City of Los Angeles INITIAL STUDY. Central City North Community Plan Area. 695 South Santa Fe Project. Case Number: ENV MND

Transcription

1 Department of City Planning Environmental Analysis Section City Hall 200 N. Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA INITIAL STUDY Central City North Community Plan Area Project Case Number: ENV MND Project Location: 695 S. Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California Council District: 14 Project Description: Goodyear Golden, LLC/Omid Bolour, the Applicant, proposes to develop a mixed use building consisting of 320 joint live-work units for artists and artisans and approximately 20,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving commercial uses (Project) on a 2.38-acre site consisting of several parcels in the Central City North Community Plan Area of the. The proposed improvements would comprise approximately 268,477 square feet of net new floor area and would replace approximately 42,055 square feet of existing industrial and warehouse uses on the Project Site. The proposed uses would be provided within one building that would range in height up to seven stories with a maximum building height of 85 feet. These uses would be supported by 390 parking spaces located within two subterranean levels for resident parking and one at-grade parking level to support the proposed commercial uses. The Project would also include approximately 54,974 square feet of usable common and private open space, including resident production space. APPLICANT: Goodyear Golden, LLC/Omid Bolour PREPARED BY: Matrix Environmental, LLC ON BEHALF OF: The Department of City Planning Environmental Analysis Section

2 Table of Contents Page INITIAL STUDY AND CHECKLIST ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT DESCRIPTION... A-1 ATTACHMENT B: EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST DETERMINATIONS... B-1 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Air Quality Worksheets Historic Resources Evaluation Geotechnical Investigations Phase I and Phase II Site Assessments Drainage Report Traffic Study Utility Technical Report Noise Worksheets Page i

3 List of Figures Figure Page Figure A-1 Project Location Map... A-2 Figure A-2 Aerial Photograph of the Project Site and Vicinity... A-4 Figure A-3 Existing Site Plan... A-6 Figure A-4 Conceptual Site Plan... A-9 Figure A-5 Conceptual Rendering View Along Imperial Street... A-10 Page ii

4 List of Tables Table Page Table B-1 Table B-2 Table B-3 Table B-4 Regional and Localized Unmitigated Construction Emissions (pounds per day)... B-8 Maximum Incremental Increase in Project-Related Operational Emissions (pounds per day)... B-10 Annual GHG Emissions Summary (Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent)... B-34 Project Consistency with Relevant Policies of the Central City North Community Plan... B-48 Table B-5 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Sources... B-56 Table B-6 Construction Noise Impacts New Construction... B-60 Table B-7 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels... B-64 Table B-8 Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections... B-75 Table B-9 Definition of Significant Impact at Intersection... B-76 Table B-10 Future With Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service... B-77 Table B-11 Estimated Project Wastewater and Water Generation... B-82 Table B-12 Water Demand Projections Based on Hydrological Conditions (Thousand AFY)... B-85 Table B-13 Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation... B-90 Table B-14 Estimated Project Electricity Demand... B-92 Table B-15 Estimated Project Natural Gas Demand... B-93 Page iii

5

6

7 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less that significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of a mitigation measure has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analysis," cross referenced). 5) Earlier analysis must be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR, or negative declaration. Section (c)(3)(d). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: 1) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. 2) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. 3) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated 7) Supporting Information Sources: A sources list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project s environmental effects in whichever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: 1) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and 2) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

8 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population/Housing Agricultural and Forestry Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Recreation Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems Geology/Soils Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST (To be completed by the Lead City Agency) BACKGROUND PROPONENT NAME Goodyear Golden, LLC; 2020 Industrial, LLC; CCT-AMP, LLC PROPONENT ADDRESS 8383 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 920 Beverly Hills, CA AGENCY REQUIRING CHECKLIST, Department of City Planning PROPOSAL NAME (If Applicable) PHONE NUMBER (323) DATE SUBMITTED

9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, or other locally recognized desirable aesthetic natural feature within a city-designated scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Refer to Attachment B for the explanation of checklist determinations) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

10 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Plan or Congestion Management Plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the air basin is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in the City or regional plans, policies, regulations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance (e.g., oak trees or California walnut woodlands)?

