 2016 plus project conditions, all study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better, except for the following five (5) intersections that would continue to experience deficient LOS with the diverted traffic conditions: • Sepulveda Boulevard and EI Segundo Boulevard — LOS E (PM) • Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue — LOS E (PM) • Douglas Street and Park Place — LOS F (PM) • Aviation Boulevard and Utah Avenue/135th Street — LOS E (AM) • Aviation Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue — LOS E (AM) All of the above intersections would experience improved LOS except for the un -signalized intersection of Douglas Street at Park Place. However, even though this intersection is projected to operate at LOS F, none of the Build Alternatives would result in a significant traffic impact at this intersection because the Build Alternatives would not generate trips that would cause an increase in delay of four (4) or more seconds. Although the Build Alternatives would not result in a significant impact, a new traffic signal (Mitigation Measure TRA -2) is recommended at the intersection of Douglas Street at Park Place to address the deficient LOS, due to complaints the City has received regarding traffic operations at this location. For Opening Year 2021 with project conditions, all study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better, except for the following nine (9) intersections that would continue to experience deficient LOS with the diverted traffic conditions: • Sepulveda Boulevard and EI Segundo Boulevard — LOS F (AM, PM) • Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue — LOS E (AM), LOS F (PM) • Sepulveda Boulevard at Marine Avenue — LOS F (AM), LOS E (PM) • Nash Street at Sepulveda Boulevard — LOS E (AM), LOS F (PM) • Douglas Street at EI Segundo Boulevard — LOS F (AM, PM) • Douglas Street and Park Place — LOS F (PM) • Aviation Boulevard at EI Segundo Boulevard — LOS F (AM, PM) • Aviation Boulevard and Utah Avenue/135th Street — LOS E (AM) • Aviation Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue — LOS E (AM, PM) All of the above intersections would experience improved LOS except for the un -signalized intersection of Douglas Street at Park Place. Similar to Existing 2016 Plus Project conditions, although this intersection is projected to operate at LOS F, none of the Build Alternatives would result in a significant traffic impact at this intersection because the Build Alternatives would not generate trips that would cause an increase in delay of four (4) or more seconds. With implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA -1 and TRA -2, potential short-term and long- term traffic impacts would be reduced less than significant levels. b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated As discussed in the Traffic Impact Analysis that was prepared for the project, the traffic assessment for the Build Alternatives was conducted based on the requirements of the 2010 Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP). As discussed in the response to question a) above, all of the study intersections would experience improved LOS under the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-31 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Build Alternatives, with the exception of the un -signalized intersection of Douglas Street at Park Place. Mitigation Measure TRA -2 provides for installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Douglas Street at Park Place, which would reduce significant traffic impacts to a less than significant level. c) No Impact Los Angeles International Airport (airport identifier LAX) is located approximately two miles to the north of the project site. According to the LAX Airport Influence Area Map, the project site is not located within the LAX Planning Area Boundary/Airport Influence Area. Additionally, Hawthorne Municipal Airport (airport identifier KHHR), also known as Jack Northrop Field, is located approximately three miles to the east of the project site. According to the Hawthorne Municipal Airport Influence Area Map, the project site is not located within the Planning Area Boundary/Airport Influence Area. In addition, the nature of the proposed improvements (transportation infrastructure improvements) would not result in a change of air traffic patterns. Therefore, the Build Alternatives would result in impacts and no mitigation is required. d) Less Than Siqnificant with Mitiqation Incorporated The Build Alternatives would be designed, constructed, and operated consistent with the City of EI Segundo and other applicable standards and specifications for railroad grade separations, retaining walls, drainage features, and utility relocations/modifications. During short-term construction, the project could result in hazards due to temporary lane and ramp closures required for project implementation. However, as noted above, these impacts would be temporary in nature and adherence to Mitigation Measure TRA -1 would minimize impacts in this regard. The Build Alternatives would not include hazardous design features. Mitigation Measure TRA -2 provides for installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of Douglas Street at Park Place, which would reduce traffic impacts to a less than significant level. e) Less Than Siqnificant with Mitiqation Incorporated Refer to responses "a) i" and "a) ii" in the Public Services section of Chapter 3, above, for a description of potential impacts during the short-term construction process. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant with adherence to Mitigation Measures U&ES-2 and TRA - 1. In the long term, the Build Alternatives would reduce traffic congestion and travel times in the project area. The improvements in the Build Alternatives are likely to improve emergency response times. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures U&ES-2 and TRA -1, potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. f) Less Than Siqnificant Impact The Build Alternatives would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation modes. The design of the improvements in the Build Alternatives would accommodate transit vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The improvements would also include features consistent with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. As a result, the Build Alternatives would not conflict with alternative transportation modes. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-32 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Tribal Cultural Resources Would the project: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Significant Less Than and Significant with Unavoidable Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ FE a a a Less Than No Impact Significant Impact ❑ ❑ // /1 a a As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was enacted and expanded CEQA by establishing a formal consultation process for California tribes within the CEQA process. The bill specifies that any project may affect or cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource would require a lead agency to "begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditional and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project." Section 21074 of AB 52 also defines a new category of resources under CEQA called "tribal cultural resources." Tribal cultural resources are defined as "sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe" and is either listed on or eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources or a local historic register, or if the lead agency chooses to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource. a, b) Less Than Sicinificant Impact The potential for the project to result in adverse impacts related to tribal cultural resources was assessed in the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) (June 2017), which includes the AB 52 correspondence documentation in Attachment C of the HPSR. In compliance with AB 52, a Sacred Lands File search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on September 8, 2015 and on October 17, 2016. The NAHC responded on September 29, 2015 and on October 18, 2016, stating that there are no known Native American cultural resources within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE). The NAHC recommended that 11 representatives from local Native American tribal organizations be contacted for further information regarding the general project vicinity. Letters were sent via certified mail to the 11 contacts on September 25, 2015 and September 29, 2015, requesting information related to cultural resources or heritage sites within or adjacent to the APE. One response was received from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, requesting a monitor from the Tribe be present during all ground disturbances. The City responded with a monitoring denial letter Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-33 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation on June 13, 2017, given the level of disturbance on-site and low probability of encountering resources. The City has concluded consultation and only responses to unanticipated discoveries will be required; all consultation correspondence and a contact log are provided as Attachment B to the HPSR. A less than significant impact would occur with regard to tribal cultural resources, and no mitigation is required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-34 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Utilities and Service Systems Would the project: Significant Less Than Less Than No Impact and Significant with Significant Unavoidable Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ F71 ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new ® ❑ or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has ❑ ❑ ® ❑ adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulations related to solid waste? The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in utilities and service systems impacts was assessed in the Utilities/Emergency Services section in Chapter 2. The following discussion is based on those analyses. a), b) and e) Less Than Significant Impact The Build Alternatives would not generate wastewater or discharge wastewater to the area sewer system. As a result, the Build Alternatives would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, or result in the need for a determination by a wastewater treatment provider that it has adequate capacity to serve the project. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. c) Less Than Significant Impact Refer to responses "c)," "d)," and "e)" in the Hydrology and Water Quality section in Chapter 3, for discussion of the existing storm water drainage facilities that would be extended or modified to accommodate the improvements proposed under the Build Alternatives. Those modifications would not require the construction of new storm water drain facilities or substantial increases in the capacity of the existing storm drain facilities. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-35 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation d) Less Than Sianificant Impact The use of water during project construction would be limited to water trucked to the site for dust control. The amount of water used during construction would be minimal. The use of water during project operations would be limited to areas in which new landscaping requires short- term watering while the plant material becomes established and areas in which limited use of water for landscaping requires permanent watering. The amount of landscaping provided in the Build Alternatives would not differ substantially from the existing amount of landscaping in the project limits and, therefore, the amount of water needed for landscaping would be approximately the same as the existing demand. As a result, the Build Alternatives would not require the water districts serving the project area to provide new or expanded entitlements to meet the need for water during construction and operation of the Build Alternatives. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. f) Less Than Significant Impact During project construction, two types of waste materials would be collected: vegetation, other plant material, and some excess soils; and solid waste such as concrete, asphalt, and wood. The waste collected during construction would be properly disposed of at an existing landfill or recycled. The amount of waste that would be generated during the construction of the Build Alternatives would be limited and would occur only during the construction period. That amount of waste would be only a very small amount of the total waste disposed of or recycled at area recycling facilities and landfills, on both a daily and annual basis. Therefore, the amount of waste generated during construction of the Build Alternatives is anticipated to be accommodated by the existing recycling and landfill facilities in Los Angeles County. The waste collected during operation of the Build Alternatives would be properly disposed of at an existing landfill or recycled. The amount of waste that would be generated during the operation of the Build Alternatives would be only a very small amount of the total waste disposed of, or recycled at area recycling facilities and landfills, on both a daily and annual basis. Therefore, the amount of waste generated during operation of the Build Alternatives is anticipated to be accommodated by the existing recycling and landfill facilities in Los Angeles County. Because the amount of waste generated during construction and operation of the Build Alternatives is anticipated to be accommodated by the existing recycling and landfill facilities, a less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. g) Less Than Sianificant Impact Any hazardous waste generated during construction of the Build Alternatives, collected during normal waste collection activities, or collected as a result of an accidental release in the project area would be collected, handled, transported, and disposed of consistent with applicable federal, State, regional, and local regulations. Hazardous wastes would not be commingled with greenwaste non -hazardous trash. In addition, waste materials generated during construction and operation of the Build Alternatives would be disposed of in accordance with federal, State, and local regulations related to recycling, which would minimize the amount of waste material entering local landfills. A less than significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-36 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Mandatory Findings of Significance Would the project: Significant Less Than Less Than No Impact and Significant with Significant Unavoidable Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are ❑ 1:1 ® 1:1considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either ® ❑ directly or indirectly? a) Less Than Significant with Mitiaation Incorporated The potential for the Build Alternatives to result in significant impacts to biological or cultural resources, specifically, is discussed in Sections 2.1.7, 2.2.4, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, and 2.3.5 in this IS/EA. The Build Alternatives would not degrade the quality of the environment or impact any animal or plant species or associated habitat. As discussed in Section 2.3.2, construction of the Build Alternatives was identified as having the potential to result in temporary effects to individual plant species that may be present in the general area surrounding the proposed project footprint, as a result of trampling by foot or vehicular traffic or exposure to excessive dust. Implementation of any of the Build Alternatives would result in road extension -related permanent losses of marginal habitat for southern tarplant and paniculate tarplant. Specifically, the permanent loss of deerweed scrub and non-native grassland would occur under all the Build Alternatives; see the Natural Communities section in Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion. Mitigation Measure PS -1 requires a preconstruction rare plant clearance survey to be conducted to determine whether southern tarplant and/or paniculate tarplant occur onsite. Mitigation Measure PS -2 requires that all disturbed areas within the undeveloped area be revegetated with native plant species generally conforming to the plant composition in the immediate surrounding area. Implementation of Measures PS -1 and PS -2 would reduce potentially significant impacts to special status plant species that may occur under the Build Alternatives to a less than significant level. As discussed in Section 2.3.3, construction disturbance associated with the project (e.g., noise, visual disruptions) during any time of year may directly but temporarily affect Cooper's hawk, northern harrier, burrowing owl, California horned lark, and American peregrine falcon, all of which are year-round residents in southern California. This would only disturb short -eared owl, ferruginous hawk, and merlin during the fall, winter, and early spring, as these species are all winter residents in southern California. Brewer's sparrow would only be directly affected during Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-37 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation its short migration window in the spring and fall each year. None of these species would be expected to be directly injured or killed as a result of construction. Indirect impacts would be generally restricted to long-term habitat degradation, primarily through the unintended spread of non-native weed seeds within the project area, which may result in changing plant composition and lower the quality of the onsite natural habitat. In addition, construction during the avian nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31) may disrupt avian nesting behaviors. Temporary impacts to special status animal species and nesting birds would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures. Measure AS -1 requires a preconstruction clearance survey for nesting birds if construction and vegetation removal occurs within the avian nesting season. Measure AS -2 requires that a preconstruction burrowing owl clearance survey be conducted to ensure that burrowing owl remain absent from the BSA. With implementation of Measures AS -1 and AS -2, potential impacts to nesting birds and burrowing owl would be reduced to a less than significant level. b) Less Than Siqnificant Impact As discussed in Section 2.4, Cumulative Impacts, in this IS/EA, several development projects may be under construction and operation at the same time as the Build Alternatives. However, the Build Alternatives would result in improved traffic conditions compared to the No -Build Alternative and would not contribute to cumulative adverse effects. Therefore, the impacts of the Build Alternatives are not considered cumulatively considerable and are less than significant. c) Less Than Siqnificant Impact As discussed in the various sections within Chapter 2, the Build Alternatives would result in less than significant environmental impacts with implementation of project features and project - specific mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in environmental impacts that would cause substantially adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.2-38 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation 3.3 CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change refers to long-term changes in temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, and other elements of the earth's climate system. An ever-increasing body of scientific research attributes these climatological changes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, particularly those generated from the production and use of fossil fuels. While climate change has been a concern for several decades, the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization in 1988 has led to increased efforts devoted to GHG emissions reduction and climate change research and policy. These efforts are primarily concerned with the emissions of GHGs generated by human activity, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), HFC -23 (fluoroform), HFC -134a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane), and HFC -152a (difluoroethane). In the United States, the main source of GHG emissions is electricity generation, followed by transportation.' In California, however, transportation sources (including passenger cars, light- duty trucks, other trucks, buses, and motorcycles) are the largest contributors of GHG emissions .2 The dominant GHG emitted is CO2, mostly from fossil fuel combustion. Two terms are typically used when discussing how we address the impacts of climate change: "greenhouse gas mitigation" and "adaptation." "Greenhouse gas mitigation" is a term for reducing GHG emissions to reduce or "mitigate" the impacts of climate change. "Adaptation" refers to planning for and responding to impacts resulting from climate change (such as adjusting transportation design standards to withstand more intense storms and higher sea levels). 3.3.1 Regulatory Setting This section outlines federal and state efforts to comprehensively reduce GHG emissions from transportation sources. 3.3.1.1 Federal To date, no national standards have been established for nationwide mobile -source GHG reduction targets, nor have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and GHG emissions reduction at the project level. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code [USC] Part 4332) requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making a decision on the action or project. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recognizes the threats that extreme weather, sea - level change, and other changes in environmental conditions pose to valuable transportation infrastructure and those who depend on it. FHWA therefore supports a sustainability approach that assesses vulnerability to climate risks and incorporates resilience into planning, asset management, project development and design, and operations and maintenance practices.3 This approach encourages planning for sustainable highways by addressing climate risks while https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/us-greenhouse-gas-inventory-report-1990-2014. 2 https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. 3 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.3-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation balancing environmental, economic, and social values—"the triple bottom line of sustainability.114 Program and project elements that foster sustainability and resilience also support economic vitality and global efficiency, increase safety and mobility, enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve the quality of life. Addressing these factors up front in the planning process would assist in decision-making and improve efficiency at the program level, and would inform the analysis and stewardship needs of project -level decision-making. Various efforts have been promulgated at the federal level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency to address climate change and its associated effects. The Enerav Policv Act of 1992 (EPACT92, 102nd Conaress H.R.776.ENR): With this act, Congress set goals, created mandates, and amended utility laws to increase clean energy use and improve overall energy efficiency in the United States. EPACT92 consists of 27 titles detailing various measures designed to lessen the nation's dependence on imported energy, provide incentives for clean and renewable energy, and promote energy conservation in buildings. Title III of EPACT92 addresses alternative fuels. It gave the U.S. Department of Energy administrative power to regulate the minimum number of light-duty alternative fuel vehicles required in certain federal fleets beginning in fiscal year 1993. The primary goal of the Program is to cut petroleum use in the United States by 2.5 billion gallons per year by 2020. Enerav Policv Act of 2005 (109th Conaress H.R.6 (2005-2006): This act sets forth an energy research and development program covering: (1) energy efficiency; (2) renewable energy; (3) oil and gas; (4) coal; (5) Indian energy; (6) nuclear matters and security; (7) vehicles and motor fuels, including ethanol; (8) hydrogen; (9) electricity; (10) energy tax incentives; (11) hydropower and geothermal energy; and (12) climate change technology. Enerqv Policv and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 USC Section 6201) and Corporate Averaqe Fuel Standards: This act establishes fuel economy standards for on -road motor vehicles sold in the United States. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is determined through the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program on the basis of each manufacturer's average fuel economy for the portion of its vehicles produced for sale in the United States. Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Enerav, and Economic Performance, 74 Federal Register 52117 (October 8, 2009): This federal Executive Order (EO) set sustainability goals for federal agencies and focuses on making improvements in their environmental, energy, and economic performance. It instituted as policy of the United States that Federal agencies measure, report, and reduce their GHG emissions from direct and indirect activities. Executive Order 13693, Plannina for Federal Sustainabilitv in the Next Decade, 80 Federal Reaister 15869 (March 2015): This Executive Order reaffirms the policy of the United States that federal agencies measure, report, and reduce their GHG emissions from direct and indirect activities. It sets sustainability goals for all agencies to promote energy conservation, efficiency, and management by reducing energy consumption and GHG emissions. It builds on the adaptation and resiliency goals in previous executive orders to ensure agency operations and facilities prepare for impacts of climate change. This order revokes Executive Order 13514. United States Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA) authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the United States Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the 4 https://www.sustainablehighways.dot.gov/overview.aspx. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.3-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation existing Clean Air Act and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Responding to the Court's ruling, U.S. EPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009. Based on scientific evidence, it found that six GHGs constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court's interpretation of the existing Act and U.S. EPA's assessment of the scientific evidence that form the basis for EPA's regulatory actions. U.S. EPA, in conjunction with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), issued the first of a series of GHG emission standards for new cars and light-duty vehicles in April 20105 and significantly increased the fuel economy of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States. The standards required these vehicles to meet an average fuel economy of 34.1 miles per gallon by 2016. In August 2012, the federal government adopted the second rule that increases fuel economy for the fleet of passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium -duty passenger vehicles for model years 2017 and beyond to average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Because NHTSA cannot set standards beyond model year 2021 due to statutory obligations and the rules' long timeframe, a mid-term evaluation is included in the rule. The Mid -Term Evaluation is the overarching process by which NHTSA, U.S. EPA, and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) will decide on CAFE and GHG emissions standard stringency for model years 2022-2025. NHTSA has not formally adopted standards for model years 2022 through 2025. However, the U.S. EPA finalized its mid-term review in January 2017, affirming that the target fleet average of at least 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 was appropriate. In March 2017, President Trump ordered U.S. EPA to reopen the review and reconsider the mileage target.6 NHTSA and U.S. EPA issued a Final Rule for "Phase 2" for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to improve fuel efficiency and cut carbon pollution in October 2016. The agencies estimate that the standards will save up to 2 billion barrels of oil and reduce CO2 emissions by up to 1.1 billion metric tons over the lifetimes of model year 2018-2027 vehicles. Presidential Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, of March 28, 2017, orders all federal agencies to apply cost -benefit analyses to regulations of GHG emissions and evaluations of the social cost of carbon, nitrous oxide, and methane. 3.3.1.2 State With the passage of legislation including State Senate Bills (SBs) and Assembly Bills (ABs) and executive orders, California has been innovative and proactive in addressing GHG emissions and climate change. Assemblv Bill 1493, Pavlev Vehicular Emissions: Greenhouse Gases, 2002: This bill requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and implement regulations to reduce automobile and light truck GHG emissions. These stricter emissions standards were designed to apply to automobiles and light trucks beginning with the 2009 -model year. Executive Order S-3-05 (June 1. 2005): The goal of this Executive Order is to reduce California's GHG emissions to: (1) year 2000 levels by 2010, (2) year 1990 levels by 2020, and 5 http://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/epa/greenhouse-gas-regulation-faq. 6 http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/trump-rolls-back-obama-era-fuel-economy-standards-n734256 and https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/22/2017-05316/notice-of-intention-to-reconsider-the-final- determi nation -of -the -mid -term -evaluation -of -greenhouse. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.3-3 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation (3) 80 percent below year 1990 levels by 2050. This goal was further reinforced with the passage of Assembly Bill 32 in 2006 and SB 32 in 2016. Assembly Bill 32, Chapter 488, 2006: Nunez and Pavley, The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: AB 32 codified the 2020 GHG emissions reduction goals as outlined in Executive Order S-3-05, while further mandating that ARB create a scoping plan and implement rules to achieve "real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases." The Legislature also intended that the statewide GHG emissions limit continue in existence and be used to maintain and continue reductions in emissions of GHGs beyond 2020 (Health and Safety Code Section 38551(b)). The law requires ARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG reductions. Executive Order S-20-06 (October 18, 2006): This order establishes the responsibilities and roles of the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) and state agencies with regard to climate change. Executive Order S-01-07 (January 18, 2007): This order sets forth the low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) for California. Under this Executive Order, the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels is to be reduced by at least 10 percent by the year 2020. ARB re -adopted the LCFS regulation in September 2015, and the changes went into effect on January 1, 2016. The program establishes a strong framework to promote the low -carbon fuel adoption necessary to achieve the Governor's 2030 and 2050 GHG reduction goals. Senate Bill 97 (SB 97), Chapter 185, 2007, Greenhouse Gas Emissions: This bill requires the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop recommended amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for addressing GHG emissions. The amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), Chapter 728, 2008, Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection: This bill requires ARB to set regional emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for each region must then develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that integrates transportation, land -use, and housing policies to plan how it will achieve the emissions target for its region. Senate Bill 391 (SB 391), Chapter 585, 2009, California Transportation Plan: This bill requires the State's long-range transportation plan to meet California's climate change goals under AB 32. Executive Order B-16-12 (March 2012) orders state entities under the direction of the Governor, including ARB, the California Energy Commission, and the Public Utilities Commission, to support the rapid commercialization of zero -emission vehicles. It directs these entities to achieve various benchmarks related to zero -emission vehicles. Executive Order B-30-15 (April 2015) establishes an interim statewide GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. It further orders all state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions to implement measures, pursuant to statutory authority, to achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 GHG emissions reductions targets. It also directs ARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e). Finally, it requires the Natural Resources Agency to update the state's climate Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.3-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation adaptation strategy, Safeguarding California, every 3 years, and to ensure that its provisions are fully implemented. Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) Chapter 249, 2016, codifies the GHG reduction targets established in Executive Order B-30-15 to achieve a mid-range goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. 3.3.2 Environmental Setting In 2006, the Legislature passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 321, which created a comprehensive, multi-year program to reduce GHG emissions in California. AB 32 required ARB to develop a Scoping Plan that describes the approach California will take to achieve the goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The Scoping Plan was first approved by ARB in 2008 and must be updated every five years. ARB approved the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014. ARB is moving forward with a draft of an updated Scoping Plan that will reflect the 2030 target established in Executive Order B-30-15 and SB 32. The AB 32 Scoping Plan and the subsequent updates contain the main strategies California will use to reduce GHG emissions. As part of its supporting documentation for the Draft Scoping Plan, ARB released the GHG inventory for California.' ARB is responsible for maintaining and updating California's GHG Inventory per H&SC Section 39607.4. The associated forecast/ projection is an estimate of the emissions anticipated to occur in the year 2020 if none of the foreseeable measures included in the Scoping Plan were implemented. An emissions projection estimates future emissions based on current emissions, expected regulatory implementation, and other technological, social, economic, and behavioral patterns. The projected 2020 emissions provided in Figure 3.3-1, 2020 Business as Usual (BAU) Emissions Projection 2014 Edition, represent a business -as -usual (BAU) scenario assuming none of the Scoping Plan measures are implemented. The 2020 BAU emissions estimate assists ARB in demonstrating progress toward meeting the 2020 goal of 431 MMTCO2e.8 The 2017 edition of the GHG emissions inventory (released June 2017) found total California emissions of 440.4 MMTCO2e, showing progress towards meeting the AB 32 goals. The 2020 BAU emissions projection was revisited in support of the First Update to the Scoping Plan (2014). This projection accounts for updates to the economic forecasts of fuel and energy demand as well as other factors. It also accounts for the effects of the 2008 economic recession and the projected recovery. The total emissions expected in the 2020 BAU scenario include reductions anticipated from Pavley I and the Renewable Electricity Standard (30 MMTCO2e total). With these reductions in the baseline, estimated 2020 statewide BAU emissions are 509 MMTCO2e. 2017 Edition of the GHG Emission Inventory Released (June 2017): https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/ data/data.htm. 8 The revised target using Global Warming Potentials (GWP) from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.3-5 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Figure 3.3-1: 2020 Business as Usual (BAU) Emissions Projection 2014 Edition California Greenhouse Gas 2009 - 2011 Average Emissions, 2020 Emissions Projection for BAU Scenario, and 2020 Goal Average011 E.-� missionssions Used _ base year for BAU projection A p � N O 32 H _ Projected Emissions ■ I„ in 2020 for BAU Scenario 100 200 300 400 S00 600 Million Metric Tons of Coie ■ Transportation 7 Electric Power ■ Commercial and Residential ■ Industrial Recycling and Waste High GWP Agriculture htt,os://www. arb. ca. qov/cc/in ventory/data/bau. htm 3.3.3 Project Analysis An individual project does not generate enough GHG emissions to significantly influence global climate change. Rather, global climate change is a cumulative impact. This means that a project may contribute to a potential impact through its incremental change in emissions when combined with the contributions of all other sources of GHG.9 In assessing cumulative impacts, it must be determined if a project's incremental effect is "cumulatively considerable" (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(1) and 15130). To make this determination, the incremental impacts of the project must be compared with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. To gather sufficient information on a global scale of all past, current, and future projects to make this determination is a difficult, if not impossible, task. GHG emissions for transportation projects can be divided into those produced during operations and those produced during construction. The following represents a best faith effort to describe the potential GHG emissions related to the proposed project. 3.3.3.1 Significance Criteria SCAQMD Thresholds The SCAQMD has formed a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group) to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. As of the last Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) y This approach is supported by the AEP: Recommendations by the Association of Environmental Professionals on How to Analyze GHG Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents (March 5, 2007), as well as the South Coast Air Quality Management District (Chapter 6: The CEQA Guide, April 2011) and the US Forest Service (Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis, July 13, 2009). Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.3-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation held in September 2010, the SCAQMD is proposing to adopt a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency.10 With the tiered approach, the project is compared with the requirements of each tier sequentially and would not result in a significant impact if it complies with any tier. Tier 1 excludes projects that are specifically exempt from SB 97 from resulting in a significant impact. Tier 2 excludes projects that are consistent with a GHG reduction plan that has a certified final CEQA document and complies with AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Tier 3 excludes projects with annual emissions lower than a screening threshold. For all non -industrial projects, the SCAQMD is proposing a screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2eq per year. SCAQMD concluded that projects with emissions less than the screening threshold would not result in a significant cumulative impact. Tier 4 consists of three decision tree options. Under the Tier 4 first option, the project would be excluded if design features and/or mitigation measures resulted in emissions 30 percent lower than business as usual emissions. Under the Tier 4, second option the project would be excluded if it had early compliance with AB 32 through early implementation of CARB's Scoping Plan measures. Under the Tier 4 third option, the project would be excluded if it was below an efficiency -based threshold of 4.8 MTCO2eq per service population (SP) per year." Tier 5 would exclude projects that implement offsite mitigation (GHG reduction projects) or purchase offsets to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the proposed screening level. GHG efficiency metrics are utilized as thresholds to assess the GHG efficiency of a project on a per capita basis or on a "service population" basis (the sum of the number of jobs and the number of residents provided by a project) such that the project would allow for consistency with the goals of AB 32 (i.e., 1990 GHG emissions levels by 2020 and 2035). GHG efficiency thresholds can be determined by dividing the GHG emissions inventory goal of the State, by the estimated 2035 population and employment. This method allows highly efficient projects with higher mass emissions to meet the overall reduction goals of AB 32, and is appropriate, because the threshold can be applied evenly to all project types (residential or commercial/retail only and mixed use). For the proposed project, the 3,000 MTCO2eq per year non -industrial screening threshold is used as the significance threshold, in addition to the qualitative thresholds of significance set forth below from Section VII of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines. 10 The most recent SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group meeting was held in September 2010. 11 The project -level efficiency -based threshold of 4.8 MTCO2eq per SP per year is relative to the 2020 target date. The SCAQMD has also proposed efficiency -based thresholds relative to the 2035 target date to be consistent with the GHG reduction target date of SB 375. GHG reductions by the SB 375 target date of 2035 would be approximately 40 percent. Applying this 40 percent reduction to the 2020 targets results in an efficiency threshold for plans of 4.1 MTCO2eq per SP per year and an efficiency threshold at the project level of 3.0 MTCO2eq/year. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.3-7 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation 3.3.3.1 Operational Emissions Figure 3.3-2: Possible Use of Traffic Operation Strategies In Reducing On -Road CO2 Emissions 1000 900- 800 - 700 600 500 N v 400 300 200 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 Average Speed (mph) Four primary strategies can reduce GHG emissions from transportation sources: (1) improving the transportation system and operational efficiencies, (2) reducing travel activity, (3) transitioning to lower GHG-emitting fuels, and (4) improving vehicle technologies/efficiency. To be most effective, all four strategies should be pursued concurrently. FHWA supports these strategies to lessen climate change impacts, which correlate with efforts that the State of California is undertaking to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector. The highest levels of CO2 from mobile sources such as automobiles occur at stop -and -go speeds (0-25 miles per hour) and speeds over 55 miles per hour; the most severe emissions occur from 0-25 miles per hour (see Figure 3.3-2, Possible Use of Traffic Operation Strategies in Reducing On -Road CO2 Emissions, above). To the extent that a project relieves congestion by enhancing operations and improving travel times in high -congestion travel corridors, GHG emissions, particularly CO2, may be reduced. