METRO BLUE LINE TRACK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. July2016 TRANSMITTAL NO. 3

Transcription

1 ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION METRO BLUE LINE TRACK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (JUNE 2015) SCH # METRO BLUE LINE TRACK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT July2016 TRANSMITTAL NO. 3

2 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION Background Purpose of the Addendum to the IS/MND Basis for Decision to Prepare an Addendum PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS/MND Addendum No CHANGES TO THE PROJECT: ADDENDUM NO SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Land Use and Planning Noise and Vibration Population and Housing Transportation and Traffic Other Topic Areas DETERMINATION ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED Preparers REFERENCES APPENDIX A Tables Table 1: Pedestrian Gates and Emergency Swing Gate Locations... 7 Table 2: ROW Take Locations... 9 Table 3: Proposed Bungalows Table 4: Adjusted Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions Appendices Appendix A Certification Memoranda 2

3 1. INTRODUCTION This environmental document is Addendum No. 2 to the Metro Blue Line Track Improvement Project (project) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (State Clearinghouse No ), which was circulated for a 30-day public review on May 14, In June of 2015 Addendum No. 1 was prepared for the project and documented no impacts as a result of only minor technical changes to the project. Since the circulation of the IS/MND, additional new information related to the project has been discovered that was not known at the time of the preparation of the IS/MND. Two small fee takes will be required at two track crossings to accommodate the installation of the pedestrian gates and sidewalk reconstruction. The total estimated would be 197 square feet or acres. These takes represent very small corners of these properties and will not result in diminished use or functionality of the parcels. The partial taking of these properties will not result in design changes or construction footprints differing from that which was analyzed in the IS/MND because subsequent land surveys conducted have only shown that the original project work area covers slightly more private property than originally identified. However, although minor, the refinements result in the need for additional fee takes. No structures will be demolished nor will any residences or business need to be relocated. In addition, five small mechanical bungalows will be installed within existing Metro ROW; these small structures range in size from 24 to 120 square feet and house mechanical/electrical equipment necessary for rail operations. The IS/MND, and the construction and operational activities that were addressed within, continues to serve as the appropriate document addressing the environmental impacts of these improvements pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 1.1 Background The IS/MND for the proposed project addressed construction-level and operational-level impacts related to the various improvements that have been proposed for the Metro Blue Line Track Improvement Project. The IS/MND evaluated potential environmental effects on aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, construction effects, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, utilities and service systems, and mandatory findings of significance. All impacts in the IS/MND have been mitigated to below a level of significance through implementation of mitigation. CEQA requires public agencies to analyze and consider the environmental consequences of their decisions to approve development projects over which they exercise discretion. As lead agency, Metro prepared an IS/MND for the MBL Track Improvement Project in compliance with CEQA (Public Resources Code, section et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Section et seq., as amended). In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the IS/MND was prepared and distributed to public agencies and the general public 3

4 by Metro on May 14, 2015, for a 30-day public review period. A Notice of Availability (NOA) for public review was posted at the Los Angeles County Clerk s Office, a public notice was published in the Los Angeles Times on May 16, 2015, and a Notice of Completion (NOC) was filed with the State Clearinghouse of the Governor s Office of Planning and Research. The notices included a list of locations where the document was available for public review. No substantive comments on content of the IS/MND or significant environmental issues related to the proposed project were raised. 1.2 Purpose of the Addendum to the IS/MND When a proposed project is changed or there are changes in the environmental setting, a determination must be made by the Lead Agency as to whether an Addendum or Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or MND is to be prepared. CEQA Guidelines Sections and sets forth criteria to assess which environmental document is appropriate. The criteria for determining whether an Addendum or Subsequent MND is prepared are outlined below. If the criteria below are true, then an Addendum is the appropriate document: No new significant impacts will result from the project or from new mitigation measures No substantial increase in the severity of environmental impacts will occur No new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce impacts previously found not to be infeasible have, in fact, been found to be feasible. Based on the information provided in Section 3 (Changes to the Project) of this document, the changes to the proposed project will not result in new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of impacts previously identified in the IS/MND. None of the factors set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section15162 (a)(3) are present. Therefore, an Addendum is appropriate, and this Addendum has been prepared to demonstrate that the new information related to this project will have no significant effect on the environment. 1.3 Basis for Decision to Prepare an Addendum CEQA Guidelines Section sets forth the conditions for when an addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration shall be prepared: Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration. a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. 4