11 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in significance of a historical resource as defined in State CEQA ? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA ? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving : i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potential result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

12 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project result in: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

13 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned land uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in an manner which would result in flooding on- or off site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100-year flood plain as mapped on federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood plain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

14 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise in level in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of people to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection?

15 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c. Schools? d. Parks? e. Other governmental services (including roads)? XV. RECREATION. a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? g. Result in inadequate parking capacity? XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

16 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resource, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? h. Other utilities and service systems? XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). c. Does the project have environmental effects which cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

17 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Attach additional sheets if necessary) PREPARED BY Stephanie Eyestone-Jones Matrix Environmental 6701 Center Drive, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA TITLE President TELEPHONE # (424) DATE

18 Attachment A Project Description

19 Attachment A: Project Description A. Introduction Goodyear Golden, LLC/Omid Bolour, the Applicant, proposes to develop a mixed-use building consisting of 320 joint live-work units for artists and artisans and approximately 20,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving commercial uses (Project) on a 2.38-acre site consisting of several parcels (Project Site) in the Central City North Community Plan Area of the (City). The proposed improvements would comprise approximately 268,477 square feet of net new floor area and would replace approximately 42,055 square feet of existing industrial and warehouse uses on the Project Site. The proposed uses would be provided within one building that would range in height up to seven stories with a maximum building height of 85 feet. These uses would be supported by 390 parking spaces located within two subterranean levels for resident parking and one at-grade parking level to support the proposed commercial uses. The Project would also include approximately 54,974 square feet of usable common and private open space, including resident production space. 1 B. Project Location and Surrounding Uses The Project Site is located in the Central City North Community Plan Area of the City of Los Angeles, in downtown Los Angeles. The Project Site has a primary address of Avenue. Primary regional access is provided by the Hollywood Freeway (US-101) and the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5), which run north-south approximately 0.5 mile east of the Project Site, and the Santa Monica Freeway (I-10), which runs eastwest approximately 0.3 mile south of the Project Site. Major arterials providing regional and sub-regional access to the Project Site vicinity include Santa Fe Avenue, Alameda Street, 6th Street, and Olympic Boulevard. In addition, several transit lines operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) provide access to the Project Site vicinity with bus stops within 0.25 mile of the Project Site. A map of the Project Site and the surrounding area is provided in Figure A-1 on page A-2. 1 Usable common open space areas would include a paseo that extends east-west along the northern boundary of the Project Site from Santa Fe Avenue to Imperial Street and community gardens located within Project boundaries along Santa Fe Avenue and Imperial Street.. Page A-1

20 Mateo Santa Fe Gless 7th San Julian San Pedro Crocker Crocker Towne Stanford Gladys Ceres 5th Central Hewitt Colyton Seaton Factory Palmetto Molino 4th 4th Palmetto Willow Mission Anderson Willow Clarence 5th Pecan Towne 9th Stanford Agatha Gladys 8th 5 Gladys Ceres Kohler Merchant San Gabriel Mtns. Merchant Kohler Market Wilde Clock Warehouse Alameda Channing Industrial 6th Produce Wholesale Lawrence Decatur Mill Wilson Conway 7th Mateo Imperial Atlantic Jesse Santa Fe Mesquit Los Angeles River Project Site Mission 6th Meyers Whittier Jesse Myers Rio 7th Inez Sunrise th 15th 10th Simi Valley Chatsworth Van Nuys Woodland Hills Pico 11th 14th Newton Hemlock 12th Linden Agoura Hills Encino Sherman 405 Oaks Glendale Santa Monica Mtns. Hollywood Malibu 1 Santa Monica NOT TO SCALE Manhattan Beach Redondo Beach Los Angeles Birch 1 Torrance San Pedro Olympic 105 Carson Naomi Pasadena Project Site 10th Long Beach Hooper 605 Long Beach 405 McGarry McGarry Hunter Lawrence Bay Wilson Wilson Lemon Damon Violet Sacramento 8th Bay 8th Bay Hunter 10 Mission N Garnet Opal Boyle 8th Miles Figure A-1 Project Location Map Source: Los Angeles County GIS, 2014.

