BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMBERS ANDREA A.

ALARCON
PRESIDENT

CITY OF

Los ANGELES

CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BUREAU OF ENGINEERING GARY LEE MOORE, P.E.
CITY ENGINEER

JERILYN LOPEZ MENDOZA
VICE PRESIDENT

JOHN J. CHOI
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

STEVEN T. NUTIER
COMMISSIONER

1149 S. BROADWAY. SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90015-2213
http://engJacity.org

VALERIE LYNNE SHAW
COMMISSIONER

ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA
MAYOR

ARLEEN P. TAYLOR
EXECUTIVE OFFICER

November 2, 2011 Mr. Kirk Cessna, DLAE Caltrans District 7 100 S. Main Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Mr. Cessna: EXPOSITION BLVD RlW BIKE PATH WESTSIDE EXTENSION FEDERAL PROJECT # RSTPLE-5006 (468) Transmitted herewith is the Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) for the Exposition Blvd Right-of-Way Bike Path (Federal Project Number RPSTPLE 5006(468)). We believe that the enclosed PES addresses all concerns expressed to date, and we hope you will determine that it is complete and sufficient. Sincerely,

~~y~
~a~;"'E. Doty, Acting ~nager Environmental Management Group
JED:Caltrans PES cover Itr Enclosures: Preliminary Environmental Study (original and one copy) cc with enclosure: City of Los Angeles Jay Greenstein, Chief Field & Transportation Deputy, Fifth Council District Tim Fremaux, P.E., Transportation Engineering Associate III, Department of Transportation Caltrans Ollie Jackson, SEP, Division of Environmental Planning Northvale Parties S. Zachary and Elana Samuels, 10384 Northvale Rd, Los Angeles, CA, 90064 Lawrerice and Luana L. Ash, 10400 Northvale Rd, Los Angeles, CA, 90064 Robert and Carol Kawaoka, 10410 Northvale Rd, Los Angeles, CA, 90064 Roberta Doucet, 10406 Northvale Rd, Los Angeles, CA, 90064 James Greenwood and Audrey Greenwood, 10420 Northvale Rd, Los Angeles, CA, 90064 Rita and Anil Kumar, 10370 Northvale Rd, Los Angeles, CA, 90064 Carol and Bruce Simon, 10378 Northvale Rd, Los Angeles, CA, 90064

AN

EQUAL

EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY

EMPLOYER

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

Exhihit6-A Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Exhibit 6-A Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Federal Project No.: To: Kirk Cessna

RPSTPLE-5006(468)
(Federal Program Prefix-Project No., Agreement No.)

Final Design:

---=.:12=-/.::.,31:,;:.1.::.13=----;-::-_:::---:--_
(Expected Start Date)

From:

City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering
(Local Agency)

(District Local Assistance Engineer)

7
(District)

Jim Doty - (213) 485-5759
(project Manager's Name and Telephone No.) 1149 S. Broadway, Ste. 601, MS 939, LA, CA 90015 (Address)

100 S. Main Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
(Address)

Kirk Cessna@dot.ca.gov
(E-mail Address)

Jim.Doty@lacity.org
(E-mailAddress)

Is this Project "ON" the State Highway System?

DYes

[2J No

IF YES, STOP HERE and contact the District Local Assistance Engineer regarding the completion of other environmental documentation. 2011
(Currently Adopted Plan Date)

Federal State Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) http://www.scag.ca.gov/ftip/pd£lfma1l20111F2011-FTIPProjectListing.pdf Programming for FSTIP: Preliminary Engineering 2008/11 $ 475,000
(Fiscal Year) (Dollars)

Page 52 of the RTIP
(Page No._ attach to thisform) Included in Attachment C of this PES Form

Right of Way
(Fiscal Year) $_---(Dollars)

Construction 2008/11 $ 2,092,000
(Fiscal Year) (Dollars)

Project Description as Shown in RTP and FSTIP: Exposition Boulevard right-of-way bike path - Westside Extension. Design and construction of25 miles of Class I Bikeway, lighting, landscaping & intersection improvements. (PPNO# 3184) . Detailed Project Description: (Describe thefollowing, as applicable: purpose and need, project location and limits, required right of way acquisition, proposed facilities, staging areas, disposal and borrow sites, construction activities, and construction access.} The Exposition Boulevard Right-of-Way Bike Path - Westside Extension would be located in the City of Los Angeles, on the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Right-of-Way (ROW) parallel to Exposition Boulevard from Venice BoulevardIRobertson Boulevard to Centinela Avenue (Attachment A). A concept-level alignment map (Attachment B) is attached. This map also identifies existing bike lanes on Motor Avenue.

[Project description continues on the Continuation Sheet of this PES Form on page 6-89.1
(Description continued on "Notes" sheet, last page of this Exhibit.)

Preliminary Design Information: Does the project involve any of the following? Please check the appropriate boxes and delineate on an attached map, plan, or layout including any additional pertinent information. Yes No

r8J D D r8J D r8J

Yes No Widen existing roadway Increase number of through lanes New alignment Capacity increasing-other (e.g., channelization)

D t8J

r8J D r8J D r8J D

Yes No Ground disturbance Road cut/fill Excavation: anticipated maximum depth ~ I foot for most of the alignment (see #35 on page 6-88) Drainage/culverts Flooding protection Stream channel work Pile driving Demolition

181 D r8J D D r8J r8J D
r8J D

Easements Equipment staging Temporary access road/detour Utility relocation

D (g] D r8J D r8J I8J D (g] D

Realignment Ramp or street closure Bridgework Vegetation removal Tree removal

r8J D r8J D 0 r8J

Right of way acquisition (if yes, attach map with APN) Disposa1/borrow sites Part oflarger adjacent project Railroad

D r8J D r8J D r8J

D r8J D r8J

LPP 08-02

Page 6-69 May 30,2008

Exhibit 6-A Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form
Required Attachments:

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

o Engineering
r8J

[gI Regional

map [gI Project location map drawings (existing and proposed cross sections), if available

0 Project footprint 0 Borrow/disposal

map (existing/proposed right of way) site location map, if applicable

(Note: all maps (except project location map and regional maps) should be consistent with the project description (minimum scale: 1" = 200').)

Notes to support the conclusions of this checklist/project

description continuation page (attached)

Examine the project for potential effects on the environment, direct or indirect and answer the following questions. The "construction area," as specified below, includes all areas of ground disturbance associated with the project, including staging and stockpiling areas and temporary access roads. Each answer must be briefly documented on the "Notes" pages at the end of the PES Form. A. Potential Environmental
General

Effects

Yes

To Be
Determined

No

1.
2.

Will the project require future construction to fully utilize the design capabilities included in the proposed project? Will the project generate public controversy?

0 0 0 D

0

IZI 0 IZI

IZI
D D D D

Noise 3. Is the project a Type I project as defined in 23 CFR 772.5(h); "construction on new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway, which significantly changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the number of through-traffic lanes"? Does the project have the potential for adverse construction-related (such as related to pile driving)? noise impact

4.

Air Quality
5. 6. 7. 8. Is the project in a NAAQS non-attainment or maintenance area? Is the project exempt from the requirement that a conformity determination be made? (If''Yes,'' state which conformity exemption in 40 CFR 93.126, Table 2 applies): Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Is the project exempt from regional conformity? CFR 93.127, Table 3 applies): _ (If "Yes," state which conformity exemption in 40

o
D D D D

o
D D D D

o o
D
D

D

If project is not exempt from regional conformity, (If "No" on Question #7) Is project in a metropolitan non-attainment/maintenance Is project in an isolated rural non- attainment area? Is project in a CO, PMlO and/or PM2.5 non-attainment/maintenance area? area?

o

Hazardous Materials/Hazardous 9.

Waste

Is there potential for hazardous materials (including underground or aboveground tanks, etc.) and/or hazardous waste (including oil/water separators, waste oil, asbestos-containing material, lead-based paint, ADL, etc.) within or immediately adjacent to the construction area?

Water Quality/Resources 10. Does the project have the potential to impact water resources (rivers, streams, bays, inlets, lakes, drainage sloughs) within or immediately adjacent to the project area? 11. Is the project within a designated sole-source aquifer? Coastal Zone 12. Is the project within the State Coastal Zone, San Francisco Bay, or Suisun Marsh? Floodplain 13. Is the construction area located within a regulatory floodway or within the base floodplain (lOO-year) elevation of a watercourse or lake? Wild and Scenic Rivers 14. Is the project within or immediately adjacent to a Wild and Scenic River System?

D

D

o o

D D D

o

D

D

Page 6-70 May 30,2008

LPP08-02

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Preliminary Environmental
Biological Resources 15. Is there a potential for federally listed threatened or endangered species, or their critical habitat or essential fish habitat to occur within or adjacent to the construction area? 16. Does the project have the potential to directly or indirectly affect migratory birds, or their nests or eggs (such as vegetation removal, box culvert replacement/repair, bridge work, etc.)? 17. Is there a potential for wetlands to occur within or adjacent to the construction area? IS. Is there a potential for agricultural wetlands to occur within or adjacent to the construction area? 19. Is there a potential for the introduction or spread of invasive plant species? Sections 4(f) and 6(f) 20. Are there any historic sites or publicly owned public parks, recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges (Section 4[f]) within or immediately adjacent to the construction area? 21. Does the project have the potential to affect properties acquired or improved with Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6[f]) funds? Visual Resources 22. Does the project have the potential to affect any visual or scenic resources? Relocation Impacts 23. Will the project require the relocation of residential or business properties? Land Use, Community, and Farmland Impacts

Exhibit 6~A Study (PES) Form

D

D D D

D D D D D D

D D D D D D D D D l8I l8I l8I D 0
[Z]

24. Will the project require any right of way, including partial or full takes? Consider construction easements and utility relocations. 25. Is the project inconsistent with plans and goals adopted by the community? 26. Does the project have the potential to divide or disrupt neighborhoods/communities? 27. Does the project have the potential to disproportionately populations? 2S. Will the project require the relocation of public utilities? 29. Will the project affect access to properties or roadways? 30. Will the project involve changes in access control to the State Highway System (SHS)? 31. Will the project involve the use of a temporary road, detour, or ramp closure? 32. Will the project reduce available parking? 33. Will the project construction encroach on state or federal lands? 34. Will the project convert any farmland to a different use or impact any farmlands? Cultural Resources 35. Is there National Register listed, or potentially eligible historic properties, or archaeological resources within or immediately adjacent to the construction area? 36. Is the project adjacent to, or would it encroach on Tribal land? affect low-income and minority

l8I D D D D D D D
[Z]

D D D D
[8J

D D D D
[8J

D D D D

D D D

l8I D D l8I l8I
[8J

LPP 08~02

Page 6~71 May 30, 2008

Exhibit 6-A Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

For Sections B, C, and D, check appropriate box to indicate required technical studies, coordination, permits, or approvals.

B.

Required Technical and Analyses Traffic Check one:

Studies

C.

Coordination

D.

Anticipated Actions/Permits/Approvals

r8J

D Traffic Study D Technical Memorandum
[8J Discussion in ED Only

D D r8J

Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans

D
D

Approval Approval Approval

[8J

D

Noise Check as applicable:

D Traffic Related D Construction Related
Check one:

D Noise
DNADR D D

Study Report

D
D D D

Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans

Technical Memorandum Discussion in ED Only

D D D D

Approval Approval Approval Approval

[8J

Air Quality Check as applicable:

D Traffic Related D Construction Related
Check one:

D Air Quality Report D Technical Memorandum
[8J Discussion in ED Only

D
D

Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans FHWA Caltrans Regional Agency

D

Approval Approval Approval Conformity Finding (6005 CEs, EAs, EISs) Conformity Finding (6004 CEs) PM} 01PM2.5 Interagency Consultation

D
D

D D D
[8J

[8J
D

D

[8J

Hazardous Hazardous

Materialsl Waste

Check as applicable:

D Initial

o Preliminary
(phase 2)

Site Assessment (Phase 1) Site Assessment

D D
[8J

Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans Cal EPA DTSC Local Agency

Approval

D
[8J

Approval Approval Review Database Review Database

[8J Discussion in ED Only

D 0
[8J
Water Quality/Resources D Check as applicable:

D D D D
[8J

D D
[8J
D

Water Quality Assess. Report Technical Memorandum Discussion in ED Only Aquifer

Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans EPA (S.F. Regional Office) CCC

Approval Approval Approval of a Construction General Permit Approval of Analysis in ED Coastal Zone Consistency Determination

D
[8J

Sole-Source (Districts Coastal Zone

5,6 and 11)

D

D D

D D

Page 6-72 May 30, 2008

LPP 08-02

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

Exhibit 6-A Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

B.
[8J

Required Technical and Analyses Floodplain Check as applicable:

Studies

c.

Coordination

D.