5 c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section should be included in an addendum to a PEIR, the lead agency's required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence." 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Metro Blue Line (MBL) light rail line runs between downtown Los Angeles and downtown Long Beach. The line starts at 7th Street/Metro Center in downtown Los Angeles. From there, it runs south on Flower Street, sharing tracks with the Expo Line. The two lines diverge at Flower Street and Washington Boulevard, just south of downtown Los Angeles, where the MBL turns east on Washington Boulevard before turning south on Long Beach Avenue to join the Pacific Electric four-track right-of-way (ROW) to Willow Station. The MBL then follows Long Beach Boulevard to the Long Beach Transit Mall. The description summarized below includes both the original project description set forth in the IS/MND as well as the minor technical changes and additions to the project that were covered under Addendum No. 1. This project description remains unchanged by the minor technical changes identified under the Addendum No. 2 (described in Section 3 of this document). 2.1 IS/MND The proposed project as analyzed in the IS/MND would involve a series of safety and functional improvements to the existing line. These improvements are described below. Washington Siding The Washington Siding project would involve the construction of a mid-day layover site to be established on a short section of abandoned Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) ROW in an industrial area south of Downtown Los Angeles. The proposed ROW is in the same median as the existing MBL between the intersections of Long Beach Avenue and Washington Boulevard to the north, Long Beach Avenue and approximately 24th Street to the South, with a total area of approximately 60,000 square feet. Usable track still exists across the intervening intersections. Track will need to be reinstalled between the intersections, on the existing ballast. This action was previously analyzed and certified in the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Mid-City/Westside Transit Corridor Mid-City Exposition LRT Project (SCH# ). The Washington siding portion of the proposed 5

6 project is within substantial compliance with the original action. Therefore, this component of the proposed project is not analyzed further in the IS/MND. Four New Track Crossovers Crossovers are mechanical track installations along a double-track alignment that allow trains traveling in either direction on either track to move to the other track and continue traveling in the same direction without stopping. Trains may also pass through a crossover without switching tracks. Crossovers allow a portion of one track to be closed without completely suspending rail service. Crossovers can be used to allow trains to bypass a stalled train or turn back in the opposite direction. The new track crossovers are proposed at the following locations along the MBL route: Location 1: Between E. 50th Street and E. 52nd Street adjacent to Long Beach Avenue; Location 2: Between E. 88th Street and E. 97th Street adjacent to Graham Avenue; Location 3: Between Compton Boulevard and E. Myrrh Street adjacent to S. Willowbrook Avenue; and Location 4: Between S. Alameda Street and E. Del Amo Boulevard adjacent to S. Santa Fe Avenue. Graham Street Siding A new siding will be installed on the east side of the existing tracks between E. 92nd Street and E. 97th Street at Crossover Location 2. The siding would be approximately 1,800 feet in length and be constructed within the existing ROW. The Graham Street Siding also is referred to as 95 th Street Siding and the names are sometimes used interchangeably. Equipment Bungalow Installation A new equipment bungalow would be installed near the intersection of E. 51st Street and Long Beach Avenue. The equipment bungalow would house electronic equipment that would be necessary for crossover operation. The proposed bungalow site would be located on a private vacant lot (measuring approximately 2,700 square feet) fronting Long Beach Avenue to the west, just south of 51st Street adjacent to Metro tracks, also in the City of Los Angeles. OCS Wire Construction The MBL operates using an Overhead Catenary System (OCS) wire system to power the trains. Electricity delivered from the local utilities is transformed at the traction power sub-stations (TPSS) located along the route and distributed via the catenary wires. Contacts located on a pole above the train car make contact with the electrified catenary wires which conducts electricity to 6