21 Attachment A: Project Description As shown in the aerial photograph provided in Figure A-2 on page A-4, the Project Site is located in a highly urbanized area that includes a mixture of low- and mid-rise buildings, both historic and modern, occupied by industrial, warehouse, office, and residential uses. Specifically, directly north of the Project Site is a two-story toy distribution facility with additional two-story industrial and warehouse uses located further north. East of the Project Site, across Santa Fe Avenue, are a three-story residential building, a one-story warehouse, and one-story art gallery. Directly south of the Project Site, at the intersection of Santa Fe Avenue and 7th Street, is a three-story residential building. South of the Project Site, across 7th Street, is the five-story former Ford Motor Company building and associated two-story Ford assembly line building and surface parking. 2 West of the Project Site, across Imperial Street is a one-story warehouse and restaurant and parking uses. C. Background and Existing Project Site Conditions 1. Background The Applicant previously proposed a development similar to the Project within the Project Site, which was approved in Specifically, in 2005, an Initial Study was prepared as part of a request for a Zoning Administrator s Determination regarding the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 182 joint live-work condominium units and 3,000 square feet of commercial area supported by 370 parking spaces. These uses were proposed to be provided within three buildings ranging from three to eight stories, including three levels of above-grade parking, with a maximum height of 87 feet. The project comprised a total of approximately 183,514 square feet with a floor area ratio of 1.8:1. During the public hearing process, the Project was modified such that the number of joint live-work condominium units was reduced from 182 units to 180 units and the commercial floor area was increased from 3,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet. The Applicant also offered to make available 15 percent of the units as affordable units resulting in nine low-income units and 18 moderate-income units. Following a public hearing held by the PLUM Committee, on January 18, 2008 the City Council approved the proposed development and associated variances as well as the proposed revisions to Vesting Tentative Tract No The City Council also adopted MND No. ENV MND, which evaluated the potential environmental impacts resulting from the project and provided mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts to less than significant levels. 2 The former Ford Motor Company site was recently acquired and is slated for office and commercial uses. Page A-3

22 S S Santa Santa Fe Fe Ave Ave Mesquit St Imperial St Mateo St Los Angeles River Jesse St Project Site E 7th St Figure A-2 Aerial Photograph of the Project Site and Vicinity Source: Shimoda Design Group, 2014.

23 Attachment A: Project Description 2. Existing Conditions As shown in the existing site plan illustrated in Figure A-3 on page A-6, the Project Site is comprised of 13 parcels and is currently developed with 11 industrial and warehouse buildings totaling approximately 42,055 square feet of building area. Surface parking is provided around the existing structures. The existing buildings vary in height from one to two stories. Access to the various buildings within the Project Site is available from driveways along Santa Fe Avenue and Imperial Street. Landscaping within and surrounding the Project Site is very limited. With the exception of a few on-site ornamental trees and shrubs, the Project Site is paved and developed with existing buildings. Existing electrical poles and street lights are located along the sidewalks bounding the Project Site. D. Land Use and Zoning 1. Central City North Community Plan Area The Project Site is located within the planning boundary of the Central City North Community Plan (Community Plan), which was adopted in December The Central City North Community Plan Area is comprised of seven subareas. The Project Site is specifically located within the boundaries of the area identified as the Artists-in-Residence District. As described in the Community Plan, the Artists-in-Residence District primarily consists of old warehouses now converted to artist lofts and studios. The Community Plan encourages the continued and expanded development of a thriving artists-in-residence community within the Community Plan and proposed redevelopment areas. The Project Site is designated for Heavy Manufacturing Uses by the Community Plan. 2. Los Angeles Municipal Code The Project Site is zoned M3-1 (Heavy Industrial, Height District 1). Uses permitted in the M3 zone include manufacturing uses such as the manufacturing of certain cleaning substances; automobile dismantling yard; junk yard; storage, display, processing or sales of second-hand furniture and appliances; and scrap metal processing yard. While buildings containing dwelling units or guest rooms are not permitted in the M3 zone, pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Section X.13, a Zoning Administrator may, upon application, permit joint living and work quarters for artists and artisans in commercial and industrial buildings in the M3 zone. Height District 1 within the M3-1 zone permits a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.5:1. Page A-5