Anticipated Actions/Permits/Approvals

IZI

Location Hydraulic Study Report

[8J

Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans FHWA

[8J

Approval Approval Approval Only Practicable Alternative Finding Approves significant encroachments and concurs in Only Practicable Alternative Findings Wild and Scenic Rivers Determination

D Floodplain Evaluation D Summary Floodplain
Encroachment Report

D D D
0

0 D 0 D

D

Wild and Scenic Biological

Rivers

0 D
Resources Check as applicable: D NBS, Minimal Impact

River Managing Agency

D
[8J

[gJ

Caltrans Caltrans USFWS NOAA Fisheries NOAA Fisheries NOAA Fisheries Caltrans

Approval Approves for Consultation Section 7 InformallFormal MSA Consultation Approval Approval Consultation

[gJ

NES

DBA

0 D
D D

D

0
D

D 0

EFH Evaluation Memorandum

D

D Bio-Acoustic Evaluation

D Technical
Wetlands

D 0 0

D D
D

Check as applicable:

o WD and Assessment

Caltrans ACOE NRCS Caltrans

Approval Wetland Verification Agricultural Wetland Verification Wetlands Only Practicable Alternative Finding Approval

D

0 0 D
D Invasive Section Plants D Discussion in ED Only 4(f) Check as applicable:

0
D

D

Caltrans

0

D
D

Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans

o Programmatic
Type:

Deminimis

4(f) Evaluation

0 0
D

D 0
0 D

Determine Temporary Occupancy De minimis finding Approval

D

IndividuaI4(f)

Evaluation

Caltrans Agency with Jurisdiction SHPO DOl HUD USDA

Approval

D
D

D 0 0

LPP 08-02

Page 6-73 May 30,2008

Exhibit 6-A Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form
B. Required Technical and Analyses Section 6(t) Studies C. Coordination D.

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

Anticipated Actions/Permits/Approvals

0

0 0 0
Visual Resources

Agency with Jurisdiction NPS NPS

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Determines Consistency with Long-Term Management Plan Approves Conversion

0

Check one:

o Technical
0
Relocation

o Visual Impact Assessment
Memorandum in ED Only Impacts Impact Memo Impact Study Impact Report Impacts

o Discussion
Check one:

0 0 0 0 0 0

Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans

Approval Approval Approval

o Relocation o Relocation

Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans

Approval Approval Approval

o Relocation
Land Use and

0

Community

Check one:

o CIA
f8J f8J

o Technical
on State

Memorandum

Discussion in ED Only Lands

0 0 f8J

Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans

0 0
[8]

Approval Approval Approval

Construction/Encroachment

Check as applicable:

o SP Jurisdiction
0
on Federal

f8J

o SLC Jurisdiction

0
[8]

SLC Caltrans SP

Caltrans Jurisdiction

0 0

0 f8J 0 0 0

SLC Lease Encroachment Encroachment Permit Permit

Construction/Encroachment Lands Federal Agency with Jurisdiction Bureau ofIndian Affairs Encroachment Permit

0 0

Construction/Encroachment On Indian Trust Farmlands Lands

0

Right of Way Permit

o CIA o Technical Memorandum o Discussion in ED Only
Check as applicable:

Check one:

0

Caltrans Caltrans Caltrans NRCS CDOC ACOE

0
0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

Approval Approval Approval Approves Conversion Approves Conversion

o Form AD 1006

o Conversion

to Non-Agri Use

Page 6-74 May 30,2008

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Preliminary Environmental

Exhibit 6-A Study (PES) Form

B.

Required Technical Studies and Analyses Cultural Resources (PQS completes this section) Check as applicable:

C.

Coordination

D.

Anticipated Actions/Permitsl Approvals

D

D

APE Map

0 0 0
D

Caltrans PQS Caltrans PQS and DLAE Local Preservation Groups and/or Native American Tribes Caltrans

0
0
D

Screened Undertaking Approves APE Map Provides Comments Regarding Concerns with Project Approves for Consultation

D

HPSR

D

D

o

ASR HRER of Effect Report D Caltrans SHPO Caltrans SHPO ACHP (if requested)

o Finding
DMOA

D D D D D D D
D

Concurs on No Effect, No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions Letter of Concurrence on Eligibility, No Adverse Effect without Standard Approves MOA Approves MOA Approves MOA

0 0 0

0
~
Permits Copies of permits and a list of mitigation commitments are mandatory submittals following NEPA approval. D

ACOE ACOE Caltrans/ ACOEIEPA USFWS NOAA Fisheries ACOE USCG RWQCB CDFG RWQCB CCC Local Agency BCDC

Section 404 Nationwide Permit Section 404 Individual Permit NEPAl404 Integration MOU

D D
D

0
D 0
~

D D

0 D 0
D

Ri vers and Harbors Act Section 10 Permit USCG Bridge Permit Section 401 Water Quality Certification Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement NPDES Permit - Construction General Permit Coastal Zone Permit BCDC Permit

~

0 0
Notes:

0

D D

Additional studies may be required for other federal agencies.

LPP 08-02

Page 6-75 May 30, 2008

Exhibit 6-A Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

ACHP ACOE ADL APE APN ASR BA BCDC BE BO Cal EPA CCC CDFG CDOC CE CIA CWA DLAE DOl DTSC EA ED EFH EIS EPA FEMA FHWA FONSI FTIP HPSR

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Aerially Deposited Lead Area of Potential Effect Assessor Parcel Number Archaeological Survey Report Biological Assessment Bay Conservation and Development Commission Biological Evaluation Biological Opinion California Environmental Protection Agency California Coastal Commission California Department of Fish and Game California Department of Conservation Categorical Exclusion Community Impact Assessment Clean Water Act District Local Assistance Engineer U.S. Department of Interior Department of Toxic Substances Control Environmental Assessment Environmental Document Essential Fish Habitat Environmental Impact Statement U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Highway Administration Finding of No Significant Impacted Federal Transportation Improvement Program Historic Property Survey Report

HRER HUD MOA MSA NEPA NADR NES NHPA NOAA NMFS NPDES NPS NRCS PM 10 PM2.5 PMP PQS ROD RTIP RTP RWQCB SER SEP SHPO SLC SP TIP USCG USDA USFWS WD

Historical Resources Evaluation Report U.S. Housing and Urban Development Memorandum of Agreement Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act National Environmental Policy Act Noise Abatement Decision Report Natural Environment Study National Historic Preservation Act National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System National Park Service Natural Resources Conservation Service Particulate Matter 10 Microns in Diameter or Less Particulate Matter 2.5 Microns in Diameter or Less Project Management Plan Professionally Qualified Staff Record of Decision Regional Transportation Improvement Program Regional Transportation Plan Regional Water Quality Control Board Standard Environmental Reference Senior Environmental Planner State Historic Preservation Officer State Lands Commission State Parks Transportation Improvement Program U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Delineation

Page 6-76 May 30,2008

LPP08-02

Local Assistance Proeedures Manual

Exhibit 6--A Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

E. Preliminary Environmental Document Classification (NEPA) Based on the evaluation of the project, the environmental document to be developed should be:
Cheek

one:
(Note: Engagement with participating agencies in accordance with SAFETEA-LU

D D

Environmental Impact Statement
Section 6002 required)

D Compliance

with SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 regarding Participating Agencies required

o
D
~

Complex Environmental Assessment Routine Environmental Assessment Categorical Exclusion without required technical studies. Categorical Exclusion with required technical studies
(if Categoriclll Exclusion

is selected, check one of the following):

181 Section
D

6004

[8J 23 CPR 771 activity (c)Q)
Activity __

o 23 CPR 771 activity (d) (__)
listed in the Section 6004 MOU

o Section 6005
Check os applicable:

F. Public Availability and Public Hearing

181
D

Not Required Notice of Availability of Environmental Document Public Meeting for a Public Hearing

o Notice of Opportunity

D

o Public Hearing Required
Signatures

G.

Local Agency Staff and/or Consultant Signature November 1> 2011
(Signature of Preparer)
(Date)

(213) 627-5376
(Telephone No.)

Madonna Marcelo. Senior Manager, ICF International
(Name)

Local Agency Project Engineer Signature This document was prepared under my supervision, in accordance with the Local Assistance Procedures Manual. Exhibit 6-B, "Instructions for Completing the Preliminary Environmental Study Form."

7'
LPP08-02

(Signature of Local ;.fgency)

/I-R-I/
(Date) (Felephone No.)

Page 6-77 May 30, 2008

Exhibit 6-A Preliminary Environmental

Local Assistance Procedures Study (PES) Form

Manual

Caltrans District Professionally Qualified Staff (PQS) Signature

D D D D
D

Project does not meet definition of an "undertaking"; #35)_

no further review is necessary under Section 106 ("No" Section A,

Project is limited to the type of activity listed in Attachment 2 of the Section 106 PA and based on the information provided in the PES Form, the project does not have the potential to affect historic properties (''No'' Section A, #35)_ Project is limited to the type of activity listed in Attachment 2 of the Section 106 PA, but the following additional procedures or information is needed to determine the potential for effect ("To Be Determined" Section A, #35): D Records Search D D D Project meets the defmition of an "undertaking"; all properties in the project area are exempt from evaluation per Attachment 4 of the Section 106 PA (''No'' Section A, #35)_ The proposed undertaking is considered to have the potential to affect historic properties; further studies for 106 compliance are indicated in Sections B, C, and D of this PES Form ("Yes" Section A, #35)_

-----------------

(Signature of Professionally

Qualified Stajj)

(Date)

(Telephone No)

The following signatures

are required

for all CEs, routine and complex EAs, and EISs:

Caltrans District Senior Environmental Planner (or Designee) and DLAE Signatures
I have reviewed this Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form and determined that the submittal is complete and sufficient. I concur with the studies to be performed and the recommended NEPA Class of Action.

(Signature of Senior Environmental

Planner or Designee)

(Date)

(Telephone No.)

(Name)

(Signature of District Local Assistance Engineer or Designee)

(Date)

(Telephone No.)

(Name)

D HQ DEA

Environmental Coordinator concurrence
(date)

-'- E-mail concurrence attached,

Page 6-78 May 30,2008

LPP 08-02

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

Exhibit 6-A Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Preliminary Environmental Investigation Notes to Support the Conclusions of the PES Form (May Also Include Continuation of Detailed Project Description)
Brief Explanation of How Project Complies, or Will Comply with Applicable Federal Mandate (part A):
1. The proposed project involves construction of a bicycle/pedestrian facility, which would run parallel to Exposition Boulevard, mostly within Metro ROW. The design capabilities of the proposed project can be fully utilized by cyclists accessing the bike path from adjacent streets and the existing bike lanes on Motor Avenue, as shown in Attachment B. It should be noted that pedestrians are not allowed on bike lanes but are allowed on bike paths. Therefore, although the City of Santa Monica has proposed a connecting bike path within their City, future construction is not required to fully utilize the design capabilities included in the proposed project. Therefore, no adverse effect would occur. Although the proposed project would be designed and constructed according to federal, state, and local standards and no adverse environmental impacts are expected, there is a possibility that the project may garner close attention by members of the community surrounding the project alignment. In fact, some members of the community have raised the question related to the project being part ofa larger project (i.e., Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2 [Expo Phase 2 Project]). The proposed bicycle/pedestrian facility has independent utility and would be constructed with or without the Expo Phase 2 Project. Although available studies previously prepared for the Expo Phase 2 Project were reviewed and considered for determining the impacts of the proposed project on the environment, the impacts of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian facility were identified independently from the impacts of the Expo Phase 2 Project. With regards to the cumulative effects of the two projects, the Final EIR (FEIR) for the Expo Phase 2 Project (available on-line and may be accessed through the following link: http://backup.buildexpo.org/phase2IPhase%202%20FEIR%20Documents/05 OtherCEOAConsiderationsFEIRpdf) included a discussion of cumulative impacts, which considered the proposed project as one of the recent projects included in the cumulative assessment. The FEIR, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), concluded that cumulative impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, global climate change, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils/seismicity, hazardslhazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, noise/vibration, paleontological resources, parks/community facilities, safety/security, socioeconomics, and energy resources could be mitigated to less-than-significant levels under CEQA. In addition, since the proposed project would not generate vehicle trips, no cumulative traffic impacts would occur. However, the FEIR identified a significant unavoidable impact related to construction emissions. Peak construction activities associated with the Expo Phase 2 Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of the criteria pollutant (NOx). Compared to the Expo Phase 2 Project, construction emissions generated by the proposed project would be minimal. The City has received comments expressing concern about operation and maintenance of the bike path, especially public safety on the segment west of Motor Avenue, which will be more secluded. Operation and maintenance of the bike path will be the responsibility of the City of Los Angeles. Safety and security will be the responsibility of the Los Angeles Police Department. Existing bike paths with similar or greater degrees of seclusion (e.g., the Los Angeles River bike path) have not had substantially greater safety or security problems.! Therefore, it is not anticipated that any special safety or security measure exclusive to this project is necessary. In addition, 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 771.1 17(c) lists the construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths, and facilities as an action that meets the criteria for categorical exclusions in the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulation (Section 1508.4). Accordingly, the proposed project is considered to be an action that, based on past experience with similar actions, does not induce significant impacts to planned growth or land use for the area; require the relocation of significant numbers of people; have a significant impact on any natural, cultural,
1 Verbal communication between Genevieve Bravo, Crime & Intelligence Analyst II, Los Angeles Police Department Northeast Area CAD- War Room, and Steve Gaur, Los Angeles Department of Transportation, on October 13, 2011, regarding bicycle safety along the Los Angeles River bike path.