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) includes proposed transportation improvements to be integrated and coordinated with proposed land use changes that would lead to reduced congestion, reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and increased transit, walking, and biking options. The Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project would improve vehicular traffic and circulation of Park Place and other congested roadways within the project vicinity (i.e., Rosecrans Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard) and access to and from the 1- 105 freeway. In addition, the proposed Park Place extension would introduce bicycle access and sidewalks in an area where pedestrian/bicycle facilities are currently discontinuous; refer to Section 1.3, Project Description. As such, the project would assist the region with these goals, and is consistent with the RTP/SCS. The RTP/SCS includes integrated transportation and land use strategies to promote active transportation opportunities, compact development, car sharing and ride sourcing, and technology in zero -emission vehicles and neighborhood electric vehicles. The Program Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.3-8 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Environmental Impact Report for the 2016 RTP/SCS determined that across the six counties in the SCAG region, the 2016 RTP/SCS would result in an approximately 24 percent decrease in GHG emissions by 2040. The 2016 RTP/SCS also includes land use strategies that seek to balance the region's land use choices and transportation investments. As part of the early planning phase of the project, a number of alternatives and modal choices were considered. In order to accomplish the purpose of the project (i.e., to develop Park Place as an alternate east -west route between Sepulveda Boulevard and Douglas Street to relieve congestion along portions of Rosecrans Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard, as well as to improve local traffic circulation and access to and from the 1-105 freeway), implementation of a gap -closure project, in addition to the provision of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, was determined necessary. Based on the Air Quality Assessment, daily VMT would be 257,696 during "Horizon Year Without Project" scenario and decrease to 256,841 during "Horizon Year With Project" scenario. VHT would decrease from 26,629 to 26,434 during the same period. Table 3.3-1, Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled and Vehicle Hours Traveled Summary, depicts the daily VMT and VHT associated with existing conditions as well as build and no build conditions in the opening year and horizon year. As shown in Table 3.2-1, although VMT would decrease by approximately 0.33 percent, VHT would decrease by 0.73 percent under both opening year and horizon year scenarios. The project would implement a gap closure project to provide an alternate east -west route between Sepulveda Boulevard and Douglas Street and to relieve congestion and to improve local traffic circulation. As a result, the project would reduce travel distances and improve travel time in the project area by relieving congestion. Table 3.3-1: Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled and Vehicle Hours Traveled Summary Scenario Vehicle Miles Vehicle Hours Traveled (VMT) Traveled Existing (2016) 1 196,350 1 12,495 Opening Year (2021) No Project 245,565 25,375 With Project 244,750 25,190 Difference -815 -185 Percent Change -0.33% -0.73% Horizon Year (2040) No Project 257,696 26,629 With Project 256,841 26,434 Difference -855 -194 Percent Change -0.33% -0.73% Source: Michael Baker International, November 2016. Notes: 1. The study area boundary for estimated VMT is bounded by EI Segundo Boulevard (from Sepulveda Boulevard to Aviation Boulevard) to the north, Aviation Boulevard (from EI Segundo Boulevard to Rosecrans Avenue) to the east, Rosecrans Avenue (from Sepulveda Boulevard to Aviation Boulevard) to the south, and Sepulveda Boulevard (from EI Segundo Boulevard to Marine Avenue) to the west. Table 3.3-2, Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions, depicts the existing and future emissions from vehicles traveling within the project area, calculated with the EMFAC14 model. As shown in Table 3.3-1, the existing VMT in the project area generates 31,846 metric tons per year of Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.3-9 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation carbon dioxide (MTCO2eq).12 In the Opening Year (2021), emissions would increase to 35,228 MTCO2eq in the No -Build scenario and 35,111 MTCO2eq in the Build scenario. Project implementation would decrease emissions by approximately 0.33 percent from 2021 No -Build conditions. In the Horizon Year (2040), emissions would decrease to 27,446 MTCO2eq in the No -Build scenario and 27,355 MTCO2eq in the Build scenario, which are both lower than the existing condition (31,846 MTCO2eq). The decrease is due to the improvements in travel time as well as improvements in emissions technology. Additionally, project implementation would decrease emissions by approximately 0.33 percent from Horizon Year No -Build conditions. The overall reductions in GHG emissions would be due to the improvements in VMT and VHT. Table 3.3-2: Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Annual CO2eq (metric tons/year)2, 3, 4, s Scenario VMT1, a Project Study Area Existing Conditions (2016) 68,133,450 31,846 Opening Year (2021) Emissions 2021 No -Build Alternative 85,211,055 35,228 2021 Build Alternative 84,928,250 35,111 - Net Change from No -Build to Build Alternative -282,805 -117 - Percent Change from 2021 No -Build Alternative -0.33% -0.33% Horizon Year (2040) Emissions 2040 No -Build Alternative 89,420,512 27,446 2040 Build Alternative 89,123,827 27,355 - Net Change from No -Build to Build Alternative -296,685 -91 - Percent Change from 2055 No -Build Alternative -0.33% -0.33% Notes: 1. The study area boundary for estimated VMT is bounded by EI Segundo Boulevard (from Sepulveda Boulevard to Aviation Boulevard) to the north, Aviation Boulevard (from EI Segundo Boulevard to Rosecrans Avenue) to the east, Rosecrans Avenue (from Sepulveda Boulevard to Aviation Boulevard) to the south, and Sepulveda Boulevard (from EI Segundo Boulevard to Marine Avenue) to the west. 2. Emissions calculated using EMFAC2014. 3. Based on traffic volumes from Michael Baker International, November 2016. 4. Refer to Appendix D (CO2 Emissions Calculations) of the Air Quality Assessment for the Park Place Extension Project for CO2 emissions modeling outputs. 5. Annual VMT/GHG calculations within this table vary slightly from the Air Quality Assessment dated June 2017. Annual VMT/GHG were conservatively modeled in the Air Quality Assessment by multiplying daily VMT by 365 days; data in this table were calculated based upon ARB recommendation to calculate annual VMT using 347 days. While EMFAC has a rigorous scientific foundation and has been vetted through multiple stakeholder reviews, its emission rates are based on tailpipe emission test data. The numbers are estimates of CO2 emissions and not necessarily the actual CO2 emissions. The model does not account for factors such as the rate of acceleration and the vehicles' aerodynamics, which would influence CO2 emissions. To account for CO2 emissions, ARB's GHG Inventory follows the IPCC guideline by assuming complete fuel combustion, while still using EMFAC data to calculate CH4 and N2O emissions. 3.3.3.2 Construction Emissions Construction GHG emissions would result from material processing, on-site construction equipment, and traffic delays due to construction. These emissions would be produced at 12 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2eq) — A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential. The emissions in this analysis include CO2 and methane (CH4). Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.3-10 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation different levels throughout the construction phase; their frequency and occurrence can be reduced through innovations in plans and specifications and by implementing better traffic management during construction phases. In addition, with innovations such as longer pavement lives, improved traffic management plans, and changes in materials, the GHG emissions produced during construction can be offset to some degree by longer intervals between maintenance and rehabilitation activities. Based on the Roadway Construction Emissions Model (RCEM) (Version 8.1.0) developed by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), GHG emissions associated with construction of the project would be 418 tons (379 metric tons) of CO2eq. The proposed project would comply with any state, federal, and/or local rules and regulations developed as a result of implementing control and mitigation measures proposed as part of their respective State Implementation Plans. Certain project features under Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14, such as properly tuning and maintaining construction vehicles, will also help reduce construction GHG emissions. 3.3.3.3 CEQA Conclusion As discussed above, GHG emissions are projected to decrease in the project area as compared to existing conditions. While construction activities would result in a slight increase in GHG emissions during construction (379 MTCO2eq), operational emissions during the Build scenarios would decrease from the No -Build scenario. Neither construction nor operation of the project would generate GHG emissions in excess of the SCAQMD screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2eq per year. The proposed project would improve circulation, reduce congestion, and maximize overall performance of the roadway facilities within the project vicinity. 3.3.3.4 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies 3.3.3.4.1 City of EI Segundo In December 2015, the City of EI Segundo, in partnership with the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) adopted the Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan (EECAP) as a commitment to provide a more livable, equitable, and economically vibrant community and sub- region through the implementation of energy efficiency measures and subsequent reduction of GHG emissions. The EECAP has updated the City's community GHG emissions inventories and established goals and policies that incorporate environmental responsibility into its daily management of its community and municipal operations. The EECAP estimated future emissions in the City and established GHG reduction targets consistent with the State's adopted AB 32 GHG reduction target. The City is working to reduce emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2020 (a 15 percent decrease from 2005 levels). A longer-term goal was established for 2035; to reduce emissions 49 percent below 2005 levels, which would put the City on a path toward the State's long-term goal to reduce emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The EECAP efforts toward increasing energy efficiency will be done in coordination with the City's other planning and land use decisions. 3.3.3.4.2 Statewide Efforts In an effort to further the vision of California's GHG reduction targets outlined in AB 32 and SB 32, Governor Brown identified key climate change strategy pillars (concepts). These pillars highlight the idea that several major areas of the California economy would need to reduce Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.3-11 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation emissions to meet the 2030 GHG emissions target. These pillars are (1) reducing today's petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent; (2) increasing from one-third to 50 percent our electricity derived from renewable sources; (3) doubling the energy efficiency savings achieved at existing buildings and making heating fuels cleaner; (4) reducing the release of methane, black carbon, and other short-lived climate pollutants; (5) managing farm and rangelands, forests, and wetlands so they can store carbon; and (6) periodically updating the State's climate adaptation strategy, Safeguarding California; refer to Figure 3.3-3, The Governor's Climate Change Pillars: 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals. Figure 3.3-3: The Governor's Climate Change Pillars: 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals r 11 - CALIFORNIA CLIMATE STRATEGY. k1IL _11 .001L An Integrated Plan forAddressing Climate Change jL Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions to 40% Below 1990 Levels by 2030 50% reduction Carbon in petroleum sequestration Safeguard use in vehicles in the land base California 000aQ 50% Double energy Reduce renewable efficiency savings short-lived electricity at existing buildings climate pollutants The transportation sector is integral to the people and economy of California. To achieve GHG emission reduction goals, it is vital that we build on our past successes in reducing criteria and toxic air pollutants from transportation and goods movement activities. GHG emission reductions will come from cleaner vehicle technologies, lower -carbon fuels, and reduction of vehicle miles traveled. One of Governor Brown's key pillars sets the ambitious goal of reducing today's petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent by 2030. Governor Brown called for support to manage natural and working lands, including forests, rangelands, farms, wetlands, and soils, so they can store carbon. These lands have the ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through biological processes, and to then sequester carbon in above- and below -ground matter. Caltrans Activities Caltrans continues to be involved on the Governor's Climate Action Team as the ARB works to implement Executive Orders S-3-05 and S-01-07 and help achieve the targets set forth in AB 32. Executive Order B-30-15, issued in April 2015, and SB 32 (2016), set a new interim target to cut GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The following major initiatives are underway at Caltrans to help meet these targets. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.3-12 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation California Transportation Plan (CTP 2040) The California Transportation Plan (CTP) is a statewide, long-range transportation plan to meet our future mobility needs and reduce GHG emissions. The CTP defines performance-based goals, policies, and strategies to achieve our collective vision for California's future statewide, integrated, multimodal transportation system. It serves as an umbrella document for all of the other statewide transportation planning documents. SB 391 (Liu 2009) requires the CTP to meet California's climate change goals under AB 32. Accordingly, the CTP 2040 identifies the statewide transportation system needed to achieve maximum feasible GHG emission reductions while meeting the State's transportation needs. While MPOs have primary responsibility for identifying land use patterns to help reduce GHG emissions, CTP 2040 identifies additional strategies in Pricing, Transportation Alternatives, Mode Shift, and Operational Efficiency. Caltrans Strategic Management Plan The Strategic Management Plan, released in 2015, creates a performance-based framework to preserve the environment and reduce GHG emissions, among other goals. Specific performance targets in the plan that would help to reduce GHG emissions include: • Increasing percentage of non -auto mode share. • Reducing VMT per capita. • Reducing Caltrans' internal operational (buildings, facilities, and fuel) GHG emissions. Funding and Technical Assistance Proqrams In addition to developing plans and performance targets to reduce GHG emissions, Caltrans also administers several funding and technical assistance programs that have GHG reduction benefits. These include the Bicycle Transportation Program, Safe Routes to School, Transportation Enhancement Funds, and Transit Planning Grants. A more extensive description of these programs can be found in Caltrans Activities to Address Climate Change (2013). Caltrans Director's Policy 30 (DP -30) Climate Change (June 22, 2012) is intended to establish a department policy that would ensure coordinated efforts to incorporate climate change into departmental decisions and activities. Caltrans Activities to Address Climate Change (April 2013) provides a comprehensive overview of activities undertaken by Caltrans statewide to reduce GHG emissions resulting from agency operations. 3.3.3.4.3 Project -Level GHG Reduction Strategies The following measures would also be implemented in the project to reduce GHG emissions and potential climate change impacts from the project. • The project includes improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, improving connectivity to encourage use of these alternative modes. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.3-13 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation • Landscaping reduces surface warming and, through photosynthesis, decreases CO2. The project would implement landscaping as determined during final design in coordination with the City of EI Segundo, the County, and the Department's District Landscape Architect. This landscaping would help offset any potential CO2 emissions increase. • The project would incorporate the use of energy efficient lighting, such as LED traffic signals. LED bulbs cost $60 to $70 each but last five to six years, compared to the one- year average lifespan of the incandescent bulbs previously used. The LED bulbs themselves consume 10 percent of the electricity of traditional lights, which will also help reduce the project's CO2 emissions .13 • According to Caltrans' Standard Specifications, idling time for lane closure during construction is limited to 10 minutes in each direction. In addition, the contractor must comply with all SCAQMD rules, ordinances, and regulations regarding air quality restrictions. • As part of the SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, project level mitigation measures were provided to reduce impacts including those pertaining to climate change. The following project level mitigation measures would apply: – Use energy and fuel efficient vehicles and equipment. Project proponents are encouraged to meet and exceed all U.S. EPA/NHTSA/CARB standards relating to fuel efficiency and emission reduction; – Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials that is feasible; – Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of fly ash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production; – Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste reduction, recycling and reuse; and – Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible. 3.3.3.4.4 Adaptation Strategies "Adaptation strategies" refer to how Caltrans and others can plan for the effects of climate change on the State's transportation infrastructure and strengthen or protect the facilities from damage—or, put another way, planning and design for resilience. Climate change is expected to produce increased variability in precipitation, rising temperatures, rising sea levels, variability in storm surges and their intensity, and the frequency and intensity of wildfires. These changes may affect the transportation infrastructure in various ways, such as damage to roadbeds from longer periods of intense heat; increasing storm damage from flooding and erosion; and inundation from rising sea levels. These effects would vary by location and may, in the most extreme cases, require that a facility be relocated or redesigned. These types of impacts to the transportation infrastructure may also have economic and strategic ramifications. 13 Knoxville Business Journal, "LED Lights Pay for Themselves," May 19, 2008 at http://www.knowxnews. com/news/2008/may/19/led-traffic-lights-pay-themselves/. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.3-14 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation Federal Efforts At the federal level, the Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, co-chaired by the CEQ, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), released its interagency task force progress report on October 28, 2011,14 outlining the federal government's progress in expanding and strengthening the nation's capacity to better understand, prepare for, and respond to extreme events and other climate change impacts. The report provided an update on actions in key areas of federal adaptation, including: building resilience in local communities, safeguarding critical natural resources such as fresh water, and providing accessible climate information and tools to help decision -makers manage climate risks. The federal Department of Transportation issued U.S. DOT Policy Statement on Climate Adaptation in June 2011, committing to "integrate consideration of climate change impacts and adaptation into the planning, operations, policies, and programs of DOT in order to ensure that taxpayer resources are invested wisely and that transportation infrastructure, services and operations remain effective in current and future climate conditions."15 To further the DOT Policy Statement, in December 15, 2014, FHWA issued order 5520 (Transportation System Preparedness and Resilience to Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events).16 This directive established FHWA policy to strive to identify the risks of climate change and extreme weather events to current and planned transportation systems. The FHWA would work to integrate consideration of these risks into its planning, operations, policies, and programs in order to promote preparedness and resilience; safeguard federal investments; and ensure the safety, reliability, and sustainability of the nation's transportation systems. FHWA has developed guidance and tools for transportation planning that fosters resilience to climate effects and sustainability at the federal, state, and local levels .17 State Efforts On November 14, 2008, then -Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-13- 08, which directed a number of state agencies to address California's vulnerability to sea -level rise caused by climate change. This Executive Order set in motion several agencies and actions to address the concern of sea -level rise and directed all state agencies planning to construct projects in areas vulnerable to future sea -level rise to consider a range of sea -level rise scenarios for the years 2050 and 2100, assess project vulnerability and, to the extent feasible, reduce expected risks and increase resiliency to sea -level rise. Sea -level rise estimates should also be used in conjunction with information on local uplift and subsidence, coastal erosion rates, predicted higher high water levels, and storm surge and storm wave data. Governor Schwarzenegger also requested the National Academy of Sciences to prepare an assessment report to recommend how California should plan for future sea -level rise. The final report, Sea -Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington (Sea -Level Rise Assessment Report)18 was released in June 2012 and included relative sea -level rise projections for the three states, taking into account coastal erosion rates, tidal impacts, EI Nino 14 https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/resilience. 15 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/policy_and_guidance/usdot.cfm. 16 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/5520.cfm. 17 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/. 18 Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future (2012) is available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.3-15 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation and La Nina events, storm surge, and land subsidence rates; and the range of uncertainty in selected sea -level rise projections. It provided a synthesis of existing information on projected sea -level rise impacts to state infrastructure (such as roads, public facilities, and beaches), natural areas, and coastal and marine ecosystems; and a discussion of future research needs regarding sea -level rise. In response to Executive Order S-13-08, the California Natural Resources Agency (Resources Agency), in coordination with local, regional, state, federal, and public and private entities, developed The California Climate Adaptation Strategy (December 2009),19 which summarized the best available science on climate change impacts to California, assessed California's vulnerability to the identified impacts, and outlined solutions that can be implemented within and across state agencies to promote resiliency. The adaptation strategy was updated and rebranded in 2014 as Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk (Safeguarding California Plan). Governor Jerry Brown enhanced the overall adaptation planning effort by signing Executive Order B-30-15 in April 2015, requiring state agencies to factor climate change into all planning and investment decisions. In March 2016, sector -specific Implementation Action Plans that demonstrate how state agencies are implementing Executive Order B-30-15 were added to the Safeguarding California Plan. This effort represents a multi -agency, cross -sector approach to addressing adaptation to climate change -related events statewide. Executive Order S-13-08 also gave rise to the State of California Sea -Level Rise Interim Guidance Document (SLR Guidance), produced by the Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate Action Team (CO -CAT), of which Caltrans is a member. First published in 2010, the document provided "guidance for incorporating sea -level rise (SLR) projections into planning and decision making for projects in California," specifically, "information and recommendations to enhance consistency across agencies in their development of approaches to SLR." The March 2013 update20 finalizes the SLR Guidance by incorporating findings of the National Academy's 2012 final Sea -Level Rise Assessment Report; the policy recommendations remain the same as those in the 2010 interim SLR Guidance. The guidance would be updated as necessary in the future to reflect the latest scientific understanding of how the climate is changing and how this change may affect the rates of SLR. Climate change adaptation for transportation infrastructure involves long-term planning and risk management to address vulnerabilities in the transportation system from increased precipitation, and flooding; the increased frequency and intensity of storms and wildfires; rising temperatures; and rising sea levels. Caltrans is actively engaged in working towards identifying these risks throughout the State and would work to incorporate this information into all planning and investment decisions as directed in EO B-30-15. The proposed project is outside the coastal zone and not in an area subject to sea -level rise. Accordingly, direct impacts to transportation facilities due to projected sea -level rise are not expected. 19 http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/strategy/index.html. 20 http://www.opc.ca.gov/2013/04/update-to-the-sea-level-rise-guidance-document/. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 3.3-16 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination Early and continuing coordination with the general public and public agencies is an essential part of the environmental process. It helps planners determine the necessary scope of environmental documentation and the level of analysis required, and to identify potential impacts and avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures and related environmental requirements. Agency and tribal consultation and public participation for this project have been accomplished through a variety of formal and informal methods, including a public scoping meeting conducted on December 8, 2016, a NEPA public hearing conducted on October 30, 2018, and interagency outreach and consultation. This chapter summarizes the results of Caltrans' and the City of EI Segundo's efforts to fully identify, address, and resolve project - related issues through early and continuing coordination. 4.1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TEAM (PDT) MEETINGS Project Development Team meetings have been held during preparation of this Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA). Project Development Team members include representatives from Caltrans District 7 and the City of EI Segundo, along with members of the consultant team. The team has discussed alternatives; factors to be considered during the environmental study process; and the project schedule. 4.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study for the proposed project. The NOP and Initial Study were circulated for a period of 30 days, and the NOP was filed with the State Clearinghouse, County Clerk, and distributed to affected agencies and interested parties. The NOP and comments received by the City of EI Segundo are provided as Appendix C, Notice of Preparation and Comments. In addition to circulation of the NOP and Initial Study, a public scoping meeting was conducted by the City on December 8, 2016. This scoping meeting was conducted as part of a City of EI Segundo Planning Commission meeting at the City of EI Segundo City Council Chambers located at 350 Main Street in EI Segundo. During the public scoping meeting, an overview of the project was provided related to the project purpose and need, build alternatives under consideration, and key environmental issues anticipated to be evaluated in the EIR/EA. An opportunity for public comment was provided. The primary questions and topics of concern received during the Public Information Meeting include: • Access during construction should be maintained to existing businesses in the project area; • Any proposed railroad crossings should be grade -separated, and not at -grade; • Potential effects to operations at the Chevron Oil Refinery specific to rail operations; • Utility impacts; and • Project should ultimately include an additional southerly leg that connects the intersection of Park Place/Allied Way to Rosecrans Avenue. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination A NEPA public hearing for the proposed project to receive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) was conducted on October 30, 2018 at 5:00 PM at the City of EI Segundo City Hall, City Council Chambers, 350 Main Street, EI Segundo, CA 90245. The Public Notice notifying the public, agencies, and interested parties of public review of the EIR/EA and the public hearing is provided within this section. Public notice of the meeting was provided via the Los Angeles County Registrar, EI Segundo Herald, and two public places. During the NEPA public hearing, an overview of the project was provided related to the project purpose and need, build alternatives under consideration, and key environmental issues anticipated to be evaluated in the EIR/EA. An opportunity for written public comment was provided. Written comments received during the hearing are provided within Section 4.7, Comments and Responding to Comments, below. 4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES As part of the cultural investigation, a record search was conducted with the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) located at California State University, Fullerton. In addition, additional specialized listings for cultural resources were consulted. Caltrans has notified the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) of its Determinations of Eligibility and Finding of Effect (No historic properties affected) and received concurrence on August 11, 2017. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted in September 2015 and October 2016 and letters were sent to Native American tribes in September 2015. Multiple follow-up attempts were made with the tribes in 2015, in addition to 2016 as part of an update to the cultural documentation. The consultation with the NAHC and Native American representatives is summarized in Table 4-1, Summary of Native American Consultation. Agency and Agency Representative Native American Heritage Commission Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Andrew Salas, Chairperson Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Anthony Morales, Chairperson Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, Robert F. Dorame, Chairperson Gabrielino/Tongva Nation, Director Sam Dunlap Table 4-1: Summary of Native American Consultation Dates of Contact I Date of Reply 9/8/15 and 10/17/16 9/29/15 and 10/17/16 1 st Attempt: 9/25/15 2nd Attempt: N/A 3rd Attempt: N/A 2016 Update: 11/30/2016 1 st Attempt: 9/25/15 2nd Attempt: 9/29/15 3rd Attempt: 10/26/15 2016 Update: 11/30/2016 1 st Attempt: 9/29/15 2nd Attempt: 10/26/15 3rd Attempt: N/A 2016 Update: 11/30/2016 1 st Attempt: 9/25/15 2nd Attempt: 9/29/15 3rd Attempt: 10/26/15 2016 Update: 11/30/2016 9/25/15 N/A N/A N/A Comments NAHC responded that there are no known sacred lands within the Area of Potential Effects (APE). Mr. Salas responded that the area is very sensitive and requested that a Native American monitor from his organization be present during any ground disturbing activities. No response was received. No response was received. No response was received. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination Table 4-1: Summary of Native American Consultation [continued] Agency and Agency Dates of Contact Date of Reply Comments Representative Gabrielino/Tongva Nation, Chairperson Sandonne Goad Gabriel ino-Tongva Tribe, Linda Candelaria, Co - Chairperson Gabriel ino-Tongva Tribe, Conrad Acuna Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, Joseph Ontiveros Soboba Band of Mission Indians, Chairperson Rosemary Morillo Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation, John Tommy Rosas 1 I Attempt: 9/25/15 2nd Attempt: 9/29/15 3rd Attempt: 10/26/15 2016 Update: 11/30/2016 1 It Attempt: 9/25/15 2nd Attempt: 9/29/15 3rd Attempt: 10/26/15 2016 Update: 11/30/2016 1 It Attempt: 9/29/15 2nd Attempt: 10/26/15 3rd Attempt: N/A 2016 Update: 11/30/2016 1 It Attempt: 9/29/15 2nd Attempt: 9/29/15 3rd Attempt: N/A 2016 Update: Not a contact based on 2016 NAHC tribal list 1 I Attempt: 9/25/15 2nd Attempt: 9/29/15 3rd Attempt: N/A 2016 Update: Not a contact based on 2016 NAHC tribal list 1 It Attempt: 9/29/15 2nd Attempt: N/A 3rd Attempt: N/A 2016 Update: Not a contact based on 2016 NAHC tribal list N/A No response was received. N/A No response was received. N/A No longer a tribal contact. 9/30/15 Mr. Ontiveros, on behalf of the Soboba Band of Mission Indians, indicated that the APE is within the Tribe's Traditional Use Area. Currently the Tribe does not have any specific concerns regarding known cultural resources in the specified areas that the project encompasses, but does request that the appropriate consultation continue to take place between the tribes, project proponents, and government agencies. They requested that an approved Native American Monitor(s) be present during any future ground disturbing proceedings, including surveys and archaeological testing, associated with this project. The Soboba Band wishes to defer to Gabrielino Tribal Consultants, who are closer to the project area. N/A No response was received. 9/29/15 Mr. John Tommy Rosas on, behalf of the Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation, responded that he would like a letter that follows the AB -52 consultation process. Mr. Rosas was notified that the City of EI Segundo was responsible for all AB -52 consultations and was asked again for his comments for scoping purposes. No response was received. Caltrans determined a Finding of No Historic Properties Affected for the purpose of Section 106 of the NHPA or historical resources in accordance with NEPA, either individually or as a historic district. Caltrans notified the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) of its determination that no properties within the APE are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and received concurrence in its determination of Finding of No Historic Properties Affected on August 11, 2017. The SHPO concurrence letter has been provided as Appendix I of this document. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-3 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Lists of special status species were generated from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory. In addition, listings for special status species from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was retrieved in May 2018. A query of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Surveys for the project site was also conducted. 4.5 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) GeoTracker database was queried in November and December 2016, in addition to a review of California Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) Wildcat maps. 4.6 AIR QUALITY The project -level particulate matter hot -spot analysis was presented to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) for discussion and review on January 24, 2017, pursuant to the interagency consultation requirement of 40 CFR 93.105 (c)(1)(i). The primary members of the TCWG relevant to the proposed project include: • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); • California Air Resources Board (CARB); • Caltrans; • SCAG; and • South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The TCWG confirmed that the project would not be considered a project of air quality concern (POAQC) under 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1). Additionally, an Air Quality Conformity Analysis (AQCA) was prepared for the project and submitted to the FHWA on January 31, 2019. The FHWA issued their Conformity Determination on February 22, 2019. The FHWA Conformity Determination is provided within this section. 4.7 Comments and Responding to Comments The Draft EIR/EA was circulated for public review beginning September 27, 2018 and ending November 13, 2018. A total of 15 written comments were received from agencies and interested parties via letter. A copy of each numbered letter and a lettered response to each comment is provided in this section. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination 4.7.1 List of Comments Received 4.7.1.1 Written Comments Received State Aaencies 1. State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, letter dated November 14, 2018 2. State of California Public Utilities Commission, letter dated November 8, 2018 3. State of California Department of Conservation Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, letter dated November 9, 2018 4. State of California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, letter dated November 13, 2018 Reaional Agencies 5. South Coast Air Quality Management District, letter dated November 13, 2018 Local Aaencies 6. West Basin Municipal Water District, letter dated October 30, 2018 7. West Basin Municipal Water District, letter dated November 13, 2018 8. City of Manhattan Beach Community Development Department, letter dated November 13, 2018 Interested Parties 9. Andrew Salas, Interested Party, letter dated October 19, 2018 10. Chevron Products Company, Interested Party, letter dated November 12, 2018 11. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Interested Party, letter dated November 13, 2018 12. Lauren Holiday, Interested Party, letter dated June 20, 2017 13. Lauren Holiday, Interested Party, letter dated November 13, 2018 14. Joan A. Wolff, Interested Party, letter dated November 13, 2018 15. Richard C. Lundquist, Interested Party, letter dated November 13, 2018 Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-5 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) STzkTE OF CALIFORNIA GoVERN, TOR'S OFFICE ref PLkTNNITNGA2ND RESEARCH 0 OF CALIf EDMUND G. BROWNJR. KE.,, ALEX GoVFRNOR DIRECI'OR November 14, 2018 Paul Samaras City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Subject: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project SCH#: 2016101075 Dear Paul Samaras: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On Z� the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinahouse has listed the state agencies that 7 reviewed your document. The review period closed on November 13, 2018, and the comments from the respondingaency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order. = gge .� - , please notify the State Clearinahouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinaliouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are C required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recon-unend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents. , pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, Scott Moraan Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 140010th Street R0, Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 1-916-322-2318 FAX 1-916-5S8-3184 www.opua.gov 1 0 Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2016101075 Project Title Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project LeadAgnnoy BSegundo, City of Type BR OmftBR Description The City proposes to extend Park Place from Allied Way to Nash Street with a railroad grade separation(s) in order to improve traffic and circulation in the project area. Park Place currently exists in two segments with a roughly quarter mile gap across an undeveloped area which consists of UPRR and Burlington Northern Santa Ferailroad spurs. The project would implement acap closure 10 develop a Park Place as an alternative east -west route between Sepulveda Blvd and Douglas Street to relieve congestion along portions of Rosecrans Avenue and Sepulveda Blvd, as well as to improve local traffic circulation and access to and from the 1-105 freeway. Caltrans District 7 is the lead agency under the NEPA, while the city iathe lead agency under CEQA. Lead Agency Contact Name Paul Samaras Agency City ofBSegundo Phone 310-524-2380 Fax email Address 350 Main Sina*t City BSegundo State CA 35p 80245 Project Location County Los Angeles City BSogundo Region Lat/Long 33~54'17.5^N/118°23'24.9^VV Cross Streets Park Place, Sepulveda Blvd Parcel No. Various Township 3S Range 14VV Section 18 Base SB8M Proximity to: Highways 1-405; 1-105 Airports LA International Railways UPRR8NSF Waterways Schools Various Land Use Commercial Center and Heavy Manufacturing Project Issues Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Ardhoeologi*Hiatoro;Biological Resources; Drainage/Absorption; Coastal Zone; Flood Plain/Flooding; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Geologic/Seismic; Minerals; Noise; Balance; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities; Septic System; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Wildlife; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Cumulative Effects; ; Fiscal Impacts Reviewing Resources Agency; Department ofFish and Wildlife, Region 5;Department ufParks and Recreation; Agencies Department ofWater Resources; Caltrans, DivisionofAemnauUno;Ca|ifoxniaHighwayPaho|; Caltrans, District 7; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 4;Air Resources Board, Transportation Projects; Native American Heritage Commission; Public Utilities Commission; Department ofConservation Date Received 09/27/2018 Start ofReview 00/27/2018 Enu/ofRevievv 11/13/2018 Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination Response to Comment 1: State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, letter dated November 14, 2018 1-1 This letter acknowledges that the State Clearinghouse submitted the Draft EIR/EA to selected State agencies for review and that the Draft EIR/EA review period closed on November 13, 2018. The comment states that the Lead Agency (City of EI Segundo) complied with the public review requirements for draft environmental documents pursuant to CEQA. As such, no further response is necessary. 1-2 This comment includes the State Clearinghouse Document Details Report and does not address the Draft EIR/EA's adequacy or relate to an environmental issue. It should be noted that also attached to this letter from the State Clearinghouse was correspondence related to the project from the California Public Utilities Commission and California Department of Conservation Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. These comment letters are included as Response to Comment Letter's 2 and 3, below. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-9 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-10 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 320 WEST 4TH STREET, SUITE 500 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 November 8, 2018 Paul Samaras City of EI Segundo 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 psamaras@elsegundo.org Re: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project SCH 2016101075 — Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Samaras: EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission/CPUC) has jurisdiction over rail crossings (crossings) in California. CPUC ensures that crossings are safely designed, constructed, and maintained. The Commission's Rail Crossings Engineering Branch (RCEB) is in receipt of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project. The City of EI Segundo (City) is the lead agency. The City proposes to extend Park Place from Allied Way to Nash Street with a railroad grade separation. Park Place currently exists in two segments separated by undeveloped area with Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and the BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) railroad tracks along the north and south edges of the undeveloped area, respectively. The City identified four alternatives to connect Park Place. RCEB staff provides the following comments to the alternatives: • Alternatives 1A, 1C, and 3A: RCEB staff supports these three conceptual alternatives as they do not result in addition of at -grade crossings. • Alternative 3B: RCEB does not support establishment of new grade crossings unless all other alternatives have been substantially demonstrated as impracticable. As part of considering and approving construction of new at -grade crossings, staff requires applicants to conduct a thorough study of a grade separation, demonstrating the public needs, exploring all practicable roadway designs including over and underpass crossings, as well as the usage of alternate routes. Construction or modification of public crossings requires authorization from the Commission. Please update the Draft EIR section titled Permits and Approvals Needed to include Authorization for New Crossing under permits, licenses, agreements, and certifications (PLAC) and CPUC as the responsible Agency. RCEB representatives are available to discuss any potential safety impacts or concerns at crossings. Please continue to keep RCEB informed of the project's development. More information can be found at: htti)://www.ci)uc.ca.aov/crossings. If you have any questions, please contact Matt Cervantes at (213) 266-4716, or mci@cpuc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Matt Cervantes Utilities Engineer Rail Crossings Engineering Branch Safety and Enforcement Division CC: State Clearinghouse, state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination Response to Comment 2: State of California Public Utilities Commission, letter dated November 8, 2018 2-1 This comment provides an introduction to the letter and a summary of the project description, and does not provide information related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the Draft EIR/EA. 2-2 This comment notes that the California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) Rail Crossings Engineering Branch (RCEB) is in support of Alternatives 1A, 1C, and 3A. This comment is noted and will be considered by the Project Development Team (PDT) as part of the selection of the Preferred Alternative. 2-3 This comment notes that the RCEB is not in support of Alternative 3B as it would result in a new at -grade crossing of Park Place and the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad. This comment is noted and will be considered by the PDT as part of the selection of the Preferred Alternative. It should be noted that, as described within the Draft EIR/EA, Alternative 1 C is considered the Locally Preferred Alternative. In the event Alternative 3B is selected as the Preferred Alternative, it is acknowledged that the project would be subject to review by RCEB and a grade - separated alternative would need to be demonstrated as impracticable as the project undergoes the permitting and approval process. 2-4 Chapter 1, Section 1.4, Permits and Approvals Needed, of the Final EIR/EA has been modified to include the CPUC's Authorization for New Crossings. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-13 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-14 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) November 9, 2018 VIA EMAIL California Department of Conservation Oil, Gas, & Geothermal Resources Mr. Paul Samaras City of EI Segundo Principal Planner 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 Email: psamaras(@elseaundo.ora Dear Mr. Samaras: Southern District 5816 Corporate Avenue, Suite 200 Cypress, CA 90630 T: (714) 816-6847 F: (714) 816-6853 conservation.ca.gov DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PARK PLACE EXTENSION AND GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT The Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (Division) has reviewed the above referenced project for impacts with Division jurisdictional authority. The Division supervises the drilling, maintenance, and plugging and abandonment of oil, gas, and geothermal wells in California. The Division offers the following comments for your consideration. The project area is in Los Angeles County and is within the EI Segundo oil field. Division records indicate there is at least one buried idle well located near the project boundary as identified in the application. Division information can be found at: www. conservation. ca.00v. Individual well records are also available on the Division's web site, or by emailing DOGDIST1(a)conservation.ca.aov. The scope and content of information that is germane to Division's responsibility are contained in Section 3000 et seq. of the Public Resources Code, and administrative regulations under Title 14, Division 2, Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of the California Code of Regulations. If any wells, including any plugged, abandoned or unrecorded wells, are damaged or uncovered during excavation or grading, remedial plugging operations may be required. If such damage or discovery occurs, the Division's district office must be contacted to obtain information on the requirements and approval to perform remedial operations. The possibility for future problems from oil wells that have been plugged and abandoned, or reabandoned, to the Division's current specifications are remote. However, the Division recommends that a diligent effort be made to avoid building over any plugged and abandoned well. California Department of Conservation Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor I David Bunn, Director Questions regarding the Division's Construction Site Well Review Program can be addressed to the local Division's office in Cypress by emailing DOGDIST1(a)conservation.ca.aov or by calling (714) 816-6847. Sincerely, Kathleen M. Andrews Associate Oil and Gas Engineer cc:The State Clearinghouse - Office of Planning and Research, state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov Christine Hansen, DOC OGER, christine.hansen@conservation.ca.gov Kyle VanRensselaer, DOC Exec, kyle.vanrensselaer@conservation.ca.gov Naveen Habib, DOC OGER, naveen.habib@conservation.ca.gov Jan Perez, DOGGR CEQA Unit, jan.perez@conservation.ca.gov Suman Ghosh, Facilities and Environmental Supervisor, suman.ghosh@conservation.ca.gov Environmental CEQA File State of California Natural Resources Agency I Department of Conservation I Unit Name Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor I David Bunn, Director conservation.ca.gov I T: (916) 323 9195 1 F: (916) 445 6066 Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination Response to Comment 3: State of California Department of Conservation Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, letter dated November 9, 2018 3-1 This comment provides an introduction to the letter and does not provide information related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the Draft EIR/EA. 3-2 This comment states that, although unlikely, if any oil wells are damaged or uncovered during excavation or grading, remedial plugging operations may be required, and the Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (Division) district office shall be contacted. This comment has been noted. Based on the Phase I Initial Site Assessment prepared for the project, known oil wells do not occur on-site. The buried idle well referenced in the Division's letter is located outside of the project boundary, and would not be disturbed as part of the project. However, in the unlikely event unknown wells are disturbed as part of project construction activities, the Division will be contacted and its regulations and procedures for remedial plugging would be adhered to. A diligent effort will be made to avoid building over any plugged and abandoned wells. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-17 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-18 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) State of California — Natural Resources Aaencv DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE South Coast Region 383 Ruffin Road San Diego, California 92123 (858) 467-4201 www.vVildlife.ca.gov November 13, 2018 Paul Samaras City of El Segundo, Principal Planner 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Dsamaras(o)elseciundo.orq Dear Mr. Samaras: EDMUND G. BROWN JR.. Governor CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Subject: Comments on Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project EIR/EA, City of El Segundo, Los Angeles County (SCH# 2016101075). Deer Mr. Samaras: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) for the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project (Project) from the City of El Segundo (City) acting as the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.' and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) acting as the lead agency under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code. CDFW is California's Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State [Fish & Game Code, §§ 711.7, subdivision (a) & 1802; Public Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines, § 15386, subdivision (a)]. CDFW, in its trustee Capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect state fish and wildlife resources. CEQA is codified* in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The "CEQA Guidelines" are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000. Paul Samaras November 1, 2018 Page 2 of 6 CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Public Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code, including lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & Game Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in 'take", as defined by State law, of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & Game Code, § 2050 et seq.), or state -listed rare plant pursuant to the Native Plant Protection Act (LAPPA; Fish and Game Code, §1900 et seq.) authorization as provided by the applicable Fish and Game Code will be required. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Proponent: City of El Segundo and Caltrans, Objective: To extend Park Place from Allied Way to Nash Street with a railroad grade separation. The Project consists of extending Park Place by constructing approximately 0.25 miles of new roadway, creating a four -lane collector roadway from Sepulveda Boulevard to Douglas Street. The proposed road includes an 80 foot right -of way consisting of a raised and landscaped center median, roadway with two travel lanes in each direction for shared vehicle and bicycle traffic, curb and gutter, a five-foot landscaped parkway, and a five-foot sidewalk. The proposed project would be required to cross the existing Union Pacific Railroad and Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail alignments traversing the project site. Location: The project site is located east of Sepulveda Boulevard and north of Rosecrans Avenue in the City of El Segundo. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City and Caltrans in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project's significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Comment # 1: Burrowing Owl Issue: Section 2.3.3.4 Avoidance, Minimization, andlor Mitigation Measures AS -2 states, "A preconstruction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted to ensure that burrowing owl remain absent from the Biological Study Area (BSA). Based on the current condition of the habitat within the limits of disturbance and the BSA, protocol burrowing owl surveys are not recommended. Should burrowing owl be found within the BSA during preconstruction clearance surveys, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) shall be contacted for consultation prior to clearing and grubbing". Paul Samaras November 1, 2018 Page 3 of 6 It is unclear what methodologies were used in the BSA and how the EIR/EA determined that burrowing owl protocol surveys are not required. Specific impact: "Preconstruction burrowing owl clearance survey" may miss burrowing owl site use because burrowing owls are not easily detected during the non -breeding seasons. Protocol surveys are designed for maximizing detection of burrowing owl on the Project site for avoidance and mitigation planning purposes. Without appropriate protocol surveys, the Project may result in direct and cumulative population declines or local extirpation of burrowing owl, habitat loss and fragmentation, and reduced reproductive capacity. Unmitigated impacts to burrowing owl and their habitat may place additional burden on adjacent properties to allocate resources to protect burrowing owl in the City should these properties be proposed for development and burrowing owl declines warrant further regulatory protection. Why impact would occur: Grading, vegetation removal, and other ground disturbances could crush and bury burrows occupied by burrowing owl, resulting in direct mortality. The Project may also displace burrowing owl, resulting in stress and mortality due to increased predation and exposure to extreme weather conditions. Type conversion of burrowing owl habitat from additional urban sprawl in the City will directly and cumulatively eliminate borrowing owl nesting habitat. Project -related ground disturbances will eliminate prey and prey -supporting habitat for burrowing owl. Evidence Impact would be significant: Insufficient survey efforts for burrowing owl may conclude false negative results, which would not require avoidance and mitigate measure implementation. Inadequate avoidance and mitigation measures will result in the Project continuing to have a substantial adverse direct and cumulative effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) Mitigation Measure #1: Based on the information provided in the EIR/EA, there is potential for the Project to result in significant adverse impacts to burrowing owl. As a condition of Project approval before construction contracts and/or grading permits are issued, CDFW recommends the City utilize the three -tiered approach and mitigation methods detailed in CDFW's Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Staff Report) to analyze the potential for impacts to the species and condition appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures (Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2012). The three components to evaluating species impacts are: 1) habitat assessment, 2) surveys, and 3) impact assessments. The City should condition using this methodology to assure a robust analysis is made to identify potential impacts to the species and propose mitigation Paul Samaras November 1, 2018 Page 4 of 6 measures. This information should be provided during the CEQA process, instead of deferring the analysis to consultation with CDFW outside of the CEQA process. The Staff Report describes standards for performing a burrowing owl habitat evaluation. Page 27, section h. of the Staff Report defines potential burrow attributes that could be used by burrowing owl and warranting further survey efforts and states, "The presence of suitable burrows and/or burrow surrogates (>11 cm in diameter (height and width) and >150 cm in depth) (Johnson et al., 2010), regardless of a lack of any burr -owing owl sign and/or burrow surrogates; and burrowing owls and/or their sign that have recently or historically (within the last 3 years) been identified on or adjacent to the site." Page 4 of the Staff Report states, "Non -breeding season (1 September to 31 January) surveys may provide information on burrowing owl occupancy, but do not substitute for breeding season surveys because results are typically inconclusive. Burrowing owls are more difficult to detect during the non -breeding season and their seasonal residency status is difficult to ascertain." Page 20 of the Staff Report states, "If conducting non -breeding season surveys, follow the methods described above for breeding season surveys, but conduct at least four (4) visits, spread evenly, throughout the nonbreeding season. Burrowing owl experts and local Department staff are available to assist with interpreting results." If burrowing owl is detected on the Project site, a mitigation management plan should be required by the City and approved in writing by CDFW. The mitigation management plan should provide for the acquisition, preservation, and management in perpetuity of sufficient habitat acreage to address Project impacts to burrowing owl burrows. Additional Comments and/or Suggestions Comment #11: Fencing Hazard The Project may result in the use of open pipes used as fence posts, property line stakes, signs, etc. CDFW recommends that all hollow posts and pipes be capped to prevent wildlife entrapment and mortality because these structures mimic the natural cavities preferred by various bird species and other wildlife for shelter, nesting and roosting. Raptor's talons can become entrapped within the bolt holes of metal fence stakes resulting in mortality. Metal fence stakes used on the Project site should be plugged with bolts or other plugging materials to avoid this hazard., Comment #2: Salvage of Wildlife CDFW recommends a biological monitor be present before and during initial grubbing and grading operations to salvage wildlife species that may be killed or injured by heavy equipment. Many wildlife species will utilize fossorial mammal den sites. Such den sites should be inspected and not disturbed until confirmed unoccupied. Salvaged wildlife of low Paul Samaras November 1, 2018 Page 5 of 6 mobility should be removed and placed onto adjacent habitat out of harm's way. Grubbing and grading should be done to avoid islands of habitat where wildlife may take refuge and later be killed by heavy equipment. Grubbing and grading should be done from the center of the Project site, working outward towards adjacent habitat off site where wildlife may safely escape. CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNDDB field survey form can be found at: hftp://www.dfcj.ca.qov/bioaeodata/cnddb/pdfs/CNDDB Field SurvevForm. odf. The completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: CNDDB@wildlife.ca.gov. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at: httr)://www.dfa.,.ga_aov/biocteodata/cnddb/i)[ants and animals.asp. NTWI,719,- The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & Game Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089). CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EIR/EA to assist the City in adequately identifying and mitigating Project -related direct and cumulative impacts on biological resources. Questions regarding this letter and further coordination on these issues should be directed to Kelly Schmoker-Stanphill, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist), at (626) 335-9092 or Keliv.Schmoker(a-)wild life. ca.aov. rogram Manager I Paul Samaras November 1, 2018 Page 6 of 6 ec: CDFW Jeffrey Humble — Los Alamitos Andrew Valand — Los Alamitos Victoria Tang — Los Alamitos Matt Chirdon — Ojai References California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency. March 7, 2012. Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination Response to Comment 4: State of California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, letter dated November 13, 2018 4-1 This comment provides an introduction to the letter and a summary of the project description, and does not provide information related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the Draft EIR/EA. 4-2 The proposed project site has been heavily graded and disturbed as part of the development that has occurred on-site, including existing roadway, retail/commercial uses, and former heavy industrial uses. It is entirely surrounded by urban uses and development. As stated in Section 2.3.3 of the Draft EIR/EA, methods to detect the presence of burrowing owl during preparation of the Natural Environment Study (NES) included direct observation, aural detection, and signs of presence including pellets, white wash, feathers, or prey remains. During the field reconnaissance on October 1, 2015, suitable burrows/sites or nests, including rock piles and non -natural substrates, were thoroughly examined for signs of presence. All burrows encountered were examined for shape, scat, pellets, feathers, tracks, and prey remains. Walking transects were spaced approximately 30 meters (100 feet) apart or less to ensure visual coverage of all areas. No indication of the presence of burrowing owl was detected. Burrowing owl was found to have a low potential to occur within the BSA, and no owls or associated burrows were observed during the field study. Nevertheless, Measure AS -2 has been revised to include a requirement to conduct protocol burrowing owl surveys prior to ground disturbing activities associated with the project. Surveys shall be conducted consistent with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Staff Report) dated March 7, 2012. As stated in Measure AS -2, should burrowing owl be found within the BSA during breading season focused surveys, the CDFW shall be contacted for consultation prior to clearing and grubbing. If burrowing owl are found to occupy the BSA at the time of the breading season focused survey, a relocation plan shall be written, approved by CDFW, and implemented prior to site development. Determination of the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall be based on the specific site conditions (e.g., distance to nearest suitable habitat and presence of burrows within that habitat) in coordination with the CDFW. Active relocation and eviction/passive relocation require the preservation and maintenance of suitable burrowing owl habitat determined through coordination with the CDFW. 4-3 This comment has been noted, and these recommendations will be considered by the City as part of the final design process. 4-4 As noted above, the proposed project site has been heavily graded and disturbed as part of the development that has occurred on-site, including existing roadway, retail/commercial uses, and former heavy industrial uses. Based on the NES, there were no sensitive wildlife species observed on-site. Although the NES determined that several sensitive avian species may have a moderate to low potential to occur on-site based on suitable habitat, the NES notes that none of these species would be expected to be directly injured or killed as a result of project construction. In Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-25 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination addition, the Draft EIR/EA includes Measure AS -1, which requires adherence to nesting bird measures under the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code. Given the low potential for direct injury or mortality to sensitive species on the heavily disturbed project site, it is not anticipated that a biological monitor will be required in this regard (aside from preconstruction surveys noted in Measures AS -1 and AS -2 of the Draft EIR/EA). 4-5 In accordance with CEQA requirements, any special status species and natural communities detected during project surveys will be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 4-6 Any applicable CDFW filing fees will be payed upon filing of the Notice of Determination (NOD) for the proposed project. 4-7 This comment provides a conclusion to the letter and does not provide information related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the Draft EIR/EA. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-26 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov SENT VIA E-MAIL AND USPS: Dsamarasa,,elsep-undo.om Attn: Paul Samaras, Principal Planner City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Proiect November 13, 2018 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the final CEQA document. SCAQMD Staff's Summary of Project Description The Lead Agency proposes construction to extend Park Place from Allied Way to Nash Street with a railroad grade separation for 0.25 miles. The project is located on the northeast corner of Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue in the City of El Segundo. SCAQMD Staff's Comments The Lead Agency determined the proposed project would have less than significant impacts to regional air quality during construction.' Upon review of the DEIR, SCAQMD found that the Lead Agency did not adequately analyze the proposed project's air quality impacts. The Lead Agency quantified the maximum construction emissions for the proposed project's build alternative in pounds per day, but did not compare those emissions to SCAQMD's air quality CEQA significance thresholds to determine the proposed project's CEQA impacts. z Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency compare the build alternative's construction emissions to SCAQMD's regional air quality CEQA significance thresholds in the final CEQA document to determine the level of significance. Using SCAQMD's CEQA significance thresholds would clearly identify whether the build alternative would result in significant air quality impacts under CEQA, disclose the magnitude of the impacts, facilitate the identification of feasible mitigation measures, and evaluate the level of impacts before and after mitigation measures. Additionally, based on a review of the aerial photographs included in the DEIR, sensitive receptors are located within a quarter mile of the proposed project. Therefore, localized construction -related air quality impacts should be quantified and evaluated to ensure that any nearby sensitive receptors are not adversely affected by the construction activities that are occurring in close proximity. SCAQMD's guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis can be found on SCAQMD's web page at: htti)://www.agmd.gov/cega/handbook/LST/LST.html. Response to Comments Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), SCAQMD staff requests that the Lead Agency provide SCAQMD staff with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the certification of the Final EIR. In addition, issues raised in the comments should be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are 1 DEIR, Chapter 2, Page 2.2.5-9. 2 DEIR. Chapter 3, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Evaluation. Page 3-9. Paul Samaras November 13, 2018 not accepted. There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c)). Conclusory statements do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful or useful to decision makers and to the public who are interested in the proposed project. SCAQMD staff is available to work with the lead agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact Alina Mullins, Assistant Air Quality Specialist, at amullins(a,aamd.2ov or (909) 396-2402, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Palo 70049� Jillian Wong, Ph.D. Planning and Rules Manager Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources JW/AM LAC 180927-04 Control Number Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination Response to Comment 5: South Coast Air Quality Management District, letter dated November 13, 2018 5-1 This comment provides an introduction to the letter and a summary of the project description and does not provide information related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the Draft EIR/EA. 5-2 The comment requests quantification of regional and localized air quality impacts from the proposed construction activities to be compared with the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Additionally, SCAQMD staff notes that the localized air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors during construction of this project are not adequately disclosed in the materials made available for review. Regarding regional construction emissions, the Draft EIR/EA is a joint document, prepared subject to both CEQA and NEPA, respectively. The City of EI Segundo is the CEQA lead agency, and Caltrans is the NEPA lead agency. According to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21082 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7, CEQA provides lead agencies (in this case, the City of EI Segundo) with general authority to adopt criteria for determining whether a given impact is significant. As a joint CEQA/NEPA document, the analysis for the proposed project followed the guidance within the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER). Chapter 11 (Air Quality) of the SER provides for a qualitative analysis for temporary construction activities. Construction of the entire project would occur for less than 5 years, which meets Caltrans' criteria as a temporary activity. Nevertheless, even when comparing the daily construction emissions for the Build Alternatives to SCAQMD thresholds, all project -related emissions for criteria pollutants (ROG, CO, NO,, PM,o, and PM 2.5) would be below identified SCAQMD thresholds. Regarding localized construction impacts, the analysis within the Draft EIR/EA was based on the Roadway Construction Emissions Model (RCEM) (Version 8.1.0) developed by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). RCEM is a data -entry spreadsheet that utilizes various sources to estimate construction emissions, including OFFROAD and EMFAC2014. The use of RCEM is recommended by Caltrans and the SCAQMD, as it is specifically developed to estimate emissions associated with roadway construction projects since the default equipment, activities, and typical phasing are different than those of land use development projects and building construction projects. The RCEM phasing assumptions were used to allocate the project specific construction equipment to the specific phases. The methodologies and assumptions used in RCEM are appropriate for road construction projects, including new road construction, road widening and bridge or overpass construction. Based on the RCEM modeling and associated analysis, the Draft EIR/EA concluded that short-term construction related impacts would not be adverse. Additionally, based on the SCAQMD's Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology dated July 2008, the use of localized significance thresholds (LSTs) by local government is voluntary, to be implemented at the discretion of local agencies. As noted within the Draft EIR/EA, in order to minimize construction -related emissions, all construction vehicles and construction equipment would be required to be equipped with California Air Resources Board (CARB) mandated emission control devices pursuant to state emission regulations and standard construction practices. Additionally, short-term construction particulate matter emissions would be further Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-29 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination reduced through the implementation of dust suppression measures outlined within SCAQMD Rule 403. 5-3 This comment provides a closing to the letter where SCAQMD requests a written response, and does not provide information related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the Draft EIR/EA. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-30 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) s E3 WEST BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT To: Shivaji, Run, Eric, Christiana, Amy From: Don W. Zylstra CC: Date: 10/30/2018 Re: Draft EIR for the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project, September 2018, issued by Caltrans and the City of EI Segundo Comments: General Overall Comment: As an overall general comment, the West Basin Municipal Water District {West Basin) is in agreement with the project objectives, which will connect Park Place Avenue at PCH with Park Place at Nash Street. This connection is intended to alleviate east -west traffic on Rosecrans Avenue, and allow traffic to flow to Douglas, and then on to the 105 Freeway. However, West Basin is not in agreement with the Draft EIR that West Basin's 42 -inch Recycled Water transmission main be relocated in order for the Park Place Avenue extension to be constructed; and that every consideration should be made to alleviate any relocation or reconstruction on this 42 -inch pipeline. On page S-3, under the project features heading and Utility Relocations, the draft EIR states, "The project would require relocation of various utilities, including petroleum pipelines within railroad right-of-way and a 42 -inch reclaimed water pipeline between the UPRR and BNSF alignments." While West Basin understands the desire to relocate the pipeline: the relocation and reconstruction of this pipeline is problematic from technical, financial, and environmental standpoints. In addition, West Basin believes that a road design for the Park Place Avenue could be developed that simply goes over the top of this pipeline without the need to relocate it. So, let me first comment on the nature of the technical, financial, and environmental impacts. 1. TECHNICAL IMPACTS The 42 -inch reclaimed, or recycled, water pipeline carries tertiary treated, filtered, and disinfected recycled water. This water originates at the Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant, and is then tertiary treated at West Basin's Edward C. Little Water Recycling f=acility before being delivered through the 42 -inch pipeline. This 42 -inch pipe is a Reinforced Concrete Cylinder Pipe (RCCP), which is manufactured with a steel cylinder, steel end fittings, an interior concrete liner, steel bars around the steel cylinder, and a concrete outer shell. Both the concrete liner and outer shell are cured in the factory for improved strength and hardness. So, cutting and modifying this type of pipe material is not straightforward and would be difficult to do in the field. The pipeline connections to appurtenances like blowoff and air -vac valves must be well thought out and constructed in the factory before being delivered and constructed in the field. 2. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS The 42 -inch pipeline carries 12,707 AFY (based on 2017 - 2018 WUR) of recycled water. This water is fed to 1 1 1 irrigation customers throughout the Cities of EI Segundo, Lawndale, Gardena, Torrance, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Carson. In addition, this pipeline conveys recycled water to two refineries for cooling tower makeup and boiler feed supply. The lost revenue to West Basin for the supply of both irrigation and refinery 44(, 24 supply water through this 42 -inch pipe would be approximately $15.5M annually; and in order to replace this water supply with potable water - they replacement cost would be approximately $20.6M annually. It is not east to get refineries or irrigation customers that are currently set up to receive recycled water to be able to switch over to potable water. Especially, in the case of the refineries they have set chemical treatment programs that are based on the water quality. They are very temperamental over the supply of the Boiler feed wafer as steam is the main engine for running a refinery. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS This pipeline conveys a large volume of recycled water of 12,707 AFY. This is equivalent to 11.4 million gallons per day (MGD) of water that would need to be supplied through potable water. Shutting down this supply of recycled water, for whatever period of time, represents a significant environmental impact on the supply of potable water during a period of time that the State is experiencing severe drought and water shortages. 4. CONCLUSION Therefore, based on the technological, fiscal, and environmental impacts of the proposed Park Place Avenue extension, West Basin would recommend that the roadway be constructed over the 42 -inch pipeline in such a manner that the pipeline can remain undisturbed and not require relocation or reconstruction. The loss of water supply to existing customers would be severe. Once the design engineer is selected for this project, West Basin is willing to work with them; provide our as -built drawings, and have our consultants review their designs for potential impacts on the 42 -inch pipeline. West Basin opinion is that the roadway can be elevated at the point of crossing over the 42 -inch pipeline; save time and expense for relocating and reconstructing the pipeline, and save overall on the total project costs for the roadway extension. 5. OTHER EIR COMMENTS a) The design for the roadway should consider the construction of sports field or walking parkland in adjoining undeveloped areas. Those additions would beautify the roadway area, and provide people another reason to visit the area and the nearby shopping facilities. That being said, any parkland or landscape areas requiring water should be irrigated with recycled water. The construction contractor can connect to our recycled water through blowoff or air -vac valving to supply recycled water to the irrigated areas. bj The Draft EIR does not address contaminated soils: how they will be removed, handled, stored, tested, and eventually disposed. Our experience with the development of the nearby land indicates that the encountering of significant amounts of contaminated soils during construction is very likely. Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination Response to Comment 6: West Basin Municipal Water District, letter dated October 30, 2018 6-1 The West Basin Municipal Water District submitted two comment letters regarding the Draft EIR/EA during the public review period. One is dated October 30, 2018, with the second one dated November 13, 2018. The two letters are highly similar in nature, and all comments relevant to environmental analysis in the Draft EIR/EA that are provided in the October 30, 2018 letter are duplicative of comments provided in the November 13, 2018 letter. As such, please refer to the Response to Comment 7, below. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-34 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) ep s, WEST BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT To: Mr. Paul Samaras Principal Planner City of EI Segundo psamaras@elsegundo.org From: Don W. Zylstra CC: Date: 11/13/2018 Re: Draft EIR for the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project, September 2018, issued by Caltrans and the City of EI Segundo Comments: General Overall Comment: As an overall general comment, the West Basin Municipal Water District (West Basin) is in agreement with the project objectives, which will connect Park Place Avenue at PCH with Park Place at Nash Street. This connection is intended to alleviate east -west traffic on Rosecrans Avenue, and allow traffic to flow to Douglas, and then on to the 105 Freeway. However, West Basin is not in agreement with the Draft EIR that West Basin's 42 -inch Recycled Water transmission main be relocated in order for the Park Place Avenue extension to be constructed; and that every consideration should be made to alleviate any relocation or reconstruction on this 42 -inch pipeline. On page S-3, under the project features heading and Utility Relocations, the draft EIR states, "The project would require relocation of various utilities, including petroleum pipelines within railroad right-of-way and a 42 -inch reclaimed water pipeline between the UPRR and BNSF alignments." While West Basin understands the desire to relocate the pipeline: the relocation and reconstruction of this pipeline is problematic from technical, financial, and environmental standpoints. In addition, West Basin believes that a road design for the Park Place Avenue could be developed that simply goes over the top of this pipeline without the need to relocate it. The following describes the nature of the technical, financial, and environmental impacts of relocating the pipeline. 1. TECHNICAL IMPACTS The 42 -inch reclaimed, or recycled, water pipeline carries tertiary treated, filtered, and disinfected recycled water. This water originates at the Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant, and is then tertiary treated at West Basin's Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facility before being delivered through the 42 -inch pipeline. This 42 -inch pipe is a Reinforced Concrete Cylinder Pipe (RCCP), which is manufactured with a steel cylinder, steel end fittings, an interior concrete liner, steel bars around the steel cylinder, and a concrete outer shell. Both the concrete liner and outer shell are cured in the factory for improved strength and hardness. A good video on how this pipe is manufactured can be found at: httDS://www.voutube.com/watch?v= ffNm2WobkU So, cutting and modifying this type of pipe material is not straightforward and would be difficult to do in the field. Relining, or recoating cur pipe pieces in the field will not result in the same resilient coating that are produced and cured in the factory. The pipeline connections to appurtenances like blowoff and air -vac valves must be well thought out and constructed in the factory before being delivered and constructed in the field. Secondly, when relocating the new road or railroad lines over the top of the existing 42 -inch pipeline; these crossings will require that the 42 -inch pipe be contained and fitted inside a steel casing with concrete to provide structural support. 2. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS The 42 -inch pipeline carries 12,707 AFY (based on 2017- 2018 WUR) of recycled water. This water is fed to 1 1 1 irrigation customers throughout the Cities of EI Segundo, Lawndale, Gardena, Torrance, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Carson. In addition, this pipeline conveys recycled water to two refineries for cooling tower makeup and boiler feed supply. The lost revenue to West Basin for the supply of both irrigation and refinery supply water through this 42 -inch pipe would be approximately $15.5M annually; and in order to replace this water supply with potable water - the replacement cost would be approximately $20.6M annually. It is not east to get refineries or irrigation customers that are currently set up to receive recycled water to be able to switch over to potable water. Especially, in the case of the refineries they have set chemical treatment programs that are based on the water quality. They are very temperamental over the supply of the Boiler feed water as steam is the main engine for running a refinery. Therefore, there would be additional costs incurred by the Marathon and PBJ refineries to readjust their chemical treatment programs to the modified water quality. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS This pipeline conveys a large volume of recycled water of 12,707 AFY. This is equivalent to 11.4 million gallons per day (MGD) of water that would need to be supplied through potable water. Shutting down this supply of recycled water, for whatever period of time, represents a significant environmental impact on the supply of potable water during a period of El time that the State is experiencing severe drought and water shortages. In addition, since West Basin collects its source water from the Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant; the 12,707 AFY that would be used for recycled water supply would instead enter this Santa Monica Bay as secondary effluent: thus impacting the environment of the Santa Monica Bay. 4. CONCLUSION Therefore, based on the technological, fiscal, and environmental impacts of the proposed Park Place Avenue extension, West Basin would recommend that the roadway be constructed over the 42 -inch pipeline in such a manner that the pipeline can remain undisturbed and not require relocation or reconstruction. The loss of water supply to existing customers would be severe. Once the design engineer is selected for this project, West Basin is willing to work with them; provide our as -built drawings, and have our consultants review their designs for potential impacts on the 42 -inch pipeline. West Basin opinion is that the roadway can be elevated at the point of crossing over the 42 -inch pipeline; save time and expense for relocating and reconstructing the pipeline; and save overall on the total project costs for the roadway extension. 5. OTHER EIR COMMENTS a) The design for the roadway should consider the construction of sports field or walking parkland in adjoining undeveloped areas. Those additions would beautify the roadway area; and provide people another reason to visit the area and the nearby shopping facilities. That being said, any parkland or landscape areas requiring water should be irrigated with recycled water. The construction contractor can connect to our recycled water through blowoff or air -vac valving to supply recycled water to the irrigated areas. b) The Draft EIR does not address contaminated soils: how they will be removed, handled, stored, tested, and eventually disposed. Our experience with the development of the nearby land indicates that the encountering of significant amounts of contaminated soils during construction is very likely. Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination Response to Comment 7: West Basin Municipal Water District, letter dated November 13, 2018 7-1 The importance of the existing West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD) 42 - inch reclaimed water line that occurs within project site boundaries is understood, along with its importance to the region for providing reclaimed water for irrigation and industrial purposes. The City also recognizes the benefits to leaving the pipeline in place. However, as with many roadway and grade separation projects with a similar scope and size, utility relocation is a necessity requiring early and continued consultation with affected utility providers during the design process. The City of EI Segundo's design team has consulted with WBMWD staff during the preliminary design phase to discuss impacts to existing WBMWD facilities. In the case of the existing 42 -inch reclaimed water line, physical constraints result in both railroad and the roadway crossing the existing reclaimed water line at locations where there are 90 -degree bends in the waterline. The proposed relocation of the reclaimed water line is intended to eliminate this situation and provide transverse crossings across railroad and roadway rights of way as is typically required. Specific details regarding the utility relocation process and design are unavailable at this time, since the design phase of the project has not yet been initiated. That being said, the City will continue to work closely with WBMWD during the final design phase of the project to minimize the time that service may be interrupted. Any plans for relocation of the pipe would be subject to WBMWD review and approval prior to any impacts to WBMWD facilities. The Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant currently discharges hundreds of millions of gallons of treated water per day to the Santa Monica Bay and ultimately to the Pacific Ocean. Although the total discharge to the Bay may temporarily increase during pipeline relocation, it is anticipated that the water quality of the Santa Monica Bay would not be substantially affected as a result of the proposed project, since any discharge from Hyperion is required to meet Federal, State, and local water quality requirements. 7-2 Recreational, park, or open space facilities are not proposed as part of this project. The scope of this project is limited to the extension of Park Place and associated ancillary improvements. 7-3 The commenter states that the Draft EIR/EA does not address contaminated soils. However, Section 2.2.4 of the Draft EIR/EA provides a detailed discussion of the past industrial operations, known contamination on-site, other hazardous materials anticipated to be present, potential impacts, and measures to minimize the potential impacts. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-38 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) AX19 x �ACIFORN� Paul Samaras City of El Segundo Principal Planner 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 psamaras@elsegundo.org City Hall 1400 Highland Avenue Telephone (310) 802-5500 FAX (310) 802-5501 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-4795 November 13, 2018 RE: Draft EIR/Environmental Assessment- Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project (Caltrans) Dear Mr. Samaras, The City of Manhattan Beach Community Development Department appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment for the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project. We have the following specific comments: A review of the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project EIR/EA was conducted by the City Traffic Engineer. The City Traffic Engineer found that the project will generally improve traffic conditions and circulation on streets within the City limits, specifically reducing congestion on Rosecrans Avenue during peak hours. The Park Place extension will also provide an alternate route for first responders to respond to events along the densely commercial Rosecrans Avenue corridor. Intersection Levels -of -Service (LOS) will improve or remain the same upon project completion. While there will be short-term construction related trips on the existing roadway network, any potential impacts within Manhattan Beach will be minimized and reduced to a level of insignificance through the implementation of a Traffic Management Plan proposed as a mitigation measure TRA -1. Therefore, the City Traffic Engineer is supportive of any of the Build Alternative(s). Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to receiving the Final EIR. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact the City's Traffic Engineer Erik Zandvliet at (310) 802-5522 or at ezandvliet@citymb.info; or me at (310)-802-5512 or tfaturos@citymb.info. Fire Department Address: 400 15th Street, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 FAX (310) 802-5201 Police Department Address: 420 151 Street, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 FAX (310) 802-5107 Public Works Department Address: 3621 Bell Avenue, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 FAX (310) 802-5301 Sincerely, Ted Faturos Assistant Planner xc: Anne McIntosh, Director of Community Development Stephanie Katsouleas, Director of Public Works Laurie Jester, Planning Manager Erik Zandvliet, Traffic Engineer Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination Response to Comment 8: City of Manhattan Beach Community Development Department, letter dated November 13, 2018 8-1 This comment provides a summary of the benefits related to traffic as a result of project implementation. No further response is required. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-41 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-42 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) GAM ELENO SAND OL MISSION INDIANS — KIZH NATION Historically known as The San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians/6a6rielino Tribal Council recognized 6y theState of California as the aboriginal tripe of the Los Angeles basin City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 October 19, 2018 Re: AB52 Consultation request for Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Dear Paul Samaras, Please find this letter as a written request for consultation regarding the above-mentioned project pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1, subd. (d). Your project lies within our ancestral tribal territory, meaning belonging to or inherited from, which is a higher degree of kinship than traditional or cultural affiliation. Your project is located within a sensitive area and may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of our tribal cultural resources. Most often, a records search for our tribal cultural resources will result in a "no records found" for the project area. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), ethnographers, historians, and professional archaeologists can only provide limited information that has been previously documented about California Native Tribes. For this reason, the NAHC will always refer the lead agency to the respective Native American Tribe of the area. The NAHC is only aware of general information and are not the experts on each California Tribe. Our Elder Committee & tribal historians are the experts for our Tribe and can provide a more complete history (both written and oral) regarding the location of historic villages, trade routes, cemeteries and sacred/ religious sites in the project area. Additionally, CEQA now defines Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) as their own independent element separate from archaeological resources. Environmental documents shall now address a separate Tribal Cultural Resource section which includes a thorough analysis of the impacts to only Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) and includes independent mitigation measures created with Tribal input during AB -52 consultations. As a result, all mitigation measures, conditions of approval and agreements regarding TCRs (i.e. prehistoric resources) shall be handled solely with the Tribal Government and not through an Environmental/Archaeological firm. In effort to avoid adverse effects to our tribal cultural resources, we would like to consult with you and your staff to provide you with a more complete understanding of the prehistoric use(s) of the project area and the potential risks for causing a substantial adverse change to the significance of our tribal cultural resources. Consultation appointments are available on Wednesdays and Thursdays at our offices at 910 N. Citrus Ave. Covina, CA 91722 or over the phone. Please call toll free 1-844-390-0787 or email admin@gabrielenoindians.org to schedule an appointment. ** Prior to the first consultation with our Tribe, we ask all those individuals participating in the consultation to view a video produced and provided by CalEPA and the NAHC for sensitivity and understanding of AB52. You can view their videos at: httb://caleva.ca.aov/TriballTraininal orhttb://nahc.ca.aovl20l5ll2lab-52-tribal-traininal With Respect, Andrew Salas, Chairman Andrew Salas, `airman Nadine Sala5, Vice-chairman Christina Swindall Martinez, secretary Albert Perez, treasurer I Martha Gonzalez Lemo5, treasurer 11 Rickard Grac[65, Ckairman of the Council of E_Ider5 PO box 393, Covina, CA 91723 www.ga6rielenoindianr,.org ga6rielenoindian5@yahoo.com Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination Response to Comment 9: Andrew Salas, Interested Party, letter dated October 19, 2018 9-1 This comment requests consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 subd. (d). As shown in Table 4-1, above, the City consulted with Andrew Salas as part of the AB -52 process. Mr. Salas requested a Native American monitor to be present during any ground disturbing activities associated with the project. However, NAHC reported no known Native American cultural resources within the APE and Caltrans determined a Finding of No Historic Properties Affected. As stated in Section 2.1.7 of the Draft EIR/EA, the area of potential effect (APE) has been heavily disturbed; portions were subject to hazardous materials removal and other portions are considered brownfields. Sediments show a very low probability for buried sites. In addition, no previously recorded prehistoric sites are known within one mile of the APE and Mr. Salas did not identify any prehistoric resources present in the project area. Based on these findings, the City does not support Native American monitoring during ground disturbing activities for this project. A letter dated June 13, 2017, summarizing these findings was mailed to Mr. Salas and provided in the Historic Property Survey Report dated June 30, 2017. No further archaeological study, identification, or monitoring efforts were recommended for implementation of the Build Alternatives, and no additional consultation is anticipated to be required. 9-2 Refer to response 9-1, above. No site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe has been identified as a tribal cultural resource (TCR) within the project limits. Given the level of previous disturbance within the project site, it is not expected that any TCRs would occur within the project area. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, measures are not required for effects which are found not to be significant. As such, no mitigation related to TCRs is warranted, based on the analysis conducted within the Draft EIR/EA. 9-3 This comment provides a conclusion to the letter and does not provide information related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the Draft EIR/EA. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-44 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chevron R.K. (Rod) Spackman Manager -Policy, Government & Public Affairs November 12, 2018 Mr. Greg Carpenter City of EI Segundo 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 Chevron Products Company El Segundo Refinery 324 W. El Segundo Boulevard El Segundo, CA 90245 Tel 310 615 5281 Fax 310 615 5520 rspackman@chevron.com RE: Chevron Comments on City of EI Segundo Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project EIR Dear Mr. Carpenter, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project EIR. We have reviewed the document, and our comments are below. As we have previously communicated to the City, it is critical that the operations of our Railroad (RR) service, product pipelines and utilities within the Park Place area that connect to the refinery are not impacted and are maintained at or above current levels in conjunction with this proposed project. Maintaining safe, uninterrupted operations as exists today is fundamental to ensure there are no potential impacts to our refinery with this proposed project. As you know, our operations are critical to regional energy supplies as the refinery supplies over 20% of all motor vehicle fuels and 40% of the jet fuel consumed in Southern California. Specific to the EIR Alternatives described in the draft, Alternatives 1A and 1C both seem to incorporate the critical elements that will ensure our rail, pipeline and utility operations are not impacted in terms of product movements, storage capacity, rail car handling, staging and switching, etc. We do have a concern, however, about the route configuration and its impact on the Kramer property and would like to understand the issue and potential impacts better. Specific to Alternative 313 Option 1 &2, which would require an at grade rail crossing, we do not support this alternative and will vigorously oppose it if further considered. In addition, - The preferred alternative must be reviewed and discussed in detail with Chevron, and the UPRR and BNSF engineering and operating teams to ensure that the proposed rail plant and layout do not adversely impact our business and rail operations in terms of storage capacity, car handling, car staging, car switching, additional grade crossing activation, etc. - It is critical that the construction staging process does not affect our business and day-to-day operations, we need to be consulted and included in the discussion and distribution of construction staging specifics and construction schedules during the various phases of the project to ensure seamless operations and inbound and outbound movements. - We also request that Chevron is consulted on the relocation or construction of underground pipelines, services and utilities to ensure there are no potential impacts to refinery operations or supply to customers - Given the elevated embankments of the existing UPRR and BNSF rail alignments, the existing topography and geology conditions, and the existing soil remediation areas, we also need to be assured the soil foundation supporting the new railway bridge structure and the embankment for the realigned BNSF rail plant is stable and has sufficient bearing capacity so as not to impact our operations due to soil erosion, settlement, dynamic motion, subsurface voids, etc. As also previously noted, critical aspects of the EIR must also consider: The project must not create any risk or hazards to the public, the RR crews or our contract switch crews. We will oppose any option that results in creating additional at -grade crossing. - We do not want to have a solution that may result in any disruption of either serving carrier's (BNSF & UPRR) ability to spot or pull from their respective Joint industry tracks due to track conflict created during concurrent operations. - We need to be able to receive, stage and ship the same number of cars that we are currently able to ship on a daily basis during our peak days. - We need, at a minimum, to maintain the current storage capacity available on both the BNSF & UPRR Joint Industry Tracks. This must be actual storage capacity, in cars, and not linear feet of track, as depending on distance apart of the tracks, curves, as well as the location of switches that can impact the number of cars you are physically able to store. Receiving or staging tracks need to be straight not curved where the cars are coupled or hooked up to for movement. Total spots currently: 60 UPRR, 85 BNSF (40 on UP and 60 on BNSF for inbound railcars and 20 cars on UPRR and 25 cars on BNSF for outbound). - We want the ability to pursue increased rail car stacking capacity, if operations necessitate. Maintain a secure area, fenced in, within reason, and not accessible to public traffic. - The transfer tracks need to be accessible along one side by vehicle so we can perform inbound and outbound car inspections, track maintenance and weed control. - Create a situation where during normal operations by our switch crew or the Railroad Switch crews that would activate the signal at Sepulveda Blvd when spotting or pulling cars on the Joint Industry Tracks. In summary, it is extremely important that Chevron's rail team and the UPRR and BNSF meet to ensure the plan is well reviewed and meets all the above noted operational necessities. Consolidating the tracks on the north (UPRR side or South on the BNSF side) is acceptable if these highlighted critical operational elements are maintained and included in the final project Sincerely, R. K. (Rod) Spackman Manager — Policy, Government & Public Affairs Cc: Paul Samaras, Principal Planner Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination Response to Comment 10: Chevron Products Company, Interested Party, letter dated November 12, 2018 10-1 This comment is introductory to the letter and does not provide information related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the Draft EIR/EA. 10-2 This comment includes the Alternatives that are preferable to the commenter (Alternatives 1A and 1C). This comment has been noted and will be considered by the PDT as part of selection of the Preferred Alternative. The comment also provides a concern regarding the route configuration and its impact on the Kramer property. The project's improvements within the Kramer property boundaries and associated impacts are described in Chapters 1.0 and 2.0 of the Draft EIR/EA. Refer to Response 14-1 for a discussion regarding hazardous waste/materials. The comment does not provide any specific information related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the Draft EIR/EA, and no further response is required. 10-3 This comment notes that Alternative 3B Options 1 and 2 would not be supported by Chevron. This comment has been noted and will be considered by the PDT as part of selection of the Preferred Alternative. 10-4 The construction of the rail improvements will be staged and coordinated in a manner with Chevron as to not affect existing day-to-day railroad operations. It is expected that BNSF track work windows, conducted and initiated by BNSF, can be arranged in such a manner where the yard tracks are not out of service more than an 8 -hour period. The changes in the track leads into the facility can also be accommodated on this work schedule. The proposed work on the UPRR tracks is similar in nature to the BNSF's work. The UPRR railroad storage tracks will not be affected during construction. Only a shoofly track on the lead track to the facility will need to be constructed to allow the UPRR bridge grade separation structure to be constructed. Only the shoofly cutovers will affect the ability of Chevron to move cars to and from the UPRR storage tracks. The grade and shoofly track alignment will be constructed and lined over to during a UPRR work window. The window to line over to the shoofly track alignment will take approximately 8 hours to complete. Once the new grade separation structure is completed, new track across the structure will be constructed on the same existing alignment and lined back to by UPRR forces. Again, this construction window would only take approximately 8 hours to complete. Chevron will also be consulted on the existing underground pipelines that may need to be relocated or protected in place during construction. The pipelines that supply product to Chevron will be evaluated and work will be coordinated to minimize the length of time that service would be interrupted in the event that relocation of the pipelines is necessary, and to minimize or eliminate impacts to the refineries operations that may result from that relocation. The City has coordinated extensively with Chevron as part of the preliminary design process, and that coordination will continue through final design and construction to ensure that any potential impacts to Chevron operations are minimized. 10-5 A Preliminary Geotechnical Report dated August 1, 2014 was prepared during the conceptual design of the project using available information regarding the soil characteristics in the project area, and is the basis for the preliminary design completed during the environmental phase of the project. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-47 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination Project specific borings will be performed during the final design phase in support of developing a full geotechnical model and analysis of the soils on-site. This analysis will include both global and local stability for any slopes, foundations or retaining structures and will be the basis of the foundation design at bridge supports and walls. Any unsuitable soil conditions, including those concerns noted in the Chevron letter dated November 12, 2018, will either be minimized through measures within the Final Geotechnical Report or accommodated by the design. Additionally, the project design will follow the joint UPRR / BNSF Guidelines for Grade Separation Projects and will also use the UPRR / BNSF specifications for embankments for railroad track. 10-6 The project is not anticipated to result in any risks or hazards to the public or railroad/contract switch crews as a result of proposed rail improvements. The project would be designed and constructed to minimize potential geological hazards (based on the Final Geotechnical Report to be prepared during the design phase) and would follow UPRR and BNSF specifications for grade separation projects and embankments. Refer to Response 10-5, above. 10-7 This comment has been noted and will be considered by the PDT as part of selection of the Preferred Alternative. 10-8 The project can be constructed in a manner to avoid disruption of either the serving carriers (UPRR and BNSF) or Chevron's third -party operator to move cars to the railroad storage tracks. Chevron will be able to receive, stage, and ship the same number of railcars during and after the construction of the project. As discussed in response 10-4 above, the UPRR storage tracks will not be affected as part of the construction of this project. Following project completion, Chevron will retain the same utility they have now to receive, stage, and ship railcars from their facility. Any new BNSF storage tracks will have the required tangent lengths to house the total railcar spots as outlined in Chevron's letter dated November 12, 2018. The project will maintain a secure area, fenced as practical to prevent non - authorized public foot traffic on-site. Additional right of way for Chevron's desired increased rail car stacking capacity will be evaluated and coordinated with Chevron during the final engineering of the project. Additional room adjacent to the proposed storage tracks will be allotted for an access road for inbound and outbound car inspections. The existing at grade crossing warning devices at Pacific Coast Highway (formerly Sepulveda Boulevard) will activate as normal when railcars are either pulled or pushed across the at grade crossing by Chevron's third -party switcher. The new storage track design will be engineered and coordinated with the signal teams of both railroads to minimize or eliminate the activation of the at grade warning devices during the Class 1 switching operations. 10-9 This comment provides a conclusion to the letter and does not provide information related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the Draft EIR/EA. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-48 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) aBUILDING November 13, 2018 Via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail Paul Samaras City of EI Segundo Principal Planner 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 psamaras@elsegundo.org Re: Union Pacific Railroad Company's Comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (DEIR) for the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Dear Mr, Samaras, Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the September 2018 Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environment Assessment (DEIR) for the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project (Project), prepared by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of EI Segundo (City).' The City proposes to extend Park Place from Allied Way to Nash Street with a railroad grade separation in order to implement the Project. UPRR owns and operates a common carrier railroad network in the western half of the United States, including the State of California. Specifically, UPRR owns and operates main rail lines connecting Los Angeles and El Segundo to points north, south, and east. UPRR is the largest rail carrier in California in terms of both mileage and train operations. UPRR's rail network is vital to the economic health of California and the nation as a whole and its rail service to customers in the Project area is crucial to the future success and growth of its customers. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)2 requires that project review must encompass all components of the activity being approved, including reasonably foreseeable consequences of the proposed approval and components that are an integral part of the project. CEQA Guidelines § 153783; see, e.g., Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Comm'n, 13 Cal. 3d 263, 279— 81, 289 (1975); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 47 Cal. 3d 376, 395— 398 (1988) (Laurel Heights I); No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 196 Cal. App. 3d 223, 237 (1987). Therefore, analysis of all operational impacts as a result of the proposed Project should be included in the Project's EIR. ' Caltrans is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The City is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 'Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq. 3 The CEQA Guidelines are codified at California Code of Regulations Title 14 § 15000 et seq. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD Robert C. Bylsma P 916-789-6229 10031 Foothills Boulevard Sr. General Attorney F 916-789-6227 Roseville, CA 95747-7101 E rcbyisma@up.com Paul Samaras City of EI Segundo November 13, 2018 Page 2 As a threshold matter, the DEIR does not address potential environmental or operational consequences of the proposed Project to freight rai14—not once mentioning the term "freight rail" in the 398 -page DEIR—even though the proposed Project will require grade separation of two freight rail lines, is located less than a mile from a critical freight rail terminal, and implementation of the Project will certainly impact UPRR rail infrastructure and operations. Although UPRR fully understands and appreciates the Project's purpose and need, the DEIR: (1) does not fully address the true extent the Project impacts on freight rail and/or (2) incorrectly concludes that Project impacts to freight rail facilities are insignificant or will be fully mitigatable. Further, after closely examining the DEIR, UPRR believes Caltrans and the City's environmental review of the Project is flawed and legally deficient. For example, the DEIR does not fully consider the environmental impacts of the Project on freight rail infrastructure and operations, nor does it contain sufficient detail to enable parties to fully understand the Project's potential relevant environmental consequences. In particular, the DEIR does not fully analyze the potential disruption to railroad infrastructure and the resulting economic impact to multiple sectors of the national economy. More specifically, the DEIR does not analyze the possibility of utilizing railroad underpass structures rather than railroad overpasses. Railroad underpass structures would avoid impediments to UPRR's existing freight operations or future expansion opportunities that would be imposed by use of a railroad overpass. For these reasons, UPPR strongly supports a Project Alternative that incorporates a railroad underpass structure that spans UPRR's right of way (ROW). The DEIR does not demonstrate that an overpass is necessary to meet the Project's goals or explain why an underpass cannot be constructed as part of the Project, avoiding impacts to UPRR's ability to continue operating without disruptions that would result from the overpass alternatives. Caltrans and the City should evaluate and consider this before proceeding with the Project. Unfortunately, given the DEIR's inadequacies and deficiencies, absent obtaining a timely and satisfactory resolution of the issues identified in this letter, UPRR must insist that Caltrans and the City prepare a Supplemental EIR to take into account the proposed Project's impacts to existing freight rail lines, rail operations, future infrastructure development projects and upgrades and improvements. 4 See Robertson v, Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989) (noting NEPA's purposes are to ensure the agency will have detailed information on significant environmental impacts when it makes its decisions and to guarantee that this information will be available to a larger audience); 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.1, 1502.14. BUILDING AMERICA' Paul Samaras City of EI Segundo November 13, 2018 Page 3 I. UPRR OWNS AND OPERATES CRITICAL RAIL LINES AND RAIL FACILITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA, WHICH WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. If a decision is made to move forward with this Project, UPRR believes there is significant potential for disruption and/or impact to ongoing freight rail operations, as well as future expansion and upgrade initiatives that are designed to support growth of the regional and national economy. Accordingly, UPRR requests that Caltrans and the City move forward only if all impacts to UPRR's operating ROWS, interference with UPRR's operations, and/or its ability to add capacity to meet customer needs and service its existing and future customers are fully mitigated. The State of California and the nation need UPRR to retain its future ability to meet growing demand for rail freight cargo transportation originating from and arriving to EI Segundo. In particular, UPRR highlights the following overarching concerns: • Threats to Maintainina and Growina Corridor Capabilities. As evidenced by UPRR' s $4 billion investment over the last decade into the growth of its rail network, UPRR must be reassured that the Project will not interfere with its ability to maintain and fully utilize and grow its corridor capabilities now and into the future. The current Project Alternatives, all proposing railroad overpasses, would directly constrain these corridor capabilities. Potential for Encroachment. UPRR has a specific interest in the Project analyzed under the DEIR since construction and implementation of the Project will negatively impact UPRR rail infrastructure and operations, including future encroachment upon UPRR's ROW, necessitating re-routing or re -directing of existing rail lines and infrastructure, and causing disruptions to rail operations and UPRR' s larger rail network. The DEIR fails to adequately address these disruptions, encroachments, and necessary re-routing. UPRR is particularly concerned that what may appear to the Project proponents to be minor disruptions can cascade into much greater impacts as delays cascade through the UPRR operating system. UPRR further has a specific interest in the proposed Project and the alternatives proposed in the DEIR because each would cross UPPR's right of way with varying degrees of impact. The most severe impacts would result from Alternative 1A. 11. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON PROJECT ALTERNATIVES UPRR's specific comments on alternatives presented in the DEIR are as follows: A. Alternatives 1A and 1C. UPRR opposes alternatives 1A and 1C. Both alternatives stand to disrupt operations by both UPRR and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) within their respective rights of way and will force both railroads onto a single overpass structure. BUILDING AMERICA° Paul Samaras City of EI Segundo November 13, 2018 Page 4 Alternative 1A realigns the tracks operated by BNSF onto UPRR's operating right of way and places both railroads onto a single railroad overpass structure. This alternative would limit UPRR's future ability to expand its operations, a critical impact analysis absent from the DEIR. It also requires the use of shooflys, which will disrupt freight operations for both railroads. Alternative 1C near Mile Post (MP) 500 also realigns BNSF's trackage onto UPRR's operating right of way and places both railroads onto one railroad overpass structure, limiting UPRR's future operational expansion abilities. This Alternative it also will require shooflys for construction, disrupting UPRR and BNSF freight operations. For these reasons, both of these Alternatives are unacceptable to UPRR. The DEIR does not account for the significant disruptions that would result from their three-phase construction plans or evaluate why an overpass structure is necessary or more desirable for the purposes of the Project. B. Alternative 3A. As stated above, UPRR strongly prefers alternatives that employ an underpass structure over those that would necessitate an overpass. If Caltrans and the City demonstrate that they must choose an alternative employing a railroad overpass structure, Alternative 3A is less objectionable for several reasons. Both UPRR and BNSF tracks would remain on their respective existing rights-of-way. In addition, Alternative 3A would not require the two to share a railroad overpass structure. Finally, of the overpass alternatives, this would have the least restrictive impact on UPRR's future expansion options. Alternative 3A would require shooflys for construction, disrupting UPRR and BNSF freight operations. If Caltrans and the City demonstrate that a railroad underpass cannot be constructed, UPRR expects an at -grade crossing closure in the near vicinity and removal of the roundabout directly under the bridge for this alternative. These mitigation measures must be analyzed and evaluated in the DEIR. The DEIR must resolve these questions to fully evaluate the impacts of its alternatives. In its current state, the DEIR fails in this analysis. C. Alternative 313 If Caltrans and the City demonstrate that an underpass structure cannot be built, Alternative 3B near MP 500 is the second best alternative for an overpass structure over UPRR tracks, after Alternative 3A. Under this alternative, UPRR and BNSF tracks would remain on each company's existing right of way. The alternative would not require the freight rail providers to share the overpass structure. And impacts on UPRR's future expansion would be minimized. w w..F,wro BUILDING AMERICA' Paul Samaras City of EI Segundo November 13, 2018 Page 5 However, UPRR does have concerns about this Alternative. First, construction will require a shoofly for the UPRR overpass structure, disrupting UPRR operations, and BNSF will have a new at -grade crossing. If Caltrans and the City demonstrate a railroad underpass cannot be constructed, UPRR expects an at -grade crossing closure in the near vicinity and removal of the roundabout directly under the bridge for this alternative. These mitigation measures must be analyzed and evaluated in the DEIR. III. FURTHER FACTORS In addition, the City must consider other factors when evaluating Project Alternatives; UPRR does not agree to construct, own, or maintain any retaining walls envisioned in connection with these Alternatives. The DEIR states throughout that "retaining walls would be required" without specifying what entity would be responsible for building or maintaining these walls. See e.g, DEIR S-4 & S-5. Retaining walls would be required for all Project Alternatives. See DEIR 1-34. 2. UPRR will not permit any utilities to be attached to a railroad overpass or underpass structure. The Project proposes to run a petroleum line adjacent to UPRR's ROW in Alternatives 1A & 1C (DEIR Figures 2.1.4-1 & 2.1.4-2). 3. The City must review potential impacts and improvements of at -grade crossings to the East and West of the new grade separation, based on traffic pattern changes. This DEIR fails to review any impacts to at -grade crossings based on traffic pattern changes. IV. THE DEIR FAILS TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY AND ACCURATE INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR INFORMED DECISION-MAKING UNDER NEPA & CEQA EIRs should consider possible impacts to all modes of transportation, including pedestrians and bicyclists as well as potential impacts to freight rail. However, the DEIR does not contain sufficient detail to allow the public to understand the relevant environmental consequences of the Project on freight rail. In fact, the DEIR does not once mention the word "rail" in its section assessment of Traffic and Transportation (DEIR § 2.1.5). Although it acknowledges that the Project will impactlaffect freight rail facilities, it simply states without support that these impacts will be insignificant or fully mitigatable. UPRR does not agree. The DEIR fails to properly consider the importance of UPRR's rail lines in the region and their integral role in the national transportation infrastructure. n-�w.upcom BUILDING AMERICA' Paul Samaras City of EI Segundo November 13, 2013 Page 6 For these reasons, among others, UPRR believes the required analysis of the Project is defective under NEPA & CEQA, thereby undermining reasoned judgment on the Project and failing the required purposes of those environmental and information -gathering statutes. See Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989) (noting NEPA's purposes are to ensure the agency will have detailed information on significant environmental impacts when it makes its decisions and to guarantee that this information will be available to a larger audience); 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.1, 1502.14. A. The DEIR does not contain sufficient detail about potential environmental consequences of the proposed Project. NEPA requires agencies to take a good faith "hard look" at the potential consequences of a project, analyze its potential impact on the environment and identify unavoidable adverse consequences of the proposed action and of alternative actions. See 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). In addition, NEPA requires agencies to consider all substantial evidence when analyzing significant impacts and consider impacts within the setting in which they occur. See 40 CFR § 1508.27(a)). Here, the DEIR of the proposed Project fails to sufficiently analyze Project impacts to existing freight rail lines and operations. B. The DEIR does not adequately analyze feasible Project Alternatives and relocating or redirecting existing rail lines and infrastructure. The purpose of the alternatives discussion in an EIR is to identify ways to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects. For this reason, an environmental document must focus on alternatives that avoid or substantially lessen a project's significant environmental effects and the alternatives discussed should be ones that offer substantial environmental advantages relevant to the proposed project. See 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a) (NEPA requires the lead agency to "[r)igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated."); 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)(iii). In addition, the selection of sufficient alternatives should rely on "some notion of feasibility." (See Citizens Against Burlington, Inc., v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 994 (1991).) Likewise, reasonable alternatives should be both feasible and non -speculative. (See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S.519, 551 (1978).) The Project Alternatives considered in the DEIR do not fully take into account UPRR rail lines and rail operations, beyond non -supported comments BUILDING AMERICA` Paul Samaras City of EI Segundo November 13, 2018 Page 7 stating that there will be no long term impact to rail. Further, current conceptual roadway layouts provided in the DEIR suggest that construction and implementation of the proposed Project may not be feasible without impacts to UPRR rail line infrastructure and operations. Given that the DEIR does not fully analyze Project implications to existing freight rail lines or operations, it is unclear without additional information and environmental analysis as to whether the proposed Project Alternatives are feasible and non -speculative, and therefore sufficient under the basic tenets of NEPA. C. The DEIR fails to properly consider the importance of UPRR's rail networks' integral role in regional and national transportation infrastructure. NEPA requires a "full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts" as part of an EIR, (40 C, F. R. § 1502.1; see also 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (C); 40 C.F.R. §, 1508.7). This includes analysis of both direct and indirect environmental impacts of the proposed action. (See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8). Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. (See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(a)). Indirect effects are those caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. (See 40 C.F .R § 1508.8(b)). Both include "effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems," as well as "aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health [effects]." (!d. (emphasis added)). NEPA requires that federal agencies explain and evaluate economic effects to the extent they are interrelated to the natural or physical environment (See id at§ 1508.14). Here, however, the DEIR does not adequately analyze or document the effects of the Project on UPRR freight rail lines and operations, thereby ignoring significant environmental and economic impacts. For instance, if rail lines and infrastructure are converted, relocated or redirected, the DEIR contains no analysis of potential adverse impacts from these actions. Any potential constraint of UPRR rail lines and infrastructure in the region will likely have effects on the larger regional and national rail network and UPRR's goods movement activities. V. ABSENT A TIMELY AND SATISFACTORY RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THIS LETTER, CALTRANS AND THE CITY MUST PREPARE A SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SEIR) TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PROPOSED PROJECT'S IMPACTS TO EXISTING AND FUTURE FREIGHT RAIL LINES AND RAIL OPERATIONS. A new or supplemental EIR must be recirculated when significant new information is added, including "changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or wxK..p.com BUILDING AMERICA' Paul Samaras City of EI Segundo November 13, 2018 Page 8 other information." (40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)). The additional data and information that Caltrans and the City must provide to correct the deficiencies in the DEIR with regard to the impacts on freight rail lines and operations are likely significant. The new information may show that previously unanalyzed significant environmental impacts would result from the Project, or that the severity of the identified environmental impacts would be substantially increased unless mitigation measures are adopted. These are all grounds for recirculation. (See 40 C.F R. § 1502.9). V1. CONCLUSION Given the above, UPRR requests that Caltrans and the City engage with UPRR as soon as possible to identify the scope of potential Project impacts to UPRR infrastructure and operations, necessary approvals, and whether and what feasible mitigation measures may be implemented. UPRR looks forward to an opportunity to work collaboratively with Caltrans and the City going forward in this process. If you have any questions or require additional information from UPRR, please coordinate directly with Peggy Ygbuhay, Senior Manager Industry & Public Projects — Engineering, at 916-789-5033 and pvgbuhavC@up.com. Regards, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY Robert C. Bylsma cc: Melissa Hagan, Union Pacific Railroad Company Madeline Roebke, Union Pacific Railroad Company Peggy Ygbuhay, Union Pacific Railroad Company Michael Steel, Morrison & Foerster LLP ww-n.vpcom BUILDING AMERICA' Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination Response to Comment 11: Union Pacific Railroad Company, Interested Party, letter dated November 13, 2018 11-1 This comment provides an introduction to the letter and does not provide information related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the Draft EIR/EA. 11-2 This comment provides reference to the CEQA Guidelines and case law, and states that all operational impacts as a result of the project should be analyzed and included in the project's EIR. This comment does not provide specific information related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the Draft EIR/EA. 11-3 Refer to Responses 10-4 and 11-8. Proposed modifications to UPRR facilities would not have any substantial impacts to UPRR's ability to carry freight on a regional basis. The proposed improvements to UPRR infrastructure would occur along a segment of railroad that serves the Chevron facility, and would not affect any rail facilities of regional importance that could disrupt substantial freight movement on a regional or national basis. Along its existing segment leading to the Chevron facility, UPRR may experience temporary impacts for approximately 16 hours during construction activities; however, construction work could be planned and executed over the weekends to avoid impacting any deliveries to or from Chevron. 