CEQA Report/Mitigated Negative Declaration

City of Los Angeles
Department of City Planning

City Hall 200 N. Spring Street, Room 750 Los Angeles, CA 90012

INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SILVER LAKE ECHO PARK ELYSIAN VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN AREA
Sunset & Everett Mixed-Use Development Project &
Everett Small Lot Subdivision
Sunset Portion Case Nos. CPC-2013-3319-DB-SPR; VTT-72553 and ENV-2013-3320-MND
Everett Portion Case Nos. VTT-72552-SL; ZA-2013-3303-ZV-ZAA and ENV-2013-3320-MND

Council District No. 1
THIS DOCUMENT COMPRISES THE INITIAL STUDY/PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION ANALYSIS AS REQUIRED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

Project Addresses: Los Angeles, CA 90026:
1185, 1187, 1193, 1195, 1197, 1201, 1201 , 1205, 1205 , 1207, 1207 , 1211, 1215, 1221, 1225, 1229, 1233, 1239,
1243, 1245, 1247, 1247 W. Sunset Boulevard
917, 959, 959 , 965, 965 N. Everett Street

Project Description:
The Project is composed of two separate developments: 1) A mixed use residential/retail development located primarily
along Sunset Boulevard and at the corner of Sunset Boulevard and Everett Street and 2) A Small Lot Subdivision located
entirely along Everett Street.

Sunset & Everett Mixed Use Development Project (CPC-2013-3319-DB-SPR; VTT-72553) : The project is composed
of two separate buildings (A & B) containing a total of 214 residential units, 8,406 square feet of retail, a total of 300
parking spaces, and 243 bicycle parking spaces.
Building A (Located along Sunset Boulevard and totaling approximately 147,241 square feet) will provide 167 joint
living and working units
Building B (Located at the corner of Sunset Boulevard and Everett Street and totaling approximately 50,617 square
feet) will provide 47 joint living and working units and 8,406 square feet of retail space that will be divided into five
tenant spaces on the ground floor level.

As filed, the project is in request of the following entitlements:
1. Pursuant to LAMC 17.15, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map comprised of a one-lot subdivision for a maximum of 214
residential condominium live-work units and six commercial condominiums. Although the project is proposed as an
apartment project, the applicant desires a Tract Map for future flexibility to offer the residential units and commercial
condominiums for sale.
2. Pursuant to LAMC 16.05.C.1(b), Site Plan Review for the development of 214 residential units.
3. Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.22.A.25(c)(1), a 25 percent Density Bonus with 7 percent reserved for Very Low
Income Household units to permit the construction of a mixed-use development with 214 residential units, 8,406
square feet of ground floor commercial, utilizing Parking Option 1 and requesting one On-Menu Incentive and three
Off-Menu Incentives (Waivers) that include:
(a) Pursuant to LAMC 12.22.A.25.F(4), an On-Menu Incentive for a 25 percent FAR increase to permit 197,858
square feet of floor area (1.88 FAR) in lieu of 158,286 square feet of floor area (1.5 FAR) allowed in the C2-1VL
zone;
(b) Pursuant to LAMC 12.22.A.25.G(3), Off-Menu Incentives for:
(1) a 15 foot height increase for a height of 72 feet as measured from Grade (57 Base Height plus 15 feet) and 66
feet as measured from Plumb Height (45 feet and 21 feet) for Building A;
(2) a 4 foot height increase for a height of 61 feet as measured from Grade (57 Base Height plus 4 feet) and 59 as
measured from Plumb Height (45 feet and 14 feet) for Building B; and
(3) to permit a five-story mixed-use building in lieu of three stories for Building A.
4. Haul route approval for the export of approximately 32,401 cubic yards of dirt.

Everett Small Lot Subdivision (VTT-72552-SL; ZA-2013-3303-ZV-ZAA): The project will construct six (6) single-
family residences, with a combined square footage of 10,887 square feet, pursuant to the small lot subdivision ordinance
and will provide a total of 12 parking spaces

As filed, the project is in request of the following entitlements:
1. Pursuant to LAMC 17.15 a Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the development of a small lot subdivision comprised of
six lots and six single-family residences.
2. Pursuant to LAMC 12.28, a Zoning Administrators Adjustment to permit a 2 inch building separation in lieu 20 feet
required per LAMC Section 12.21.C.2(a);
3. Pursuant to LAMC 12.28, a Zoning Administrators Adjustment to permit a 5 foot passageway in lieu of 12 feet
required per LAMC 12.21.C.2(b);
4. Pursuant to LAMC 12.28, a Zoning Administrators Adjustment to permit a 6 foot, 9 inch front yard in lieu of 15 feet
required per LAMC Section 12.10.C.1;
5. Pursuant to LAMC 12.28, a Zoning Administrators Adjustment to permit a 5 foot side yard in lieu of 6 feet required
per LAMC Section 12.10.C.2;
6. Pursuant to LAMC 12.28, a Zoning Administrators Adjustment to permit a 5 foot rear yard in lieu of 15 feet required
per LAMC 12.10.C.3;
7. Pursuant to LAMC 12.27, a Zone Variance to allow zero square feet of open space in lieu of 1,050 square feet of open
space required for a multi-family project per LAMC Section 12.21.G.2.

The Applicant has filed two separate project applications and tract maps (one for each project). The separate applications
are not dependent upon each other. The City will independently consider each application and could approve both, deny
both, or approve one and deny the other. Because the applications are being made by the same applicant on contiguous
properties and are intended to be developed contemporaneously with each other, both applications considered together
comprise the Project for purposes of CEQA review in this MND.

APPLICANT:
Aragon (Sunset/Everett) Properties Corporation

PREPARED FOR:
Los Angeles Department of City Planning

PREPARED BY:
CAJ A Environmental Services, LLC

July 2014
Mitigation Measures
Sunset & Everett Mixed-Use Development Project and Everett Small Lot Subdivision
ENV-2013-3320-MND
1. Aesthetics
1-1 Aesthetics (Landscape Plan)
All open areas not used for buildings, driveways, parking areas, recreational facilities or walks shall
be attractively landscaped and maintained in accordance with a landscape plan and an automatic
irrigation plan, prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect and to the satisfaction of the decision
maker.
A minimum five-foot landscape buffer shall be planted adjacent to the residential uses on the
Sunset Portion, to the extent feasible by the design constraints required for building staircase
accesses, and site arrangement, and subject to the landscape plan.
1-2 Aesthetics (Signage)
On-site signs shall be limited to the maximum allowable under the Municipal Code.
Multiple temporary signs in store windows and along building walls are not permitted.
1-3 Aesthetics (Vandalism)
Every building, structure, or portion thereof, shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition
and good repair, and free from, debris, rubbish, garbage, trash, overgrown vegetation or other
similar material, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 91.8104.
The exterior of all buildings and fences shall be free from graffiti when such graffiti is visible
from a street or alley, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 91.8104.15.
1-4 Aesthetics (Signage on Construction Barriers)
The applicant shall affix or paint a plainly visible sign, on publicly accessible portions of the
construction barriers, with the following language: POST NO BILLS.
Such language shall appear at intervals of no less than 25 feet along the length of the publicly
accessible portions of the barrier.
The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the visibility of the required signage and for
maintaining the construction barrier free and clear of any unauthorized signs within 48 hours of
occurrence.
1-5 Aesthetics (Light)
Outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed with shielding and focused on the Site and directed
away from the neighboring residential land uses.
1-6 Aesthetics (Glare)
The exterior of the proposed structure shall be constructed of materials such as, but not limited to,
high-performance and/or non-reflective tinted glass (no mirror-like tints or films) and pre-cast
concrete or fabricated wall surfaces to minimize glare and reflected heat.
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
None
3. Air Quality
3-1 Air Quality (Demolition, Grading, and Construction Activities)
All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted at least twice daily during
excavation and construction, and temporary dust covers shall be used to reduce dust emissions
and meet SCAQMD District Rule 403. Wetting could reduce fugitive dust by as much as 50
percent.
The construction area shall be kept sufficiently dampened to control dust caused by grading and
hauling, and at all times provide reasonable control of dust caused by wind.
All clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be discontinued during periods of high
winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph), so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
All dirt/soil loads shall be secured by trimming, watering or other appropriate means to prevent
spillage and dust.
All dirt/soil materials transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered
to prevent excessive amount of dust.
General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust
emissions.
Trucks having no current hauling activity shall not idle but be turned off.
3-2 Air Quality (Land Use Compatibility)
An air filtration system shall be installed and maintained with filters meeting or exceeding the
ASHRAE Standard 52.2 Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 11, to the satisfaction of
the Department of Building and Safety.
4. Biological Resources
4-1 Habitat Modification (Nesting Native Birds, Hillside or Rural Areas)
Proposed project activities (including disturbances to native and non-native vegetation,
structures and substrates) should take place outside of the breeding bird season which generally
runs from March 1- August 31 (as early as February 1 for raptors) to avoid take (including
disturbances which would cause abandonment of active nests containing eggs and/or young).
Take means to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture of
kill (Fish and Game Code Section 86).
If project activities cannot feasibly avoid the breeding bird season, beginning thirty days prior to
the disturbance of suitable nesting habitat, the applicant shall:
a. Arrange for weekly bird surveys to detect any protected native birds in the habitat to be
removed and any other such habitat within 300 feet of the construction work area (within
500 feet for raptors) as access to adjacent areas allows. The surveys shall be conducted by a
Qualified Biologist with experience in conducting breeding bird surveys. The surveys shall
continue on a weekly basis with the last survey being conducted no more than 3 days prior to
the initiation of clearance/construction work.
b. If a protected native bird is found, the applicant shall delay all clearance/construction
disturbance activities within 300 feet of suitable nesting habitat for the observed protected
bird species (within 500 feet for suitable raptor nesting habitat) until August 31.
c. Alternatively, the Qualified Biologist could continue the surveys in order to locate any
nests. If an active nest is located, clearing and construction within 300 feet of the nest
(within 500 feet for raptor nests) or as determined by a qualified biological monitor, shall be
postponed until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged and when there is no evidence
of a second attempt at nesting. The buffer zone from the nest shall be established in the field
with flagging and stakes. Construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of the
area.
d. The applicant shall record the results of the recommended protective measures described
above to document compliance with applicable State and Federal laws pertaining to the
protection of native birds. Such record shall be submitted and received into the case file for
the associated discretionary action permitting the project.
4-2 Existing Tree Report recommendation
Final approval of the tree removal shall be determined by the Citys Chief Forester. Replacement
trees for the 4 Juglans californica trees shall be a total of 8 (eight) 15-gallon Platanus racemosa.
4-3 Tree Removal (Non-Protected Trees)
Prior to the issuance of any permit, a plot plan shall be prepared indicating the location, size,
type, and general condition of all existing trees on the site and within the adjacent public
right(s)-of-way.
All significant (8-inch or greater trunk diameter, or cumulative trunk diameter if multitrunked, as
measured 54 inches above the ground) non-protected trees on the site proposed for removal shall
be replaced at a 1:1 ratio with a minimum 24-inch box tree. Net, new trees, located within the
parkway of the adjacent public right(s)-of-way, may be counted toward replacement tree
requirements.
Removal or planting of any tree in the public right-of-way requires approval of the Board of
Public Works. Contact Urban Forestry Division at: 213-847-3077. All trees in the public right-
of-way shall be provided per the current standards of the Urban Forestry Division the
Department of Public Works, Bureau of Street Services.
4-4 Tree Removal (Locally Protected Species)
All protected tree removals require approval from the Board of Public Works.
A Tree Report shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Division of the Bureau of Street
Services, Department of Public Works, for review and approval (213-847-3077), prior to
implementation of the Reports recommended measures.
A minimum of two trees (a minimum of 48-inch box in size if available) shall be planted for
each protected tree that is removed. The canopy of the replacement trees, at the time they are
planted, shall be in proportion to the canopies of the protected tree(s) removed and shall be to the
satisfaction of the Urban Forestry Division.
The location of trees planted for the purposes of replacing a removed protected tree shall be
clearly indicated on the required landscape plan, which shall also indicate the replacement tree
species and further contain the phrase Replacement Tree in its description.
Bonding (Tree Survival):
a. The applicant shall post a cash bond or other assurances acceptable to the Bureau of
Engineering in consultation with the Urban Forestry Division and the decision maker
guaranteeing the survival of trees required to be maintained, replaced or relocated in such a
fashion as to assure the existence of continuously living trees for a minimum of three years
from the date that the bond is posted or from the date such trees are replaced or relocated,
whichever is longer. Any change of ownership shall require that the new owner post a new
oak tree bond to the satisfaction of the Bureau of Engineering. Subsequently, the original
owner's oak tree bond may be exonerated.
b. The City Engineer shall use the provisions of Section 17.08 as its procedural guide in
satisfaction of said bond requirements and processing. Prior to exoneration of the bond, the
owner of the property shall provide evidence satisfactory to the City Engineer and Urban
Forestry Division that the oak trees were properly replaced, the date of the replacement and
the survival of the replacement trees for a period of three years.
5. Cultural Resources
5-1 Cultural Resources (Archaeology)
If any archaeological materials are encountered during the course of project development, all
further development activity shall halt in the areas of archaeological sensitivity (excavation or
disturbance may continue in other areas of the Project Site that are not reasonably suspected to
overlie adjacent archaeological resources), and:
a. The services of an archaeologist shall then be secured by contacting the South Central
Coastal Information Center (657-278-5395) located at California State University Fullerton,
or a member of the Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA) or a ROPA-qualified
archaeologist, who shall assess the discovered material(s) and prepare a survey, study or
report evaluating the impact.
b. The archaeologist's survey, study or report shall contain a recommendation(s), if necessary,
for the preservation, conservation, or relocation of the resource.
c. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the evaluating archaeologist, as
contained in the survey, study or report.
Project development activities may resume once copies of the archaeological survey, study or
report are submitted to:
SCCIC Department of Anthropology
McCarthy Hall 477 CSU Fullerton
800 North State College Boulevard
Fullerton, CA 92834
Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit a letter to the case file
indicating what, if any, archaeological reports have been submitted, or a statement indicating that
no material was discovered.
A covenant and agreement binding the applicant to this condition shall be recorded prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
The Native American Heritage Commission shall be consulted to identify if any additional
traditional cultural properties or other sacred sites are known to be in the area.
5-2 Cultural Resources (Paleontology)
If any paleontological materials are encountered during the course of project development, all
further development activities shall halt in the areas of paleontological sensitivity (Excavation or
overlie adjacent paleontological resources), and:
a. The services of a paleontologist shall then be secured by contacting the Center for Public
Paleontology - USC, UCLA, California State University Los Angeles, California State
University Long Beach, or the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum - who shall
assess the discovered material(s) and prepare a survey, study or report evaluating the impact.
b. The paleontologist's survey, study, or report shall contain a recommendation(s), if
necessary, for the preservation, conservation, or relocation of the resource.
c. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the evaluating paleontologist, as
contained in the survey, study, or report.
d. Project development activities may resume once copies of the paleontological survey,
study or report are submitted to the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum.
e. Any fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an accredited and
permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations
indicating what, if any, paleontological reports have been submitted, or a statement indicating
that no material was discovered.
5-3 Cultural Resources (Human Remains)
In the event that human remains are discovered during excavation activities, the following
procedure shall be observed:
a. Stop immediately and contact the County Coroner:
1104 N. Mission Road
Los Angeles, CA 90033
323-343-0512 (8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday) or
323-343-0714 (After Hours, Saturday, Sunday, and Holidays)
b. The coroner has two working days to examine human remains after being notified by the
responsible person. If the remains are Native American, the Coroner has 24 hours to notify
the Native American Heritage Commission.
c. The Native American Heritage Commission will immediately notify the person it believes
to be the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American.
d. The most likely descendent has 48 hours to make recommendations to the owner, or
representative, for the treatment or disposition, with proper dignity, of the human remains
and grave goods.
e. If the descendent does not make recommendations within 48 hours the owner shall reinter
the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance, or;
f. If the owner does not accept the descendants recommendations, the owner or the
descendent may request mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission.
6. Geology and Soils
6-1 Seismic
The design and construction of the project shall conform to the California Building Code seismic
standards as approved by the Department of Building and Safety.
6-2 Erosion/Grading/Short-Term Construction Impacts
The applicant shall provide a staked signage at the site with a minimum of 3-inch lettering
containing contact information for the Senior Street Use Inspector (Department of Public
Works), the Senior Grading Inspector (LADBS) and the hauling or general contractor.
Chapter IX, Division 70 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code addresses grading, excavations, and
fills. All grading activities require grading permits from the Department of Building and Safety.
Additional provisions are required for grading activities within Hillside areas. The application of
BMPs includes but is not limited to the following mitigation measures:
a. Excavation and grading activities shall be scheduled during dry weather periods. If
grading occurs during the rainy season (October 15 through April 1), diversion dikes shall be
constructed to channel runoff around the site. Channels shall be lined with grass or
roughened pavement to reduce runoff velocity.
b. Stockpiles, excavated, and exposed soil shall be covered with secured tarps, plastic
sheeting, erosion control fabrics, or treated with a bio-degradable soil stabilizer.
6-3 Erosion/Grading/Short-Term Construction Impacts (Hillside Grading Areas)
The grading plan shall conform with the City's Landform Grading Manual guidelines, subject to
approval by the Advisory Agency and the Department of Building and Safety's Grading
Division.
Appropriate erosion control and drainage devices shall be provided to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Department. These measures include interceptor terraces, berms, vee
channels, and inlet and outlet structures, as specified by Section 91.7013 of the Building Code,
including planting fast-growing annual and perennial grasses in areas where construction is not
immediately planned.
6-4 Geological Investigation and Engineering Requirements
The design of the structure shall consider groundwater at a depth of 8 feet below the ground
surface as measured at the sidewalk elevation.
The existing fill soils, in addition to the upper two feet of alluvial soils shall be removed and
recompacted.
The proposed structure shall be supported on conventional foundations where the rock is
exposed and deepened foundations excavated through the fill and alluvium where bedrock is
deeper; the footings shall extend to 15 feet in depth. As an alternative, where deepened footings
are necessary, cast-in-place drilled friction piles shall be used. A combination of conventional
foundations and friction piles shall be used as long as both types are supported in the bedrock.
If the building is designed and constructed with a cold joint at the transition between bedrock
and fill/alluvium, the building shall be supported exclusively on shallow conventional
foundations. If this option is selected, all of the fill soils must be removed and compacted, and
the footings must be underlain by at least 3 feet of newly compacted fill soils.
The finish floor slab shall be designed and constructed as a conventional slab where the slab is
above the ground water surface. Where the finish floor is below the groundwater surface, the
slab must be designed to accommodate the hydrostatic uplift.
Groundwater will be encountered during construction. Dewatering measures shall be considered.
It is recommended that a groundwater monitoring well be installed on the area of the two level
parking garage and another at the location of the deeper alluvium. The purpose of the wells is to
identify static water depths and to estimate dewatering qualities.
The slope stability calculations required leaving the terrace in place at the top of the slope near
Cross Section E-E. The terrace shall be regarded to include a 2-foot thick layer of relatively
impermeable soil to prevent infiltration. The layer shall be graded so that water flows toward the
face of the slope and is near elevation 486 feet. The over steepened slope on the east side of the
terrace shall be supported with a retaining wall or permanent shoring. The top of the new cut
shall be set back from the property lines 1/5 of the height of the cut, but no greater than 10 feet
from the property line. Clarification of the required setback for the existing cut shown on Cross
Section E-E shall be obtained from the building official.
The proposed cut shall be inclined as steep as 35 degrees. Since the slope exceeds an inclination
of 26 degrees, a modification to the City of Los Angeles Building Code shall be necessary.
V ditches shall be required at the top, midheight, and toe of the proposed cut slope with
appropriate downdrains. The slope must be planted with erosion resistant ground cover.
Approved shrubs shall also be necessary.
Foundations for small outlying structures, such as property line walls, which shall not be tied-in
to the proposed apartment building, shall be supported on conventional foundations bearing in
bedrock or alluvium.
6-5 Foundation Reinforcement (Geological Investigation and Engineering )
Due to the high expansion potential for the onsite geologic materials, all foundations shall be
reinforced with a minimum of four #4 steel bars. Two shall be placed near the top of the foundation,
and two shall be placed near the bottom.
6-6 Expansive Soils Area
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical
report, prepared by a registered civil engineer or certified engineering geologist, to the
Department of Building and Safety, for review and approval. The geotechnical report shall
assess potential consequences of any soil expansion and soil strength loss, estimation of
settlement, lateral movement or reduction in foundation soilbearing capacity, and discuss
mitigation measures that may include building design consideration. Building design
considerations shall include, but are not limited to: ground stabilization, selection of appropriate
foundation type and depths, selection of appropriate structural systems to accommodate
anticipated displacements or any combination of these measures.
The project shall comply with the conditions contained within the Department of Building and
Safetys Geology and Soils Report Approval Letter for the proposed project, and as it may be
subsequently amended or modified.
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
7-1 Greenhouse Gases
Only low-VOC-containing paints, sealants, adhesives, and solvents shall be utilized in the
construction of the project.
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
8-1 Explosion/Release (Existing Toxic/Hazardous Construction Materials)
(Polychlorinated Biphenyl Commercial and Industrial Buildings) Prior to issuance of a
demolition permit, a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) abatement contractor shall conduct a
survey of the project site to identify and assist with compliance with applicable state and federal
rules and regulation governing PCB removal and disposal.
8-2 AEI Consultants Recommendation - Methane Assessment
A methane assessment shall be conducted for the Site prior to any future redevelopment
activities.
8-3 Explosion/Release (Methane Gas)
All commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings shall be provided with an approved
Methane Control System, which shall include these minimum requirements; a vent system and
gas-detection system which shall be installed in the basements or the lowest floor level on grade,
and within underfloor space of buildings with raised foundations. The gas-detection system shall
be designed to automatically activate the vent system when an action level equal to 25% of the
Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) methane concentration is detected within those areas.
All commercial, industrial, institutional and multiple residential buildings covering over 50,000
square feet of lot area or with more than one level of basement shall be independently analyzed
by a qualified engineer, as defined in Section 91.7102 of the Municipal Code, hired by the
building owner. The engineer shall investigate and recommend mitigation measures which will
prevent or retard potential methane gas seepage into the building. In addition to the other items
listed in this section, the owner shall implement the engineer's design recommendations subject
to Department of Building and Safety and Fire Department approval.
All multiple residential buildings shall have adequate ventilation as defined in Section 91.7102
of the Municipal Code of a gas-detection system installed in the basement or on the lowest floor
level on grade, and within the underfloor space in buildings with raised foundations.
8-4 AEI Consultants Recommendation - Asbestos-Containing Materials Operation & Maintenance
Plan
Based on the potential presence of asbestos-containing materials, the property owner shall
implement an Operations and Maintenance (O & M) Plan which stipulates that assessment,
repair and maintenance of damaged materials be performed to protect the health and safety of the
building occupants.
An asbestos survey adhering to Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) sampling
protocol shall be performed prior to demolition or renovation activities that may disturb ACMs.
This requirement shall be enforced by the local air pollution control or air quality management
district, and specifies that all suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) be sampled to
determine the presence or absence of asbestos prior to any renovation or demolition activities to
prevent potential exposure to workers and/or building occupants.
(Asbestos) Prior to the issuance of any permit for the demolition or alteration of the existing
structure(s), the applicant shall provide a letter to the Department of Building and Safety from a
qualified asbestos abatement consultant indicating that no Asbestos-Containing Materials
(ACM) are present in the building. If ACMs are found to be present, it will need to be abated in
compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 1403 as well as all
other applicable State and Federal rules and regulations.
8-6 AEI Consultants Recommendation - Lead-Based Paint Operation & Maintenance Plan
Based on the potential presence of lead-based paint (LBP) and nature of occupancy, the property
owner shall implement an Operations and Maintenance (O & M) Plan to protect the health and
safety of the building occupants. Local regulations may apply to lead-based paint in association
with building demolition/renovations and worker/occupant protection. Actual material samples
shall be collected or an XRF survey performed in order to determine if LBP is present.
Construction activities that disturb materials or paints containing any amount of lead shall be
subject to certain requirements of the OSHA lead standard contained in 29 CFR 1910.1025 and
1926.62.
The property owner shall consult with a certified Lead Risk Assessor to determine options for
control of possible LBP hazards. Stringent local and State regulations shall apply to LBP in
association with building demolition/renovations and worker/occupant protection. Construction
activities that disturb materials or paints containing any amount of lead shall be subject to certain
requirements of the OSHA lead standard contained in 29 CFR 1910.1025 and 1926.62.
Specific work practices according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration shall be
implemented when handling construction materials and debris that contain lead-containing
materials.
(Lead Paint) Prior to issuance of any permit for the demolition or alteration of the existing
structure(s), a lead-based paint survey shall be performed to the written satisfaction of the
Department of Building and Safety. Should lead-based paint materials be identified, standard
handling and disposal practices shall be implemented pursuant to OSHA regulations.
8-8 Removal of Underground Storage Tanks
Underground Storage Tanks shall be decommissioned or removed as determined by the Los
Angeles City Fire Department Underground Storage Tank Division. If any contamination is
found, further remediation measures shall be developed with the assistance of the Los Angeles
City Fire Department and other appropriate State agencies.
Prior to issuance of a use of land or building permit, a letter certifying that remediation is
complete from the appropriate agency (Department of Toxic Substance Control or the Regional
Water Quality Control Board) shall be submitted to the decision maker.
8-9 Hillside Construction Staging and Parking Plan
Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit a Construction
Staging and Parking Plan to the Department of Building and Safety and the Fire Department for
review and approval. The plan shall identify where all construction materials, equipment, and
vehicles will be stored through the construction phase of the project, as well as where contractor,
subcontractor, and laborers will park their vehicles so as to prevent blockage of two-way traffic
on streets in the vicinity of the construction site. The Construction Staging and Parking Plan
shall include, but not be limited to, the following performance standards and operational
requirements:
o No construction equipment or material shall be permitted to be stored within the public
right-of-way. Unless otherwise allowed by special permit, all surrounding sidewalks
shall remain accessible for pedestrians at all times. Any such permits shall be issued on a
temporary basis throughout the duration of construction.
o If the property fronts on a designated Red Flag Street, on noticed Red Flag days, all
the workers shall be shuttled from an off-site area, located on a non-Red Flag Street, to
and from the site in order to keep roads open on Red Flag days.
o During the Excavation and Grading phases, only one truck hauler shall be allowed on
the site at any one time. The drivers shall be required to follow the designated travel plan
or approved Haul Route.
o Truck traffic directed to the project site for the purpose of delivering materials,
construction-machinery, or removal of graded soil shall be limited to off-peak traffic
hours, Monday through Friday only. No truck deliveries shall be permitted on Saturdays
or Sundays.
o All deliveries during construction shall be coordinated so that only one vendor/delivery
vehicle is at the site at one time, and that a construction supervisor is present at such
time.
o A radio operator shall be on-site to coordinate the movement of material and personnel,
in order to keep the roads open for emergency vehicles, their apparatus, and neighbors.
o During all phases of construction, all construction vehicle parking and queuing related to
the project shall be as required to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and
Safety, and in substantial compliance with the Construction Staging and Parking Plan,
except as may be modified by the Department of Building and Safety or the Fire
Department.
8-10 Emergency Evacuation Plan
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall develop an emergency response plan in
consultation with the Fire Department. The emergency response plan shall include but not be limited
to the following performance standards and requirements: mapping of emergency exits, evacuation
routes for vehicles and pedestrians, location of nearest hospitals, and fire departments.
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
9-1 Temporary Dewatering (Geological Engineering Investigation Recommendation)
Temporary dewatering shall consist of gravel-filled drainage trenches leading a sump area. The
collected water shall be pumped to an acceptable disposal area.
Dewatering wells shall be considered, based on the recommendation of an experienced
dewatering contractor.
9-2 Stormwater Infiltration Facility (Geological Engineering Investigation Recommendation)
The infiltration facility shall not be located near the proposed slope.
The infiltration facility shall be located downgradient of the slope and the subterranean levels.
The Project shall not be serviced by below grade retaining walls.
Open infiltration basins have many negative associated issues. Such a design shall consider
attractive nuisance, impacts to growing vegetation, impacts to air quality, and vector control.
All infiltration devices shall be provided with overflow protection. Once the device is full of
water, additional water flowing to the device shall be diverted to another acceptable disposal
area, or disposed offsite in an acceptable manner.
All connections associated with stormwater infiltration devices shall be sealed and watertight.
Uncontrolled water leaking into the subgrade soils can lead to loss of strength, piping, erosion,
settlement, and/or expansion of the effected earth materials.
Excavations proposed for the installation of stormwater facilities shall comply with the
Temporary Excavations sections of the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation as well as
Cal/OSHA Regulations, where applicable.
9-3 Site Drainage (Geological Engineering Investigation Recommendation)
The proposed structure shall be provided with roof drainage.
Drainage from downspouts, roof drains, and scuppers shall not be permitted on unprotected soils
within five feet of the building perimeter.
Drainage shall not be allowed to pond anywhere on the site, and especially not against any
foundation or retaining wall.
Drainage shall not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over any descending slope.
Planters which are located within a distance equal to the depth of a retaining wall shall be sealed
to prevent moisture adversely affecting the wall.
Planters which are located within five feet of a foundation shall be sealed to prevent moisture
affecting the earth materials supporting the foundation.
9-4 Stormwater Pollution (Demolition, Grading, and Construction Activities)
Sediment carries with it other work-site pollutants such as pesticides, cleaning solvents, cement
wash, asphalt, and car fluids that are toxic to sea life.
Leaks, drips and spills shall be cleaned up immediately to prevent contaminated soil on paved
surfaces that can be washed away into the storm drains.
All vehicle/equipment maintenance, repair, and washing shall be conducted away from storm
drains. All major repairs shall be conducted off-site. Drip pans or drop clothes shall be used to
catch drips and spills.
Pavement shall not be hosed down at material spills. Dry cleanup methods shall be used
whenever possible.
Dumpsters shall be covered and maintained. Uncovered dumpsters shall be placed under a roof
or be covered with tarps or plastic sheeting.
10. Land Use and Planning
None
11. Mineral Resources
None
12. Noise
12-1 Construction staging areas for each project site shall be as far from sensitive receptors as possible.
12-2 Temporary sound barriers, capable of achieving a sound attenuation of at least 22 dBA (e.g.,
construction sound wall with sound blankets) and blocking the line-of-sight between the adjacent
sensitive receptors shall be installed.
12-3 All powered construction equipment shall be equipped with exhaust mufflers or other suitable noise
reduction devices.
12-4 Two weeks prior to commencement of construction, notification shall be provided to the immediate
surrounding off-site residential, school, and church uses that discloses the construction schedule,
including the types of activities and equipment that would be used throughout the duration of the
construction period.
12-5 The project shall comply with the City of Los Angeles Noise Ordinance No. 144,331 and 161,574,
and any subsequent ordinances, which prohibit the emission or creation of noise beyond certain
levels at adjacent uses unless technically infeasible.
12-6 Construction and demolition shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through
Friday, and 8:00 am to 6:00 pm on Saturday.
12-7 Demolition and construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of
equipment simultaneously, which causes high noise levels.
12-8 Increased Noise Levels (Mixed-Use Development)
Wall and floor-ceiling assemblies separating commercial tenant spaces, residential units, and
public places, shall have a Sound Transmission Coefficient (STC) value of at least 50, as
determined in accordance with ASTM E90 and ASTM E413.
12-9 Increased Noise Levels (Parking Noise)
Concrete, not metal, shall be used for construction of parking ramps.
The interior ramps shall be textured to prevent tire squeal at turning areas.
Parking lots located adjacent to residential buildings shall have a solid decorative wall adjacent
to the residential.
12-10 Severe Noise Levels (Residential Fronting on Major or Secondary Highway, or adjacent to a
Freeway)
All exterior windows having a line of sight of a Major or Secondary Highway shall be constructed
with double-pane glass and use exterior wall construction which provides a Sound Transmission
Coefficient (STC) value of 50, as determined in accordance with ASTM E90 and ASTM E413, or
any amendment thereto.
The applicant, as an alternative, may retain an acoustical engineer to submit evidence, along with the
application for a building permit, any alternative means of sound insulation sufficient to mitigate
interior noise levels below a CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room.
12-11 Construction activities shall utilize rubber tired equipment in place of steel-track equipment.
12-12 Construction haul trucks shall avoid driving over potholes and dips when arriving at or leaving each
project site.
12-13 The construction contractor shall stage and warm-up construction equipment as far from nearby
sensitive receptors as possible.
12-14 The construction contractor shall avoid utilizing high vibration construction equipment (e.g. large
bulldozers) near surrounding sensitive receptors. .
12-15 The construction contractor shall avoid using vibratory rollers and packers near sensitive areas.
12-16 The construction contractor shall use drilled piles or the use of a sonic or vibratory pile driver where
geological conditions permit their use. The construction contractor shall avoid impact pile-driving
except in locations where the underlying geological conditions render drilled piles or sonic or
vibratory pile drivers ineffective.
13. Population and Housing
None
14. Public Services
14-1 Public Services (Fire)
The following recommendations of the Fire Department relative to fire safety shall be incorporated
into the building plans, which includes the submittal of a plot plan for approval by the Fire
Department either prior to the recordation of a final map or the approval of a building permit. The
plot plan shall include the following minimum design features: fire lanes, where required, shall be a
minimum of 20 feet in width; all structures must be within 300 feet of an approved fire hydrant, and
entrances to any dwelling unit or guest room shall not be more than 150 feet in distance in horizontal
travel from the edge of the roadway of an improved street or approved fire lane.
14-2 Hydrants
The Project shall ensure that there are sufficient numbers of public hydrants around the Site.
According to the Fire Department, the Inspector shall ask for two or three additional public hydrants:
one on the same side of the street as the Project on Sunset Boulevard, and one or two on Everett
Street, depending on the plot plan and entrances to the Project. The number and exact location shall
be decided in consultation with the Fire Department.
14-3 Public Services (Police Demolition/Construction Sites)
Fences shall be constructed around the site to minimize trespassing, vandalism, short-cut attractions
and attractive nuisances.
14-4 Public Services (Police)
The plans shall incorporate a design that enhances the security, semi-public and private spaces,
which may include but not be limited to access control to building, secured parking facilities,
walls/fences with key systems, well-illuminated public and semi-public space designed with a
minimum of dead space to eliminate areas of concealment, location of toilet facilities or building
entrances in high-foot traffic areas, and provision of security guard patrol throughout the Project Site
if needed. Please refer to "Design Out Crime Guidelines: Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design", published by the Los Angeles Police Department. Contact the Community Relations
Division, located at 100 W. 1st Street, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90012; (213) 486-6000. These
measures shall be approved by the Police Department prior to the issuance of building permits.
14-5 Upon completion of the Project, the Central Area commanding officer shall be provided with a
diagram of each portion of the property. The diagram shall include access routes and any additional
information that might facilitate police response.
14-6 Public Services (Schools)
The applicant shall pay school fees to the Los Angeles Unified School District to offset the
impact of additional student enrollment at schools serving the project area.
14-7 Recreation (Increased Demand for Parks or Recreational Facilities)
If a final map is recorded, then the following applies: (Subdivision) Pursuant to Section 17.12-A or
17.58 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, the applicant shall pay the applicable Quimby fees for the
construction of dwelling units.
or
If a final map is not recorded and the applicant seeks a certificate of occupancy for apartments, then
the following applies: (Apartments) Pursuant to Section 21.10 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code,
the applicant shall pay the Dwelling Unit Construction Tax for construction of apartment buildings.
15. Recreation
Same as MM 14-7
16. Transportation and Traffic
16-1 Sunset Boulevard and Beaudry Avenue
The Project shall re-stripe and add left-turn protective phasing to both the northbound and
southbound approaches to the intersection (Beaudry Avenue).
o The northbound approach shall be re-striped from one shared left/thru/right lane to one left
turn lane and one shared thru/right lane.
o The southbound approach shall be re-striped from one shared/left thru lane, one thru lane
and one right turn lane to one left-turn lane, one thru lane and one right turn lane.
o This shall be done without any roadway widening.
o Left-turn protective phasing shall also be added to both these approaches.
16-2 LADOT Project Requirements
The Project shall comply with the Project Requirements listed in LADOTs Approval Letter.
16-3 Transportation (Haul Route)
The developer shall install appropriate traffic signs around the site to ensure pedestrian and
vehicle safety.
(Hillside and Subdivisions): Projects involving the import/export of 1,000 cubic yards or more of
dirt shall obtain haul route approval by the Department of Building and Safety.
(Hillside Projects):
o All haul route hours shall be limited to off-peak hours as determined by Board of
Building and Safety Commissioners.
o The Department of Transportation shall recommend to the Building and Safety
Commission Office the appropriate size of trucks allowed for hauling, best route of
travel, the appropriate number of flag people.
o The Department of Building and Safety shall stagger haul trucks based upon a specific
area's capacity, as determined by the Department of Transportation, and the amount of
soil proposed to be hauled to minimize cumulative traffic and congestion impacts.
o The applicant shall be limited to no more than two trucks at any given time within the
site's staging area.
16-4 Safety Hazards
vehicle safety.
The applicant shall submit a parking and driveway plan that incorporates design features that
reduce accidents, to the Bureau of Engineering and the Department of Transportation for
approval.
16-5 Public Services (Street Improvements Not Required By DOT)
The project shall comply with the Bureau of Engineering's requirements for street dedications and
improvements that will reduce traffic impacts in direct portion to those caused by the proposed
project's implementation.
16-6 Construction Damage Bond
A cash bond or security (Bond) shall be posted in accordance with terms, specifications, and
conditions to the satisfaction of the Bureau of Engineering and shall remain in full force and
effect to guarantee that any damage incurred to the roadway adjacent to the property, which may
result from any construction activity on the site, is properly repaired by the applicant.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, any damage incurred to the roadway adjacent
to the property, which may result from any construction activity on the site, shall be properly
repaired by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Bureau of Engineering. The applicant is
hereby advised to obtain all necessary permits to facilitate this construction/repair.
16-7 Inadequate Emergency Access
The applicant shall submit a parking and driveway plan to the Bureau of Engineering and the
Department of Transportation for approval that provides code-required emergency access.
17. Utilities and Service Systems
17-1 As part of the normal construction/building permit process, the Project Applicant shall confirm with
the City that the capacity of the local and trunk lines are sufficient to accommodate the Projects
wastewater flows during the construction and operation phases. If the public sewer has insufficient
capacity, then the Project Applicant shall be required to build sewer lines to a point in the sewer
system with sufficient capacity.
17-2 The Project Applicant shall implement any upgrade to the wastewater system serving the Project Site
that is needed to accommodate the Projects wastewater generation.
17-3 As part of the normal construction/building permit process, the Project Applicant shall confirm with
the City that the capacity of the existing water infrastructure can supply the domestic needs of the
Project during the construction and operation phases.
17-4 The Project Applicant shall implement any upgrade to the water infrastructure serving the Project
Site that is needed to accommodate the Projects water consumption needs.
17-5 Utilities (Local Water Landscaping)
The project shall comply with Ordinance No. 170,978 (Water Management Ordinance), which
imposes numerous water conservation measures in landscape, installation, and maintenance (e.g,
use drip irrigation and soak hoses in lieu of sprinklers to lower the amount of water lost to
evaporation and overspray, set automatic sprinkler systems to irrigate during the early morning
or evening hours to minimize water loss due to evaporation, and water less in the cooler months
and during the rainy season).
In addition to the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance, the landscape plan shall incorporate
the following:
o Weather-based irrigation controller with rain shutoff
o Matched precipitation (flow) rates for sprinkler heads
o Drip/microspray/subsurface irrigation where appropriate
o Minimum irrigation system distribution uniformity of 75 percent
o Proper hydro-zoning, turf minimization and use of native/drought tolerant plan materials
o Use of landscape contouring to minimize precipitation runoff
A separate water meter (or submeter), flow sensor, and master valve shutoff shall be installed for
existing and expanded irrigated landscape areas totaling 5,000 sf and greater.
17-6 Utilities (Local Water Supplies All New Construction)
If conditions dictate, the Department of Water and Power may postpone new water connections
for this project until water supply capacity is adequate.
Install high-efficiency toilets (maximum 1.28 gpf), including dual-flush water closets, and high-
efficiency urinals (maximum 0.5 gpf), including no-flush or waterless urinals, in all restrooms as
appropriate.
Install restroom faucets with a maximum flow rate of 1.5 gallons per minute.
A separate water meter (or submeter), flow sensor, and master valve shutoff shall be installed for
all landscape irrigation uses.
Single-pass cooling equipment shall be strictly prohibited from use. Prohibition of such
equipment shall be indicated on the building plans and incorporated into tenant lease agreements.
(Single-pass cooling refers to the use of potable water to extract heat from process equipment,
e.g. vacuum pump, ice machines, by passing the water through equipment and discharging the
heated water to the sanitary wastewater system.)
17-7 Utilities (Local Water Supplies New Commercial or Industrial)
All restroom faucets shall be of a self-closing design.
17-8 Utilities (Local Water Supplies New Residential)
Install no more than one showerhead per shower stall, having a flow rate no greater than 2.0
gallons per minute.
Install and utilize only high-efficiency clothes washers (water factor of 6.0 or less) in the project,
if proposed to be provided in either individual units and/or in a common laundry room(s). If such
appliance is to be furnished by a tenant, this requirement shall be incorporated into the lease
agreement, and the applicant shall be responsible for ensuring compliance.
Install and utilize only high-efficiency Energy Star-rated dishwashers in the project, if proposed
to be provided. If such appliance is to be furnished by a tenant, this requirement shall be
incorporated into the lease agreement, and the applicant shall be responsible for ensuring
compliance.
17-9 Utilities (Solid Waste Recycling Construction/Demolition)
Prior to the issuance of any construction permit, the Project Applicant shall provide a copy of the
receipt or contract from a waste disposal company providing services to the project, specifying
recycled waste service(s), to the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety. The
construction contractor(s) shall only contract for waste disposal services with a company that
recycles construction-related waste.
17-10 Utilities (Solid Waste Recycling)
To facilitate on-site separation and recycling of demolition and construction-related wastes, the
contractor(s) shall provide temporary waste separation bins on-site during demolition and
construction. These bins shall be emptied and the contents recycled accordingly as a part of the
project's regular solid waste disposal program.
17-11 Utilities (Solid Waste Disposal)
All waste shall be disposed of properly. Use appropriately labeled recycling bins to recycle
demolition and construction materials including: solvents, water-based paints, vehicle fluids, broken
asphalt and concrete, bricks, metals, wood, and vegetation. Non-recyclable materials/wastes shall be
taken to an appropriate landfill. Toxic wastes must be discarded at a licensed regulated disposal site.
17-12 Utilities (Solid Waste Recycling - Operational)
Recycling bins shall be provided at appropriate locations to promote recycling of paper, metal, glass,
and other recyclable material. These bins shall be emptied and recycled accordingly as a part of the
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
None

Sunset & Everett Mixed-Use Development Project & Everett Small Lot Subdivision Table of Contents
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................1-1

2. PROJ ECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................2-1

3. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ........................................................................................................................3-1

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................4-1
1. Aesthetics .....................................................................................................................................................4-1
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................................................... 4-12
3. Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................. 4-14
4. Biological Resources .................................................................................................................................. 4-27
5. Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 4-35
6. Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 4-51
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................................ 4-60
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................................................. 4-70
9. Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 4-94
10. Land Use and Planning............................................................................................................................. 4-104
11. Mineral Resources .................................................................................................................................... 4-155
12. Noise ........................................................................................................................................................ 4-157
13. Population and Housing ........................................................................................................................... 4-171
14. Public Services ......................................................................................................................................... 4-177
15. Recreation ................................................................................................................................................ 4-200
16. Transportation and Traffic ........................................................................................................................ 4-201
17. Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................................... 4-252
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................................ 4-270

5. LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................................................................................5-1