2.

LPP08-02

Page 6-79 May 30, 2008

Exhibit 6,..A Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

recreational, historic, or other resource; involve significant air, noise, or water quality impacts; have significant impacts on travel patterns; or otherwise, either individually or cumulatively, have any significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no significant adverse impact is expected as a result ofthe proposed project. Similarly, development of project alternatives is not warranted. 3. The project is not a Type I project, as defined bicycle/pedestrian path parallel to Exposition change the alignment of an existing highway effect would occur as a result of the proposed in 23 CFR 772.5(h). The proposed project would consist ofa Boulevard, mostly within Metro ROW. The project would not facility or increase the number of through-traffic lanes. Therefore, no project.

4.

Construction of the proposed project would not involve any pile driving, structure demolition, blasting, or other activities that typically produce substantial noise. Construction of the proposed facility mainly involves paving work and some grading work, which would occur according to the City's hours permitted for construction activities. In addition, the project will comply with the City of Los Angeles Noise Ordinance Nos. 144, 331 and 161,574 and any subsequent ordinances, which prohibit the creation of noise beyond certain levels at adjacent uses unless technically infeasible. Therefore, no adverse construction-related noise impact would occur as a result of the proposed project. The project alignment would be located in Los Angeles County, which is a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) non-attainment/maintenance area. The proposed project consists of "bicycle and pedestrian facilities," which are exempt from the requirements that a conformity determination be made to determine if adverse effects to air quality would occur. Nevertheless, an analysis was conducted to assess potential health risks to bicyclists. Approximately 1.2 miles of the proposed 3.6-mile bicycle/pedestrian path would be located immediately adjacent to Interstate 10 (1-10 or Santa Monica Freeway). Assuming a 12-mile-per-hour (mph) bicycle travel speed, each pass along the 1.2-mile segment would require approximately 6 minutes of exposure duration. Furthermore, assuming a bicycle rider were to make one round trip every day, the annual exposure duration would be approximately 73 hours. Putting this into perspective, a typical worker or resident would have annual exposure durations of approximately 4,400 hours or 2,000 hours, respectively. The exposure durations of individual cyclists to freewayrelated mobile-source air toxic (MSA T) emissions would be sporadic and limited, even under a twice daily exposure assumption. According to the most recent South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study III (MATES III) carcinogenic modeling estimates, the current baseline cancer risk within this area of concern is 875 in one million compared to 1,891 in one million to school children at the Belmont Learning Complex in downtown Los Angeles, and 2,673 in one million to workers at the Port of Los Angeles. 2

5.

In addition, MSAT emissions (and related carcinogenic risk) will likely be lower than current levels in future years
at all areas, including this approximately 1.2-mile area of concern, as a result of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA's) national control programs, which are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by 72 percent from 1999 to 2050. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the USEPA-projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in virtually all locations. 3 Based on the three reasons presented above (i.e., limited and sporadic exposure durations, relatively low baseline carcinogenic risk when compared to other areas of the County, and decreasing MSAT emissions in future years), adverse health effects to individual cyclists would be negligible. 6. The proposed of the project "Construction project types project is exempt from the requirement that a conformity determination be made. The-project is one types listed under Table 2 of 40 CFR 93.126 (see Attachment C). The project falls under the category of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths, and facilities" under the "Air Quality" section of the-list of in Table 2.

2 South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD MATES III Model Estimated Carcinogenic Risk, available on-line and may be accessed through the following link: http://www2.aqmd.gov/webappl/matesiii/ 3 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA, September 30,2009, available on-line and may be accessed through the following link: www.fhwa.dot.gov/environmentJair guality/air toxies/policy and guidance/lOOl09guidmem.cfm.

Page 6-80 May 30~2008

LPP08-02

Local Assistance Procedures

Manual Preliminary Environmental

Exhibit 6-A Study (PES) Form

7. 8. 9.

N/A. The project is exempt from the requirement that a conformity determination be made. N/ A. The project is exempt from the requirement that a conformity determination be made. The proposed project involves the construction and operation ofa bicycle/pedestrian path parallel to Exposition Boulevard, mostly within the Metro ROW. The proposed project would not create conditions where users of the bicycle/pedestrian facility or land uses adjacent to the facility would be exposed to hazardous materials or waste. A Hazards and Hazardous Materials Technical Background Report (PBS&J, December 2009) was prepared for the Expo Phase 2 Project (available on-line and may be accessed through the following link: http://backup.buildexpo.org/phase2IPhase%202%20FEIRo/020Documents/TBR%27s/TBR%20Hazards%20w%20A ppendix%20Final Dec09.pdf), when the proposed bicycle/pedestrian path was still a component of that project. The report identified the potential for hazardous materials to be encountered during track removal, grading, and/or demolition during the construction phase of the transit project. These materials could include solvents, mercury, lead, asbestos, fuels, oils, paints, cleansers, and pesticides. However, according to this report, the risk of encountering hazardous materials is limited to the Expo Phase 2 project alignment itself. Inasmuch as there is no record of contamination on the Northvale properties, and given the history of the project area (i.e., primarily residential uses), additional testing is not warranted and the potential for encountering hazardous materials along the proposed bicycle/pedestrian path is low. In addition, the report identified mitigation measures applicable to the Expo Phase 2 Project to ensure that hazardous or potentially hazardous materials would be properly handled during construction activities and that the potential risk of contamination by unknown contaminants would be minimized by requiring investigation and remediation if encountered during construction. The report identified that this risk would occur only during project construction, and not operations. With regards to aerially deposited lead (ADL), which is typically found along highway shoulders from past leaded fuel vehicle emissions, the proposed bicycle/pedestrian path is located outside of the freeway ROW at a sufficient distance where ADL is not expected to be encountered. Therefore, the construction of the bicycle/pedestrian path would not result in adverse effects with regards to hazardous materials and/or hazardous waste. The nearest water resource to the project site is the Sepulveda Channel, which is located approximately 0.75 mile southwest from the project alignment. The proposed project would construct a bicycle/pedestrian path, which would be paved. The majority ofthe bike path would be located in areas that are already paved, particularly west of Military Avenue. Specifically between Motor Avenue and Overland Avenue, behind the properties on Northvale Road, the proposed proj ect would result in the creation of approximately 1.4 acres of impervious area. However, since there are vegetated areas and other pervious surfaces between the project alignment and the Sepulveda Channel, some of the storm water runoff may cross these vegetated or pervious areas prior to reaching the channel, resulting in a very small increase in flow/volume of storm water associated with the bike path. When the area of the Ballona Creek Watershed (approximately 83,200 acres) is compared with the increase in impervious area due to the proposed project, the project's contribution is less than 0.002 percent ofthe Ballona Creek Watershed. Accordingly, the Sepulveda Channel and the Ballona Creek Watershed would not be adversely affected by the proposed bicycle/pedestrian path. Potential groundwater recharge within the Santa Monica Basin is primarily from upland runoff through streams and over land surfaces, and direct precipitation on the basin within the project area is not a maj or source of groundwater recharge. Accordingly, because rainfall is not a maj or source of groundwater recharge in the project area, the increase in impervious surface created by the proposed project would not substantially affect groundwater recharge. Furthermore, the proposed project would adhere to all requirements of federal, state, and local construction permits relating to the discharge of runoff water, and any possible dewatering from the construction site. Therefore, no adverse impacts to water resources are expected with construction or operation of the proposed project. Four (4) aquifers in California have been designated as Sole Source Aquifers by the USEPA. These aquifers are located in Santa Cruz County, Fresno County, Imperial County, and San Diego County. The project alignment would be located in Los Angeles County and not within a designated sole-source aquifer. Therefore, no effect on designated sole-source aquifers would occur as a result of the proposed project. The project alignment is not located within the San Francisco Bay, Suisun Marsh, or within 1,000 yards of the coast. Accordingly, the project alignment is not located within a State Coastal Zone. Therefore, no effect related to coastal zones would occur as a result of the proposed project.

10.

11.

12.

LPP 08-02

Page 6-81 May 30, 2008

Exhibit6~A Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form
13.

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

A portion of the project alignment (from Overland Avenue to Westwood Boulevard) is located within an area designated as lOO-year flood hazard area. However, the project would not include any structures or involve any topography change in the floodplain area. Nonetheless, a Location Hydraulic Study has been prepared in accordance with guidance set forth in the SER, Chapter 17, "Floodplains," provided at http://www.dot.gov/ser/voll/sec3/speciaI/ch17flood/chap17.htm. and is included as Attachment D. A review of the Wild and Scenic River Program maps confirms the absence of a Wild and Scenic River System located within or immediately adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect any designated wild or scenic rivers. The closest water body included in the Wild and Scenic River System is Sespe Creek, located over 40 miles northwest of the project alignment. Therefore, no effect related to wild and scenic rivers would occur as a result of the proposed project. Surveys of biological resources, including federally listed threatened or endangered species, were conducted as part of the Natural Environment Study (PBS&J, December 2009), which was prepared for the Expo Phase 2 Project (available on-line and may be accessed through the following link: http://backup.buildexpo.orglphase2IPhase%202%20FEIR%20Documents/TBR%27s/TBR%20Natural%20Env%20 Study%20w%20Append%20Final Dec09.pdt), when the proposed bicycle/pedestrian path was still a component of that project. Since the proposed bicycle/pedestrian path would be located immediately adjacent to this transit project, the results of this survey were reviewed for the proposed project. The biological surveys located eucalyptus trees within Segment 1 of the ExpoPhase 2 project alignment, which provide potential winter roosting habitat for the monarch butterfly. While these trees are located within the project area, they are located outside of the area that would be subject to construction activities. Accordingly, construction of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian path would not affect these eucalyptus trees. Furthermore, all possible attempts would be made to preserve and protect existing flora and fauna encountered in the construction of the project, and no destruction or removal of these resources would be initiated without prior notification to the community. Therefore, no effects to critical habitat would occur as a result of the proposed project. Biological surveys were conducted as part of the Natural Environment Study (PBS&J, December 2009), which was prepared for the Expo Phase 2 Project (available on-line and may be accessed through the following link: http://backup.buildexpo.org/phase2IPhase%202%20FEIR%20Documents/TBR%27s1TBR%20Natural%20Env%20 Study%20w%20Append%20Final Dec09.pdf), when the proposed bicycle/pedestrian path was still a component of that project. These surveys identified the possible presence of nesting birds protected by the META and the Fish and Game Code. Bird nests were observed within the trees in the residential areas adjacent to Segment 1 of the transit corridor during the December 19, 2007, biological field survey. It could not be determined at the time of the field survey which species occupied these nests. In addition, the study area also presented many nesting opportunities for birds. Areas with suitable nesting habitat included the trees lining the alignments. Examples of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META) and Section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code that might nest in the study area include the American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and northern flicker (Colaptes auritus). All of these species were observed within the study area. The removal of an active nest of a META and/or Fish and Game Code protected species would be a violation of the META and/or Fish and Game Code. The magnitude of the adverse effect would depend on the species affected. For example, the loss of an American robin nest is less of an adverse effect than the loss of a least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pus illus) nest, even though both are afforded equal protection under the MB T A. This is because the least Bell's vireo is a federal- and state-listed endangered species and would have greater protection under these two Endangered Species Acts. Inclusion of the measures in the Background Technical Report as project features during project construction would ensure that there would not be any potential adverse effects to the nests ofMBTA and Fish and Game Code protected birds. Measure NES-l in the Background Technical Report calls for performing pre-construction surveys by a qualified biologist in order to avoid removal of nesting bird habitat during the nesting season and/or fmd ways to adequately reduce the effects associated with construction activities, which is a required avoidance practice to ensure that there are no nesting birds or nesting bird habitat are affected during the nesting season. Therefore, with inclusion of this avoidance practice as part of project construction, no adverse effects to migratory birds, or their nests or eggs would occur as a result of the proposed project.

14.

15.

16.

Page6~82 May 30, 2008

LPP 08~02

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

Exhibit 6-A Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

17.