7 the train s electric motor. The proposed project would involve the addition of OCS wire for new crossovers and sidings. Pedestrian Gate and Emergency Swing Gate Installation In an effort to improve pedestrian safety along the MBL, Metro is proposing to install California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Standard No. 9 pedestrian gates and emergency exit swing gates at 27 intersections along the line. Pedestrian gates and emergency exit swing gates serve to focus the eyes of the pedestrian in the direction from which a train on the nearest track would be entering the crossing. The pedestrian gates at the grade crossing are activated by the train control system. Emergency exit swing gates require pedestrians to push a gate to exit the protected track area; therefore, a pedestrian is not allowed to enter the protected track area when the pedestrian gate is down. The emergency exit swing gates are designed to return to the closed position after the pedestrian has passed. The gates would be adorned with various signs that warn the pedestrians to watch for oncoming trains. The work includes the installation of pedestrian CPUC Standard No. 9 pedestrian gates and emergency exit swing gates and railing/fencing to control pedestrian traffic and allow exiting from the track area. The work also includes walkway and pavement striping, construction or reconstruction of asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete walkway surfaces, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) curb ramps, street pavement grinding and overlay and crossing signal control system modifications. Locations where pedestrian gates and emergency swing gates are proposed are presented in Table 1. Table 1: Pedestrian Gates and Emergency Swing Gate Locations Crossing Intersection Jurisdiction 20th Street 20th Street and Long Beach Avenue City of Los Angeles 24th Street 24th Street and Long Beach Avenue City of Los Angeles 41st Street 41st Street and Long Beach Avenue City of Los Angeles Vernon Avenue Vernon Avenue and Long Beach Avenue City of Los Angeles 48th Place 48th Place and Long Beach Avenue City of Los Angeles 55th Street 55th Street and Long Beach Avenue City of Los Angeles Century Boulevard Century Boulevard and Graham Avenue City of Los Angeles 103rd Street 103rd Street and Grandee Avenue City of Los Angeles 108th Street 108th Street and Willowbrook Avenue City of Los Angeles Wilmington Avenue Wilmington Avenue and 114th Street City of Los Angeles 92nd Street 92nd Street and Graham Avenue City/County of Los Angeles Gage Avenue Gage Avenue and Converse Avenue County of Los Angeles 7

8 Crossing Intersection Jurisdiction Florence Avenue Gage Avenue and Graham Avenue County of Los Angeles Nadeau Street Nadeau Street and Graham Street County of Los Angeles 119th Street 119th Street and Willowbrook Avenue County of Los Angeles 124th Street 124th Street and Willowbrook Avenue County of Los Angeles El Segundo Boulevard El Segundo Boulevard and Willowbrook Avenue County of Los Angeles 130th Street 130th Street and Willowbrook Avenue County of Los Angeles Stockwell Street Stockwell Street and Willowbrook Avenue County of Los Angeles Elm Street Elm Street and Willowbrook Avenue City of Compton Compton Boulevard Compton Boulevard and Willowbrook Avenue City of Compton Myrrh Street Myrrh Street and Willowbrook Avenue City of Compton Alondra Boulevard Alondra Boulevard and Willowbrook Avenue City of Compton Greenleaf Boulevard Greenleaf Boulevard and Willowbrook Avenue City of Compton Manville Street Manville Street and Willowbrook Avenue City of Compton Wardlow Road Wardlow Road and Pacific Place City of Long Beach Spring Street Spring Street and Del Mar Avenue City of Long Beach 2.2 Addendum No. 1 In June of 2015, Addendum No. 1 to the IS/MND was prepared to account for changes that were deemed necessary due to new information related to the construction of the pedestrian gates that was received which was the result of more refined engineering work. Determinations were made that additional ROW would be needed to complete the safety improvements at two crossing locations: Florence Avenue and Gage Avenue, both located in unincorporated Los Angeles County. The additional ROW was described to be in the form of complete fee take and be used for sidewalk modifications. Each of the areas where the additional ROW was required were very small portions of the properties and located adjacent to existing ROW and would not result in the need to demolish any structures or permanent fixtures, nor would they prohibit present uses or diminish any functional uses of the properties. The total estimated take was determined to be 619 square feet or 0.01 acres. These clarifications to the project would not result in any additional construction footprint or any other changes to the project. As described above, the reason that these changes do not modify the construction footprint is because land surveys conducted after the original design was complete found certain small portions of the design fell outside of the existing public ROW. 8