11-4 A vehicular crossing over the existing UPRR tracks was considered during preliminary conceptual design and found to be infeasible due to the existing topography with the railroad higher than adjacent roadway, and the extensive impacts associated with such a design. A Project Study Report Equivalent (PSRe) dated January 27, 2015 included the following statement on page 5, section 4a - Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration: An overhead grade separation alternative was eliminated from consideration because existing grades do not facilitate elevating Park Place over the railroad. Both the UPRR and BNSF tracks are on elevated embankments that are 12 to 15 feet above the Park Place/Allied Way and Park Place/Nash Street intersections. Construction of an overhead roadway bridge to overcome these existing grade differences would result in significant impacts to adjacent intersections and businesses and would require a substantial length of retaining walls to maintain existing properties and businesses. Furthermore, the existing grade differences are ideally suited to an underpass configuration due to reduced roadway cuts and avoidance of impacts to adjacent intersections and businesses. 11-5 Refer to Response 11-3, above. Along its existing segment leading to the Chevron facility, UPRR may experience temporary impacts during construction activities for approximately 16 hours; however, construction work could be planned and executed over the weekends to avoid impacting any deliveries to Chevron. The proposed improvements to UPRR infrastructure would occur along a segment of railroad that serves the Chevron facility, and would not affect any rail facilities of regional importance that could disrupt substantial freight movement on a regional or national basis. Preparation of Supplemental EIR is not required. 11-6 Refer to Response 11-3, above. The proposed improvements to UPRR infrastructure would occur along a segment of railroad that serves the Chevron Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-57 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination facility, and would not affect any rail facilities of regional importance that could disrupt substantial freight movement on a regional or national basis. The City has coordinated with UPRR regarding project details on a consistent basis during the development of the project. Initial discussions with UPRR's Ken Tom and Frank Beard of Public Projects were held in August 2013 during the development of the PSRe. During the development of the Draft EIR/EA, the City and its engineering team coordinated with Mary Schroll — UPRR Senior Manager Industry and Public Projects beginning in June 2017 to seek input on the development of project alternatives. The City understands the importance of UPRR's operations and is committed to continuing the coordination efforts as the project moves into the final design phase. 11-7 This comment has been and will be considered by the PDT as part of selection of the Preferred Alternative. 11-8 A vehicular crossing over the existing UPRR tracks was considered and eliminated early on in project development, as discussed in the Response 11-4, above. The City understands the importance of UPRR's operations and is committed to continuing the ongoing coordination efforts, which began in August 2013. During the final design phase, the design team will coordinate with UPRR to develop a design and phasing plan that addresses UPRR's concerns as outlined in UPRR's letter dated November 13, 2018. The City understands that the proposed project alternatives require a shoofly, which will require the UPRR track lead to Chevron to be temporarily taken out of service in order to line over to the shoofly alignment, and then again to line back to the permanent alignment after the grade separation structure is constructed. It is also understood that operations will be interrupted temporarily while this work is performed. It is expected that the interruption to operations will require approximately two, 8 -hour work windows: one to line over to the shoofly and the other to line the track back to its existing condition. It is the City's understanding that the UPRR currently delivers railcars to the UPRR storage yard only during weekdays. Construction work could be planned and executed over the weekends to avoid impacting any deliveries to or from Chevron. Based on this information, disruptions to UPRR's freight service to and from Chevron would be minimally disrupted (approximately 16 hours). The preference for Alternative 3A has been noted and will be considered by the PDT as part of selection of the Preferred Alternative. 11-9 Comment noted. A Construction and Maintenance Agreement between the City and UPRR outlining responsibilities will be developed during the final design phase of the project. 11-10 Comment noted. Final utility relocation requirements and strategies will be refined during the final design phase of the project. 11-11 The Draft EIR/EA included preparation of a detailed Traffic Impact Analysis that examined the project's potential to result in adverse traffic impacts in the project vicinity, based on changes in traffic patterns due to the extension of Park Place. Generally, the project would result in beneficial traffic impacts under build conditions as compared to no -build conditions. With these improved traffic conditions and Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-58 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination reductions in congestion and vehicle delay in the project vicinity, it is not anticipated that adverse effects related to nearby at -grade crossings would occur. 11-12 Refer to Responses 11-3 and 11-5, above. 11-13 Refer to Response 11-4, above. Section 1. 3.2 of the Draft EIR/EA describes additional alternatives that were considered but eliminated from further consideration during preliminary design. There were no additional feasible alternatives that would minimize impacts to UPRR facilities, while still accomplishing the project's purpose and need. 11-14 Refer to Responses 11-4, 11-6, and 11-8, above. 11-15 Refer to Responses 11-3 and 11-8 and regarding temporary and operational impacts to UPRR. 11-16 Refer to Responses 11-3 and 11-8 and regarding temporary and operational impacts to UPRR. As noted, any impacts to UPRR operations associated with the Chevron facility would be minimal, limited to a period of up to 16 hours. The proposed improvements to UPRR infrastructure would occur along a segment of railroad that serves the Chevron facility, and would not affect any rail facilities of regional importance that could disrupt substantial freight movement on a regional or national basis. As such, no new significant impact would occur, and preparation of a Recirculated or Supplemental EIR is not necessary. 11-17 This comment provides a conclusion to the letter and does not provide information related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the Draft EIR/EA. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-59 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-60 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Realty r] Federaly INVESTMENT TRUST FOUNDATIONS OF OPPORTUNITY TRANSMI I IAL TO: Gregg McClain — City of EI Segundo FROM: Lauren Holiday RE: Park Place Extension EIR Project Alternated EI Segundo, CA VIA: FedEx Overnight DATE: June 20, 2017 CC: Stuart MacDonald / FRIT Enclosed please find a letter referencing Park Place EIR Project Alternates, for your review. If you have any questions, please feel to contact me at any time at 408-551-4609 or Iholidav(o)federalrealtv.com. Thank you, WHoliday Lau Administrative Assistant Iholidav cDfederalrealtv.com 3 5 6 SANTANA ROW, SUITE 1 0 0 5, SAN JOSE, CA 9 5 1 28 TEL 408-551-4600 FAX 408-551-4620 WWW. FED E R A L R E A L T Y. COM NYSE : F R T Federal Realty INVESTMENT TRUST FOUNDAT50NS OF OPPORTUNITY 356 Santana Row, Suite 1005 San Jose, CA 95128 PH: 408.551.4600 FX: 408.551.4620 20 June, 2017 Mr. Gregg McClain Planning Manager City of EI Segundo 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 RE: Park Place Extension EIR Project Alternates Dear Gregg: We have reviewed the brief written description and graphic exhibits for the alternates under consideration for the Park Place Extension supplied by Paul Samaras on 24 April 2017 along with the supplemental information we received on 8 June 2017. While we realize the project scoping is at a preliminary phase we have the following initial concerns of impacts to our properties (Plaza EI Segundo, 700 S. Sepulveda; The Edge, 700 Allied Way; The Point, 850 S. Sepulveda) based on the information we received to date: 1) It appears that the access and visibility of our properties will be diminished to some degree by all of the proposed alternatives since retaining walls are required between our properties and the road surface. The degree to which this becomes a concern for us depends on the length and height of the retaining walls and guardrails that may be required to achieve the proposed design. We haven't received sufficient detail to be able to assess whether this is a serious concern or not. We would like to receive pictorial photo views of our properties from the street with the proposed retaining wails accurately depicted from various locations to further understand the implications of these proposed changes, 2) As noted in the brief written description there are anticipated temporary and permanent impacts to our properties' access and parking facilities. We will comment on each of the alternates individually but it bears noting that we already have serious concerns about the commercial viability of the property known as The Edge --largely due to its limited access, parking and visibility; we are strongly opposed to the alternates that exacerbate these conditions. 3) All of the schemes, except for Alternate 1A, identify a north -south oriented road labeled "Future Entrance into Proposed Development". This road would bisect a surface parking lot currently serving our property known as The Point. It appears that this proposed road would cause the loss of parking and diminish the convenience of a significant portion of that project's parking facilities. We request a conceptual solution be developed to prove that the viability of The Point's parking can be preserved. 4) A realistic construction duration is important for us to assess the true potential for customer inconvenience, lost revenue and tenant distress. We would like to have a better understanding of how the 1.5 to 2 year construction duration was estimated. Given the scope, size and complexity of the project we anticipate a project of this magnitude could take considerably longer. Has there been construction schedule input from an experienced and well-qualified civil engineering contractor on these alternates? 5) Noise, vibration and dust are frequently environmental impacts of concern during any large construction project. We anticipate that these disturbances, and their required mitigations, will be duly addressed during the development of the EIR and we will have opportunity for further comment. More detailed comments on each of the proposed alternates follows: Alternate 1A: 1A, Construction Parking: loss of parking is always of concern to merchants in nearest proximity to the spaces removed from service and we are likely to be asked for concessions and rent relief from impacted businesses. The total temporary loss of 35 spaces is the lowest of all of the alternates which makes it preferred from a parking perspective. 1A, Construction Access: intermittent through traffic disruptions at Park Place/Allied Way intersection are of concern particularly to businesses located at The Edge. From the narrative it appears that the plan is to keep all driveways from the street to the parking lots open during construction which makes this scheme preferred from the perspective of access. 1A, Post Construction Access: We understand that the intersecting traffic at the Park Place extension and Allied Way would be a 3 way stop initially with the possibility of becoming a signalized intersection in the future. We don't have concerns on this configuration provided signal timing is appropriately managed to not cause undue inconvenience to customers accessing our properties. 1A, Post Construction Visibility: Visibility is important to the success of retail centers and we are concerned about changes that could impair that visibility. We understand that retaining walls between 0 feet and 12 feet will be required along the edges of the streets to achieve the grade separation with the rail tracks. Views of our properties from the street could be adversely impacted in this alternate and we would Peke to see photo simulations of the completed conditions near our existing driveways and near the new underpass structure to further understand the implications. 2 Alternate 1C: 1C, Construction Parking: loss of parking is always of concern to merchants in nearest proximity to the spaces removed from service and we are likely to be asked for concessions and rent relief from impacted businesses. The total temporary loss of 63 spaces is higher than in Alternate 1A which makes it less desirable from a parking perspective. 1C, Construction Access: intermittent through traffic disruptions at Park Place/Allied Way intersection are of concern particularly to businesses located at The Edge. From the narrative it appears that there will be more impact to through traffic and that at times driveways from the street to the parking lots will need to be closed. We have concerns about the temporary closures of these driveways. 1C, Post Construction Access: We understand that the intersecting traffic at the Park Place extension and Allied Way would be handled by a roundabout. We have concerns that this road configuration could have on adverse effect on traffic heading south-east on Park Place towards The Edge. We believe that this road geometry, the significant grade separation and the speed of traffic could negatively impact customer access. We request additional detail to allow us to adequately understand the impacts of this alternate on our property's access. 1C, Post Construction Visibility: Visibility is important to the success of retail centers and we are concerned about changes that could impair that visibility. We understand that retaining walls between 0 feet and 21 feet will be required along the edges of the streets to achieve the grade separation with the rail tracks. Views of our properties from the street could be adversely impacted in this alternate and we would like to see photo simulations of the completed conditions near our existing driveways and near the new underpass structure to further understand the implications. Alternate 3A: 3A, Construction Parking: loss of parking is always of concern to merchants in nearest proximity to the spaces removed from service and we are likely to be asked for concessions and rent relief from impacted businesses. The total temporary loss of 75 spaces is higher than in Alternate 1A which makes it less desirable from a parking perspective. 3A, Construction Access: intermittent through traffic disruptions at Park Place/Allied Way intersection are of concern particularly to businesses located at The Edge. From the narrative it appears that there will be more impact to through traffic and that at times driveways from the street to the parking lots will need to be closed. We have concerns about the temporary closures of these driveways. 3A, Post Construction Access: We understand that the intersecting traffic at the Park Place extension and Allied Way would be handled by a roundabout, similar to Alternate X. We have concerns that this road configuration could have on adverse effect on traffic heading south-east on Park Place towards The Edge. We believe that this road geometry, the significant grade separation and the speed of traffic could negatively impact customer access. We request additional detail to allow us to adequately understand the impacts of this alternate on our property's access. 3 3A, Post Construction Visibility: Given the importance of visibility to retail centers we are concerned about conditions that alter the existing conditions adjacent to our properties. We understand that retaining walls between 2 feet and 19 feet will be required along the edges of the streets to achieve the grade separation with the rail tracks. Views of our properties from the street could be adversely impacted and we would like to see photo simulations of the completed conditions near our existing driveways and near the new underpass structure. Alternate 3B: 36, Construction Parking: loss of parking is always of concern to merchants in nearest proximity to the spaces removed from service and we are likely to be asked for concessions and rent relief from impacted businesses. The total temporary loss of 100 spaces is higher than in Alternate 1A which makes it less desirable from a parking perspective. 36, Construction Access: intermittent through traffic disruptions at Park Place/Allied Way intersection are of concern particularly to businesses located at The Edge. From the narrative it appears that there will be more impact to through traffic and that at times driveways from the street to the parking lots will need to be closed. We have concerns about the temporary closures of these driveways. 3B, Post Construction Access: We understand that the intersecting traffic at the Park Place extension and Allied Way would be handled by a roundabout, similar to Alternate 1C. We have concerns that this road configuration could have on adverse effect on traffic heading south-east on Park Place towards The Edge. We believe that this road geometry, the significant grade separation and the speed of traffic could negatively impact customer access. We request additional detail to allow us to adequately understand the impacts of this alternate on our property's access. We strongly object to the proposed permanent closure of access points to our parking lots in order to achieve the required grade separations. Additionally the impaired pedestrian access to Dick's Sporting Goods both during and after construction completion is a concern in this alternate. 36, Post Construction Visibility: Given the importance of visibility to retail centers we are concerned about conditions that alter the existing conditions adjacent to our properties. We understand that retaining wails between 0 feet and 21 feet will be required along the edges of the streets to achieve the grade separation with the rail tracks. Views of our properties from the street could be adversely impacted and we would like to see photo simulations of the completed conditions near our existing driveways and near the new underpass structure. Conclusion our initial conclusion is that Alternate 1A would likely be the least impactful and Alternate 3B would likely be the most impactful. Federal Realty remains committed to the City of EI Segundo and its partners to successfully advance the planning for the Park Place Extension Project, however we do have concerns regarding the impacts of these alternates on our properties. If you wish to discuss our response letter please don't hesitate to contact me. 4 Director of Development CC: Ken Berkman, Public Works Director Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination Response to Comment 12: Lauren Holiday, Interested Party, letter dated June 20, 2017 12-1 This comment provides an introduction to the letter and does not provide information related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the Draft EIR/EA. 12-2 The maximum difference in the roadbed elevation along Park Place and Allied Way is anticipated to vary by alternative from approximately 8 feet to 14 feet. Approximate retaining wall lengths are shown in the Conceptual Site Plan figures provided in the Draft EIR/EA, with heights varying by location and alternative from between 0 feet and approximately 23 feet tall. The exact dimensions and details of the required retaining walls will be refined during the final design phase of the project. For Alternatives 1 A, 1 C, and 3A, access driveways for Plaza EI Segundo along Park Place and Allied Way would remain in their existing locations. For Alternative 3B (Option 1 and Option 2), one access driveway on the east side of Allied Way would be eliminated. The City has coordinated with Federal Realty as part of the preliminary design process, and will continue consultation through final design to minimize potential impacts related to business visibility and accessibility through items such as retaining wall design features and directional signage. 12-3 This comment provides introductory language for specific comments on the various Build Alternatives provided later in the comment letter. It does not provide information related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the Draft EIR/EA. 12-4 The schemes referred to in this comment were early concepts developed during the initial stages of preliminary design. Several of these concepts depicted a future connection between Park Place and Rosecrans Avenue, that would be constructed as part of a separate project. This future connection is not under consideration as part of this proposed project, and no parking would be affected at The Point. 12-5 The overall construction duration was estimated by licensed Civil Engineers based on experience with similar projects. Although the overall construction duration is estimated at 1.5 to 2 years, the project will be staged to minimize the actual duration that adjacent businesses are impacted, specifically, the majority of the construction work is occurring on vacant land away from existing roadways and therefore will not impact access to commercial properties. Temporary impacts to traffic flows along Park Place and Allied Way are only anticipated to occur during a relatively short percentage of the overall construction schedule with specific duration outlined in Response 13-2, below. 12-6 Air quality and noise were analyzed in detail within Sections 2.2.5 and 2.2.6 of the Draft EIR/EA, respectively. This comment does not provide information related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the Draft EIR/EA. 12-7 Parking impacts may occur during construction; however, these impacts would be temporary in nature and would cease upon the completion of the construction phase. As noted above in Response 12-5, although the overall construction duration is estimated at 1.5 to 2 years, the project will be staged to minimize the actual duration that adjacent businesses and associated parking are impacted. The City has consulted extensively with affected property owners during the preliminary design phase and will continue to consult during the final design phase to minimize these potential impacts. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-67 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination 12-8 Measure TRA -1 of the Draft EIR/EA would minimize effects in regards to temporary roadway and intersection closures during construction through the implementation of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP). Measure TRA -1 would require that access is maintained to all business and properties within the project area throughout the duration of the construction process. Please refer to Section 2.1.5 of the Draft EIR/EA. 12-9 The intersection configuration of Park Place and Allied Way varies between the different Build Alternatives. Alternative 1A proposes a stop -controlled intersection, while Alternatives 1 C, 3A, and 3B propose a roundabout intersection. The stop - controlled intersection under Alternative 1A would be constructed according to City standards to ensure adequate traffic circulation. 12-10 Refer to Response 12-2, above. 12-11 Refer to Response 12-7, above. 12-12 Refer to Response 12-8, above. 12-13 The geometry of the roadway will be designed adhering to existing engineering standards for the classification of roadway. Access to The Edge under Alternative 1 C and 3A is anticipated to be similar to the existing condition with the exception that a left turn through the roundabout would be required for vehicles traveling east on Park Place. Alternative 3B will eliminate one of the access driveways to The Edge due to the proximity of the proposed roundabout to the property. As noted above in Response 12-2, the City has coordinated with Federal Realty as part of the preliminary design process, and will continue to coordinate with affected property owners during final design to understand and develop resolution to concerns. The need for additional signage to mitigate changes in traffic patterns and property visibility concerns can be part of the coordination efforts. Regarding the depth and slope of the roadway, the roundabout in Alternative 1C and 3A will depress the Park Place/Allied Way intersection approximately 10 feet. The northern leg of the roundabout (Allied Way) approaching The Edge will have a grade of approximately 4.5 percent. 12-14 Refer to Response 12-2, above. 12-15 Refer to Response 12-7, above. 12-16 Refer to Response 12-8, above. 12-17 Refer to Response 12-13, above. 12-18 Refer to Response 12-2, above. 12-19 Refer to Response 12-7, above. 12-20 Refer to Response 12-8, above. 12-21 Refer to Responses 12-8 and 12-13, above. 12-22 Refer to Response 12-2, above. 12-23 This comment is noted and will be considered by the PDT as part of the selection of the Preferred Alternative. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-68 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Federal Realty�- INVESTMENT TRUST FOUNDATIONS OF OPPORTUNITY TRANSMITTAL TO: Paul Samaras — City of EI Segundo FROM: Lauren Holiday RE: Park Place Extension Extension and Grade Separation Project Draft EIR EI Segundo, CA VIA: Email; FedEx Overnight DATE: November 13, 2018 CC: Stuart MacDonald / FRIT Enclosed please find a letter referencing Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Draft EIR, for your review. If you have any questions, please feel to contact me at any time at 408-551-4609 or Iholidavdfederalrealtv.com. Thank you, 9 Lauren Holiday Administrative Assistant Iholidav(cQfederalrealtv.com 356 SANTANA ROW, SUITE 1005 SAN JOSE, CA 95128 TEL 408-551-4600 FAX 408-551-4620 WWW. F E DERAL REALTY. CO M NYSE : F R T Federal Realty M INVESTMENT TRUST FOUNDATIONS OF OPPORTUNITY 12 November, 2018 Mr. Paul Samaras Principal Planner City of EI Segundo 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 RE: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Draft EIR Dear Paul: 356 Santana Row, Suite 1005 San Jose, CA 95128 PH: 408.551.4600 FX: 408.551.4620 Via email Federal Realty owns a number of properties (Plaza EI Segundo, 700 S. Sepulveda; The Works, 700 Allied Way; The Point, 850 S. Sepulveda) in direct proximity to and likely to be affected by the proposed project. We have reviewed the draft EIR report primarily with respect to how the project may affect the immediate and long term viability of these commercial properties. The following is our main environmental comment upon reviewing the draft EIR: Though it appears that the Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities of the city will generally be improved upon completion of this project there are significant impacts during the course of the construction that will adversely affect the economic viability of our commercial properties. All of the proposed schemes identify a complete closure of the main access road to our property east of Allied Way for a duration from 4-6 months. Additionally all of the proposed schemes when complete will have grade differentials relative to our properties that are yet to be defined but appear to be significant enough affect the utility of established access points to our properties. The proposed transition slopes will make these entrances less accessible for pedestrians and bicyclists alike and will require special consideration to comply with ADA. Additionally these grade differentials could adversely affect visibility with potential safety implications. For these reasons we believe that further analysis is required before a finding of "Not Adverse with Mitigation" is made for Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. Additionally Federal Realty had noted a number of other specific concerns about the Park Place Extension Alternatives that we brought to the City's attention in correspondence dated 20 June, 2017 (a copy of that letter is attached herein for convenience). We find that most of those concerns have not been addressed by information contained within the draft EIR so we are again noting that previous correspondence to ensure that it is entered into the EIR record. Mr. Paul Samaras 12 November, 2018 As stated in our previous correspondence we prefer Alternative 1A since it appears to fulfill the project's primary objectives with the least impact to our adjoining properties. We have strong objections to Alternative 3B because of its significant disruption to our retail access and parking facilities off of Allied Way. It also appears that Alternative 3B will cause the permanent loss of a large number of our commercial parking stalls. Federal Realty remains committed to the City of EI Segundo and its partners to successfully complete this project and trust that if the project moves forward the City will work cooperatively to address our outstanding concerns. If you wish to discuss our response letter please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerel Stuart MacDonald Director of Development Attached: Federal Realty letter to Gregg McClain, dated 6/20/17 2 Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination Response to Comment 13: Lauren Holiday, Interested Party, letter dated November 13, 2018 13-1 This comment provides an introduction to the letter and does not provide information related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the Draft EIR/EA. 13-2 Temporary impacts to the flow of traffic along Park Place and Allied Way vary in duration by alternative from several weeks to 1 month, to 1 to 3 months. During the final design process, the City will work to refine the stage construction and traffic handling concept to minimize the impacts to the flow of traffic. Specific visual and ADA impacts vary by alternative; however, during final design, the project will be designed using engineering standards for site distance and ADA standards for accessibility to eliminate and/or mitigate those impacts. Refer to Responses 12-2 and 12-8, above. 13-3 Federal Realty's letter dated June 20, 2017 has been included within the Final EIR/EA as Comment 12. Refer to Response to Comment 12, above. 13-4 This comment is noted and will be considered by the PDT as part of the selection of the Preferred Alternative. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-72 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) McGulreWoods LLP 1800 Century Park East 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501 Phase, 310.315.8200 Fax: 310.315.8210 www.mcguirewoods.com 'oWolffMcGUIREWCODS Direct: 310.310.31 5.8217 November 13, 2018 VIA EMAIL Paul Samaras City of El Segundo Principal Planner 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Email: psamaras@elsegundo.org jwolff@mcguirewoods.com [moist M- 1 SIM Re: Comments from H. ICramer & Co, on Draft EIR/EA on Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Dear Mr. Samaras: We represent H. Kramer & Co. ("H. Kramer"), owner of land proposed to be involved in each of the build -options identified in the referenced Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment ("EIR/EA"). While H. Kramer has concerns regarding all of the proposed alternatives, and their impacts on H. Kramer's property, Alternatives 1 and 1C are especially problematic for the reasons set forth below. Proposed Alternatives 1 A and 1 C would be constructed in part on H. Kramer's property, would interfere with the sole access to such property from Chapman Way, and would negatively impact the ongoing use and proposed use by H. Kramer's tenant. In addition, as noted in the EIR/EA, portions of the H. Kramer property are the subject of Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board action, feature an environmental cap, and have a deed restriction limiting subsurface disturbance. From our reading, by only reviewing existing files, the EIR/EA did not credibly assess environmental conditions or ultimately determine the environmental significance of Alternatives 1A and 1C. It is entirely possible that mitigation option HW -2, which consists simply of implementing a soil management plan for this area, would not satisfactorily address all needed issues up.der applicable environmental law. Before H. Kramer will allow any testing to be done on its property, the company would require indemnification from appropriate parties and the complete transfer of associated environmental liabilities to the testing parties. Atlanta � Austin j Baltimore Brussels I Charlotte I Charlottesville I Chicago I Dallas I Houston I Jacksonville I London I Los Angeles - Century City Los Angeles - Downtown New York I Norioik I Pittsburgh i Raleigh I Richmond I San Francisco I Tysons I Washington, D.C. I Wilmington, NC 109672066.1 Paul Samaras November 13, 2018 Page 2 It is almost too obvious to state, but it is not prudent to pursue an option that gets close to the environmental cap or locate additional heavy rail lines in the immediate vicinity of a known environmental problem. Certainly, CEQA does not encourage such outcomes. For the reasons described, H, Kramer requests that Alternatives 1A and 1C not be selected in this process. In addition to hazardous materials concerns, H. Kramer has serious concerns about the impact of the proposed alternatives on local traffic and constraints on accessibility to its land from Chapman Way. The draft EIR/EA notably neither analyzes these impacts nor proposes any mitigation for them. Any final approved project will clearly need to mitigate such impacts. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, and thank you for this opportunity to comment on the EIR/EA. Please copy me on all further notices about this project. Sincerely, Joan A. Wolff 4 Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination Response to Comment 14: Joan A. Wolff, Interested Party, letter dated November 13, 2018 14-1 User access to the H. Kramer's property via Chapman Way would be maintained, such that active operations at the existing RV/boat storage facility would not be affected. While railroad improvements in this area would be required under Build Alternatives 1A and 1C, these improvements could be scheduled overnight, such that access is continuously maintained during operating hours. The project would not include any disturbance of the existing environmental cap on H. Kramer property, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. As discussed in Section 2.2.4 of the Draft EIR/EA, Measures HW -1 through HW -6 would reduce adverse effects regarding hazardous waste/materials, including soil contamination. Measures HW -1, HW -2, and HW -3 would require a Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) stage to define the extent of on-site contamination and recommend appropriate coordination with other off-site properties owners and remediation, as necessary, for implementation of the proposed project. The Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist would coordinate with the RWQCB regarding proposed construction activities within the former Honeywell and H. Kramer & Company properties. The Specialist would be required to prepare a Soil Management Plan that identifies necessary sampling efforts, necessary actions to satisfy covenant and deed restrictions, and soil management practices necessary during site disturbance (including safety precautions to ensure worker safety). The handling and/or disposal of contaminated soils must comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The Soil Management Plan to be prepared for the project would be subject to review and approval by the RWQCB, ensuring potential risks to human health related to hazardous waste are minimized. As concluded in the Draft EIR/EA, with implementation of Measures HW -1 through HW -6, impacts related to contamination on H. Kramer property would not be adverse. 14-2 Any future sampling or testing on H. Kramer property would be conducted during the final design phase of the proposed project, and agreement(s) between the City and H. Kramer would be established at that time. This comment does not provide information related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the Draft EIR/EA. 14-3 As noted above in Response 14-1, the project would not include any disturbance of the existing environmental cap on H. Kramer property, and would comply with all RWQCB requirements to ensure that the integrity of the cap is maintained. This comment is noted and will be considered by the PDT as part of the selection of the Preferred Alternative. Additional information regarding hazardous waste/materials has been provided above in Response 14-1. 14-4 Refer to Response 14-1, above. Access to the existing RV/boat storage facility on H. Kramer property via Chapman Way would be maintained, such that operations at the facility would not be affected. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-75 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-76 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) (I). CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RECHARD C. LUNDQUIST YR E -SI I 1 E Nr November 13, 2018 Mr. Paul Samaras City of El Segundo Principal Planner 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 RE: Park Place Draft EIR Dear Mr. Samaras: It is my pleasure to comment on the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Environmental Impact Report EIR/EA. We at Continental Development Corporation would like to congratulate the City of El Segundo and Caitrans for moving this beneficial project forward. As the EIR/EA details, the proposed project w 11 provide much needed connecti%-ity in the immediate area, as well as critical congestion relief to Stab Route 1/Sepulveda Boulevard. We very much look forward to its completion and pledge to work with the City t nd other stakeholders to help move this forward. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard C. Lundquist Enclosures 2041 ROSECRANS AVENUE, P.O. BOX 916, EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA 9024x:-0916 PHONE (310) 640-1520 - FAX (310) 414-9279 Chapter 4 Comments and Coordination Response to Comment 15: Richard C. Lundquist, Interested Party, letter dated November 13, 2018 15-1 This commenter is supportive of the proposed project, and states that the project will provide improved connectivity and congestion relief. This comment does not provide information related to the adequacy of the environmental analysis within the Draft E I R/EA. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 4-78 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 5 List of Preparers Chapter 5 List of Preparers The following persons were principally responsible for preparation of this Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment and supporting technical studies. 5.1 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT 7 Ronald Kosinski, Deputy District Director, Environmental Planning Division. Contribution: Management, Oversight, and Environmental Document Approval. Garrett Damrath, Office Chief, Environmental Planning Division. Contribution: Management, Oversight, and Environmental Document Approval. Michael Enwedo, Senior Environmental Planner, Local Assistance Branch Chief. Contribution: Management and Oversight of Environmental Document Preparation. Quint Chemnitz, Associate Environmental Planner, Local Assistance. Contribution: Oversight of Environmental Document Preparation. Henry Nguyen, Environmental Planner, Local Assistance. Contribution: Peer reviewer of Environmental Document. Robert Wang, Associate Environmental Planner, Local Assistance. Contribution: NEPA Quality Control Reviewer. Kelly Ewing -Toledo, Senior Environmental Planner, Heritage Resources Coordinator. Contribution: Supervision of Historical/Cultural Technical Specialist Review. Joshua Knudson, Associate Environmental Planner, Architectural Historian. Contribution: Historical/Cultural Technical Specialist Reviewer. Jin Lee, Senior Transportation Engineer, Noise & Vibration Branch Chief. Contribution: Supervision of Noise and Vibrations Technical Specialist Review. Arnold Parmar, Transportation Engineer, Noise & Vibration Branch. Contribution: Noise and Vibrations Technical Specialist Reviewer. Andrew Yoon, Senior Transportation Engineer, Air Quality Branch Chief. Contribution: Supervision of Air Quality Technical Specialist Review. Liberty San Agustin, Associate Transportation Planner, Air Quality Branch. Contribution: Air Quality Technical Specialist Reviewer. Paul Caron, Senior Environmental Planner, District Biologist. Contribution: Biological Technical Specialist Reviewer. Kelly Lin, Senior Right of Way Agent, Relocation Assistance Program. Contribution: Supervision of Community/Relocation Impacts Technical Specialist Review. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 5-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 5 List of Preparers Helen Chiang, Associate Right of Way Agent, Relocation Assistance Program. Contribution: Community/Relocation Impacts Technical Specialist Reviewer. Steve Chan, Senior Transportation Engineer, Hazardous Waste Branch, South Region. Contribution: Supervision of Hazardous Waste/Materials Technical Specialist Review. Maria Szweminska, Engineering Geologist, Hazardous Waste Branch, South Region. Contribution: Hazardous Waste/Materials Technical Specialist Reviewer. George Olguin, Senior Landscape Architect. Contribution: Supervision of Visual Resources Technical Specialist Review. Dan Brewer, Landscape Associate. Contribution: Visual Resources Technical Specialist Reviewer. Yunus Ghausi, Senior Transportation Engineer. Contribution: Supervision of Traffic Analysis Review. Lena Levinson, Transportation Engineer. Contribution: Traffic Analysis Reviewer. 5.2 CITY OF EL SEGUNDO Ken Berkman, P.E., Director of Public Works. Contribution: Local agency management and review. Gregg McClain, Planning Manager. Contribution: Local agency management and review. Paul Samaras, AICP, Principal Planner. Contribution: Local agency management and review. 5.3 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, INC. Alan Ashimine, Project Manager. Contribution: Environmental document management and preparation. Renee Gleason, Senior Environmental Analyst. Contribution: Environmental document and Relocation Impact Memorandum preparation. Jessica Ditto, Environmental Analyst. Contribution: Environmental document preparation. Eddie Torres, Air Quality and Noise Manager. Contribution: Noise Study Report and Air Quality Assessment. Ryan Chiene, Environmental Analyst, Air Quality and Noise. Contribution: Noise Study Report and Air Quality Assessment. Alicia Gonzalez, Environmental Analyst. Contribution: Environmental document preparation. Kristen Bogue, Senior Environmental Analyst, Visual and Hazardous Materials. Contribution: Hazardous Materials (Phase I ISA) and visual analysis preparation. Cathy Johnson, Landscape Architect. Contribution: Visual Resources Technical Memorandum. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 5-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 5 List of Preparers Davis, Robert, Transportation Engineer. Contribution: Traffic Impact Analysis. Tom Millington, Senior Biologist. Contribution: Natural Environment Study. Linda Bo, Technical Editor. Contribution: Technical editor. 