The construction area is in a fully developed urban area and is not located within or adjacent to any potential wetlands. A review of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetlands Online Mapper shows that no wetlands exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project alignment. The Sepulveda Channel is located at least 0.75 mile southwest from the proposed project and would not be affected by the proposed project Therefore, no effect on wetlands would occur as a result of the proposed project. As stated above (No. 17), according to the USFWS's Wetlands Mapper, there are no wetlands identified within or in the vicinity of the project alignment, with the exception of the Sepulveda Channel which is located approximately 0.75 mile southwest from the project alignment. This channel would not be affected by the proposed bicycle/pedestrian path. The project site is located in a fully urbanized area and devoid of any agricultural-related uses. Therefore, no effect on agricultural wetlands would occur as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project would not be expected to introduce or spread any invasive plant species. Incidental landscaping would be in accordance with the City's landscaping guidelines and policies, which prohibit the use of invasive species in landscaping plans. Therefore, no effect related to invasive plant species would occur as a result of the proposed project. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 dictates that federal funds not be used for any program or project that requires the use of any publicly owned land, such as a public park, recreation area or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state or local significance, unless it can be demonstrated that there is no feasible or prudent alternative to such use and that all possible planning to minimize harm has been undertaken. Resources subject to Section 4(f) consideration include publicly-owned lands that are considered part ofa public park; a recreational area of national, state, or local significance; a wildlife or waterfowl refuge; or a historic site of national, state, or local significance, whether publicly- or privately-owned. Research and surveys were conducted for the Historical Resources Evaluation Report (EDA W, Inc., December 2009) and the Addendum to the Historical Resources Evaluation Report (EDA W, Inc., December 2009), which were both prepared for the Expo Phase 2 Project (available on-line and may be accessed through the following links: htlJl://backup.buildexpo.org/phase2/Phase%202%20FEIR%20Documents/TBR%27s/TBR%20Historic%20w%20A ppendices%20Final Dec09 .pdf and htlJl://backup.buildexpo.orgfphase2/phase%202%20FEIR%20DocumentslTBR%27s1TBR%20Historic%20Addend um%20w%20Append%20Final Dec09.pdt),when the proposed bicycle/pedestrian path was still a component of that project. These reports did not reveal any of the architectural resources evaluated as listed,eligible, or potentially eligible for listing in the California Register for Historic Places. The proposed bicycle/pedestrian path would not affect any existing structures. The only publicly owned park/recreation area adjacent to the proposed bicycle/pedestrian path would be the Palms Park/Recreation Center, and the proposed project would not affect the park and recreation center, or the pedestrian bridge over the ROW connecting the park to the neighborhood to the north of the ROW at Northvale Road and Dunleer Drive. Finally, the project alignment is not located within or immediately adjacent to a wildlife or waterfowl refuge. Therefore, no adverse effect related to Section 4(f) resources would occur as a result of the proposed project. Section 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act (16 USC Section 4601-4) contains provisions to protect federal investments in park and recreational resources and the quality of those assisted resources. The law recognizes the likelihood that changes in land use or development may make park use of some areas purchased with LWCF funds obsolete over time, particularly in rapidly changing urban areas, and provides for conversion to other use pursuant to certain specific conditions. This requirement applies to all parks and other sites that have been the subject of LWCF grants of any type and includes acquisition of park land and development or rehabilitation of park facilities. The proposed project would not affect any properties acquired or improved with LWCF funds (Section 6[f]). Therefore, no effect related to Section 6(f) resources would occur as a result of the proposed project. A survey of the project alignment and immediate surrounding area reveals that there are no scenic or unique vistas or resources as defmed by the cities of Los Angeles and Culver City. The proposed project would involve the construction and operation of a bicycle/pedestrian path parallel to Exposition Boulevard, mostly within the Metro ROW. It is expected that the visual setting would change as a result of the construction of the recently approved Exposition Corridor Transit Project Phase 2. The proposed bikeway/pedestrian path would be designed to be integrated within the visual character of the surrounding community, such that no substantial changes to the

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

LPP08-02

Page 6-83 May 30, 2008

Exhibit6-A Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

existing visual setting would occur from the bicycle/pedestrian path itself. The bike path would be constructed atgrade or lower, and elevation of the bike path above the existing grade adjacent to the residential properties on Northvale would be highly unlikely, and, therefore, privacy and viewshed issues are not expected to be substantially affected by the construction of the bike path. Furthermore, the bike path would not preclude or make infeasible any planned mitigation measures to reduce the Expo Phase 2 Project's noise and aesthetic impacts (i.e., soundwalls). Therefore, no adverse effect related to visual or scenic resources would occur as a result of the proposed project. 23. The proposed project would construct a bicycle/pedestrian path parallel to Exposition Boulevard and mostly within Metro ROW, except for partial acquisition of seven residential parcels (described in more detail in item No. 24 below), and where the bikeway portion would be within a City street for a segment of National Boulevard and Motor Avenue. Certain regulations would apply to acquire the transportation easements behind the seven residential properties on Northvale Road, but no individual relocations would occur. Accordingly, the proposed project would not require relocation of any residential or business properties along the project alignment. Therefore, no effect related to relocation would occur as a result of the proposed project. Due to ROW constraints, partial acquisition of seven residential parcels (see the table below) may be required in order to construct a Class I bike path from Motor Avenue to 500 feet east of Dunleer Drive.

24.

Assessor's Parcel Number
4318-034-038 4318-034-039 4318-034-040 4318-034-041 4318-034-042 4318-034-043 4318-034-044

Legal Lot #
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 10420 10410 10406 10400 10384 10378 10370

Address
Northvale Northvale Northvale Northvale Northvale Northvale Northvale Road Road Road Road Road Road Road

These partial property acquisitions would not demolish the physical buildings of the property but, instead, would acquire only particular portions of the property, such as landscaping. A barrier is proposed between the bike path and the private properties. The City of Los Angeles will work with the residents adjacent to the proposed bike path on the appropriate design of the barrier during the design phase of the project. The acquisitions would be needed for permanent easements of about 13 feet to accommodate the bicycle/pedestrian path within the area between the 1-10 (Santa Monica Freeway) and the residential properties fronting on Northvale Road. Since the Expo Phase 2 tunnel cannot be shared with the proposed bike/pedestrian path for safety reasons. The bike bath path would cross under 1-10 via the existing bike lanes on Motor Avenue and connect with the proposed bicycle/pedestrian path where the easements are located. These easements are already adjacent to portions of the residential properties where the owners of the residential parcels are restricted from building due to the location of City sewer easements per the agreement with the City included as Attachment E to this form. It is unlikely that additional parcel acquisitions would be needed for this portion of the alignment. Nonetheless, appropriate compensation would be provided to the property owners of parcels affected by partial acquisitions as required by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. This law requires that the federal government provide relocation advice and payments when it acquires real property under its power of eminent domain. Real property is defined as anything that is permanently affixed to the ground, which can include parking lots and spaces, sidewalks, and landscaping. Compliance with this law would avoid adverse effects resulting from the partial acquisition of the identified parcels, should they be required for construction and operation of the proposed project. 25. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan. The project alignment is located within the West Los Angeles Community Plan area and the West Los Angeles Transportation hnprovement and Mitigation Specific Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the Community Plan, particularly Goal 12 of the Community Plan, which calls for a system of safe, efficient, and attractive bicycle and pedestrian routes in the community. The proposed project is also consistent with the intentions of the Specific Plan, particularly Number 7, which aims to promote work-related ride sharing and bicycling. The proposed project would construct a bicycle and pedestrian

Page 6-84 May 30,2008

LPP08-02

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

Exhibit 6-A Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

path parallel to Exposition Boulevard within Metro ROWand, as such, is consistent with the Community Plan. Therefore, no adverse effect related to plan consistency would occur as a result of the proposed project. 26. The proposed project would not divide or disrupt established neighborhoods or communities. The proposed project consists of the construction of a bicycle and pedestrian path parallel to Exposition Boulevard mostly within the existing Metro ROW. Barriers are proposed between the Expo Phase 2 Project and the bike path and between the bike path and adjacent residences on Northvale Road. The community will have an opportunity to provide input on the design of the barriers to ensure safety and security of the residents with properties along the bicycle and pedestrian path, as well as the integration of these barriers within the surrounding community. As such, the proposed project would not introduce a new barrier with the potential to divide or disrupt neighborhoods or communities. Therefore, no adverse effect on established neighborhoods or communities would occur as a result of the proposed project. A Socioeconomic Technical Report was prepared in support of the Expo Phase 2 Project (PBS&J, December 2009) (available on-line and may be accessed through the following link: http:/tbackup.buildexpo.org/phase2IPhase%202%20FEIR%20DocumentslTBR%27sITBR%20Socioeconomic%20 Final Dec09.pdf), when the proposed bicycle/pedestrian path was still a component of that project. This technical report was reviewed to identify the location of low- income or minority populations along the alignment of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian path. A "high concentration" of minority or low-income residents was defmed as an area that contains greater than 50 percent minority populations or where poverty rates or the percent of minority population was 10 percent more than the reference community. The reference communities were the cities of Culver City, Los Angeles, and Santa Monica. The only portions within a O.S-mile buffer of the Expo Phase 2 Project alignment that include a high concentration of minority and/or low-income residents are located within the City of Santa Monica or in Culver City. The proposed bicycle path project is located in the City of Los Angeles, in an area that is not characterized by low-income or minority populations. Therefore, no effect related to environmental justice would occur as a result of the proposed project. Though it seems unlikely, the proposed construction of the bicycle and pedestrian path may require the relocation of some utility infrastructure (e.g., storm drain or sewer) in the Northvale utility easement. If needed, the utilities would be relocated within the existing easement. If this utility infrastructure requires relocation, early and continuing coordination with the utility companies would take place to ensure the avoidance of adverse effects to the utility infrastructure and utility service operations. In addition, LAD O'I' will work with the community and local schools regarding construction site safety and with regard to any temporary activities that may affect any "Safe Routes to School" programs. Currently, there are several "Safe Routes to School" programs in the project area, including (but not limited to) Palms Elementary and Middle Schools, Clover Elementary School, Brockton Elementary School, and Webster Middle School. 4 Therefore, no adverse effect related to utility relocation would occur as a result of the proposed project. The proposed bicycle/pedestrian path would not affect access to properties adjacent to the Metro ROW as these properties' main access points are located away from the side of the property adjacent to the Metro ROW. Furthermore, the bicycle/pedestrian path would not block access to properties or roadways, even when they are adjacent to the bike/pedestrian path. Therefore, no adverse effect on property access would occur as a result of the proposed project. The proposed bicycle/pedestrian path would run adjacent to the 1-10 freeway along some portions of the alignment but would not encroach on any sections of this highway or affect any of its on- or off-ramps. A new traffic signal proposed on Motor A venue will take into consideration the existing and future traffic conditions and mitigation plans, including the Century City Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Plan. Improvements were recently implemented along Motor Avenue to discourage its use as access to 1-10 and to calm traffic along the corridor, as requested by the community. This proposed signal would not adversely affect any applicable existing and future mitigation plans. In addition, coordination with Caltrans throughout the project process would ensure no adverse effects would occur as a result of the proposed project.

27.

28.

29.

30.

4 Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) engineers have developed maps showing recommended routes to schools within the Los Angeles Unified School District. These maps are available on-line and may be accessed through the following lillie httn:llladot.lacity.orgltf safe routes school.htm.

LPP08-02

Page 6-85 May 30, 2008

Exhibit 6-A Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form
31. 32.

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

The proposed project would not require the closure of roads, ramps, or require a detour route during construction. Therefore, no effect related to traffic circulation would occur as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project would be constructed mostly within Metro ROWand would not affect available parking along the project alignment, except for the portion where the bicycle/pedestrian lane would run parallel to National Boulevard between Palms Boulevard and Motor Avenue. Fifty-eight (58) on-street parking spaces would be removed along this segment for required widening and striping of the bicycle lanes. Physical surveys of the existing on-street parking supply in the affected neighborhood were conducted during the daytime and nighttime hours on September 8, 2011. The area surveyed consisted of the area within approximately two blocks from the segment of National Boulevard where on-street parking is proposed to be removed. A two-block radius was selected since it is a commonly used and accepted metric for determining on-street parking use and demand, taking into account typical human behavior (e.g., most residents that park on the street likely park within two blocks of their home). As an example to support this notion, the City of Santa Monica has established a preferential parking two-block parking rule. The City assumed that on occasion, there may be no parking spaces on a resident's block and, accordingly, has allowed the resident and hislher visitors to park within two blocks ofhislher address. This two-block area is roughly bounded by National Boulevard on the north, Hughes Avenue on the east, Tabor Street on the south, and Mentone Avenue on the west. The number of on-street parking spaces was estimated by taking the approximate length of the curb lanes and assuming a space length of20 feet per vehicle as suggested by LADOT. The street segments surveyed and the corresponding supply are listed in the table below. Parking Supply Survey Street Name National Boulevard Segment End Points Between Palms Boulevard and Mentone A venue Number of Existing On-Street Parking Spaces 75 Notes There are 8 metered spaces between Mentone Avenue and Motor Avenue. All spaces on the south side of National Boulevard between Motor Avenue and Palms Boulevard currently have a 2-hour parking limit from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Approximately 44 spaces between Mentone Avenue and Vinton Avenue currently have a 2-hour parking limit from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., every day.

Woodbine Street

Between National Boulevard and Mentone Avenue

74

Palms Boulevard

Between National Boulevard and Mentone Avenue Between Hughes Avenue and Vinton Avenue Between Exposition Boulevard and Tabor Street Between Tabor Street and dead endlcul-de-sac north of Tabor Street

34

Tabor Street Hughes Avenue

80 13 Parking allowed only on the east side of the street.