24 Figure A-3 Existing Site Plan Source: JRN Civil Engineers, Page _

25 3. Other Applicable Land Use Regulations Attachment A: Project Description The Project Site is also within the boundaries of the Central Industrial Redevelopment Project area, East Los Angeles State Enterprise Zone, and the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan River Improvement Overlay District. The Central Industrial Redevelopment Plan 3 (Redevelopment Plan) supports the California Community Redevelopment Law and as such, is designed to improve economically and socially disadvantaged areas, redevelop or rehabilitate under or improperly utilized properties, eliminate blight, and improve the public welfare. The Redevelopment Plan includes specific goals and objectives for the Central Industrial Redevelopment Plan area that focus on reducing blight in the area and providing an environment that promotes enhanced conditions for businesses and residents. The goal of the Los Angeles State Enterprise Zone is to stimulate increased employment opportunities, business attraction, and investment in economically disadvantaged areas. In connection with the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan, which focuses on the creation of parks, paths and open spaces in the vicinity of the Los Angeles River, the River Improvement Overlay District proposes the establishment of a distinct sustainable environment in the surrounding neighborhoods to promote concepts developed in the Los Angeles River s Master Plan. E. Project Characteristics 1. Project Overview The Applicant proposes to replace the existing industrial and warehouse uses on the Project Site with a mixed-use building that would include 320 joint live-work units and approximately 20,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving commercial uses supported by 390 parking spaces. The proposed building would range in height up to seven stories with a maximum building height of 85 feet. The proposed improvements would comprise a total of approximately 310,532 square feet of new building floor area with a corresponding FAR 3 On December 29, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in the California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos case. The decision upheld the recently enacted State law, Assembly Bill (AB)X1 26, dissolving all California redevelopment agencies, including the CRA/LA. The dissolution of the agencies became effective February 1, ABX1 26, however, did not dissolve the redevelopment plans. Therefore, the Central Industrial Redevelopment Plan and its requirements for development are still in effect. Page A-7

26 Attachment A: Project Description of 2.99:1. When accounting for the existing uses to be removed, the Project would comprise approximately 268,477 square feet of net new floor area. The Project would include a total of three levels of parking, with two subterranean levels for resident parking and one at-grade parking level to support the proposed commercial uses. The Project would also include approximately 54,974 square feet of usable common and private open space, including artist production space. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure A-4 on page A Project Design As shown in Figure A-5 on page A-10, the Project would be designed in a contemporary architectural style. The new structure would be designed with a central portion of the building flanked by two portions of the building that would extend towards Imperial Street. Specifically, as shown in Figure A-5, at the northern boundary of the Project Site, a portion of the building would extend primarily towards Imperial Street. At the southern boundary of the Project Site, another portion of the building would also extend towards Imperial Street. The proposed building would feature side yard setbacks of 5 feet and a rear yard setback of 25 feet. The new structure would include building fenestration, a variety of surface materials and colors, and a stepped back design along Imperial Street, 7th Street, and Santa Fe Avenue to create horizontal and vertical articulation, provide visual interest, and reduce the building scale. Building materials would include precast concrete, terra cotta, plaster, aluminum, glass, tile, metal, and prefinished metal. Glass used in building façades would be non-reflective or treated with a non-reflective coating in order to minimize glare. Additionally, all major utilities would be placed underground. The proposed building would primarily measure seven stories with a maximum height of 85 feet. A portion of the building, along Imperial Street would measure two stories. This podium level would feature neighborhood-serving commercial uses on the first level and residential amenities on the second level. The neighborhood-serving commercial uses would be distributed at the ground-floor level throughout the various sides of the building and would be interspersed with proposed parking and landscaping improvements. The residential uses would primarily be provided above the ground-floor level with a series of townhomes provided at the ground-floor level. Two levels of parking for residents would be provided below the commercial uses and one level of screened parking would be provided at grade to support the commercial uses. The subterranean parking garage would extend to a depth of approximately 27 feet below the existing ground surface. Page A-8

27 n PASEO 7TH STREET SANTA FE IMPERIAL 695 Santa Fe Project Overview Figure A-4 Conceptual Site Plan August 12, Source: Shimoda Design Group, Page A-9