City of Los Angeles July 2014

FIGURES & TABLES

Figure Page

Figure 2-1 Regional and Local Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................2-6
Figure 2-2 Aerial Map .....................................................................................................................................2-7
Figure 2-3 USGS Map .....................................................................................................................................2-8
Figure 2-4 Views of the Project Site, 1-4 ........................................................................................................2-9
Figure 2-5 Views of the Project Site, 5-8 ...................................................................................................... 2-10
Figure 2-6 Views of the Project Site, 9-12 .................................................................................................... 2-11
Figure 2-7 Views of the Project Site, 13-16 .................................................................................................. 2-12
Figure 2-13 Views of the Surrounding Uses, 1-4 ............................................................................................ 2-18
Figure 2-14 Views of the Surrounding Uses, 5-8 ............................................................................................ 2-19
Figure 2-15 Views of the Surrounding Uses, 9-12 .......................................................................................... 2-20
Figure 2-16 Views of the Surrounding Uses, 13-16 ........................................................................................ 2-21
Figure 2-20 Plot Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 2-39
Figure 2-21 Rendering View along Sunset ................................................................................................... 2-40
Figure 2-22 Building A West and South Elevations ..................................................................................... 2-41
Figure 2-23 Building A East and North Elevations ...................................................................................... 2-42
Figure 2-24 Building B West and South Elevations ..................................................................................... 2-43
Figure 2-25 Building B East and North Elevations ...................................................................................... 2-44
Figure 2-26 Site Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 2-45
Figure 2-27 South, East, and North Elevation ................................................................................................. 2-46
Figure 4.1-1 Shadow Study Height Threshold ................................................................................................. 4-11
Figure 4.4-1 Existing Trees .............................................................................................................................. 4-34
Figure 4.14-1 Fire Station Locations. ............................................................................................................... 4-181
Figure 4.14-2 Police Station Location .............................................................................................................. 4-186
Figure 4.14-3 School Locations ........................................................................................................................ 4-192
Figure 4.14-4 Park and Recreation Center Locations ....................................................................................... 4-196
Figure 4.14-5 Library Location ........................................................................................................................ 4-199
Figure 4.16-1 Analyzed Intersections .............................................................................................................. 4-205
Figure 4.16-2 Configuration of Analyzed Intersections .................................................................................. 4-206
Figure 4.16-3 Existing Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour ............................................................................... 4-207
Figure 4.16-4 Existing Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour ............................................................................... 4-208
Figure 4.16-5 Location of Related Projects ...................................................................................................... 4-210
Figure 4.16-6 Future Without Project Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour ....................................................... 4-220
Figure 4.16-7 Future Without Project Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour ........................................................ 4-221

Figure 4.16-8 Future Configuration of Analyzed Intersections ........................................................................ 4-222
Figure 4.16-9 Project Only Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour ........................................................................ 4-229
Figure 4.16-10 Project Only Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour ........................................................................ 4-230
Figure 4.16-11 Future With Project Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour ............................................................ 4-231
Figure 4.16-12 Future With Project Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour ............................................................. 4-232
Figure 4.16-13 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour ......................................................... 4-238
Figure 4.16-14 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour .......................................................... 4-239
Figure 4.16-15 Mitigation Concept Plan ............................................................................................................ 4-242
Figure 4.17-1 Sewer Map ................................................................................................................................. 4-257


Table Page

Table 2-1 Project Site .....................................................................................................................................2-3
Table 2-2 Sunset Portion Floor Area ............................................................................................................ 2-26
Table 2-3 Sunset Portion Residential Units .................................................................................................. 2-26
Table 2-4 Sunset Portion Unit Mix Per Building ......................................................................................... 2-26
Table 2-5 Everett Portion Average Unit ....................................................................................................... 2-28
Table 2-6 Sunset Portion Height .................................................................................................................. 2-28
Table 2-7 Required Parking ......................................................................................................................... 2-32
Table 2-8 Parking Provided .......................................................................................................................... 2-33
Table 2-9 Open Space Required ................................................................................................................... 2-33
Table 2-10 Open Space Provided ................................................................................................................... 2-34
Table 2-11 Construction Schedule ................................................................................................................. 2-35
Table 4.3-1 Estimated Daily Construction Emissions - Unmitigated .............................................................. 4-21
Table 4.3-2 Estimated Daily Operations Emissions - Unmitigated ................................................................. 4-23
Table 4.3-3 Project Consistency with Citys General Plan Air Quality Element ............................................ 4-24
Table 4.4-1 Existing Trees .............................................................................................................................. 4-31
Table 4.7-1 Estimated Daily Construction Emissions - Mitigated .................................................................. 4-64
Table 4.7-2 Estimated Annual CO
2e
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................... 4-64
Table 4.7-3 Project Consistency with AB 32 Scoping Plan
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies .......................................................................... 4-67
Table 4.8-1 Records Summary ........................................................................................................................ 4-75
Table 4.8-2 Additional Database Information ................................................................................................. 4-76
Table 4.8-3 Suspect Asbestos Containing Materials ....................................................................................... 4-80
Table 4.10-1 SCAG Compass Blueprint ......................................................................................................... 4-108
Table 4.10-2 SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan........................................................................................ 4-111
Table 4.10-3 General Plan ............................................................................................................................... 4-123
Table 4.10-4 Silver Lake Echo Park Elysian Valley Community Plan ..................................................... 4-130
Table 4.12-1 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments .................................................. 4-159
Table 4.12-2 Construction Noise Levels - Unmitigated .................................................................................. 4-161
Table 4.12-3 Construction Noise Levels - Mitigated ...................................................................................... 4-162
Table 4.12-4 2016 Estimated Peak Hour Mobile Source Noise Levels .......................................................... 4-163
Table 4.12-5 Vibration Velocities for Construction Equipment ...................................................................... 4-167
Table 4.12-6 Estimated Cumulative Peak Hour Mobile Source Noise Levels ................................................ 4-169
Table 4.13-1 Project Estimated Population Generation .................................................................................. 4-171
Table 4.13-2 Project Estimated Employment Generation ............................................................................... 4-172
Table 4.13-3 Population, Housing and Employment of the Community Plan ................................................ 4-173
Table 4.13-4 Population, Housing and Employment of the City of Los Angeles ........................................... 4-173
Table 4.13-5 Census 2010 Population ............................................................................................................. 4-173
Table 4.13-6 Population and Housing in the City of Los Angeles .................................................................. 4-174
Table 4.14-1 Fire Stations ............................................................................................................................... 4-178
Table 4.14-2 Reported Crimes in the RD 101, Central Area, and Citywide ................................................... 4-183
Table 4.14-3 LAUSD Schools Enrollments and Capacities ........................................................................... 4-188
Table 4.14-4 Project Estimated Student Generation ........................................................................................ 4-189
Table 4.14-5 Parks and Recreation Centers ..................................................................................................... 4-193

Table 4.14-6 Los Angeles Public Libraries ..................................................................................................... 4-197
Table 4.16-1 Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersection ........................................................... 4-204
Table 4.16-2 Existing Conditions Intersection Level of Service .................................................................. 4-204
Table 4.16-3 Related Project List and Trip Generation Estimates .................................................................. 4-211
Table 4.16-4 Future Without Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service .......................................... 4-223
Table 4.16-5 Project Trip Generation Estimates ............................................................................................. 4-225
Table 4.16-6 Definition of Significant Impact at Intersections ....................................................................... 4-233
Table 4.16-7 Future with Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service AM Peak Hour ....................... 4-234
Table 4.16-8 Future with Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service PM Peak Hour ........................ 4-234
Table 4.16-9 Site Adjacent Intersections Signal Warrant Analysis - Future with Project Conditions ......... 4-235
Table 4.16-10 Existing with Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service AM Peak Hour .................... 4-236
Table 4.16-11 Existing with Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service PM Peak Hour ..................... 4-236
Table 4.16-12 Site Adjacent Intersections Signal Warrant Analysis - Existing with Project Conditions ...... 4-237
Table 4.16-13 Transit Trips Generated By The Project .................................................................................... 4-251
Table 4.17-1 Project Estimated Wastewater Generation ................................................................................. 4-253
Table 4.17-2 Sewer System ............................................................................................................................. 4-255
Table 4.17-3 Project Estimated Water Consumption ...................................................................................... 4-258
Table 4.17-4 Project Estimated Solid Waste Generation ................................................................................ 4-267


APPENDICES
A-1 Sunset Portion Architecture Package.
A-2 Everett Portion Architecture Package.
B Air Quality, Noise, and Greenhouse Gases Appendices, Douglas Kim +Associates,
April 2014.
C Existing Tree Report, Landscape Development, October 16, 2013.
D-1 Historic Resource Report, GPA Consulting, J anuary 2014.
D-2 Request for Historical and Archaeological Information, South Central Coastal Information
Center, August 13, 2013.
D-3 Paleontological resources for the proposed Sunset and Everett Project, Natural History Museum
of Los Angeles County, August 22, 2013.
D-4 Sacred Lands File Search, Native American Heritage Commission, August 14, 2013.
E-1 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Apartment Complex, 1185 West Sunset
Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Geotechnologies, Inc, April 9, 2013.
E-2 Geology and Soils Report Approval Letter, Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, J une
24, 2014.
F-1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, AEI Consultants, February 26, 2013.
F-2 Phase II Subsurface Investigation, AEI Consultants, March 22, 2013.
F-3 Addendum Letter, AEI Consultants, April 18, 2014.
G-1 Response from Los Angeles Fire Department, August 14, 2013.
G-2 Response from Los Angeles Police Department, August 30, 2013.
G-3 Response from Los Angeles Unified School District, August 15, 2013
G-4 Response from Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, August 21, 2013.
G-5 Response from Los Angeles Public Library, August 12, 2013.
H-1 Sunset & Everett Mixed-Use Development Project, Traffic Study, The Mobility Group, March
24, 2014.
H-2 LADOT Approval Letter, April 10, 2014.
I Response from Los Angeles Wastewater Engineering Services Division, November 20, 2013.

Sunset & Everett Mixed-Use Development Project & Everett Small Lot Subdivision 1. Introduction
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Title: Sunset & Everett Mixed-Use Development Project & Everett Small Lot Subdivision
Project Location: Los Angeles, CA 90026:
1185, 1187, 1193, 1195, 1197, 1201, 1201 , 1205, 1205 , 1207, 1207 , 1211, 1215, 1221, 1225,
1229, 1233, 1239, 1243, 1245, 1247, 1247 W. Sunset Boulevard
917, 959, 959 , 965, 965 N. Everett Street
Lead Agency: City of Los Angeles
200 N. Spring Street, Room 721
Los Angeles, California 90012
City Staff Contact: J enna Monterrosa
Planner, Expedited Processing Section
213-978-1377
jenna.monterrosa@lacity.org
Applicant: Aragon (Sunset/Everett) Properties Corporation
1590 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite #D-303
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Fred Shaffer, Manager, LA Division
310-213-6560
Case Numbers: Sunset Portion
Tract No. VTT-72553
Planning Case Nos. CPC-2013-3319-DB-SPR and ENV-2013-3320-EAF
Everett Portion
Tract No. VTT-72552
Planning Case No. ZA-2013-3303-ZV-ZAA
The subject of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the proposed Sunset & Everett Mixed-Use Development Project
(the Project), which consists of a new residential and retail mixed-use development.
The Project Site contains 18 parcels with a total Lot Area of 115,734 square feet (2.657 acres). The
majority (107,169.80 square feet, or 2.46 acres) of the Site is zoned C2-1VL with a small portion (8,563.8
square feet, or 0.1966 acres) zoned [Q] R3-1VL.

The Site is bounded as follows:
north by residential buildings
west by Sunset Boulevard
east by Everett Street and residential buildings along Everett Street
The Project comes to a point at Sunset Boulevard and Everett Street
The Project Site contains 3,000 square feet of warehouse, 1 single-family dwelling, 2 unit apartment
building, 4,800 square feet of building materials/lumber store (Do-It Center), and a 2 stall car wash. All
existing uses would be removed.
The Project would construct a new residential and retail mixed use development with a total of 220
residential units and 8,406 square feet of retail, in two portions:
Sunset Boulevard portion: Two buildings with 214 apartment units and 8,406 square feet of retail:
o Building A (along Sunset Boulevard)
o Building B (corner of Sunset Boulevard and Everett Street)
Everett Street portion: One building with a 6 residential unit small lot subdivision
Building A would be 148,345 square feet and Building B would be 49,513 square feet. The total for the
Sunset portion would be 197,858 square feet. The total for the Everett portion would be 10,887 square
feet (1,807 square feet unit +1,816 square feet x 5 units).
The Sunset portion would provide 300 vehicle spaces (which include 13 guest parking spaces). The
Everett portion would provide 2 vehicle spaces per lot for a total of 12 vehicle spaces. Building A would
provide 151 short-term spaces and Building B would provide 92 long-term spaces for a total of 243
spaces.
The Sunset portion would provide 23,977 square feet of open space through a combination of private
balconies in some units, roof terraces in Building A and Building B, a recreation room, and common open
spaces. The amount provided would exceed the amount required by 1,152 square feet. The Everett portion
would provide no open space.
The Applicant has filed two separate project applications and tract maps (one for the Sunset portion and
one for the Everett portion). The separate applications are not dependent upon each other, i.e., the
developments sought either application could be developed independent from each other. The City will
independently consider each application and could approve both, deny both, or approve one and deny the
other. Because the applications are being made by the same applicant on contiguous properties and are

intended to be developed contemporaneously with each other, both applications considered together
CEQA STATUTES AND GUIDELINES
According to CEQA Statute 21064.5:
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mitigated negative declaration means a negative declaration prepared for a project when the
initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in
the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed
negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur,
and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that
the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.
According to CEQA Statute 21157.5:
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS; PREPARATION; CONDITIONS; ALTERNATIVE
(a) A proposed mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared for any proposed subsequent
project if both of the following occur:
(1) An initial study has identified potentially new or additional significant effects on the
environment that were not analyzed in the master environmental impact report.
(2) Feasible mitigation measures or alternatives will be incorporated to revise the
proposed subsequent project, before the negative declaration is released for public
review, in order to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
significant effect on the environment will occur.
(b) If there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the
proposed subsequent project may have a significant effect on the environment and a mitigated
negative declaration is not prepared, the lead agency shall prepare an environmental impact
report or a focused environmental impact report pursuant to Section 21158.
According to CEQA Guidelines Article 6. Negative Declaration Process
15070. DECISION TO PREPARE A NEGATIVE OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or mitigated
negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:

(a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole
record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment, or
(b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the
applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are
released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a
point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the
agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the
environment.
15071. CONTENTS
A Negative Declaration circulated for public review shall include:
(a) A brief description of the project, including a commonly used name for the project, if
any;
(b) The location of the project, preferably shown on a map, and the name of the project
proponent;
(c) A proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment;
(d) An attached copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the finding; and
(e) Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant
effects.
ORGANIZATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
This IS/MND is organized into six sections as follows:
1. Introduction: This section provides introductory information such as the Project title, the Project
Applicant, and the lead agency for the Project.
2. Project Description: This section provides a detailed description of the environmental setting and the
Project, including Project characteristics, Project objectives, and environmental review requirements.

3. Initial Study Checklist: This section contains the completed Initial Study Checklist showing the
significance level under each environmental impact category.
4. Environmental Impact Analysis: Each environmental issue identified in the Initial Study Checklist
contains an assessment and discussion of impacts associated with each subject area. When the evaluation
identifies potentially significant effects, as identified in the Checklist, mitigation measures are provided to
reduce such impacts to a less than significant level.
5. List of Preparers: This section provides a list of City personnel, other governmental agencies, and
consultant team members that participated in the preparation of the IS/MND.
Appendices: Includes various documents, technical reports, and information used in the preparation of
the IS/MND.

This Page Left Blank Intentionally

Sunset & Everett Mixed-Use Development Project & Everett Small Lot Subdivision 2. Project Description
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The section references the following items, included as Appendix A of this IS/MND:
A-1 Sunset Portion Architecture Package, KTGY, Architecture +Planning
A-2 Everett Portion Architecture Package, KTGY, Architecture +Planning
Project Applicant
The Project Applicant is Aragon (Sunset/Everett) Properties Corporation, 1590 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite
#D-303, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266.
Project Location
The Project Site is located in Los Angeles, CA 90026 at:
1185, 1187, 1193, 1195, 1197, 1201, 1201 , 1205, 1205 , 1207, 1207 , 1211, 1215, 1221, 1225,
1229, 1233, 1239, 1243, 1245, 1247, 1247 W. Sunset Boulevard
917, 959, 959 , 965, 965 N. Everett Street
See Figure 2-1, Regional and Local Vicinity Map, for the location within the context of the City. See
Figure 2-2, Aerial Map, for the Project Site and surrounding areas. See Figure 2-3, USGS Map, for the
location within the Los Angeles Quadrangle USGS map.
Regional Setting
The Site is located in the Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Community Plan in the City of Los Angles
(City), approximately mile north of Downtown Los Angeles. The Site is located in the Echo Park
subarea of the Community Plan,
1
considered one of the oldest neighborhoods of the City.
2
The
Community Plan area is located north of Downtown and separated by Chinatown. The Community Plan
area is bordered at its southern tip by the Central City Community Plan, on the west by the Hollywood
and Wilshire Community Plans, on the southwest by the Westlake Community Plan Area, on the south by
the Central City North Community Plan, and on the north and east by the Northeast Community Plan. The
area is primarily residential land use (42 percent) divided as single-family residential use (14 percent) and
multiple family (28 percent). The Community Plan area is noted for its fairly dense, hillside
neighborhoods, with steep slopes and narrow streets. The residential neighborhoods contain a mix of
single-family and multiple family buildings. With Elysian Park, Dodger Stadium area, Silver Lake area,

1
Mapping LA: http://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/neighborhood/echo-park/
2
Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Community Plan: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/pdf/SlkCPTXT.pdf

and the Los Angeles River, the Community Plan area contains more open space than most of the other
community plans in the LA metropolitan area.
3

Regional and Local Access
Regional access to the Project Site is provided by the Harbor Freeway (I-110), located approximately
1,600 feet south of the Project Site and the Hollywood Freeway (US-101) located approximately 975 feet
southwest of the Project Site. I-110 has entrances and exits on 3
rd
Street (Exit 23C and Entrance 23B) and
Sunset Boulevard (Exit 24B). US-101 has entrances and exits on Grand Avenue/Temple Street (Exit 3A),
Glendale Avenue (Exit 4A) and Alvarado Street (Entrance and Exit 4A). Two significant commercial
corridors include Sunset Boulevard running east-west from the Harbor Freeway to Sunset J unction
(intersection with Santa Monica Boulevard) and Glendale Boulevard running north-south from the I-5
Freeway to the Hollywood Freeway. Local access is provided by Sunset Boulevard, Bellevue
Avenue/Marion Avenue, and Beaudry Avenue.
Public Transit
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) provides bus service to the Site.
Sunset Boulevard carries one Metro Rapid line (704), which provides service to Santa Monica-Downtown
Los Angeles, and two Metro Local Bus lines (2/302 and 4) which provides service to Westwood/UCLA,
Florence-Pacific, and West LA-Sepulveda Boulevard. The Metro Red Line provides service to Downtown
Los Angeles, Koreatown, Hollywood, and North Hollywood and has the Civic Center/Grand Park Station
approximately 4,700 feet south, and Union Station approximately 1.0 mile south. The Metro Gold Line
provides service to East Los Angeles, Little Tokyo, Chinatown, and Pasadena and has the Chinatown
Station approximately 4,400 feet southeast.
Site Characteristics and Uses
Size and Boundaries
The Project Site contains 18 parcels with a total Lot Area of 115,733.6 square feet (2.657 acres). The
majority (107,169.80 square feet, or 2.46 acres) of the Site is zoned C2-1VL (Sunset portion) with a small
portion (8,563.8 square feet, or 0.1966 acres) zoned [Q] R3-1VL (Everett portion).
The Site is generally bounded as follows:
north by residential buildings
west by Sunset Boulevard

3

east by Everett Street and residential buildings along Everett Street
The Project comes to a point at Sunset Boulevard and Everett Street
Existing Uses
The Project Site contains the following uses:
4

Sunset Boulevard portion
o 3,000 square feet of warehouse
o 2 unit apartment building,
o 2 Single-Family Homes (accessed from Everett Street)
o 4,800 square feet of building materials/lumber store (Do-It Center), and
o 2 stall car wash.
Everett Street portion
o 1 Single-Family Home
All existing uses would be removed.
There is ornamental landscaping along the Sunset Boulevard sidewalk and between the car wash and
warehouse uses. There is substantial vegetation on the Site along the rear of buildings that front Sunset,
forming a buffer between those uses and the residential uses along Everett Street. The Everett portion has
ornamental trees and shrubs along Everett and in the rear yard. The existing Site is shown in Figures 2-4
through 2-12, Views of the Project Site. The surrounding uses are shown in Figures 2-13 through 2-19,
Views of the Surrounding Uses. The Site information is listed in Table 2-1, Project Site.
Table 2-1
Project Site
Address APN Zone
General Plan
Land Use
Lot Area (sf)
Sunset Boulevard Portion
None 5406-016-028
C2-IVL
General
Commercial
2,537.3
1185, 1187 Sunset 5406-016-028 6,379.1

4
Traffic Study, The Mobility Group, March 24, 2014, page 1.

1193 Sunset, 917 Everett 5406-016-028 6,085.8
1195, 1197 Sunset 5406-016-003 3,929.1
1201, 1201 Sunset 5406-016-006 5,042.9
1205, 1205 , 1207, 1207 Sunset 5406-016-007 5,710.9
1211 Sunset 5406-016-010 6,380.7
1215 Sunset 5406-016-011 7,010.2
1221 Sunset 5406-016-013 7,655.4
1225 Sunset 5406-016-016 8,294.5
1229 Sunset 5406-016-016 8,937.6
1233 Sunset 5406-016-019 9,512.6
1239 Sunset 5406-016-019 9,693.7
1243, 1245 Sunset 5406-016-021 5,750.0
None 5406-016-023 4,250.0
1247, 1247 Sunset 5406-016-023 10,000
Subtotal Sunset Boulevard Portion 107,169.80
Everett Street Portion
959, 959 Everett 5406-016-018
[Q]R3-1VL
Medium
Residential
4,281.9
965, 965 Everett 5406-016-018 4,281.9
Subtotal Everett Street Portion 8,563.80
Total Project Site 115,733.6
Source: Zone Information & Map Access System (ZIMAS): http://zimas.lacity.org/.
Table by CAJA Environmental Services, October 2013.

Zoning Information
The Site is zoned C2-1VL and [Q]R3-1VL, which means:
5

C2 Commercial Zone, which allows C1.5 Uses (Limited Commercial), Retail with Limited
Manufacturing, Service Stations and Garages, Retail Contr. Business, Churches, Schools, Auto Sales,
R4 Uses (Multiple Dwelling).
1VL Height District, which for a C zone, allows up to 45 feet, 3 stories for commercial uses
(unrestricted number of stories for residential use), 1.5:1 FAR
[Q] Qualified Classification, or restrictions on a property as a result of a zone change, to ensure
compatibility with surrounding property. The [Q] restriction for this property limits density to 1
dwelling unit per 1,200 SF and height to 30 feet or two stories.

5
Generalized Summary of Zoning Regulations City of Los Angeles:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/zone_code/Appendices/sum_of_zone.pdf

R3 Multiple Dwelling, which allows R2 Uses (Two Family Dwellings), Apt. Houses, Multiple
Dwellings, Child Care (20 max.)
1VL Height District, which for a R3 zone, allows up to 45 feet, 3 stories, 3:1 FAR (but see [Q]
condition above for more specific height restriction).Additional zoning information (ZI) includes:
6

Freeway Adjacent Advisory Notice for Sensitive Uses (ZI-2427) (Parcel 5406-016-028 only)
East Los Angeles State Enterprise Zone (ZI-2129)
Surrounding Uses
7

North - Multi-family housing and commercial/retail uses on Sunset. These buildings are 1- and 2-
stories. The area north of the Sunset portion is zoned C2-IVL and the area north of the Everett is
zoned [Q]R3-1VL. The Site is also approximately 1,000 feet south of Elysian Park Avenue, which
functions as the Sunset Gate for Dodger Stadium.
South Commercial/retail uses, auto repair, a church (LA Sa-Rang Community Church), and multi-
family housing along Sunset. These buildings are 1- and 2-stories, while the church has multiple
buildings that are 2- and 9-stories. The area is zoned C2-1VL on the west side of Sunset and C2-2D
for the church on the east side.
West Commercial/retail uses (tattoo parlor, beauty salon, botanical shop, and clothing/upholstery)
bar (El Chubasco), and multi-family housing along Sunset Boulevard. These buildings are 2- and 3-
stories. The area is zoned C2-1VL.
East Multi-family housing and Everett Park along Everett Street. These buildings are 1-, 2-, and 3-
stories. The housing is zoned [Q]R3-1VL and the park is zoned OS-1XL.

6
Zone Information & Map Access System (ZIMAS): http://zimas.lacity.org/.
7
CAJA site visit on August 29, 2013. Zone Information & Map Access System (ZIMAS): http://zimas.lacity.org/.
Beverly Hills
210
Miles
0 10 5
118
5
170
134
210
10
110
2
5
101
405
10
1
110
710
107
405
91 5
605
22
405
Northridge
Encino
North
Hollywood
Burbank
Glendale
TolucaLake
Pasadena
Los Angel es
Culver
City
SantaMonica
Manhattan
Beach
Los Angeles
International
Airport
Whittier
60
Hermosa
Beach
Redondo
Beach
LongBeach
Pacific Ocean
101
105
Compton
Torrance
Hawthorne
Carson
Lakewood
Montebello
MontereyPark
Anaheim
Angeles National Forest
Inglewood
RanchoPalos
Verdes
Huntington
Beach
Downey
San
Fernando
1
BeverlyHills
West
Hollywood
Sherman
Oaks
Proter Ranch
Brentwood
LakeViewTerrace
Van
Nuys
South
Pasadena
Alhambra
Irwindale Silver
Lake
Eagle
Rock
Cityof
Industry
Baldwin
Park
Hacienda
Heights
Pico
Rivera
SouthGate
Huntington
Park
Vernon
Baldwin
Hills
Paramount
Norwalk
LaMirada
Cerritos
Gardena
El Segund
MarinaDel Rey
Signal Hill
90
PROJECT
LOCATION
Source: Bing Aerial and CAJ A Environmental Services, LLC 2013.
Figure 2-1
Regional and Local Vicinity Map
Legend
Project Site
Scale (Feet)
0 200 400
S
U
N
S
E
T

B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
Source: Google Aerial and CAJ A Environmental Services, LLC., 2013.
Figure 2-2
Aerial Map
Legend
Project Site
Scale (Feet)
0 200 400
S
U
N
S
E
T

B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
M
ARI ON AVENUE
B
OY
LSTO
N
STR
EET
W
H
I
T
E

K
N
O
L
L

D
R
I
V
E
E
V
E
R
E
T
T

S
T
R
E
E
T
M
A
R
V
I
E
W

A
V
E
N
U
E
W
H
I
T
E

K
N
O
L
L

D
R
I
V
E
K
E
N
S
I
N
G
T
O
N

R
O
A
D
Source: Los Angeles Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series 1966 Photorevised 1996 Photorevised 1981.
Figure 2-3
USGS Map
Scale (Feet)
0 500 1000
Legend
Project Boundary
E
V
E
R
E
T
T

S
T
M
A
R
V
I
E
W

A
V
E
F
IG
U
E
R
O
A
T
E
R
R
A
C
E
W
H
I
T
E

K
N
O
L
L

D
R
1
0
1

H
O
L
L
Y
W
O
O
D

F
W
Y
11
0
H
H
A
R
B
O
R
F
W
Y
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
View 1: View east across Sunset Blvd. toward Project
Site (car wash use).

Source: CAJ A Environmental Services, Site visit on August 29, 2013.
Figure 2-4
Views of the Project Site
1-4
View 5: View east across Sunset Blvd, at Marion Ave.
toward Project Site (warehouse use).
View 7: View south on Sunset Blvd. The Project Site is
visible on the left side (gated entrance to warehouse use).
View 6: View northeast across Sunset Blvd., at Marion
Ave. toward Project Site (warehouse use, residential use,
and Do-It Center).

View 8: View of Project Site (warehouse use and Do-It
Center).
Figure 2-5
5-8
View 9: View of Project Site (Do-It Center).
View 11: View of Project Site (Do-It Center parking lot
and hillside).

Figure 2-6
9-12
View 13: View of Project Site (Do-It Center parking lot
and hillside).
View 15: View of Project Site (Do-It Center and hillside).
View 14: View south of Project Site (Do-It Center and
parking lot) from the sidewalk along Sunset Blvd.

View 16: View of Project Site (Do-It Center) faade
along Sunset Blvd.
Figure 2-7
13-16
View 17: View south of Project Site (Do-It Center) from
the sidewalk along Sunset Blvd.
View 19: View of Project Site (Do-It Center vacant
garden building) rear boundary line. The steps are for
private residential access at the Site.
garden building).

garden building) rear boundary line. The steps are for
private residential access at the Site.
Figure 2-8
17-20
View 21: View south from adjacent residential use
hillside looking across the rooftops on the Project Site.
View 23: View south from adjacent residential use
View 22: View southwest from adjacent residential use

garden building)
Figure 2-9
21-24
View 25: View of Do-It Center parking lot and hillside.
Adjacent residential uses on Everett St. are visible.
View 27: Entrance to residential use on the Project
Site behind the warehouse use.
View 26: View of Do-It Center front faade.

View 28: View of warehouse use front faade.
Figure 2-10
25-28
View 29: View of residential use on the Project Site
behind the warehouse use.
View 31: View of car wash entrance at corner of
Sunset Blvd. and Everett St.
View 30: View of warehouse use parking lot.

View 32: View of car wash at corner of Sunset Blvd.
and Everett St.
Figure 2-11
29-32
View 33: View of residential use on the Everett portion
of the Site.
of the Site.
View 34: View west across Everett St. The Everett
portion of the Site is the white house on the left side.

of the Site.
Figure 2-12
33-36
View 1: View looking north across Sunset Blvd. LA
Sa-Rang Community Church is visible on the right side.
View 3: View looking south on Sunset Blvd. toward
Downtown Los Angeles.
View 2: View looking east across Sunset Blvd. toward
LA Sa-Rang Community Church.

View 4: View east across Sunset Blvd. toward White
Knoll Dr. Sengs Auto Repair is on the left side and the
church is on the right.
Figure 2-13
Views of the Surrounding Uses
1-4
View 5: View east across Sunset Blvd. toward Sengs
Auto Repair, directly south of the Site across Everett St.
View 7: View north on Sunset Blvd. across Boylston St.
View 6: View east across Sunset Blvd. toward Everett St.
The Project Site is visible on the left side (car wash use).

View 8: View north across Marion Ave. at Sunset Blvd.
toward residential building.
Figure 2-14
5-8
View 9: View of adjacent residential use on the north
side of the Site.
side of the Site.
side of the Site.

side of the Site.
Figure 2-15
9-12
View 13: View north along Sunset Blvd showing adjacent
uses (multi-family residential, motel, retail, restaurant).
View 15: View southwest across Sunset Blvd showing
adjacent uses (multi-family residential, retail, restaurant).
Downtown LA is visible.
View 14: View northwest across Sunset Blvd showing
adjacent uses (multi-family residential, retail, restaurant).

View 16: View west across Sunset Blvd showing
adjacent uses (multi-family residential).
Figure 2-16
13-16
View 17: View west across Sunset Blvd. toward multi-
family residential uses across from the Project Site.
View 19: View west across Sunset Blvd. toward
commercial uses across from the Project Site.
View 18: View west across Sunset Blvd. toward
commercial uses across from the Project Site.

family residential and commercial uses across from the
Project Site.
Figure 2-17
17-20
View 21: View north along Sunset Blvd. The Project
Site is visible on the right side and surrounding residential
and commercial uses are visible on the left.
View 23: View southwest across Sunset Blvd. at Marion
Ave. toward multi-family residential uses across from the
Project Site.
family residential uses across from the Project Site.

View 24: View northwest across Sunset Blvd. at Marion
Ave. toward multi-family residential uses across from the
Project Site.
Figure 2-18
21-24
View 25: View south across Everett St. toward Sunset
Blvd. at adjacent auto repair use.
View 27: View southwest along Everett St. toward
surrounding residential uses.
View 26: View northeast across Everett St. toward
surrounding residential uses.

View 28: View north along Everett St. toward Everett
Park and surrounding residential uses.
Figure 2-19
25-28

Proposed Project
The Project is a mixed use residential and retail project. The Project would construct a new residential
and retail mixed use development with a total of 214 residential units and approximately 8,406 square feet
of retail on Sunset. Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.22.A.25(c)(1), 7 percent of the residential units will be
reserved for Very Low Income Households in exchange for a permitted density bonus and other
incentives. A small lot subdivision on will contain six units on Everett. The total number of units would
be 220 units. The Project is divided into two portions:
Sunset Boulevard portion: Two buildings with 214 apartment units and 8,406 square feet of retail:
o Building A (along Sunset Boulevard)
o Building B (corner of Sunset Boulevard and Everett Street)
Everett Street portion: One building with a 6 residential unit small lot subdivision
The Applicant has filed two separate project applications and tract maps (one for the Sunset portion and
one for the Everett portion). The separate applications are not dependent upon each other, i.e., the
developments sought either application could be developed independent from each other. The City will
independently consider each application and could approve both, deny both, or approve one and deny the
other. Because the applications are being made by the same applicant on contiguous properties and are
intended to be developed contemporaneously with each other, both applications considered together
Case Numbers: Sunset Portion
Tract No. VTT-72553
Planning Case Nos. CPC-2013-3319-DB-SPR and ENV-2013-3320-MND
Everett Portion
Tract No. VTT-72552-SL
Planning Case No. ZA-2013-3303-ZV-ZAA and ENV-2013-3320-MND
The Projects Sunset Boulevard portion is shown in Figures 2-20 through 2-25 (plot plan, rendering, and
elevations). Appendix A-1, Sunset Portion Architecture Package includes additional renderings, floor
plans, unit plans, elevations, sections, materials, and landscape plans.
The Projects Everett Street portion (site plan and elevations) is shown in Figures 2-26 and 2-27.
Appendix A-2, Everett Portion Architecture Package includes additional floor plans.
Building Program

As shown in Table 2-2, Sunset Portion Floor Area, Building A would be 148,345 square feet and
Building B would be 49,513 square feet. The total for the Sunset portion would be 197,858 square feet.
Table 2-2
Sunset Portion Floor Area
Floor Building A (sf) Building B (sf)
G2 3,004 -
1
st
Floor 8,344 8,256
2
nd
Floor 38,439 10,845
3
rd
Floor 38,835 10,845
4
th
Floor 33,297 10,845
5
th
Floor 26,426 8,722
Total 148,345 49,513
Source: KTGY, Architecture + Planning, February 24, 2014.
Table: CAJA Environmental Services, April 2014.

The residential mix is presented in Table 2-3, Sunset Portion Residential Units.
Table 2-3
Sunset Portion Residential Units
Type Quantity % Ave. square feet
Studio 66 31 583
Loft 48 22 707
1-Bedroom 43 20 797
2-Bedroom 57 27 1,064
Total 214 100 782

The unit mix per building (A and B) and per floor is shown in Table 2-4, Unit Mix Per Building.
Table 2-4
Sunset Portion Unit Mix Per Building
Floor Studio Loft 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom Total
Building A
1
st
Floor 0 4 6 1 11
2
nd
Floor 12 22 7 5 46
3
rd
Floor 12 22 7 6 47

4
th
Floor 13 0 20 5 38
5
th
Floor 9 0 1 17 27
Subtotal (Building A) 46 48 41 34 169
Building B
1
st
Floor Retail Floor
2
nd
Floor 5 0 0 6 11
3
rd
Floor 5 0 1 6 12
4
th
Floor 5 0 1 6 12
5
th
Floor 5 0 0 5 10
Subtotal (Building B) 20 0 2 23 45
Total (Building A + B) 66 48 43 57 214

The approximately 8,406 square feet of retail would be divided into 5 subsections, the sizes of which will
be determined by the requirements of the tenants who sign leases.
The Everett portion would have 6 single-family lots with a total of 8,530 square feet, divided as:
8

Lot 1 1,747 square feet
The five typical Everett units each would have approximately 1,816 square feet of living area, a 424
square foot two-space garage, two 35 square feet balconies, and 300 square feet of roof area, and are
shown in Table 2-5, Everett Units. The front house would differ slightly: with 1,807 square feet of living
area, 505 square feet of garage, and 360 square feet of decking/balconies. The total for the Everett
portion would be 10,887 square feet (1,807 square feet unit +1,816 square feet x 5 units).

8
KTGY, Architecture + Planning, January 31, 2014.

Table 2-5
Everett Portion Average Unit
Floor Living Area (sf) Garage (sf) Balcony (sf) Total (sf)
1
st
Floor 98 424 0 522
2
nd
Floor 859 0 35 894
3
rd
Floor 859 0 35 894
Roof 0 0 300 300
Total 1,816 424 370 2,610
Source: KTGY, Architecture + Planning, January 31, 2014.

Amenities
There will be an approximately 904 square-foot fitness room, two community rooms totaling
approximately 2,401 square feet, and an approximately 533 square-foot lounge in Building A.. There will
also be two roof terraces (1,320 square feet on Building A and 750 square feet on Building B) and
approximately 5,657 square feet of common open space along the rear (away from Sunset Boulevard) side
of Building A.
9

Each typical unit would two 35 square feet balconies and 300 square feet of roof deck, while the front unit
will have one 60 square foot balcony and 300 square feet of roof deck.
Height
The heights and other characteristics are shown in Table 2-6, Sunset Portion Height.
Table 2-6
Sunset Portion Height
Building A Building B
Grade Point 416 feet 408 feet
Top of roof / parapet 488 feet 469 feet

9
KTGY, Architecture + Planning, February 24, 2014.

Building Height from grade 72 feet 61 feet
Allowable Height from grade 57 feet 57 feet
Discretionary Height Request 15 feet 4 feet
Max plumb height 66 feet 59 feet
Allowable plumb height 45 feet 45 feet
Discretionary plumb height request 21 feet 14 feet
Average plumb height 57 feet 60 feet

10

The building will be 28-6 to the roof, 32-0 to the top of the guard rail, and 37-0" to the top of the roof
structure housing building operating equipment (LAMC 12.21.1B3(a)). The guard rail and portion of the
building housing operating equipment are exempt from the calculation of height.
Building Floor Area and Density
11

The Site is 107,170 square feet and the zoning C2-1VL permits a floor-area-ratio (FAR) of 1.5:1, or a
maximum floor area of 160,755 square feet.
The Site after a 2 foot dedication would be 105,524 square feet. With a 1.5:1 FAR provides a maximum
floor area of 158,286 square feet. The Project proposes 197,858 square feet of floor area, for an FAR of
1.88:1. Zoning allows one unit per 400 square feet of land, for a total of 264 units. 214 units are proposed.
The Lot Area is 8,530 square feet. The Site area after setback would be 6,335 square feet. The maximum
FAR is 3:1 for a total of 19,005 square feet of allowable floor area.
The total floor area proposed for the Everett portion is 10,887 square feet. The proposed FAR is 1.72:1.
The permitted density is 10 units and the proposed density is 6 units.

10
KTGY, Architecture + Planning, January 31, 2014.
11

Setbacks
The setbacks will be:
12

Front Yard 0 - 5 feet
Side yards 9 - 23 feet
Rear yard 18 - 70 feet
The setbacks will be:
13

Front Yard 6 feet 9 inches
Side yards 5 feet
Rear yard 5 feet
Access
14

Residential pedestrian access will be provided via two lobbies, one midblock on Sunset Boulevard for
Building A and one on Everett Street for Building B. Additionally, all 11 ground floor units in Building
A facing Sunset Boulevard will have entries directly onto the street.
Retail pedestrian access will be provided into each retail store along Sunset Boulevard, near the corner of
Everett Street.
Vehicular access is to be provided by three driveways located along Sunset Boulevard:

12
KTGY, Architecture + Planning, February 24, 2014. Aragon (Sunset/Everett) Properties Corporation, Fred
Shaffer, December 23 2013.
13
Aragon (Sunset/Everett) Properties Corporation, Fred Shaffer, November 18, 2013.
14
Traffic Study, The Mobility Group, March 24, 2014, page 1.

1. The main driveway will be located at the signalized intersection of Sunset Boulevard & Marion
Avenue.
2. The second driveway will be an unsignalized intersection located approximately 170 feet north of the
main driveway.
3. The third driveway will also be an unsignalized intersection and will be located at the extreme
northern edge of the Project.
Residential pedestrian access will be provided on Everett Street, with individual entrances to each unit.
Vehicular access will be provided by a community access driveway on Everett Street.
Building Design
15

Building A would be 4-story wood frame over 2 levels of subterranean and a half level of on-grade
parking. The materials would be exterior plaster with a fine sand finish, brick veneer cladding, cement
siding with wood finish, corrugated metal panels, metal and glass railings, canopies, wood trellis/canopy,
and wood slats. The first level would be Construction Type I-A and the upper 4 levels would be
Construction Type V-A. Building B would be 4 story wood frame over 1 level of on-grade retail and 1
level of subterranean parking. The first level would be Construction Type I-A and the upper 4 levels
would be Construction Type V-A.
16

The Everett buildings would be slab on grade and 3 story Type V-A wood frame. The exterior cladding
would be glass, hardy panel, wood and brick.
Building Coverage
17


15
Aragon Properties, Fred Shaffer, November 18, 2013.
16
Aragon Properties, Fred Shaffer, November 18, 2013.
17
Yung Tran, KTGY, Architecture + Planning, November 25, 2013.

The building footprint would be 58,269 square feet (55.2 percent of the total Site area of 105,524 square
feet). The open space/planted area would 47,255 square feet (44.8 percent of the total Site area).
The building footprint would be 3,320 square feet (38.9 percent of the total Site area of 8,530 square feet).
The open space/planted area would 5,209 square feet (61.1 percent of the total Site area).
Parking
The required vehicle parking according to the Los Angeles Municipal Code parking requirements for all
multi-family buildings in Affordable Housing Development Projects and commercial retail uses is shown
in Table 2-7, Required Parking. The residential portion is required to provide 271 spaces. The retail
portion is required to provide 16 spaces. The total number of spaces required is 287 spaces. The number
of spaces proposed is 300 (which include 13 guest parking spaces).
The Everett small lot subdivision would require 2 spaces per lot for a total of 12 spaces.
Table 2-7
Required Parking
Type Quantity Ratio Total (spaces)
Residential
Studio 66 units 1 space per unit 66
Loft 48 units 1 space per unit 8
1-Bedroom 43 units 1 spaces per unit 43
2-Bedroom 57 units 2 spaces per unit 114
Subtotal Residential 214 units 271
Retail
Retail 8,406 sf 2 spaces per 1,000 sf 16
Subtotal Retail 8,406 sf 16
Total (Residential + Retail) 287

The provided vehicle parking is shown in Table 2-8, Provided Parking. The Sunset portion would provide
300 spaces. The Sunset portion garage would include two subterranean levels and a ground level:
Building A Level G3, Level G2, Level G1
Building B Level G1

The Everett portion would provide 2 spaces per lot for a total of 12 spaces.
Table 2-8
Parking Provided
Level Standard Compact Tandem Disabled Total
Sunset Portion
Level G1 13 23 38 0 74
Level G2 21 26 46 4 97
Level G3 56 29 26 0 111
Building B Retail 15 1 0 2 18
Total (Sunset Portion) 105 79 110 6 300
Everett Portion
1
st
Floor 1 per lot 1 per lot N/A N/A 12
Total (Everett Portion) 6 6 N/A N/A 12
Source: KTGY, Architecture + Planning, January 31, 2014 and February 24, 2014.