5.4 COGSTONE RESOURCES Sherri Gust, Cultural Resources Manager and Principal Paleontologist. Contribution: Managed HPSR, HIRER, ASR, PIR/PER technical reports. C. Lynn Furnis, Principal Architectural Historian. Contribution: Author of HPSR and ASR. Kim Scott, Principal Investigator for Paleontology. Contribution: Author of PIR/PER. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 5-3 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 5 List of Preparers This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 5-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 6 Distribution List Chapter 6 Distribution List This Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) will be distributed to the state, regional, and local agencies; interested parties; and utilities, services, and businesses listed in this section. The distribution list for the following parties is provided below. • Federal Agencies • State Agencies • Regional Agencies • County Agencies • Local Agencies (EI Segundo) • Federal Legislators • State Legislators • Local Elected Officials • Interested Groups, Organizations, and Individuals • Utilities and Public Services Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 6-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 6 Distribution List 6.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES United States Army Corps of Engineers Attn: Regulatory Branch P.O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Federal Activities (Mail Code 2251-A) EIS Filing Section 1200 Pennsylvania Ave Washington, DC 20460 6.2 STATE AGENCIES David Bunn, Director California Department of Conservation 801 K. Street, MS 24-01 Sacramento, CA 95814 Darrin Polhemus, Deputy Director State Water Resources Control Board 1001 1 Street Sacramento, CA 95814 State of California, Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, Region 5 Attn: IGR/CEQA Review 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 California Public Utilities Commission Rail Crossings Engineering Branch Attn: Chi Cheung To 320 West 4th Street, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Mark Cowin, Director California Department of Water Resources 1416 9th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Joshua Shaw, Director California Transit Association 1415 L Street, Suite 1000 Sacramento, CA 95814 State Clearinghouse California Highway Patrol Office of Planning and Research Border Division (601) Attn: Scott Morgan 9330 Farnham Street 1400 Tenth St. San Diego, CA 92123-1216 Sacramento, CA 95814 6.3 REGIONAL AGENCIES Southern California Association of Governments Attn: IGR/CEQA Reviewer 818 W. 7th Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region Attn: IGR/CEQA Reviewer 320 West 4th Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) G. Mendel Stewart, Field Supervisor United States Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Field Office 2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 9200 California Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, CA 95812-0806 Richard Corey, Executive Officer California Air Resources Board 1001 1 Street Sacramento, CA 95812 Native American Heritage Commission Attn: Gayle Totton 1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 California Department of Public Health Attn: Director PO Box 997377, MS 0500 Sacramento CA 95899-7377 Sue O'Leary CalRecycle 1001 "1" Street Sacramento, CA 95812 South Coast AQMD Attn: Jillian Wong 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 MTA Attn: IGR/CEQA Review Mail Stop 99-23-4 1 Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 M. Chapter 6 Distribution List 6.4 COUNTY AGENCIES County of Los Angeles County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Department of Regional Planning Attn: Mark Pestrella, Director Attn: IGR/CEQA Review 900 South Fremont Avenue 320 West Temple Street, 13th Floor Alhambra, CA 91803-1331 Los Angeles, CA 90012 6.5 LOCAL AGENCIES City of EI Segundo Mr. Arnold Shadbehr Planning Division City Manager Attn: Paul Samaras City of Hawthorne 350 Main Street 4455 W 126th Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 Hawthorne, CA 90250 City Manager City of Torrance 3031 Torrance Boulevard Torrance, CA 90501 City Manager City of Gardena 1700 W. 162nd Street Gardena, CA 90247 Mr. Mark Danaj City of Los Angeles City Manager Planning Department City of Manhattan Beach 200 N. Spring Street 1400 Highland Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90012 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Attn: Director of Planning 6.6 FEDERAL LEGISLATORS Hon. Dianne Feinstein, Member United States Senate 11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste 915 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Hon. Ted Lieu 33rd Congressional District United States House of Representatives 5055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 310 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Hon. Kamala Harris, Member United States Senate 312 N. Spring St. Suite 1748 Los Angeles, CA 90012 6.7 STATE LEGISLATORS Hon. Autumn Burke, Member Hon. Ben Allen, Member 62nd Assembly District 26th Senate District, State of One West Manchester Blvd., Ste California 601 2512 Artesia Blvd., #320 Inglewood, CA 90301 Redondo Beach, CA 90278-3279 Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Mr. Artie Fields City Manager City of Inglewood One Manchester Blvd. Inglewood, CA 90301 Mr. John Jalili Interim City Manager City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Aaron Jones Community Development Director City of Redondo Beach 415 Diamond Street Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Hon. Maxine Waters 43rd Congressional District United States House of Representatives 10124 S. Broadway, Ste 1 Los Angeles, CA 90003 6-3 Chapter 6 Distribution List 6.8 LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS Hon. Janice Hahn Drew Boyles, Mayor Los Angeles County Supervisor EI Segundo Council 4th District Supervisor 350 Main Street 500 W. Temple St., Rm 822 EI Segundo, CA 90245 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Scot Nicol, Council Member EI Segundo Council 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 Don Brann, Council Member EI Segundo Council 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 Carol Pirsztuk, Mayor Pro Tem EI Segundo Council 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 Chris Pimentel, Council Member EI Segundo Council 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 6.9 INTERESTED GROUPS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS Brian Wagner Vice President Finance H. Kramer & Co. 1345 W21 st Street Chicago, IL 60608 Jim Biondi Newmark Grubb Knight Frank 2321 Rosecrans Avenue Suite 4200 EI Segundo, CA 90245 Wayne Mass 71 Eagle View Drive Durango, CO 81303 PLAZA EL SEGUNDO PES Partners, LLC 1626 East Jefferson Street Rockville, MD 20852-4041 Attn: Legal Dept THE POINT Street Retail, Inc. 1626 East Jefferson Street Rockville, MD 20852-4041 Attn: Legal Dept Continental Development Corporation Attn: Alex Rose 2041 Rosecrans Ave # 200 EI Segundo, CA 90245 Charles Dedeurwaerder 425 Lomita Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 Robert Dorame, Chairperson Gabrieleno Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council P.O. Box 490 Bellflower, CA 90707 Allied Chemical Corp 21001 N Tatum Blvd. Ste. 1630- 630 Phoenix, AZ 98050 Anthony Morales, Chairperson Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 693 San Gabriel, CA 91778 Don Camph EI Segundo Employers Association C/O Alderon, Inc. 8433 Holy Cross Place Los Angeles, CA 90045-2634 Jerry A. Saunders Director of Planning Continental Development Corp. 2041 Rosecrans Avenue EI Segundo, CA 90245 Linda Candelaria, Co -Chairperson Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe 1999 Avenue of the Stars #1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resources Department Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians P.O. Box 487 San Jacinto, CA 92583 John Fucci Kilroy Realty Corporation 12200 W. Olympic Boulevard, #200 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Eric Johnson EI Segundo Resident Association P.O. Box 231 EI Segundo, CA 90245 Sonia Ransom Overton Moore & Associates 1125 W. 190th Street, Suite 200 Gardena, CA 90248 Sandonne Goad, Chairperson Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 1061/ Judge John Aiso #231 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 6-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 6 Distribution List Andrew Salas, Chairperson Raytheon Co. 2501 Santa Fe Corporation Inc Gabrieleno Band of Mission PO Box 660248 M/S 336 PO Box 1463 Indians — Kizh Nation Dallas, TX 75266 Hermosa Beach CA 90254 P.O. Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 2121 Park Place Fee Owner CA Hirt Properties LLC 2041 Rosecrans Ave. Ste. 354 11111 Santa Monica Blvd. Ste. Ms. Marilyn K. Neustel; MS W- EI Segundo, CA 90245 1100 S22 -T310 Los Angeles CA 90025 Senior Manager, Site Services Coral Circle Partners The Boeing Company 445 S. Douglas St. 605 Doug St LLC PO Box 3707 EI Segundo CA 90245 9922 Jefferson Blvd Seattle, WA 98124-2207 Culver City CA 90232 Propeller Properties LLC R.B. Holliday 125 Lomita St. 557 Doug St LLC Manager, Env. Services EI Segundo CA 90245 9922 Jefferson Blvd Northrop -Grumman Corp. Culver City CA 90232 One Hornet Way Raytheon Co. EI Segundo, CA 90245 2100 E. EI Segundo Blvd. Conrad Acuna EI Segundo, CA 90245 Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Hughes Electronics Corporation 1999 Avenue of the Stars, # 1100 Director of Real Estate Plaza CP LLC Los Angeles, CA 90067 ES/001/A140 2041 Rosecrans Ave. #200 P.O. Box 956 EI Segundo, CA 90245 Rosemary Morillo, Chairperson; EI Segundo, CA 90245-0956 Attn: Carrie Garcia KK and J Enterprises, LLC Soboba Band of Mission Indians Federal Realty Investment Trust 1550 23rd St. P.O. Box 487 Attn: Michael Strahs Manhattan Beach CA 90266 San Jacinto, CA 92581 356 Santana Row, Suite 1005 San Jose, CA 95128 Park EI Segundo Partners LLC John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Admin. 433 N. Camden Dr. Ste. 820 Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Chevron Products Company Beverly Hills CA 90210 Nation Attn. R.K. (Rod) Spackman 324 West EI Segundo Boulevard Continental 841 Apollo LLC Bernie Acuna, Co -Chairperson EI Segundo, CA 90245 2041 Rosecrans Ave. #200 Gabriel ino-Tongva Tribe EI Segundo CA 90245 1999 Avenue of the Stars #1100 Lily Craig, External Affairs Los Angeles, CA 90067 Manager Continental Rosecrans Nash LLC Chevron Products Company 1360 E. 91h St. Ste. 300 Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resources 324 West EI Segundo Boulevard Cleveland OH 44114 Director EI Segundo, CA 90245 Gabrielino/Tongva Nation Arvel EI Segundo LLC P.O. Box 86908 David Jordon 1990 S. Bundy Dr. Ste 500 Los Angeles, CA 90086 SSV Properties Los Angeles CA 90025 2041 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 354 Lucas, Stan EI Segundo, CA 90245 2850 Temple Ave. Long Beach CA 90806 Kinecta Federal Credit Union 2100 Park PI. Ste. 100 EI Segundo, CA 90245 Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 6-5 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Chapter 6 Distribution List 6.10 UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES Southern California Gas Company Attn: IGR/CEQA Review P.O. Box 3150 San Dimas, CA 91773 California Water Service Attn: Manager 2632 W. 237th Street Torrance, CA 90505 BNSF Railway LaDonna V. DiCamillo Regional AVP, State Government Affairs One World Trade Center, Suite 680 Long Beach, CA 90831 Paula Bawden Plains All American Pipeline 333 Clay Street, Suite 1300 Houston, TX 77002 Dr. Tom Johnstone Wiseburn School District 13530 Aviation Boulevard Hawthorne, CA 90250-64 Union Pacific Railroad Lupe Valdez — Director, Public Affairs 13181 Crossroads Pkwy, North City of Industry, CA 91746 West Basin Municipal Water District Attn: Eric Owens 17140 S. Avalon Blvd., Suite 210 Carson, CA 90746 Superintendent EI Segundo Unified School District 641 Sheldon Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 Union Pacific Railroad Daniel Z Moreno 2015 S. Willow Avenue Bloomington, CA 92316 BNSF Railway Don P. Maddy Executive Dir. — State Government Affairs 1215 K Street, Suite 171 Sacramento, CA 95814 Centinela Valley Union High School District 14901 Inglewood Avenue Lawndale, CA 90260 Los Angeles World Airports Environmental Management Bureau Attn: Robert Freeman P.O. Box 92216 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2216 Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Attn: Adriana Raza 1955 Workman Mill Road Whittier, CA 90607 So. California Edison Co. So. Bay/Planning Dept. 505 Maple Ave. Torrance, CA 90503 Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project 6-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Appendix A Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(f): No -Use Determination Appendix A Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(0 No -Use Determination Appendix A Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(f): No -Use Determination A.1 Introduction Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, codified in federal law at 49 United States Code (USC) 303, declares that "it is the policy of the United States Government that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites." This section of the document discusses parks, recreational facilities, wildlife refuges, and historic properties found within or next to the project area that do not trigger Section 4(f) protection because: 1) they are not publicly owned, 2) they are not open to the public, 3) they are not eligible historic properties, or 4) the project does not permanently use the property and does not hinder the preservation of the property. A.2 Project Description The City of EI Segundo (City) proposes to extend Park Place from Allied Way to Nash Street with a grade separation to implement a critical project as identified in the City's 2005 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update. By extending Park Place and closing the gap between Allied Way and Nash Street, the project would create an alternative route and provide much needed relief to Rosecrans Avenue, a heavily congested, east -west major arterial in the South Bay region of Los Angeles. The project would also improve access to the 105 Freeway by creating a direct route from Sepulveda Boulevard to Douglas Street. The proposed project consists of four Build Alternatives (Build Alternatives 1A, 1C, 3A, and 3B). All Build Alternatives consist of extending Park Place by constructing approximately 0.25 miles of new roadway, creating a continuous four -lane collector roadway from Sepulveda Boulevard to Douglas Street. The typical section for the proposed Park Place extension would include an 80 - foot right-of-way consisting of a raised and landscaped center median, roadway with two travel lanes in each direction for shared vehicle and bicycle traffic, curb and gutter, a five-foot landscaped parkway, and a five-foot sidewalk. Right-of-way acquisition would be required under all build alternatives. This would include fee acquisitions for roadway extensions and realignments, slope easements, temporary construction easements, drainage easements for stormwater treatment and conveyance, and utility licenses/easements. The proposed project would be required to cross the existing UPRR and BNSF rail alignments traversing the project site. A No -Build Alternative (Alternative 1) has also been considered. Under the No -Build Alternative, Park Place would remain unchanged and no new roadway improvements would be constructed. This alternative would not address the need for an alternative route parallel to Rosecrans Avenue to provide increased capacity and improved traffic circulation. A.3 Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(f) As noted above, Section 4(f) requires an analysis of potential project impacts to parks, recreational facilities, wildlife refuges, and historic properties that qualify as resources protected under Section 4(f). There are no publicly owned wildlife and waterfowl refuges within 0.5 -mile of the project site. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project A-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Appendix A Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(0 No -Use Determination The study area for National Register listed and eligible resources was defined as the Area of Potential Effects (APE) delineated in the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) (June 2017); Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) (July 2017); and Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) (July 2017). These documents determined there are no National Register listed or eligible cultural resources in the APE for the proposed project. Therefore, there are no National Register listed or eligible cultural resources that would trigger the requirements for protection under Section 4(f), and no further discussion of such resources required. The following is a list of privately- and publicly -owned recreational resources within 0.5 -mile of the project site. These resources include a range of recreational easements, parks, clubs, bicycle facilities, schools with recreational facilities, golf courses, sports fields, and a parkway that include recreational facilities. The locations of those resources are shown on Figure A-1, Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(f). A.3.1 Resources Not Subject to the Provisions of Section 4(f) A.3.1.1 Southern California Edison Easement The Southern California Edison (SCE) easement is a landscaped, 10 -acre corridor located along the eastern side of the Lakes at EI Segundo golf course, approximately one mile south of Interstate 105 (1-105) and approximately 1.1 miles west of Interstate 405 (1-405). Although the property is recognized as recreational open space in the EI Segundo General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element, it is under the ownership of SCE and is not a publicly -owned facility. Additionally, the easement is fenced and currently not accessible to the public. Thus, the property is not a Section 4(f) property; therefore, the provisions of Section 4(f) do not apply. A.3.1.2 Raytheon Recreational Facility Raytheon Company, a large company specializing in defense, aerospace, and civil technologies, operates an office campus in the City of EI Segundo, located at 2000 East EI Segundo Boulevard. As a benefit to its employees, Raytheon provides its employees with a recreational facility within its office campus. Raytheon's recreational facility is a 16 -acre, privately -owned recreational resource located along the northeasterly portion of the SCE easement, approximately one mile south of 1-105. Amenities include tennis and basketball courts, and baseball fields. Although the property is utilized for recreational purposes, it is under the private ownership of Raytheon. As such, the resource is not a publicly -owned facility and is only accessible to Raytheon employees. Thus, the property is not a Section 4(f) property; therefore, the provisions of Section 4(f) do not apply. A.3.1.3 Manhattan Country Club The Manhattan Country Club is located approximately 1. 15 miles south of the project site and 1.1 miles west of 1-405 at 1330 Parkview Avenue, Manhattan Beach. Amenities include a 6,000 - square -foot fitness facility; 18 tennis courts; paddle tennis, squash, and racquetball courts; and a 25 -meter outdoor swimming pool. In addition, the Manhattan Country Club provides dining at their Poolside Bar and Grill, Atrium and Terrace, The Bar, and The Wine Lounge. Although the property is utilized for recreational purposes, it is under the ownership of The Bay Club Company and is not a publicly -owned facility. The facility is open to members only. Thus, the property is not a Section 4(f) property; therefore, the provisions of Section 4(f) do not apply. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project A-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) � Y EI Segundo Boulevard ip O r a. tx M1 — I♦�tixll� i�t:l,"'f�it'� �:k+. 1 • Raytheon 'E•' u. ...... ', .', . ■ +� Recreational - �. a,� r =-�•' Facility, SAN EI Scgundn•.j�' IW 135th StreetIslchard Henry gal.,, cc 4>� j(.; 1 �� ', V• Innovation Rcademy o W 138th 5trest E.I lezef . 11 rry 5['Inc; lie -Witrr Y _ z ♦ m. 7, Rusec`rans Avenue — ;i ::i' —,. - _ •-dZl' � ,chi Mme'!' �' t- � �� . � - � ' 1f - - m,-Manhat lan ii , Country Club `- . J �1.1 !AI • _m�S. �... �r0 ® ` ' - - •� � ��. r fr -^ m_ .. i '� -"�� `,y Qy._•�y — Manh.ttan .r nn:- I: LI . _ � \I f .. INE- Yiliagc Field LEGEND a liraj - Boundary 0,5 Mile Buffer Class III Bicycle Path z _ _ - Marine Avenue O Veterans Parkway (Hermosa Valley Gree nbBIt).Project _ - — ilk Goll courses Community Facilifiesffiecreatione I Locations asnurces EValuated Relative to the Renuirements nt sectinn 4 Appendix A Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(0 No -Use Determination A.3.1.4 Class III Bicycle Facilities Based on the City of Manhattan Beach, Draft Manhattan Beach Mobility Plan (dated June 2014), there are several existing Class III bicycle facilities within a half mile of the project site: • Valley Drive from 15th Street to Oak Avenue, • Ardmore Avenue from 17th Street to Oak Avenue, and • Pacific Avenue from 5th Street to Rosecrans Avenue. According to the Manhattan Beach Mobility Plan, bike routes (Class III) are roadways recommended for bicycle use. Routes are designated with signs only (no on -street striping) and may not provide additional pavement width for bikes. Based on Figure 3, Existing Bicycle Network, of the City's Mobility Plan, the Class III bicycle facility along Valley Drive extends from Oak Avenue, approximately 1.2 miles in a southwest direction, until it terminates at 15th Street. Approximately 0.2 -mile of this facility is situated within project limits. The facility is a two-lane roadway, situated between a parkway and single-family residential, recreational, and commercial uses. The Class III bicycle facility along Ardmore Avenue extends from Oak Avenue, approximately 1.0 mile in a southwest direction, until it terminates at 17th Street. Approximately 0.2 -mile of this facility is situated within project limits. The facility is a two-lane roadway, situated between a parkway and single-family residential uses. Lastly, the Class III bicycle facility along Pacific Avenue extends from Rosecrans Avenue, approximately 1.4 miles in a southern direction, until it terminates at 5th Street. Approximately 0.1 -mile of this facility is situated within project limits. The facility is a two-lane roadway. Surrounding land uses include single-family and multi -family residential, institutional, and commercial uses. As noted above, the Class III bicycle facilities are identified within the City's Mobility Plan, and are considered transportation facilities. They are not identified or designated within the City's General Plan Community Resources Element as recreational facilities. Thus, the property is not a Section 4(f) property; therefore, the provisions of Section 4(f) do not apply. A.3.1.5 School Recreational Facilities There are several schools located within a half mile of the project site: • Richard Henry Dana Middle School, • Da Vinci Innovation Academy, Peter Burnett Elementary School, and Vistamar School. The Richard Henry Dana Middle School (Dana Middle School) is located approximately 0.4 -mile east of the project site at 5504 West 135th Street, in the City of Hawthorne. The school is operated by the Wiseburn Unified School District (WUSD). The campus includes a number of Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project A-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Appendix A Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(0 No -Use Determination recreational facilities that consist of turf/baseball fields and gymnasium. Based on communication with City of Hawthorne staff, no Joint Use Agreement exists between the City and WUSD for public use of the school's recreational facilities; as such, the recreational facilities are not open to the public.' Thus, the property is not a Section 4(f) property; therefore, the provisions of Section 4(f) do not apply. The Da Vinci Innovation Academy is located approximately 0.4 -mile east of the project site at 13500 Aviation Boulevard, in the City of Hawthorne. The school is a public Charter School and is operated by the WUSD. The school shares the Richard Henry Dana Middle School campus, which includes a number of recreational facilities that consist of turf/baseball fields and gymnasium. Based on communication with City of Hawthorne staff, no Joint Use Agreement exists between the City and WUSD for public use of the school's recreational facilities; as such, the recreational facilities are not open to the public.2 Thus, the property is not a Section 4(f) property; therefore, the provisions of Section 4(f) do not apply. The Peter Burnett Elementary School is located approximately 0.5 -mile east of the project site at 5403 138th Street, in the City of Hawthorne. The school is operated by the WUSD. The campus includes recreational facilities that consist of turf/sports fields. Based on communication with City of Hawthorne staff, no Joint Use Agreement exists between the City and WUSD for public use of the school's recreational facilities; as such, the recreational facilities are not open to the public.3 Thus, the property is not a Section 4(f) property; therefore, the provisions of Section 4(f) do not apply. The Vistamar School is a private high school located approximately 0.25 -mile east of the project site at 737 Hawaii Street, in the City of EI Segundo. Due to the private ownership of the school and lack of outdoor recreational facilities, the property is not a Section 4(f) property and the provisions of Section 4(f) do not apply. A.3.2 Resources Subject to the Provisions of Section 4(f) A.3.2.1 Lakes at EI Segundo The Lakes at EI Segundo is a 26.54 -acre nine -hole golf course and practice facility located approximately 0.25 -mile north of the project site boundary, within the City of EI Segundo at 400 South Sepulveda Boulevard. Although the golf course charges a green fee for usage, this user fee is generally related to the operation and maintenance of the facility, and thus it does not negate the property's status as a Section 4(f) property. This facility is owned by the City of EI Segundo, and is open to the public. Thus, it is considered a Section 4(f) property under the provisions Section 4(f). As shown in Figure A-1, the proposed project site is limited to areas south of Hughes Way. The proposed project's facilities and construction activities would not encroach into Lakes at EI Segundo facility. Thus, there would be no permanent incorporation or temporary occupancy of the golf course as a result of the proposed project. ' Written Correspondence, Vontray Norris, Community Services Manager, Recreation and Community Service Department, City of Hawthorne, January 18, 2018. 2 Written Correspondence, Vontray Norris, Community Services Manager, Recreation and Community Service Department, City of Hawthorne, January 18, 2018. 3 Ibid. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project A-5 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Appendix A Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(0 No -Use Determination In addition, the project would not result in any constructive use (i.e., "proximity" impacts), that would substantially impair the activities, features, and/or attributes that qualify this facility for protection under Section 4(f). This conclusion is based on the following: • Access: Access to the golf course is provided via Sepulveda Boulevard, which is approximately 0.4 -mile north of the project site. The project would not include any temporary or permanent improvements or activities that would have the capacity to alter or impede access to the golf course. Visual/Aesthetics: The proposed project would not include any features that would be tall enough to be visible from the golf course, or that would substantively alter views from the golf course given the distance to the project site. Along the southern boundary of the golf course (i.e., the area of the golf course closest to the project site), views towards the project site would generally be interrupted by the West Basin Municipal Water District facility located south of the golf course in addition to intervening vegetation and structures. Thus, the Build Alternatives would not result in adverse proximity effects to the Lakes at EI Segundo. • Water Quality: The project would not have the potential to adversely affect water quality at the golf course, since the golf course and the project site are segregated by urban development including the West Basin Municipal Water District facility. No storm water drainage or runoff from the project site would encroach or enter the Lakes at EI Segundo, and adverse proximity impacts would not occur under the Build Alternatives. • Air Quality: As noted in Section 2.2.5, Air Quality, of this EIR/EA, the project would not result in adverse effects on surrounding uses related to short-term construction or long- term operational pollutant emissions, upon adherence to air quality measures intended to reduce equipment emissions and fugitive dust. Thus, the project would not result in proximity effects related to air quality at the Lakes at EI Segundo. Noise: As described in Section 2.2.6, Noise, of this EIR/EA, the project would not result in adverse effects on surrounding uses related to short-term construction or long-term operational noise. Additionally, intervening vegetation, structures, and the distance between the golf course and project site (approximately 0.25 -mile) would serve as a buffer between golf course users and the project site. Thus, the project would not result in proximity effects related to noise at the Lakes at EI Segundo. Biological Environment: The Lakes at EI Segundo is routinely maintained, and on-site vegetation consists primarily of turf and ornamental species. Given the lack of natural habitat and level of human activity/disturbance on a daily basis, it is not anticipated that any sensitive natural communities or species exist. However, there would be no project construction within or immediately adjacent to the golf course, and no disturbance of any vegetation associated with the golf course would occur. In addition, as noted above, the project is not expected to result in adverse effects related to air quality or noise, that could otherwise result in proximity effects to biological resources at the facility. The property is a Section 4(f) property, but no "use" will occur. Therefore, the provisions of Section 4(f) do not apply. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project A-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Appendix A Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(0 No -Use Determination A.3.2.2 Marriott Municipal Golf Course The Marriott Municipal Golf Course is a 19.8 -acre nine -hole golf course and putting green located approximately 0.2 -mile south of the project site boundary, within the City of Manhattan Beach at 1400 Parkview Avenue. Although the golf course charges a green fee for usage, this user fee is generally related to the operation and maintenance of the facility, and thus it does not negate the property's status as a Section 4(f) property. This facility is owned by the City of Manhattan Beach, and is open to the public. Thus, it is considered a Section 4(f) property under the provisions Section 4(f). As shown in Figure A-1, the proposed project site is limited to areas north of Rosecrans Avenue. The proposed project's facilities and construction activities would not encroach into Marriott Municipal Golf Course. Thus, there would be no permanent incorporation or temporary occupancy of the golf course as a result of the proposed project. In addition, the project would not result in any constructive use (i.e., "proximity" impacts), that would substantially impair the activities, features, and/or attributes that qualify this facility for protection under Section 4(f). This conclusion is based on the following: • Access: Access to the golf course is provided via Parkview Avenue, which is approximately 0.15 -mile south of the project site boundary. The project would not include any temporary or permanent improvements or activities that would have the capacity to alter or impede access to the golf course. Visual/Aesthetics: The proposed project would not include any features that would be tall enough to be visible from the golf course, or that would substantively alter views from the golf course given the distance to the project site. Along the northern boundary of the golf course (i.e., the area of the golf course closest to the project site), views towards the project site would generally be interrupted by mature trees along Parkview Avenue, in addition to intervening vegetation and structures. Thus, the Build Alternatives would not result in adverse proximity effects to the Marriott Municipal Golf Course. • Water Quality: The project would not have the potential to adversely affect water quality at the golf course, since the golf course and the project site are segregated by urban development. No storm water drainage or runoff from the project site would encroach or enter the Marriott Municipal Golf Course, and adverse proximity impacts would not occur under the Build Alternatives. • Air Quality: As noted in Section 2.2.5, Air Quality, of this EIR/EA, the project would not result in adverse effects on surrounding uses related to short-term construction or long- term operational pollutant emissions, upon adherence to air quality measures intended to reduce equipment emissions and fugitive dust. Thus, the project would not result in proximity effects related to air quality at the Marriott Municipal Golf Course. Noise: As described in Section 2.2.6, Noise, of this EIR/EA, the project would not result in adverse effects on surrounding uses related to short-term construction or long-term operational noise. Additionally, mature trees and intervening vegetation, structures, and the distance between the golf course and project site (approximately 0.2 -mile) would serve as a buffer between golf course users and the project site. Thus, the project would not result in proximity effects related to noise at the Marriott Municipal Golf Course. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project A-7 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Appendix A Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(0 No -Use Determination Biological Environment: The Marriott Municipal Golf Course is routinely maintained, and on-site vegetation consists primarily of turf and ornamental species. Given the lack of natural habitat and level of human activity/disturbance on a daily basis, it is not anticipated that any sensitive natural communities or species exist. However, there would be no project construction within or immediately adjacent to the golf course, and no disturbance of any vegetation associated with the golf course would occur. In addition, as noted above, the project is not expected to result in adverse effects related to air quality or noise, that could otherwise result in proximity effects to biological resources at the facility. The property is a Section 4(f) property, but no "use" will occur. Therefore, the provisions of Section 4(f) do not apply. A.3.2.3 Manhattan Village Field The Manhattan Village Field is a 2.7 -acre park located approximately 0.25 -mile south of the project boundary at 1300 Parkview Avenue, within the City of Manhattan Beach. Amenities include a soccer field, play area, picnic facilities, and restrooms. This facility is owned by the City of Manhattan Beach, and is open to the public. Thus, it is considered a Section 4(f) property under the provisions Section 4(f). As shown in Figure A-1, the proposed project site is limited to areas north of Rosecrans Avenue. The proposed project's facilities and construction activities would not encroach into the Manhattan Village Field. Thus, there would be no permanent incorporation or temporary occupancy of the facility as a result of the proposed project. In addition, the project would not result in any constructive use (i.e., "proximity" impacts), that would substantially impair the activities, features, and/or attributes that qualify this facility for protection under Section 4(f). This conclusion is based on the following: • Access: Access to the facility is provided via Parkview Avenue, which is approximately 0.15 -mile south of the project site. The project would not include any temporary or permanent improvements or activities that would have the capacity to alter or impede access to the field. Visual/Aesthetics: The proposed project would not include any features that would be tall enough to be visible from the field, or that would substantively alter views from the field. Along the northern boundary of the field facility (i.e., the area of the park closest to the project site) exists mature trees, a parking lot, and structures that would prevent any views of field users towards the project site. Thus, the Build Alternatives would not result in adverse proximity effects to the Manhattan Village Field. Water Quality: The project would not have the potential to adversely affect water quality at the field, since the field and the project site are segregated by urban development. No storm water drainage or runoff from the project site would encroach or enter the Manhattan Village Field, and adverse proximity impacts would not occur under the Build Alternatives. • Air Quality: As noted in Section 2.2.5, Air Quality, of EIR/EA, the project would not result in adverse effects on surrounding uses related to short-term construction or long- term operational pollutant emissions, upon adherence to standardized air quality Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project A-8 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Appendix A Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(0 No -Use Determination measures intended to reduce equipment emissions and fugitive dust. Thus, the project would not result in proximity effects related to air quality on the Manhattan Village Field. Noise: As described in Section 2.2.6, Noise, of this EIR/EA, the project would not result in adverse effects on surrounding uses related to short-term construction or long-term operational noise. Additionally, as noted above, along the northern boundary of the field facility (i.e., the area of the field closest to the project site) exists mature trees, a parking lot, and structures. This vegetation, structures and distance from the project site would serve as a buffer between field users and the project site. Thus, the project would not result in proximity effects related to noise on the Manhattan Village Field. Biological Environment: The Manhattan Village Field is routinely maintained, and on- site vegetation consists primarily of turf and ornamental species. Given the lack of natural habitat and level of human activity/disturbance on a daily basis, it is not anticipated that any sensitive natural communities or species exist. However, there would be no project construction within or immediately adjacent to the field, and no disturbance of any vegetation associated with the field would occur. In addition, as noted above, the project is not expected to result in adverse effects related to air quality or noise, that could otherwise result in proximity effects to biological resources at the facility. The property is a Section 4(f) property, but no "use" will occur. Therefore, the provisions of Section 4(f) do not apply. A.3.2.4 Veterans Parkway (Hermosa Valley Greenbelt) Veterans Parkway is a 1.7 miles trail that runs between Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue from Sepulveda Boulevard to 151" Street, in a northeast to southwest direction. The parkway is owned and maintained by the City of Manhattan Beach. The facility is unpaved, and bordered with ornamental landscaping and mature trees. As a publicly -owned facility that is open to the public for recreational purposes, it is considered a Section 4(f) property under the provisions Section 4(f). As shown in Figure A-1, the proposed project site is limited to areas north of Rosecrans Avenue. The proposed project's facilities and construction activities would not encroach into the Veterans Parkway. Thus, there would be no permanent incorporation or temporary occupancy of the facility as a result of the proposed project. In addition, the project would not result in any constructive use (i.e., "proximity" impacts), that would substantially impair the activities, features, and/or attributes that qualify this facility for protection under Section 4(f). This conclusion is based on the following: • Access: Access to the facility is provided throughout the parkway, however, the northern most access point is located along Sepulveda Boulevard, approximately 0.25 - mile southwest of the project site. The project would not include any temporary or permanent improvements or activities that would have the capacity to alter or impede access to the parkway. • Visual/Aesthetics: The proposed project would not include any features that would be tall enough to be visible from the parkway, or that would substantively alter views from the parkway. Along the northern boundary of the parkway facility (i.e., the area of the park closest to the project site) exists mature trees, a parking lot, and structures that Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project A-9 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Appendix A Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(0 No -Use Determination would prevent any views of field users towards the project site. Thus, the Build Alternatives would not result in adverse proximity effects to the Manhattan Village Field. • Water Quality: The project would not have the potential to adversely affect water quality at the field, since the field and the project site are segregated by urban development. No storm water drainage or runoff from the project site would encroach or enter the Manhattan Village Field, and adverse proximity impacts would not occur under the Build Alternatives. • Air Quality: As noted in Section 2.2.5, Air Quality, of EIR/EA, the project would not result in adverse effects on surrounding uses related to short-term construction or long- term operational pollutant emissions, upon adherence to standardized air quality measures intended to reduce equipment emissions and fugitive dust. Thus, the project would not result in proximity effects related to air quality on the Manhattan Village Field. Noise: As described in Section 2.2.6, Noise, of this EIR/EA, the project would not result in adverse effects on surrounding uses related to short-term construction or long-term operational noise. Additionally, as noted above, along the northern boundary of the field facility (i.e., the area of the parkway closest to the project site) exists Sepulveda Boulevard, vegetation, and structures. The roadway, vegetation, structures, and distance from the project site would serve as a buffer between parkway users and the project site. Thus, the project would not result in proximity effects related to noise on the Veterans Parkway. Biological Environment: On-site vegetation consists primarily of ornamental landscaping and mature trees. Given the lack of natural habitat and level of human activity/disturbance on a daily basis, it is not anticipated that any sensitive natural communities or species exist. However, there would be no project construction within or immediately adjacent to the parkway, and no disturbance of any vegetation associated with the parkway would occur. In addition, as noted above, the project is not expected to result in adverse effects related to air quality or noise, that could otherwise result in proximity effects to biological resources at the facility. The property is a Section 4(f) property, but no "use" will occur. Therefore, the provisions of Section 4(f) do not apply. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project A-10 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) Appendix B Title VI Policy Statement STATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA STATI I RANSPORTATION AGM Y DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR P.O. BOX 942873, MS -49 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 PHONE (916) 654-6130 FAX (916) 653-5776 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.go,, April 2018 NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY STATEMENT MMUND G. BROWN Jr. Govemor Making Conservation a California Way of Life. The California Department of Transportation, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ensures "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination tinder any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. " Related federal statutes and state law further those protections to include sex, disability, religion, sexual orientation, and age. For information or guidance on how to file a complaint, please visit the following web page: http:..'