28 Figure A-5 Conceptual Rendering - View along Imperial Street Source: Shimoda Design Group, 2014.

29 Attachment A: Project Description 3. Landscaping and Open Space The Project would provide approximately 54,974 square feet of usable common and private open space areas, including residential production space. Per the LAMC, the Project is required to provide 33,575 square feet of open space. As such, the Project would exceed LAMC open space requirements. The primary focal element of the Project would be a large pedestrian paseo located at the ground floor that would extend east-west along the northern boundary of the Project Site from Santa Fe Avenue to Imperial Street. The paseo would provide approximately 12,743 square feet of common open space and would connect to a proposed elevated dog run and a proposed bike-barn that would provide the majority of long-term bicycle parking. An additional key component of the Project would include the two-story podium level that would include a pool deck, a swimming pool, a fitness pavilion, lounge, and pool house. The deck would include amenities such as barbeques, firepots, lounge chairs, tables, umbrellas, and a seasonal retractable movie screen. The deck would be landscaped with varying types of drought-tolerant and shade species. The Project would further provide a variety of residential production space (i.e., common work areas for residents), including an approximately 5,000-square-foot collaborative artisan workshop located at the ground floor level along Imperial Street and additional collaborative work spaces provided at each floor of the building totaling approximately 2,469 square feet. The Project would also include community garden areas located within Project boundaries along Santa Fe Avenue and Imperial Street. 4. Access and Parking Vehicular access to the Project Site would be provided via one driveway along Santa Fe Avenue and two driveways along Imperial Street. The north driveway along Imperial Street would provide access to the two subterranean levels of parking for residents. The south driveway along Imperial Street and the driveway along Santa Fe Avenue would provide access to the ground floor parking level for visitors of the commercial uses. Pedestrian access would be provided at several access points along Santa Fe Avenue, 7th Street, and Imperial Street. The Project would provide 390 parking spaces in three levels, including two subterranean levels for resident parking and one ground floor level to support the commercial uses. The proposed parking supply would meet the parking requirements of the Central City Parking District for the residential use and the Los Angeles State Enterprise zone for the commercial uses. In addition, in compliance with Ordinance No. 182,386, the Project would provide 372 on-site long- and short-term bicycle parking spaces Page A-11

30 Attachment A: Project Description for the residential uses and 20 long- and short-term bicycle parking spaces for the commercial uses. 5. Lighting and Signage Project lighting would include low-level exterior lights adjacent to buildings and along pathways for aesthetic, security and wayfinding purposes. No off-premises billboard advertising is proposed as part of the Project. Lighting would comply with current energy standards and codes while providing appropriate light levels for accent signage, architectural features, and landscaping elements. Light sources would be shielded and/or directed toward areas to be illuminated thereby minimizing spill-over onto nearby areas. The Project s signage would be designed to be aesthetically compatible with the proposed architecture of the Project Site and to contextualize lighting designs with other signage in the surrounding neighborhood. Proposed signage would include general street level tenant/site identification, visitor directional signage, and temporary construction signage, as permitted per the LAMC. All on-site signage would be well within the permitted area defined in the LAMC. 6. Sustainability Features The Project would be designed to comply with the Green Building Code and to meet the latest California/Uniform Building Codes, Title 24, and CAL- Green. The Project would feature a sustainable design to obtain an equivalent LEED Silver certification. The Project would maximize the indoor environmental quality with the inclusion of energy star air conditioning with fresh air intake, natural cross ventilation, exhausting kitchen hood and fans, no VOC paints, natural flooring, and formaldehyde free cabinetry, counters and shelving. In addition, the Project would include low-flow bathroom and plumbing fixtures. Overall energy efficiency would be maximized with energy star rated appliances, advanced lighting, dual glazed windows with low-e coating and energy efficient thermal building envelope. In accordance with CAL-Green requirements, the Project would provide thermal hot water panels and collectors within 15 percent of the total roof area. Further, the parking garage would include infrastructure for up to eight electric vehicle charging stations. The Project would also reduce water use by selecting plant material with low water requirements. F. Project Construction and Scheduling Project construction is anticipated to occur over approximately 24 months and is anticipated to be completed in Construction of the Project would commence with demolition of the existing buildings and surface parking areas, followed by grading and Page A-12