Bicycles
18

The Sunset portion is required to have 235 residential bicycle storage spaces (214 long-term +21 short-
term) and 8 commercial bicycle parking storage spaces (4 long-term and 4 short-term). The total will be
243 spaces. Building A would provide 151 short-term spaces and Building B would provide 92 long-term
spaces for a total of 243 spaces.
Open Space
The Projects open space requirement is shown in Table 2-9, Open Space Required. The Sunset portion is
required to have 22,825 square feet of open space. The Everett portion would be required to have 2,100
square feet of open space as an apartment. Upon recording the small lot subdivision map there will be no
open space requirement.
Table 2-9
Open Space Required
Type Quantity Ratio Total (sf)
Sunset Portion
Studio 66 units 100 sf per unit 6,600
Loft 48 units 100 sf per unit 4,800

18

1-Bedroom 43 units 100 sf per unit 4,300
2-Bedroom 57 units 125 sf per unit 7,125
Total Required (Sunset Portion) 22,825

The Projects open space provided is shown in Table 2-10, Open Space Provided.
The Sunset portion would provide 23,977 square feet of open space through a combination of private
balconies in some units, roof terraces in Building A and Building B, a recreation room, and common open
spaces. The amount provided would exceed the amount required by 1,152 square feet. The Everett portion
would provide no open space.
Table 2-10
Open Space Provided
Type Quantity Amount Total (sf)
Sunset Portion
Studio 60 units 50 sf 3,000
Loft 44 units 50 sf 2,200
1-Bedroom 44 units 50 sf 2,200
2-Bedroom 54 units 50 sf 2,700
Subtotal (Private) 10,100
Roof Terrace Building A 1,320
Roof Terrace Building B 1,329
Recreation Room 5,453
Common Open Space 6,685
Subtotal (Public) 13,8877
Total (Sunset Portion) 23,977
Green/Conservation Features
The Project will comply with the Los Angeles Green Building Code (LAGBC), which is based on the
2010 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen).
19

The Project will include the following, as required by Code:
20

19
Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety: http://ladbs.org/LADBSWeb/green-bldg.jsf

Install high efficiency lighting.
Apply water conservation strategies for indoor use.
Apply water conservation strategies for outdoor use.
Install low-flow bathroom faucets.
Install low-flow kitchen faucets.
Install low-flow toilets.
Install flow-flow showers.
Use water-efficient irrigation systems.
Low VOC paint
Bike storage (short- and long-term parking)
Construction Information
The estimated construction schedule is shown in Table 2-11, Construction Schedule. The construction is
estimated to take approximately 19.5 months beginning late-2014 and ending in mid-2016.
21

Table 2-11
Construction Schedule
Phase Start Date End Date Duration
Demolition December 1, 2014 J anuary 15, 2015 1.5 months
Site Preparation N/A N/A N/A
Grading J anuary 15, 2015 March 15, 2015 2 months
Construction March 15, 2015 August 31, 2016 16 months
Paving N/A N/A N/A
Architectural coatings October 1, 2015 February 15, 2016 August 31, 2016
Construction schedule, including start, end, and duration dates are estimates only.
Source: Information provided by Fred Shaffer, Manager for Aragon (Sunset/Everett) Properties

20
Information provided by Fred Shaffer, Manager for Aragon Properties, on August 9, 2013.
21
Construction schedule, including start, end, and duration dates are estimates only.


Corporation on August 9, 2013.
Table: CAJA Environmental Services, October 2013.
Demolition would remove approximately 23,600 square feet of buildings.
The amount of materials imported would be 0 cubic yards.
The amount of materials exported would be approximately 32,401cubic yards.
The depth of excavation would be 25 feet.
The amount of excavation would be approximately 42,845 cubic yards.
Construction Haul Route
A Haul Route program would be required as part of the Citys permitting process. It is anticipated that
the limited demolition and construction debris will be transported to the Sunshine Canyon Landfill in
Sylmar. The haul route is 25 miles and would generally include:
Sunset Boulevard to Alvarado Street to US-101 freeway to CA-170 freeway to I-5 freeway to
Sepulveda Blvd to San Fernando Road to Sunshine Canyon Landfill.
Project Objectives
The objectives of the Project are as follows:
To redevelop the Project Site to provide attractively designed housing and retail to serve the local
community.
To provide a mix of housing choices (layouts, sizes, and affordability through a set-aside of
Affordable Housing Units) to address areas diverse housing needs.
To provide housing along Sunset Boulevard, and near the retail, jobs, civic, and cultural amenities of
Downtown Los Angeles.
To improve the aesthetic quality of the site by removing older and run-down structures and
developing new attractively designed and efficient buildings that are sensitive to adjacent uses.
To provide neighborhood serving retail within walking distance for Project residents as well as
residents of the surrounding neighborhood.
To provide a well-designed development that is economically feasible and compatible and
complementary with surrounding land uses.
Discretionary Actions

The Project would require approval of the following discretionary actions:
1. Pursuant to LAMC 17.15, a Vesting Tentative Tract Map comprised of a one-lot subdivision for a
maximum of 214 residential condominium live-work units and six commercial condominiums.
Although the project is proposed as an apartment project, the applicant desires a Tract Map for future
flexibility to offer the residential units and commercial condominiums for sale.
2. Pursuant to LAMC 16.05.C.1(b), Site Plan Review for the development of 214 residential units.
3. Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.22.A.25(c)(1), a 25 percent Density Bonus with 7 percent reserved for
Very Low Income Household units to permit the construction of a mixed-use development with 214
residential units, 8,406 square feet of ground floor commercial, and 284 parking spaces (Density
Bonus Project Parking Option 1), utilizing one On-Menu Incentive and three Off-Menu Incentives
(Waivers) that include:
a. Pursuant to LAMC 12.22.A.25.F(4), an On-Menu Incentive for a 25 percent FAR increase to
permit 197,858 square feet of floor area (1.88 FAR) in lieu of 158,286 square feet of floor area
(1.5 FAR) allowed in the C2-1VL zone;
b. Pursuant to LAMC 12.22.A.25.G(3), Off-Menu Incentives for:
(1) a 15 foot height increase for a height of 72 feet as measured from Grade (57 Base
Height plus 15 feet) and 66 feet as measured from Plumb Height (45 feet and 21 feet) for
Building A;
(2) a 4 foot height increase for a height of 61 feet as measured from Grade (57 Base
Height plus 4 feet) and 59 as measured from Plumb Height (45 feet and 14 feet) for
Building B; and
(3) to permit a five-story mixed-use building in lieu of three stories for Building A.
4. Haul route approval for the export of approximately 32,401 cubic yards of dirt.
1. Pursuant to LAMC 17.15 a Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the development of a small lot
subdivision comprised of six lots and six single-family residences.
2. Pursuant to LAMC 12.28, a Zoning Administrators Adjustment to permit a 2 inch building
separation in lieu 20 feet required per LAMC Section 12.21.C.2(a);

3. Pursuant to LAMC 12.28, a Zoning Administrators Adjustment to permit a 5 foot passageway in lieu
of 12 feet required per LAMC 12.21.C.2(b);
4. Pursuant to LAMC 12.28, a Zoning Administrators Adjustment to permit a 6 foot, 9 inch front yard
in lieu of 15 feet required per LAMC Section 12.10.C.1;
5. Pursuant to LAMC 12.28, a Zoning Administrators Adjustment to permit a 5 foot side yard in lieu of
6 feet required per LAMC Section 12.10.C.2;
6. Pursuant to LAMC 12.28, a Zoning Administrators Adjustment to permit a 5 foot rear yard in lieu of
15 feet required per LAMC 12.10.C.3;
7. Pursuant to LAMC 12.27, a Variance to allow zero square feet of open space in lieu of 1,050 square
feet of open space required for a multi-family project per LAMC Section 12.21.G.2.
P L OT P L A N A 0 . 4
0 10 20 40
0 2 - 2 4 - 2 0 1 4
PROTECTED TREE
(BLACK WALNUT)
EXISTING BUILDING
TO BE REMOVED (TYP.)
Figure 2-20
Plot Plan
Scale (Feet)
0 40 80
Source: KTGY, Architecture +Planning, February 24, 2014.
Figure 2-21
Rendering
View Along Sunset
B L D G . A - WE S T E L E V A T I O N
B L D G . A - S O U T H E L E V A T I O N
LEVEL 1/G1 /+427.75
LEVEL 2 /+439
LEVEL 3 /+450.5
LEVEL 4 /+462
LEVEL 5 /+473.5
TOP OF PARAPET /+488
LEVEL G2 /+418
LEVEL G3 /+409
LEVEL 1/G1 /+427.75
LEVEL 2 /+439
LEVEL 3 /+450.5
LEVEL 4 /+462
LEVEL 5 /+473.5
LEVEL G2 /+418
LEVEL G3 /+409
LOWEST GRADE
POINT +416
Figure 2-22
Building A
West and South Elevations
Figure 2-23
Building A
East and North Elevations
B L D G . A - E A S T E L E V A T I O N
B L D G . A - N O R T H E L E V A T I O N
LEVEL 2 /+439
LEVEL 3 /+450.5
LEVEL 4 /+462
LEVEL 5 /+473.5
LEVEL G3 /+427.75
LEVEL 2 /+439
LEVEL 3 /+450.5
LEVEL 4 /+462
LEVEL 5 /+473.5
Figure 2-24
Building B
West and South Elevations
B L D G . B - WE S T E L E V A T I O N
B L D G . B - S O U T H E L E V A T I O N
GROUND FLOOR /+411
LEVEL 2 /+436
LEVEL 1 /+426
LEVEL 3 /+446
LEVEL 4 /+456
TOP OF HIGHEST PARAPET
+469
GROUND FLOOR /+411
LEVEL 2 /+436
LEVEL 1 /+426
LEVEL 3 /+446
LEVEL 4 /+456
TOP OF HIGHEST PARAPET /+469
LOWEST GRADE
POINT +408
Figure 2-25
Building B
East and North Elevations
B L D G . B - E A S T E L E V A T I O N
B L D G . B - N O R T H E L E V A T I O N
GROUND FLOOR /+411
LEVEL 2 /+436
LEVEL 1 /+426
LEVEL 3 /+446
LEVEL 4 /+456
TOP OF HIGHEST PARAPET
+469
GROUND FLOOR /+411
LEVEL 2 /+436
LEVEL 1 /+426
LEVEL 3 /+446
LEVEL 4 /+456
TOP OF HIGHEST PARAPET /+469
Figure 2-26
Site Plan
Scale (Feet)
0 16 32
Source: KTGY, Architecture +Planning, J anuary 31, 2014.
Figure 2-27
South, East, and North Elevations
Source: KTGY, Architecture +Planning, J anuary 31, 2014.
FIRST LEVEL/ +96
SECOND LEVEL/ +186
ROOF/ +286
T.O. GUARD RAIL/ +320
T.O. ROOF STRUCTURE/ +370
(LAMC 12.21.1B3(a))
GROUND LEVEL/ +0
FIRST LEVEL/ +96
SECOND LEVEL/ +186
ROOF/ +286
T.O.P./ +300
(LAMC 12.21.1B3(a))
GROUND LEVEL/ +0
S O U T H E L E V A T I O N
E A S T E L E V A T I O N
FIRST LEVEL/ +96
SECOND LEVEL/ +186
ROOF/ +286
(LAMC 12.21.1B3(a))
GROUND LEVEL/ +0
N O R T H E L E V A T I O N

Sunset & Everett Mixed-Use Development Project & Everett Small Lot Subdivision 3. Initial Study Checklist

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 Gases Population and Housing
Agriculture and Forestry Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Public Services
Air Quality Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Transportation and Traffic
Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Geology and Soils Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

Printed Name
Jenna Monterrosa, Planner, Expedited Processing Section

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST (To be completed by the Lead City Agency)
BACKGROUND
PROPONENT NAME
Aragon (Sunset/Everett) Properties Corporation
PHONE NUMBER
(310) 213-6560
PROPONENT ADDRESS
1590 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite #D-303, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
AGENCY REQUIRING CHECKLIST
City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning
DATE SUBMITTED
July 2014
PROPOSAL NAME (If Applicable)
Sunset & Everett Mixed-Use Development Project

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all potentially and less than significant impacts are
required to be attached on separate sheets)

Potentially
Significant Impact

Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
1. 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,
within a 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?

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 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 states inventory of forest land, including the
Forest and Range Assessment Project, and the Forest
Legacy Assessment project, and forest carbon
measurement mythology 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 the 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



Potentially
Significant Impact

Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?

e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?

3. AIR QUALITY. 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 result in:

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality 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 non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?

4. 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 local or
regional plans, policies, regulations by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife



Potentially
Significant Impact

Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
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?

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?

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in significance of a
historical resource as defined in State CEQA Guidelines
15064.5?

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
15064.5?

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?

6. 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.



Potentially
Significant Impact

Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
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 18-1-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 wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?

7. 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 regulations
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

8. 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?



Potentially
Significant Impact

Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would 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?

9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
proposal result in:

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?

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 a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off site?



Potentially
Significant Impact

Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
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,
inquiry or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?

10. 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, a general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?

11. 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?

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?



Potentially
Significant Impact

Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than

12. NOISE. Would the project:

a. Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?

b. Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c. Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project?

d. Result in 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?

13. 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?

14. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which



Potentially
Significant Impact

Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?

ii. Police protection?

iii. Schools?

iv. Parks?

v. Other public facilities?

15. 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?

16. TRANSPORTATION AND 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
standard 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?



Potentially
Significant Impact

Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
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, bicycles, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?

17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:

a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b. Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?

c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?

e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand
in addition to the providers existing commitments?

f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs?

g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?



Potentially
Significant Impact

Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than

18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, 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 a
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?

DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Attach additional sheets if necessary)
PREPARED BY
Jenna Monterrosa
TITLE
Planner, Expedited Processing Section
TELEPHONE #
213-978-1377
DATE


This Page Left Blank Intentionally

Sunset & Everett Mixed-Use Dev. Project & Everett Small Lot Subdivision 4. Environmental Impact Analysis
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
1. AESTHETICS
The section references the following items, included as Appendix A of this IS/MND:
A-1 Sunset Portion Architecture Package, KTGY, Architecture + Planning
A-2 Everett Portion Architecture Package, KTGY, Architecture + Planning
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if a project were to introduce
incompatible scenic elements within a field of view containing a scenic vista or substantially block views
of a scenic vista.
The Site is located in the Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Valley Community Plan in the City of Los
Angles (City), approximately mile north of Downtown Los Angeles. The Site is located in the Echo
Park subarea of the Community Plan,
1
considered one of the oldest neighborhoods of the City.
2
The
Community Plan area is noted for its fairly dense, hillside neighborhoods, with steep slopes and narrow
streets. The residential neighborhoods contain a mix of single-family and multiple family buildings. With
Elysian Park, Dodger Stadium area, Silver Lake area, and the Los Angeles River, the Community Plan
area contains more open space than most of the other community plans in the LA metropolitan area.
3

Views in the vicinity of the Project Site are largely constrained by existing structures on adjacent parcels.
However, the areas relatively hilly topography offers occasional views from points of higher elevation
south to Downtown LA, including the skyscrapers on Bunker Hill. As shown in Appendix A-1, Sunset
Portion Architecture Package, Rendering View toward Downtown from Everett Park and 959 Everett,
the Project would not impede this view from Everett Street or adjacent points. Views from Everett to
Downtown offer the greatest scenic vista and would not be blocked by the Project.
Sunset Boulevard slops upwards and to the left (past Elysian Park Avenue) as it progresses north. This
constrains views in that direction. Views east and west are already limited by the existing buildings and
lack of elevated viewpoints. Everett Street slops upwards and ends at Everett Park, where trees and
vegetation impede certain views onto the Site. In addition, the slope to the rear of the Project Site elevates
the adjacent residential uses on Everett Street to a level similar to the proposed buildings.

1
Mapping LA: http://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/neighborhood/echo-park/
2
3

Points of visual interest in the area are the decorative facades of the three residential buildings on Sunset
Boulevard, north of Marion Street, across from the Sunset portion. Also of note is the church (LA Sa-
Rang Community Church) along Sunset with multiple buildings that are 2- and 9-stories. The 9-story
building has a unique faade of glass and exterior support columns. Views of this building would remain
and not be impeded from view by the proposed buildings, as it is over a block south of the Site and at a
different elevation. As no designated scenic vistas in the local area would be impeded, the Project will not
substantially block scenic vistas, and impacts will be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a scenic highway?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur only if scenic resources would be
damaged or removed by a project, such as a tree, rock outcropping, or historic building within a
designated scenic highway. There are no identified scenic resources such as rock outcroppings or historic
buildings
4
located on-site.

The Project Site is not located within or along a designated scenic highway, corridor, or parkway. The
nearest historic parkway is the Arroyo Seco Historic Parkway (I-110) between milepost 25.7 and 31.9,
and is approximately 1.82 miles northeast of the Project Site. The Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1)
is an Eligible State Scenic Highway Not Officially Designated, and is approximately 14 miles west of
the Project Site.
5
The Existing Tree Report inspection showed that there are currently 4 protected trees on
the Site. However, since the Site is not within a scenic highway, the impact under this threshold would be
less than significant. Additional information about the tree removal and mitigation as it relates to a
biological impact is described below under Section 4, Biological Resources, of this IS/MND. Therefore,
impacts to scenic resources will be less than significant.
c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if a project were
to introduce incompatible visual elements on the Project Site or visual elements that would be
incompatible with the character of the area surrounding the Project Site.
Compatibility with Character of Surrounding Community

4
Page 28, Historic Resource Report, GPA Consulting, January 2014. The following is a short summary of the
information contained in the Historic Resource Report, which is incorporated by reference as Appendix D-1.
5
California Scenic Highway Mapping Systems: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm

The Project will create a mixed-use development on Sunset Boulevard that acts as a gateway building
from the transition from Downtown LA via Cesar Chavez Avenue to Echo Park and Elysian Heights via
Sunset Boulevard. The uses would be similar to those already found in the area, including residential and
neighborhood retail. The Everett portion will be a 6 unit subdivision similar to the uses on Everett Street.
The Project will be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding area because it would consist
of uses that are already existing in the area: residential and commercial. The Project would blend these
uses not block-by-block but within the same parcel and building. The Project will revitalize the area by
constructing new, modern residential buildings with ground-floor commercial at the corner of Sunset and
Everett.
Architectural Style and Design
The Project Site is located in an urbanized and fully developed portion of the City. The built environment
is characterized by a variety of architectural styles, age of buildings, type of development, and size. The
residential uses include one-, two-, and three-story single- and multi-family buildings. Building styles
include bungalows, mid-century modern, Victorian, stucco box, arts and crafts. The commercial buildings
are generally one- and two-stories and consist of unremarkable design or color. The surrounding uses are
shown in Figures 2-13 through 2-19, Views of the Surrounding Uses.
Sunset portion
The materials would be exterior plaster with a fine sand finish, brick veneer cladding, cement siding with
wood finish, corrugated metal panls, metal and glass railings, canopies, wood trellis/canopy, and wood
slats.. See Appendix A-1, Sunset Portion Architecture Package, Materials Board for the building materials
and their layout on the building facades. The Sunset portion is designed with two buildings that reduce
the massing as viewed along Sunset Boulevard. Each building is designed to achieve a distinct aesthetic
that are also complementary with each other. After breaking up the program into two separate and distinct
smaller structures, further scale reduction at both buildings was achieved by creating separate and clear
smaller zones within the massing. At the center of Building A, a large portion of the mass was removed in
order to visually split the structure into two smaller wings and replace the mass with an outdoor terrace
amenity that activates the streetscape along Sunset. See Appendix A-1, Sunset Portion Architecture
Package. Key design features include:
Entry core of Building A is back from the property line to create a 15 20 deep courtyard which will
be landscaped and have tables and chairs available for public use. This adds articulation and further
breaks up the massing of Building A.
Use of brick and wood cladding on both building exteriors to pay homage to historic Angelino
Heights architecture and create warmer, less starkly modern appearance.
Brick vertical slots in each section of Building A with breaks in roof eaves to break down building
massing into five distinct sections.

Open stair on southeastern end of Building A to create visual variation and eliminate a tall blank wall.
Stepped 4th and 5th floors back 8 32 at both ends of Building A to reduce impact of height from
street perspective.
Building B Sunset faade windows, decks, and eave articulate and animate the facade.
Triangle corner of Building B at Sunset and Everett intersection as well as angled decks along Everett
lighten and pay homage to historic Angelino Heights.
Lower profile of Building B at Everett intersection.
Articulation of different retail entries to delineate different shops.
Outdoor courtyard at Sunset & Everett intersection to enhance potential for gathering.
A large gateway like frame encloses the central common amenity programs and provides a distinct visual
zone. Across the residential wings of Building A, the faade treatment creates a dynamic staggered
pattern from each dwelling unit that creates unique private open spaces that afford views of the nearby
Downtown skyline. At key building transitions, vertical elements of textured siding or contrasting color
are introduced to provide articulation and architecturally significant elements within the overall
composition of the massing.
The ground floor of Building A is defined with a clearly residential scale by incorporating stoop type
ground floor dwelling units with individual entries that are accessed directly from Sunset Boulevard and
feature landscaping, and individual patios. In contract, ground floor commercial space is proposed on
Building B that is completely open and visually accessible with floor to ceiling storefront glazing.
Landscape planters are proposed along the commercial frontage which helps define the ground level
experience and differentiate from the upper residential levels. As shown on the plans, the triangular point
at Everett provides an ideal opportunity for landscaping and outdoor seating. While the two are distinctly
different from a programmatic and massing standpoint, through color and materials, the buildings are
unified to create a design synergy along the entire Sunset and Everett frontages. The access for the
residential dwelling units would be located along Sunset Boulevard and Everett Street and is well-marked
and comprised of compatible and complementary architectural treatments.
The Project has considered the diversity of building styles in the neighborhood and proposes a cohesive
palette that pays homage to the diversity of styles that exist. The Project includes a wide variety of unique
and complementary building materials along the faades ranging from the exterior plaster found
throughout the neighborhood, and a horizontal siding material that represents a modern take on the many
varieties of cladding material found throughout Angelino Heights and surrounding neighborhoods. The
building also utilizes many staggered accents of wood composite panels that provide a warm residential
feel while also acting to identify the separation between individual dwelling units. The varied locations of

the panels, both horizontally and vertically across the faade, create a dynamic changing pattern that
unifies the overall building mass. While being distinctly modern and looking to create a cleaner
streetscape along this section of Sunset, the building also provides richly textured wood soffited canopies
that are experienced not just by the residents of the ground floor units, but by pedestrians on the Sunset
sidewalk and those visiting the retail storefronts along the street.
The Project supports walkability by providing ground floor residential units, including four live work
units, on Building B that feature individual entries with direct access from Sunset Boulevard and private
balconies. The project will enhance the surrounding streetscape by incorporating new street trees and
landscape planters and providing new sidewalks. The project also incorporates landscape elements
throughout the building that reduce energy use and enhances livability for the residents. Two large roof
terraces are also proposed with additional landscaping and seating areas. The primary access to the
buildings main lobby is from Sunset Boulevard.
The Project design also takes into account the challenging topography of the Site. The building massing
has been carefully stepped into the hillside and terraces back to the northeast corner of the Site. Three
levels of the Project are buried into the existing slope at the rear in order to minimize the building height
and to preserve the views for the neighboring properties on Everett Street. In addition, Building A step
downs to a 4-story structure along Sunset to reduce the vertical height along the Sunset facade and to
create a better pedestrian scale and experience. This is accomplish by substantially stepping back the 5th
and 6th floors in order mimic the existing Site topography and provide massing that is well-proportioned.
At Building B where the structure sits at the corner of Sunset and Everett , the back of house functions for
the commercial space are buried into the hillside and the 4-story residential volumes step along the
sloping site to achieve compatibility with the neighboring apartment buildings further up the street along
Everett Street.
feature landscaping, and individual patios. In contract, ground floor commercial space is proposed on
experience and differentiate from the upper residential levels. While the two are distinctly different from a
programmatic and massing standpoint, through color and materials, the buildings are unified to create a
design synergy along the entire Sunset and Everett frontages.
Everett portion
See Appendix A-2, Everett Portion Architecture Package. Key design features include:
A front unit to address the street frontage and create the feel of a single family home

Deep horizontal eave to make a connection with some of the features used in more traditional
craftsman styled homes that are found throughout the area
Warm materials that soften the scale of the building
Horizontal siding panels that are residential in character and texture
Landscaping provided at the front yard adjacent to Everett Street.
The character, architectural style and design, massing, and street-level appearance will not introduce any
elements that are visually incompatible with the surrounding area. Therefore, impacts with regard to
visual character and massing will be less than significant.
Other visual and aesthetic considerations
There is the potential for impacts to the visual character of the Project Site if it is not appropriately
landscaped and maintained or if signage detracts from the visual quality of the development. The Project
proposes to provide substantial landscaping along the street level, as well as in the roof terraces. The
project will incorporate street trees in the sidewalk consistent with the Citys landscape ordinance. The
landscape plans are shown in Appendix A-1, Sunset Portion Architecture Package, Landscape Plans.
Environmental impacts to the adjacent residential properties may result due to the project. However, the
potential impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the following:
A minimum five-foot wide landscape buffer shall be planted adjacent to the residential use on the
Sunset Portion, to the extent feasible.
o Due to design constraints around the Project Site, certain portions (such as along the lower
staircase on the Everett Street boundary of Building B) will not have a five-foot buffer.
However, this portion of the Sites building is approximately 15 feet from the adjacent
neighboring residential uses due to the grade changes and elimination of the 5
th
floor unit in
the portion.
o Due to size constraints on a narrow width parcel at the Everett Portion, a narrow amount of
landscaping will be provided along the front and side of the Site, to the extent feasible
A landscape plan prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted for review and
approval by the decision maker.
Mitigation Measure 1-1 will ensure the Project Site will be landscaped and maintained and Mitigation
Measure 1-2 will ensure that on-site signage complies with the Los Angeles Municipal Code Section
91.6205.

There is the potential for the Project Site to be visually blighted by graffiti and accumulation of rubbish
and debris along the walls adjacent to the sidewalk and street along Sunset Boulevard and Everett Street.
Mitigation Measure 1-3 will ensure this potential impact is less than significant. Further, while the
Project Site is under construction, construction walls and barriers will be erected, which have the potential
to attract unauthorized bills and postings. Mitigation Measure 1-4 will ensure that aesthetic impacts
related to construction barriers is less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures would be included to further enhance and ensure the Projects
compatibility with the visual character and quality of the surroundings. With implementation of these
measures the project would not result in a significant aesthetic impact on the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings.
1-1 Aesthetics (Landscape Plan)
All open areas not used for buildings, driveways, parking areas, recreational facilities or walks
shall be attractively landscaped and maintained in accordance with a landscape plan and an
automatic irrigation plan, prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect and to the satisfaction of
the decision maker.
A minimum five-foot landscape buffer shall be planted adjacent to the residential uses on the
Sunset Portion, to the extent feasible by the design constraints required for building staircase
accesses, and site arrangement, and subject to the landscape plan.
1-2 Aesthetics (Signage)
On-site signs shall be limited to the maximum allowable under the Municipal Code.
Multiple temporary signs in store windows and along building walls are not permitted.
1-3 Aesthetics (Vandalism)
Every building, structure, or portion thereof, shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary
condition and good repair, and free from, debris, rubbish, garbage, trash, overgrown
vegetation or other similar material, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 91.8104.
The exterior of all buildings and fences shall be free from graffiti when such graffiti is visible
from a street or alley, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 91.8104.15.
1-4 Aesthetics (Signage on Construction Barriers)

The applicant shall affix or paint a plainly visible sign, on publicly accessible portions of the
construction barriers, with the following language: POST NO BILLS.
Such language shall appear at intervals of no less than 25 feet along the length of the publicly
accessible portions of the barrier.
The applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the visibility of the required signage and
for maintaining the construction barrier free and clear of any unauthorized signs within 48
hours of occurrence.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
to introduce new sources of light or glare on or from the Project Site which would be incompatible with
the area surrounding the Project Site, or which pose a safety hazard to motorists utilizing adjacent streets
or freeways. The Project Site and surrounding area contain numerous sources of nighttime lighting,
including streetlights, security lighting, illuminated signage, indoor building illumination (light emanating
from the interior of structures that passes through windows), and automobile headlights. In addition,
glare is a common phenomenon in the Southern California area due mainly to the occurrence of a high
number of days per year with direct sunlight and the highly urbanized nature of the region, which results
in a large concentration of potentially reflective surfaces. Potentially reflective surfaces introduced by the
Project include new windows at the Project Site and automobiles traveling and parked on streets in the
vicinity of the Project Site.
Light
The existing surrounding area is illuminated by freestanding streetlights and lighting from the
surrounding residential and commercial uses. Vehicle headlights from traffic on Sunset Boulevard,
Marion Avenue, and Everett Street also contribute to overall ambient lighting levels. The Project would
create additional sources of illumination, as the Site would go from containing several one-story
commercial buildings with few windows that is mainly lit for security lighting to a Site containing multi-
story buildings with residential and commercial uses. Interior lighting through windows would increase.
Also the residential nature of the Project would create additional lighting into the night hours. The Project
will provide illumination at street level for security. All lighting on the upper levels will be shielded and
focused on the Site and directed away from the neighboring land uses to the maximum extent feasible and
consistent with safety requirements. In addition to increasing the ambient glow presently associated
with urban settings and with this part of the City, project-related light sources could potentially spill over
onto and illuminate, off-site vantages including adjacent streets and land uses.
The Project will include architectural features and facades with a low level of reflectivity. As such, the
Project will not result in a substantial amount of light that would adversely affect the day or night time

views in the project vicinity. Though the Project will increase ambient light levels in the vicinity, the
increase will not be substantial as the Project Site is located in an urbanized location that is already
illuminated at night and would be compatible with surrounding uses. However, exterior lighting that
spills onto adjacent residential properties could be a potentially significant impact. Exterior lighting will
be designed to confine illumination to the Project Site and off-site areas that do not include light-sensitive
uses. Therefore, the change in levels of ambient illumination as a result of the Project will be less than
significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 1-5.
Mitigation Measure
1-5 Aesthetics (Light)
Outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed with shielding and focused on the Site and
directed away from the neighboring residential land uses.
Glare
Urban glare is largely a daytime phenomenon occurring when sunlight is reflected off the surfaces of
buildings or objects. Excessive glare not only restricts visibility, but also increases the ambient heat
reflectivity in a given area. Potential reflective surfaces in the project vicinity include automobiles
traveling and parked on streets in the vicinity of the Project Site, exterior building windows, and surfaces
of brightly painted buildings in the project vicinity. Glare from building facades include those that are
largely or entirely comprised of highly reflective glass or mirror-like material from which the sun reflects
at a low angle in the periods following sunrise and prior to sunset. Building surfaces or glass windows
have the potential to create glare, particularly during the early morning and later afternoon time periods.
The Project includes an increase in window and building surfaces in comparison to the existing uses.
This increase in surfaces will have the potential to reflect light onto adjacent roadways and land uses.
However, the Project will limit reflective surface areas and the reflectivity of architectural materials used.
Since the Project buildings will be constructed with materials that have minimal potential for generating
glare, the Project is not be expected to create unusual or isolated glare impacts. Glass that will be
incorporated into the facades of the building will either be of low-reflectivity or accompanied by a non-
glare coating. The Project will not result in a new source of substantial glare. Impacts as a result of glare
generated by the Project will be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 1-6.
Mitigation Measure
1-6 Aesthetics (Glare)
The exterior of the proposed structure shall be constructed of materials such as, but not limited to,
high-performance and/or non-reflective tinted glass (no mirror-like tints or films) and pre-cast
concrete or fabricated wall surfaces to minimize glare and reflected heat.

Shade/Shadow
The issue of shade and shadow pertains to the blockage of direct sunlight by project buildings, which may
affect adjacent properties. Shading is an important environmental issue because the users or occupants of
certain land uses, such as residential, recreational/parks, churches, schools, outdoor restaurants, and
pedestrian areas have some reasonable expectations for direct sunlight and warmth from the sun. These
land uses are termed shadow-sensitive. Shadow lengths are dependent on the height and size of the
building from which they are cast and the angle of the sun. The angle of the sun varies with respect to the
rotation of the earth (i.e. time of day) and elliptical orbit (i.e. change in seasons). The longest shadows
are cast during the winter months and the shortest shadows are cast during the summer months.
Screening Criteria
6

Would the project include light-blocking structures in excess of 60 feet in height above the ground
elevation that would be located within a distance of three times the height of the proposed structure to a
shadow-sensitive use on the north, northwest or northeast? A "no" response to the [screening criteria]
indicates that there would normally be no significant impact on Shading from the proposed project.
Thresholds of Significance
A project impact would normally be considered significant if shadow-sensitive uses would be shaded by
project-related structures for more than three hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM Pacific
Standard Time (between late October and early April), or for more than four hours between the hours of
9:00 AM and 5:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time (between early April and late October).
Sensitive Uses
Sensitive uses include, but are not limited to: residential, institutional (such as a school) or other land use
types where sunlight is important to function, physical comfort, or commerce. There are shadow-sensitive
uses to the north of the Site. These include:
Residential bungalows adjacent to the northern boundary, along Sunset Boulevard
Residential buildings adjacent to the lower portion of the Site, along Everett Street.
As shown in Figure 4.1-1, Shadow Study Height Threshold, the height threshold for evaluation of
shadows (60 feet in height above the ground elevation) would not be exceeded. Section A shows the
height above the existing grade line would be 45 feet and Section B shows the height above the existing
grade line would be 48 feet. As such, there would be no significant impact on shading from the Project.

6
L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, 2006, section A.3 Shading.
Figure 4.1-1
Shadow Study Height Threshold
Source: KTGY, Architecture +Planning, J une 10, 2013.
EXISTING GRADE LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED PROJECT: BUILDING A
HEIGHT THRESHOLD FOR EVALUATION OF
SCREENING CRITERIA:
496-451 = 45 < 60
HEIGHT THRESHOLD FOR EVALUATION OF
SCREENING CRITERIA:
476-428 = 48 < 60
EXISTING HOUSE
+408
+418
+428
+438
+450
+451
+428
+462
+474
ROOF +486
T.O. STAIR TOWER+496
B N O I T C E S A N O I T C E S
EXISTING GRADE LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED PROJECT: BUILDING B
EXISTING HOUSE
A
B
+400
+411
+426
+436
+446
+456
ROOF +466
T.O. STAIR TOWER+476

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
a) Would the project convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide
importance (farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the farmland mapping
and monitoring program of the California resources agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to result in the conversion of State-
designated agricultural land from agricultural use to another non-agricultural use. The California
Department of Conservation, Division of Land Protection, lists Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and
Farmland of Statewide Importance under the general category of Important Farmland in California.
The Project Site contains 3,000 square feet of warehouse, 3 single-family dwellings, 2 unit apartment
building, 4,800 square feet of building materials/lumber store (Do-It Center), and a 2 stall car wash. The
majority of the Site is zoned C2-1VL with a small portion (8,563.8 square feet) zoned [Q] R3-1VL. The
Site is designated Urban and Built-up Land and is not included in the Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance category.
7
Therefore, the Project would have no impact on the
conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
Contract?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to result in the conversion of land zoned for
agricultural use or under a Williamson Act Contract from agricultural use to non-agricultural use. The
Williamson Act of 1965 allows local governments to enter into contract agreements with local
landowners with the purpose of trying to limit specific parcels of land to agricultural or other related open
space use.
8
The Project Site does not contain any State-designated agricultural lands or open space. Thus,
the Project Site is not subject to a Williamson Act Contract. The Project Site will not result in the
conversion of land zoned for agricultural use to non-agricultural use. Further, the Project will not result
in the conversion of land under a Williamson Act Contract from agricultural use to non-agricultural use.
Therefore, no impact with respect to land zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act Contract
will occur.
c) Would the project 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

7
State of California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Los Angeles
County Important Farmland 2010, Map, website: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/los10.pdf,
August 19, 2013.
8
State of California Department of Conservation, Williamson Act Program, website:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/Pages/index.aspx, accessed August 19, 2013.

Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. Neither the Project Site nor surrounding parcels are zoned for forest land or timberland. No
impacts related to forest land or timberland will occur.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
No Impact. The Project Site is completely surrounded by urban uses and infrastructure, and is not forest
land. No impact related to the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land will occur.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project results in the conversion of farmland to another
non-agricultural use. Neither the Project Site nor surrounding parcels are utilized for agricultural uses or
forest land. No impacts related to conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use will occur.

3. AIR QUALITY
The section is based in part on the following item, included as Appendix B of this IS/MND:
B Air Quality, Noise, and Greenhouse Gases Appendices, Douglas Kim + Associates, April 2014.
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. In the case of projects proposed within the City or elsewhere in the
South Coast Air Basin (the Basin), the applicable plan is the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP), which is prepared by the South Coast Air Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD is
the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Basin. To that end, the
SCAQMD, a regional agency, works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG), county transportation commissions, local governments, and cooperates actively with all state
and federal government agencies. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting
requirements, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures though educational programs or
fines, when necessary.
The proposed residential and retail commercial land uses will neither conflict with the SCAQMDs 2012
Air Quality Management Plan nor jeopardize the regions attainment of air quality standards. While the
proposed project will increase population in the City of Los Angeles by approximately 660 persons
9
, it
will not jeopardize the regions attainment of air quality standards.
10
Specifically, the proposed project is
consistent with the City of Los Angeles General Plan as well as population growth projections used by
the Southern California Association of Governments 2012 Adopted Growth Forecast to identify future
air quality emissions that must be mitigated through the 2012 AQMP. The Project would represent a
negligible share of the estimated 2013 population and housing units in the City, as listed by the California
Department of Finance (2010 baseline based on 2010 Census and 2013 data estimate).
11
The Project
represents 2.4% of the 2010 Census population and 1.95% of the 2010 Census housing units in the
immediate and adjacent tracts.
12

9
220 units proposed 5 units removed at 3.07 persons/unit.
10
DKA Planning, 2013 based on CalEEMod 2013.2.2 model analysis.
11
State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the
StateJanuary 1, 2011-2013. Sacramento, California, May 2013:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2011-20/view.php
12
Population: 660 / 27,458 x 100% = 2.4%. Housing Units: 220 / 11,260 x 100% = 1.95%.

Moreover, the proposed project is infill development that helps to ensure that the residences associated
with this project have less impact on air quality emissions than a project located in areas with less density
and/or transportation infrastructure. Further, the ground-floor retail and/or restaurant uses in this infill
development are likely to attract a higher-than-average share of local residents and employees from local
businesses that are less likely to drive vehicles than those living in suburban, less dense environments. As
a result, the Project is consistent with the SCAQMDs Air Quality Management Plan and is considered to
be consistent with the 2012 AQMP. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A project could have a significant impact where
project-related emissions would exceed federal, state, or regional standards or thresholds, or where
project-related emissions would substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Both short-term impacts occurring during construction (e.g., site grading, haul truck trips) and long-term
effects related to the ongoing operation of the Project are discussed. This analysis focuses on two levels
of impacts: pollutant emissions and pollutant concentrations. Emissions refer to the quantity of
pollutants released into the air. Concentrations refer to the amount of pollutant material per volumetric
unit of air, as measured in parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (g/m
3
).
Pollutants and Effects
Criteria air pollutants are defined as pollutants for which the federal and State governments have
established ambient air quality standards for outdoor concentrations. The federal and State standards
have been set at levels above which concentrations could be harmful to human health and welfare. These
standards are designed to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort. Pollutants of
concern include carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O
3
), nitrogen dioxide (NO
2
), sulfur dioxide (SO
2
),
particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM
2.5
), particulate matter ten microns or less in
diameter (PM
10
), and lead (Pb). These pollutants are discussed below.
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless and odorless gas formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil
fuels. It is emitted almost exclusively from motor vehicles, power plants, refineries, industrial
boilers, ships, aircraft, and trains. In urban areas, automobile exhaust accounts for the majority of
emissions. CO is a non-reactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly, so ambient
concentrations generally follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic.
Concentrations are influenced by local meteorological conditions, primarily wind speed, topography,
and atmospheric stability. CO from motor vehicle exhaust can become locally concentrated when
surface-based temperature inversions are combined with calm atmospheric conditions, a typical

situation at dusk in urban areas between November and February.
13
The highest concentrations occur
during the colder months of the year when inversion conditions are more frequent. CO is a health
concern because it competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood and reducing the bloods
ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. Excess CO exposure can lead to dizziness, fatigue, and
impair central nervous system functions.
Ozone (O
3
) is a colorless gas that is formed in the atmosphere when reactive organic gases (ROG)
and nitrogen oxides (NO
X
) react in the presence of ultraviolet sunlight. O
3
is not a primary pollutant;
rather, it is a secondary pollutant formed by complex interactions of two pollutants directly emitted
into the atmosphere. The primary sources of ROG and NO
X
, the components of O
3
, are automobile
exhaust and industrial sources. Meteorology and terrain play major roles in O
3
formation. Ideal
conditions occur during summer and early autumn, on days with low wind speeds or stagnant air,
warm temperatures, and cloudless skies. The greatest source of smog-producing gases is the
automobile. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to O
3
at levels typically observed in
Southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased
susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO
2
) like O
3
, is not directly emitted into the atmosphere but is formed by an
atmospheric chemical reaction between nitric oxide (NO) and atmospheric oxygen. NO and NO
2
are
collectively referred to as NO
X
and are major contributors to O
3
formation. NO
2
also contributes to
the formation of PM
10
. High concentrations of NO
2
can cause breathing difficulties and result in a
brownish-red cast to the atmosphere with reduced visibility. There is some indication of a
relationship between NO
2
and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase of bronchitis in children
(2-3 years old) has been observed at concentrations below 0.3 ppm.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO
2
) is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-
containing fossil fuels. Main sources of SO
2
are coal and oil used in power plants and industries.
Generally, the highest levels of SO
2
are found near large industrial complexes. In recent years, SO
2

concentrations have been reduced by the increasingly stringent controls placed on stationary source
emissions of SO
2
and limits on the sulfur content of fuels. SO
2
is an irritant gas that attacks the throat
and lungs. It can cause acute respiratory symptoms and diminished ventilator function in children.
SO
2
can also yellow plant leaves and erode iron and steel.
Particulate Matter (PM) consists of small liquid and solid particles floating in the air, including
smoke, soot, dust, salts, acids, and metals and can form when gases emitted from industries and motor
vehicles undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. Fine particulate matter, or PM
2.5
, is roughly
1/28 the diameter of a human hair and results from fuel combustion (e.g. motor vehicles, power

13
Inversion is an atmospheric condition in which a layer of warm air traps cooler air near the surface of the earth,
preventing the normal rising of surface air.

generation, industrial facilities), residential fireplaces, and wood stoves. In addition, PM
2.5
can be
formed in the atmosphere from gases such as SO
2
, NO
X
, and VOC. Inhalable particulate matter, or
PM
10
, is about 1/7 the thickness of a human hair. Major sources of PM
10
include crushing or grinding
operations; dust stirred up by vehicles traveling on roads; wood burning stoves and fireplaces; dust
from construction, landfills, and agriculture; wildfires and brush/waste burning; industrial sources;
windblown dust from open lands; and atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions.
PM
2.5
and PM
10
pose a greater health risk than larger-size particles. When inhaled, they can penetrate
the human respiratory systems natural defenses and damage the respiratory tract. PM
2.5
and PM
10

can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung
diseases, and reduce the bodys ability to fight infections. Very small particles of substances, such as
lead, sulfates, and nitrates can cause lung damage directly. These substances can be absorbed into the
blood stream and cause damage elsewhere in the body. These substances can transport absorbed
gases, such as chlorides or ammonium, into the lungs and cause injury. Whereas PM
10
tends to
collect in the upper portion of the respiratory system, PM
2.5
is so tiny that it can penetrate deeper into
the lungs and damage lung tissues. Suspended particulates also damage and discolor surfaces on
which they settle, as well as produce haze and reduce regional visibility.
Lead (Pb) in the atmosphere occurs as particulate matter. Sources of lead include leaded gasoline; the
manufacturers of batteries, paint, ink, ceramics, and ammunition; and secondary lead smelters. Prior
to 1978, mobile emissions were the primary source of atmospheric lead. Between 1978 and 1987, the
phase-out of leaded gasoline reduced the overall inventory of airborne lead by nearly 95 percent.
With the phase-out of leaded gasoline, secondary lead smelters, battery recycling, and manufacturing
facilities have become lead-emission sources of greater concern.
Prolonged exposure to atmospheric lead poses a serious threat to human health. Health effects
associated with exposure to lead include gastrointestinal disturbances, anemia, kidney disease, and in
severe cases, neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction. Of particular concern are low-level lead
exposures during infancy and childhood. Such exposures are associated with decrements in
neurobehavioral performance, including intelligence quotient performance, psychomotor
performance, reaction time, and growth.
Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) are airborne pollutants that may increase a persons risk of
developing cancer or other serious health effects. TACs include over 700 chemical compounds that
are identified by State and federal agencies based on a review of available scientific evidence. In
California, TACs are identified through a two-step process established in 1983 that includes risk
identification and risk management.