9 3. CHANGES TO THE PROJECT: ADDENDUM NO. 2 As discussed, the IS/MND for the project analyzed the potential impacts to the environment that would be caused by the construction and operation of the various components of the project, including the installation of the pedestrian gates at 27 roadway crossings and the installation of an equipment bungalow near the intersection of E. 51 st Street and Long Beach Avenue in the City of Los Angeles. During the construction bid process, new information related to the construction of the pedestrian gates was received which was the result of survey work. Determinations were made that additional ROW would be needed to complete the safety improvements at two crossing locations: Gage Avenue and Nadeau Street, both located in unincorporated Los Angeles County (see Table 2). The additional ROW would be in the form of complete fee take and be used for sidewalk modifications. Each of the areas where the additional ROW is required are very small portions of the properties and are located adjacent to existing ROW and will not result in the need to demolish any structures or permanent fixtures, nor would they prohibit present uses or diminish any functional uses of the properties. The total estimated take would be 197 square feet or acres. These clarifications to the project would not result in any additional construction footprint or any other changes to the project. As described above, the reason that these changes do not modify the construction footprint is because land surveys conducted after the original design was complete found certain small portions of the design fell outside of the existing public ROW. Table 2: ROW Take Locations Crossing Description Existing Land Use Gage Avenue Nadeau Street Northeast corner of Gage Ave and the existing LACMTA ROW Northwest corner of Nadeau Street and UPRR ROW Residential (front yard) Area Sq Feet of Take Parcel Owner Jorge C. Ruiz Industrial /10 UPRR It was also determined that several additional mechanical and/or electrical bungalows would be required due to refinements in engineering. Table 3 lists the proposed bungalows. All the proposed bungalows (or cabinets) would be prefabricated and installed on concrete pads. Minor site clearing and leveling would be required to pour the concrete pad. Minor trenching would also be required to connect the equipment located inside of the bungalows to the MBL system. All of the bungalows would occur within existing Metro ROW and no easements or property acquisitions would be required. 9

10 Table 3: Proposed Bungalows Bungalow Approx. Location Approx. Size (feet) Notes Firestone Interlock 550 feet north of E. 92 nd Street 4x6 Within Metro ROW 95 th Street Siding/Interlock Compton Interlock Del Amo Interlock Washington Siding/Interlock Near 97 th Street 10x12 Within Metro ROW South end of Compton Station platform 1,900 feet north of the Del Amo station 4x6 4x6 Within Metro ROW Within Metro ROW 200 feet south E. 24 th Street 10x12 Within Metro ROW 4. SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION The IS/MND prepared for the project found that all potential impacts to the environment were mitigatable. Since the clarification of the project as described above will not result in any changes to the construction footprint, the duration or timing of construction, construction techniques or equipment, no impacts would occur beyond the determination in the IS/MND prepared for the project. 4.1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potential impacts in the IS/MND related to air quality were found to be well below the daily emission thresholds for criteria pollutants and localized significance thresholds (LSTs). Fee take of the property adjacent to existing ROW will result in no changes to air emissions during construction or operation. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to construction amortized over 30 years were found to be 13.6 MTCO 2 e per year, well below the recommended (though not adopted) SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MTCO 2 e per year for non-residential projects. Adding the additional five equipment bungalows would require some additional construction to create the concrete pads that will house the structures. No operational impacts to air quality would occur (see Table 4). All of the bungalows would be prefabricated and placed on the finished concrete pads. Very minor site clearing and ground leveling would be required to prepare each pad location. In order to analyze the potential for any impacts to air quality, the addendum used the same construction scenario and equipment list used in the original IS/MND. This would represent a conservative analysis since the bungalow analyzed in the IS/MND was 15x20 feet and the bungalows herein would range between 4x6 and 10x12 feet. In the IS/MND, a conservative daily construction emission scenario was developed such that one track crossover, one bungalow, and two pedestrian swing gates would be under construction concurrently. 10