.;'www.dot.ca.gov/hqibep/title—vi/t6—violated.htm. To obtain this information in an alternate format such as Braille or in a language other than English, please contact the California Department of Transportation, Office of Business and Economic Opportunity, 1823 14th Street, MS -79, Sacramento, CA 95811. Telephone (916) 324-8379, TTY 711, email Title.VI@dot.ca.gov. or visit the website www.dot.ca.gov. LAURIE BERMAN Director "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" This page intentionally left blank. Appendix C Notice of Preparation and Comments NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO: Agencies and Interested Parties DATE: October 28, 2016 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project PROPONENT: City of EI Segundo LEAD AGENCY: City of EI Segundo Paul Samaras, Principal Planner Phone (310) 524-2380, Email: psamaras@elsegundo.org The City of EI Segundo (City) is commencing preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project and has released this Notice of Preparation (NOP) per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City wants to know your views and your specific concerns related to the potential environmental effects of the project. Information gathered during the NOP comment period will be used to shape and focus future analysis of environmental impacts. If you are a public agency, the City is interested in the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities. As a responsible or trustee agency, your agency may need to use the DEIR prepared by the City when considering issuance of a permit or other approval for the project. NOP COMMENT PERIOD: The City invites you to submit written comments describing your specific environmental concerns, and if representing a public agency, please identify your specific areas of statutory responsibility. Written comments are desired at the earliest possible date, but due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent no later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. The NOP public comment period begins on October 28, 2016 and ends on December 9, 2016. Please send your written comments to the City staff contact identified above, and please include your name, address, and contact information in your correspondence. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: The project description, location, and potential environmental effects are described herein. Copies of the NOP have been transmitted to the California State Clearinghouse and to applicable responsible and trustee agencies. Copies of this NOP, the Initial Study, and future environmental documents prepared in conjunction with the project will be available for public review on the City's website at www.elsegundo.org, and at the following locations. You will be notified when the DEIR is available for public review. • City of EI Segundo, 350 Main Street, EI Segundo, CA 90245 • City of EI Segundo Public Library, 111 West Mariposa Avenue, EI Segundo, CA 90245 PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project (project) is located in the southeastern portion of the City of EI Segundo, California. The City of EI Segundo is located in Los Angeles County, approximately 18 miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles. The project site is generally located east of Sepulveda Boulevard, north of Rosecrans Avenue, west of Douglas Street, and south of South Hughes Way. Generally, the project site is situated between the existing intersections of Park Place/Allied Way and Park Place/Nash Street. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City proposes to extend Park Place from Allied Way to Nash Street with a railroad grade separation(s) in order to improve traffic and circulation in the project area. Park Place currently exists in two segments with a roughly quarter mile gap across an undeveloped area which consists of Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad spurs. The project would implement a gap closure to develop Park Place as an alternate east -west route between Sepulveda Boulevard and Douglas Street to relieve congestion along portions of Rosecrans Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard, as well as to improve local traffic circulation and access to and from the 1-105 freeway and 1-405 freeway. Four build alternatives have been identified as potential options for project implementation. These four alternatives are identified as Alternative 1A, Alternative 1 C, Alternative 3A, and Alternative 3B. Alternatives 1A and 1 C would involve relocation of the existing BNSF railroad tracks to the north to be adjacent to the existing UPRR tracks. This consolidation of railroad alignments would allow for a single grade separation as part of the project. Alternatives 1A and 1C would include various roadway and underpass configurations for Park Place, which would cross beneath the UPRR and BNSF railroads. The railroad bridge width would accommodate two tracks to provide access for the BNSF and UPRR lead tracks between the Chevron refinery and railroad storage yards. Each alternative would also maintain connectivity to Allied Way. Alternatives 3A and 3B would generally be similar to Alternatives 1A and 1 C, but would leave the UPRR and BNSF railroad alignments in their existing locations. Alternative 3A would include two grade separations to allow for the extension of Park Place (one at each railroad alignment). Alternative 3B would include one grade separation at the UPRR railroad, and an at -grade crossing at the BNSF railroad. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Through preparation of an Initial Study, the City has determined that the project could result in impacts relating to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, transportation/traffic, tribal cultural resources, and mandatory findings of significance. A DEIR will be prepared to evaluate the significance of these potential impacts. PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING: To provide for an additional opportunity for input, the City will be conducting a Scoping Meeting. The Scoping Meeting will include a brief overview of the proposed project and discussion of potential environmental issues. The meeting will be held as part of a regularly - scheduled City of EI Segundo Planning Commission Meeting: Date: December 8, 2016 Time: 5:30 PM Location: City of EI Segundo City Council Chambers, 350 Main Street, EI Segundo, CA 90245 Paul Samaras City of EI Segundo Principal Planner STATE OF CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COK8KA|SS|{]N Qu 1560Harbor Blnu,Suite 1nu West Sacramento, CA 95691 Phone Fax (91q373 -s471 ��wm n*on�nu�vx�.o*v Website: http:tAvww.nahc.ca.gov Twitter: @CA_NAHC November 8, 2018 Paul Samaras, Principal Planner City ofBSegundo sent via e-mail: 3bDMain Street paamorao@elseQundoorO E/Segundo, OAQD245 RE: SCH# 2016101075; Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project, Notice of Preparation for Draft Environmental Impact Report, Los Angeles County, California Dear Mr. Samaras: The Native American Heritage Commission has received the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the project referenced above. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code section 21084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historicalresource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code § 21084.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, § 15OS4.5(b)(OEQAGuidelines Section 15OG4.5(b)). |fthere iusubstantial evidence, inlight ofthe whole record before alead ogenuy, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (EIR) shall be prepared. (Pub.Resources Code §21O8O(d);Cal. Code Rego..tit. 14.015OG4oubd.(a)(1)(DE[l4Guidelines §15UG4(a)(1)). |norder Vo determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources with the area of project effect (APE). ��was amended significantly In 2014. Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) (AB 52) amended CEQA 0ocreate meevmrmteooteamrvmf cultural resources, "tribal cultural resources" (PubResources Code &21U74) and provides that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have asignificant effect on the environment (Pub. Resources Code § 21084.2). Please reference California Natural Resources Agency (2016) "Final Text for tribal cultural resources update to Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form," [IttP:/+e��roes.ca.gov/npg�r,faca/ab52/C,Ieon-fiDAl-AB-52-APpfG-text-S,ub/nbxed.p-�L Public agencies shall, when feasible, axoiddomegingoff»ctotoonytribu|cu8uns|vemuume.(Pub.ResououemOode§21O84.3(m)). AB 52applies tmany project for which mnotice mfpreparation mrmnotice nfnegative declaration wrmitigated negative declaration Iafiled wmorafter July 1,2015' |fyour project involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space, on or after March 1, 2005, it may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes uf2OO4)(SB 18). Both SB 18 and ABS2have tribal consultation requirements. |fyour project ioalso subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 1OGofthe National Historic Preservation Act of1SG8(154U.S.O.3UD101.36O.F.R. §BOOetaeq.)may also apply. The NAHCrecommends lead agencies consult with all California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. Below ioabrief summary ofportions ofA852and SB 18 as well as the NAHC's recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments. Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB1Gaswell mwcompliance with any other applicable laws. AB 52 AB52has added tuOEOAthe additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements: t Fourteen Dav Period toProvide Notice of Completion of an to Undertake aPro iect: Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for eproject is complete or of a decision by a public agency toundertake e project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, to be accomplished by at least one written notice that includes: a. Abrief description cdthe project. b' The lead agency contact information. c' Notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation. (Pub.Resources Code Q d. A "California Native American tribe" is defined as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of Statutes of 2004 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code § 21073). 2. Begin Consultation Within 30 Days of Receivinq a Tribe's Request for Consultation and Before Releasinq a Neaative Declaration. Mitigated Neqative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report: A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (e)) and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report. (Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.1(b)). a. For purposes of AB 52, "consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code § 65352.4 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (b)). 3. Mandatory Topics of Consultation If Reauested by a Tribe: The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation: a. Alternatives to the project. b. Recommended mitigation measures. c. Significant effects. (Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.2 (a)). 4. Discretionary Topics of Consultation: The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation: a. Type of environmental review necessary. b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources. c. Significance of the project's impacts on tribal cultural resources. d. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. (Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.2 (a)). 5. Confidentialitv of Information Submitted by a Tribe Durinq the Environmental Review Process: With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code sections 6254 (r) and 6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public. (Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (c)(1)). 6. Discussion of Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources in the Environmental Document: If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency's environmental document shall discuss both of the following: a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (b)). 7. Conclusion of Consultation: Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs: a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. (Pub. Resources Code § 21080.3.2 (b)). 8. Recommendinq Mitiqation Measures Aareed Upon in Consultation in the Environmental Document: Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. (Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (a)). 9. Reauired Consideration of Feasible Mitiqation: If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21084.3 (b). (Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (e)). 10. Examples of Mitiqation Measures That, If Feasible, Mav Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Siqnificant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources: 2 a. Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to: 1. Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context. H. Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria. b. Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following: I. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. II. Protecting the traditional use of the resource. Ill. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource. c. Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. d. Protecting the resource. (Pub. Resource Code § 21084.3 (b)). e. Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a nonfederally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed. (Civ. Code § 815.3 (c)). f. Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated. (Pub. Resources Code § 5097.991). 11. Prereauisites for Certifvinq an Environmental Impact Report or Adootinq a Mitigated_ Negative Declaration or Neqative Declaration with a Siqnificant Impact on an Identified Tribal Cultural Resource: An environmental impact report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs: a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2. b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process. c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days. (Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3 (d)). This process should be documented in the Cultural Resources section of your environmental document. The NAHC's PowerPoint presentation titled, "Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices" may be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-contenVuploads/2015/10/AB52TribalConsultation_Ca[EPAPDF.pdf SB 18 SB 18 applies to local governments and requires local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. (Gov. Code § 65352.3). Local governments should consult the Governor's Office of Planning and Research's "Tribal Consultation Guidelines," which can be found online at: https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/09_14_05_Updated_Guidelines_922.pdf Some of SB 18's provisions include: 1. Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a "Tribal Consultation List." If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe. (Gov. Code § 65352.3 (a)(2)). 2. No Statutory Time Limit on SB 18 Tribal Consultation. There is no statutory time limit on SB 18 tribal consultation. 3. Confidentialitv: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to Gov. Code section 65040.2, the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 that are within the city's or county's jurisdiction. (Gov. Code § 65352.3 (b)). 4. Conclusion of SB 18 Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which: a. The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or b. Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation. (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor's Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18). Agencies should be aware that neither AB 52 nor SB 18 precludes agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52 and SB 18. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Contact Lists and "Sacred Lands File" searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/ NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments To adequately assess the existence and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance, preservation in place, or barring both, mitigation of project -related impacts to tribal cultural resources, the NAHC recommends the following actions: 1. Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center (http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=1068) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine: a. If part or all of the APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. b. If any known cultural resources have been already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. c. If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. d. If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. 2. If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. a. The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure. b. The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center. 3. Contact the NAHC for: a. A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project's APE. b. A Native American Tribal Consultation List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures. 4. Remember that the lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence. a. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, section 15064.5(f) (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(f)). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground -disturbing activities. b. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans. c. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code section 7050.5, Public Resources Code section 5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, section 15064.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, subds. (d) and (e)) address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. Please contact me if you need any additional information at gayle.totton@nahc.ca.gov. Sincerely, 4)_ ' y otton, M.A., PhD. Associate Governmental Program Analyst cc: State Clearinghouse 4 / South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov November 9, 2016 psamarasa,elsesundo.ort Paul Samaras, Principal Planner City of El Segundo 350 Main St., El Segundo, CA 90245 Notice of Preparation of a CEQA Document for the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Proiect The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above- mentioned document. The SCAQMD staff's comments are recommendations regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the proposed project that should be included in the Draft EIR. Please send the SCAQMD a copy of the Draft EIR upon its completion. Note that copies of the Draft EIR that are submitted to the State Clearinghouse are not forwarded to the SCAQMD. Please forward a copy of the Draft EIR directly to SCAQMD at the address in our letterhead. In addition, please send with the Draft EIR all appendices or technical documents related to the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses and electronic versions of all air quality modeling and health risk assessment files. These include original emission calculation spreadsheets and modeling files not Adobe PDF files). Without all files and supporting air quality documentation, the SCAQMD will be unable to complete its review of the air quality analysis in a timely manner. Any delays in providing all supporting air quality documentation will require additional time for review beyond the end of the comment period. Air Oualitv Analvsis The SCAQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. The SCAQMD recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are available from the SCAQMD's Subscription Services Department by calling (909) 396-3720. More recent guidance developed since this Handbook was published is also available on SCAQMD's website here: httr)://www.acimd.2ov/home/regulations/cepa/air-civality-analvsis-handbook/cecia-air- auality-handbook-(1993). SCAQMD staff also recommends that the Lead Agency use the CalEEMod land use emissions software. This software has recently been updated to incorporate up-to-date state and locally approved emission factors and methodologies for estimating pollutant emissions from typical land use development. CalEEMod is the only software model maintained by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and replaces the now outdated URBEMIS. This model is available free of charge at: www.caleemod.com. The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction (including demolition, if any) and operations should be calculated. Construction -related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to, emissions from the use of heavy-duty equipment from grading, earth-loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, off-road mobile sources (e.g., heavy-duty construction equipment) and on -road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips). Operation -related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off-road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips should be included in the analysis. The SCAQMD has also developed both regional and localized significance thresholds. The SCAQMD staff requests that the lead agency quantify criteria pollutant emissions and compare the results to the recommended regional significance thresholds found here: httn://www.acimd.2ov/docs/default-source/cecia/handbook/scacimd-air-ci_uality-significance-thresholds.Ddf. In addition to analyzing regional air quality impacts, the SCAQMD staff recommends calculating localized air quality impacts and comparing the results to localized significance thresholds (LSTs). LSTs can be used in addition to the recommended regional significance thresholds as a second indication of air quality impacts when preparing a Draft EIR document. Therefore, when preparing the air quality analysis for the proposed project, it is recommended that the lead agency perform a localized analysis by either using the LSTs developed by the SCAQMD or performing dispersion modeling as necessary. Guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis can be found at: httD://www.acimd.2ov/home/re2-ulations/cea_a/air-Quality-analysis- handbook/localized-significance-thresholds. Paul Samaras -2- November 9, 2016 In the event that the proposed project generates or attracts vehicular trips, especially heavy-duty diesel -fueled vehicles, it is recommended that the lead agency perform a mobile source health risk assessment. Guidance for performing a mobile source health risk assessment ("Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis") can be found at: httr)://www.acimd.aov/home/regulations/ceaa/air-civality-analysis- handbook/mobile-source-toxics-analvsis. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. In addition, guidance on siting incompatible land uses (such as placing homes near freeways) can be found in the California Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook.• A Community Perspective, which can be found at the following intemet address: httn://www.arb.ca.2ov/ch/handbook.t)df CARB's Land Use Handbook is a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land use decision-making process. Finally, should the proposed project include equipment that generates or controls air contaminants, a permit may be required and the SCAQMD should be listed as a responsible agency and consulted. The assumptions in the submitted Draft EIR would also be the basis for permit conditions and limits. Permit questions can be directed to the SCAQMD Permit Services staff at (909) 396-3385, who can provide further assistance. Mitigation Measures In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate these impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 (a)(1)(D), any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be discussed. Mitigation Measure resources are available on the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook website: httn://www.acimd.2ov/home/regulations/ceaa/air-civality-analvsis-handbook Data Sources SCAQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the SCAQMD's Public Information Center at (909) 396-2039. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available via the SCAQMD's webpage (httD://www.acimd.Qov). The SCAQMD staff is available to work with the lead agency to ensure that project emissions are accurately evaluated and mitigated where feasible. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Jack Cheng, Air Quality Specialist by e-mail at ichengna,agmd.gov or by phone at (909) 396-2448. Sincerely, Palo wftii Jillian Wong, Ph.D. Planning and Rules Manager Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources JC:JW LAC 161101-06 Control Number STATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7 -OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 100 S. MAIN STREET, MS 16 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 PHONE (213) 897-9140 FAX (213) 897-1337 www.dot.ca.gov December 2, 2016 Mr. Paul Samaras City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Dear Mr. Samaras: EDMUND G. BROWN Jr.. Govemor Serious drought. Help save ivater! RE: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project EIR SCH # 2016101075 Vic. LA -01, LA -105, LA -405 GTS # LA -2016 -00264 -AL -NOP Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project. The City proposes to extend Park Place from Allied Way to Nash Street with a railroad grade separation(s) in order to improve traffic and circulation in the project area. The project will improve local traffic circulation and congestion and access to and from the I-105 freeway and I-405 freeway. The project is anticipated to have construction and operation vehicle trips. This may include the use of oversized vehicles. These vehicles may travel at lower speeds than other traffic, and because of their size, intrude into adjacent travel lanes. To assist in evaluating the impacts of this project on State Transportation facilities, a traffic study should be prepared to analyze the following information: 1. Construction/truck/operation traffic impacts on access points to I-405, I-105, and SR -01 (Sepulveda Blvd.) and all significantly impacted streets, crossroads and controlling intersections, as well as an analysis of existing conditions and construction periods. 2. Off -ramp queuing analysis including but not limit to I-405 NB/SB to El Segundo Blvd. and Rosecrans Ave. 3. If truck traffic is expected to cause delays on the State facility, please forward a truck/traffic construction management plan to Caltrans for review. 4. Traffic volume counts that include anticipated AM and PM peak -hour volumes. 5. Level of service (LOS) before and during the construction. 6. A brief construction/operation traffic discussion showing ingress/egress, turning movements, and a directional flow for construction vehicle trips. 7. Discussion of mitigation measures appropriate to alleviate anticipated construction/truck/operation traffic impacts. "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Mr. Paul Samaras December 2, 2016 Page 2 We look forward to reviewing the traffic study and expect to receive a copy from the State Clearinghouse when the DEIR is completed. If you would like to expedite the review process or receive early feedback from Caltrans, please feel free to send a copy of the DEIR directly to our office. Caltrans is committed to working with the City in an effort to alleviate traffic congestion on State transportation facilities. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Alan Lin the project coordinator at (213) 897-8391 and refer to GTS # LA -2016 -00264 -AL -NOP. Sincerely, DIANNA WATSON IGR/CEQA Branch Chief cc: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" December 8, 2016 Mr. Greg Carpenter City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 R.K. (Rod) Spackman Manager -Policy, Government & Public Affairs Chevron Products Company El Segundo Refinery 324 W. El Segundo Boulevard El Segundo, CA 90245 Tel 310 615 5281 Fax 310 615 5520 rspackman i chevron.corn RE: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project NOP of DEIR Dear Mr. Carpenter: We appreciate the El Segundo Planning Staff (Paul Samaras) contacting us regarding the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Park Place Extension/Grade Separation project dated October 28, 2016. This project has been a long time in the development and, as a potentially impacted party, we are very concerned about how the evaluation and alternative selection process within the EIR proceeds. In reviewing the presentation by the City's contractor, we would like to provide the following initial comments which highlight areas that we believe need thorough review. As I indicated above, it is critical to the Chevron El Segundo Refinery's daily operations that the railroad (RR) system, oil pipeline movements and other utilities that run through the proposed Park Place extension to our facility are maintained at or above current service levels. Preserving safe, uninterrupted operations to and from the refinery is paramount to ensure there are no unintended or unforeseen potential impacts to our refinery which, as you know, supplies over 20% of all motor fuel in Sothern California, as well as nearly half of the jet fuel at LAX. Critical aspects (or issues) regarding our operations that need to be evaluated include: ® Chevron cannot support any alternative or option that would result in the creation of an additional at -grade crossing. We believe any such operation is inherently unsafe in this area and creates potential public access to our rail car stag ing/transfer operations. Also, any selected alternative should not create additional risks or hazards to the public, the RR crews or our contract switch crews. Any alternative must ensure that there is no disruption of either serving carrier's (BNSF & UPRR) ability to spot or pull rail cars from their (respective) "Joint Industry Tracks" that may be due to consolidation of the lines and, which could create a track conflict during concurrent operations. Chevron needs to be able to receive, stage and ship the same number of rail cars that we are currently able to ship on a daily basis during our peak load days. Any potential alternative needs to recognize that our facility, at a minimum, needs to maintain the current rail car storaae caoacitv available on both the BNSF & UPRR Joint Industry Tracks. This must be actual storage capacity, in cars, and not linear feet of track, which depending on track separation, curves as well as the location of switches, can impact the number of cars you are physically able to store on a given section. Also, receiving or staging tracks need to be straight not curved where the cars are coupled or hooked up to for movement. (Our total spots currently are: 60 UPRR, 85 BNSF---40 on UPRR and 60 on BNSF for inbound railcars, and 20 cars on UPRR and 25 cars on BNSF for outbound). If feasible, Chevron would like to see the consideration of an alternative that would include our ability to pursue increased rail car stacking capacity to; 1) enhance our current operations; 2) maintain a secure area, fenced in (within reason) and not accessible to public traffic. In any potential line reconfiguration it is important that the transfer tracks be accessible along one side by vehicles so we can perform inbound and outbound car inspections, track maintenance and weed control. Finally, when looking at any redesign, there needs to be a recognition that we do not want to create a situation where, during normal operations, either our switch crew or the RR switch crews could activate the signal at Sepulveda Blvd when spotting or pulling cars on the Joint Industry Tracks. Alternatives 1A & 1 C seem to incorporate some portion of these critical elements but the day-to- day operational details need to be reviewed with the railroads and our rail team very closely as you work through the formal EIR process. By doing so, we should be able to avoid any potential impacts on our business related to storage capabilities or service reliability which we otherwise could not support. Alternative 3B --Options I & 2-- require an at -grade rail crossing which for the above reasons we believe are simply unreasonable and unworkable. Over the years, we have discussed with staff our concerns, so hopefully these issues will not come as a surprise with regard to our position on any potential alternatives. We feel it is extremely important to have the key stakeholders (our rail team, the UPPR and BNSF) meet with your staff and third -party contractor to ensure that the above issues are well reviewed in the EIR and addresses our operational needs and expectations. As we have said consistently in the past, consolidating the tracks on the north UPPR side or south on the BNSF side is acceptable if the critical operational elements are met. In addition, we noticed the document stated that oil pipelines were to be rerouted. We want to make sure we look at/understand any changes to the proposed routing and are consulted regarding any reroutes to ensure there are no potential impacts to refinery operations or raw materials supplies during any construction activities that could disrupt our 24/7 operations.. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns--- thanks in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, R. K. (Rod) Spackman Manager — Policy, Government & Public Affairs Cc: Sam Lee, Director, Planning and Building Safety Paul Samaras, Principal Planner Federal Realty • INVESTMENT TRUST FOUNDATIONS OF OPPORTUNITY 056 Santana Row, Suite 1005 San Jose, CA 95128 PH: 408.551.4600 FX: 408.551.4616 December 9, 2016 VIA EMAIL City of EI Segundo 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 Attn: Paul Samaras, Principal Planner Re: Comments to Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project (the "Initial Study") Dear Mr. Samaras: Federal Realty Investment Trust, through its affiliates PES Partners, LLC and Street Retail, Inc., manages and owns the Plaza EI Segundo (as the majority partner) and The Point (100% fee) shopping centers, respectively, at the intersection of Sepulveda and Rosecrans in EI Segundo, CA. In all four scenarios in the Initial Study, the northern portion of the Park Place Extension terminates into Park Place and Allied Way, effectively inside Plaza EI Segundo. While we are pleased to support the City's efforts, we remain concerned about possible impacts to existing ingress and egress to/from both streets. We request that the City pay particular attention to ensuring that the existing access points be preserved for the convenience of our customers. Alternative 1C also shows a future "Southern Leg" of the labeled "Underpass Structure", to connect the proposed traffic circle to Village Drive. This scenario, while attractive in many respects, would require a complicated series of land swaps and coordination among many parties, and it could be difficult to implement. We request that we be included directly in future discussions, particularly where The Point and Plaza EI Segundo are so potentially impacted. Please call me at 408-551-4600 with any questions. Thank you for your efforts. Sincerely, FEDERAL REALTY INVESTMENT TRUST Michael Strahs Director, Development 17140 S. Avalon Blvd. Suite 210 Carson, CA 90746 310.217.2411 www.westbasin.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS Carol W. Kwan President Harold C. Williams MSCE, P.E., DTM Vice President Scott Houston Treasurer Donald L. Dear Secretary Gloria D. Gray Past President COMMITTED TO Water Reliability Water Quality Sound Financial and Resource Management Customer Service Environmental Stewardship December 9, 2016 City of EI Segundo 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 Attention: Paul Samaras, Principle Planner Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Dear Mr. Samaras, Thank you for providing a Notice of Preparation for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project. West Basin Municipal Water District (West Basin) owns and maintains a 42 - inch diameter transmission pipeline located in the proposed Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project area. The existing 42 -inch diameter pipelines continuously supplies recycled water from West Basin's Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facility to refineries, commercial facilities, and municipalities in the southern region of the South Bay. Therefore, the existing 42 -inch diameter transmission pipeline and appurtenances need to be protected in-place, allowed to maintain continuous operation, and remain accessible for maintenance for continuous operation. Any proposed modifications to West Basin's facilities in the subject project area require West Basin's approval. As part of the approval process, the City of El Segundo will need to submit comprehensive planning and engineering design documents for the subject project for review to ensure West Basin's facilities are protected and accessible in accordance with West Basin's requirements to maintain continuous operation. West Basin also request participation in construction effort to ensure West Basin facilities are protected and accessible in accordance with West Basin's requirements. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (310) 660-6223 or EricO(a.westbasin.orQ Sincerely, Eric Owens, P.E. Technical Resources Department Manager West Basin Municipal Water District CC: Christiana Daisy, WBMWD Justin Pickard, WBMWD Uzi Daniel, WBMWD Frank Fuchs, WBWMD Rajen Budhia, WBMWD STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 320 WEST 4TH STREET, SUITE 500 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 December 14, 2016 City of EI Segundo Attn: Paul Samaras Principal Planner 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor Re: SCH 2016101075 - Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Dear Mr. Samaras: The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has jurisdiction over the safety of highway -rail crossings (crossings) in California. The California Public Utilities Code requires Commission approval for the construction or alteration of crossings and grants the Commission exclusive power on the design, alteration, and closure of crossings. The Commission's Rail Crossings Engineering Branch (RCEB) is in receipt of the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation. The City of EI Segundo (City) is the lead agency. According to the DEIR, the City proposes to extend Park Place from Allied Way to Nash Street with a railroad grade separation. Park Place current exists in two segments separated by undeveloped area with Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) railroad tracks along the north and south edges of the undeveloped area respectively. The City identified four alternatives to connect Park Place. Specifically, RCEB staff provides the following comment to the alternatives: ■ Alternative 1A, 1C and 3A: RCEB staff supports these three conceptual alternatives as it doesn't result any additional of grade crossing. ■ Alterative 313: RCEB does not support establishment of new grade crossing unless all other alternatives have been substantially demonstrated as impracticable. As part of considering and approving the construction of new at -grade crossings, staff requires applicants to conduct a thorough study of a grade separation, demonstrating the public needs, exploring all practicable roadway designs including over and underpass crossings, as well as the usage of alternate routes. Although it is outside the project area discussed in the NOP, with one or more than one of the alternatives relocating or reconfiguring the BNSF yard tracks, RCEB staff also recommends the City to study the potential impact that will lead to the Douglas Street grade crossings, identified as CPUC No. 001 BBF -499.43 and DOT No. 760608D, CPUC No. 002H-14.70 and DOT No. 028052Y, which are located approximately half mile east of the proposed Park Place connection. FAV - Paul Samaras Page 2of2 December 14, 2016 Modifications to existing public crossings or establishment of new rail crossings require authorization from the Commission. RCEB representatives are available for consultation on any potential safety impacts at or compliance requirements for crossing matters. Please continue to keep RCEB informed of the project's development. More information can be found at: httiD://www.ci)uc.ca.gov/Crossings/. If you have any questions, please contact Ken Chianq at (213) 576-7076 or Chi Cheunq To at (213) 576-5766. Sincerely, Chi Cheung To, P.E. Utilities Engineer Rail Crossings Engineering Branch Safety and Enforcement Division CC: State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Appendix D List of Acronyms Appendix D List of Acronyms Appendix D List of Acronyms ° degrees % percent pg/L micrograms per liter pg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter AA Associates of Arts AB Assembly Bill AC asphalt concrete ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ACS American Community Survey ADT average daily traffic of Artificial fill, late Holocene Alt Alternative AM ante meridiem APE Area of Potential Effects amsl above mean sea level APN Assessor's Parcel Number AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ARB Air Resources Board ASR Archaeological Survey Report AT&T American Telephone & Telegraph BA Bachelor of Arts BAU Business as Usual bgs below ground surface BMP best management practice BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project D-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Appendix D List of Acronyms Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF BS Bachelor of Science BSA biological study area C-4 Commercial Center CA California CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency Cal -IPC California Invasive Plant Council Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCAA California Clean Air Act CCP Construction Contingency Plan CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology CE Categorical Exclusion CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CERFA Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGS California Geological Survey CH4 methane CHL California Historical Landmarks Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project D-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Appendix D List of Acronyms CHRI California Historical Resources Inventory CHRIS California Historical Resources Inventory System CIDH cast -in -drilled -hole CMP Congestion Management Program CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society CO -CAT Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate Action Team CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2eq carbon dioxide equivalent CPHI California Points of Historical Interest CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CTP California Transportation Plan CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel dBA A -weighted decibel scale DDD dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane DDE dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene DDI diverging diamond interchange DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DOGGR Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources DOT Department of Transportation DP Director's Policy DSA Disturbed Soil Area DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project D-3 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Appendix D List of Acronyms e.g. for example EA Environmental Assessment EDR Environmental Data Resources EIR Environmental Impact Report EIR/EA Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESFD EI Segundo Fire Department EWMP Enhanced Watershed Management Program F Fahrenheit FCAA Federal Clean Air Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FESA Federal Endangered Species Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FTA Federal Transit Administration FTIP Federal Transportation Improvement Program GHG greenhouse gas GWP Global Warming Potentials H&SC Health and Safety Code H2S hydrogen sulfide HCM Highway Capacity Manual Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project D-4 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Appendix D List of Acronyms HEI Health Effects Institute HFC -134a s, s, s, 2-tetrafluoroethane HFC -152a difluoroethane HFC -23 fluoroform HSA Hydrologic Sub -Area HPSR Historic Property Survey Report hr. hour HRER Historic Resources Evaluation Report i.e. that is ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization Inc. Incorporated IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRIS Integrated Risk Information System