Regulatory Setting
Federal
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The USEPA is responsible for enforcing the
Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the legislation that governs air quality in the United States. USEPA is also
responsible for establishing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). NAAQS are
required under the 1977 CAA and subsequent amendments. USEPA regulates emission sources that are
under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain types of
locomotives. USEPA has jurisdiction over emission sources outside State waters (e.g., beyond the outer
continental shelf) and establishes emission standards, including those for vehicles sold in States other than
California, where automobiles must meet stricter emission standards set by CARB.
As required by the CAA, NAAQS have been established for seven major air pollutants: CO, NO
2
, O
3
,
PM
2.5
, PM
10
, SO
2
, and Pb. The CAA requires USEPA to designate areas as attainment, nonattainment, or
maintenance for each criteria pollutant based on whether the NAAQS have been achieved.
State
California Air Resources Board (CARB). In addition to being subject to the requirements of CAA, air
quality in California is also governed by more stringent regulations under the California Clean Air Act
(CCAA). CARB, which became part of the California Environmental Protection Agency in 1991, is
responsible for administering the CCAA and establishing the California Ambient Air Quality Standards
(CAAQS). The CCAA, as amended in 1992, requires all air districts in the State to achieve and maintain
the CAAQS, which are generally more stringent than the federal standards and incorporate additional
standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles.
CARB has broad authority to regulate mobile air pollution sources, such as motor vehicles. It is
responsible for setting emission standards for vehicles sold in California and for other emission sources,
such as consumer products and certain off-road equipment. CARB established passenger vehicle fuel
specifications, which became effective in March 1996. CARB oversees the functions of local air
pollution control districts and air quality management districts, which, in turn, administer air quality
activities at the regional and county levels. The State standards are summarized in Table IV-1, State and
National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status for the South Coast Air Basin.
The CCAA requires CARB to designate areas within California as either attainment or nonattainment for
each criteria pollutant based on whether the CAAQS have been achieved. Under the CCAA, areas are
designated as nonattainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows that a State standard for the pollutant
was violated at least once during the previous three calendar years. Exceedances that are affected by
highly irregular or infrequent events are not considered violations of a State standard and are not used as a
basis for designating areas as nonattainment.

Local
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The 1977 Lewis Air Quality Management
Act merged four air pollution control district to create the SCAQMD to coordinate air quality planning
efforts throughout Southern California. It is responsible for monitoring air quality, as well as planning,
implementing, and enforcing programs designed to attain and maintain State and federal ambient air
quality standards. Programs include air quality rules and regulations that regulate stationary sources, area
sources, point sources, and certain mobile source emissions. The SCAQMD is also responsible for
establishing stationary source permitting requirements and for ensuring that new, modified, or relocated
stationary sources do not create net emission increases.
The SCAQMD monitors air quality over its jurisdiction of 10,743 square miles, including the South Coast
Air Basin, which covers an area of 6,745 square miles and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west;
the San Gabriel, San Bernardino and San Jacinto mountains to the north and east; and the San Diego
County line to the south. The Basin includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los
Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The SCAQMD also regulates the Riverside County
portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin and Mojave Desert Air Basin.
All areas designated as nonattainment under the CCAA are required to prepare plans showing how they
will meet the air quality standards. The SCAQMD prepares the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)to
address CAA and CCAA requirements by identifying policies and control measures. The Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) assists by preparing the transportation portion of the
AQMP. On June 1, 2007, the SCAQMD adopted the 2007 AQMP, which proposes attainment of the
federal PM
2.5
standards through more focused control of SO
X
, directly-emitted PM
2.5
, and NO
X

supplemented with VOC by 2015. The eight-hour ozone control strategy builds upon the PM
2.5
strategy,
augmented with additional NO
X
and VOC reductions to meet the standard by 2024. The 2007 AQMP
also addresses federal planning requirements and incorporates new scientific data, primarily in the form
of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air
quality modeling tools. SCAQMD recently released its draft 2012 AQMP on July 19, 2012. This plan
will become the legally enforceable plan for meeting the 24-hour PM
2.5
strategy standard by 2014.
In addition to criteria pollutants, the SCAQMD also regulates air toxics. A cornerstone of its work was
the development of the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES-III). The monitoring program
measured more than 30 air pollutants, including both gases and particulates, and estimated the risk of
cancer from breathing toxic air pollution throughout the region. MATES-III found that the cancer risk in
the region from carcinogenic air pollutants ranges from about 870 in a million to 1,400 in a million, with
an average regional risk of about 1,200 in a million. An addendum to the plan was completed in March
2004 that included an update on the implementation of the mobile and stationary source strategies.
In its role as the local air quality regulatory agency, the SCAQMD also provides guidance on how
environmental analyses should be prepared. This includes recommended thresholds of significance for
evaluating air quality impacts.

City of Los Angeles
The project is located in the Silver Lake Echo Park Elysian Valley Community Plan Area and is
governed by the Citys General Plan, which includes an Air Quality Element. Adopted on November 24,
1992, the Element includes six key goals that relate directly or indirectly to air quality:
Good air quality in an environment of continued population growth and healthy economic structure
Less reliance on single-occupant vehicles with fewer commute and non-work trips
Efficient management of transportation facilities and system infrastructure using cost-effective
system management and innovative demand management techniques
Minimize impacts of existing land use patterns and future land use development on air quality by
addressing the relationship between land use, transportation, and air quality
Energy efficiency through land use and transportation planning, the use of renewable resources and
less-polluting fuels and the implementation of conservation measures including passive measures
such as site orientation and tree planting.
Citizen awareness of the linkages between personal behavior and air pollution and participation in
efforts to reduce air pollution.
Project Impacts
Construction Phase
Construction activities can impact air quality through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment
emissions, demolition, and particulate matter (dust) generated from grading and earthwork. NO
X

emissions would primarily result from the use of diesel-fueled construction equipment. Construction
emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the type of operation,
and technology employed in the equipment used.
As shown in Table 4.3-1, Estimated Daily Construction Emissions Unmitigated, the construction of the
Project will produce VOC, NO
X
, CO, SO
X
,

PM
10
and PM
2.5
emissions that do not exceed the SCAQMDs
regional thresholds. As a result, construction of the proposed project would neither violate any localized
air quality standard nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected violation. Nevertheless,
Mitigation Measure 3-1 is recommended to minimize fugitive emissions of particulates during
construction, particularly during earth moving activities, as well as NO
x
emissions from off-road
equipment. These requirements are generally built into the SCAQMDs requirement for best practices
measures under Rule 403. After mitigation, the impact will be less than significant.

Table 4.3-1
Estimated Daily Construction Emissions - Unmitigated
Construction Phase
Pounds Per Day
VOC NO
X
CO SO
X
PM
10

PM
2.5

Demolition
On-Site Emissions <1 1 2 <1 <1 <1
Off-Site Emissions 3 30 22 <1 2 2
Total Emissions 3 32 24 <1 2 2
Grading
On-Site Emissions 3 31 20 <1 7.9 4.9
Off-Site Emissions <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1
Building Construction
On-Site Emissions 4 29 19 <1 2 2
Off-Site Emissions 1 3 15 <1 2 <1
Architectural Coating
On-Site Emissions 51 2 2 <1 <1 <1
Off-Site Emissions <1 <1 2 <1 <1 <1
Total Emissions 51 2 4 <1 <1 <1

Maximum Regional Total 51 33 34 <1 <8 <5
Regional Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No

Maximum Localized Total 51 31 20 <1 <8 <5
Localized Significance Threshold -- 106 1,048 -- 8 3
Source: DKA Planning, 2013 based on CalEEMod 2013.2.2 model runs.
LST analyses based on 2 acre site with 25 meter distances to receptors in Central LA.


Mitigation Measure
3-1 Air Quality (Demolition, Grading, and Construction Actiivities)
All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted at least twice daily during
excavation and construction, and temporary dust covers shall be used to reduce dust emissions
and meet SCAQMD District Rule 403. Wetting could reduce fugitive dust by as much as 50
percent.
The construction area shall be kept sufficiently dampened to control dust caused by grading and
hauling, and at all times provide reasonable control of dust caused by wind.
All clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall be discontinued during periods of high
winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph), so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
All dirt/soil loads shall be secured by trimming, watering or other appropriate means to prevent
spillage and dust.
All dirt/soil materials transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered
to prevent excessive amount of dust.
General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust
emissions.
Trucks having no current hauling activity shall not idle but be turned off.
Operational Phase
The project will produce long-term air quality impacts to the region primarily from motor vehicles that
access the project site. The project could add up to 2,216 more vehicle trips to and from the project site
on a peak day, 180 AM peak hour vehicle trips, and 144 PM peak hour vehicle trips.
14
The projects
location in a dense, urban network with an extensive transit system and mixed uses will reduce the
potential demand for vehicle travel to and from the project. The infill nature of the development,
opportunities to attract pass-by and diverted trips already on the road will minimize on- and off-site
mobile source emissions. As shown in Table 4.3-2, Estimated Daily Operations Emissions Unmitigated,
for long-term air quality impacts, regional operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD
significance thresholds for NO
X
, CO,

PM
10
and PM
2.5
emissions. As a result, the projects operational
impacts on regional air quality are considered less than significant.

14
The Mobility Group, Sunset & Everett Mixed-Use Development Project Traffic Study, October 2013.

Table 4.3-2
Estimated Daily Operations Emissions - Unmitigated
Emissions Source
Pounds Per Day
VOC NO
X
CO SO
X
PM
10

PM
2.5

Area Sources 5 <1 18 <1 <1 <1
Energy Sources <1 <1 <1 0 <1 <1
Mobile Sources 7 19 78 <1 13 4

Total Operations 12 20 97 <1 13 4
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Source: DKA Planning 2013 based on CalEEMod 2013.2.2 model runs.

c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed
quantitative threshold for ozone precursors)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not contribute significantly to cumulative impacts on
localized CO or NO
x
concentrations. CO hotspots are not expected from cumulative growth in the project
area. This is largely due to three key factors.
First, CO hotspots are extremely rare and only occur in the presence of unusual atmospheric
conditions and extremely cold conditions, neither of which applies to this project area.
Second, auto-related emissions of CO continue to decline because of advanced in fuel combustion
technology in the vehicle fleet.
Finally, the project would not contribute to the levels of congestion that would be needed to produce
the amount of emissions needed to trigger a potential CO hotspot.
In addition, the project does not exceed the LST thresholds set by the SCAQMD for PM
10
or PM
2.5
emissions. Future development that contributes to cumulative growth would be required to address LST
thresholds and perform dispersion modeling if potential violations of health standards were to occur.
Consistency with the SCAQMDs 2012 Air Quality Management Plan
As for cumulative impacts, the proposed residential land uses will neither conflict with the SCAQMDs
2012 Air Quality Management Plan nor jeopardize the regions attainment of air quality standards. While
the proposed project will increase population in the City of Los Angeles by approximately 660 persons, it

will not jeopardize the regions attainment of air quality standards.
15
Specifically, the Project is consistent
with the City of Los Angeles General Plan, as well as population growth projections used by SCAGs
2012 Adopted Growth Forecast to identify future air quality emissions that must be mitigated through the
2012 AQMP. The Project would represent a negligible percent of the estimated 2013 population and
housing units in the City, as listed by the California Department of Finance (2010 baseline based on 2010
Census and 2013 data estimate).
16
The Project represents 2.4% of the 2010 Census population and 1.95%
of the 2010 Census housing units in the immediate and adjacent tracts.
17
Moreover, the proposed project
is infill development that helps to ensure that the residences associated with this project have less impact
on air quality emissions than a project located in areas with less density and/or transportation
infrastructure.
Consistency with City of Los Angeles General Plan Air Quality Element
The Citys Air Quality Element relies on SCAQMDs guidance and requirements in this area to determine
the significance of development on air quality. Based on the analysis in this section, the project would
not have significant impacts on local or regional air quality during construction or operations of the
project. In addition, the Element identifies several policies that are relevant to the Project. Table 4.3-3,
Project Consistency with Citys General Plan Air Quality Element, assesses the projects consistency with
the Air Quality Element. Based on this assessment, the Project would be consistent with the Citys
General Plan Air Quality Element and not contribute to a cumulative impact on air quality.
Table 4.3-3
Project Consistency with Citys General Plan Air Quality Element
Policy Analysis
Policy 1.3.1
Minimize particulate emissions from construction sites.
Consistent.
Construction activities for this site will comply with
SCAQMD Rule 403 that governs fugitive dust. Best
management practices will be employed that reduce
local exposure to PM
10
and PM
2.5
.
Policy 1.3.2
Minimize particulate emissions from unpaved roads and
parking lots, which are associated with vehicular traffic.
Consistent.
Any fugitive emissions of PM
10
and PM
2.5
during
construction or operations of the Project would be
regulated by SCAQMD Rule 403.

15
DKA Planning, 2013, based on CalEEMod 2013.2.2 model analysis.
16
17

Table 4.3-3
Project Consistency with Citys General Plan Air Quality Element
Policy Analysis
Policy 4.1.1
Coordinate with all appropriate regional agencies the
implementation of strategies for the integration of land
use, transportation, and air quality policies.
Consistent
The Project is a mixed-use, urban infill project that
adds more population-serving residential and
commercial uses in an urban area rich with jobs and
well-served by public transit and local roadways.
Policy 4.2.2
Improve accessibility for the Citys residents to places of
employment, shopping centers, and other establishments.
Consistent
See analysis of consistency with Policy 4.1.1, above
and the area is well served by Metro local bus lines
and LADOT Dash services. The Projects location
serves to impress access to shopping and dining
opportunities for local residents and visitors in the
West Los Angeles area.
Policy 4.2.3
Ensure that new development is compatible with
pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and alternative fuel vehicles.
Consistent
See analysis of consistency with Policies 4.1.1 and
4.2.2, above
Policy 4.2.4
Require that air quality impacts be a consideration in the
review and approval of all discretionary projects.
Consistent
The Project is being evaluated under CEQA for air
quality impacts and complies with this policy.
Policy 5.1.2
Effect a reduction in energy consumption and shift to non-
polluting sources of energy in its buildings and operations.
Consistent
The Project will comply with CalGreen requirements
and the Los Angeles Green Building Code. In
addition, the Project will include several features that
will help to minimize energy consumption,
including: location near residential neighborhoods,
access to public transportation, water-efficient
irrigation per code, EnergyStar-rated appliances, and
designated bike storage areas.
Table: CAJA Environmental Services, December 2013.

d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Project would not result in on-site emission
increases that exceed the LST thresholds set by the SCAQMD and would not contribute to any localized
violations of the CO, NO
x
, PM
2.5
, or PM
10
standards. The project would not also contribute to any
substantial pollution concentrations off-site from project-related traffic for three key reasons. First, CO
hotspots are extremely rare and only occur in the presence of unusual atmospheric conditions and
extremely cold conditions, neither of which applies to this project area. Second, auto-related emissions of
CO continue to decline because of advanced in fuel combustion technology in the vehicle fleet. Finally,
the project would not contribute to the levels of congestion that would be needed to produce the amount

of emissions needed to trigger a potential CO hotspot. Based on the projects traffic analysis, none of the
four study intersections would be significantly impacted by the projects traffic volumes after mitigation.
As for exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants, the SCAQMD recommends that health
risk assessments be conducted for substantial sources of diesel particulate emissions (e.g., truck stops and
warehouse distribution facilities) and has provided guidance for analyzing mobile source diesel
emissions.
18
The Project is not anticipated to generate a substantial number of daily truck trips. Based on
the limited activity of TAC sources, the Project would not warrant the need for a health risk assessment
associated with on-site activities, and potential TAC impacts are expected to be less than significant.
Typical sources of acutely and chronically hazardous TACs include industrial manufacturing processes
and automotive repair facilities. The Project would not include any of these potential sources. It is
expected that the Project would not release substantial amounts of TACs, and no significant impact on
human health would occur. Localized air pollution impacts from incompatible land uses can occur when
polluting sources, such as a heavily trafficked roadway, warehousing facilities, or industrial or
commercial facilities, are located near a land use where sensitive individuals are found such as a school,
hospital, or homes.
19
None of the uses near the Project site are sources that would be incompatible with
proposed residential and retail and/or restaurant land uses.
In addition, the Project would not locate residential or other sensitive uses near existing sources
of TACs in the Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Valley project area.
e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Odors are usually associated with industrial projects involving the use of
chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong-smelling elements used in manufacturing
processes, as well as sewage treatment facilities and landfills.
The Project would introduce new residents to the area but would not result in activities that create
objectionable odors. It would not include any land uses typically associated with unpleasant odors and
local nuisances (e.g., rendering facilities, dry cleaners). As a result, any odor impacts from the Project
would be considered less than significant.

18
SCAQMD, Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Emissions,
December 2002.
19
The Mobility Group, Sunset & Everett Mixed-Use Development Project Traffic Study, October 2013.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The section is based in part on the following report, included as Appendix C of this IS/MND:
C Existing Tree Report, Landscape Development, October 16, 2013.
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulation, or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A significant impact would occur if a project were to
remove or modify habitat for any species identified or designated as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife
20
(CDFW) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
The Project Site is located in an urbanized area of the City. The Project Site contains 3,000 square feet of
warehouse, 3 single-family dwellings, 2 unit apartment building, 4,800 square feet of building
materials/lumber store (Do-It Center), and a 2 stall car wash. The Site contains small areas of urban
landscaping between existing buildings:
Small triangular area of shrubs at the corner of Sunset Boulevard and Everett Street.
Rectangular area adjacent to the car wash, spanning from Sunset Boulevard to Everett Street.
Tree and shrub adjacent and behind the warehouse building, along Sunset Boulevard.
Trees, shrubs, and grass around the residential building on Everett Street.
There is also a large area of undeveloped hillside on the eastern side of the Site.
Trees, shrubs, and grass along the hill adjacent to east sides of the Do-It Center buildings.
The Project will result in the removal of vegetation and disturbances to the ground and therefore may
result in take of nesting native bird species. Migratory nongame native bird species are protected by
international treaty under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (50 C.F.R Section
10.13). Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of all birds
and their active nests including raptors and other migratory nongame birds (as listed under the Federal
MBTA). Mitigation Measure 4-1 is recommended by the California Department of Fish and Game for

20
Effective January 1, 2013, the California Department of Fish and Game changed its name to the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/about/namechange.html

hillside and rural areas. The Project Site is within a Hillside Area.
21
After mitigation, the impact will be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
4-1 Habitat Modification (Nesting Native Birds, Hillside or Rural Areas)
Proposed project activities (including disturbances to native and non-native vegetation,
structures and substrates) should take place outside of the breeding bird season which
generally runs from March 1- August 31 (as early as February 1 for raptors) to avoid take
(including disturbances which would cause abandonment of active nests containing eggs
and/or young). Take means to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue,
catch, capture of kill (Fish and Game Code Section 86).
If project activities cannot feasibly avoid the breeding bird season, beginning thirty days prior
to the disturbance of suitable nesting habitat, the applicant shall:
a. Arrange for weekly bird surveys to detect any protected native birds in the habitat to be
removed and any other such habitat within 300 feet of the construction work area (within
500 feet for raptors) as access to adjacent areas allows. The surveys shall be conducted by
a Qualified Biologist with experience in conducting breeding bird surveys. The surveys
shall continue on a weekly basis with the last survey being conducted no more than 3
days prior to the initiation of clearance/construction work.
b. If a protected native bird is found, the applicant shall delay all clearance/construction
disturbance activities within 300 feet of suitable nesting habitat for the observed
protected bird species (within 500 feet for suitable raptor nesting habitat) until August 31.
c. Alternatively, the Qualified Biologist could continue the surveys in order to locate any
nests. If an active nest is located, clearing and construction within 300 feet of the nest
(within 500 feet for raptor nests) or as determined by a qualified biological monitor, shall
be postponed until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged and when there is no
evidence of a second attempt at nesting. The buffer zone from the nest shall be
established in the field with flagging and stakes. Construction personnel shall be
instructed on the sensitivity of the area.
d. The applicant shall record the results of the recommended protective measures described
above to document compliance with applicable State and Federal laws pertaining to the

21
City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Zoning Information and Map Access System, search for 1185
Sunset and 959 Everett, website: http://zimas.lacity.org/.

protection of native birds. Such record shall be submitted and received into the case file
for the associated discretionary action permitting the project.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or
by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. A significant impact would occur if riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS were to be
adversely modified without adequate mitigation.
Project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No
riparian or other sensitive habitat areas are located on or adjacent to the Project Site.
22
The nearest
wetland (classified as freshwater pond) is Echo Lake located in Echo Park, approximately 3,200 feet west
of the Project Site. Therefore, no impact to sensitive habitats will occur.
c) Would the project 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?
No Impact. A significant impact would occur if federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, would be modified or removed by a project without adequate mitigation.
No federally protected wetlands (e.g., emergent, forested/shrub, estuarine and marine deepwater,
estuarine and marine, freshwater pond, lake, riverine) occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project
Site.
23
The nearest wetland (classified as freshwater pond) is Echo Lake located in Echo Park,
approximately 3,200 feet west of the Project Site. Therefore, the Project will not result in the direct
removal, filling, or hydrological interruption of a federally protected wetland as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act. No impact to federally protected wetlands will occur.

22
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper, website:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html, accessed August 19, 2013.
23
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper, website:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html, accessed August 19, 2013.

d) Would the project 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?
No Impact. A significant impact would occur if a project would interfere with or remove access to a
migratory wildlife corridor or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.
Due to the existing urban development on the Site and in the adjacent surroundings, the Project Site does
not function as a corridor for the movement of native or migratory animals. Additionally, no native
wildlife nurseries are located in the project area. Therefore, no impacts to migratory wildlife corridors or
native wildlife nursery site will occur.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A project-related significant adverse effect could occur
if a project would cause an impact that is inconsistent with local regulations pertaining to biological
resources. Local ordinances protecting biological resources are limited to the City of Los Angeles Native
Tree Preservation Ordinance.
The Existing Tree Report inspection showed that there are currently 4 protected trees on the Site. The 4
protected trees are Juglans californica with multi trunk sizes ranging from 14 to 24. Other species
include Washingtonia robusta (street trees to remain), Juniperus chinensis, Ficus benjamina, Pinus pinea,
Cercis Canadensis, and Juniperus californica. The existing trees are listed in Table 4.4-1, Existing Trees
and locations in Figure 4.4-1, Existing Trees.
All trees will need to be removed. Final approval of the trees shall be determined by the Citys Chief
Forester. Replacement trees for the 4 Junglans californica trees shall be a total of 8 (eight) 15-gallon
Platanus racemosa. This is formally described as Mitigation Measure 4-2. In addition, the removal of
the trees would be considered less than significant with Mitigation Measure 4-3 (for non-protected trees)
and Mitigation Measure 4-4 (for locally protected species). After mitigation, the impact will be less than
significant.


Table 4.4-1
Existing Trees
Tree # Caliper
Species Common Name Condition Action Required
1 30 Washingtonia Robusta Mexican Fan Palm (Small) Good Remove
2 36 Washingtonia Robusta Mexican Fan Palm Good Remove
3 30 Washingtonia Robusta Mexican Fan Palm (Small) Good Remove
9 24
Juniperus chinensis
Torulosa
Hollywood Juniper Good Remove
10 24
Juniperus chinensis
Torulosa
Hollywood Juniper Good Remove
11 24, 18, 16 Ficus Fig Tree Good Remove
12 10 Pinus pinea Stone Pine Good Remove
13 18, 16, 14 Cercis Canadensis Eastern Redwood Good Remove
14 24, 18, 16
Juglans californica var.
claifornica
Southern California Black
Walnut
Good Remove
15 24, 18, 16
claifornica
Walnut
Good Remove
16 18, 16, 14
claifornica
Walnut
Good Remove
17 24, 18, 16
claifornica
Walnut
Good Remove
18 30, 24, 30 Ficus Fig Tree Good Remove
19 24 Juniperus californica California Juniper Good Remove
Existing Tree Report, Landscape Development, October 16, 2013.

Mitigation Measures
4-2 Existing Tree Report recommendation
Final approval of the tree removal shall be determined by the Citys Chief Forester. Replacement
trees for the 4 Juglans californica trees shall be a total of 8 (eight) 15-gallon Platanus racemosa.

4-3 Tree Removal (Non-Protected Trees)
Prior to the issuance of any permit, a plot plan shall be prepared indicating the location, size,
type, and general condition of all existing trees on the site and within the adjacent public
right(s)-of-way.
All significant (8-inch or greater trunk diameter, or cumulative trunk diameter if
multitrunked, as measured 54 inches above the ground) non-protected trees on the site
proposed for removal shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio with a minimum 24-inch box tree. Net,
new trees, located within the parkway of the adjacent public right(s)-of-way, may be counted
toward replacement tree requirements.
Removal or planting of any tree in the public right-of-way requires approval of the Board of
Public Works. Contact Urban Forestry Division at: 213-847-3077. All trees in the public
right-of-way shall be provided per the current standards of the Urban Forestry Division the
Department of Public Works, Bureau of Street Services.
4-4 Tree Removal (Locally Protected Species)
All protected tree removals require approval from the Board of Public Works.
A Tree Report shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Division of the Bureau of Street
Services, Department of Public Works, for review and approval (213-847-3077), prior to
implementation of the Reports recommended measures.
A minimum of two trees (a minimum of 48-inch box in size if available) shall be planted for
each protected tree that is removed. The canopy of the replacement trees, at the time they are
planted, shall be in proportion to the canopies of the protected tree(s) removed and shall be to
the satisfaction of the Urban Forestry Division.
The location of trees planted for the purposes of replacing a removed protected tree shall be
clearly indicated on the required landscape plan, which shall also indicate the replacement
tree species and further contain the phrase Replacement Tree in its description.
Bonding (Tree Survival):
a. The applicant shall post a cash bond or other assurances acceptable to the Bureau of
Engineering in consultation with the Urban Forestry Division and the decision maker
guaranteeing the survival of trees required to be maintained, replaced or relocated in such
a fashion as to assure the existence of continuously living trees for a minimum of three
years from the date that the bond is posted or from the date such trees are replaced or
relocated, whichever is longer. Any change of ownership shall require that the new owner

post a new oak tree bond to the satisfaction of the Bureau of Engineering. Subsequently,
the original owner's oak tree bond may be exonerated.
b. The City Engineer shall use the provisions of Section 17.08 as its procedural guide in
satisfaction of said bond requirements and processing. Prior to exoneration of the bond,
the owner of the property shall provide evidence satisfactory to the City Engineer and
Urban Forestry Division that the oak trees were properly replaced, the date of the
replacement and the survival of the replacement trees for a period of three years.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No Impact. A significant impact would occur if a project is inconsistent with mapping or policies in any
conservation plans of the types cited. Due to the existing urban development on the Site and in the
adjacent surroundings, there are no known locally designated natural communities on the Project Site or
in the vicinity. Therefore, the Project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State
habitat conservation plan. No impact with respect to Habitat or Natural Community Conservation Plans
will occur.

Source: Existing Tree Report, Landscape Development, October 16, 2013.
Figure 4.4-1
Existing Trees
#1
#2
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#12
#14
#13
#19
#3
#11
#9
#10
#15
#16
#18
#17
Scale (Feet)
0 50 100

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The section is based in part on the following responses, included as Appendix D of this IS/MND:
D-1 Historic Resource Report, GPA Consulting, January 2014.
D-2 Request for Historical and Archaeological Information, South Central Coastal Information
Center, August 13, 2013.
D-3 Paleontological resources for the proposed Sunset and Everett Project, Natural History Museum
of Los Angeles County, August 22, 2013.
D-4 Sacred Lands File Search, Native American Heritage Commission, August 14, 2013.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines an historical resource
as: 1) a resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for
listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; 2) a resource listed in a local register of
historical resources or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting certain state
guidelines; or 3) an object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript which a lead agency
determines to be significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural,
educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided that the lead agencys
determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. A project-related
significant adverse effect would occur if a project were to adversely affect a historical resource meeting
one of the above definitions.
Regulatory Setting
National Register of Historic Places
To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a property must be at least 50 years of age (unless the
property is of exceptional importance) and possess significance in American history and culture,
architecture, or archaeology. A property of potential significance must meet one or more of the following
four established criteria:
24

A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history; or

24
Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.4.

B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
California Register of Historical Resources
California Register criteria are based upon National Register criteria, but are identified as 1-4 instead of
A-D. To be eligible for listing in the California Register, a property generally must be at least 50 years of
age and must possess significance at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following
four criteria:
25

1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or
represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important in the prehistory or history of
the local area, California, or the nation.
The California Register may also include properties identified during historic resource surveys. However,
the survey must meet all of the following criteria:
1. The survey has been or will be included in the State Historic Resources Inventory;
2. The survey and the survey documentation were prepared in accordance with office [California
Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)] procedures and requirements;
3. The resource is evaluated and determined by the office [OHP] to have a significance rating of
Category 1 to 5 on a DPR Form 523; and
4. If the survey is five or more years old at the time of its nomination for inclusion in the
California Register, the survey is updated to identify historical resources which have become
eligible or ineligible due to changed circumstances or further documentation and those which

25
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 (a).

have been demolished or altered in a manner that substantially diminishes the significance of the
resource.
State Office of Historic Preservation Survey Methodology
The general evaluation categories are as follows:
1. Listed in the National Register or the California Register.
2. Determined eligible for listing in the National Register or the California Register.
3. Appears eligible for listing in the National Register or the California Register through survey
evaluation.
4. Appears eligible for listing in the National Register or the California Register through other
evaluation.
5. Recognized as historically significant by local government.
6. Not eligible for listing or designation as specified.
7. Not evaluated or needs re-evaluation.
City of Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Ordinance
The Los Angeles City Council adopted the Cultural Heritage Ordinance in 1962 and amended it in 2007
(Sections 22.171 et. seq. of the Administrative Code). The Ordinance created a Cultural Heritage
Commission and criteria for designating Historic-Cultural Monuments (HCMs). Unlike the National and
California Registers, the Ordinance makes no mention of concepts such as physical integrity or period of
significance. Moreover, properties do not have to reach a minimum age requirement, such as 50 years, to
be designated as Historic-Cultural Monuments. The City currently has over 1,000 Historic-Cultural
Monuments, providing official recognition and protection for Los Angeles most significant and
cherished historic resources.
The Ordinance states that:
For purposes of this article, a Historic-Cultural Monument (Monument) is any site (including
significant trees or other plant life located on the site), building or structure of particular historic
or cultural significance to the City of Los Angeles, including historic structures or sites in which
the broad cultural, economic or social history of the nation, State or community is reflected or
exemplified; or which is identified with historic personages or with important events in the main
currents of national, State or local history; or which embodies the distinguishing characteristics of
an architectural type specimen, inherently valuable for a study of a period, style or method of

construction; or a notable work of a master builder, designer, or architect whose individual genius
influenced his or her age.
The Silver Lake Echo Park Elysian Valley City Community Plan has many HCMs, especially
residences along Carroll Avenue.
26
There are no HCMs on Everett Street. The following within 1 mile of
the Site, along Sunset Boulevard:
No. LA-652: Jensens Recreation Center and Electric Roof Sign, at 1700 W. Sunset Boulevard,
approximately 3,700 feet northwest of the Site.
No. LA-949: Bank of America Echo Park Branch, at 1572 W. Sunset Boulevard, approximately
3,250 feet northwest of the Site.
No. LA-986: Lento Brick Court, at 1288 W. Sunset Boulevard, approximately 500 feet northwest of
the Site.
Los Angeles Historic Preservation Overlay Zones
Los Angeles has created 29 Historic Preservation Overlay Zones (HPOZs), commonly known as historic
districts, provide for review of proposed exterior alterations and additions to historic properties within
designated districts. The City Council adopted the ordinance enabling the creation of HPOZs in 1979;
Angelino Heights became Los Angeles first HPOZ in 1983. The Ordinance was updated in 2004.
27

HPOZ areas range in size from neighborhoods of approximately 50 parcels to more than 3,000 properties.
While most districts are primarily residential, many have a mix of single-family and multi-family
housing, and some include commercial and industrial properties. HPOZs are established and administered
by the Los Angeles City Planning Department (in concert with the City Council). Individual buildings in
an HPOZ need not be of landmark quality on their own: it is the collection of a cohesive, unique, and
intact collection of historical resources that qualifies a neighborhood for HPOZ status.
There are no HPOZs on the Site. The nearest HPOZ is Angelino Heights,
28
generally between Sunset
Boulevard and the 101 Freeway, along Kensington Road and Edgeware Road.
29
The Angelino Heights
HPOZ is beyond Sunset Boulevard from the Site, but does not have any frontage property on Sunset.

26
Los Angeles HCMs in Silver Lake - Echo Park - Elysian Valley Community Plan:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/HCM/dsp_hcm_result.cfm?community=Silver%20Lake%20-
%20Echo%20Park%20-%20Elysian%20Valley
27
Los Angeles Municipal Code, Section 12.20.3.
28
Los Angeles HPOZs: http://preservation.lacity.org/hpoz/la
29
Angelino Heights HPOZ: http://preservation.lacity.org/files/Angelino%20Heights%20Survey%20Map.pdf

The Project has no potential to indirectly impact it, because the project site and HPOZ are visually
disconnected. The boundary of the HPOZ does not extend to Sunset Boulevard, so there are no
contributing buildings across the street.
30

Records Search
The project site is located north of the Holy Hill Community Church
31
, which was part of a cultural
resources study completed in 2009. The 2009 study concluded that the property is ineligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places, but did not evaluate its eligibility for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources.
32

Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical Resources
The State CEQA Guidelines
Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical demolition,
destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the
significance of a historical resource is materially impaired.
City of Los Angeles' L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide
Demolition of a significant resource;
Relocation that does not maintain the integrity and (historical/architectural) significance of a
significant resource;
Conversion, rehabilitation, or alteration of a significant resource which does not conform to the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings; or
Construction that reduces the integrity or significance of important resources on the site or in the
vicinity.
Secretary of the Interior Standards

30
31
From a recent site visit, this church is known as LA Sa-Rang Community Church.
32

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change
to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive
materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property
will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that
create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements
from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained and
preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship
that characterize a property will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in
design, color, texture, and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be
substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means
possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be
disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials,
features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale
and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that
if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment would be unimpaired.
Project Site History and Evaluations

The dates of construction, general description of the uses, and the evaluations of eligibility (National
Register) for the buildings on the Project Site are as follows:
33

959 Everett Street Built in 1906 by John P. Ensch, 959, it is a one-story single-family residence in the
vernacular hipped cottage style.
The property at 959 Everett Street is ineligible for listing in the National Register for lack of
significance.
1185 Sunset Boulevard Built in 1960 by the Richfield Oil Company as a service station, it is currently
used as an automobile repair shop and car wash.
The property at 1185 West Sunset Boulevard is ineligible for listing in the National Register for lack
of significance.
1197 Sunset Boulevard Built in 1975 by the current owner, Steve Wintner, it is a one-story warehouse
building.
This warehouse building is less than 45 years of age and therefore was not evaluated.
1205-1207 Sunset Boulevard Built in 1922 by C. D. Barnett, 1205-1207 West Sunset Boulevard
includes a commercial building with a residential duplex behind.
The property at 1205-1207 West Sunset Boulevard is ineligible for listing in the National Register for
lack of significance and integrity.
1211 Sunset Boulevard Constructed in 1926 by C. D. Barnett as a public garage and later converted
into a store by the American Linen Exchange Co. in 1934, it was most recently used as part of the
Reliable Do-It Center hardware store complex.
of significance and integrity.
1215-1221 Sunset Boulevard It consists of an asphalt paved parking area most recently used as part of
the Reliable Do-It Center hardware store complex.
This property is a parking lot with no structures and therefore was not evaluated.

33
Pages 11-28, Historic Resource Report, GPA Consulting, January 2014. The following is a short summary of the

1229 Sunset Boulevard Constructed in 1944 as a gas station and later converted into a store in 1946, it
is now a one-story commercial building used as part of the Reliable Do-It Center hardware store complex.
1239 Sunset Boulevard Constructed in 1922 by Daniel C. Messinger for Agnes Kane, it is a one-story
commercial building used as part of the Reliable Do-It Center hardware store complex.
1243 Sunset Boulevard Constructed in 1932, it is a one-story commercial building.
of significance.
1245-1247 Sunset Boulevard This steeply sloped, L-shaped parcel contains two single-family
dwellings set high above street level towards the rear property line. The southerly dwelling was built
sometime before 1907 and the northerly dwelling was built in 1922.
The property at 1245-1247 West Sunset Boulevard is ineligible for listing in the National Register for
lack of significance and integrity.
California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register was modeled on the National Register. The criteria for eligibility of listing in the
California Register are virtually the same as the National Register. Therefore, the properties evaluated
above are ineligible for listing in the California Register for the same reasons noted above.
Los Angles Historic-Cultural Monuments
The criteria for eligibility for designated as a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument are similar to the
National and California Registers. Therefore, the properties evaluated above are ineligible for designation
as Monuments for the same reasons noted above.
Historic Resources Conclusion
The properties are ineligible for listing at the national, state, or local levels because they are lacking in
historical significance, architectural distinction, and/or physical integrity. Additionally, the area on the
east side of Sunset Boulevard, north of Everett Street developed over several decades. The properties are
not historically or functionally related. For this reason, the area does not constitute a potential historic
district, and the subject properties were not evaluated as potential district contributors. The recommended

evaluation code is 6Z, ineligible for designation at the national, state, or local levels through survey
evaluation. As the properties are not historic resources subject to CEQA, the Project will have no impact
on historic resources.
34

No designated or surveyed historical landmarks, monuments, or resources exist on the Project Site. The
Project Site is not within a City HPOZ, and no historical resource district exists to which any of existing
buildings on-site contribute. The Project is not subject to the Secretary of the Interiors Standards #1-8,
which govern rehabilitation of existing historic structures. The Project is not rehabilitating or affecting
any of historic structures with respect to Standards #1-8. The Project is not subject to the Secretary of the
Interiors Standards #9-10 which govern related new construction. While certain buildings on the Project
Site may be older than 50 years, they do not possess significance at the local, state, or national level,
under one or more of the following four criteria for the National or California Registers. There would be
no impact to historic resources and no mitigation is required.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines
defines significant archaeological resources as resources that meet the criteria for historical resources, as
discussed above, or resources that constitute unique archaeological resources. A project-related
significant adverse effect could occur if a project were to affect archaeological resources that fall under
either of these categories.
The Project Site is located in an urbanized area and has been previously disturbed by past development
activities, since at least the 1920s when it was used for various industrial purposes.
35
The Project would
require excavation for the subterranean parking as well as for utility and foundation work.
The South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) was contacted on August 9, 2013 to conduct an
archaeology records search, of which a response was received on August 13, 2013 (included as Appendix
D-2 to this IS/MND).
The search includes a review of all recorded archaeological sites within a -mile radius of the Project Site
as well as a review of cultural resource reports on file. In addition, the California Points of Historical
Interest (SPHI), the California Historical Landmarks (SHL), the California Register of Historical
Resources (CAL REG), the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California State Historic
Resources Inventory (HRI), and the City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments (LAHCM) listings

34
35
Phase II Subsurface Investigation, AEI Consultants, March 22, 2013, page 2.

were reviewed for the Project Site. Due to the sensitive nature of cultural resources, archaeological site
locations are not released.
Archaeological Resources
No archaeological sites have been identified on the SCCICs maps within a -mile radius of the Project
Site. No sites are located within the Project Site. This does not preclude the potential for archaeological
sites to be identified during project activities. No isolates have been identified within a -mile radius of
the Project Site. No isolates are located within the Project Site.
Historic Built-Environment Resources
Sixty-four above-ground historic resources have been identified on SCICCs maps within a -mile radius
of the Project Site. No above-ground historic resources are located within the Project Site.
Additional cultural resource listings
The California Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) lists ninety-eight properties that have been
evaluated for historical significance within a -mile radius of the Project Site. These are additional
resources that are listed in the Historic Properties Data file and are not located within the Project Site .
The closest of these properties are the residential uses across Sunset Boulevard (1200, 1206, and 1212
Sunset Boulevard) had a historical survey conducted and have a Status Code as 7R (Identified in
Reconnaissance Level Survey: Not evaluated).
The California Point of Historical Interest (SPHI) of the Office of Historic Preservation, Department
of Parks and Recreation, lists no properties within a -mile radius of the Project Site.
The California Historical Landmarks (SHL) of the Office of Historic Preservation, Department of
Parks and Recreation, lists one property within a -mile radius of the Project Site:
SHL-0822 First Jewish Site in Los Angeles 19-174899 The Hebrew Benevolent Society of Los
Angeles (1854), first charitable organization in the city, acquired this site from the city council by
deed of April 9, 1855. This purchase of a sacred burial ground represented the first organized
community effort by the pioneer Jewish settlers. Located at Chavez Ravine, behind the U.S. Naval
and Marine Corps Reserve Center, 800 West Lilac Terrace near Lookout Drive, Los Angeles.
The California Register of Historical Resources (CAL REG) lists thirteen properties within a -mile
radius of the Project Site. These are properties determined to have a National Register of Historic Places
Status of 1 or 2, a California Historical Landmark numbering 770 and higher, or a Point of Historical
Interest listed after 1/1/1998.
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) lists twelve properties within a -mile radius of the
Project Site:

Hollywood 19-166818 Carroll Ave. 1300 Black Carroll Ave. between Edgeware and Douglas Sts. LA
NR76000488
The City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments (LAHCM) lists no properties within the
Project Site.
Historic Map Review
Pasadena, CA (1896 & 1900) and Santa Monica, CA (1902 & 1921) 15 USGS - indicated that on the
Pasadena, CA map or 1896, there appeared to be one road that ran through the project site. The project
site was located within a dense urban environment and there were a number of roads and buildings
present within the vicinity of the project area. Elysian Park was located to the north of the project site.
Historic place names nearby included Los Angeles. In 1900, there was little to no visible change and all
previously mentioned features remained. On the Santa Monica map of 1902, there were several roads and
buildings present within the vicinity of the project area. The project site was located within a dense urban
environment. In 1921, there was little to no visible change and all previously mentioned features
remained.
Previous cultural resources investigations
Twenty-eight studies have been conducted within a -mile radius of the Project Site. Of these, none are
located within the project site. There are eighteen additional investigations located on the Hollywood, CA
and Los Angeles, CA 7.5 USGS Quadrangles that are potentially within a -mile radius of the Project
Site. The reports are not mapped due to insufficient locational information.
Conclusion
As the properties are not historic resources subject to CEQA, the Project will have no impact on historic
resources.
36

Although the Project Site is currently developed, there is still the potential for buried archaeological
resources within the Project Site. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5-1, impacts
on archaeological resources would be less than significant.
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on August 9, 2013 to conduct a
Sacred Lands File (SLF) Search, of which a response was received on August 14, 2013 (included as
Appendix D-4 to this IS/MND). The results of this response and mitigation measure is discussed under
section 5-d), below.