11 Table 4: Adjusted Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions Activity Description Estimated Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Track Crossover Equipment Bungalow Pedestrian Gate/Emergency Swing Gate Maximum Daily Emissions Adjusted Daily Emissions SCAQMD CEQA Significance Threshold Exceed SCAQMD s CEQA Significance Threshold? Notes: NO NO NO NO NO 1. The contribution of fugitive VOC emissions from asphaltic paving is estimated at 0.2 lb/day and is included in daily swing gate emissions estimate. Supporting calculations are provided in Attachment 1 of Appendix A. 2. Maximum daily emissions are based on concurrent operation of equipment associated with construction of a track crossover, equipment bungalow and two pedestrian gates/emergency swing gates. Although these activities may not occur on the same day, they represent a conservative scenario for evaluating potential air quality impacts. 3. Adjusted maximum daily emissions are based on concurrent operation of equipment associated with construction of a track crossover, equipment bungalow, two pedestrian gates/emergency swing gates, and two new bungalows. Although these activities may not occur on the same day, they represent a conservative scenario for evaluating potential air quality impacts. Source: Modeled by AECOM in 2013 and For the purposes of analyzing construction air impacts resulting for the changes proposed in this addendum, the same daily construction scenario was used with the addition of two new bungalows being constructed concurrently. As seen in Table 4 under Adjusted daily Emissions, the project would still be well below the SCAQMD daily thresholds for construction. As a result, since the additional construction do not change the significance determinations set forth in the IS/MND, no significant impacts would occur. 4.2 Land Use and Planning No impacts were found related to land use and planning in relation to the installation of the pedestrian gates. Even with the clarification described above and the addition of the five new cabinets/bungalows, the project will not divide an established community; conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation; or conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan since the gate installation will be in or adjacent to existing rail ROW. As a result, no changes to the significance determinations set forth in the IS/MND will occur. 11

12 4.3 Noise and Vibration As described, no changes will be made to the construction footprint, techniques, equipment, or timing required for the additional land acquisition. Construction of the proposed bungalows, however, could result in additional construction noise and are described below for each location. Del Amo Interlock Bungalow The bungalow proposed near the Del Amo Interlock (Location 4 in the IS/MND) is a 4x6 foot structure located approximately 1,900 feet north of the Del Amo station in unincorporated Los Angeles County. As described in the IS/MND, this location is surrounded by heavy industrial land uses. The County Noise Ordinance does not provide noise limits for industrial uses. Therefore, no impact would occur. Compton Interlock Bungalow The bungalow location would be at the south end of the existing Compton Station platform, north of Compton Boulevard. The bungalow size is estimated to be 4x6 feet in size. This location is just outside of the area analyzed in the IS/MND for Location 3. The proposed location is within the City of Compton. The City of Compton has adopted the County of Los Angeles noise ordinance for construction noise regulation (Title 12 Chapter Noise Control), which sets limits on noise emissions for construction activities to 75 dba at single family residences between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays, and 60 dba at single family homes between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Mondays through Saturdays and all day Sundays and legal holidays.. The IS/MND estimated the maximum noise generated during bungalow construction would be 91 dba at 30 feet from the equipment from the use pf pneumatic tools. Since the nearest singlefamily residence (located to the west across Willowbrook Avenue and across a vacant lot) is approximately 230 feet away, and using the inverse square law of sound 1, the estimated exterior sound level at the property line would be 73.3 dba. All construction activities that would occur within the County s daytime Monday through Saturday construction window would be at dba levels at the nearest single-family residence that are below the threshold of significance. However, since construction work may occur at night or on Sundays to minimize disruption to transit service, noise levels at the nearest single family home may exceed the 60 dba threshold. However, mitigation measures N-1 through N-5 set forth in the IS/MND would apply. The mitigation measures include the use of temporary noise barriers, limiting the most noise intensive activities to Saturdays, proper equipment maintenance, and use of mufflers. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measures, no significant impacts would result. Washington Siding/Interlock Bungalow The proposed bungalow would be locate approximately 200 feet south E. 24 th Street in the City of Los Angeles, adjacent to the proposed Washington Siding project site which was not analyzed in 1 L 2-L 1=10log (R 2/R 1) 2 ; where L 1= noise level at locaiton1; L 2=noise level at location 2; R 1=distance from source to location 1; R 2= distance from source to location 2. 12