Dunn Drive

30

Page 6-86

May 30,2008

LPP 08-02

Local Assistance

Procedures

Manual Preliminary Parking Supply Survey(Continued) Environmental

Exhibit 6-A Study (PES) Form

Street Name Clarington Avenue

Segment End Points Between National Boulevard and Tabor Street Between National Boulevard and Tabor Street Between National Boulevard and Tabor Street Between National Boulevard and Palms Boulevard Between National Boulevard and Palms Boulevard

Number of Existing OnStreet Parking Spaces 50

Notes

Jasmine Avenue

64

Vinton Avenue

84

Motor Avenue

39

There are 25 metered spaces between Woodbine Street and National Boulevard.

Mentone Avenue

65

TOTAL:

608

As shown in the table, there are approximately 608 on-street parking spaces in the survey area. The proposed project would remove up to 58 parking spaces, or approximately 9.5 percent of the existing on-street parking supply for the installation of the bike lanes on National Boulevard. Furthermore, the surveys showed that on-street parking spaces on National Boulevard were more lightly utilized than the spaces on the other surrounding streets. While utilization overall was much noticeably higher at night in the survey area, National Boulevard was more lightly utilized than other streets both during the daytime and nighttime surveys. Nonetheless, the parking removal concept and the installation of bike lanes along this segment of the project alignment will be thoroughly coordinated with all affected agencies and the local community, including the Palms Neighborhood Council, to minimize the effects of the parking removal and the loss of on-street parking on National Boulevard. Therefore, no adverse effect on parking would occur as a result of the proposed project. 33. As stated under Item Number 30 above, there is a possibility that encroachment on state land under Caltrans jurisdiction may occur. Any changes to the intersection ofPalrns BoulevardlNational BoulevardlExposition Boulevard will be in accordance with city, state, and federal standards, concerning signage and striping for all users, including those of the proposed bike path and bike lanes. In addition, proper coordination with Caltrans throughout the project process would ensure no adverse effects on state or federal lands would occur as a result of the proposed project. The project alignment is located within a highly urbanized area in the western portion of Los Angeles County. The project site and its vicinity do not support any agricultural uses and have not been mapped by the California Resources Agency as farmland. Accordingly, the proposed project would not affect any agricultural resources. Furthermore, the proposed project would not convert any agricultural lands or farmlands to a different use. Therefore, no effect related to the conversion of farmland to a different use would occur as a result of the proposed project.
5

34.

5

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection. Important Farmland in California, Los Angeles County 2008 [map]. Available: ftp:l/ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrpIFMMP/pdff2008/los08.pdf Accessed: February 11,2011.

LPP 08-02

Page 6-87 May 30, 2008

Exhibit6-A Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form
35.

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

Research and surveys were conducted for the Historical Resources Evaluation Report (EDA W, Inc., December 2009) and the Addendum to the Historical Resources Evaluation Report (EDA W, Inc., December 2009) in support of the Expo Phase 2 Project, when the proposed bicycle/pedestrian path was still a component of that project. These reports did not identify any architectural resources evaluated as listed, eligible, or potentially eligible for listing in the California Register for Historic Places. The proposed bicycle/pedestrian path would not affect any existing structures. The proposed project is not expected to encounter any archaeological resources since excavation and grading activities would only reach an expected depth of about 1 foot for most of the alignment. The project would not result in deep excavation activities in undisturbed soil. However, the proposed project would require a more considerable ground disturbance in the area just west of Motor Avenue and immediately north of the 1-10, where there is an existing embankment berm that would be cut to provide a maximum grade of 5 percent for the bike path. This area is primarily composed of artificial fill materials, which have very low potential for archaeological resources. Similarly, retaining walls are proposed in this area to support the bike path. The area behind the properties on Northvale Road has been previously disturbed during installation of the utility lines within the sewer easement. In addition, state and federal law and the City's standard specifications for public works projects require protective measures when archaeological resources are encountered. Moreover, the excavation and ground disturbance associated with the Expo Phase 2 Project would be substantial compared to those resulting from the implementation of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian path. Therefore, no adverse effect would occur. The proposed project is not located on or adjacent to any Tribal land, as recorded in the cultural resources surveys and research performed for the Expo Phase 2 Project, when the proposed bicycle/pedestrian path was still a component of the project. Accordingly, the proposed project would not encroach on any Tribal land since it would be located mostly within Metro ROW along the Expo Phase 2 alignment. The proposed project would construct and operate a bicycle and pedestrian path parallel to Exposition Boulevard mostly within the existing Metro ROW. Furthermore, no major excavation activities would be required during construction on identified Tribal land. Therefore, no effect on Tribal lands would occur as a result of the proposed project.

36.

Page 6-88 May 30,2008

LPP 08-02

Local Assistance Procedures

Manual Preliminary Environmental

Exhibit6-A Study (PES) Form

Continuation of Detailed Project Description: This project involves the design and construction ofa bicycle/pedestrian facility, which would run parallel to Exposition Boulevard, within the Metro ROW from Venice BoulevardIRobertson Boulevard to Centinela Avenue for a distance of approximately 3.6 miles. Pedestrians are not allowed on bike lanes; however, they are allowed on bike paths. The proposed project involves the construction of bike paths, except for the segment from Palms Boulevard to Motor Avenue, where bike lanes are proposed. No amenities for pedestrians, such as benches, would be provided as part of the project. Lighting would be installed for safety purposes along the bike path and would be shielded and directed downward to avoid spillover on adjacent properties. Operation and maintenance of the bike facility will be the responsibility of the City of Los Angeles. Safety and security will be the responsibility of the Los Angeles Police Department. Based on existing bike paths with similar or greater degrees of "seclusion" (e.g., the Los Angeles River bike path) that have not had substantially greater safety or security problems, it is not anticipated that any special safety or security measure exclusive to this project is necessary. The proposed project is primarily a Class I bike path that may require on-street transitions due to ROW constraints. The proposed project includes lighting, incidental landscaping, striping, signage, and traffic signal modification/installation. The first segment of the Class I bike path would intersect two City streets: Bagley Avenue and National BoulevardlPalms Boulevard. It would then transition to Class IIbike lanes on National Boulevard from Palms Boulevard to Motor Avenue. 6 The north side of National Boulevard would need to be widened along this portion to accommodate the striping of the bicycle lanes where they would be adjacent to the Metro ROW. Existing bike lanes on Motor Avenue, as shown on Attachment B, would bring the bikeway to a new bike path within City sewer easements north of the 1-10 freeway, continuing within the Metro right-of-way to Overland Avenue. The proposed alignment would cross under 1-10 using the existing bike lanes on Motor Avenue and, as such, would not share an undercrossing with the Expo Phase 2 Project. Some excavation would be required from Motor Avenue to west of Dunleer Drive to accommodate the bike paths, which would be subject to the City's maximum grade guidelines, and the retaining walls necessary to support the bike paths on sloping terrain. The need for and location of any retaining walls will be determined during the final design phase of the project. The bike path would be constructed at-grade or lower, and elevation of the bike path above the existing grade adjacent to the residential properties on Northvale would be highly unlikely, and, therefore, privacy and viewshed issues are not expected to be substantially affected by the construction of the bike path. With the exception of this segment of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian facility, excavation is not expected to be greater than 12 inches in anyone location. In the event that the excavation and grading needed to construct the bicycle/pedestrian path and retaining walls result in the disturbance of an acre or more of soil, the proposed project would comply with the requirements ofthe Construction General Permit. Any clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities required during project construction would be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph) to prevent excessive amounts of dust. In compliance with City of Los Angeles requirements, all construction equipment would be maintained and operated so as to minimize exhaust emissions. In addition, the project will comply with the City of Los Angeles Noise Ordinance Nos. 144, 331 and 161,574 and any subsequent ordinances, which prohibit the creation of noise beyond certain levels at adjacent uses unless technically infeasible. Beyond Overland A venue, the bike path would cross Westwood Boulevard, Military A venue, Sepulveda Boulevard, and Sawtelle Boulevard, transitioning back to an on-street bikeway at Pico Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard. The Class I bike path would resume along the Metro ROW west of this intersection, crossing Barrington Avenue, Bundy Drive, and terminating at Centinela Avenue. The City of Santa Monica would extend the facility within their city limits as a separately funded project. Northbound bicycle/pedestrian traffic using the Class IIbike lanes on Motor Avenue and traveling west on the proposed Class I bike path, would have to cross Motor Avenue to access the Class I bike path at a point just north of the I· 10 freeway. To facilitate a safe crossing, a traffic signal would be installed at the point of crossing to alert traffic whenever a bicyclist or pedestrian is crossing Motor Avenue. Bagley Avenue, Overland Avenue, Westwood Boulevard, and Military Avenue are all at-grade crossings for the Expo Phase 2 Project. Signalization for the bikeway would be included at these locations, which would be part of the overall signal for the Expo Phase 2 crossing. Accordingly, Motor A venue would not be the only location where a new signal would be installed. Additionally, locations where the Expo Phase 2 Project would be gradeseparated and where Exposition Boulevard or the adjacent street is not signalized with the cross-street would require a new

6 Class I bike paths are defined as existing in an exclusive bicycle right-of-way (may be used by bicyclists and pedestrians). lanes are defined as existing on city streets that are delineated by pavement markings to separate bikes from cars.

Class II bike

LPP 08-02

Page 6-89 May 30, 2008

Exhibit6~A Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

signalized crossing for the bikeway (e.g., Sawtelle Boulevard). Consequently, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) must approve any signals related to the rail crossing. However, specific to the proposed project, no CPUC approvals would be required, and there would be no grade-separated bikeway crossings. The purpose of the project would be to encourage the use of bicycles as an alternative form of transportation in the area. The bikeway would assist bicyclists by connecting them to destinations, such as the Westside Pavilion or Palms Park. These destinations are usually only accessed via automobile or bus. Bicycle access would be provided between the Exposition Boulevard ROW bike path, Venice Boulevard bike lanes, and Metro bus route stops along Sepulveda Boulevard and Venice Boulevard. Encouraging an alternative form of transportation, such as LRT and bicycle transportation, would help in reducing the reliance on automobiles and buses and thereby assist in reducing roadway traffic congestion on the Westside. The design of the bikeway will conform with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2010 Edition; Caltrans Highway Design Manual on Bikeway Facilities (Chapter 1000); the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); Metro Rights-of-Way Preservation Guidelines; City of Los Angeles Manual of Policies and Procedures; and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guidefor the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999). Funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) is proposed. The project is included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (Federal Project Number RPSTPLE 5006(468)).

Distribution

1) Original- DLAE, 2) Local Agency Project Manager, 3) DLA Environmental 4) Senior Environmental Planner (or designee), 5) District PQS

Coordinator Updated: 05/15108

Page 6-90 May 30, 2008

LPP 08-02

Local Assistance Procedures

Manual

Exhibit 6-C Table 2- Exempt Projects

EXHIBIT 6-B TABLE 2 -EXEMPT PROJECTS

CODE OF FEDERAL

REGULATIONS OF ENVIRONMENT

TITLE 40 -- PROTECTION

§ 93.126 Exempt projects.
Notwithstanding the other requirements of this subpart, highway and transit projects ofthe types listed in Table 2 of this section are exempt from the requirement to determine conformity. Such projects may proceed toward implementation even in the absence of a conforming transportation plan and TIP. A particular action of the type listed in Table 2 of this section is not exempt if the MPO in consultation with other agencies (see § 93. 105(c) (1)(iii)), the EPA, and the FHWA (in the case ofa highway project) or the FTA (in the case ofa transit project) concur that it has potentially adverse emissions impacts for any reason. States and MPOs must ensure that exempt projects do not interfere with TCM implementation. Table 2 follows: TABLE 2. -- EXEMPT PROJECTS SAFETY Railroadlhighway crossing. Hazard elimination program. Safer non-Federal-aid system roads. Shoulder improvements. Increasing sight distance. Safety improvement program. Traffic control devices and operating assistance other than signalization projects. Railroadlhighway crossing warning devices. Guardrails, median barriers, crash cushions. Pavement resurfacing andlr rehabilitation. Pavement marking demonstration. Emergency relief (23 U.S.c. 125). Fencing. Skid treatments. Safety roadside rest areas. Adding medians. Truck climbing lanes outside the urbanized area. Lighting improvements. Widening narrow pavements or reconstructing bridges (no additional travellanes). Emergency truck pullovers. MASS TRANSIT Operating assistance to transit agencies. Purchase of support vehicles. Rehabilitation of transit vehicles fn 1. Purchase of office, shop, and operating equipment for existing facilities. Purchase of operating equipment for vehicles (e.g., radios, fareboxes, lifts, etc.), Construction or renovation of power, signal, and communications systems. Construction of small passenger shelters and information kiosks.