36

Mitigation Measure
5-1 Cultural Resources (Archaeology)
If any archaeological materials are encountered during the course of project development, all
further development activity shall halt in the areas of archaeological sensitivity (excavation or
overlie adjacent archaeological resources), and:
a. The services of an archaeologist shall then be secured by contacting the South Central
Coastal Information Center (657-278-5395) located at California State University
Fullerton, or a member of the Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA) or a
ROPA-qualified archaeologist, who shall assess the discovered material(s) and prepare a
survey, study or report evaluating the impact.
b. The archaeologist's survey, study or report shall contain a recommendation(s), if
c. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the evaluating archaeologist, as
contained in the survey, study or report.
Project development activities may resume once copies of the archaeological survey, study or
report are submitted to:
SCCIC Department of Anthropology
McCarthy Hall 477 CSU Fullerton
800 North State College Boulevard
Fullerton, CA 92834
indicating what, if any, archaeological reports have been submitted, or a statement indicating
The Native American Heritage Commission shall be consulted to identify if any additional
traditional cultural properties or other sacred sites are known to be in the area.


c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant adverse effect could occur if
grading or excavation activities associated with a project would disturb paleontological resources or
geologic features which presently exist within the Project Site.
37
The Project would
require excavation for the subterranean parking as well as for utility and foundation work.
The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHM) was contacted on August 9, 2013 to
conduct a paleontology records search, of which a response was received on August 22, 2013 (included as
Appendix D-3 to this IS/MND). The NHM has no vertebrate fossil localities that lie directly within the
Project area, but it does have localities nearby from the same sedimentary deposits that occur within the
Project area. Surface deposits and bedrock in the entire Project area consist of the marine late Miocene
Puente Formation (also known as the Upper Modelo Formation, the upper Monterey Formation, or even
an unnamed shale in this area). The closest vertebrate fossil locality from these deposits is LACM 5961,
situated south-southwest of the Project area at the intersection of 1st Street and Hill Street, that produced
a fossil specimen of a deep sea fish specimen of Bristlemouth, Cyclothone. The next closest vertebrate
fossil localities from the Puente Formation were all recovered during excavations for the Metro Rail Red
Line around MacArthur Park from Alvarado Street westward to about Catalina Street. Along Wilshire
Boulevard between Alvarado Street and Coronado Street the vertebrate fossil localities LACM 6198-
6201, and 6254 produced fossil fish specimens of the families Bathylagidae, deep sea smelt, Belonidae,
needlefishes, Moridae, moras, Myctophidae, lanternfishes, and Scombridae, mackerels, as well as a fossil
whale rib fragment at depths between 40 and eighty feet below the surface. Slightly farther west around
the Metro Rail station at Vermont Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard there are the localities LACM 6202
and 6203 from the Puente Formation at a depth of 60 to 80 feet beneath the surface. Fossil specimens of
eels, Anguilliformes, and needlefishes, Belonidae, were recovered at LACM 6203. Locality LACM 6202,
however, was an extremely productive locality that contained an extensive fauna of fossil fish.
Further to the north of localities LACM 6202-6203, along Vermont Avenue from Beverly Boulevard
northward to Hollywood Boulevard, west-northwest to northwest of the Project area, there are several
fossil vertebrate localities from the Puente Formation from excavations for the MTA Metro Rail Red Line
stations and tunnels. For the Metro Rail Red Line Vermont / Beverly station we have the Puente
Formation locality LACM 6946 and further north there are the localities LACM 6947-6948, from
excavations for the Vermont / Santa Monica and Vermont / Sunset Metro Rail Red Line stations
respectively. Just north of the Vermont / Sunset station, around Barnsdall Park near the intersection of

37

Vermont Avenue and Hollywood Boulevard, there are also the Puente Formation localities LACM 6205-
6207 from the Metro Rail Redline tunnel. These localities produced a rich suite of fossil fish.
Any significant excavations in the Puente Formation exposures in the Project area may well encounter
significant vertebrate fossil remains. Any substantial excavations in the Project area, therefore, should be
monitored closely to quickly and professionally recover any fossil remains discovered while not impeding
development. Additionally, many specimens in the Puente Formation are small and may not be detected
in normal excavation monitoring activities.
The NHM recommends that samples from this rock unit be collected and analyzed for their
paleontological potential. Any fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an accredited
and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations. Although the Project
Site is currently developed, there is still the potential for buried paleontological resources within the
Project Site. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5-2, impacts on paleontological
resources will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
5-2 Cultural Resources (Paleontology)
If any paleontological materials are encountered during the course of project development, all
further development activities shall halt in the areas of paleontological sensitivity (Excavation
or disturbance may continue in other areas of the Project Site that are not reasonably suspected
to overlie adjacent paleontological resources), and:
a. The services of a paleontologist shall then be secured by contacting the Center for Public
Paleontology - USC, UCLA, California State University Los Angeles, California State
University Long Beach, or the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum - who shall
assess the discovered material(s) and prepare a survey, study or report evaluating the
impact.
b. The paleontologist's survey, study, or report shall contain a recommendation(s), if
c. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the evaluating paleontologist, as
contained in the survey, study, or report.
d. Project development activities may resume once copies of the paleontological survey,
study or report are submitted to the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum.
e. Any fossils recovered during mitigation should be deposited in an accredited and
permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations

indicating what, if any, paleontological reports have been submitted, or a statement indicating
d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant adverse effect would occur if
grading or excavation activities associated with a project were to disturb previously interred human
remains.
38
The Project would
require excavation for the subterranean parking as well as for utility and foundation work. The Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on August 9, 2013 to conduct a Sacred Lands
File (SLF) Search, of which a response was received on August 14, 2013 (included as Appendix D-4 to
this IS/MND). A record search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File failed to indicate the presence of Native
American traditional cultural place(s) in the Project Site, based on the USGS coordinates submitted as
part of the Area of Potential Effect (APE). Note that the NAHC SLF Inventory is not exhaustive;
therefore, the absence of archaeological or Native American sacred places does not preclude their
existence. Environmental impacts may result from project implementation due to discovery of unrecorded
human remains. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5-3, impacts on human remains will be
Mitigation Measure
5-3 Cultural Resources (Human Remains)
In the event that human remains are discovered during excavation activities, the following
procedure shall be observed:
a. Stop immediately and contact the County Coroner:
1104 N. Mission Road
Los Angeles, CA 90033

38

323-343-0512 (8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday) or
323-343-0714 (After Hours, Saturday, Sunday, and Holidays)
b. The coroner has two working days to examine human remains after being notified by the
responsible person. If the remains are Native American, the Coroner has 24 hours to
notify the Native American Heritage Commission.
c. The Native American Heritage Commission will immediately notify the person it
believes to be the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American.
d. The most likely descendent has 48 hours to make recommendations to the owner, or
representative, for the treatment or disposition, with proper dignity, of the human remains
and grave goods.
e. If the descendent does not make recommendations within 48 hours the owner shall reinter
the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance, or;
f. If the owner does not accept the descendants recommendations, the owner or the
descendent may request mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission.

6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The section is based in part on the following reports, included as Appendix E of this IS/MND:
E-1 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Apartment Complex, 1185 West Sunset
Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, Geotechnologies, Inc., April 9, 2013
E-2 Geology and Soils Report Approval Letter, Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, June
24, 2014
a) Would the project 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.
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project Site is located in the seismically active region of Southern
California. Numerous active and potentially active faults with surface expressions (fault traces) have
been mapped adjacent to, within, and beneath the City of Los Angeles.
Regional Faulting
Based on criteria established by the California Geologic Survey (CGS), faults may be categorized as
active, potentially-active, or inactive. Active faults are those which show evidence of surface
displacement within the last 11,000 years (Holocene-age). Potentially-active faults are those that show
evidence of most recent surface displacement within the last 1.6 million years (Quaternary-age). Faults
showing no evidence of surface displacement within the last 1.6 million years are considered inactive for
most purposes, with the exception of design of some critical structures.
Buried thrust faults are faults without a surface expression but are a significant source of seismic activity.
They are typically broadly defined based on the analysis of seismic wave recordings of hundreds of small
and large earthquakes in the southern California area. Due to the buried nature of these thrust faults, their
existence is usually not known until they produce an earthquake. The risk for surface rupture potential of
these buried thrust faults is inferred to be low. However, the seismic risk of these buried structures in
terms of recurrence and maximum potential magnitude is not well established. Therefore, the potential for
surface rupture on these surface-verging splays at magnitudes higher than 6.0 cannot be precluded.
39

Seismic Hazards and Design Considerations

39
Geological Engineering Investigation, April 9, 2013, pages 9-10.

The primary geologic hazard at the Site is moderate to strong ground motion (acceleration) caused by an
earthquake on any of the local or regional faults.
Surface Rupture
In 1972, the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act (now known as the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Act) was passed into law. The Act defines active and potentially-active faults using the same
aging criteria as that used by the California Geological Survey (CGS). However, established state policy
has been to zone only those faults which have direct evidence of movement within the last 11,000 years.
It is this recency of fault movement that the CGS considers as a characteristic for faults that have a
relatively high potential for ground rupture in the future.
CGS policy is to delineate a boundary from 200 to 500 feet wide on each side of the known fault trace
based on the location precision, the complexity, or the regional significance of the fault. If a site lies
within an Earthquake Fault Zone, a geologic fault rupture investigation must be performed that
demonstrates that the proposed building site is not threatened by surface displacement from the fault
before development permits may be issued.
Ground rupture is defined as surface displacement which occurs along the surface trace of the causative
fault during an earthquake. Based on research of available literature and results of site reconnaissance, no
known active or potentially active faults underlie the Project Site. In addition, the Site is not located
within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Based on these considerations, the potential for surface
ground rupture at the Site is considered low.
40
In addition, according to the City of Los Angeles ZIMAS
mapping system, the Project Site is also not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and
is approximately 0.35 kilometer (0.22 mile) from the nearest fault (Upper Elysian Park).
41
The City of Los
Angeles Building Code, updated since the 1994 Northridge Earthquake and with which the Project will be
required to comply, contains construction requirements to ensure habitable structures are built to a level
such that they can withstand acceptable seismic risk. Therefore, impacts related to ground rupture from
known earthquake faults will be less than significant.
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project Site is located within a seismically
active region. As such, development of the Project would expose future residents, employees, and
visitors at the Project Site to seismic ground shaking.

40
41

However, the design and construction of the Project is required to comply with the most current codes
regulating seismic risk, including the California Building Code and the Los Angeles Municipal Code
(LAMC), which incorporates the International Building Code (IBC). Compliance with current California
Building Code and LAMC requirements will minimize the potential to expose people or structures to
substantial risk or loss or injury. This compliance is conveyed in Mitigation Measure 6-1. Therefore,
impacts related to seismic ground shaking will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
6-1 Seismic
The design and construction of the project shall conform to the California Building Code
seismic standards as approved by the Department of Building and Safety.
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
No Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated silty to cohesionless soils below the
groundwater table are subject to a temporary loss of strength due to the buildup of excess pore pressure
cyclic loading conditions such as those induced by an earthquake. Liquefaction related effects include
loss of bearing strength, amplified ground oscillations, lateral spreading, and flow failures.
The Seismic Hazards Map of the Los Angeles 7.5 Quadrangle from the State of California does not
classify the Site has part of the potentially Liquefiable area. This determination is based on groundwater
depth records, soil type, and distance to a fault capable of producing a substantial earthquake. The
proposed structure will be supported on siltstone and sandstone bedrock. This rock does not liquefy due to
its moderately hard consistency.
42
In addition, according to the City of Los Angeles ZIMAS mapping
system
43
and the Safety Element of the City of Los Angeles
44
, the Project Site is not classified within an
area susceptible to liquefaction. Therefore, no impacts with respect to liquefaction will occur.
(iv) Landslides?
No Impact. A project-related significant adverse effect may occur if the project is located in a hillside
area with soil conditions that would suggest a high potential for sliding. A landslide area is land
identified by the State of California that is located in the general area of sites that possess the potential for

42
Geological Engineering Investigation, April 9, 2013, page 11.
43
44
Los Angeles Safety Element, Exhibit B, Areas Susceptible to Liquefaction in the City of Los Angeles:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/cwd/gnlpln/saftyelt.pdf, accessed August 19, 2013.

earthquake-induced rock falls, slope failure, and debris flow.
No landslides were noted on the available geologic maps of the Site vicinity. Indications of deep-seated
landslides were not noted during the current Site investigation or investigations by others. Due to the
uniform bedding of 18 to 40 degrees to the south, the bedding orientation on the west-facing slope is
neutral to favorable with respect to the slope face, and the potential for sliding is very low. However,
south-facing cuts will expose adversely oriented bedrock creating a potential unstable condition if the cut
is made steeper than the bedding dip.
Shallow seated slope raveling was noted in the face of the slope cuts made to the north and east sides of
the existing structures. Indications such as cracks at the top of the cut, and talus at the toe of the slope
were observed. No seeps, springs, or sites of lush vegetation were noted. No indications of surficial creep
such as flexural folding in the shallow bedrock or hummocky topography were noted.
45
In addition, the
City of Los Angeles ZIMAS mapping system
46
and the Safety Element of the City of Los Angeles
47
do
not classify the Project Site as within a landslide area, or identified as a bedrock or probably bedrock
landslide site. Further, according to the State of California Seismic Hazards Map, the Project Site is not at
risk for earthquake-induced landslides.
48
Therefore, no impacts with respect to landslides will occur.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if a project
exposes large areas to the erosional effects of wind or water for a protracted period of time.
During construction, grading and excavation would expose minimal amounts of soils for a limited time,
allowing for possible erosion. However, due to the temporary nature of the soil exposure during the
grading and excavation processes, substantial erosion will not occur. Excavation will be limited to that
necessary for the installation of building foundations, utilities, and the subterranean parking levels. All
grading activities require grading permits from the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and
Safety, which include requirements and standards designed to limit potential impacts to acceptable levels.

45
46
47
Los Angeles Safety Element, Exhibit C, Landslide Inventory and Hillside Areas in the City of Los Angeles:
48
California, Seismic Hazard Zone Maps, Southern California, Los Angeles Quadrangle, March 25, 1999,
website: http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/quad/LOS_ANGELES/maps/ozn_la.pdf, accessed August 19,
2013.

In addition, all on-site grading and site preparation would comply with all applicable provisions of
LAMC Chapter IX, Division 70, which addresses grading, excavation, and fills.
During construction, the Project will be required to prevent the transport of sediments from the site by
stormwater runoff and winds through the use of appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs). These
BMPs will be detailed in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is required to be
acceptable to the City Engineer and in compliance with the latest National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Regulations. The Project Site is within a Hillside Area.
49
With
the implementation of the required construction BMPs, (as described in Mitigation Measure 6-2 and 6-3)
soil erosion during construction impacts will be less than significant. Long-term operation of the Project
would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The majority of the Project Site would be
covered by the proposed structures; thus, no exposed areas subject to erosion would be created or affected
by the Project. Therefore, operation impacts related to erosion or the loss of topsoil will be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
6-2 Erosion/Grading/Short-Term Construction Impacts
The applicant shall provide a staked signage at the site with a minimum of 3-inch lettering
containing contact information for the Senior Street Use Inspector (Department of Public
Works), the Senior Grading Inspector (LADBS) and the hauling or general contractor.
Chapter IX, Division 70 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code addresses grading, excavations,
and fills. All grading activities require grading permits from the Department of Building and
Safety. Additional provisions are required for grading activities within Hillside areas. The
application of BMPs includes but is not limited to the following mitigation measures:
a. Excavation and grading activities shall be scheduled during dry weather periods. If
grading occurs during the rainy season (October 15 through April 1), diversion dikes
shall be constructed to channel runoff around the site. Channels shall be lined with grass
or roughened pavement to reduce runoff velocity.
b. Stockpiles, excavated, and exposed soil shall be covered with secured tarps, plastic
sheeting, erosion control fabrics, or treated with a bio-degradable soil stabilizer.

49

6-3 Erosion/Grading/Short-Term Construction Impacts (Hillside Grading Areas)
The grading plan shall conform with the City's Landform Grading Manual guidelines, subject
to approval by the Advisory Agency and the Department of Building and Safety's Grading
Division.
Appropriate erosion control and drainage devices shall be provided to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Department. These measures include interceptor terraces, berms, vee-
channels, and inlet and outlet structures, as specified by Section 91.7013 of the Building
Code, including planting fast-growing annual and perennial grasses in areas where
construction is not immediately planned.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if the project is
built in an unstable area without proper site preparation or design features to provide adequate
foundations for the project buildings, thus posing a hazard to life and property. Construction activities
associated with the Project must comply with the City of Los Angeles Building Code, which is designed
to assure safe construction, including building foundation requirements appropriate to site conditions.
Additionally, as discussed in the response the Question 6(a)(iii) and 6(a)(iv), the Project Site is not at risk
for liquefaction or landslides. Topographic relief across the Site is as much as 95 feet. Prior to
development, the Site was a westerly descending slope, inclined at a 4 to 1 gradient that was as much as
70 feet high. In the 1920s or 1930s, the toe of the slope was cut to provide room for several 1-story, at-
grade structures. This work resulted in cuts up to 45 feet high and inclined at a 1 to 1 gradient. Due to the
descent of the ridge on the east side of the Site, the overall slope and the cut reduce in height to nearly
zero at the south end of the Site.
No indications of seeps, springs, or slope instability, such as tension crack in the exposed soils, distorted
buildings, or surficial and deep seated failure were noted. However, on the north side of the Site, where
the slope was cut and resulted in daylighted bedding conditions, raveling and sloughing was observed.
Some of the slough materials have accumulated against the walls of an existing building.
50
The Project
will also comply with the recommendations listed in the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
51
,
included as Mitigation Measures 6-4. With the recommendations presented are followed and
implemented during construction, the Project is considered feasible from a geotechnical engineering

50
51

standpoint. The Project would also comply with the conditions described in the Los Angeles Department
of Building and Safetys Geology and Soils Report Approval Letter (see Appendix E-2 and Mitigation
Measure 6-6 of this IS/MND). Therefore impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
6-4 Geological Investigation and Engineering Requirements
The design of the structure shall consider groundwater at a depth of 8 feet below the ground
surface as measured at the sidewalk elevation.
The existing fill soils, in addition to the upper two feet of alluvial soils shall be removed and
recompacted.
The proposed structure shall be supported on conventional foundations where the rock is
exposed and deepened foundations excavated through the fill and alluvium where bedrock is
deeper; the footings shall extend to 15 feet in depth. As an alternative, where deepened
footings are necessary, cast-in-place drilled friction piles shall be used. A combination of
conventional foundations and friction piles shall be used as long as both types are supported
in the bedrock.
If the building is designed and constructed with a cold joint at the transition between bedrock
and fill/alluvium, the building shall be supported exclusively on shallow conventional
foundations. If this option is selected, all of the fill soils must be removed and compacted,
and the footings must be underlain by at least 3 feet of newly compacted fill soils.
The finish floor slab shall be designed and constructed as a conventional slab where the slab
is above the ground water surface. Where the finish floor is below the groundwater surface,
the slab must be designed to accommodate the hydrostatic uplift.
Groundwater will be encountered during construction. Dewatering measures shall be
considered. It is recommended that a groundwater monitoring well be installed on the area of
the two level parking garage and another at the location of the deeper alluvium. The purpose
of the wells is to identify static water depths and to estimate dewatering qualities.
The slope stability calculations required leaving the terrace in place at the top of the slope
near Cross Section E-E. The terrace shall be regarded to include a 2-foot thick layer of
relatively impermeable soil to prevent infiltration. The layer shall be graded so that water
flows toward the face of the slope and is near elevation 486 feet. The over steepened slope on
the east side of the terrace shall be supported with a retaining wall or permanent shoring. The
top of the new cut shall be set back from the property lines 1/5 of the height of the cut, but no

greater than 10 feet from the property line. Clarification of the required setback for the
existing cut shown on Cross Section E-E shall be obtained from the building official.
The proposed cut shall be inclined as steep as 35 degrees. Since the slope exceeds an
inclination of 26 degrees, a modification to the City of Los Angeles Building Code shall be
necessary.
V ditches shall be required at the top, midheight, and toe of the proposed cut slope with
appropriate downdrains. The slope must be planted with erosion resistant ground cover.
Approved shrubs shall also be necessary.
Foundations for small outlying structures, such as property line walls, which shall not be tied-
in to the proposed apartment building, shall be supported on conventional foundations
bearing in bedrock or alluvium.
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as identified in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if a project is
built on expansive soils without proper site preparation or design features to provide adequate foundations
for project buildings thus posing a hazard to life and property. Expansive soils are clay-based soils that
tend to expand (increase in volume) as they absorb water and shrink (decrease in volume) as water is
drawn away. If soils consist of expansive clays, foundation movement and/or damage can occur if
wetting and drying of the clay does not occur uniformly across the entire area.
The onsite geologic materials are in the moderate to high expansion range. The Expansion Index was
found to be 54 for bulk samples for alluvium and 110 for bedrock samples remolded to 90 percent of the
laboratory maximum density. Reinforcing beyond the minimum required by the City of Los Angeles,
Department of Building and Safety is not required.
52
Due to the high expansion potential for the onsite
geologic materials, all foundations should be reinforced with a minimum of four #4 steel bars. Two
should be placed near the top of the foundation, and two should be placed near the bottom.
53
This is listed
as Mitigation Measure 6-5. In addition, the City has standard mitigation measures for Projects located in
an area with expansive soils. With Mitigation Measure 6-6, impacts can be mitigated to a less than
significant level. The Project would also comply with the conditions described in the Los Angeles
Department of Building and Safetys Geology and Soils Report Approval Letter (see Appendix E-2 and
Mitigation Measure 6-6 of this IS/MND). Therefore, impacts associated with expansive soils will be less
than significant with mitigation.

52
53

Mitigation Measures
6-5 Foundation Reinforcement (Geological Investigation and Engineering )
Due to the high expansion potential for the onsite geologic materials, all foundations shall be
reinforced with a minimum of four #4 steel bars. Two shall be placed near the top of the
foundation, and two shall be placed near the bottom.
6-6 Expansive Soils Area
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical
report, prepared by a registered civil engineer or certified engineering geologist, to the
Department of Building and Safety, for review and approval. The geotechnical report shall
assess potential consequences of any soil expansion and soil strength loss, estimation of
settlement, lateral movement or reduction in foundation soilbearing capacity, and discuss
mitigation measures that may include building design consideration. Building design
considerations shall include, but are not limited to: ground stabilization, selection of
appropriate foundation type and depths, selection of appropriate structural systems to
accommodate anticipated displacements or any combination of these measures.
The project shall comply with the conditions contained within the Department of Building
and Safetys Geology and Soils Report Approval Letter for the proposed project, and as it
may be subsequently amended or modified.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
No Impact. This question would apply to the Project only if it were located in an area not served by an
existing sewer system. The Project Site is located in an urbanized area within the City of Los Angeles,
which is served by a wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment system operated by the City. No
septic tanks or alternative disposal systems are necessary, nor are they proposed. Therefore, no impacts
related to alternative wastewater disposal systems will occur.

7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
A Air Quality, Noise, and Greenhouse Gases Appendices, Douglas Kim + Associates, April 2014.
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. Various gases in the Earths atmosphere, classified as atmospheric
greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the Earths surface temperature. Solar
radiation entering Earths atmosphere is absorbed by the Earths surface. When the Earth emits this
radiation back toward space, the radiation changes from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-
frequency infrared radiation. GHGs are transparent to solar radiation and absorb infrared radiation. As a
result, radiation that otherwise would escape back into space is retained, warming the atmosphere. This
phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. GHGs that contribute to the greenhouse effect include:
Carbon Dioxide (CO
2
) is released to the atmosphere when solid waste, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas,
and coal), and wood and wood products are burned. CO
2
emissions from motor vehicles occur during
operation of vehicles and operation of air conditioning systems.CO
2
comprises over 80 percent of
GHG emissions in California.
54

Methane (CH
4
) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane
emissions also result from the decomposition of organic waste in solid waste landfills, raising
livestock, natural gas and petroleum systems, stationary and mobile combustion, and wastewater
treatment. Mobile sources represent 0.5 percent of overall methane emissions.
55

Nitrous Oxide (N
2
O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during
combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels. Mobile sources represent about 14 percent of N
2
O
emissions.
56
N
2
O emissions from motor vehicles generally occur directly from operation of vehicles.
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are one of several high global warning potential (GWP) gases that are
not naturally occurring and are generated from industrial processes. HFC (refrigerant) emissions
from vehicle air conditioning systems occur due to leakage, losses during recharging, or release from
scrapping vehicles at end of their useful life.

54
California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the
Legislature, March 2006, p. 11.
55
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-
2003, April 2005 (EPA 430-R-05-003).
56
United States Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Adipic Acid and Nitric Acid N2O Emissions 1990-2020:
Inventories, Projections and Opportunities for Reductions, December 2001.

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are another high GWP gas that are not naturally occurring and are generated
in a variety of industrial processes. Emissions of PFCs are generally negligible from motor vehicles.
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF
6
) is another high GWP gas that is not naturally occurring and are generated
in a variety of industrial processes. Emissions of SF
6
are generally negligible from motor vehicles.
For most non-industrial development projects, motor vehicles make up the bulk of GHG emissions,
particularly carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and HFCs.
57
The other GHGs are less abundant but
have higher GWP than CO
2
. To account for this higher potential, emissions of other GHGs are frequently
expressed in the equivalent mass of CO
2
, denoted as CO
2
e. Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide
equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a
single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO
2
were being emitted. High GWP gases
such as HFCs, PFCs, and SF
6
are the most heat-absorbent.
Regulatory Setting
Federal
The U.S. EPA has historically not regulated GHGs because it determined the Clean Air Act did not
authorize it to regulate emissions that addressed climate change. In 2007, the U.S Supreme Court found
that GHGs could be considered within the Clean Air Acts definition of a pollutant.
58
In December 2009,
U.S. EPA issued an endangerment finding for GHGs under the Clean Air Act, setting the stage for future
regulation. In September 2009, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and U.S. EPA
announced a joint rule that would tie fuel economy to GHG emission reduction requirements. By 2016,
this could equate to an overall light-duty vehicle fleet average fuel economy of 35.5 miles per gallon.
State
California has adopted a series of laws and programs to reduce emissions of GHGs into the atmosphere.
Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 was enacted in September 2003 and requires regulations to achieve the
maximum feasible reduction of greenhouse gases emitted by vehicles used for personal transportation.
On June 1, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-05, which set the following
GHG emission reduction targets: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG
emissions to 1990 levels; and by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The
California Environmental Protection Agency formed a Climate Action Team that recommended strategies
that can be implemented by State agencies to meet GHG targets.

57
California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Emission Control Regulations, 2004
58
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency et al (127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007))

In September 2006, AB 32 was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, focusing on
achieving GHG emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020. It mandates that CARB
establish a quantified emissions cap, institute a schedule to meet the cap, implement regulations to reduce
statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources, and develop tracking, reporting, and enforcement
mechanisms to ensure that reductions are achieved. A companion bill, Senate Bill (SB) 1368, requires the
California Public Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission to establish GHG
emission performance standards for the generation of electricity. These standards will also apply to
power that is generated outside of California and imported into the State.
AB 32 charges CARB with the responsibility to monitor and regulate sources of GHG emissions. On
June 1, 2007, CARB adopted three early action measures: setting a low carbon fuel standard, reducing
refrigerant loss from motor vehicle air conditioning maintenance, and increasing methane capture from
landfills.
59
On October 25, 2007, CARB approved measures improving truck efficiency (i.e., reducing
aerodynamic drag), electrifying port equipment, reducing PFCs from the semiconductor industry,
reducing propellants in consumer products, promoting proper tire inflation in vehicles, and reducing
sulfur hexaflouride emissions from the non-electricity sector. CARB determined that the total statewide
aggregated GHG 1990 emissions level and 2020 emissions limit is 427 million metric tons of CO
2
e. The
2020 target reductions are currently estimated to be 174 million metric tons of CO
2
. CARB developed an
AB 32 Scoping Plan that contains strategies to achieve the 2020 emissions cap. These include direct
regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary
actions, and market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system. The measures will be developed
and put in place by 2012.CARB also developed a mandatory reporting program on January 1, 2008 for
large stationary combustion sources that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of CO
2
per year and make up
94 percent of the point source CO
2
emissions in California. In response to SB 97, the Governors Office
of Planning and Research (OPR) adopted CEQA guidelines that became effective on March 18, 2010.
The amendments provide guidance to public agencies on analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG
emissions in CEQA documents, including:
Lead agencies should quantify all relevant GHG emissions and consider the full range of project
features that may increase or decrease GHG emissions as compared to the existing setting;
Consistency with the CARB Scoping Plan is not a sufficient basis to determine that a projects GHG
emissions would not be cumulatively considerable;
A lead agency may appropriately look to thresholds developed by other public agencies, including the
CARBs recommended CEQA thresholds;

59
California Air Resources Board, Proposed Early Action Measures to Mitigate Climate Change in California, April
20, 2007.

To qualify as mitigation, specific measures from an existing plan must be identified and incorporated
into the project. General compliance with a plan, by itself, is not mitigation;
The effects of GHG emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQAs
requirements for cumulative impact analysis; and
Given that impacts resulting from GHG emissions are cumulative, significant advantages may result
from analyzing such impacts on a programmatic level. If analyzed properly, later projects may tier,
incorporate by reference, or otherwise rely on the programmatic analysis.
On September 30, 2008, SB 375 was instituted to help achieve AB 32 goals through regulation of cars
and light trucks. SB 375 aligns three policy areas of importance to local government: (1) regional long-
range transportation plans and investments; (2) regional allocation of the obligation for cities and counties
to zone for housing; and (3) a process to achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets for the
transportation sector. It establishes a process for CARB to develop GHG emissions reductions targets for
each region (as opposed to individual local governments or households). SB 375 also requires MPOs to
prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) within the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that
guides growth while taking into account the transportation, housing, environmental, and economic needs
of the region. SB 375 uses CEQA streamlining as an incentive to encourage residential projects, which
help achieve AB 32 goals to reduce GHG emissions. While SB 375 does not prevent CARB from
adopting additional regulations, such actions are not anticipated in the foreseeable future.
60
On October
24, 2008, CARB published draft guidance for setting interim GHG significance thresholds. This was the
first step toward developing the recommended Statewide interim thresholds of significance for GHG
emissions that may be adopted by local agencies for their own use. The guidance does not attempt to
address every type of project that may be subject to CEQA, but instead focuses on common project types
that are responsible for substantial GHG emissions (i.e., industrial, residential, and commercial projects).
CARB believes that thresholds in these sectors will advance climate objectives, streamline project review,
and encourage in CEQA analyses of GHG emissions throughout the State.
Regional
The SCAQMD convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group to provide guidance to
local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. Members
of the working group include government agencies implementing CEQA and representatives from
stakeholder groups that will provide input to the SCAQMD staff on developing GHG CEQA significance
thresholds. On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted interim GHG significance
threshold for projects where the SCAQMD is lead agency. The SCAQMD has not adopted guidance for
CEQA projects under other lead agencies.

60
American Planning Association, California Chapter, Analysis of SB 375, http://www.calapa.org/-en/cms/?2841,
accessed March 30, 2009.

Local
The City of Los Angeles has adopted its LA Green Plan that outlines goals and actions to reduce the
generation of GHGs to 35 percent below 1990 levels. Key strategies include increasing the generation of
renewable energy, improving energy conservation and efficiency, and changing land use patterns to
reduce dependence on autos. The City adopted a Green Building Ordinance in April 2008 that calls for
reduction of the use of natural resources for new development.
Project Impacts
Construction
Construction of the Project would emit GHG emissions through the combustion of fossil fuels by heavy-
duty construction equipment and through vehicle trips generated by construction workers traveling to and
from the project site. These impacts would vary day to day over the approximately 19.5-months duration
of construction activities. As illustrated in Table 4.7-1, Estimated Construction Emissions Mitigated,
construction emissions of CO
2
e would peak during building construction, where up to 5,248 pounds of
CO
2 (
and

5,264 pounds of CO
2
e) per day are anticipated.
Table 4.7-1
Estimated Daily Construction Emissions - Mitigated
Construction Phase CO
2
CH
4
N
2
O CO
2
e
Demolition 2,914 <1 0 2,927
Grading 2,291 <1 0 2,305
Building Construction 5,248 <1 0 5,264
Architectural Coatings 674 <1 0 675
Pounds per day
Source: DKA Planning, 2013.

Greenhouse gas emissions were calculated for long-term area source and motor vehicle operations. As
shown in Table 4.7-2, Estimated Annual CO
2
e Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would emit 3,311
metric tons of CO
2
e per year during typical operations. This represents a 30 percent reduction in CO
2

emissions from a Business-As-Usual scenario and is consistent with the States AB 32 Scoping Plan
objectives for reducing community-based emissions.
Table 4.7-2
Estimated Annual CO
2
e Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Scenario and Source
Business as
Usual
As Proposed
Scenario
Reduction From
Business As Usual
Scenario
Change from
Business As Usual
Scenario

Table 4.7-2
Estimated Annual CO
2
e Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Scenario and Source
Business as
Usual
As Proposed
Scenario
Reduction From
Business As Usual
Scenario
Change from
Business As Usual
Scenario
Area Sources 4 4 - 0%
Energy Sources 20 577 -243 -42%
Mobile Sources 3,212 2,475 -738 -30%
Waste Sources 50 50 - 0%
Water Sources 185 185 - 0%
Construction 20 20 - 0%
Total Emissions 4,291 3,311 -980 -30%
Metric tons per year

Daily construction emissions amortized over 30-year period pursuant to SCAQMD guidance. Annual construction
emissions derived by taking total emissions over duration of activities and dividing by construction period.

* BAU scenario does not assume 30% reduction in mobile source emissions from Pavley emission standards (19.8%), low
carbon fuel standards (7.2%), vehicle efficiency measures 2.8%); does not assume 42% reduction in energy production
emissions from the States renewables portfolio standard (33%), natural gas extraction efficiency measures (1.6%), and
natural gas transmission and distribution efficiency measures (7.4%).


The Project will comply with the City of Los Angeles Green Building Ordinance standards that compel
LEED certification, reduce emissions beyond a Business-as-Usual scenario, and are consistent with the
AB 32 Scoping Plans recommendation for communities to adopt building codes that go beyond the
States codes. Because it would not exceed six stories, the proposed project is considered a low-rise
residential building that must incorporate several measures and design elements that reduce the carbon
footprint of the development:
1. GHG Emissions Associated with Energy Demand. The project must meet Title 24 2008 standards
and include ENERGY STAR appliances.
2. GHG Emissions Associated with Solid Waste Generation. The project is subject to construction
waste reduction of at least 50 percent. In addition, project site operations are subject to AB 939
requirements to divert 50 percent of solid waste to landfills through source reduction, recycling, and
composting. Finally, the project is required by the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling
Access Act of 1991 to provide adequate storage areas for collection and storage of recyclable waste
materials.

3. GHG Emissions Associated with Water Use. The project would be required to provide a schedule
of plumbing fixtures and fixture fittings that reduce potable water use within the development by at
least 20 percent. It must also provide irrigation design and controllers that are weather- or soil
moisture-based and automatically adjust in response to weather conditions and plants needs.
4. GHG Emissions Associated with Motor Vehicles. Statewide regulations will help reduce motor
vehicle emissions associated with project through the implementation of low carbon fuel standards,
tailpipe emission controls, and other requirements. In addition, SB 375 will call for balanced growth
policies that encourage infill development that reduces the carbon footprint of the State. The project
is an infill development that will reduce GHG emissions by locating residential and restaurant
development near commercial districts and providing access to public transportation bus lines along
Sunset Boulevard and other major arterials.
In addition to the GHG emission reductions described above, it is important to note that the CO
2
estimates
from mobile sources (particularly CO
2
, CH
4
, and N
2
O emissions) are likely much greater than the
emissions that would actually occur. The methodology used assumes that all emissions sources are new
sources and that emissions from these sources are 100 percent additive to existing conditions. This is a
standard approach taken for air quality analyses. In many cases, such an assumption is appropriate
because it is impossible to determine whether emissions sources associated with a project move from
outside the air basin and are in effect new emissions sources, or whether they are sources that were
already in the air basin and just shifted to a new location. Because the effects of GHGs are global, a
project that shifts the location of a GHG-emitting activity (e.g., where people live, where vehicles drive,
or where companies conduct business) would result in no net change in global GHG emissions levels.
For example, if a substantial portion of Californias population migrated from the South Coast Air Basin
to the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, this would likely decrease GHG emissions in the South Coast Air
Basin and increase emissions in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, but little change in overall global GHG
emissions. However, if a person moves from one location where the land use pattern requires auto use
(commuting, shopping, etc.) to a new development that promotes shorter and fewer vehicle trips, more
walking, and overall less energy usage, then it could be argued that the new development would result in
a potential net reduction in global GHG emissions. It is impossible to know at this time whether residents
of the Project would have longer or shorter trips relative to their destinations; whether they would walk,
bike, and use public transportation more or less than under existing circumstances; and whether their
overall driving habits would result in higher or lower VMT. Much of the vehicle-generated CO
2
emissions attributed to the project could simply be from vehicles at an existing location moving to the
project site, and not from new vehicle emissions sources relative to global climate change. Therefore,
although it is not possible to calculate the net contribution of vehicle-generated CO
2
, CH
4
, and N
2
O
emissions from the proposed project (i.e., project generated emissions minus current emissions from
vehicles that would move to the project site), the net contribution would likely be much less than the
estimated emissions.

b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulations adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Project will contribute to cumulative increases in
GHG emissions over time in the absence of policy intervention. However, the AB 32 Scoping Plan
provides the basis for policies that will reduce cumulative GHG emissions within California to 1990
levels by 2020. As a result, the Project is judged against its consistency with the AB 32 Scoping Plan to
determine whether it will result in adverse cumulative impacts to global climate change. As shown in
Table 4.7-3, Project Consistency with AB 32 Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction
Strategies the Project would be consistent with all feasible and applicable strategies recommended in the
Scoping Plan. As a result, the projects cumulative impact on climate change is considered less than
significant.
Table 4.7-3
Project Consistency with AB 32 Scoping Plan
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies
Strategy Project Consistency
California Cap-and-Trade Program. Implement a broad-
based California cap-and-trade program to provide a firm limit
on emissions.
Not Applicable. The statewide program is not relevant
to the Project.
California Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards.
Implement adopted Pavley standards and planned second
phase of the system. Align zero-emission vehicle, alternative
and renewable fuel and vehicle technology programs with
long-term climate change goals.
Not Applicable. The development of standards is not
relevant to the Project.
Energy Efficiency. Maximize energy efficiency building and
appliance standards, and pursue additional efficiency efforts
including new technologies, and new policy and
implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable investment
in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in
California (including both investor-owned and publicly owned
utilities).
Consistent. The Project will be required to be
constructed in compliance with the standards of Title
24 that are in effect at the time of development. In
addition, with compliance with the Citys Green
Building Ordinance, the Project will exceed Title 24
standards.
Renewables Portfolio Standard. Achieve 33 percent
renewable energy mix statewide.
Consistent. The Project will utilize energy from the
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, which
has goals to diversify its portfolio of energy sources to
increase the use of renewable energy.
Low-Carbon Fuel Standard. Develop and adopt the Low
Carbon Fuel Standard.
Not Applicable. The statewide program is not relevant
to the Project.
Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gases.
Develop regional greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets
for passenger vehicles.
Not Applicable. The development of regional
planning goals is not relevant to the Project.
Vehicle Efficiency Measures. Implement light-duty vehicle
efficiency measures.
Not Applicable. State agencies are responsible for
implementing efficiency measures.

Table 4.7-3
Project Consistency with AB 32 Scoping Plan
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies
Strategy Project Consistency
Goods Movement. Implement adopted regulations for the use
of shore power for ships at berth. Improve efficiency in goods
movement activities.
implementing regulations and promoting efficiency in
goods movement.
Million Solar Roofs Program. Install 3,000 MW of solar-
electric capacity under Californias existing solar programs.
Neutral. The Project does not include solar roofs and
is not part of the proposed Statewide initiative.

Medium/Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Adopt medium and heavy-
duty vehicle efficiency measures.
implementing efficiency measures.
Industrial Emissions. Require assessment of large industrial
sources to determine whether individual sources within a
facility can cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fugitive emissions
from oil and gas extraction and gas transmission.
Not Applicable. This measure addresses industrial
facilities.
High Speed Rail. Support implementation of a high speed rail
system.
No Applicable. This calls for the California High
Speed Rail Authority and stakeholders to develop a
statewide rail transportation system.
Green Building Strategy. Expand the use of green building
practices to reduce the carbon footprint of Californias new
and existing inventory of buildings.
Consistent. The Project will be compliant with the
Citys Green Building Ordinance, and would
incorporate water saving features and energy efficient
features into its design.
High Global Warming Potential Gases. Adopt measures to
reduce high global warming potential gases.
implementing these measures.
Recycling and Waste. Reduce methane emissions at landfills.
Increase waste diversion, composting, and commercial
recycling. Move toward zero-waste.
Consistent. Under City of Los Angeles requirements,
the proposed project would recycle at least 50% of
construction debris, re-use existing materials in new
construction, use recycled content materials, and use
recycled mulch.
Sustainable Forests. Preserve forest sequestration and
encourage the use of forest biomass for sustainable energy
generation.
Not Applicable. Resource Agency departments are
responsible for implementing this measure.
Water. Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy
sources to move and treat water.
Consistent. The Project will be compliant with the
Citys Green Building Ordinance, would incorporate
water saving features and energy efficient features into
its design.
Agriculture. In the near-term, encourage investment in
manure digester and at the five-year Scoping Plan update
determine if the program should be made mandatory by 2020.
Not Applicable. The Project does not include
agricultural facilities.

The Project will comply with the Los Angeles Green Building Code (LAGBC), which is based on the
2010 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen).
61
To address the States Green Building
Strategy, Mitigation Measure 7-1 is recommended to minimize GHG emissions associated with VOC
sources.
Mitigation Measure
7-1 Greenhouse Gases
Only low-VOC-containing paints, sealants, adhesives, and solvents shall be utilized in the
construction of the project.

Impacts associated with GHG emissions will be less than significant and proposed mitigation will help
minimize impacts.

61
Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety: http://ladbs.org/LADBSWeb/green-bldg.jsf

8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section is based on the following report, included as Appendix F of this IS/MND:
F-1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, AEI Consultants, February 26, 2013.
F-2 Phase II Subsurface Investigation, AEI Consultants, March 22, 2013.
F-3 Addendum Letter, AEI Consultants, April 18, 2014.
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would involve the use or
disposal of hazardous materials as part of its routine operations, or would have the potential to generate
toxic or otherwise hazardous emissions that could adversely affect sensitive receptors. The Project would
construct residential units and retail/restaurant space on an existing urban commercial site. Other than the
typical cleaning solvents used for janitorial purposes, no hazardous materials would be used, transported,
or disposed of in conjunction with the routine day-to-day operations of the Project. Therefore, the Project
will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project create significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if a project
utilizes hazardous materials as part of its routine operations and could potentially pose a hazard to nearby
sensitive receptors under accident or upset conditions.
Regulatory Agency Records Review
62

Health Department
On February 5, 2013, AEI contacted the Los Angeles County Public Health Investigation (LACPHI) for
information on the Site and nearby sites of concern. Files at this agency may contain information
regarding hazardous materials storage, as well as information regarding unauthorized releases of
petroleum hydrocarbons or other contaminants that may affect the soil or groundwater in the area. No

62
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, AEI Consultants, February 26. 2013, pages 16-21.

information indicating current or prior use or storage of hazardous materials, or the existence of AULs
63

was on file for the Site with the LACPHI.
Fire Department
On February 5, 2013, AEI contacted the Los Angeles Fire Department Hazardous Materials (LAFD
HAZMAT) for information on the Site to identify any evidence of previous or current hazardous material
usage. AEI received a response stating that files exist for 1185 and 1229 West Sunset Boulevard. Upon
AEIs review of files regarding this Site, no additional pertinent information was identified. Thus there
are no changes to the overall findings of the Phase I ESA report.
64

Building Department
On February 25, 2013, AEI visited the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) for
information on the Site in order to identify historical tenants and property use. Based on a review of
building records, the Site has been used for residential, commercial and industrial activities from at least
1905. The Site associated with the addresses 1181 and 1185 West Sunset Boulevard was a tenement
house in 1914 and was redeveloped as a gas station in 1925. Various service station structures were
altered or constructed from 1925 to 1967. In 1933, 1201 West Sunset Boulevard was issued a building
permit for an oil depot. No further pertinent information was available from other resources during this
investigation. In 1965, 1211-1215 West Sunset Boulevard was issued a building permit for a parking lot
and print shop. In 1946, a building permit was issued to 1229 West Sunset Boulevard for an alteration of
a present gas station building into a store. The next earliest historical information available was a 1906
Sanborn that depicted this portion of the property as undeveloped. There is a possibility that a gas station
was present from sometime after 1906 until 1946. However, no other pertinent information was available
regarding the potential historical gas station. Based on the limited information, the possibility of a
historical gas station at 1229 West Sunset Boulevard represents a recognized environmental concern
(REC). This REC is addressed in the Phase II discussion below.
Planning Department
On February 5, 2013, AEI contacted the Los Angeles Department of City Planning (LADCP) for
information on the Site in order to identify AULs associated with the Site. According to the LADCP, the
Site is located near significant oil production areas known as Methane Zones. Methane Zone sites
include sites immediately surrounding gas sources and where testing and mitigation are required by the
City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety. Due to the potential environmental risk
associated with construction in Methane Zones, the property owner is required to conduct a methane

63
Activity and Use Limitations (AULs), defined as legal or physical restrictions, or limitations on the use of, or
access to, a site or facility.
64
Addendum Letter, AEI Consultants, April 18, 2014.

assessment prior to the redevelopment of the Site (Division 71 of the Los Angeles Building Code). AEI
recommends that a methane assessment be conducted for the Site prior to any future redevelopment
activities (see Mitigation Measure 8-1). Environmental impacts may result from project implementation
due to its location in an area of potential methane gas zone. However, this potential impact will be
mitigated to a less than significant level by Mitigation Measure 8-2.
County Assessor Office
On February 5, 2013, AEI visited the Los Angeles County assessors office for information on the Site in
order to determine the earliest recorded date of development and use. According to the Los Angeles
County assessors office, the earliest recorded date of development on the Site (APN: 5406-016-007) was
1922, and the Site was utilized for commercial/industrial purposes.
Department Of Oil And Gas
California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) maps
concerning the Site and nearby properties were reviewed. DOGGR maps contain information regarding
oil and gas development. According to the DOGGR map, there are no oil or gas wells within 500 feet of
the Site. No environmental concerns were noted during the DOGGR map review.
Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation
On February 5, 2013, AEI contacted the Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation (LABS) Industrial Waste
Management Division (IWMD) for records of a clarifier system, historical or present permits and
certifications for the discharge or disposal of wastewater, and any NOVs or NTCs issued. In 1961,
Richfield Oil Corporation at 1185 Sunset Boulevard was issued a permit for use of a clarifier for
occasional auto wash activities. In 1994, Best Way Hand Car Wash at 1185 Sunset Boulevard was issued
a permit to use a three-stage clarifier for auto wash activities. The clarifier permit was reissued in 2009 to
Infinity Car Wash and again in 2011 to Friends Car Wash.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
On February 5, 2013, AEI visited the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) GeoTracker
Website for information on the Site to identify any evidence of unauthorized releases of hazardous
materials to the groundwater. Cases typically handled by the RWQCB include releases from USTs. No
information indicating the existence of any unauthorized releases of hazardous materials to the
groundwater was on file for the Site with the RWQCB.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
On February 5, 2013, AEI visited the website maintained by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) for information regarding any records of Permits to Operate (PTO), Notices of
Violation (NOV), or Notices to Comply (NTC) issued to occupants of the Site and associated with air

emission equipment primarily related to stationary sources of air pollution, such as dry cleaning
machines, boiler, and/or underground storage tanks. No information indicating the existence of any PTOs,
NOVs, or NTCs was on file for the Site with the SCAQMD.
Department of Toxic Substances Control
On February 5, 2013, AEI visited the Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS) online database
maintained by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for information regarding
documented hazardous wastes generated at the Site. No information indicating the generation of
hazardous wastes was on file for the Site with the DTSC. However, the Site was listed in the DTSC
HWTS under the tenant O & J Auto Repair in 2002 and 2006.
Regulatory Database Records Review
65

The Site was identified in the databases reviewed as an Environmental Data Resources (EDR) US
Historical Auto Station site.
In determining if a site is a potential environmental concern to the Site in Table 4.8-1, Records Summary,
AEI has applied the following criteria to classify the site(s) as low concern: 1) the site(s) only hold an
operating permit (which does not imply a release), 2) the site(s) have been granted No Further Action
by the appropriate regulatory agency, and/or 3) based upon AEIs review, the distance and/or topographic
position relative to the Site reduce the level of risk associated with the site(s). Additional database
information on the 3 EDR US Auto Stations (1 on the Site, and 2 adjacent to the Site) is shown in Table
4.8-2. The databases acronyms in Table 4.8-1 are identified below:
The National Priorities List (NPL) is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) database of
uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for priority remedial actions under the
Superfund Program.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) list is a compilation of sites that the EPA has investigated or is currently investigating
for a release or threatened release of hazardous substances.
The CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) List is a compilation of sites that
the EPA has investigated, and has determined that the facility does not pose a threat to human health
or the environment, under the CERCLA framework.