13 the IS/MND since it was covered by the certified Mid-City/Westside Transit Corridor Mid-City Exposition LRT Project EIR/EIS (SCH# ). However, the proposed bungalow was not analyzed in that document. Pursuant to Section of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, there is no noise restrictions related to construction activities that occur more than 500 feet from a residential use or other sleeping area. Since the proposed bungalow is located within existing rail ROW that is surrounded by industrial land uses and not within 500 feet of an existing residential use, no significant impacts related to construction noise would occur. Firestone Interlock Bungalow The bungalow location at the Firestone Interlock (Location 2 in the IS/MND) would be 550 feet north of E. 92 nd Street within the existing Metro ROW. The bungalow would be 4x6 feet in size. Section of the Los Angeles Municipal Code regulates construction noise by prohibiting construction work between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. that is located within 500 feet of residential land uses. When construction work occurs outside of this window, or anytime on Sunday, a significant impact from construction would occur if the work increases CNEL noise levels by 5 dba or more above existing ambient levels at a residential land use. The nearest unobstructed residential land use is located 320 feet to the west. The loudest construction noise source for bungalow construction was estimated in the IS/MND at 91 dba at 30 feet from the source. Since the nearest residence is located 320 feet away, the estimated sound level at that location would be 70.4 dba which is well below the overall 78 dba ambient noise levels that were measured in the IS/MND and would not increase ambient CNEL noise levels. Additionally, mitigation measures N-1 through N-5 would apply which would further reduce noise emissions. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur. 95 th Street Siding/Interlock Bungalow The bungalow proposed near the 95 th Street Interlock is a 10x12 foot structure located in the Metro ROW near the intersection of 97 th Street and Graham Avenue in the City of Los Angeles. This bungalow location was analyzed as part of the Location 2 in the IS/MND. Impacts were found to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation. The mitigation measures set forth in the IS/MND would apply to the all actions set forth in this Addendum. Therefore, the findings in the IS/MND would not change with regard to noise and vibration. The IS/MND found that impacts are less than significant with mitigation and will not change as a result of the proposed changes to the project. 13

14 4.4 Population and Housing The minor changes to the project as described above as part of Addendum No. 2 will result in the acquisition of small portions of private property at two grade crossings and require minor construction activities within existing Metro ROW. However, the ROW takes would be very small in size, be immediately adjacent to existing public ROW, not result in the displacement of housing, and would not necessitate replacement housing elsewhere. Likewise, construction of the additional cabinets/bungalows within existing Metro ROW would also not result in any impacts to population and land use. 4.5 Transportation and Traffic The IS/MND found that impacts related to transportation and traffic could occur during construction of the pedestrian gates. However, these potential impacts would be reduced below the level of significance with the implementation of mitigation. Since the actions required as part of the clarification set forth in this addendum for the additional fee takes will not alter the construction footprint, techniques, equipment, or timing, no change in significance would occur. The IS/MND found that construction-related traffic for the project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Construction of the proposed new bungalows would be very similar to the actions analyzed in the IS/MND, and since the mitigation measures set forth therein would apply to the changes to the project, impacts would be less than significant. 4.6 Other Topic Areas The clarifications to the project would not result in any additional land disturbance beyond what was analyzed in the IS/MND. Therefore, impacts related to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry, cultural resources, biological resources, geology and soils, hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems, or other mandatory findings of significance will remain as determined in the IS/MND, having either no impact, less than significant impact, or less than significant with mitigation incorporated. 5. DETERMINATION Based on the information and analysis in this Addendum, and the Initial Study previously prepared for the project, pursuant to Section of the State CEQA Guidelines Metro has determined that: 1. There are no substantial changes to the Project that will require major revisions to the IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts previously identified in the IS/MND; 14

15 2. Substantial changes have not occurred in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions of the IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts previously identified in the IS/MND; and 3. There is no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known at the time the IS/MND was prepared that shows any of the following: a) The Project will have one or more new significant effects not discussed in the IS/MND; b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the IS/MND; c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project; or d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the IS/MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment 6. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED Preparers Metro Engineering Department James Wei, PE Project Manager AECOM Helene Kornblatt William Hoose, AICP Program Director CEQA Task Manager 7. REFERENCES Wagner Engineering and Survey, Inc Certification Memorandum: Metro Blue Line Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Project, March

16 APPENDIX A Certification Memoranda 16

17 17

18 18

19 19

20 20

21 21

22 22

23 23

24 24

25 25

26 26

27 27

28 28

29 29

30 30

31 31

32 32