LPP08-02

Page 6-91 May 30, 2008

Exhibit6-C Table 2- Exempts Project

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

Reconstruction or renovation of transit buildings and structures (e.g., rail or bus buildings, storage and maintenance facilities, stations, terminals, and ancillary structures). Rehabilitation or reconstruction of track structures, track, and trackbed in existing rights of way. Purchase of new buses and rail cars to replace existing vehicles or for minor expansions of the fleet.' Construction of new bus or rail storage/maintenance facilities categorically excluded in 23 CFR Part 771.

Air Quality Continuation of ride-sharing and van-pooling promotion activities at current levels. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Other Specific activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction, such as: Planning and technical studies. Grants for training and research programs. Planning activities conducted pursuant to titles 23 and 49 U.S.C. Federal-aid systems revisions. Engineering to assess social, economic, and environmental effects of the proposed action or alternatives to that action. Noise attenuation. Emergency or hardship advance land acquisitions (23 CFR 710.503). Acquisition of scenic easements. Plantings, landscaping, etc. Sign removal. Directional and informational signs .. Transportation enhancement activities (except rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities). Repair of damage caused by natural disasters, civil unrest, or terrorist acts, except projects involving substantial functional, locational or capacity changes.

lIn PM [10] nonattainment or maintenance areas, such projects are exempt only if they are in compliance with control measures in the applicable implementation plan.

[58 FR 62246, Nov. 24,1993; 62 FR43780, 43816, Aug. 15, 1997; 69 FR 40004,40081,

July 1,2004]

[EFFECTIVE DATE NOTE: 69 FR 40004, 40081, July 1,2004, amended Table 2, effective Aug. 2, 2004.]

Page 6-92 May 30,2008

LPP 08-02

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

Exhibit 6~D Table 3~ Exempt Projects
3 - EXEMPT PROJECTS

EXHIBIT 6-C TABLE

[Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 40, Volume 19] [Revised as of July 1,2004] From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 40CFR93.127] [Page 583] TITLE 40--PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT

CHAPTER I~~ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONTINUED) PART 93 DETERMINING CONFORMITY OF FEDERAL ACTIONS TO STATE OR FEDERAL IMPLEMENT ATION PLANS-- Table of Contents Subpart A_Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of Sec. 93.127 Projects exempt from regional emissions analyses. Notwithstanding the other requirements ofthis subpart, highway and transit projects of the types listed in Table 3 of this section are exempt from regional emissions analysis requirements. The local effects of these projects with respect to CO or PMl 0 concentrations must be considered to determine if a hot-spot analysis is required prior to making a project-level conformity determination. These projects may then proceed to the project development process even in the absence of a conforming transportation plan and TIP. A particular action of the type listed in Table 3 of this section is not exempt from regional emissions analysis if the MPO in consultation with other agencies (see Sec. 93.105(c)(I)(iii)), the EPA, and the FHWA (in the case ofa highway project) or the FTA (in the case of a transit project) concur that it has potential regional impacts for any reason. Table 3 follows: Table 3-~Projects Exempt From Regional Emissions Analyses Intersection channelization projects. Intersection signalization projects at individual intersections. Interchange reconfiguration projects. Changes in vertical and horizontal alignment. Truck size and weight inspection stations. Bus terminals and transfer points.

[58 FR 62235, Nov. 24, 1993, as amended at 71 FR 12511, Mar. 10,2006]

LPP 08-02

Page 6-93 May30,200S

~XHIBIT6-D

able 2- Exe mpts Project

__

____:LocaIAs __

ststance Procedures M . =anual

Page 6-94
May 30, 2008 LPP 08-02

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

Exhibit 6-E Categorical Exclusion Checklist

EXHIBIT 6-D - CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION CHECKLIST

District/Co/RoutelP .M. 7/LA/ N/ A

Fed.-Aid No.:

EA:

1. Project is a CE under Section 6004 of23 U.S.C. 326 Yes below.

I'gJ No

D

If" yes," check applicable activity

D
1

Activity Listed in 23 CFR 771.117(c)
Activities which do not involve or lead directly to construction. Utility installations along or across a transportation facility. Bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths, and facilities. Activities included in the State's highway safety plan under 23 U.S.C. 402. Transfer of Federal lands pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 317 when the subsequent action is not an FHW A action. Installation of noise barriers or alterations to existing publicly owned buildings to provide for noise reduction. Landscaping.

0
11

2 ~
3 4

D

0 0 0 0 0
16 15 14 13 12

Determination of payback under 23 CFR part 480 for property previously acquired with federal-aid participation. Improvements to existing rest areas and truck weigh stations. Ridesharing activities. Bus and rail car rehabilitation. Alterations to facilities or vehicles in order to make them accessible for elderly and handicapped persons. Program administration, technical assistance activities, and operating assistance to transit authorities to continue existing service or increase service to meet routine changes in demand. Purchase of vehicles by the applicant where the use of these vehicles can be accommodated by existing facilities or by new facilities which themselves are within aCE. Track and railbed maintenance and improvements when carried out within the existing right of way.

D D

5
6

0

7

0 0 0
10

0
17

8

Installation of fencing, signs, pavement markings, small passenger shelters, traffic signals, and railroad warning devices where no substantial land acquisition or traffic disruption will occur. Emergency repairs under 23 U.S.C. 125.

0
18

9

0
19 20

0

Acquisition of scenic easements.

0

Purchase and installation of operating or maintenance equipment to be located within the transit facility and with no significant impacts off the site. Promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives.

LPP08-02

Page 6-95 May 30, 2008

Exhibit6-E Categorical Exclusion Checklist

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

0
I

Activity Listed in Examples in 23 CFR 771.117(d)
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking, weaving, turning, climbing). Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.

7

0

Approvals for changes in access control.

2

0

0
8

3

0

Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction or replacement or the construction of grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.

9

0

4

0

Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.

0
10

5

0

Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.

0
11

6

0

Approvals for disposal of excess right of way or for joint or limited use of right of way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.

0
12

Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes, not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users. Construction of bus transfer facilities when located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise impact on the surrounding community. Acquisition ofland for hardship or protective purposes; advance land acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act.

Activity Listed in Appendix A ofthe MOU for State Assumption of Responsibilities for Categorical Exclusions

0
1

2
3

0 0 0

4

Construction, modification, or repair of storm water treatment devices, protection measures such as slope stabilization, and other erosion control measures. Replacement, modification, or repair of culverts or other drainage facilities. Projects undertaken to assure the creation, maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of habitat for fish, plants, or wildlife. Routine repair of facilities due to storm damage, including permanent repair to return the facility to operational condition that meets current standards of design and public health and safety without expanding capacity (e.g., slide repairs, construction or repair of retaining walls).

5

0
6

0 0

7

Routine seismic retrofit of facilities to meet current seismic standards and public health and safety standards without expansion of capacity. Air space leases that are subject to Subpart D, Part 710, Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations. Drilling oftest bores/soil sampling to provide information for preliminary design and for environmental analyses and permitting purposes.

2. Project is a CE for a highway project under Section 6005 of23 U.S.C. 327. project does not qualify under Section 6004.)

Yes

D No D

(Use only

if

Page 6-96 May 30, 2008

LPP 08-02

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

Exhibit 6~E Categorical Exclusion Checklist

3. Unusual Circumstances (23 CFR 771.117[b]). Project does not include any:

[g] [g] [g] [g]

Significant environmental impacts. Substantial controversy on environmental grounds. Significant impact on properties protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT Act or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Inconsistencies with any federal, state, or local law, requirement or administrative determination relating to the environmental aspects of the action.

4. Air Quality. (SER Chapter 38) A. Air Quality Checklist is complete and project meets all applicable air quality requirements. Identify who completed the Air Quality Checklist and the date it was completed. Mario Anaya, Environmental Planner, February 11,2011

IZl

B. Project is exempt from regional air quality conformity. (40 CFR 93.127, Table 3) Yes If"no", list the current RTP and RTIP including dates and page numbers that contain the project.

IZl NoD

C. For Section 6005 CE, FHW A determination of air quality conformity is complete. Provide name ofFHW A contact and date of determination letter here:

o

Attach FHW A conformity determination letter.

LPP 08~02

Page 6~97 May 30, 2008

Exhibit 6-E Categorical Exclusion Checklist

Local Assistance Procedures

Manual

5. Project complies with all other federal environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders on the PES form.
Environmental Statutory or Regulatory Compliance Historic Preservation (Section 106) Executive Order on Floodplains Wetland Protection Coastal Zone Wild and Scenic Rivers Farmland Protection Noise (23 CFR 772) Hazardous Waste/Material Environmental Justice Project-Level Air Quality (CO, PM Hot spot and MSA T) Water Quality Relocation Land Use Other (i.e., Visual) Does Project Trigger Statute or Regulation? Yes DNo!8J Date and type of Technical Study or Memo to File or Field Survey Outcome of Agency Coordination (Concurrence Type and Date) Notes, Documentation Reference &/or Explanation

Yes!8J No

0

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

D D D D D

No!8J No!8J No [EJ No!8J No [EJ

Yes!8J No

D

Yes Yes

0 No [EJ

0 No!8J 0
D

Yes!8J No Yes!8J No Yes Yes

0 No!8J 0 No [EJ

Page 6-98 May 30, 2008

LPP 08~02

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

Exhibit 6-E Categorical Exclusion Checklist

5. Project complies with all other federal environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders on the PES Form. (Continued)
Environmental Statutory or Regulatory Compliance Does Project Trigger Statute or Regulation? Date and type of Technical Study or Memo to File or Field Survey Outcome of Agency Coordination (Concurrence Type and Date) Notes, Documentation Reference &/or Explanation

Section 4(f) (23 CFR 774)

Individual. complete: Yes

o o o

De minimis Programmatic (type) Legal sufficiency

Yes DNo

I2l

0 No 0

Section 6( f)

0 0

De minimis Programmatic (type) Legal sufficiency

Yes DNo

I2l

Individual. complete: YesDNoD

0

Endangered Species (Section 7 FESA) Effect Determination:

Yes

0

No

I2l

o o o

No effect Not likely to adversely affect Likely to adversely affect No

Essential Fish Habitat (Section 7FESA) Effect Determination

Based on all of the above, the project is determined to be a categorical exclusion pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and all other applicable federal environmental laws, regulations and executive orders have been complied with. Prepared by: Signature Date: -------

LPP08-02

Page 6-99 May 30, 2008

Exhibit 6-E

Categorical Exclu sion Checklist .

Local Assista nee Proced ures Manual

Page 6-100 May 30, 2008

LPP 08-02

Local Assistance Procedures

Manual Categorical Exemption/Categorical

Exhibit 6-F Exclusion Determination Form

EXHIBIT 6-E CATEGORICALEXEMPTION/CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONDETERMINATIONFORM

Revised September

6, 2007

Dist.-Co.-Rte. (or Local Agency) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: activities involved.)

P.MIP.M.

E.A. (State project)

Federal-Aid Project No. (Local project)/ Proj. No.

(Briefly describe project, purpose, location, limits, right of way requirements, and

The Exposition Boulevard Right-of-Way Bike Path - Westside Extension would be located in the City of Los Angeles, on the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Right-of-Way (ROW) parallel to Exposition Boulevard from Venice BoulevardIRobertson Boulevard to Centinela Avenue. Attached is a concept-level alignment map.
[Project description continues on the Continuation Sheet of this PES Form on page 6-97.]

CEOA COMPLIANCE

(for State Projects only)

Based on an examination of this proposal, supporting information, and the following statements (See 14 CCR 15300 et seq.): • If this project falls within exempt class 3, 4, 5,6 or 11, it does not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped and officially adopted pursuant to law. • There will not be a significant cumulative effect by this project and successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. • There is not a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. • This project does not damage a scenic resource within an officially designated state scenic highway. • This project is not located on a site included on any list compiled pursuant to Govt. Code § 65962.5 ("Cortese List"). • This project does not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. CALTRANS CEQA DETERMINATION by Statute. (PRC 21080[b]; 14 CCR 15260 et seq.)

o Exempt o o

Based on an examination of this proposal, supporting information, and the above statements, the project is: Categorically Exempt. Class __ . (PRC 21084; 14 CCR 15300 et seq.) Categorically Exempt. General Rule exemption. (This project does not fail within an exempt class, but it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment CCR 15061 [b] [3 D.

Signature: Environmental Branch Chief

Date

Signature: Project Manager

Date

LPP 08-02

Page 6-101 May 30,2008

Exhibit6-F Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion Determination Form NEPA COMPLIANCE

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

In accordance with 23 CFR 771.117, and based on an examination of this proposal and supporting information, the State has determined that this project: • Does not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the environment as defined by NEP A and is excluded from the requirements to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). • Has considered unusual circumstances pursuant to 23 CFR 771.117 (b) (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/23cfr771.htm#sec.771.1 I 7) In non-attainment or maintenance areas for Federal Air Quality Standards, the project is either exempt from all conformity requirements, or conformity analysis has been completed pursuant to 42 USC 7506(c) and 40 CFR 93.