65

The EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program RCRA program identifies
and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA
Generators database is a compilation by the EPA of reporting facilities that generate hazardous waste.
The RCRA CORRACTS database is the EPAs list of TSD facilities subject to corrective action
under RCRA.
The RCRA Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD) database is a compilation by the EPA of
reporting facilities that treat, store or dispose of hazardous waste.
The Federal Institutional Controls / Engineering Controls registries (US ENG Controls and US
INST Controls)
The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) is a national database used to collect
information or reported release of oil or hazardous substances.
The State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists (SWF/LF)
The State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists (SWF/LF)
A database of Solid Waste/Landfill Facilities (SWLF) is prepared by the California Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery.
The California RWQCB Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) List compiles lists of all
leaks of hazardous substances from underground storage tanks.
The California STSC compiles a list of Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) sites.
The California DTCS State/Tribal Brownfield has developed an electronic database system with
information about sites that are known to be contaminated with hazardous substances as well as
information on uncharacterized properties where further studies may reveal problems.

Sunset & Everett Mixed-Use Development Project & Everett Small Lot Subdivision 4. Environmental Impact Analysis
Table 4.8-1
Records Summary
Database
Search Distance
(miles)
Site Listed
Total of Number
of Listing
Potential Environmental Concern
NPL 1 No 0
Delisted NPL 0.5 No 0
CERCLIS 0.5 No 0
CERCLIS NFRAP 0.5 No 0
RCRA CORRACTS 1 No 0
RCRA-TSD 0.5 No 0
RCRA LG-GEN, SM-GEN, CESQGs,
VGN, NLR
TP/ADJ No 0
US ENG Controls TP No 0
US INST Controls TP No 0
ERNS TP No 0
State/Tribal HWS 1 No 19 No
State/Tribal SWLF 0.5 No 0
State/Tribal Registered Storage Tanks TP/ADJ No 0
State/Tribal LUST 0.5 No 10 No; however, the adjacent site to the south is further discussed below.
State/Tribal ENG-INST Controls TP No 0
State/Tribal VCP 0.5 No 0
State/Tribal Brownfield 0.5 No 0
Orphan N/A No 19
None of the identified orphan sites are located in the immediate
vicinity (500-feet) of the Site, and therefore, these sites are not
expected to represent a significant environmental concern.
Non-ASTM Databases TP/ADJ Yes 6
No; however, the Site and adjacent listings are further discussed
below.
Source: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, AEI Consultants, February 26. 2013, pages 22-23.


Table 4.8-2
Additional Database Information
Site Name Database(s) Address Distance Direction Comments
Sempe Auto Repair/O&J
Auto Repairs & Sales
EDR US Historical
Auto Station
1185 West Sunset
Boulevard (Site)
N/A N/A
The Site was identified as Sempe Auto Repair from 1999 to 2001 and O&J
Auto Repair and Sales from 2004 to 2012. No additional pertinent
information was provided by the regulatory database report. According to
historical sources, the Site was a gas station from at least 1950 and
conducted auto repair services from at least the mid 1960s. Based on the
length of time the Site has been used for auto repair or servicing purposes,
there is a possibility that a release of hazardous materials into the
subsurface has occurred at the Site.
R&R Auto Accessories
EDR US Historical
Auto Station
1218 West Sunset
Boulevard
100 feet
West

The adjacent site to the west was identified as R&R Auto Accessories
from 2003 to 2008. This site was not identified as a release site in the
regulatory database report or the GeoTracker website and is located
hydrologically downgradient with respect to the Site. Additionally, this
site is not associated with any hazardous materials listing and is potentially
an auto parts retailer. Based on these factors, this listing is not expected to
represent a significant environmental concern.
Seng Auto
CA FID UST, SWEEPS
UST, EDR Historical
Auto Station, HIST
CORTESE, LUST
1165 West Sunset
Boulevard
60 feet Southeast
The adjacent site to the southeast was identified as Seng Auto Repair from
1999 to 2012. According to historical sources, this adjacent site has been
used for auto repair purposes since at least 1950. This site was also
identified as a LUST site. The soil at this site was reportedly impacted by
other solvent or non-petroleum hydrocarbons. This case was opened in
1990 and received closure in 1998. Soil was listed as the only media
impacted and no groundwater impacts were listed. AEI requested
information from the Los Angeles RWQCB. However, as of this report
date, no response has been received. This site is located hydrologically
cross-gradient with respect to the Site. Based on the current regulatory
status, media impacted, and inferred direction of groundwater flow, this
adjacent site is not expected to represent a significant environmental
concern to the Site at this time.
Source: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, AEI Consultants, February 26. 2013, pages 23-24.

Site Inspection and Reconnaissance
66

On February 19, 2013, a site reconnaissance of the Site and adjacent properties was conducted by AEI in
order to obtain information indicating the likelihood of RECs at the Site and adjacent properties as
specified in ASTM Standard Practice E1527-05 8.4.2, 8.4.3 and 8.4.4. AEI did not have access to the
residential buildings associated with 1245 West Sunset Boulevard, the single-family residence associated
with 1205 West Sunset Boulevard, and the commercial building associated with 1201 West Sunset
Boulevard. Based on the use of the buildings for typical residential activities and film equipment storage,
this limitation is not expected to significantly alter the findings of the Phase I.
Hazardous Substances And/Or Petroleum Products In Connection With Property Use
AEI observed four 55-gallon drums of waste oil and two 55-gallon drums of used oil filters in the
hazardous materials storage area located on the eastern portion of 1185 West Sunset Boulevard. The
drums were equipped with secondary containment. However, staining was observed on the ground in the
vicinity of the drums. The staining appears to be surficial and therefore represents a de minimis condition.
AEI also observed several containers of paint within the retail portions of the Site buildings. No spills or
staining were observed in the vicinity of the containers. Based on the good housekeeping, the presence of
the containers of paint is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern.
Aboveground & Underground Hazardous Substance Or Petroleum Product Storage Tanks (ASTs /
USTs)
AEI observed patched areas of asphalt on the southern portion of 1185 West Sunset Boulevard. The
patched areas appear to be the locations of USTs from the historical gas station. According to the Site
owner, the Site is currently equipped with four USTs. No information regarding the sizes or dates of
installation of the USTs was available. AEI reviewed a portion of the 2005 Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment and Limited Subsurface Investigation for the Property Located at Sunset Boulevard and
Everett Street, prepared by Petra Geotechnical, Inc. (Petra). According to this previous report, a
subsurface geophysical survey conducted at the Site delineated the location of four USTs and a waste oil
UST in the rear of the car wash. Petra conducted soil sampling in the vicinity of the USTs. The results of
the soil sample analysis were that trace amounts of TPH were encountered in one sample collected at 22
feet bgs from the vicinity of the waste oil UST. Petra was unable to find evidence that the site had been
impacted from petroleum hydrocarbons and/or VOCs related to the former site use. However, borings
could only be collected from the vicinity of the USTs and not directly below them. The presence of the
USTs at the Site represents a REC. This REC is addressed in the Phase II discussion below.
Electrical Or Mechanical Equipment Likely To Contain Fluids

66

Toxic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were commonly used historically in electrical equipment such as
transformers, fluorescent lamp ballasts, and capacitors. According to United States EPA regulation 40
CFR, Part 761, there are three categories for classifying such equipment: <50 ppm of PCBs is considered
Non-PCB; between 50 and 500 ppm is considered PCB Contaminated; and >500 ppm is considered
PCB-Containing. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(2)(A), the manufacture, process, or distribution in
commerce or use of any polychlorinated biphenyl in any manner other than in a totally enclosed manner
was prohibited after January 1, 1977. Per the request of the Building and Safety Department of Los
Angeles a PCBs survey was to be performed at the Site. As part of the Phase I investigation, no PCB
containing materials other than the identified hydraulic hoist were noted on the Project Site. No
transformers, elevators or other items suspect of containing PCBs was observed during the
reconnaissance.
67
There is the potential for PCBs in the hydraulic lifts. However, this potential impact
will be mitigated to a less than significant level with Mitigation Measure 8-1.
Hydraulic Lifts
The Site is equipped with one above-ground hydraulic lift within the garage at 1185 West Sunset
Boulevard. The lift is equipped with a container of hydraulic fluid totaling approximately ten gallons
situated approximately four feet above the ground surface. No evidence of stains or leakage from the units
was observed, and the lifts are therefore not expected to represent a significant environmental concern.
AEI also observed an area within the garage that is indicative of a former underground hydraulic lift. It is
unknown when the lifts were installed; however, the Site has operated as a gas station from at least 1927
and as an automotive repair from at least the mid 1960s. Therefore, it is possible that the former
underground lift was installed as early as the 1960s. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were used in the
past in dielectric fluids and oils in a variety of equipment, including hydraulic lift equipment. Soil testing
was reportedly conducted by Petra in 2007. Since redevelopment of the Site is planned, additional testing
may be warranted at that time.
Drains, Sumps And Clarifiers
AEI observed two clarifiers at 1185 West Sunset Boulevard. One clarifier was located in the garage and
the other clarifier was located in the car washing area. According to records from the LABS IWMD, a
clarifier permit was issued to the Site in 1961 for occasional auto wash activities. A permit was issued in
1994 for a three-stage clarifier for auto wash activities. This permit was reissued in 2009 and in 2011. It is
unknown if the permits issued in 1961 and 1994 refer to the same clarifier. However, it appears that the
clarifier located outside is used for car washing. Based on the presumed use of this clarifier for car
washing activities, the clarifier located in the car washing area represents a BER. The clarifier located in
the garage appears to have been associated with auto repair operations Clarifiers are used to treat waste
water streams. There is a potential that oils or solvents present in the waste stream could impact the

67
Addendum Letter, AEI Consultants, April 18, 2014/

subsurface of the Site if the clarifier or drain system was compromised. The collection and analysis of soil
samples would be necessary to determine if the use of the clarifier has impacted the Site. Based on the
presumed use of this clarifier for auto repair operations and the on-site historical use of hazardous
materials, the clarifier located in the garage represents a REC. This REC is addressed in the Phase II
discussion below.
Methane
The Project Site is located in a Methane Zone
68
and area of known shallow methane accumulation.
69

These areas have a risk of methane intrusion emanating from geologic formations. The areas have
developmental regulations that are required by the City of Los Angeles pertaining to ventilation and
methane gas detection systems. Environmental impacts may result from project implementation due to its
location in an area of potential methane gas zone. However, this potential impact will be mitigated to a
less than significant level with Mitigation Measures 8-2 and 8-3.
Asbestos
70

The information below is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute an asbestos
survey. In addition, the information is not intended to comply with federal, state or local regulations in
regards to asbestos-containing materials (ACM). Due to the age of the Site buildings, there is a potential
that ACMs are present. The condition and friability of the identified suspect ACMs is noted in Table 4.8-
3, Suspect Asbestos Containing Materials. All observed suspect ACMs were in good condition with the
exception of damaged vinyl floor tiles were observed in 1229 West Sunset Boulevard. The identified
suspect ACMs would need to be sampled to confirm the presence or absence of asbestos prior to any
renovation or demolition activities to prevent potential exposure to workers and/or building occupants.
Based on the potential presence of ACMs, AEI recommends the property owner implement an Operations
and Maintenance (O & M) Plan which stipulates that assessment, repair and maintenance of damaged
materials be performed to protect the health and safety of the building occupants (see Mitigation
Measure 8-4). Additionally, demolition activities are planned for the near future. Regardless of building
construction date, the EPAs National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
requires that an asbestos survey adhering to Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA)
sampling protocol be performed prior to demolition or renovation activities that may disturb ACMs. This
requirement may be enforced by the local air pollution control or air quality management district, and

68
69
Los Angeles Safety Element, Exhibit D, Selected Wildfire Hazard Areas in the City of Los Angeles:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/cwd/gnlpln/saftyelt.pdf.
70
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, AEI Consultants, February 26. 2013, page 31.

specifies that all suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) be sampled to determine the presence or
absence of asbestos prior to any renovation or demolition activities to prevent potential exposure to
workers and/or building occupants(see Mitigation Measure 8-4).
Due to the age of the building(s) being demolished, toxic and/or hazardous construction materials like
asbestos may be located in the structure(s). Exposure to such materials during demolition or construction
activities could be hazardous to the health of the demolition workers, as well as area residents, employees,
and future occupants. However, these impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level by
Mitigation Measure 8-5.

Lead
71

The information below is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute a lead hazard
evaluation. In addition, the information is not intended to comply with federal, state or local regulations in
regards to lead-containing paints. In buildings constructed after 1978, it is unlikely that lead-based paint
(LBP) is present. Structures built prior to 1978 and especially prior to the 1960s should be expected to
contain LBP.
Due to the age of the Site buildings, there is a potential that LBP is present. All painted surfaces were
observed in good condition and are not expected to pose a health and safety concern to the occupants of
the Site at this time. However, based on the potential presence of LBP and nature of occupancy, AEI
recommends the property owner implement an Operations and Maintenance (O & M) Plan to protect the
health and safety of the building occupants (see Mitigation Measure 8-6). Local regulations may apply
to lead-based paint in association with building demolition/renovations and worker/occupant protection.
Actual material samples would need to be collected or an XRF survey performed in order to determine if
LBP is present.
It should be noted that construction activities that disturb materials or paints containing any amount of
lead may be subject to certain requirements of the OSHA lead standard contained in 29 CFR 1910.1025

71
Table 4.8-3
Suspect Asbestos Containing Materials
Material Location Friable Condition
Drywall Systems Throughout Building Interior Yes Good
Vinyl Floor Tiles 1229 W. Sunset Blvd. No Damaged
Roofing Systems Roof Not Inspected Not Inspected
Source: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, AEI Consultants, February 26. 2013, page 31.

and 1926.62. Additionally, AEI understands that demolition activities of the Site buildings are planned.
AEI recommends that the property owner consult with a certified Lead Risk Assessor to determine
options for control of possible LBP hazards. Stringent local and State regulations may apply to LBP in
association with building demolition/renovations and worker/occupant protection. It should be noted that
construction activities that disturb materials or paints containing any amount of lead may be subject to
certain requirements of the OSHA lead standard contained in 29 CFR 1910.1025 and 1926.62 (see
Mitigation Measure 8-6).
Similarly, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations require that specific work
practices be implemented when handling construction materials and debris that contain lead-containing
materials (see Mitigation Measure 8-6). Due to the age of the building(s) being demolished, toxic and/or
hazardous construction materials like lead-based paint may be located in the structure(s). Exposure to
such materials during demolition or construction activities could be hazardous to the health of the
demolition workers, as well as area residents, employees, and future occupants. However, these impacts
can be mitigated to a less than significant level by Mitigation Measure 8-7.
Radon
72

Radon is a naturally-occurring, odorless, invisible gas. Natural radon levels vary and are closely related to
geologic formations. Radon may enter buildings through basement sumps or other openings.
The US EPA has prepared a map to assist National, State, and local organizations to target their resources
and to implement radon-resistant building codes. The map divides the country into three Radon Zones,
Zone 1 being those areas with the average predicted indoor radon concentration in residential dwellings
exceeding the EPA Action limit of 4.0 picoCuries per Liter (pCi/L). It is important to note that the EPA
has found homes with elevated levels of radon in all three zones, and the EPA recommends site specific
testing in order to determine radon levels at a specific location. However, the map does give a valuable
indication of the propensity of radon gas accumulation in structures. Radon sampling was not requested as
part of this assessment. According to the US EPA, the radon zone level for the area is Zone 2, which has a
predicted average indoor screening level between 2.0 pCi/L and 4.0 pCi/L, equal to or below the action
level of 4.0 pCi/L set forth by the EPA.
Drinking Water Sources And Lead In Drinking Water
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) supplies potable water to the Site. The most
recent water quality report states that lead levels in the areas water supply were 5.6 micrograms per liter
(g/L) for the 90th percentile and therefore are well within standards established by the US EPA.

72

Mold/Indoor Air Quality Issues
Molds are simple, microscopic organisms, which can often be seen in the form of discoloration,
frequently green, gray, white, brown or black. When excessive moisture or water accumulates indoors,
mold growth will often occur, particularly if the moisture problem remains undiscovered or is not
addressed. As such, interior areas of buildings characterized by poor ventilation and high humidity are the
most common locations of mold growth. Building materials including drywall, wallpaper, baseboards,
wood framing, insulation, and carpeting often play host to such growth. Mold spores primarily cause
health problems through the inhalation of mold spores or the toxins they emit when they are present in
large numbers. This can occur primarily when there is active mold growth within places where people
live or work. Mold, if present, may or may not visually manifest itself. Neither the individual completing
this inspection, nor AEI has any liability for the identification of mold-related concerns except as defined
in applicable industry standards. In short, this Phase I ESA should not be construed as a mold survey or
inspection. AEI observed interior areas of the Site buildings in order to identify the significant presence of
mold. AEI did not note obvious visual or olfactory indications of the presence of mold, nor did AEI
observe obvious indications of significant water damage. As such, no bulk sampling of suspect surfaces
was conducted as part of this assessment and no additional action with respect to mold appears to be
warranted at this time. This activity was not designed to discover all areas which may be affected by mold
growth on the Site. Rather, it is intended to give the client an indication if significant (based on observed
areas) mold growth is present at the Site. Additional areas of mold not observed as part of this limited
assessment, possibly in pipe chases, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and behind
enclosed walls and ceilings, may be present on the Site.
Adjacent Property Reconnaissance Findings
None of the following items were observed:
Hazardous Substances and/or Petroleum Products in Connection with Property Use
Aboveground & Underground Hazardous Substance or Petroleum Product Storage Tanks (ASTs /
USTs)
Hazardous Substance and Petroleum Product Containers and Unidentified Containers not in
Connection with Property Use
Unidentified Substance Containers
Electrical or Mechanical Equipment Likely to Contain Fluids
Strong, Pungent or Noxious Odors
Pools of Liquid

Drains, Sumps and Clarifiers
Pits, Ponds and Lagoons
Stained Soil or Pavement
Stressed Vegetation
Solid Waste Disposal or Evidence of Fill Materials
Waste Water Discharges
Wells
Septic Systems
Other
Purpose of the Phase II
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I) was performed by AEI on February 26, 2013 (see
Appendix F-1 of this IS/MND). According to the Phase I, in 1927, the southern portion of the Project Site
associated with the addresses 1181 (historical address) and 1185 West Sunset Boulevard, was developed
with a gas station. The current structures were developed for gas station and auto repair purposes in the
early 1960s. Gas station operations were conducted until at least 1970 and were subsequently phased out.
During the Phase I site reconnaissance, AEI observed patched areas of asphalt on the southern portion of
1185 West Sunset Boulevard. The patched areas appear to be the locations of underground storage tanks
(USTs) associated with the historical gas station. According to Mr. Steve Wintner, Site owner, four USTs
are currently located at the Project Site. No information regarding the sizes or dates of installation of the
USTs was available. Environmental impacts may result from the potential soil and/or groundwater
contamination from any USTs used by the gas station to store petroleum. However, the potential impacts
will be mitigated to a less than significant level by Mitigation Measure 8-8.
AEI reviewed a portion of the 2005 Phase I and Limited Phase II for the Project Site located at Sunset
Boulevard and Everett Street, prepared by Petra. According to these previous reports, a subsurface
geophysical survey conducted at the Site delineated the location of four UTs and a waste oil UST in the
rear of the car wash. Petra conducted soil sampling in the vicinities of the USTs. The results of the soil
sample analysis were that trace amounts of total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) were encountered in one
sample collected at 22 feet bgs from the vicinity of the waste oil UST. Petra was unable to find evidence
that the site had been impacted from petroleum hydrocarbons and/or volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
related to the former site use. However, borings could only be collected from the vicinity of the USTs and
not directly below them. Based on the findings of the Phase I, the presence of the USTs and that

subsurface sampling was conducted over 7 years ago at the Site represents a recognized environmental
condition (REC).
AEI observed two clarifiers at 1185 West Sunset Boulevard. One clarifier was located in the garage and
the other clarifier was located in the car washing area. According to records from the Los Angeles Bureau
of Sanitation Industrial Waste Management District (LABS IWMD), permits to operate a clarifier were
issued to the Site in 1961, 1994, 2009, and 2011 for auto wash activities. It is unknown if all of the
permits refer to the same clarifier. However, since the permits were issued for auto wash activities, it is
presumed that these permits refer to the clarifier located in the current car washing area. The clarifier
located in the garage appears to have been associated with auto repair operations. Based on the presumed
use of this clarifier for auto repair operations and the on-site historical use of hazardous materials, the
clarifier located in the garage represents a REC. Areas of the Project Site have historically been used for
various industrial purposes since the 1920s. The southern portion of the Project Site associated with the
addresses 1181 (historical address) and 1185 West Sunset Boulevard, was used for car washing and auto
repair operations from the mid 1960s to the present. These operations are typically associated with the use
of hazardous materials, including solvents and oils.
According to building records, in 1933, the portion of the Project Site associated with 1201 West Sunset
Boulevard was issued a permit for an oil depot. The portion of the Site currently associated with the
addresses 1205 and 1207 West Sunset Boulevard, was historically used for industrial purposes. The
southern portion of the building was occupied by a plastic key tag manufacturer from 1956 to 1958, and
time controls manufacturer from 1962 to 1970. The northern portion of the building was occupied by a
chemical manufacturer of disinfectants from 1950 to 1954 and a valve manufacturer from 1957 to 1970.
Since no information was available regarding the use of the building from 1927 to 1950, there is a
possibility that chemical manufacturing was conducted since as early as 1927. These manufacturing
operations are typically associated with hazardous materials including petroleum hydrocarbons and
solvents.
The portion of the Site currently associated with the address 1211 West Sunset Boulevard was developed
with a commercial/industrial building from at least 1927. This building was occupied by a shade
manufacturer in at least 1942 and a printing facility from at least 1950 to at least 1971. Many printing
industries generate waste ink and ink sludges that might contain solvents. Photographic processes are also
typically associated with major printing operations for image conversion and plate making. Photographic
wastes, including heavy metal solutions, developers, hardeners, plating chemicals, and spent solvents,
make up a large portion of the hazardous waste generated in these industries.
The portion of the Site currently associated with the address 1229 Sunset Boulevard was historically
occupied by a hood & pad manufacturer/sign manufacturer/painting company in 1953 and a sign
manufacturer/sign manufacturer/painting company from 1954 to 1960. In addition, the portion of the Site
currently associated with the addresses 1235, 1237, and 1239 Sunset Boulevard was developed with a
commercial/industrial building. The building was occupied by a woodworking and sign painting company
in 1950, a sign manufacturer and painting company in 1954, a sash and door warehouse from 1957 to

1960, and sign painting company from 1964 to 1970. It is likely that these former industrial tenants
utilized hazardous materials including oils, lubricants, and solvents. Records pertaining to the use of
hazardous materials for the previous industrial tenants were not available as they operated during a time
when the regulatory measures governing the use of hazardous materials of this nature were not as
stringent as they are today. Based on the length of time the industrial operations were conducted, the
historical on-site industrial operations represent a REC.
The purpose of the Phase II at the Project Site is to assess subsurface soils and groundwater with regard to
the historical and current on-site operations.
Drilling and Soil Sample Collection
On February 28 and March 1, 2013, 17 soil borings (AEI-B1 through AEI-B17) were advanced
throughout the Site (see Figure 2 of the Phase II Subsurface Investigation in Appendix F-2). The borings
were advanced to depths of 4.5 to 20 feet bgs. The location and purpose of each boring are listed on page
4 of the Phase II Subsurface Investigation (Appendix F-2).
All borings were advanced using 2-inch outer diameter rods and samples were collected by advancing the
rods with acetate sample liners. At designated sampling intervals, the core was
Laboratory Analyses
Laboratory analysis of soil and groundwater consisted of the following:
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260B
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) following carbon-chain methods and reported as gasoline range
(C4-C12), diesel range (C13-22) and oil range (C23-C40) (TPH-g, TPH-d and TPH-o) via USEPA
Method 8015M
Findings
The soil results were reviewed and compared to the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs). The RSLs are risk-based concentrations derived from
standardized equations combining exposure information assumptions with EPA toxicity data. The RSLs
are used for site "screening" and as initial cleanup goals, if applicable. The RSLs are considered by the
USEPA to be protective for humans (including sensitive groups) over a lifetime; however, they are not
always applicable to a particular site and do not address non-human health endpoints, such as ecological
impacts. The results were also compared to the Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) from the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The ESLs are considered to be conservative. Under
most circumstances, and within the limitations described, the presence of a chemical in soil, soil gas or
groundwater at concentrations below the corresponding ESL can be assumed to not pose a significant,
threat to human health and the environment. Additional evaluation will generally be necessary at sites

where a chemical is present at concentrations above the corresponding ESL.
Soil Sample Analytical Results
The following information is a summary of the soil sample analytical test results:
VOCs and TPH were not detected in soil samples above the laboratory detection limits.
The following information is a summary of the groundwater sample analytical test results:
VOCs and TPH were not detected in the groundwater sample above the laboratory detection limits.
Conclusion
AEI completed a Phase II to evaluate if the current and historic on-site operations had adversely impacted
the Project Site. A total of 17 borings were advanced throughout the Project Site for the collection of a
groundwater sample and soil samples. Borings were advanced at select locations of current and
previously suspected industrial operations that could have impacted the Project Site.
The results were compared to USEPA RSLs and California RWQCB ESLs. Due to the lack of a release
detected, AEI does not recommend any further action for the Project Site at this time.
Mitigation Measures
(Polychlorinated Biphenyl Commercial and Industrial Buildings) Prior to issuance of a
demolition permit, a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) abatement contractor shall conduct a
survey of the project site to identify and assist with compliance with applicable state and
federal rules and regulation governing PCB removal and disposal.
8-2 AEI Consultants Recommendation -- Methane Assessment
A methane assessment shall be conducted for the Site prior to any future redevelopment
activities.
8-3 Explosion/Release (Methane Gas)
All commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings shall be provided with an approved
Methane Control System, which shall include these minimum requirements; a vent system
and gas-detection system which shall be installed in the basements or the lowest floor level
on grade, and within underfloor space of buildings with raised foundations. The gas-detection
system shall be designed to automatically activate the vent system when an action level equal

to 25% of the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) methane concentration is detected within those
areas.
All commercial, industrial, institutional and multiple residential buildings covering over
50,000 square feet of lot area or with more than one level of basement shall be independently
analyzed by a qualified engineer, as defined in Section 91.7102 of the Municipal Code, hired
by the building owner. The engineer shall investigate and recommend mitigation measures
which will prevent or retard potential methane gas seepage into the building. In addition to
the other items listed in this section, the owner shall implement the engineer's design
recommendations subject to Department of Building and Safety and Fire Department
approval.
All multiple residential buildings shall have adequate ventilation as defined in Section
91.7102 of the Municipal Code of a gas-detection system installed in the basement or on the
lowest floor level on grade, and within the underfloor space in buildings with raised
foundations.
8-4 AEI Consultants Recommendation -- Asbestos-Containing Materials Operation &
Maintenance Plan
Based on the potential presence of asbestos-containing materials, the property owner shall
implement an Operations and Maintenance (O & M) Plan which stipulates that assessment,
repair and maintenance of damaged materials be performed to protect the health and safety of
the building occupants.
An asbestos survey adhering to Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA)
sampling protocol shall be performed prior to demolition or renovation activities that may
disturb ACMs. This requirement shall be enforced by the local air pollution control or air
quality management district, and specifies that all suspect asbestos-containing materials
(ACMs) be sampled to determine the presence or absence of asbestos prior to any renovation
or demolition activities to prevent potential exposure to workers and/or building occupants.
(Asbestos) Prior to the issuance of any permit for the demolition or alteration of the existing
structure(s), the applicant shall provide a letter to the Department of Building and Safety from
a qualified asbestos abatement consultant indicating that no Asbestos-Containing Materials
(ACM) are present in the building. If ACMs are found to be present, it will need to be abated
in compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 1403 as well as
all other applicable State and Federal rules and regulations.
8-6 AEI Consultants Recommendation -- Lead-Based Paint Operation & Maintenance Plan

Based on the potential presence of lead-based paint (LBP) and nature of occupancy, the
property owner shall implement an Operations and Maintenance (O & M) Plan to protect the
health and safety of the building occupants. Local regulations may apply to lead-based paint
in association with building demolition/renovations and worker/occupant protection. Actual
material samples shall be collected or an XRF survey performed in order to determine if LBP
is present. Construction activities that disturb materials or paints containing any amount of
lead shall be subject to certain requirements of the OSHA lead standard contained in 29 CFR
1910.1025 and 1926.62.
The property owner shall consult with a certified Lead Risk Assessor to determine options for
control of possible LBP hazards. Stringent local and State regulations shall apply to LBP in
association with building demolition/renovations and worker/occupant protection.
Construction activities that disturb materials or paints containing any amount of lead shall be
subject to certain requirements of the OSHA lead standard contained in 29 CFR 1910.1025
and 1926.62.
Specific work practices according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration shall
be implemented when handling construction materials and debris that contain lead-containing
materials.
(Lead Paint) Prior to issuance of any permit for the demolition or alteration of the existing
structure(s), a lead-based paint survey shall be performed to the written satisfaction of the
Department of Building and Safety. Should lead-based paint materials be identified, standard
handling and disposal practices shall be implemented pursuant to OSHA regulations.
8-8 Removal of Underground Storage Tanks
Underground Storage Tanks shall be decommissioned or removed as determined by the Los
Angeles City Fire Department Underground Storage Tank Division. If any contamination is
found, further remediation measures shall be developed with the assistance of the Los
Angeles City Fire Department and other appropriate State agencies.
Prior to issuance of a use of land or building permit, a letter certifying that remediation is
complete from the appropriate agency (Department of Toxic Substance Control or the
Regional Water Quality Control Board) shall be submitted to the decision maker.

c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less Than Significant Impact. A project-related significant adverse effect may occur if the Project Site
is located within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school site, and is projected to release toxic
emissions, which would pose a health hazard beyond regulatory thresholds.
The Project Site is not in close proximity to any public schools.
73
The nearest school is a private school:
New Convenient Academy
74
(LA Sa-Rang or Holy Hill Community Church), 1111 W. Sunset Boulevard,
approximately 1 block south. However, as discussed above, the Project will have a less than significant
impact during construction (with mitigation measures for methane, asbestos, and lead) and will not emit
any hazardous substances operation. The Project would remove the car-wash and ensure that demolition
of existing structures does not emit hazardous materials. The school would still be adjacent to Sengs
Auto Repair on Sunset/Everett/White Knoll (not a part of the Project). Therefore, impacts of hazardous
materials within one-quarter mile of a school will be less than significant.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires various state agencies to compile lists
of hazardous waste disposal facilities, unauthorized release from underground storage tanks,
contaminated drinking water wells, and solid waste facilities from which there is known migration of
hazardous waste and submit such information to the Secretary for Environmental Protection on at least an
annual basis. This question would apply only if the Project Site is included on any of the above referred
to lists and therefore would pose an environmental hazard to surrounding sensitive uses.
In meeting the provisions in Government Code Section 65962.5, commonly referred to as the Cortese
List, database resources that provide information regarding identified facilities or sites include
EnviroStor, GeoTracker, and other lists compiled by the California Environmental Protection Agency.
According to EnviroStor, there are no cleanup sites, permitted sites, LUFT (leaking underground fuel
tanks) or SLICS (Spills, Leaks, Investigation, and Cleanup) on the Project Site.
75
The adjacent Sengs

73
LAUSD: http://home.lausd.net/ourpages/auto/2012/3/19/43726930/EducationalServiceCenter_Map_EAST_2012-
2013.pdf
74
California Schools Guide: http://schools.latimes.com/school/los-angeles/new-covenant-academy/
75
California Department of Toxic Substance Control, EnviroStor, website:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/, accessed October 11, 2013.

Auto Repair was a LUST Cleanup Site that was completed and case closed on June 25, 1998.
76
According
to GeoTracker, there are no LUST sites, other cleanup sites, land disposal sites, military sites WDR sites,
permitted UST facilities, monitoring wells, or California Department of Toxic Substance Control cleanup
sites or hazardous materials permits on the Project Site.
77
The adjacent Sengs Auto Repair was a LUST
Cleanup Site that was completed and case closed on June 25, 1998.
78

The Project Site has not been identified as a solid waste disposal site having hazardous waste levels
outside of the Waste Management Unit.
79
There are no active Cease and Desist Orders or Cleanup and
Abatement Orders from the California Water Resources Control Board associated with the Project Site.
80

The Project Site is not subject to corrective action pursuant to the Health and Safety Code, as it has not
been identified as a hazardous waste facility.
81
AEI completed a Phase II to evaluate if the current and
historic on-site operations had adversely impacted the Project Site. A total of 17 borings were advanced
throughout the Project Site for the collection of a groundwater sample and soil samples. Borings were
advanced at select locations of current and previously suspected industrial operations that could have
impacted the Project Site. The results were compared to USEPA RSLs and California RWQCB ESLs.
Due to the lack of a release detected, AEI does not recommend any further action for the Project Site at
this time. Therefore, as the Project Site is not located on a list of hazardous material sites and will not
result in a significant hazard to the public or environment, no impact would occur.

76
Geotracker Case for Sengs Auto Repair:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0603700524
77
California Department of Toxic Substance Control, EnviroStor, website:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/, accessed October 11, 2013.
78
Geotracker Case for Sengs Auto Repair:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0603700524
79
California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, Sites Identified with Waste
Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit, website:
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/CurrentList.pdf, accessed October 11, 2013.
80
California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, List of Active CDO and CAO
from Water Board, website: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, October 11, 2013.
81
California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a),
website: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/SectionA.htm#Facilities, October 11, 2013.

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?
No Impact. A significant project-related impact may occur if a project were placed within a public
airport land use plan area or within two miles of a public airport, and subject to a safety hazard.
The Project is not within an airport hazard area.
82
The Project Site is not located within two miles of a
public airport. The nearest airports are Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) located 11 miles
southwest, Santa Monica Airport located 11.5 miles west, Bob Hope-Burbank Airport located 10.5 miles
northwest. Therefore no impact would occur.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. This question would apply to a project only if it were in the vicinity of a private airstrip and
would subject area residents and workers to a safety hazard. There are no nearby private airstrips.
Therefore, no impacts will occur.
g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if a
project were to interfere with roadway operations used in conjunction with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan, or would generate sufficient traffic to create traffic congestion that would
interfere with the execution of such a plan.
Construction of the Project will not substantially impede public access or travel on public rights-of-way
such as Sunset Boulevard or Everett Street, and would not interfere with any adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan. The intersection level of service analysis for the future with Project
conditions indicates that:
83

AM peak hour - The addition of Project traffic would not cause the level of service to change at
any of the study intersections, and that any increases in volume/capacity (V/C) ratios would be
less than the threshold for a significant impact to occur.

82
83
Traffic Study, The Mobility Group, October 2, 2013, page 37.

PM peak hour - The addition of Project traffic would not cause the level of service to change at
any of the study intersections, but the increase in the volume/capacity (V/C) ratio would cause a
significant impact at one intersection:
o Sunset Boulevard and Beaudry Avenue (LOS F)
With Mitigation Measure 16-1, there would be no significant impacts due to the Project.
84

The Project Site is within a Hillside Area.
85
Therefore, the City requires s detailed construction staging
and parking plan (see Mitigation Measure 8-9). Environmental impacts may result from project
implementation due to possible interference with an emergency response plan. However, these potential
impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level by Mitigation Measure 8-10. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
8-9 Hillside Construction Staging and Parking Plan
Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit a Construction
Staging and Parking Plan to the Department of Building and Safety and the Fire Department
for review and approval. The plan shall identify where all construction materials, equipment,
and vehicles will be stored through the construction phase of the project, as well as where
contractor, subcontractor, and laborers will park their vehicles so as to prevent blockage of
two-way traffic on streets in the vicinity of the construction site. The Construction Staging
and Parking Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following performance standards
and operational requirements:
o No construction equipment or material shall be permitted to be stored within the public
right-of-way. Unless otherwise allowed by special permit, all surrounding sidewalks shall
remain accessible for pedestrians at all times. Any such permits shall be issued on a
temporary basis throughout the duration of construction.
o If the property fronts on a designated Red Flag Street, on noticed Red Flag days, all the
workers shall be shuttled from an off-site area, located on a non-Red Flag Street, to and
from the site in order to keep roads open on Red Flag days.

84
Traffic Study, The Mobility Group, October 2, 2013, page 49.
85

o During the Excavation and Grading phases, only one truck hauler shall be allowed on the
site at any one time. The drivers shall be required to follow the designated travel plan or
approved Haul Route.
o Truck traffic directed to the project site for the purpose of delivering materials,
construction-machinery, or removal of graded soil shall be limited to off-peak traffic
hours, Monday through Friday only. No truck deliveries shall be permitted on Saturdays
or Sundays.
o All deliveries during construction shall be coordinated so that only one vendor/delivery
vehicle is at the site at one time, and that a construction supervisor is present at such time.
o A radio operator shall be on-site to coordinate the movement of material and personnel,
in order to keep the roads open for emergency vehicles, their apparatus, and neighbors.
o During all phases of construction, all construction vehicle parking and queuing related to
the project shall be as required to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and
Safety, and in substantial compliance with the Construction Staging and Parking Plan,
except as may be modified by the Department of Building and Safety or the Fire
Department.
8-10 Emergency Evacuation Plan
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall develop an emergency response plan
in consultation with the Fire Department. The emergency response plan shall include but not be
limited to the following performance standards and requirements: mapping of emergency exits,
evacuation routes for vehicles and pedestrians, location of nearest hospitals, and fire departments.
h) Would the project 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?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is located in proximity to wildland areas and
would pose a potential fire hazard, which could affect persons or structures in the area in the event of a
fire. The Project Site is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone,
86
nor does the Site contain
any wildlands fire hazard terrain.
87
Therefore, no impacts will occur.

86
87
Los Angeles Safety Element, Exhibit D, Selected Wildfire Hazard Areas in the City of Los Angeles:

9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project discharges water which does
not meet the quality standards of agencies that regulate surface water quality and water discharge into
stormwater drainage systems.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program establishes a comprehensive
stormwater quality program to manage urban stormwater and minimize pollution of the environment to
the maximum extent practicable. Pursuant to the NPDES, the Project is subject to the requirements set
forth in the Countys Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). The goals and objectives of
the SUSMP are achieved through the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to help manage runoff
water quality.
The City of Los Angeles has adopted the regulatory requirements set forth in the SUSMP of the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) under the City of Los Angeles Ordinance
No. 173,494. BMPs typically include controlling roadway and parking lot contaminants by installing oil
and grease separators at storm drain inlets; cleaning parking lots on a regular basis; incorporating peak-
flow reduction and infiltration features (such as grass swales, infiltration trenches, and grass filter strips)
into landscaping; and implementing education programs. The SUSMP identifies the types and sizes of
private development projects that are subject to its requirements. Requirements of the SUSMP are
enforced through the Citys plan approval and permit process. Low Impact Development (LID) is a
stormwater management strategy that seeks to prevent impacts of runoff and stormwater pollution as
close to its source as possible. It is an ordinance passed in 2011 amending LAMC 64.70 (the Citys
stormwater ordinance) and expanding on the Citys existing Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
(SUSMP) requirements. LID is different from the previous SUSMP, requiring a larger scope of
development and redevelopment projects to comply with stormwater measures, and incorporating new
LID practices and measures.
All development and redevelopment projects that create, add, or replace 500 square feet or more of
impervious area need to comply with the LID Ordinance. Project must comply with the LID Best
Management Practices (BMPSs) (determined on a case by case basis by Public Works), and if that is not
feasible only then do SUSMP BMPs apply. The Project will be required to obtain a NPDES water quality
permit from the LARWQCB. Implementation of appropriate project design features and compliance with
the local, State, and federal regulations, code requirements, and permit provisions would prevent
significant impacts related to the release of potentially polluted discharge into surface water. Construction
activities associated with the Project are subject to City inspection and implementation of storm water
BMPs.

Since the construction of the Project will disturb greater than one acre of land (the total site area is 2.66
acres)
88
, the Project Applicant will be required to obtain coverage under the General Construction
Activity Storm Water Permit (GCASP), which requires development and implementation of a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
89
Construction projects that include grading activities during
the rainy season must also develop a Wet Weather Erosion Control Plan (WWECP). The Project will
comply with LAMC Chapter IX, Division 70, which addresses grading, excavations, and fills.
Compliance with the LAMC would ensure that construction would not violate any water quality standards
or discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, impacts related to
water quality will be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
project includes deep excavations resulting in the potential to interfere with groundwater movement or
includes withdrawal of groundwater or paving of existing permeable surfaces important to groundwater
recharge. The nearest surface water in the vicinity is Echo Lake located in Echo Park, approximately
3,200 feet west of the Project Site. No settling ponds, lagoons, surface impoundments, wetlands or natural
catch basins are on the Site. A public water system operated by the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power (LADWP) serves the Project Site. The sources of public water for the City of Los Angeles are
surface water from California Water Project.
Groundwater
Based upon topographic map interpretation and the Underground Storage Tank Low Risk Case Review
Form for G.H. Palmer & Associates at 867 Cesar Chavez Avenue, located approximately 0.42 mile
southeast the Project Site, obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWCQCBs)
GeoTracker website, the direction of groundwater flow beneath the Project Site is inferred to be to the
southwest. According to a Limited Phase II conducted in March 2005 by Petra Geotechnical, Inc., (Petra)
for the Site, soil borings were advanced to 30 feet below ground surface (bgs) and groundwater was not
encountered. However, according to the Underground Storage Tank Low Risk Case Review Form for

88
See Section II, Project Description for breakdown of land area.
89
California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board, Storm Water Program,
Construction Storm Water Program, website:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml, accessed August 22, 2013.