ISA Initial Site Assessment km kilometer Ldn Day/Night Average Leq Equivalent Sound Level Lmax Maximum Sound Level Lm;n Minimum Sound Level Ln Exceedance Level LA Los Angeles LACDPH Los Angeles County Department of Public Health LACFCD Los Angeles County Flood Control District LACMTA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority LAX Los Angeles International Airport Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project D-5 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Appendix D List of Acronyms LBP lead-based paint LCFS low carbon fuel standard Ldn average noise level over a 24-hour period Leq equivalent continuous sound level LEDPA least environmentally damaging practicable alternative LOS Level of Service M-2 Heavy Manufacturing MA Master of Arts MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MCL maximum contaminant level Metro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority mg/L milligrams per liter MLD Most Likely Descendent MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MOU Memorandum of Understanding mph miles per hour MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MS Master of Science MS4s municipal separate storm sewer systems MSATs Mobile Source Air Toxics MTCO2eq metric tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent MU -S Urban Mixed -Use South MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Mw moment magnitude N/A Not Available NA Not Applicable Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project D-6 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Appendix D List of Acronyms N20 nitrous oxide NAC Noise Abatement Criteria NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NES Natural Environment Study NES -MI Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts) NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NLEV national low emission vehicle NM not measured No. number NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx nitrogen oxides NOA naturally occurring asbestos NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOP Notice of Preparation NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NSR Noise Study Report 03 ozone OPR Office of Planning and Research OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Act OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy p. page Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project D-7 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Appendix D List of Acronyms PA Programmatic Agreement Pb lead PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls PDT Project Development Team PhD Doctor of Philosophy PIR/PER Paleontological Identification Report and Paleontological Evaluation Report PLACs permits, licenses, agreements, and certifications PM particulate matter PM post meridiem PM2.5 particles of 2.5 micrometers and smaller PM10 particles of 10 micrometers or smaller PMP Paleontological Mitigation Program POAQC project of air quality concern ppb parts per billion PPM parts per million PRC Public Resources Code PSE Plans, Specifications and Estimates PSR Project Study Report QA quality assurance Qoa Pleistocene older flood plain deposits Qoe Older eolian sand dune deposits, late to middle Pleistocene Qya2 Holocene to late Pleistocene RAP Relocation Assistance Program RARE Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species RCEM Roadway Construction Emissions Model RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project D-8 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Appendix D List of Acronyms RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ROD Record of Decision ROG reactive organic gases ROW right-of-way RSA Resource Study Areas RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SB Senate Bill SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy SDC Seismic Design Criteria SEA Significant Ecological Area SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SIP State Implementation Plan SLR Sea -Level Rise SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SO2 sulfur dioxide sp. species spp subspecies SRA Source Receptor Area SSC California Species of Concern Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project D-9 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Appendix D List of Acronyms SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TCWG Transportation Conformity Working Group TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TMP Transportation Management Plan TNM Traffic Noise Model TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act TSP Total Suspended Particulate TTLC Total Threshold Limit Concentration UC University of California UND unlined natural depression UPRR Union Pacific Railroad USC United States Code U.S. United States USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USCG United States Coast Guard USDA United States Department of Agriculture USDOT United States Department of Transportation USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey V/C volume -to -capacity VHD Vehicle Hours Delay VHT Vehicle Hours Travelled VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VOC volatile organic compounds Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project D-10 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Appendix D List of Acronyms vph vehicles per hour WDR Waste Discharge Requirement WLA waste load allocations WQBELs water quality -based effluent limitations yr year Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project D-11 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Appendix D List of Acronyms This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project D-12 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Appendix E List of Technical Studies Appendix E List of Technical Studies List of Technical Studies The results of the following technical studies have been incorporated into the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment. The technical studies are available for review at City of EI Segundo City Hall, 350 Main Street, EI Segundo, California 90245. Air Quality Assessment (Michael Baker International, June 2017) Archaeological Survey Report (Cogstone, July 2016) Historic Property Evaluation Report (Cogstone, July 2017) Historic Property Survey Report (Cogstone, June 2017) Natural Environment Study (Michael Baker International, May 2017) Noise Study Report (Michael Baker International, November 2017) Paleontological Identification Report/Paleontological Evaluation Report (Cogstone, January 2017) Phase I Initial Site Investigation (Michael Baker International, July 2017) Preliminary Drainage Assessment (BKF, July 2014) Preliminary Geotechnical Report (Diaz Yourman & Associates, October 2013) Relocation Impact Memorandum (Michael Baker International, May 23, 2017) Traffic Impact Analysis (Michael Baker International, November 2016) Visual Resources Technical Memorandum (Michael Baker International, December 2016) Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project E-1 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Appendix E List of Technical Studies This page intentionally left blank. Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project E-2 Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) Appendix F Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measure Summary ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS RECORD (ECR) In order to be sure that all of the environmental measures identified in this document are executed at the appropriate times, the following mitigation program (as articulated on the proposed Environmental Commitments Record [ECR] which follows) would be implemented. During project design, avoidance, minimization, and /or mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project's final plans, specifications, and cost estimates, as appropriate. All permits will be obtained prior to implementation of the project. During construction, environmental and construction/engineering staff will ensure that the commitments contained in this ECR are fulfilled. Following construction and appropriate phases of project delivery, long-term mitigation maintenance and monitoring will take place, as applicable. As the following ECR is a draft, some fields have not been completed, and will be filled out as each of the measures is implemented. Note: Some measures may apply to more than one resource area. Duplicative or redundant measures have not been included in this ECR. Date: September 2018 Caltrans District 7 Environmental Generalist: Quint Chemnitz, Associate Environmental Planner Phone: 213/897-2863 Document Type: EIR/EA Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project City of EI Segundo DEM08L-5235(012) Local Agency Contact: Paul Samaras, 310/524-2340 RESPONSIBLE TASK ACTION TAKEN NO. COMMITMENT NSSP pARTY1MONITOR TIMINGIPHASE COMPLETED TO COMPLY REMARKS (Sign and Date) WITH TASK UTILITIES/EMERGENCY SERVICES The City of EI Segundo will conduct utility coordination activities with affected utility agencies, and all proposed utility relocations shall be subject to preparation of utility relocation plans, which shall include the following: descriptions of existing facilities; proposed utility changes/demolition; identification of potential conflicts and resolutions; and a work plan that describes the nature of construction activity. U&ES-1 Chevron shall be consulted on the existing City of EI Segundo Final Design underground pipelines that may need to be relocated or protected in place during construction. The pipelines that supply product to Chevron shall be evaluated and work shall be coordinated to minimize the length of time that service would be interrupted in the event that relocation of the pipelines is necessary, and to minimize or eliminate impacts to the refineries operations that may result from that relocation. Prior to and during construction, the City of EI Segundo and the Construction Contractor City of EI Segundo/ Final Design/ U&ES-2 shall coordinate all temporary ramp closures Construction Construction and detour plans with fire, emergency Contractor medical, and law enforcement providers to minimize temporary delays in emergency response times as part of the Traffic Management Plan (TMP), including the identification of alternative routes and routes across the construction areas for emergency vehicles, developed in coordination with the affected agencies. A Construction and Maintenance Agreement between the City of EI Segundo and the U&ES-3 Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) outlining City of EI Segundo responsibilities shall be developed during the final design phase of the project. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION/PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) shall be implemented to reduce short-term construction -related impacts in the project vicinity. The TMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following provisions: • Public Information: Provide advanced notice and project updates to affected businesses and the general public, via brochures and mailers, community meetings, signage, and website information. City of EI Segundo/ TRA -1 • Motorist Information: Provide project Construction information using changeable message Contractor signs and ground -mounted signs regarding closures, available detours, and alternate access points to existing businesses. • Traffic Manaaement• Prepare a traffic lane closure chart, detour routes, pedestrian routes, residential and commercial access routes, and temporary traffic signals during construction. To minimize potential traffic -related impacts during operation of the project, a new traffic TRA -2 signal shall be installed at the intersection of City of EI Segundo Douglas Street and Park Place. Final Design/ Construction Final Design/ Construction Final Design/ Construction VISUAL/AESTHETICS The City of EI Segundo shall implement a Construction Management Plan that identifies measures to avoid visual impacts during construction activities, such as V-1 temporary opaque fencing around staging areas, the location for staging areas and stockpiling of materials, and construction haul routes, consistent with the Caltrans' Standard Specifications for Construction. Any lighting required for nighttime construction activities shall be consistent with Section 2- 208, Night Work, of the Caltrans Construction V-2 Manual (July 2017). Necessary lighting for safety and construction purposes shall be directed away from land uses outside the project area, and contained and directed toward the specific area of construction. CULTURAL IESOURCES Unknown Buried Cultural Resources. If unknown buried cultural resources are discovered during construction, all earth - PF -CUL -1 moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area shall be diverted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find. Human Remains. If human remains are discovered during construction, California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) Section 7050.5 states that further disturbances and activities shall stop in any area or nearby area suspected to overlie remains, and the County Coroner be contacted. If the remains are thought by the coroner to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the Native PF -CUL -2 American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who, pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98, would then notify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). At this time, the person who discovered the remains shall contact Joshua Knudson, Associate Environmental Planner, Caltrans District 7 so that he may work with the MLD on the respectful treatment and disposition of the remains. Further provisions of PRC 5097.98 shall be followed as applicable. City of EI Segundo/ Final Design/ Construction Construction Contractor City of EI Segundo/ Final Design/ Construction Construction Contractor Construction Contractor/ Construction Project Archaeologist Construction Contractor/ Construction Project Archaeologist GEOLOGY/SOILS/SEISMIC/TOPOGRAPHY Geotechnical Recommendations. The project shall adhere to the earthwork recommendations provided in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report. The recommendations pertain to bridge foundations, retaining walls, Final Design/ PF-GEO-1 embankments, pavement, and requirements City of EI Segundo/ Construction for preparation of geotechnical field investigations and a design -level Geotechnical Report for the proposed project during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) phase. PALEONTOLOGY Prior to construction activities, the City of EI Segundo shall ensure that a Paleontological Mitigation Plan is prepared and implemented during construction of the project in those parts of the project area that have been identified as having a high potential to impact significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. The Paleontological Mitigation Plan shall be prepared by a qualified paleontologist and shall include the following: a) Preconstruction paleontological sensitivity training for earth -moving City of EI Segundo/ personnel, with documentation of Construction PALEO-1 training that includes, but is not limited Contractor/ Final Design/ to, sign -in sheets and hardhat stickers. Project Construction b) A signed repository agreement. Paleontologist c) Proposed field and laboratory methods that are consistent with repository requirements. d) Reporting requirements to document that compliance with paleontological measures is being achieved. e) Submission of the final Paleontological Mitigation Compliance Report to the City of EI Segundo upon completion of project earth -moving activities. HAZARDOUS WASTEIMATERIALS Phase II Site Investigation: The City of EI Segundo shall retain a Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist during the Plans, City of EI Segundo Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) stage Phase IIISite HW -1 to define the extent of on-site contamination Final Design Characterization and recommend appropriate coordination Specialist with other off-site properties owners and remediation, as necessary, for implementation of the proposed project. Soil Management Plan: The City of EI Segundo shall retain a Phase II/Site Characterization Specialist during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) stage to review available files and recorded covenants and deed restrictions pertaining to hazardous materials for the project site as well as coordinate with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regarding proposed construction activities within the former Honeywell and H. Kramer & Company properties. The Specialist shall City of EI Segundo HW -2 prepare a Soil Management Plan that Phase IIISite Final Design identifies necessary sampling efforts, Characterization necessary actions to satisfy covenant and Specialist deed restrictions, and soil management practices necessary during site disturbance (including safety precautions to ensure worker safety). The Plan shall also consider necessary sampling efforts, management of soils, and proper disposal of waste materials during demolition within railroad ROW as well as any work within the vicinity of a petroleum pipeline. The handling and/or disposal of contaminated soils must comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. On -Site Monitoring Wells: The City of EI Segundo shall retain a Phase II/Site City of EI Segundo Characterization Specialist during the Plans, Phase II/Site Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) stage Characterization Final Design/ HW -3 to identify and coordinate property relocation Specialist/ Construction of existing on-site monitoring wells, as Construction necessary, with the contractor for the project. Contractor All well relocation shall be conducted in consultation with, and per the standards of, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). On -Site Petroleum Pipelines: The City of EI Segundo shall retain a Phase II/Site City of EI Segundo Characterization Specialist during the Plans, Phase II/Site Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) stage Characterization Final Design/ HW -4 to identify the location of on-site petroleum Specialist/ Construction pipelines. Any site disturbance activities Construction within any easements for petroleum pipelines Contractor shall be conducted under the purview of the local purveyor. PCBs: Any transformer to be relocated/removed during site disturbance City of EI Segundo/ HW 5 activities shall be conducted under the Construction Construction purview of the local purveyor to identify Contractor property -handling procedures regarding PCBs. Unknown Hazardous Materials: Prior to the start of construction, the contractor shall prepare a Construction Contingency Plan (CCP) in accordance with the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) Unknown Hazards Procedures for Construction. The CCP shall include provisions for emergency response in the event that unidentified hazardous materials, petroleum hydrocarbons, or hazardous or HW -6 solid wastes are discovered during Construction Final Design/ construction activities. The CCP shall Contractor Construction address field screening, contaminant materials testing methods, mitigation and contaminate management requirements, and health and safety requirements for construction workers, including limiting exposure to potential residual contamination in on-site surface soils. The CCP shall be prepared in consideration of the Phase II/Site Characterization Specialists' Soil Management Plan. NOISE All equipment shall have sound -control devices that are no less effective than those Construction N-1 provided on the original equipment. No Contractor Construction equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust. The contractor shall implement appropriate Construction Final Design/ N 2 noise mitigation measures, including Contractor Construction changing the location of stationary construction equipment, turning off idling equipment, notifying adjacent business owners in advance of construction work, rescheduling construction activity, and installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources. PLANT SPECIES A preconstruction rare plant clearance survey is recommended to be conducted within the Biological Study Area (BSA) during the appropriate blooming season (March to September) to determine whether southern tarplant and/or paniculate tarplant occur onsite. Surveys shall provide 100 percent clearance of suitable habitat within the BSA. If southern tarplant and/or paniculate tarplant, or any other special -status plant PS -1 species, are present and unavoidable, they shall be salvaged and moved to a different location within the BSA that contains a similar habitat, in accordance with resource agency requirements. It is also recommended that fugitive dust be contained to the maximum extent possible via the use of an onsite water truck(s), and that all construction equipmentbe thoroughly cleaned of all weed seeds prior to entering the BSA to prevent the spread of invasive species. To increase the availability of suitable habitat and general habitat quality within the BSA, all undeveloped disturbed areas shall be PS -2 revegetated with native plant species generally conforming to the plant composition in the immediate surrounding area. ANIMAL SPECIES Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code, removal of any trees, shrubs, or any other AS -1 potential nesting habitat shall be conducted outside the avian nesting season. The nesting season generally extends from early February through August, but can vary slightly from year to year based upon City of EI Segundo/ Construction Final Design/ Contractor/ Construction Project Biologist City of EI Segundo/ Construction Construction Contractor City of EI Segundo/ Prior to Project Biologist Construction AS -2 seasonal weather conditions. If ground disturbance and vegetation removal cannot occur outside of the nesting season, a preconstruction clearance survey for nesting birds shall be conducted within three days of the start of any ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist conducting the clearance survey shall document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the preconstruction clearance survey, construction activities shall stay outside of a 300 -foot buffer around the active nest. For raptor species, this buffer is expanded to 500 feet. The biological monitor shall be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, normal construction activities can occur. Burrowing owl breeding season focused surveys shall be conducted prior to ground disturbing activities. The surveys shall be conducted consistent with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Staff Report) dated March 7, 2012. Should burrowing owl be found within the Biological Study Area (BSA) during preconstruction clearance surveys, the CDFW shall be contacted for consultation prior to clearing and grubbing. If burrowing owl are found to occupy the BSA at the time of the survey, a relocation and management plan shall be written, approved by CDFW, and implemented prior to site development. Determination of the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall be based on the specific site City of EI Segundo/ Project Biologist Prior to Construction/ During Construction conditions (e.g., distance to nearest suitable habitat and presence of burrows within that habitat) in coordination with the CDFW. Active relocation and eviction/passive relocation require the preservation and maintenance of suitable burrowing owl habitat determined through coordination with the CDFW. CLIMATE CHANGE The project will implement landscaping as determined during final design in coordination with the City of EI Segundo, the City of EI Segundo/ CC -1 County of Orange, and the Department's Construction Final Design District Landscape Architect. This Contractor landscaping will help offset any potential CO2 emissions increase. The project will incorporate the use of energy efficient lighting, such as LED traffic signals, City of EI Segundo/ CC -2 to help reduce the project's CO2 emissions. Construction Final Design Contractor According to the Caltrans Standard Specifications, idling time for lane closure during construction will be limited to 10 City of EI Segundo/ CC -3 minutes in each direction. In addition, the Construction Final Design/ contractor will comply with all South Coast Contractor Construction Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules, ordinances, and regulations regarding air quality restrictions. As part of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2016- 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), project level mitigation measures were provided to reduce impacts including those pertaining to climate change. The following project level mitigation City of EI Segundo/ CC -4 measures would apply: Construction Final Design/ Contractor Construction • The project will utilize energy and fuel efficient vehicles and equipment that meets and exceeds U.S. EPA/NHTSA/CARB standards relating to fuel efficiency and emission reduction, to the maximum extent practicable. • The project will use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials that is feasible. • The project will use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of fly ash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production. • The project will incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste reduction, recycling and reuse. • The project will recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible. Appendix G U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Species Lists & WILDL V. %�_c United States Department of the InteriorFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Carlsbad Fish And Wildlife Office $% 2177 Salk Avenue - Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7385 Phone: (760) 431-9440 Fax: (760) 431-5901 httD://www.fws.izov/carlsbad/ In Reply Refer To: February 25, 2019 Consultation Code: 08ECAR00-2019-SLI-0523 Event Code: 08ECAR00-2019-E-01228 Project Name: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, and proposed species, designated critical habitat, and candidate species that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 etseq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. 02/25/2019 Event Code: 08ECAR00-2019-E-01228 2 A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the 'Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/Pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/ eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats. Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http:// www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http:// www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/ comtow.html. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Attachment(s): • Official Species List 02/25/2019 Event Code: 08ECAR00-2019-E-01228 Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Carlsbad Fish And Wildlife Office 2177 Salk Avenue - Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7385 (760) 431-9440 02/25/2019 Event Code: 08ECAR00-2019-E-01228 Project Summary Consultation Code: 08ECAR00-2019-SLI-0523 Event Code: 08ECAR00-2019-E-01228 Project Name: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Project Type: TRANSPORTATION Project Description: The City of El Segundo proposes to extend Park Place from Allied Way to Nash Street with a railroad grade separation to implement a critical project improving traffic and circulation in the project area. Park Place currently exists in two segments with a roughly quarter mile gap across an undeveloped area which consists of UPRR and BNSF railroad spurs. The project would implement a gap closure to develop Park Place as an alternate east -west route between Sepulveda Boulevard and Douglas Street to relieve congestion along portions of Rosecrans Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard, as well as to improve local traffic circulation and access to and from the Interstate 105 freeway. Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https: www.2oo2le.com/maDs/place/33.906098692348N118.38859751911082W amr, Empby 4m Pa rh I'm L.M. GQq ';QUFW F r-;c9uIW U'W Raylhevll Spare a ud &v Wraa SOW ins _ Y .f Counties: Los Angeles, CA .1 _ 3 m 2 02/25/2019 Event Code: 08ECAR00-2019-E-01228 Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 5 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheriesl, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. Birds NAME California Least Tern Sterna antillarum browni No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: httns:Hecos.fws.eov/ecD/species/8104 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: httns:Hecos.fws.eov/ecD/species/8178 Least Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii pusillus There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: httns:Hecos.fws.eov/ecD/species/5945 Western Snowy Plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus Population: Pacific Coast population DPS-U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA), Mexico (within 50 miles of Pacific coast) There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: httDs:Hecos.fws.eov/ecD/species/8035 STATUS Endangered Threatened Endangered Threatened 02/25/2019 Event Code: 08ECAR00-2019-E-01228 Insects NAME STATUS El Segundo Blue Butterfly Euphilotes battoides allyni Endangered There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. Species profile: httns://ecos.fws.2ov/ecn/species/3135 Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. From: Spencer. Ashlev M To: nmfswcrca.specieslistCc noaa.aov Subject: Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project Date: Monday, February 25, 2019 8:18:00 AM Quad Name Venice Quad Number 33118-1-14 ESA Anadromous Fish SONCC Coho ESU (T) - CCC Coho ESU (E) - CC Chinook Salmon ESU (T) - CVSR Chinook Salmon ESU (T) - SRWR Chinook Salmon ESU (E) - NC Steelhead DPS (T) - CCC Steelhead DPS (T) - SCCC Steelhead DPS (T) - SC Steelhead DPS (E) - X CCV Steelhead DPS (T) - Eulachon (T) - sDPS Green Sturgeon (T) - X ESA Anadromous Fish Critical Habitat SONCC Coho Critical Habitat - CCC Coho Critical Habitat - CC Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat - CVSR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat - SRWR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat - NC Steelhead Critical Habitat - CCC Steelhead Critical Habitat - SCCC Steelhead Critical Habitat - SC Steelhead Critical Habitat - CCV Steelhead Critical Habitat - Eulachon Critical Habitat - sDPS Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat - ESA Marine Invertebrates Range Black Abalone (E) - X Range White Abalone (E) - X ESA Marine Invertebrates Critical Habitat Black Abalone Critical Habitat - ESA Sea Turtles East Pacific Green Sea Turtle (T) - X Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (T/E) - X Leatherback Sea Turtle (E) - X North Pacific Loggerhead Sea Turtle (E) - X ESA Whales Blue Whale (E) - X Fin Whale (E) - X Humpback Whale (E) - X Southern Resident Killer Whale (E) - X North Pacific Right Whale (E) - X Sei Whale (E) - X Sperm Whale (E) - X ESA Pinnipeds Guadalupe Fur Seal (T) - X Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat - Essential Fish Habitat Coho EFH - Chinook Salmon EFH - Groundfish EFH - X Coastal Pelagics EFH - X Highly Migratory Species EFH - X MMPA Species (See list at left. ESA and MMPA Cetaceans/Pinnipeds See list at left and consult the NMFS Long Beach office 562-980-4000 MMPA Cetaceans - X MMPA Pinnipeds - X Non Federal Agency Name and Address: Michael Baker International 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Ashley Spencer ashley.soencer(@mbakerintl.com 949-472-3454 Ashley M Spencer I Biologist — Planning/Environmental Sciences I Michael Baker International 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500 1 Santa Ana, CA 92707 1 [0] 949-472-3454 Appendix H Transportation Conformity Working Group Determination TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY WORKING GROUP of the SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS January 24, 2017 Minutes THE FOLLOWING MINUTES ARE A SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF THE TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY WORKING GROUP. A DIGITAL RECORDING OF THE ACTUAL MEETING IS AVAILABLE FOR LISTENING IN SCAG'S OFFICE. The Meeting of the Transportation Conformity Working Group was held at the SCAG office in Los Angeles. In Attendance: Castro, Fernando Caltrans, District 7 Chiou, Wayne Caltrans, District 12 Huddleston, Lori Metro Le, Thuy My Open Road Morris, Michael FHWA Sherwood, Arnie UC Berkeley SCAG: Asuncion, John Au, Anita Luo, Rongsheng Tran, Daniel Via Teleconference: Brugger, Ron LSA Associates Cacatian, Ben VCAPCD Cheng, Jack SCAQMD Durbin, Martha RCTC Gallo, Ilene Caltrans, District 11 Hudson, Kerrie Caltrans, District 8 Khanna, Meghna LA Metro Malisos, Achilles Michael Baker International O'Connor, Karina EPA, Region 9 Pereira, Melina Caltrans, District 11 Roberts, Debbie STD Silverman, Sam Terry Hayes Associates Tavitas, Rodney Caltrans, Headquarters Tax, Wienke EPA, Region 9 Tisopulos, Tara OCTA Vaughn, Joseph FHWA Walecka, Carla TCA Yoon, Andrew Caltrans, District 7 3.1-1 TCWG Minutes January 24, 2017 TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY WORKING GROUP of the SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS January 24, 2017 Minutes 1.0 CALL TO ORDER AND SELF -INTRODUCTION Wayne Chiou, TCWG Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:05 am. 2.0 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD None. 3.0 CONSENT CALENDAR 3.1 December 6, 2016 TCWG Meeting Minutes The meeting minutes were approved. 4.0 INFORMATION ITEMS 4.1 Review of PM Hot Spot Intera2encv Review Forms 1) LAOG321 It was determined that this is not a POAQC. 2) LAOG1162 It was determined that this is not a POAQC (FTA concurrence was received via email after meeting). 3) ORA131708 It was determined that this is not a POAQC. 4.2 FTIP Update John Asuncion, SCAG, reported the following: • 2017 FTIP and 2017 FTIP Amendment #17-01 received federal approval in mid- December 2016. • 2017 FTIP Amendment #17-02 received state approval and was under federal review for approval. • 2017 FTIP Consistency Amendment #17-03 was released for public review as part of 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1. • 2017 FTIP Amendment #17-04, an Administrative Modification, had been approved. 3.1-2 TCWG Minutes January 24, 2017 TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY WORKING GROUP of the SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS January 24, 2017 Minutes 4.3 RTP Update Daniel Tran, SLAG, reported the following: • On January 5, 2017, SCAG's Transportation Committee (TC) approved release of Draft 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #1 for a 30 -day public review ending on February 6. • SCAG held a public hearing on January 18, 2017 to solicit public comments on the Draft Amendment. • Public comments could be submitted to SCAG via mail or email. Information about how to comment is included in the Draft Amendment document and on SCAG website. • At its March 2017 meeting, TC was anticipated to recommend that SCAG Regional Council (RC) adopt the RTP/SCS Amendment. • RC was anticipated to adopt the RTP/SCS Amendment at its meeting in April 2017. FTA and FHWA approvals were anticipated in June 2017. • SCAG also initiated 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment #2 to incorporate recently approved Los Angeles County Measure M projects. 4.4 EPA Update Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, reported the following: • On November 1, 2016, EPA published in Federal Register a proposed rule to approve Coachella Valley Ozone SIP to attain 1997 8 -hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). • EPA also published a proposed rule for implementation of 2015 ozone NAAQS on November 17, 2017. Comment period on the proposed rule was extended from January 17, 2017 to February 13, 2017. • Former EPA Administrator signed a final rule finding that 15 states and the District of Columbia had failed to submit State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions in a timely manner to satisfy certain requirements for 2008 ozone NAAQS, including SIPs for three ozone nonattainment areas in SCAG region (South Coast, Coachella Valley, and Western Mojave Desert). However, effective date of the final rule was uncertain due to a memo issued by new US administration regarding any federal rules that had not yet become effective. Karina O'Connor, EPA Region 9, reported the following: • On January 17, 2017, EPA published in Federal Register a notice of Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Model Enhancements to the AERMOD Revision Modeling System and Incorporation of Approaches to Address Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter (Appendix W of EPA Guideline on Air Quality Models). 3.1-3 TCWG Minutes January 24, 2017 TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY WORKING GROUP of the SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS January 24, 2017 Minutes Revisions include enhancements to AERMOD and replacement of CALINES3 with AERMOD for refined mobile source applications including PM and CO hot - spot analyses with a 3 -year grace period. 4.5 ARB Update On behalf of Dennis Wade, ARB, Rongsheng Luo, SCAG, reported that draft ozone transportation conformity budgets for Western Mojave Desert and Imperial County were distributed to SCAG and EPA for interagency consultation in January 2017. 4.6 Air Districts Update Ben Cacatian, VCAPCD, reported the following: • Final Draft 2016 Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was released in January 2017 for a 15 -day public review period which ended on January 24, 2017. • Compared to Draft AQMP released in October 2016, revisions had been made to include updates to modeling, some stationary control measures, and appendices, but conclusions remained the same. • 2016 Ventura County AQMP was anticipated to be adopted by VCAPCD Board on February 14, 2017. Jack Cheng, SCAQMD, reported the following: • Response to comments on 2016 South Coast AQMP had been posted on SCAQMD website for public review. • 2016 South Coast AQMP was scheduled to be considered for approval by SCAQMD Governing Board on February 3, 2017. 5.0 INFORMATION SHARING Rongsheng Luo, SCAG, announced that SCAG planned to hold a one -day transportation conformity training class to be taught by Dr. Arnie Sherwood; The class would be free and open to both public and private employees and was tentatively scheduled for March 29 or 30, 2017; Details about the training class including class outline and how to register/RSVP would be provided later. 6.0 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 am. The next Transportation Conformity Working Group meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at the SCAG office in downtown Los Angeles. 3.1-4 TCWG Minutes January 24, 2017 Appendix I Office of Historic Preservation Concurrence Letter STATE OF CALIFORNIA — THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 1725 23" Street, Suite 100 SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-7100 (916) 445-7000 Fax: (916) 445-7053 calshpo@parks.ca.gov www.ohp.parks.ca.gov August 11, 2017 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Ms. Kelly Ewing -Toledo Heritage Resource Coordinator Caltrans, District 7 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor Reply in Reference To: FHWA_2017_0726_001 Division of Environmental Planning, Cultural Resources Unit 100 S. Main Street, Suite 100, MS 16A Los Angeles, CA 90012 Subject: Review of the Historic Property Survey Report for DEM08L-5235(012), City of EI Segundo Park Place Extension Project, Los Angeles County Dear Ms. Ewing -Toledo: The Office of Historic Preservation received your letter on July 26, 2017 requesting review and comment with regard to the above -referenced undertaking. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SH PO) in accordance with the January 2014 First Amended Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Office, and the California Department of Transportation Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as it Pertains to the Administration of the Federal -Aid Highway Program in California (Section 106 PA). In accordance with Stipulation VIII.C.6 of the Section 106 PA and 36 CFR §800.4(c)(2), Caltrans is seeking SHPO concurrence on their determination of eligibility. Along with the consultation letter, the following document was provided: Historic Property Survey Report for DEM08L-5235(012), City of El Segundo Park Place Extension Project, Los Angeles County (2017) The City of EI Segundo proposes to extend Park Place from Allied Way to Nash Street to close a roughly quarter mile gap across an undeveloped area, and includes a new right-of-way to extend the road. A complete description of the undertaking and the Area of Potential Effects (APE) can be found on page one through three of the Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) enclosed with your letter. Consultation and identification efforts for this undertaking are documented in the HPSR and included a record search, pedestrian survey, and consultation with historical Ms. Ewing -Toledo August 11, 2017 FHWA_2017_0726_001 Page 2 of 2 societies and Native American tribes, groups and individuals identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as having ancestral ties to the APE. Efforts resulted in the identification of the following three resources within the APE: • P-19-192402, Pacific Electric Railway/Southern Pacific Railroad/Union Pacific Railroad; • P-19-192401, Southern California Railway Harbor Subdivision and Redondo Beach Lines/Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad/Burlington North Santa Fe Railroad; and P-19-186856, H. Kramer Company Foundry, a historic -era archaeological site situated on six acres containing foundation remains associated with the H. Kramer Company Foundry. Caltrans is seeking SHPO concurrence that the above listed resources are ineligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP) under all criteria. I have reviewed your letter and supporting documentation and concur with your determinations of eligibility pursuant to Stipulation VIII.C.6 of the Section 106 PA. Your letter also serves as notification that as a whole, the undertaking will result in a finding of no historic properties affected pursuant to Stipulation IX.A.2 of the Section 106 PA. Please be advised that under certain circumstances, such as post -review discoveries or a change in the undertaking description, Caltrans may have future responsibilities for this undertaking under the Section 106 PA and 36 CFR Part 800. If you require further information, please contact Natalie Lindquist at 916-445-7014 or Natalie. Lindquist(a�parks.ca.gov or Alicia Perez of my staff at 916-445-7014 or at Alicia. Perez(aparks.ca.gov Sincerely, J� Julianne Polanco State Historic Preservation Officer Appendix J FHWA Conformity Determination 0 USDepartment of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Mr. John Bulinski Federal Highway Administration California Division February 22, 2019 District Director California Department of Transportation District 7 100 South Main Street, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3606 Attention: Andrew Yoon 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 4-100 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916)498-5001 (916) 498-5008 (fax) In Reply Refer To: HDA -CA SUBJECT: Project Level Conformity Determination for the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project (FTIP ID# LAOG321) Dear Mr. Bulinski: On January 31, 2019, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) a complete request for a project level conformity determination for the Park Place Extension and Grade Separation Project. The project is in an area that is designated Non -Attainment or Maintenance for Ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. The project level conformity analysis submitted by Caltrans indicates that the project -level transportation conformity requirements of 40 CFR Part 93 have been met. The project is included in the Southern California Association of Governments' (SLAG) current Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), as amended. The design concept and scope of the preferred alternative have not changed significantly from those assumed in the regional emissions analysis. Based on the information provided, FHWA finds that the Park Place Extension an d Grade Separation Project conforms with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) in accordance with 40 CFR Part 93. If you have any questions pertaining to this conformity finding, please contact Joseph Vaughn at (916) 498-5346 or by email at Joseph.Vauehn(a dot.2ov. Sincerely, i `i