CALTRANS

NEPA DETERMINATION

I:8J

D

Section 6004: The State has been assigned and hereby certifies that it has carried out the responsibility to make this determination pursuant to Chapter 3 of Title 23, United States Code, Section 326 and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated June 7, 2007, executed between the FHW A and the State. The State has determined that the project is a Categorical Exclusion under: • 23 CFR 771 activity (c)(3) • 23 CFR 771 activity (d)L_) • Activity _ listed in the MOU between FHW A and the State Section 6005: Based on an examination of this proposal and supporting information, the State has determined that the project is a CE under Section 6005 of23 U.S.C. 327.

Signature: Environmental Branch Chief

Date

Signature: Project ManagerIDLA Engineer

Date

Briefly list mitigation commitments on continuation sheet. Reference additional information, as appropriate (e.g., air quality studies, documentation of conformity exemption, FHW A conformity determination if Section 6005 project; §I06 commitments; § 4(f); § 7 results; Wetlands Finding; Floodplain Finding; additional studies; and design conditions). Revised September 6, 2007

Page 6-102 May 30, 2008

LPP08-02

Local Assistance Procedures Manual

Exhibit 6~F Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion Determination Form

CATEGORICAL

EXEMPTION/CATEGORICAL Continuation

EXCLUSION
Sheet

DETERMINATION

FORM

This project involves the design and construction of a bicycle/pedestrian facility, which would run parallel to Exposition Boulevard, within the Metro ROW from Venice BoulevardIRobertson Boulevard to Centinela Avenue for a distance of approximately 3.6 miles. Pedestrians are not allowed on bike lanes; however, they are allowed on bike paths. The proposed project involves the construction of bike paths, except for the segment from Palms Boulevard to Motor Avenue, where bike lanes are proposed. No amenities for pedestrians, such as benches, would be provided as part of the project. Lighting would be installed for safety purposes along the bike path and would be shielded and directed downward to avoid spillover on adjacent properties. Operation and maintenance of the bike facility will be the responsibility of the City of Los Angeles. Safety and security will be the responsibility of the Los Angeles Police Department. Based on existing bike paths with similar or greater degrees of "seclusion" (e.g., the Los Angeles River bike path) that have not had substantially greater safety or security problems, it is not anticipated that any special safety or security measure exclusive to this project is necessary. The proposed project is primarily a Class I bike path that may require on-street transitions due to ROW constraints. The proposed project includes lighting, incidental landscaping, striping, signage, and traffic signal modification/installation. The first segment of the Class I bike path would intersect two City streets: Bagley Avenue and National BoulevardlPalms Boulevard. It would then transition to Class II bike lanes on National Boulevard from Palms Boulevard to Motor Avenue. The north side of National Boulevard would need to be widened along this portion to accommodate the striping of the bicycle lanes where they would be adjacent to the Metro ROW. Existing bike lanes on Motor Avenue, as shown on Attachment B, would bring the bikeway to a new bike path within City sewer easements north of the I~10 freeway, continuing within the Metro right-of-way to Overland Avenue. The proposed alignment would cross under I~10 using the existing bike lanes on Motor Avenue and, as such, would not share an undercrossing with the Expo Phase 2 Project. Some excavation would be required from Motor Avenue to west of Dunleer Drive to accommodate the bike paths, which would be subject to the City's maximum grade guidelines, and the retaining walls necessary to support the bike paths on sloping terrain. The need for and location of any retaining walls will be determined during the final design phase of the project. The bike path would be constructed at-grade or lower, and elevation of the bike path above the existing grade adjacent to the residential properties on Northvale would be highly unlikely, and, therefore, privacy and viewshed issues are not expected to be substantially affected by the construction of the bike path. With the exception of this segment of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian facility, excavation is not expected to be greater than 12 inches in anyone location. In the event that the excavation and grading needed to construct the bicycle/pedestrian path and retaining walls result in the disturbance of an acre or more of soil, the proposed project would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit. Any clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities required during project construction would be discontinued during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph) to prevent excessive amounts of dust. In compliance with City of Los Angeles requirements, all construction equipment would be maintained and operated so as to minimize exhaust emissions. In addition, the project will comply with the City of Los Angeles Noise Ordinance Nos. 144, 331 and 161,574 and any subsequent ordinances, which prohibit the creation of noise beyond certain levels at adjacent uses unless technically infeasible. Beyond Overland A venue, the bike path would cross Westwood Boulevard, Military Avenue, Sepulveda Boulevard, and Sawtelle Boulevard, transitioning back to an on-street bikeway at Pico Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard. The Class I bike path would resume along the Metro ROW west of this intersection, crossing Barrington A venue, Bundy Drive, and terminating at Centinela Avenue. The City of Santa Monica would extend the facility within their city limits as a separately funded proj ect. Northbound bicycle/pedestrian traffic using the Class II bike lanes on Motor A venue and traveling west on the proposed Class I bike path, would have to cross Motor Avenue to access the Class I bike path at a point just north of the I~10 freeway. To facilitate a safe crossing, a traffic signal would be installed at the point of crossing to alert traffic whenever a bicyclist or pedestrian is crossing Motor Avenue. Bagley Avenue, Overland Avenue, Westwood Boulevard, and Military Avenue are all at-grade crossings for the Expo Phase 2 Project. Signalization for the bikeway would be included at these locations, which would be part of the overall signal for the Expo Phase 2 crossing. Accordingly, Motor A venue would not be the only location where a new signal would be installed. Additionally, locations where the Expo Phase 2 Project would be gradeseparated and where Exposition Boulevard or the adjacent street is not signalized with the cross-street would require a new signalized crossing for the bikeway (e.g., Sawtelle Boulevard). Consequently, the California Public Utilities Commission

LPP08-02

Page 6-103 May 30,2008

Exhibit 6-F Categorical Exemption/Categorical

Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exclusion Determination Form

(CPUC) must approve any signals related to the rail crossing. However, specific to the proposed project, no CPUC approvals would be required, and there would be no grade-separated bikeway crossings. The purpose of the project would be to encourage the use of bicycles as an alternative form of transportation in the area. The bikeway would assist bicyclists by connecting them to destinations, such as the Westside Pavilion or Palms Park. These destinations are usually only accessed via automobile or bus. Bicycle access would be provided between the Exposition Boulevard ROW bike path, Venice Boulevard bike lanes, and Metro bus route stops along Sepulveda Boulevard and Venice Boulevard. Encouraging an alternative form of transportation, such as LRT and bicycle transportation, would help in reducing the reliance on automobiles and buses and thereby assist in reducing roadway traffic congestion on the Westside. The design of the bikeway will conform with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2010 Edition; Caltrans Highway Design Manual on Bikeway Facilities (Chapter 1000); the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); Metro Rights-of-Way Preservation Guidelines; City of Los Angeles Manual of Policies and Procedures; and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999). Funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) is proposed. The project is included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (Federal Project Number RPSTPLE 5006(468».

Distribution:

I) District Local Assistance Engineer-Original copy 2) District Senior Environmental Planner (for Local Assistance) 3) Local Agency Project Files

- copy

Page 6-104 May 30, 2008

LPP08-02

Local

Assistance

Procedures

Manual External Certifications Environnemental Document Quality

Exhibit 6-H Control Reviews

EXHIBIT 6-H EXTERNAL CERTIFICATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT QUALITY CONTROL
Project Name: No.: Type: Local Assistance

REVIEWS

D
EA:

Local Assistance

D

SHS

DIST -CO-RTE-PM: Federal-Aid Document District

D

EA Engineer

D

EIS

D

IS

D

EIR

D

Draft

D

Final

(DLAE): Contact:

Local Agency: Caltrans Oversight Coordinator:

Phone No: Phone No:

Environmental

Consultant:

Contact:

I have performed the quality control review required by Caltrans and hereby find that this environmental document satisfactorily meets State and federal requirements, as applicable, in my area of expertise and is consistent with the applicable technical study (State "NA" if the technical area is not applicable). Type of Review Technical Specialist Reviewers: Reviewer (Print Name) Reviewer's Signature Verification Date

o o o o o o o o o o o

Biology Cultural CIA Visual Hazardous Floodplain Water Quality Quality Waste

o Air

Noise Traffic Section Other: Technical Edit Reviewer

4( f)

Required signatures may appear on multiple versions of this form to allow concurrent reviews by specialists and teclmical editor. I have reviewed this environmental document and hereby find that it is internally consistent and was prepared consistent with Caltrans and FHW A requirements and guidance and the applicable SER annotated environmental document outline.

Environmental Consultant:

Date:

I have reviewed this environmental document and hereby find that the required quality control reviews shown above have been satisfactorily completed and that the environmental document meets all Cal trans and FHW A requirements.

Local Agency:
Date form sent to project Distribution:
1) District Senior Environmental Planner (for Local Assistance) - Original copy 2) District Local Assistance Engineer - copy

Date: file:

3) Local Agency Project Files

LPP08-02

Page 6-105 May 30, 2008

Exhibit 6-1 ..........._____ Instructions for C (Environmental n:::leting Quality Control ertdications ._ ment the External C Reviews)