G.H. Palmer & Associates at 867 Cesar Chavez Avenue, located approximately 0.42 mile southeast of the
Site, groundwater was encountered at approximately 12 to 20 feet bgs.
90

Excavations for the subterranean parking levels on the north end of the structure will be as much as 60
feet, not including foundation excavations. The basement excavations will be as much as 24 feet below
Sunset Boulevard at the northern end of the Site. At the southern end of the Site, up to 3 feet of fill will be
required to raise the grade to the proposed elevation. The presence of uncertified fill at the southern end
of the structure will require removal and re-compaction. Up to 10 feet of compacted fill will be
necessary.
91

Temporary Dewatering
The proposed structure will extend to a depth of 25 feet below the existing Site grades. Continuous
groundwater seepage is expected from the bedrock. However, due to the low permeability of the rock, the
water should attenuate with time until a base flow rate is achieved.
Temporary dewatering should be installed as necessary. The Geological Engineering Investigation
included recommendations for the temporary dewatering
92
(see Mitigation Measure 9-1).
Stormwater Disposal
Many building officials have decided that stormwater should not be infiltrated within 10 feet of the
existing or historically high groundwater level. Since the historic high groundwater level on the Site is 20
feet below the existing grade, and the existing groundwater level is 17 feet below the ground surface at
this location, stormwater infiltration is possible.
The location of the proposed stormwater disposal devise will be at the southern end of the Site, where the
proposed structure will be constructed at-grade. This location is acceptable as long as the devise is kept a
minimum of 10 feet from all foundations. Stomwater infiltration should not cause any damage or
settlement to any building.
93

The Geological Engineering Investigation included recommendations for the stormwater infiltration
facility
94
(see Mitigation Measure 9-2). The Project would also comply with the conditions described in

90
Phase II Subsurface Investigation, March 22, 2012 pages 1-2.
91
92
Geological Engineering Investigation, April 9, 2013, pages 43.
93
94

the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safetys Geology and Soils Report Approval Letter (see
Appendix E-2 and Mitigation Measure 6-6 of this IS/MND). With mitigation, impacts related to
groundwater and stormwater infiltration will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
9-1 Temporary Dewatering (Geological Engineering Investigation Recommendation)
Temporary dewatering shall consist of gravel-filled drainage trenches leading a sump area.
The collected water shall be pumped to an acceptable disposal area.
Dewatering wells shall be considered, based on the recommendation of an experienced
dewatering contractor.
9-2 Stormwater Infiltration Facility (Geological Engineering Investigation Recommendation)
The infiltration facility shall not be located near the proposed slope.
The infiltration facility shall be located downgradient of the slope and the subterranean
levels.
The Project shall not be serviced by below grade retaining walls.
Open infiltration basins have many negative associated issues. Such a design shall consider
attractive nuisance, impacts to growing vegetation, impacts to air quality, and vector control.
All infiltration devices shall be provided with overflow protection. Once the device is full of
water, additional water flowing to the device shall be diverted to another acceptable disposal
area, or disposed offsite in an acceptable manner.
All connections associated with stormwater infiltration devices shall be sealed and water-
tight. Uncontrolled water leaking into the subgrade soils can lead to loss of strength, piping,
erosion, settlement, and/or expansion of the effected earth materials.
Excavations proposed for the installation of stormwater facilities shall comply with the
Temporary Excavations sections of the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation as well as
Cal/OSHA Regulations, where applicable.

c) Would the project 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?
project results in a substantial alteration of drainage patterns that would result in a substantial increase in
erosion or siltation during construction or operation of the project.
Proper surface drainage is critical to the future performance of the Project. Saturation of a soil can cause it
to lose internal shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change in the designated
engineering properties. Proper Site drainage should be maintained at all times. All Site drainage, with the
exception of any required to disposed of onsite by stormwater regulations, should be collected and
transferred to the street in non-erosive drainage devises.
95
The Geological Engineering Investigation
included recommendations for drainage from the proposed structure
96
(see Mitigation Measure 9-3).
These recommendations would control and move the water to ensure that it does not pool or seep into the
soils near the building, which could cause soil erosion and create instability. With mitigation, impacts
related to site drainage and erosion will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
9-3 Site Drainage (Geological Engineering Investigation Recommendation)
The proposed structure shall be provided with roof drainage.
Drainage from downspouts, roof drains, and scuppers shall not be permitted on unprotected
soils within five feet of the building perimeter.
Drainage shall not be allowed to pond anywhere on the site, and especially not against any
foundation or retaining wall.
Drainage shall not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over any descending slope.
Planters which are located within a distance equal to the depth of a retaining wall shall be
sealed to prevent moisture adversely affecting the wall.
Planters which are located within five feet of a foundation shall be sealed to prevent moisture
affecting the earth materials supporting the foundation.

95
96

d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project results in increased runoff
volumes during construction or operation of the project that would result in flooding conditions affecting
the Project Site or nearby properties.
No natural watercourses exist on or in the vicinity of the Project Site and runoff flows toward the existing
storm drain system on Sunset Boulevard. The storm drain system includes a 36-inch reinforced concrete
pipe (RCP) line in Sunset Boulevard, which flows south to an 18-inch RCP line in Sunset, to a 48-inch
RCP line in Sunset. Storm flow also flows south on Everett Street.
97

There are no water streams or rivers nearby. The closest water feature is Echo Park Lake, approximately
3,200 feet west of the Site.
98
The Project will not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the Project Site
although construction of new buildings would occur. The Sunset portion buildings footprints will be 55.2
percent of the Site and open space/planted areas will be 44.8 percent. The Everett portion building
footprint will be 38.9 percent of the Site and open space/planted areas will be 61.1 percent.
99
The Project
Site will continue to be covered with impermeable surfaces. Thus, no substantial increase in the rate or
amount of surface runoff is expected to occur with Project development. No flooding is expected to occur
on- or off-site due to the grades of the adjacent streets. Thus, the Project will not result in a substantial
increase in stormwater runoff from the Project Site above existing levels. Impacts related to runoff will be
e) Would the project 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?
project would increase the volume of stormwater runoff to a level that exceeds the capacity of the storm
drain system serving a Project Site. A Project-related significant adverse effect would also occur if a
project would substantially increase the probability that polluted runoff would reach storm drains.

97
Navigate LA, City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, Storm Drains Layer:
http://navigatela.lacity.org/index01.cfm
98
Navigate LA, City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, Water Lakes and Streams Layer:
99
Yung Tran, KTGY Architects, November 25, 2013.

Urban runoff discharged from municipal storm drains is one of the principal causes of water quality
problems in most urban areas. Oil and grease from parking lots, pesticides, cleaning solvents, and other
toxic chemicals can contaminate stormwater, which can then contaminate receiving waters downstream
and, eventually, the Pacific Ocean. As discussed in the response to Question 9(a), the Project is required
to comply with the NPDES program as well as the requirements set forth in the LAMC. These regulations
control water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants.
Construction
Three general sources of potential short-term construction-related stormwater pollution associated with
the Project are:
1) the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants;
2) the maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and
3) earth-moving activities which, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion and the
transportation of pollutants via storm runoff or mechanical equipment.
Generally, routine safety precautions for handling and storing construction materials can effectively
mitigate the potential pollution of stormwater by these materials. The same types of common sense,
good housekeeping procedures can be extended to non-hazardous stormwater pollutants such as
sawdust and other solid wastes. Poorly maintained vehicles and heavy equipment leaking fuel, oil,
antifreeze, or other fluids onto the construction site are also common sources of stormwater pollution and
soil contamination. Earth-moving activities that can greatly increase erosion processes are another source
of stormwater pollution contamination.
Two general strategies are recommended to prevent construction silt from entering local storm drains.
First, erosion control procedures should be implemented for those areas that must be exposed. Secondly,
the area should be secured to control off-site migration of pollutants. These best management practices
(BMPs) are formally described as Mitigation Measure 9-4. When properly designed and implemented,
these good-housekeeping practices would reduce short-term construction-related impacts to a less than
significant level by controlling dust and erosion that may occur onsite and leaks from any construction
equipment. The project is otherwise required to comply with the City of Los Angeles Low Impact
Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs), which are determined on a case by case basis by
the Department of Public Works. Approval for development project and building/grading permits will
not be granted or issued until appropriate and applicable stormwater BMPS are incorporate into the
project design plans.
Operation
The Project Site primarily consists of impermeable surfaces as it is nearly fully paved and developed,
expect for an undeveloped hillside on the rear of the Sunset portion, and that would remain.

The Sunset portion buildings footprints will be approximately 50 percent of the Site and open
space/planted areas will be approximately 50 percent. The Everett portion building footprint will be
approximately 44 percent of the Site and open space/planted areas will be approximately 56 percent. The
Project will not result in a substantial change in the amount of impervious surface area at the Project Site,
and would therefore not be anticipated to result in an increase in stormwater runoff from the Project Site.
Activities associated with operation of the Project will generate substances that could degrade the quality
of water runoff. The deposition of certain chemicals by cars in the parking area could have the potential
to contribute metals, oil and grease, solvents, phosphates, hydrocarbons, and suspended solids to the
storm drain system. However, impacts to water quality would be reduced since the project must comply
with water quality standards and wastewater discharge BMPs set forth by the County of Los Angeles and
the SWRCB. Furthermore, required design criteria, as established in the SUSMP for Los Angeles County
and Cities in Los Angeles County, would be incorporated into the project to minimize the off-site
conveyance of pollutants. Compliance with existing regulations would reduce the potential for water
quality impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
9-4 Stormwater Pollution (Demolition, Grading, and Construction Activities)
Sediment carries with it other work-site pollutants such as pesticides, cleaning solvents,
cement wash, asphalt, and car fluids that are toxic to sea life.
Leaks, drips and spills shall be cleaned up immediately to prevent contaminated soil on paved
surfaces that can be washed away into the storm drains.
All vehicle/equipment maintenance, repair, and washing shall be conducted away from storm
drains. All major repairs shall be conducted off-site. Drip pans or drop clothes shall be used
to catch drips and spills.
Pavement shall not be hosed down at material spills. Dry cleanup methods shall be used
whenever possible.
Dumpsters shall be covered and maintained. Uncovered dumpsters shall be placed under a
roof or be covered with tarps or plastic sheeting.
f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project includes potential sources of
water pollutants that would have the potential to substantially degrade water quality. Other than the
sources described in the response to Question 9(e), the Project does not include other sources of
contaminants that could substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, impacts to water quality would be

g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
No Impact. This question would apply to the Project only if it were placing housing in a 100-year flood
zone. While the Project will include residential dwelling units, it would not be located in a 100-year flood
hazard area according to the Los Angeles Safety Element map.
100
Therefore, the Project will not place
housing within a 100-year flood hazard area and no impact related to this issue would occur.
h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were located within a 100-year flood zone, which
would impede or redirect flood flows. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the project area indicates that the Project Site is
located within Flood Zone X, which is an area determined to be outside the 0.2 percent annual chance
floodplain.
101
Additionally, the Project Site is not located within a City-designated 100- or 500-year
floodplain.
102
Therefore, the Project will not be at risk of flooding and would not place structures in an
area that would impede or redirect flood flows. No impacts to flood flows would occur.
i) Would the project 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?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were located in an area where a dam or levee
could fail, exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death. There are no levees
or dams nearby. The closest large body of water is the Silver Lake Reservoir, approximately 1.8 miles
northwest of the Site. Inundation potential of this reservoir is restricted to Silver Lake Boulevard and
would not flow toward the Project Site. There is no risk of flooding from potential dam or levee failure.
There will be no impacts related to flooding.

100
Los Angeles Safety Element, Exhibit F, 100-Year and 500-year Flood Plains in the City of Los Angeles:
101
FEMA, Flood Insurance Rate Maps, DFIRM 06037C1628F and 06037C1610F.
102
Los Angeles Safety Element, Exhibit F, 100-Year and 500-year Flood Plains in the City of Los Angeles:

j) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a Project Site is sufficiently close to
the ocean or other water body to be potentially at risk for the effects of seismically-induced tidal
phenomena (seiche and tsunami) or if the project site is located adjacent to a hillside area with soil
characteristics that would indicate potential susceptibility to mudslides or mudflows.
The Project Site is not located within a potential inundation area.
103
The Project Site is not located within
an area potentially impacted by a tsunami, which is typically located along the coast of the Pacific
Ocean.
104
Seiches are oscillations generated in enclosed bodies of water that can be caused by ground
shaking associated with an earthquake. The closest large body of water is the Silver Lake Reservoir,
approximately 1.8 miles northwest of the Site. Inundation potential of this reservoir is restricted to Silver
Lake Boulevard and would not flow toward the Project Site. The Project Site is within a Hillside Area.
105

However, the City of Los Angeles ZIMAS mapping system
106
and the Safety Element of the City of Los
Angeles
107
do not classify the Project Site as within a landslide area, or identified as a bedrock or
probably bedrock landslide site. Thus, there is no potential for mudflow. Therefore, development of the
Project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Impacts related to tsunamis, seiches, and mudflow will be

103
Los Angeles Safety Element, Exhibit G, Inundation & Tsunami Hazard Areas Map:
104
Los Angeles Safety Element, Exhibit G, Inundation & Tsunami Hazard Areas Map:
105
106
107
Los Angeles Safety Element, Exhibit C, Landslide Inventory and Hillside Areas in the City of Los Angeles:

10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were sufficiently large
enough or otherwise configured in such a way as to create a physical barrier within an established
community. A typical example would be a project that involved a continuous right-of-way such as a
roadway, which would divide a community and impede access between parts of the community.
The Project is not of the scale or nature that could physically divide an established community. The
Project is not affecting any right-of-ways. As such, impacts related to physical division of an established
community will be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is inconsistent with
applicable land use plans or zoning designations and would cause adverse environmental effects, which
these regulations are designed to avoid or mitigate. The following is a list of applicable plans:
Regional Level
Southern California Association of Governments
o Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG)
o Compass Blueprint
o Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP)
o Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
South Coast Air Quality Management Districts (SCAQMD)
o Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authoritys (Metro)
o Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for Los Angeles County.

City of Los Angeles
City of Los Angeles General Plan
Silver Lake Echo Park Elysian Valley Community Plan
Urban Design policies of the Community Plan
East Los Angeles State Enterprise Zone (ZI-2129)
Freeway Adjacent Advisory Notice for Sensitive Uses (ZI-2427) (Parcel 5406-016-028 only)
Los Angeles Municipal Code
Consistency with Regional Plans
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG)
The RCPG was adopted in 1996 by the member agencies of SCAG to set broad goals for the Southern
California region, with the exception of the County of San Diego, and to identify strategies for agencies at
all levels of government to use in guiding their decision-making. The RCPG identifies significant issues
and changes that can be anticipated by the year 2015 and beyond.
Adopted policies related to land use are contained primarily in the Growth Management chapter of the
RCPG. The primary goal of the Growth Management chapter is to address issues related to growth and
land use by encouraging local land use actions that could ultimately lead to the development of an urban
form that will help minimize development costs, save natural resources, and enhance the quality of life in
the region. SCAG uses the criteria in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15206 to define what a regionally
significant project is:
1. A proposed local general plan, element, or amendment thereof for which an EIR was prepared.
2. A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.
3. A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or
encompassing more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.
4. A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or encompassing
more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
5. A proposed hotel/motel of more than 500 rooms.

6. A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house
more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or encompassing more than
650,000 square feet of floor area.
7. A project that would result in the cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract for any parcel of 100
or more acres.
8. A project for which an EIR was prepared and which is located in and substantially impacting an
area of critical environmental sensitivity. This includes the California Coastal Zone.
9. A project that would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats such as riparian lands,
wetlands, bays, estuaries, marshes, and habitats for rare and endangered species.
10. A project that would interfere with the attainment of regional water quality standards as stated in
the approved areawide wastewater management plan.
11. A project that would provide housing, jobs, or occupancy for 500 or more people within 10 miles
of a nuclear power plant.
12. A project that has the potential for causing significant effects on the environment extending
beyond the city or county in which the project would be located.
The Growth Management chapter overalls goals are to:
108

re-invigorate the region's economy,
avoid social and economic inequities and the geographical dislocation of communities, and
to maintain the region's quality of life.
While the Project is not of the scale to be considered regionally significant based on the criteria above, the
Project will nevertheless be consistent with, or not interfere with implementation of, the goals of the
Growth Management Chapter of the RCPG.
Compass Blueprint
As part of SCAG's Sustainability Program, Compass Blueprint serves the communities of Southern
California by helping to build long-lasting partnerships and fostering innovative transportation and land-
use planning.

108
SCAG, RCPG Growth Management Chapter, page 3-1:
http://www.scag.ca.gov/rcp/pdf/pastprojects/1996RCPGGrowthManagementChapter.pdf

The Compass Blueprint is driven by four key principles:
109

1. Mobility - Getting where we want to go
2. Livability - Creating positive communities
3. Prosperity - Long-term health for the region
4. Sustainability - Ensuring that today's decisions do not compromise future generations
Table 4.10-1, SCAG Compass Blueprint, lists the initiatives and objectives of the SCAG Compass
Blueprint and the Projects consistency statement with each of them. As shown, the Project will be
consistent with the applicable (developer-controlled or focused) initiatives and objectives of the Compass
Blueprint.

109
SCAG, Compass Blueprint: http://www.compassblueprint.org/Pages/About%20Pages/About.aspx

Table 4.10-1
SCAG Compass Blueprint
Initiative and Objective Discussion
Initiative 1 Increase the regions mobility Consistent. The Project would increase residential density in an urban area that is well served by local
transit lines, such as the Metro bus lines (704, 2/302, and 4), and LADOT DASH line.
Objective 1-1 Encouraging transportation investments and land
use decisions that are mutually supportive
Consistent. The Project would increase residential density in an urban area and the residents, visitors, and
employees who would utilize the local transit lines.
Objective 1-2 Locating new housing near existing jobs and new
jobs near existing housing
Consistent. The Project would provide new housing in Echo Park, a rich jobs area just north of Downtown
LA. The Project would also include retail, which would provide jobs to the local residential community.
Objective 1-3 Encouraging transit-oriented development Consistent. The Project would increase residential density in an urban area that is well served by local
transit lines.
Objective 1-4 Promoting a variety of travel choices Consistent. The Project would allow residents, visitors, and employees to access the Site via vehicle,
walking, and biking. The Project includes substantial bicycle parking.
Initiative 2 Enhance the livability of our communities Consistent. The Project would redevelop underutilized and low-density retail spaces with a low number of
housing units at a prominent corner on a busy boulevard with denser, mixed-use buildings and a small lot
subdivision of 6 units.
Objective 2-1 Promoting in-fill development and redevelopment
to revitalize existing communities
Consistent. The Project would redevelop underutilized and low-density retail spaces with a low number of
housing units at a prominent corner on a busy boulevard with denser, mixed-use buildings and a small lot
subdivision of 6 units.
Objective 2-2 Promoting developments which provide a mix of
uses
Consistent. The Project would provide a mix of uses including residential and retail.
Objective 2-3 Promoting "people-scaled," walkable communities Consistent. The Project would be designed with architectural features on its ground floor to be people-
scaled and accessible, including ground-floor retail. The surrounding sidewalks on Sunset and Everett and
the corner at Building B will be landscaped.
Objective 2-4 Supporting the preservation of stable neighborhoods Consistent. The Project would provide residential and retail uses that are already included in the local area.
There would not be an introduction of a substantially altered use. The area also supports mid-rise buildings.
Initiative 3 Enable prosperity Consistent. The Project would redevelop an underutilized and low-density retail use at a prominent corner
with a dense, mixed-use building and a small lot subdivision of 6 units. This would increase the tax
revenues and property tax generated at the Site.
Objective 3-1 Providing a variety of housing types in each
community to meet the housing needs of all income levels
Consistent. The Project provides new housing in a range of sizes and prices (studio, loft, 1 bedroom, and 2
bedrooms), and a small lot subdivision of 6 units.

Initiative and Objective Discussion
Objective 3-2 Supporting educational opportunities that promote
balanced growth
Not Applicable. The Project is not an educational facility.
Objective 3-3 Ensuring environmental justice regardless of race,
ethnicity or income class
Consistent. The Project would provide housing consistent with the federal, State, and local laws that
prohibit housing discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or income class, consistent with the Los Angeles
Housing and Community Investment Department.
Objective 3-4 Supporting local and state fiscal policies that
encourage balanced growth
Not Applicable. The Project is a private development and cannot affect local and state fiscal policies
encouraging balanced growth.
Objective 3-5 Encouraging civic engagement Not Applicable. The Project is a private development and cannot affect civic engagement.
Initiative 4 Promote sustainability for future generations Consistent. The Project will comply with CalGreen requirements of the California Building Code. The
Project would also be consistent with the City of Los Angeles Building Code, including the Los Angeles
Green Building Code (LAGBC) for all new buildings (residential and non-residential). The Code is
designed to reduce the building's energy and water use; reduce waste; and reduce the carbon footprint. The
Project also includes mitigation measures that reduce consumption and generation of utility resources (such
as water, wastewater, solid waste), air quality emissions (pollution) and greenhouse gas emissions.
Objective 4-1 Developing strategies to accommodate growth that
use resources efficiently, and minimize pollution and greenhouse
gas emissions
Consistent. The Project is undergoing an environmental review process through CEQA, resulting in this
Mitigated Negative Declaration that includes mitigation measures that avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or
compensate any potential environmental impact. These potential impacts include utility resources, air
quality emissions (pollution) and greenhouse gas emissions.
Objective 4-2 Preserving rural, agricultural, recreational and
environmentally sensitive areas
Not Applicable. The Project is located on a developed area surrounded by a dense urban environment in
Echo Park, north of Downtown LA. There are no rural, agricultural, recreational, or environmentally
sensitive areas on the Site.
Objective 4-3 Focusing development in urban centers and existing
cities
Consistent. The Project is located north of Downtown LA in the City of Los Angeles.
Objective 4-4 Using "green" development techniques Consistent. The Project will comply with CalGreen requirements of the California Building Code. The
Project would also be consistent with the City of Los Angeles Building Code, including the Los Angeles
Green Building Code (LAGBC) for all new buildings (residential and non-residential). The Code is
designed to reduce the building's energy and water use; reduce waste; and reduce the carbon footprint.
Source: SCAG, Compass Blueprint: http://www.compassblueprint.org/Pages/About%20Pages/About.aspx
Table: CAJA Environmental Services, November 2013.


Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP)
SCAGs RCP is a guidance document that was developed in response to the Regional Council directive in
the 2002 Strategic Plan to develop a holistic, strategic plan for defining and solving the regions inter-
related housing, traffic, water, and air quality challenges. The RCP incorporates input from the RCP Task
Force, SCAGs policy committees and subregions, local governments, and other key stakeholders.
RCP defines a vision for the SCAG region that includes balancing resource conservation, economic
vitality, and quality of life. It also provides a long-term planning framework that describes comprehensive
responses to growth and infrastructure challenges and recommends an Action Plan targeted for the year
2035. The RCP does not mandate integrated resources planning; however, SCAG does request that local
governments consider the recommendations set forth on the RCP in their General Plan updates, municipal
code amendments, design guidelines, incentive programs, and other actions.
The RCP is an advisory document that contains policies that apply to public and/or private sectors.
Public sector includes SCAG, local and state governments, transportation commissions, and resource
agencies and conservation groups. Many of the policies apply to SCAG and the public sector, and are
intended inform how SCAG and governments should work to integrate growth and land use planning.
The RCP policies are organized in the following categories: Land Use and Housing, Open Space and
Habitats, Water, Energy, Air Quality, Solid Waste, Transportation, Security and Emergency
Preparedness, and Economy.
Table 4.10-2, SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan, lists the policies that apply to developers in
collaboration with local government. As shown, the Project will be consistent with the applicable
(developer-controlled or focused) policies of the Regional Comprehensive Plan.


Table 4.10-2
SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan
Policies Discussion
Land Use and Housing
1

LU-6.2 Developers and local governments should integrate green building measures
into project design and zoning such as those identied in the U.S. Green Building
Councils Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, Energy Star Homes,
Green Point Rated Homes, and the California Green Builder Programs.
Consistent. The Project would comply with CalGreen requirements of the California
Building Code and incorporates green and conservation features, through mitigation
measures. The Project would also be consistent with the City of Los Angeles Building
Code, including the Los Angeles Green Building Code (LAGBC) for all new buildings
(residential and non-residential). The Code is designed to reduce the building's energy and
water use; reduce waste; and reduce the carbon footprint.
Open Space and Habitat
2

OSN-14 Developers and local governments should implement mitigation for open
space impacts through the following activities:
Individual projects should either avoid signicant impacts to regionally
signicant open space resources or mitigate the signicant impacts through
measures consistent with regional open space policies for conserving natural
lands, community open space and farmlands. All projects should demonstrate
consideration of alternatives that would avoid or reduce impacts to open space.
Individual projects should include into project design, to the maximum extent
practicable, mitigation measures and recommended best practices aimed at
minimizing or avoiding impacts to natural lands, including, but not limited to
FHWAs Critter Crossings, and Ventura County Mitigation Guidelines.
Project level mitigation for RTPs signicant cumulative and growth-inducing
impacts on open space resources will include but not be limited to the
conservation of natural lands, community open space and important farmland
through existing programs in the region or through multi-party conservation
compacts facilitated by SCAG.
Project sponsors should ensure that transportation systems proposed in the RTP
avoid or mitigate signicant impacts to natural lands, community open space and
important farmland, including cumulative impacts and open space impacts from
the growth associated with transportation projects and improvements.
Consistent. The Project would be an urban infill development that avoids significant
impacts to regionally significant open space resources. The Project is located on a
developed area surrounded by a dense urban environment, north of Downtown Los
Angeles. There are no rural, agricultural, recreational, or environmentally sensitive areas
on the Site.

There are 4 protected trees on site. All trees will need to be removed. Final approval of the
trees shall be determined by the Citys Chief Forester. Replacement trees for the 4
Junglans californica trees shall be a total of 8 (eight) 15-gallon Platanus racemosa. This
is formally described as Mitigation Measure 4-2. In addition, the removal of the trees
would be considered less than significant with Mitigation Measure 4-3 (for non-
protected trees) and Mitigation Measure 4-4 (for locally protected species).


Policies Discussion
Project sponsors should fully mitigate direct and indirect impacts to open space
resulting from implementation of regionally signicant projects.
OSC-9 Developers and local governments should increase the accessibility to
natural areas lands for outdoor recreation.
Not Applicable. OSC-9 does not apply to this Project as it is not next to natural areas for
outdoor recreation. The Site would not impede access to Everett Park.
OSC-10 Developers and local governments should promote inll development and
redevelopment to revitalize existing communities.
Consistent. The Project is an infill development in an existing community.
OSC-11 Developers should incorporate and local governments should include land
use principles, such as green building, that use resources eciently, eliminate
pollution and signicantly reduce waste into their projects, zoning codes and other
implementation mechanisms.
Building Code and incorporates green and conservation features, such as air quality
(pollution) and solid waste recycling and reduction mitigation measures. The Project
would also be consistent with the City of Los Angeles Building Code, including the Los
Angeles Green Building Code (LAGBC) for all new buildings (residential and non-
residential). The Code is designed to reduce the building's energy and water use; reduce
waste; and reduce the carbon footprint.
OSC-12 Developers and local governments should promote water-ecient land use
and development.
Building Code and incorporates green and conservation features, such as water-efficient
features, through mitigation measures. The Project would also be consistent with the City
of Los Angeles Building Code, including the Los Angeles Green Building Code
(LAGBC) for all new buildings (residential and non-residential). The Code is designed to
reduce the building's energy and water use; reduce waste; and reduce the carbon footprint.
OSC-13 Developers and local governments should encourage multiple use spaces
and encourage redevelopment in areas where it will provide more opportunities for
recreational uses and access to natural areas close to the urban core.
Consistent. The Project would contain multiple uses (residential and retail) and be a
redevelopment of an urban area. It will bring additional residents within proximity to local
parks and recreational uses, such as Everett Park
Water
3
WA-9 Developers and local governments should consider potential climate change
hydrology and resultant impacts on available water supplies and reliability in the
process of creating or modifying systems to manage water resources for both year-
round use and ecosystem health.
Consistent. The Project includes conservation features to reduce water use for operation
and irrigation.
WA-10
Developers and local governments should include conjunctive use as a water
management strategy when feasible.
Consistent. Conjunctive use is the coordinated management of surface water and
groundwater supplies to maximize the yield of the overall water resource. An active form
of conjunctive use utilizes artificial recharge, where surface water is intentionally

Policies Discussion
percolated or injected into aquifers for later use. The Project would not conflict or
preclude the City from exploring conjunctive use as a water management strategy.
WA-11
Developers and local governments should encourage urban development and land
uses to make greater use of existing and upgraded facilities prior to incurring new
infrastructure costs.
Consistent. The Project would confirm with the City that the capacity of the existing
water infrastructure can supply the domestic needs of the Project during the construction
and operation phases. The Project Applicant shall implement any upgrade to the water
infrastructure serving the Project Site that is needed to accommodate the Projects water
consumption needs.
WA-12 Developers and local governments should reduce exterior uses of water in
public areas, and should promote reduced use in private homes and businesses, by
shifting to drought-tolerant native landscape plants (xeriscaping), using weather-
based irrigation systems, educating other public agencies about water use, and
installing related water pricing incentives.
Consistent. The Project would include landscaping at the ground level on the Site and
would be irrigated with water conservation techniques
WA-13 Developers and local governments should protect and preserve vital land
resourceswetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, riparian corridors, and
production lands. The federal governments no net loss wetlands policy should be
applied to all of these land resources.
Not Applicable. The Project would not impact wetlands.
WA-27 Developers and local governments should maximize pervious surface area in
existing urbanized areas to protect water quality, reduce ooding, allow for
groundwater recharge, and preserve wildlife habitat. New impervious surfaces
should be minimized to the greatest extent possible, including the use of in-lieu fees
and o-site mitigation.
Consistent. The Project Site primarily consists of impermeable surfaces as it is fully
paved and developed, except for the rear hillside which will remain. The Project will not
result in a substantial change in the amount of impervious surface area at the Project Site.
WA-32 Developers and local governments should pursue water management
practices that avoid energy waste and create energy savings/supplies.
Consistent. The Project will comply with CalGreen requirements of the California
Building Code, for water and energy conservation. The Project would exceed Title 24
standards with compliance with the Citys Green Building Ordinance. The Project would
also be consistent with the City of Los Angeles Building Code, including the Los Angeles
Green Building Code (LAGBC) for all new buildings (residential and non-residential).
The Code is designed to reduce the building's energy and water use; reduce waste; and
reduce the carbon footprint.
Energy
4

EN-8 Developers should incorporate and local governments should include the Consistent. The Project would be a mixed-use residential and commercial development

Policies Discussion
following land use principles that use resources eciently, eliminate pollution and
signicantly reduce waste into their projects, zoning codes and other implementation
mechanisms:
Mixed-use residential and commercial development that is connected with public
transportation and utilizes existing infrastructure.
Land use and planning strategies to increase biking and walking trips.
that is in proximity to local transit lines, such as the Metro bus lines (704, 2/302, and 4),
and LADOT DASH line. The Project would encourage biking and walking trips due to
bicycle parking and within a pedestrian-oriented area of Echo Park along Sunset
Boulevard.

EN-10 Developers and local governments should integrate green building measures
into project design and zoning such as those identied in the U.S. Green Building
Councils Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, Energy Star Homes,
Green Point Rated Homes, and the California Green Builder Program. Energy saving
measures that should be explored for new and remodeled buildings include:
Using energy ecient materials in building design, construction, rehabilitation,
and retrot
Encouraging new development to exceed Title 24 energy eciency
requirements.
Developing Cool Communities measures including tree planting and light-
colored roofs. These measures focus on reducing ambient heat, which reduces
energy consumption related to air conditioning and other cooling equipment.
Utilizing ecient commercial/residential space and water heaters: this could
include the advertisement of existing and/or development of additional incentives
for energy ecient appliance purchases to reduce excess energy use and save
money. Federal tax incentives are provided online at
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=Products.pr_tax_credits.
Encouraging landscaping that requires no additional irrigation: utilizing native,
drought tolerant plants can reduce water usage up to 60 percent compared to
traditional lawns.
Encouraging combined heating and cooling (CHP), also known as cogeneration,
in all buildings.
Encouraging neighborhood energy systems, which allow communities to
Consistent. The Project would exceed Title 24 standards with compliance with the Citys
Green Building Ordinance.


Policies Discussion
generate their own electricity
Orienting streets and buildings for best solar access.
Encouraging buildings to obtain at least 20% of their electric load from
renewable energy.
EN-11 Developers and local governments should submit projected electricity and
natural gas demand calculations to the local electricity or natural gas provider, for any
project anticipated to require substantial utility consumption. Any infrastructure
improvements necessary for project construction should be completed according to
the specications of the energy provider.
Consistent. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power was sent a request for
information on electricity consumption on August 9, 2013. A response has not been
received. The Southern California Gas Company was sent a request for information on
natural gas on August 9, 2013. A response has not been received.
EN-12 Developers and local governments should encourage that new buildings are
able to incorporate solar panels in roong and tap other renewable energy sources to
oset new demand on conventional power sources.
Not Applicable. This is an encouragement to incorporate solar panels, not a requirement.
EN-14 Developers and local governments should explore programs to reduce single
occupancy vehicle trips such as telecommuting, ridesharing, alternative work
schedules, and parking cash-outs.
Not Applicable. The Project has no control over programs such as telecommuting,
ridesharing, or alterative work schedules.
Solid Waste
5

SW-14 Developers and local governments should integrate green building measures
into project design and zoning including, but not limited to, those identied in the
U.S. Green Building Councils Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design,
Energy Star Homes, Green Point Rated Homes, and the California Green Builder
Program. Construction reduction measures to be explored for new and remodeled
buildings include:
Reuse and minimization of construction and demolition (C&D) debris and
diversion of C&D waste from landlls to recycling facilities.
An ordinance that requires the inclusion of a waste management plan that
promotes maximum C&D diversion.
Source reduction through (1) use of building materials that are more durable and
easier to repair and maintain, (2) design to generate less scrap material through
dimensional planning, (3) increased recycled content, (4) use of reclaimed
building materials, and (5) use of structural materials in a dual role as nish
Consistent. The Project would include a demolition and construction waste recycling
program as well as an operational recycling program that follows best management
practices.


Policies Discussion
material (e.g. stained concrete ooring, unnished ceilings, etc.).
Reuse of existing building structure and shell in renovation projects.
Building lifetime waste reduction measures that should be explored for new and
remodeled buildings include:
Development of indoor recycling program and space.
Design for deconstruction.
Design for exibility through use of moveable walls, raised oors, modular
furniture, moveable task lighting and other reusable components.
SW-17 Developers and local governments should develop and site composting,
recycling, and conversion technology facilities that are environmentally friendly and
have minimum environmental and health impacts.
Not Applicable. The Project would not be a composting, or composting, recycling, or
conversion technology facility.

SW-18 Developers and local governments should coordinate regional approaches
and strategic siting of waste management facilities.
Not Applicable. The Project would not be a waste management facility.
SW-19 Developers and local governments should facilitate the creation of
synergistic linkages between community businesses and the development of eco-
industrial parks and materials exchange centers where one entitys waste stream
becomes another entitys raw material by making priority funding available for
projects that involve co-location of facilities.
Not Applicable. The Project would not be an eco-industrial park.

SW-20 Developers and local governments should prioritize siting of new solid
waste management facilities including recycling, composting, and conversion
technology facilities near existing waste management or material recovery facilities.
Not Applicable. The Project would not be a solid waste management facility.

SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan: http://www.scag.ca.gov/rcp/pdf/finalrcp/f2008RCP_Complete.pdf
1
Page 21
2
Pages 34 and 39
3
Pages 59-61
4
Pages 75-76
5
Pages 105-106



Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
On April 4, 2012, SCAG adopted the 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS) is a required element of the RTP. The RTP is a blueprint for making the best
transportation and land use choices for the future and supporting those choices with wise investments.
The RTP will result in more and better travel choices as well as safe, secure, and efficient transportation
systems that provide improved access to opportunities, such as jobs, education, and healthcare for our
residents. Furthermore, the RTP will create jobs, ensure the regions economic competitiveness through
strategic investments in the goods movement system, and improve environmental and health outcomes for
the regions 22 million residents by 2035. The RTP is built on the vision of mobility, economy, and
sustainability.
110

The RTP contains goals and policies that are directed to transportation planners and decision-makers.
They are not applicable to local and private projects, such as this Project. Nonetheless, they are provided
below:
Goals
1. Align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic development and
competitiveness
2. Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region
3. Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region
4. Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system
5. Maximize the productivity of our transportation system
6. Protect the environment and health of our residents by improving air quality and encouraging active
transportation (non-motorized transportation, such as bicycling and walking)
7. Actively encourage and create incentives for energy efficiency, where possible
8. Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and non-motorized transportation
9. Maximize the security of the regional transportation system through improved system monitoring,
rapid recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies

110
SCAG, RTP: http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Pages/default.aspx


Policies
1. Transportation investments shall be based on SCAGs adopted regional Performance Indicators
2. Ensuring safety, adequate maintenance, and efficiency of operations on the existing multimodal
transportation system should be the highest RTP/SCS priorities for any incremental funding in the
region
3. RTP/SCS land use and growth strategies in the RTP/SCS will respect local input and advance smart
growth initiatives
4. Transportation demand management (TDM) and non-motorized transportation will be focus areas,
subject to Policy 1
5. HOV gap closures that significantly increase transit and rideshare usage will be supported and
encouraged, subject to Policy 1
6. Monitoring progress on all aspects of the Plan, including the timely implementation of projects,
programs, and strategies, will be an important and integral component of the Plan
Applicability of SCAG Plans
The goals and policies of the RCPG, Compass Blueprint, RCP, and RTP address projects considered to be
regionally significant. To monitor regional development, CEQA requires regional agencies, such as
SCAG, to review projects and plans throughout its jurisdiction. In the Southern California region, with
exception of the County of San Diego, SCAG acts as the regions Clearinghouse, and collects
information on projects of varying size and scope to provide a central point to monitor regional activity.
The Project is not considered to be a regionally significant project pursuant to SCAG criteria (CEQA
Guidelines 15206).
111
The consideration is a proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling
units. The Project would have 220 dwelling units and 8,406 square feet of retail.
As such, the Project will not be required to demonstrate consistency with SCAG policies contained in the
RCPG, Compass Blueprint, RCP, or RTP.

111
Southern California Association of Governments, Environment, Intergovernmental Review, Criteria List,
Minimum Criteria For Classification Of Projects As Regionally Significant, website:
http://www.scag.ca.gov/igr/clist.htm, accessed January 30, 2013.


South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)
In the South Coast Air Basin, cumulative impacts on regional ozone air quality are judged by a projects
consistency with the SCAQMDs 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP works with
the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to forecast population growth for the region
and develops a long-term attainment plan to accommodate the air pollution impacts of such growth.
Because population growth drives the demand for jobs and housing that contribute to regional air
pollution, projects that are consistent with regional population forecasts built into the AQMP are
considered to have less-than-significant impacts on regional air quality. Consistency with jobs and
housing projections are also considered as secondary barometers for growth.
While the proposed project will increase population in the City of Los Angeles by approximately 660
persons
112
, it will not jeopardize the regions attainment of air quality standards.
113
Specifically, the
proposed project is consistent with the City of Los Angeles General Plan as well as population growth
projections used by the Southern California Association of Governments 2012 Adopted Growth Forecast
to identify future air quality emissions that must be mitigated through the 2012 AQMP. The Project
would represent a negligible percent of the estimated 2013 population and housing units in the City, as
listed by the California Department of Finance (2010 baseline based on 2010 Census and 2013 data
estimate).
114
The Project represents 2.4% of the 2010 Census population and 1.95% of the 2010 Census
housing units in the immediate and adjacent tracts.
115

As a result, the Project is consistent with the SCAQMDs 2012 AQMP and is considered to have a less-
than-significant cumulative effect on regional air pollution.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)
Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for Los Angeles County.
The CMP for Los Angeles County is intended to address vehicular congestion relief by linking land use,
transportation, and air quality decisions. The CMP also seeks to develop a partnership among

112
220 units proposed 5 units removed at 3.07 persons/unit.
113
DKA Planning, 2013 based on CalEEMod 2013.2.2 model analysis.
114
115


transportation decision-makers to devise appropriate transportation solutions that include all modes of
travel, and to propose transportation projects that are eligible to compete for state gas tax funds. Within
Los Angeles County, Metro is the designated congestion management agency responsible for
coordinating the CMP.
See Section 16 Transportation and Traffic, question b), in this IS/MND, for a discussion of the CMP. The
traffic study provided the following conclusion:
116

A review of the 2010 CMP also indicated the following freeway monitoring stations that are closest to the
Project Site.
I-5 at Stadium Way
US-101 North of Vignes Street
SR-110 South of US-101
SR-110 North of Alpine Street
SR-110 at Pasadena Avenue
Many of these stations are located some considerable distance from the Project Site. Nevertheless, the
number of Project trips expected to pass through these stations was estimated based on the Project trip
distribution and the Project trip generation (shown in Table 4.16-5, Project Trip Generation Estimates).
The maximum number of one-way Project trips that would be added to any single freeway segment at
these monitoring stations would be 13 southbound trips along the SR-110 Freeway south of the US-101
Freeway. Besides these CMP monitoring stations, the maximum number of one-way Project trips that
would be added to any single freeway segment would be 10 westbound trips along the US-101 Freeway
north of Alvarado Street.
With this low incremental volume, which is below the CMP threshold of 150 trips, it is concluded that no
further analysis is necessary and that the Project would not cause any significant impacts to freeway
operations.

116
Traffic Study, The Mobility Group, October 2, 2013, page 41. Included in the Appendices.


Consistency with City and Local Plans
City of Los Angeles General Plan
State law requires that every city and county prepare and adopt a long-range comprehensive General Plan
to guide future development and to identify the communitys environmental, social, and economic
goals.
117
The Citys General Plan is a dynamic document consisting of 11 elements, including 10
citywide elements (Air Quality Element, Conservation Element, Historic Preservation and Cultural
Resources Element, Housing Element, Infrastructure Systems Element, Noise Element, Open Space
Element, Public Facilities and Services Element, Safety Element, and Transportation Element) and the
Land Use Element, which provides individual land use consistency plans for each of the Citys 35
Community Plan Areas.
With the approval of the requested actions and the implementation of the conditions of approval, the
Project will be consistent with all applicable land use plans. However, the Project Site, is located within
an area of high existing air pollution and to comply with the goals, objectives, and policies within the
Housing Element and Air Quality Element of the General Plan, the Project shall provide an air filtration
system to reduce any air pollution impacts upon potential inhabitants to a less than significant level (see
City of Los Angeles General Plan Framework Element
The General Plan Framework Element is a strategy for long-term growth that sets a citywide context to
guide the update of the community plan and citywide elements. The General Plan Land Use Framework
Element identifies the Site as General Commercial (in the C2 zoned Sunset portion of the Site) and
Medium Residential (in the R3 zoned Everett portion of the Site).
118

General Commercial
119

The land use definition "General Commercial" applies to a diversity of retail sales and services, office,
and auto-oriented uses comparable to those currently allowed in the "C2" zone (including residential).
They are located outside of districts, centers, and mixed-use boulevards and occur at the intersections of
major and secondary streets, or as low rise, low-density linear "strip" development along major and
secondary streets.