31 Attachment A: Project Description excavation for the subterranean parking garage. Building foundations would then be laid, followed by building construction, paving/concrete installation, and landscape installation. It is estimated that approximately 90,000 cubic yards of export material (e.g., concrete and asphalt surfaces) and soil would be hauled from the Project Site during the demolition and excavation phase. The haul route from the Project Site is anticipated to be via Santa Fe Avenue and/or Imperial Street to 7th Street and/or Santa Fe Avenue to the Santa Monica Freeway and/or the Santa Ana Freeway. As part of the Project, a Construction Traffic Management Plan and Truck Haul Route Program would be implemented during construction to minimize potential conflicts between construction activity and through traffic. The Construction Traffic Management Plan and Truck Haul Route Program would be subject to review and approval by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation. G. Necessary Approvals The has the principal responsibility for approving the Project and is the Lead Agency for environmental review. Approvals required for development of the Project may include, but are not limited to, the following: A Zoning Administrators Determination pursuant to LAMC Section X.13 to permit the proposed new construction of 320 joint living and work quarters for artists and artisans in the M3-1 Zone, including 20,000 square feet of commercial floor area with a minimum of 376 on-site parking spaces; A Zoning Administrators Determination pursuant to LAMC Section X.13 to permit a reduction in the required side yard setback from a 10-foot setback to a five-foot setback; A Zoning Variance pursuant to LAMC Section to permit a FAR of 2.99:1 in lieu of the maximum allowable FAR of 1.5:1; and Site Plan Review pursuant to LAMC Section for a residential development that is greater than 50 dwelling units. Page A-13

32 Attachment B Explanation of Checklist Determinations

33 Attachment B: Explanation of Checklist Determinations The following discussion provides responses to each of the questions set forth in the Initial Study Checklist. As demonstrated by the responses herein, with the implementation of mitigation measures, the Project would not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. I. Aesthetics Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The Project Site is located in a highly urbanized area of the City of Los Angeles. Due to existing development and the flat topography of the area, prominent scenic views of natural features and unique urban features are not visible from the Project Site. In addition, no identified visual resources exist in the vicinity of the Project Site. Therefore, development of the Project will not have an impact on scenic vistas. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, or other locally recognized desirable aesthetic natural feature within a city-designated scenic highway? No Impact. No designated scenic highways are located in the vicinity of the Project Site. 1 While the Project Site includes limited ornamental trees and landscaping, the majority of the Project Site is developed with a varied mix of commercial and industrial buildings and surface parking areas. Further, no buildings on-site are historic resources. Thus, the Project Site does not include any scenic resources or recognized aesthetic features. Therefore, construction and operation of the Project would not result in impacts to 1 Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Transportation Element of the General Plan, Map E, Scenic Highways in the, 1998, and Central City North Community Plan, Page B-1

34 scenic resources within a City-designated scenic highway and no mitigation measures are required. c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Project Site is currently developed with one and two-story buildings comprised of varied architectural styles and surface parking areas. Landscaping within the Project Site is limited to a few ornamental trees and shrubs. The Project Site does not contain any notable aesthetic resources. In addition, nearby uses include commercial, industrial, and residential uses that range in height from one- to five-stories. The proposed building would comprise approximately 310,532 square feet of floor area with a maximum height of up to seven stories and 85 feet. While the height of the proposed building would be greater than existing building heights, the building would visually unify the site. The new structure would include building fenestration, a variety of surface materials and colors, and a stepped back design along Imperial Street, Seventh Street, and Santa Fe Avenue to create horizontal and vertical articulation, provide visual interest, and reduce the building scale. In addition, a landscaped paseo, a landscaped pool deck, a community garden, and a parklet would also be provided that would enhance the visual character of the area. Therefore, the Project would not adversely impact the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site currently generates moderate levels of artificial light and glare typical of urbanized areas. Light sources include low-level security lighting, vehicle headlights, and interior lighting emanating from the industrial and commercial buildings on-site. Glare sources are generally limited to building windows and vehicular windows. Project lighting would include low-level exterior lights adjacent to buildings and along pathways for aesthetic, security, and wayfinding purposes. No off-premises billboard advertising is proposed as part of the Project. Lighting would comply with current energy standards and codes while providing appropriate light levels for safety, accent signage, architectural features, and landscaping elements. In addition, light sources would be shielded and/or directed toward areas to be illuminated thereby minimizing spill-over onto nearby areas. Thus, potential impacts associated with lighting would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Page B-2