Local Assi t

IS

ance Proced

ures Manual

~~

~

~~~

~

~

e

Page 6-106 May 30, 2008

LPP08-02

ATTACHMENT A

Sania Monica Bay

o

A
0.5
Miles Source: ESRI StreetMap North America (2008)

N

2
kweiler Beach State

Regional Location Map

ATTACHMENT B

... OJ

Existing Bike Lane Proposed Class 1Centinela to 500ft EO Dunleer Proposed Class 1500ft EO Dunleer to Motor ROW Acquisition required

Proposed Class 11_ • Motor to PalmsWidening required Proposed Class 1Palms to Venice Exposition Boulevard Right-of-Way Bike PathWestside Extension

o

425

850
Feet

1,700

Source: ESRI StreetMa p North America (2008)

Project location - Concept Level Alignment Map

ATTACHMENT C
Project Name: Dist-Co-Rte-PM:. Federal-Aid No.: Document Type: Exposition Boulevard Right-of-Way Bike Path - Westside Extension 7-LA- N/A
' ~~..._ -"'_~~.:I; '.'.: ~ :.;:;

Rev. January 12,2011

Transportation Air Quality Conformity Findings Checklist
EA:

":»':1i_:§"l~~~~ 1111,,< ".,'. !··ii

[g] 6004 CE

o
~".

6005CE

o

EA

o

.~
l§.,

EIS

Step 1. Is the project located in a nonattainment or maintenance area for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide (CO), PM2.5, or PM10 per EPA's Green Book listing of non-attainment areas? If no, go to Step 16. Transportation conformity does not apply to the project. [g] If yes, go to Step 2. Step 2. Is the project exempt from conformity per 40 CFR 93.126 or 40 CFR 93.128 [g] If yes, go to Step 16. The project is exempt from all project-level conformity requirements (40 CFR 93.126 or 128). (check one box below and identify the project type, if applicable). l3J 40 CFR 93.126 Project type: Bicy_cle Redestrianfacilities and 40 CFR 93.128 0 If no, go to Step 3.

o

o

o If yes, go to Step 8. The project is exempt from regional conformity requirements (40 CFR 93.127) (identify the project type). Project type: E"R~ o If no, go to Step 4. Step 4. Is the project located in a region with a currently conforming RTP and TIP? o If yes, the project is included in a currently conforming RTP and TIP per 40 CFR 93.115. The project's
0 0

Step 3. Is the project exempt from regional conformity per 40 CFR 93.127

design and scope have not changed significantly from what was assumed in RTP conformity analysis (40 CFR 93.115[b]) Go to Step 8. If no and the project is located in an isolated rural area, go to Step 5. If no and the project is not located in an isolated rural area, STOP and do not proceed until a conforming RTP and TIP are adopted.

o

Step 5. For isolated rural areas, is the project regionally significant per 40 CFR 93.101, based on review by Interagency Consultation? If yes, go to Step 6. If no, go to Step 8. The project, located in an isolated rural area, is not regionally significant and does not require a regional emissions analysis (40 CFR 93.101 and 93.109[1]).

o

Step 6. Is the project included in another regional conformity analysis that meets the isolated rural area analysis requirements per 40 CFR 93.109, including Interagency Consultation and public involvement? 0 If yes, go to Step 8. The project, located in an isolated rural area, has met its regional analysis requirements through inclusion in a previously-approved regional conformity analysis that meets current requirements (40 CFR 93.109[1)). 0 If no, go to Step 7. Step 7. The project, located in an isolated rural area, requires a separate regional emissions analysis. Regional emissions analysis for regionally significant project, located in an isolated rural area, is complete. Regional conformity analysis was conducted that includes the project and reasonably foreseeable regionally significant projects for at least 20 years. Interagency Consultation and public participation were conducted. Based on the analysis, the interim or emission budget conformity tests applicable to the area are met (40 CFR 93.109[1] and 95.105).1 Go to Step 8.

o

Step 8. Is the project located in a CO nonattainment or maintenance area? 0 If no, go to Step 9. CO conformity analysis is not required. 0 If yes, hot-spot analysis requirements for CO per the CO Protocol (or per EPA's modeling guidance, CAL3QHCR can be used with EMFAC emission factors") have been met. Project will not cause or contribute to a new localized CO violation (40 CFR 93.116 and 93.123)3. Go to Step 9.

2

The analysis must support this conclusion before going to the next step. Use of the CO Protocol is strongly recommended due to its use of screening methods to minimize the need for modeling. When modeling is needed, the Protocol simplifies the modeling approach. 1
J

Rev. January 12,2011

Step 9. Is the project located in a PM10 and/or a PM2.5 nonattainment or maintenance area? D If no, go to Step 13. PM2.5/PM10 conformity analysis is not required.

D

If yes, go to Step 10.

Step 10. Is the project considered to be a Project of Air Quality Concern (POAQC), as described in EPA's TransQortation Conformity Guidance for PM 10 and PM 2.5? D If no, the project is not a project of concern for PM10 and/or PM2.5 hot-spot analysis 93.116 and 93.123 and EPA's Hot-Spot Analysis Guidance. Interagency Consultation this determination on "Jt\~~lGo to Step 12. D If yes, go to Step 11. based on 40 CFR concurred with

Step 11. The project is a POAQC. D The project is a project of concern for PM1 0 and/or PM2.5 hot-spot analysis based on 40 CFR 93.116 and 93.123, and EPA's Hot-Spot Guidance. Interagency Consultation concurred with this determination on IDL_'1. Detailed PM hot-spot analysis, consistent with 40 CFR 93.116 and 93.123 and EPA's Hot-Spot Guidance, shows that the project would not cause or contribute to, or worsen, any new localized violation of PM10 and/or PM2.5 standards. Go to Step 12. Step 12. Does the approved PM SIP include any PM10 and/or PM2.5 control measures that apply to the project, and has a written commitment been made as part of the air quality analysis to implement the identified SIP control measures? D If yes, a written commitment is made to implement the identified SIP control measures for PM10 and/or PM2.5 through construction or operation ofthis project (40 CFR 93.117). D If no, go to Step 13. Step 13a. Have project-level mitigation or control measures for CO, PM10, and/or PM2.5, included as part of the project's design concept and scope, been identified as a condition of the RTP or TIP conformity determination? AND/OR Step 13b. Are project-level mitigation or control measures for CO, PM10, and/or PM2.5 included in the project's NEPA document? AND Step 13c (applies only if Step 13a and/or 13b are answered "yes"). Has a written commitment been made as part of the air quality analysis to implement the identified measures? D If yes to 13a and/or 13b and 13c, a written commitment is made to implement the identified mitigation or control measures for CO, PM10, and/or PM2.5 through construction or operation of this project. These mitigation or control measures are identified in the project's NEPA document and/or as conditions of the RTP or TIP conformity determlnatlon.' (40 CFR 93.125{a» 0 If no, go to Step 14 Step 14. Does the project qualify for Categorical Exclusion under SAFETEA-LU Section 60047 If yes, then no FHWA involvement is required and Caltrans makes the conformity determination through its signature on the CE form. An AQCA is not needed. Go to Step 16. Olf no, go to Step 15. Step 15. Does the project required preparation of a Categorical Exclusion, EA, or EIS under SAFETEA-LU Section 6005? 0 If yes, then Caltrans submits a conformity determination to FHWA for FHWA's conformity determination. AQCA is needed. See the Transportation Air Quality Conformity Analysis Content Checklist Tool. Date of FHWA air quality conformity determination: Go to Step 16. Step 16. STOP as all air quality conformity Signature: Printed Name: Title: Mario A. Anaya Environmental Planner Date: February 11,2011 ~" have been met.

o

An

requirements

3

As of October 1, 2007, there are no CO nonattainment areas in California. Therefore, the requirements to not worsen existing violations and to reduce/eliminate existing violations do not apply.

2

<D ,_ N 10

'0
D

a..

~

.......
E

.- .I'- I'-

0..,.
Ot') 1OCl)

l!:!

01

a.

-Q)

e
~

..

iii

GI lO_J

E

-!_J
UJ

E

::..

c

E

e c..
E

"D

.5

m

01 CD

m

.~
c;

i ::
£:! o
..o
N

o

I0..

o

"-

~ o a::
... ' Q..!
"C.

.!!!

CD
I:

.3
'5

o

..... ..... o
i.L
to t:

9 0.. ~,

0::,

N

i~
I_J

:..,.
,0

. ....1

I~
a; "CI o :is
000 000

'

...
Z

ql,l)~

()

0'1.'."

ATTACHMENT 0
LOCATION HYDRAULIC STUDY FORM * Dist.____,7 __ EA Co. Los Angeles Rte. N/A P.M. Bridge No. N/A N/A

Floodplain Description: The floodplain is located north of Interstate 10 (1-10 or Santa Monica Freeway) approximately between Clarkson Road and Holmby Avenue and between Beverly Glen Boulevard and Veteran Avenue in the City of Los Angeles. The floodplain is currently developed as a residential area, with the exception of a commercial corridor on Pico Boulevard between Westwood Boulevard and Overland Avenue, and the Metro right-of-way (ROW). The floodplain is designated as Zone AO, which represents an area inundated by IOO-year flooding (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain), for which average depths have been determined; flood depths range from 1 to 3 feet.

1. Description of Proposal (include any physical barriers [i.e., concrete barriers, soundwaIls, etc.] and design elements to minimize floodplain impacts) This project involves the design and construction of a bicycle/pedestrian facility, which would run parallel to Exposition Boulevard, within the Metro ROW from Venice BoulevardIRobertson Boulevard to Centinela Avenue for a distance of 3.6 miles. The project's alignment would encroach on the floodplain; however, the project would not include any structures or involve any topography change from existing conditions in the floodplain area.

2.ADT:

Current.

N",--,-,-,,/A~_

Projected._.-No....:..:...o/ A,-,,--_

3. Hydraulic Data: Base Flood QIOO= CFS WSElOO= The flood of record, if greater than QlOO: Q= CFS WSE= _ Overtopping flood Q= CFS WSE= _ Are NFIP maps and studies available? YES X NO 4. Is the highway location alternative within a regulatory floodway? YES NO _

_

5. Attach map with flood limits outlined showing all buildings or other improvements within the base floodplain. Potential QlOO backwater damages: A. B. Residences? NO Other Bldgs? NO Crops? NO Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Values? NO X X X X YES. YES YES YES _ _ _ _

C.
D.

6. Type of Traffic: A. Emergency B. Emergency C. Practicable D. School bus supply or evacuation route? vehicle access? detour available? or mail route? NO NO NO NO X X X yES YES YES X YES ---_ _

7. Estimated duration of traffic interruption for 100-year event hours: 8. Estimated value of A. B Roadway Property Total
Q100

0

flood damages (if any) - moderate risk level.

$._----'0"--_ $_----'0'---_

$_ ____,O,,--_

9.

Assessment of Level of Risk Low_",-,X,,--_ Moderate __ High. _

For High Risk projects, during design phase, additional Design Study Risk Analysis may be necessary to determine design alternative. Signature - Dist. Hydraulic Engineer (Item numbers 3, 4, 5, 7, 9) Date _

Is there any longitudinal encroachment, significant encroachment, or any support of incompatible floodplain development? NO X YES _ If yes, provide evaluation and discussion of practicability of alternatives in accordance with 23 CFR 650.113 Information developed to comply with the Federal requirement for the Location Hydraulic Study shall be retained in the project files.

Signature - Dist. Project Engineer (Item numbers 1,2,6, 8)

Date

_

ATTACH~ENT E·
;.

.'

or ;~EC"::)i,v~"'·
~

St<EET NO. I TttRtE SJ«ETS

TRACT
CONSlSTlHG

NO.
aF." na(£
"Stl££1S.

11556
..

IN THE CITY Of ;, ~I~'l-~ 'fH.E SUBDIVISION PALMS, AS

L65:ANGELES.

.: ..:.~ :..... ..•. ;t_'.:

~.~,~.~1?i.·n
,•• ~,...

or

~~~5{,:.,
uA:'"'
..

.

BLOCK 6 AND A PORI'ION OF BL~

7,

PER MAP RECOROED IN BOOK 21 PAGES"'43

TO 4~ INC. OF MISCELANEOUS RECORDS.
ANGELES·'
;

RECORDS

OF LOS

i1.'i:?~

.r~~~I

COUNTY;

r~

....

• t.

OT1'O BALOU5 - AI!:G.lSTtAtD (:IIII~

.~.

tM(:lMtCA •

Sob hoo....hv -=--II'V I~ ...,. I"., ~." .". """'~ ..... lho fcmd ~k#d,.a 11'>1;'Ihq.su6· dlv14ion ,sAa_,., C'rI.lhi4. 12"'1QP.p and Ilfol ........,CiJI"V Ihtsr ........ !;' ~_ ~ ~I b "_3Qr¥,ob . ~ .,. """lJ'fe ,ob _foI /!and """'" _ ~ b lho 01" ~id ...... p ..-.d ............. "'" _ "ho..".. wllhI,. ".,_ 1 ~ _i<;Q19 ~ ,_ ,ou/;>Il<: __ ",II Ih<>_~ •

/. arnt BN'DW/; ~ ~/-=~ CIvil E~" ....d I~ ..,,,I 11016 ~""P ~hNng

o-lir~ 1-' 1
G/" ",..._
-." od

cor Ihe.5>l:<>h 01' a",
~#.

..
""• ~

""'*"'9

~IIV __
Mt::J.Ii¥J'J .6eI"or'llZl

""_," .on, .turv

r.H8, '"_.g-"",&, 1h<J

,.n-._~
on~ __

·A<!.~~~~~ __ 'iNn
;b

.sold

__~ 6Ubd,"hNJn CU'ld ~

......

~ Of':'ll.1Dlly fl/fii$/ OF' Dt:::!o=~r I. ~~ lhal lher" C'ho~~" D~ cot"'~/Iv $h~~ rD CI"obb Ih~, ~1I"t!fII A:i he ~/~

.....1/>0 ~ -fIIh"/J &:~,

.PO:IIT/H:lrr aI'fd r:l1"tU 6h:7.suH~

_~ Ii-~"'_ s,._., A.cf.." VNfll" ~ _ 11>0 QI"1I 4OL"d "7Qp~ r:vJ .we a.lcro ~ .h ~~ ""'"' /Or .$/,.".,1 "._._ 1"-0 .,...,..;1.,;, 6/,..:-"r "'-'. b4 lirl- _ lIZ. -.s-W _ At ......... $~b "r_"..,. .... . ~ 01') ~id ~ JfPJQI __ a-nt ~

'he,Clly 01' U. ~Ao.o

-sin"""'''' Iand.-..
.,If

_----

__

~E...ND;~.:

.e.01'

,.,,"'''/n
_

.s>W6d,.~,~~
_
~nd

_
_~

01' _
<ADS

hiS liU
01' _id 4"l&'~

12Z ~I /~,

ftz...a

. ~it>t-.

.-

J~

~At>lf';'

o puQliC

61.-1.

Jlood,v .sIt.1I -.,.I

lhe ........ 1.;"., ..."",,1_ 1"/he __ I&r

TJ'I.IiII' ~I"rIS d'" MA¥NfNtl ~.e".., 4/tawv> ..... ".,.,..,. "" TieIOC" M>. ~im _ iK1 ~ ••II<>·.$ ,;",-~ ~ CmPflv. _ ~.._, I~ _.,. .... /hI,s """'PO

NOTe.

.

_N :rs-H;!t'-w..;

4V

01' U>I ~ 01' &....-~

In

_p ~

,-

q38

1'1_-------::_-:-

1"'~"'flIC" ,,~ ..

·...IIllI~'"JII I ""=;.l~oun

llIIltoHlmtl

rAAlAI _1I1U111m1G1mctllJlItClml,IQIn!!cB1IIUf.l'l' 1m t1II1ftIJUIIIU."n~ U\'IUjjOlI

,uu.

~~~

• .r~~h.

rdlJ£ll:~.~

.."

.~; ~.

S· :•.!X.

---~~ ...

~.

'---

n ..rg
1n0

...

·z

~~ r

.

gq
"tr
(S)

·m

s »
g:
z »

HAOOINGTON

DR.

·0

.~ ~
p
.:"t'I

P 1= 'f' !ll P 1\:1 .0 i\i
boo ..., boo

~~
~r

iio

c;;

.0

;;~~ i!:~e1f~~
I\i
'":t.>;

.;h
~

':J:.

AI® ~~

or

5HEET NO. ~ T~ 5H££TS

"

-:

SCALE ,'·60'

MOle. ~ ___

~;u.1t> I~I , ........... ..Il>r ~

pu~.

~{y

TRACT
IN THE CITY
OTTO BALDUS - R.E.NO. 1112

.NO.
or

11556

Of"

SH££'T" NO. THREE

l

LOS ANGELES.

L
_",.

.-".-,y
•:!-'

Lab 0.3 I<> I.IJ __ ;.."., pc,.,._" .... 11,y _...d P~~ •

.........
.........

N

'0

Z

.

~I