117
California Government Code Section 65300.
118
Sunset and 959 Everett, website: http://zimas.lacity.org
119
General Plan, Chapter 3-Land Use: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/cwd/framwk/chapters/03/03207.htm


Medium Residential
120

It is the intent of the Framework Element to maintain existing stable multi-family residential
neighborhoods. In those stable neighborhoods characterized by a mix of densities and dwelling types,
permitted densities may be reduced to levels consistent with the character of the entire area in order to
minimize impacts on infrastructure, services, and/or maintain or enhance the residents' quality of life. The
loss of potential units in these locations can be offset by the provision of new housing opportunities in
mixed-use districts, centers, and boulevards. The determination of the locations in which such
modifications may occur would normally occur as amendments to the community plans or other
initiatives as provided for by the Los Angeles Municipal Code. The Framework Element establishes
guidelines to achieve higher quality multi-family dwellings, such as design character, amenity, and open
space.
Table 4.10-3, General Plan lists the goal, objective, and policies that apply to developers in collaboration
with local government. As shown, the Project will be consistent with the applicable (developer-controlled
or focused) policies of the General Plan for each land use.
The Sunset portion would include 8,406 square feet of retail, in addition to housing. The retail would
serve the local commercial needs outside of commercial centers and districts.
The Everett portion would include a 6-unit subdivision in the R3 zoned Medium Residential parcel. The
desired density per net acre is 30-55 units.
121
The Everett portion is approximately 0.1966 acres. Thus, the
recommended density would be between 6 units and 10 units.
122
The [Q] condition in the zoning limits
the R3 density to 1 unit per 1,200 square feet of land, which would allow 7 units. The Project is proposing
6 units.
The Projects integration of housing and commercial uses in a commercially-designated land use area is
consistent with the goal and objective of the General Plan Framework for a General Commercial area.
The Projects housing density is consistent with the goal and objective for a Medium Residential area.
Therefore, no significant impacts due to consistency with land use designations in the General Plan
Framework are anticipated.

120
General Plan, Chapter 3-Land Use: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/cwd/framwk/chapters/03/03202.htm
121
General Plan, Chapter 3-Land Use, Table 3-3: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/cwd/framwk/chapters/03/03202.htm
122
0.1966 acres x 30 to 55 units per acre = 5.898 to 10.8 units.

Table 4.10-3
General Plan
Goal, Objective, Policies Discussion
Multiple Family Residential (Everett Portion)
GOAL 3C Multi-family neighborhoods that enhance the quality of life for the City's
existing and future residents.
Consistent. The Project would create small lot subdivision on Everett.
Objective 3.7 Provide for the stability and enhancement of multi-family residential
neighborhoods and allow for growth in areas where there is sufficient public
infrastructure and services and the residents' quality of life can be maintained or
improved.
Consistent. The Project would create a small lot subdivision on Everett. The Project
plan check and approval process will ensure there is sufficient public infrastructure and
services available.
Policy 3.7.1 Accommodate the development of multi-family residential units in areas
designated in the community plans in accordance with Table 3-1 and Zoning
Ordinance densities indicated in Table 3-3, with the density permitted for each parcel
to be identified in the community plans.
Consistent. The Project would create a small lot subdivision on Everett.
Policy 3.7.2 Consider decreasing the permitted densities, by amendments to the
community plan, of areas designated for multi-family residential where there is a mix
of existing unit types and density and/or built densities are below the maximum
permitted. When determining whether to reduce these densities, consider the following
criteria:
a. There is inadequate public infrastructure or services to provide for the needs of
existing or future residents for which the cost of improvements would result in an
undue burden on the community or are infeasible;
b. The quality of life of the area's residents has been adversely impacted by the density
of development (crime, noise, pollution, etc.);
c. The neighborhood is physically and functionally stable;
Existing housing units are structurally sound or can be upgraded without undue costs;
d. There is a desire of the residents to preserve existing housing and neighborhood
qualities; and/or
Consistent. The R3 zone permits one dwelling per 800 square feet of lot area which
permits 10 residential units (8,530 square feet / 800 square feet). A total of six
residential units are proposed. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect any
element of the General Plan. The Site is designated Medium Residential in the Silver
Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Valley Community Plan and zoned [Q]R31VL which permits
the proposed small lot subdivision and single-family residences. The surrounding
properties along Everett Street are zoned [Q]R3-1VL and developed with a mix of
single-family residences, duplexes, and multi-family buildings. The Project proposes
six small lot single-family residences that comply with the R3 zoning and small lot
subdivision development standards and are compatible with the neighborhood which is
comprised of low density residential uses. The [Q] condition in the zoning limits the R3
density to 1 unit per 1,200 square feet of land, which would allow 7 units. The Project is
proposing 6 units.

e. Adequate housing potential exists or can be provided in nearby areas, including
those designated for mixed-use development, in order to offset the loss of any
potential units due to the reduced densities.
Policy 3.7.3 Allow the reconstruction of existing multi-family dwelling units
destroyed by fire, earthquakes, flooding, or other natural catastrophes to their pre-
existing density in areas wherein the permitted multi-family density has been reduced
below the pre-existing level.
Not Applicable. The Project does not involve reconstruction of units destroyed by a
natural catastrophe.
Policy 3.7.4 Improve the quality of new multi-family dwelling units based on the
standards in Chapter 5 Urban Form and Neighborhood Design Chapter of this
Element.
Consistent. The Project would comply with the standards of the Urban Design Chapter
of the Community Plan.
General Commercial Areas (Sunset Portion)
GOAL 3H Lower-intensity highway-oriented and local commercial nodes that
accommodate commercial needs outside centers and districts.
Consistent. The commercial use would be neighborhood-serving and locally focused,
not regionally significant.
Objective 3.12 Generally, maintain the uses, density, and character of existing low-
intensity commercial districts whose functions serve surrounding neighborhoods
and/or are precluded from intensification due to their physical characteristics.
Consistent. The entire Site is designated as General Commercial by the Community
Plan and is located along Sunset Boulevard that is designated as a Mixed Use
Boulevard on the General Plan Framework Long-Range Land Use Diagram. Sunset
Boulevard is designated a Major Highway and is a considered important transit corridor
for the area. Currently, the Site is underdeveloped with single-family residence, duplex,
and car wash, warehouse building and hardware store and is generally an eyesore in the
area. These are low-density, low-intensity uses that are inconsistent with smart growth
principles or the Citys vision for this area. Thus, the Site provides an opportunity to
develop a mixed-use project where planned major transit facilities will be located and
which is characterized by low-intensity and marginally viable commercial uses,
consistent with the General Plan Framework. The Project will add 214 residential units
(including 15 Very Low Income affordable units) and approximately 8,406 square feet
of commercial space to this underutilized Site, all of which will be consistent with the
Sites land use designation and zoning.
Policy 3.12.1 Accommodate the development of uses in areas designated as "General Consistent. Per Table 3-1, the C2-1VL zone permits the proposed multi-family and

Commercial" in the community plans in accordance with Tables 3-1 and 3-7. The
range and densities/intensities of uses permitted in any area shall be identified in the
community plans.
commercial uses. Per Table 3-7, the General Commercial land use designation has a
corresponding zones of C2 and [Q]C2. The Site area after the dedication is 105,524
square feet which permits 264 residential units. The Project would include 214 units.
Policy 3.12.2 Consider adjusting permitted densities of areas designated for General
Commercial, where existing buildings are developed at densities substantially below
the maximum permitted by amendments to the community plans, where appropriate,
based on consideration of the following:
a. Where commercial parcels of less than 150 feet in depth abut areas designated for
single-family residential;
b. Where the total area and/or configuration of the commercial parcel precludes the
development of adequate on-site parking, unless adjacent to a transit station or code-
required parking is provided in a common parking facility in proximity to the site;
c. Where site driveways may adversely impact traffic flows along principal streets or
in adjacent residential neighborhoods; and/or
d. Where there are local community objectives for the preservation of the prevailing
scale and character of development.
Not Applicable. The Site area after the dedication is 105,524 square feet which permits
264 residential units. The Project would include 214 units. The Project would remove
all existing buildings on the Site. None of the considerations apply.
Policy 3.12.3 Permit the re-construction of existing commercial structures destroyed
by fire, earthquakes, flooding, or other natural catastrophes to their pre-existing
intensity.
Not Applicable. The Project does not involve reconstruction of units destroyed by a
natural catastrophe.
Mixed-Use Boulevards (Sunset Portion)
GOAL 3I A network of boulevards that balance community needs and economic
objectives with transportation functions and complement adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
Consistent. The Sunset portion is designated as General Commercial by the
Community Plan and is located along Sunset Boulevard that is designated as a Mixed
Use Boulevard on the General Plan Framework Long-Range Land Use Diagram.
Objective 3.13 Provide opportunities for the development of mixed-use boulevards
where existing or planned major transit facilities are located and which are
characterized by low-intensity or marginally viable commercial uses with commercial
development and structures that integrate commercial, housing, and/or public service
Consistent. The Sunset portion is designated as General Commercial by the
Community Plan and is located along Sunset Boulevard that is designated as a Mixed
Use Boulevard on the General Plan Framework Long-Range Land Use Diagram. Sunset
Boulevard is designated a Major Highway and is a considered important transit corridor

uses. for the area.
Policy 3.13.1 Encourage the development of commercial uses and structures that
integrate housing units with commercial uses in areas designated as "Boulevard-Mixed
Use" in accordance with Tables 3-1 and 3-8. The range and density/intensity of uses
permitted in any area shall be identified in the community plans.
Consistent. The Sunset portion will include commercial uses that integrate housing
units. Per Table 3-1, the C2-1VL zone permits the proposed multi-family and
commercial uses. Per Table 3-8, the Boulevard Mixed Use land use designation has a
corresponding zones of CR, C1, C1.5, C2, C4, and [Q]C2.
Policy 3.13.2 Allow boulevards designated for mixed uses to be differentiated into
sub-areas that may individually accommodate: (1) sites developed exclusively for
commercial uses, (2) structures that integrate housing with commercial uses, (3) sites
that contain a mix of free-standing commercial and housing, and (4) sites developed
exclusively for multi-family housing. The determination of the appropriate
differentiation shall be accomplished by the community plans in consideration of the
following:
a. Parcel depth and relationship to adjacent uses;
b. Adjacency to multi-family residential neighborhoods;
c. Location on a major bus or funded rail transit route;
d. Existence of existing mixed uses; and/or
e. Condition and economic value of existing structures (e.g., prevalence of dilapidation
and/or economically obsolete commercial uses).
Neutral. The Project will integrate housing with commercial uses. However, the Project
does not designate mixed-uses into differentiated sub-areas. The Sunset portion will
include ground-floor retail and multi-family housing within the same building.
Policy 3.13.3 Encourage the inclusion of public service uses (e.g., day and elder care,
community meeting rooms, and recreational facilities), school classrooms, cultural
facilities (museums and libraries), and similar uses in mixed-use structures.
Neutral. The Project will not include public services uses. As this policy is an
encouragement and not a requirement, the Project is not required to comply. The
Project is providing much needed affordable housing to low-income persons and
families which is a form of public service use, but is not among the public service use
examples listed in Policy 3.13.3.
Policy 3.13.4 Provide adequate transitions where commercial and residential uses are
located adjacent to one another.
Consistent. The Project will provide adequate transitions and buffers between the
mixed-use development and the surrounding neighborhood. As noted, the Project has
been designed with the site topography which slopes from the high elevation at the
northwest west corner on Sunset Boulevard to the low elevation at the northeast corner
on Everett Street by approximately 100 feet in elevation. As a result, the height of the

Project mimics the topography and steps down in elevation. Trash receptacles and
loading areas will be strategically located on the site and screened from public view to
the extent possible to minimize any potential impacts to adjacent properties. Parking
will be provided in full conformance with Code requirements for all Project uses, and
the residential component will satisfy Code requirements for an affordable housing
density project. The parking will be located in an on-site one-level subterranean garage
and within two above grade level within an enclosed parking structure. Thus, the
Project will provide adequate transitions where commercial and residential uses are
located adjacent to one another, consistent with the General Plan.
Policy 3.13.5 Support the development of recreational and small parks in areas
developed with mixed-use structures.
Consistent. The Project would not conflict with the existing Everett Park.
Policy 3.13.6 Design multi-family residential units to minimize the impacts of traffic
and noise and incorporate recreational and open space amenities to support the needs
of the residents.
Consistent. The Project would include multi-family units and include bicycle parking
to minimize traffic and noise impacts. With the mitigation measure for the Sunset and
Beaudry intersection (identified as 16-1), there would be no significant impacts due to
the Project. The Sunset portion would provide 24,076 square feet of open space through
a combination of private balconies in some units, roof terraces in Building A and
Building B, a recreation room, and common open spaces. The amount provided would
exceed the amount required by 1,751 square feet. The Everett portion would provide no
open space.
General Plan, Chapter 3-Land Use, Multiple Family Residential: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/cwd/framwk/chapters/03/03202.htm
General Plan, Chapter 3-Land Use, General Commercial Areas: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/cwd/framwk/chapters/03/03207.htm
General Plan, Chapter 3-Land Use, Mixed-Use Boulevards: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/cwd/framwk/chapters/03/03208.htm



The Silver Lake Echo Park Elysian Valley Community Plan, part of the Citys General Plan Land Use
Element, sets forth specific land use requirements and required entitlements for projects within the Silver
Lake Echo Park Elysian Valley Community Plan Area of the City, where the Project Site is located.
The Community Plan was adopted on August 11, 2004.
123
The City of Los Angeles General Plan contains
goals, numerous policies and objectives to guide development and uses planned within the City. Not
every goal, policy, or objective in the Community Plan is applicable to the Project or the Project Site.
Purposes
The Community Plan purpose is:
124

1. Preserving and enhancing the positive characteristics of existing residential neighborhoods while
providing a variety of housing opportunities with compatible new housing.
2. Improving the function, design and economic vitality of the commercial corridors.
3. Preserving and enhancing the positive characteristics of existing development, such as scale, height,
bulk, setbacks and appearance, and uses which together provide the foundation for community
identity.
4. Preserving and promoting the unique arts and cultural community.
Purposes 1 and 2 can be applied to this Project. The Project would create a residential use with a range of
housing choices (studio, loft, 1, and 2-bedroom). The Project would improve the walkability and access of
the Site with new modern development buildings, neighborhood retail, and density along a major
commercial corridor (Sunset Boulevard). The Everett portion would also upgrade the existing housing
development with a new modern building containing 6 subdivisions.
The existing uses are not being preserved as they do not create a community identity due to their small-
scale, unadorned faade and appearance and unspecialized use (warehouse, retail, car wash, residential).
Thus, there is no incentive to preserve and enhance the existing use (Purpose 3)
Purpose 4 would apply to a project or existing use that promotes a unique arts and cultural community.
The existing uses are not arts or cultural uses.

123
Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Valley Community Plan:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/pdf/SlkCPTXT.pdf
124
Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Valley Community Plan, page II-2:


Table 4.10-4, Silver Lake Echo Park Elysian Valley Community Plan, sets forth the Community Plan
goals, objectives, and policies and discusses the Projects consistency and applicability with each of them.
Some of the goals, objectives and policies are directed toward the City (government and public facilities),
and the various departments and agencies within, such as open space and recreation (Department of
Recreation and Parks), Police Protection (LAPD), Fire Protection (LAFD), Schools/Education (LAUSD),
Libraries (LAPL), social services (public and non-profit). As noted in the table below, certain policies do
not relate to individual private projects and are not applicable to this Project. The Project would be
consistent with all applicable policies related to the buildings siting, location, uses, and design features.


Table 4.10-4
Goals, Objectives, and Policies Discussion
Residential
Goal 1 A safe, secure and high quality residential environment for all economic, age
and ethnic segments of the plan area.
Consistent. The Project will enhance existing and future residential mixed-use
development in the neighborhood by providing an attractive, modern and sustainable
building for residents across all income levels with on-site retail that is accessible to
nearby public transit opportunities.
Objective 1-1 Achieve and maintain a housing supply sufficient to meet the diverse
economic and socioeconomic needs of current and projected population to the year
2010.
Consistent. The Project will increase the supply of housing and maintain affordability
in the community by adding 214 residential units to the current housing stock,
including 73 studios, 53 loft units, 51 one-bedroom units and 37 two bedroom units
that include 15 Very Low Income affordable units. The Project will also include a
small lot subdivision of 6 units on Everett Street.
Policy 1-1.1 Maintain an adequate supply and distribution of multiple family, low
income and special needs housing opportunities in the Community Plan Area.
Policy 1-1.2 Improve the quality of existing single family and multiple family housing
throughout the Plan Area.
Policy 1-1.3 Protect existing single family residential neighborhoods from new out-of-
scale development.
Consistent. The Site is surrounded by commercial and multi-family residential zones
and uses and is not located near a single-family zoned neighborhood. Properties to the
north on Sunset Boulevard are zoned C2-1VL and developed with multi-family
residential and commercial uses. Properties to the south along Sunset Boulevard are
also zoned C2-1VL and developed with commercial and retail uses, an auto repair
shop, a church (LA Sa-Rang Community Church), and multi-family housing.
Properties to the west on Sunset are zoned C2-1VL and developed with Commercial
and retail uses that include a tattoo parlor, beauty salon, botanical shop, and
clothing/upholstery business, bar (El Chubasco), and multi-family housing. Properties
to the east are zoned R3-1VL and developed with multi-family housing buildings along
Everett Street. The topography of the Site rises steeply from Sunset Boulevard to the
rear of the Site in the northwest corner. The proposed buildings are notched into the

hillside and significant portions of the buildings will be located at an elevation lower
than the heights of the residential buildings located along Everett Street. In addition,
the proposed buildings are compatible and lower in height than the existing eight-story
building located adjacent to the east of the Site at 1111 West Sunset which has been
converted into residential uses.
Policy 1.1-4 Encourage new infill residential development that complements existing
development and architectural style.
Consistent. The Project is an infill mixed-use development that complements existing
development and architectural style. The Site is currently developed with unattractive
commercial and residential uses and the Project would redevelop with the Site with an
attractive multi-use development with ground floor retail uses. Redevelopment of the
Site will help transform the neighborhood and the portion of Sunset located between
Downtown and Echo Park.
The Project is an infill residential project that complements existing development and
architectural style. The Project has considered the diversity of building styles in the
neighborhood and proposes a cohesive palette that pays homage to the diversity of
styles that exist. The Project includes a wide variety of unique and complementary
building materials along the faades ranging from the exterior plaster found throughout
the neighborhood, and a horizontal siding material that represents a modern take on the
many varieties of cladding material found throughout Angelino Heights and
surrounding neighborhoods. The building also utilizes many staggered accents of wood
composite panels that provide a warm residential feel while also acting to identify the
separation between individual dwelling units. The varied locations of the panels, both
horizontally and vertically across the faade, create a dynamic changing pattern that
unifies the Project.
Policy 1.1-5 Protect existing stable single family and low-density multiple family
residential neighborhoods from encroachment by higher density residential and other
incompatible uses.
Consistent. While the Project would remove a single family and small multi-family
unit building, it would include a net increase in units, including a multi-family mixed
use building on Sunset and small lot subdivision on Everett. The Project would not
include incompatible uses.
The surrounding properties along Everett Street are zoned [Q]R3-1VL and developed
with a mix of single-family residences, duplexes, and multi-family buildings. The
Project proposes six small lot single-family residences that comply with the R3 zoning
and small lot subdivision development standards and are compatible with the
neighborhood which is comprised of low density residential uses.
Policy 1.1-6 Promote the preservation of existing single and multiple family
neighborhoods.
Consistent. The Project would provide a multi-family development on Sunset where
there are nearby multi-family buildings. The Project would also include a small lot
subdivision on Everett where there are nearby and adjacent multi-family buildings.

The surrounding properties along Everett Street are zoned [Q]R3-1VL and developed
with a mix of single-family residences, duplexes, and multi-family buildings. The
Project proposes six small lot single-family residences that comply with the R3 zoning
and small lot subdivision development standards and are compatible with the
neighborhood which is comprised of low density residential uses.
Policy 1-1.7 Promote the unique quality and functionality of the Community Plan
Areas mixed single and multiple family residential neighborhoods by encouraging
infill development that continues to offer a variety of housing opportunities that
capitalize on the eclectic character and architectural styles of existing development.
Consistent. The Project takes advantage of the Sites location along a major boulevard
creating a pedestrian-friendly street with commercial uses along Sunset Boulevard that
would help transform the neighborhood and the portion of Sunset located between
Downtown and Echo Park.
The Project is an infill residential project that complements existing development and
architectural style. The Project has considered the diversity of building styles in the
neighborhood and proposes a cohesive palette that pays homage to the diversity of
styles that exist. The Project includes a wide variety of unique and complementary
building materials along the faades ranging from the exterior plaster found throughout
the neighborhood, and a horizontal siding material that represents a modern take on the
many varieties of cladding material found throughout Angelino Heights and
surrounding neighborhoods. The building also utilizes many staggered accents of wood
composite panels that provide a warm residential feel while also acting to identify the
separation between individual dwelling units. The varied locations of the panels, both
horizontally and vertically across the faade, create a dynamic changing pattern that
unifies the Project.
Objective 1-2 Reduce automobile trips in residential areas by locating new housing in
areas offering proximity to goods, services and facilities.
Consistent. The Project locates new housing in an area with existing retail and jobs,
and transit access via Metro bus lines and Dash line.
Policy 1-2.1 Locate higher residential densities near commercial centers and major bus
routes where public service facilities, utilities and topography will accommodate this
development.
Consistent. The Project locates new housing in an area with existing retail and jobs,
and transit access via Metro bus lines and Dash line.
Policy 1-2.2 Encourage multiple family residential development in commercially zoned
areas in designated Neighborhood Districts and Community Centers and along Mixed
Use Boulevards (see Figure 1) and, where appropriate, provide floor area bonuses as an
incentive to encourage mixed-use development in those areas.
Consistent. The Project is along Sunset Boulevard, a mixed-use boulevard. The
Project is an infill mixed-use development that complements existing development and
architectural style. The Site is currently developed with unattractive commercial and
residential uses and the Project would redevelop with the Site with an attractive multi-
use development with ground floor retail uses. Redevelopment of the Site will help
transform the neighborhood and the portion of Sunset located between Downtown and
Echo Park.
Objective 1-3 Preserve and enhance the varied and distinct character and integrity of Consistent. The Project includes a multi-family development on Sunset and a small lot

existing single and multiple family neighborhoods. subdivision on Everett. These uses would complement the existing residential
character of the neighborhood.
Policy 1-3.1 Seek a higher degree of architectural compatibility and landscaping for
new infill development to protect the character and scale of existing residential
neighborhoods.
Consistent. The Project is designed with two buildings that reduce the massing as
viewed along Sunset Boulevard. During the early design stages, it was decided to split
one long building into two separate structures in order to break down the scale and
massing of the Project. Each building is designed to achieve a distinct aesthetic that are
also complementary with each other. After breaking up the program into two separate
and distinct smaller structures, further scale reduction at both buildings was achieved
by creating separate and clear smaller zones within the massing. At the center of
Building A, a large portion of the mass was removed in order to visually split the
structure into two smaller wings and replace the mass with an outdoor terrace amenity
that activates the streetscape along Sunset. A large gateway like frame encloses the
central common amenity programs and provides a distinct visual zone. Across the
residential wings of Building A, the faade treatment creates a dynamic staggered
pattern from each dwelling unit that creates unique private open spaces that afford
views of the nearby Downtown skyline. At key building transitions, vertical elements
of textured siding or contrasting color are introduced to provide articulation and
architecturally significant elements within the overall composition of the massing.
Policy 1-3.2 Preserve existing views in hillside areas. Consistent. As shown in Appendix A-1, Sunset Portion Architecture Package, Views
Toward Downtown, the notable views from the hillside and Everett Street would be
preserved.
Policy 1-3.3 Consider factors such as neighborhood character and identity,
compatibility of land uses, impacts on services and public facilities and impacts on
traffic levels when changes in residential densities are proposed.
Consistent. The Site area after the dedication is 105,524 square feet which permits 264
residential units. The Project would include 214 units. Thus the proposed density
would be less than the permitted density. This IS/MND considers and evaluates land
use compatibility, impacts on public services, and traffic levels. With identified
mitigation measures, all potential impacts would be reduced to less than significance.
Objective 1-4 Promote and ensure the provision of adequate housing for all persons,
including special needs populations, regardless of income, age or ethnic background.
Policy 1-4.1 Promote greater individual choice in type, quality, price and location of
housing.
Consistent. The Project will include 73 studios, 53 loft units, 51 one-bedroom units
and 37 two bedroom units that include 15 Very Low Income affordable units. The
Project will also include a small lot subdivision of 6 units on Everett Street.

Policy 1-4.2 Promote mixed-use housing projects in pedestrian-oriented areas and
designated Mixed Use Boulevards, Neighborhood Districts and Community Centers to
increase supply and maintain affordability (see Figures 1, 2, and 3).
Consistent. The Project is on a Mixed-Use Boulevard (Sunset) and will include
residential and retail uses.
Policy 1-4.3 Ensure that new housing developments minimize displacement of low-
income residents.
Consistent. The Project includes 15 Very Low Income affordable units.
Policy 1-4.4 Increase home ownership options by providing opportunities for
development of townhouses, condominiums and similar types of housing.
Consistent. The Project includes a small lot subdivision of single-family residential
units.
Objective 1-5 Preserve and enhance neighborhoods with distinctive and significant
historic or architectural character.
Not Applicable. The Project Site does not contain any historic resources and would
not affect any other historic resources in the Community Plan.
Policy 1-5.1 Protect and enhance the historic and architectural legacy of the Plan areas
neighborhoods.
Policy 1-5.2 Encourage reuse of historic resources in a manner that maintains and
enhances the historic character of structures and neighborhoods.
Not Applicable. The Project Site does not contain any historic resources to be reused.
Objective 1-6 Limit the density of residential development in hillside areas to that
which can reasonably be accommodated by infrastructure and natural topography.
Consistent. The Site area after the dedication is 105,524 square feet which permits 264
residential units. The Project would include 214 units. Thus the proposed density
would be less than the permitted density. The Project design also takes into account the
challenging topography of the Site. The building massing has been carefully stepped
into the hillside and terraces back to the northeast corner of the Site. Three levels of the
Project are buried into the existing slope at the rear in order to minimize the building
height and to preserve the views for the neighboring properties on Everett
Street. In addition, Building A step downs to a 4-story structure along Sunset to reduce
the vertical height along the Sunset facade and to create a better pedestrian scale and
experience. This is accomplish by substantially stepping back the 5th and 6th floors in
order mimic the existing Site topography and provide massing that is well-
proportioned.
At Building B where the structure sits at the corner of Sunset and Everett , the back of
house functions for the commercial space are buried into the hillside and the 4-story
residential volumes step along the sloping site to achieve compatibility with the
neighboring apartment buildings further up the street along Everett Street.
Policy 1-6.1 Limit development according to the adequacy of the existing and assured
street circulation system within the Plan area and surrounding areas.
Consistent. The Traffic Study evaluated intersection levels of service. With Mitigation
Measure 16-1, there would be no significant impacts due to the Project.
Policy 1-6.2 Ensure the availability of adequate sewers, drainage facilities, fire Consistent. The Project will ensure the availability of utility systems and fire

protection services and facilities and other public utilities to support development
within hillside areas.
protection services, and other public utilities through mitigation measures and plan
check/building and safety requirements.
Policy 1-6.3 Consider the steepness of the topography and suitability of the geology in
any proposal for development within the Plan area.
Consistent. The Project is designed to enhance and be compatible with existing
adjacent development. As discussed above, the buildings aesthetic takes into account
factors such as neighborhood character and identity. The Sites topography dictates the
form of the building such that it is compatible with adjacent land uses.
Policy 1-6.4 Ensure that any proposed development be designed to enhance and be
compatible with adjacent development.
adjacent development. The buildings aesthetic takes into account factors such as
neighborhood character and identity. The Project will enhance the Everett
neighborhood with an attractive, aesthetically pleasing residences with individual
entries and landscaping.
Commercial
Goal 2 An economically vital commercial sector and strong viable commercial areas
that offer a diversity of goods and services to meet the needs of the community in the
Plan Area. Commercial areas should satisfy market demand, maximize convenience and
accessibility while preserving and enhancing the unique historic and cultural identities
of the District.
Consistent. The Project would include new retail space in a modern building.
Objective 2-1 Conserve and strengthen viable commercial development and encourage
the reuse of obsolete commercial development.
Consistent. Given its location between Downtown and Echo Park, its location along
Sunset Boulevard and its zoning, this Site is currently underdeveloped with two single-
family residences, a duplex, and older commercial uses. These uses are not pedestrian-
oriented and are incongruous with the Community Plan mixed-use vision for Sunset
Boulevard.
Policy 2-1.1 New commercial uses shall be located in established commercial areas,
emphasizing more intense and efficient use of existing commercial land, ultimately
contributing to and enhancing the existing urban form and village atmosphere.
Consistent. The Project would include commercial uses along Sunset and at the
Everett corner. This area has existing commercial uses.
Objective 2-2 Preserve pedestrian-oriented areas through the use of available overlay
zones to provide alternatives to automobile-oriented commercial activity.
Consistent. Building A step downs to a 4-story structure along Sunset to reduce the
vertical height along the Sunset facade and to create a better pedestrian scale and
experience. While being distinctly modern and looking to create a cleaner streetscape
along this section of Sunset, the building also provides richly textured wood soffited
canopies that are experienced not just by the residents of the ground floor units, but by
pedestrians on the Sunset sidewalk and those visiting the retail storefronts along the
street. The Project will bring increased density and pedestrian activity to this mixed-
use neighborhood on a currently under-utilized site, ultimately enhancing the urban
form and village atmosphere of the area.

Policy 2-2.1 Preserve existing pedestrian-oriented areas. Not Applicable. The Project Sites existing commercial uses are auto-focused with
front of store parking lots and a car wash use. Gates divide the uses from the sidewalk.
The Project will include pedestrian-scaled architecture features and retail uses abutting
sidewalks.
Policy 2-2.2 New developments in pedestrian-oriented areas should add to and enhance
existing pedestrian street activity.
Consistent. The Project will redevelop the Site with a mixed-use, transit-oriented
building that will serve a wide-variety of neighborhood needs and create pedestrian
activity on adjacent streets. The Project will provide housing across all income levels
and will add neighborhood-serving commercial uses to Sunset Boulevard. Future
residents will be able to take advantage of the Sites proximity to other neighborhood
services in the area as well as major transit lines that run on Sunset Boulevard. Further,
the Site is only a short distance to the Downtown employment center. Thus, consistent
with the foregoing objective, policies and program of the Community Plan, the Project
will bring increased density and pedestrian activity to this mixed-use neighborhood on
a currently under-utilized site, ultimately enhancing the urban form and village
atmosphere of the area.
Policy 2-2.3 The first floor street frontage for structures, including mixed-use projects
and parking structures located in pedestrian-oriented areas, should incorporate
commercial uses.
Consistent. The Project would include ground-floor commercial uses.
Objective 2-3 Enhance the appearance of existing commercial districts. Consistent. The Project development would enhance the existing commercial district
along Sunset by providing new buildings designed to be pedestrian friendly.
Policy 2-3.1 Proposed developments should be designed to enhance and be compatible
with existing adjacent development.
Policy 2-3.2 Support efforts to obtain Main Street grant or other funding to enhance and
supplement planned improvements of Glendale Boulevard south of the Glendale
Freeway as part of the Glendale Boulevard Corridor Improvement Project and Glendale
Freeway Terminus project, as approved by DOT and Caltrans.
Not Applicable. The Project is not involved with the planned improvements of
Glendale Boulevard.
Policy 2-3.3 Require screening of open storage and auto repair uses, and prohibit
storage of automobile parts and other noxious commercial-related products in front of
commercial developments exposed to the street.
Not Applicable. The Project does not involve auto repair uses and would remove an
existing car wash facility.
Policy 2-3.4 Preserve community character, scale and architectural diversity. Consistent. The Project is designed to enhance and be compatible with existing

Policy 2-3.5 [erroneously labeled as duplicate 2-3.4 in the Community Plan] Improve
safety and aesthetics of parking areas in commercial areas.
Consistent. Parking will be provided in full conformance with Code requirements for
all Project uses, and the residential component will satisfy Code requirements for an
affordable housing density project. The Project also includes 17 additional surplus
parking spaces for resident guests. The parking will be located in an on-site
subterranean garage.
Policy 2-3.6 [erroneously labeled as 2-3.5 in the Community Plan] Landscaped
corridors should be created and enhanced through the planting of street trees along
street segments with no building setbacks and through median plantings.
Consistent. As shown in Appendix A-1, Sunset Portion Architecture Package, the
Project includes a turf parkway and street trees along the Sunset sidewalk.
Objective 2-4 Reinforce the identity of distinct commercial districts through the use of
design guidelines and development standards.
Consistent. The Project will comply with the Community Plan Urban Design chapters
applicable policies for mixed-use, commercial and multi-family residential projects.
Policy 2-4.1 Ensure that commercial infill projects achieve harmony with the best of
existing development.
Consistent. The Project will comply with the Community Plan Urban Design chapters
applicable policies for mixed-use, commercial and multi-family residential projects.
Policy 2-4.2 Require that mixed-use projects and development in pedestrian-oriented
areas be designed and developed to achieve a high level of quality, distinctive character
and compatibility with existing uses.
Consistent. The Project will enhance the appearance of the existing commercial
district in this area by replacing dilapidated and underutilized commercial and
residential buildings on the Site with ground floor retail fronting on Sunset Boulevard
in addition to 214 residential units and open space areas. The building will be inviting
to pedestrians as its walls along Sunset Boulevard and Everett Street will consist of
storefront glazing that is recessed from the setback line to provide a transparency that
opens the building to the street. Pedestrian entrances to the retail uses will be
conveniently located along Sunset Boulevard. In addition, the Project will include
abundant street level landscaping, and new street trees lining Sunset Boulevard and
Everett Street in order to create identity and a sense of place for the building.
Policy 2-4.3 Implement development standards that promote commercial development
at a scale commensurate with their designation as Neighborhood, General or
Community Center commercial and that is compatible with adjacent, primarily
residential uses.
Consistent. The ground floor commercial space is proposed on Building B that is
completely open and visually accessible with floor to ceiling storefront glazing. The
access for the residential dwelling units would be located along Sunset Boulevard and
Everett Street and is well-marked and comprised of compatible and complementary
architectural treatments.
Industrial
Goal 3 Maintain a vital industrial base in the Community Plan Area by providing for
adequate supply of industrial land and through policies that reduce conflicts between
Not Applicable. The Project is not located in an industrial area and has no existing or
proposed industrial uses.

industrial and residential land uses.
Objective 3-1 Provide sufficient land for expansion of low intensity industrial uses. Not Applicable. The Project is not located in an industrial area.
Policy 3-1.1 Designate lands for the continuation of existing industrial uses and
development of high technology, light manufacturing and other clean industrial uses
which provide employment opportunities.
Policy 3-1.2 Require that any proposed development be designed to enhance and be
compatible with adjacent development.
Objective 3-2 Maintain the viability of the industrial area in Elysian Valley and
increase compatibility with adjacent residential properties through land use policy and
traditional commercial district revitalization strategies.
Policy 3-2.1 Improve the physical appearance of older industrial areas. Not Applicable. The Project is not located in an industrial area.
Policy 3-2.2 Encourage development of a Neighborhood Center between Rich and
Corney Streets, Riverside Drive and the Los Angeles River where neighborhood-
supporting commercial uses and public facilities can be concentrated to serve area
residents and improve compatibility between abutting residential and existing industrial
uses.
Not Applicable. The Project Site is not located in the specified area.
Objective 3-3 Retain industrial plan designations to maintain the industrial employment
base of the City.
Not Applicable. The Project is not located in an industrial area.
Policy 3-3.1 Promote continuation of appropriate existing industry and attract
development of compatible industrial development.
Objective 3-4 Institute guidelines for new manufacturing uses to assure mitigation of
potential negative impacts generated by manufacturing uses when located in close
proximity to residential neighborhoods.
Not Applicable. The Project does not include manufacturing.
Policy 3-4.1 Encourage new industrial uses adjacent to residential neighborhoods to
mitigate their impact on the residential neighborhoods, to the extent feasible.
Recreational and Park Facilities
Goal 4 Adequate recreation and park facilities which meet the needs of the residents in
the Plan Area and create links to existing facilities to expand recreational opportunities
citywide.
Consistent. The Project would include open space for residents, including common
open space, roof terraces, and private balcony space.
Objective 4-1 To conserve, maintain and better use existing recreation and park
facilities.
Neutral. The Project would not impede the conservation and maintenance of existing
facilities. The additional residents in the area would use the facilities.

Policy 4-1.1 Preserve the existing recreational facilities and park space. Neutral. The Project would not impede the preservation of existing facilities.
Policy 4-1.2 Preserve and encourage acquisition, development and funding of new
recreational facilities and park space with the goal of creating greenways and trail
systems.
Neutral. The Project is required to pay Recreation and Park Fees to the City to satisfy
the balance of its obligations (as Mitigation Measure 14-6). However, the Recreation
and Parks Department decides how the funds are spent.
Policy 4-1.3 Preserve and maintain public staircases in the Plan area and other public
rights-of-way that could provide or enhance linkages for greenways and trail systems.
Neutral. The Project Site contains a private staircase on the northern boundary along
Sunset Boulevard. The staircase is not in good condition and will be removed as part of
the building. The staircase is not a public staircase as it leads to the private residential
units within the Site (vehicle access is provided from Everett Site). The Project will
include pedestrian walkways to the ground floor retail areas and retail corner.
Policy 4-1.4 Implement plans to develop a dedicated running path around the Silver
Lake Reservoir and other open space and recreational uses per the Silver Lake
Reservoir Master Plan dated November 1, 2000.
Not Applicable. The Project Site is not nearby the Silver Lake Reservoir or other open
spaces that could become recreational uses.
Open Space
Goal 5 A community with sufficient open space and balance with new development to
serve the recreational, environmental and health needs of the community.
Consistent. The Sunset portion would provide 24,076 square feet of open space
through a combination of private balconies in some units, roof terraces in Building A
and Building B, a recreation room, and common open spaces. The amount provided
would exceed the amount required by 1,751 square feet. Upon recording the small lot
subdivision map there will be no open space requirement for the Everett portion.
Objective 5-1 Preserve existing and develop new open space resources. Consistent. The Project would provide residents with 24,076 square feet of open
space, including common open space, recreation and amenities, and private balconies.
Policy 5-1.1 Encourage the retention of passive and visual open space which provides a
balance to the urban development of the Plan area.
Consistent. The Project would provide residents with 24,076 square feet of open
space, including common open space, recreation and amenities, and private balconies.
Policy 5-1.2 Accommodate active parklands and other open space. Neutral. The Project would not impede active parklands and other open space.
Policy 5-1.3 Encourage new larger-scale commercial development to provide public
open space.
Consistent. The Project ground-floor retail would be surrounded by landscaping, street
trees, and seating for the public, including at the corner of Sunset and Everett.
Policy 5-1.4 Recognize the Plan areas considerable urban forest, in both the public and
private realms, as a feature which greatly contributes to its character and the quality of
life enjoyed by residents by encouraging streetscape, greenways and the incorporation
of green space within the urban form, as feasible.
Neutral. The Project includes Mitigation Measures 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4 to ensure that the
removal of protected trees would be less than significant. As shown in Appendix A-1,
Sunset Portion Architecture Package, the Project includes a turf parkway and street
trees along the Sunset sidewalk.
Objective 5-2 Provide/insure access to new recreational resources and open space
developed throughout the Plan area, including trails and facilities along the Los Angeles
Not Applicable. The Project would not impede access to new recreational resources
and open space and is not along the Los Angeles River.

River, and new parks.
Policy 5-2.1 Insure that there is public access to any new open space and recreational
facilities in the Plan Area, especially the Los Angeles River.
Not Applicable. The Project would not impede access to new recreational resources
and open space and is not along the Los Angeles River.
Schools
Goal 6 Public schools that provide a quality education for all of the Citys children,
including those with special needs and adequate school facilities to serve every
neighborhood in the City.
Not Applicable. The Project is a private development and has no influence on the Los
Angeles Unified School District, which provides public schools in the area.
Objective 6-1 Work constructively with the LAUSD to promote the siting and
construction of adequate school facilities phased with growth.
Policy 6-1.1 Explore creative alternatives for providing new school sites in the City,
where appropriate.
Policy 6-1.2 Encourage the siting of community facilities (libraries, parks, schools and
auditoriums) together.
Libraries
Goal 7 Ensure adequate library facilities and services are provided to the areas
residents.
Neutral. The LAPL was contacted about the Project and provided an informational
response on August 12, 2013. There are no plans to develop new libraries.
Objective 7-1 Encourage the Citys Library Department to provide adequate library
service which responds to the needs of the community.
Neutral. The LAPL was contacted about the Project and provided an informational
response on August 12, 2013. There are no plans to develop new libraries.
Policy 7-1.1 Encourage flexibility in siting libraries in mixed-use projects, shopping
malls, pedestrian-oriented areas, transit stations, office buildings and similarly
accessible facilities.
Not Applicable. The Project is not a governing agency that can site libraries.
Police Protection
Goal 8 A community with adequate police facilities and services to protect the
communitys residents from criminal activity, reduce the incidence of crime and
provide other necessary law enforcement services.
Consistent. The LAPD was contacted about the Project and provided an informational
response on August 30, 2013. The Project includes Mitigation Measures 14-3, 14-4,
and 14-5 to reduce police impacts to less than significance.
Objective 8-1 To provide adequate police facilities and personnel to correspond with
population and service demands.
Policy 8-1.1 Coordinate with the Police Department as part of the review of significant
development projects and General Plan Amendments affecting land use to determine
the impact on service demands.

Fire Protection
Goal 9 Protect the community through a comprehensive fire and life safety program. Consistent. The LAFD was contacted about the Project and provided an informational
response on August 14, 2013. The Project includes Mitigation Measures 14-1 and 14-2
to reduce fire impacts to less than significance.
Objective 9-1 Ensure that fire facilities and protective services are sufficient for the
existing and future population and land uses.
Consistent. The LAFD was contacted about the Project and provided an informational
Policy 9-1.1 Coordinate with the Fire Department as part of the review of significant
development projects and General Plan Amendments affecting land use to determine
the impact on service demands.
Consistent. The LAFD was contacted about the Project and provided an informational
Public Transportation
Goal 10 Develop a public transportation system that improves mobility with convenient
alternatives to automobile travel.
Not Applicable. The Project is not a governing agency that provides a public
transportation system.
Objective 10-1 Encourage improved local and express bus and neighborhood shuttle
service through the Community Plan Area and encourage park-and-ride facilities to
interface with freeways, high occupancy vehicle facilities and rail facilities.
transportation system such as express bus and neighborhood shuttle.
Policy 10-1.1 Coordinate with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and
the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) plans to improve local and
express bus service in the Plan Area.
transportation system. The LADOT reviews and provides comments on the Projects
Traffic Study.
Policy 10-1.2 Encourage the provision of safe, attractive and clearly identifiable transit
stops with user friendly design amenities.
Not Applicable. The Project is not a governing agency that provides transit stops.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Goal 11 Encourage alternative modes of transportation to the use of single occupant
vehicles (SOV) in order to reduce vehicular trips.
Consistent. The Project includes substantial bicycle parking and would provide
neighborhood retail to encourage walking in the area.
Objective 11-1 Pursue transportation demand management strategies that can maximize
vehicle occupancy, minimize average trip length and reduce the number of vehicle trips.
Consistent. The Project includes substantial bicycle parking and would provide
neighborhood retail to encourage walking in the area.
Policy 11-1.1 Encourage non-residential development to provide employee incentives
for utilizing alternatives to the automobile (i.e., carpools, vanpools, buses, flex time,
bicycles and walking, etc.)
Neutral. The Project would not impede the development of an transportation demand
system for employees. However, this is up to each business according to its business
model.
Policy 11-1.2 Require that proposals for major new non-residential development
projects include submission of TDM Plan to the City.
Not Applicable. The Project is not a major new non-residential development.

Transportation System Management (TSM)
Goal 12 A well maintained, safe, efficient freeway, highway and street network. Not Applicable. The Project is not a governing agency provides freeway, highway and
street networks.
Objective 12-1 Reduction of vehicular trip delays in the Community Plan Area through
coordination of the street traffic signal system with the Caltrans freeway traffic
management system.
Neutral. The Traffic Study evaluated intersection levels of service. With Mitigation
Measure 16-1, there would be no significant impacts due to the Project. This includes
re-striping and adding left-turn protective phasing to the Sunset/Beaudry intersection.
Policy 12-1.1 Implement signalization improvements throughout the Plan Area. Neutral. Based on an analysis of the peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of
Sunset Boulevard & Everett Street, a signal would not be warranted in either the AM
or PM peak hour.
Objective 12-2 Institute traffic management measures to special traffic operations
procedures as necessary to improve circulation throughout the Plan area.
No other improvements throughout the Plan Area are required.
Policy 12-2.1 Institute and maintain special traffic operations used to increase the
capacity of the roadway network.
Goal 13 A system of highways, freeways and streets that provides adequate circulation
to support existing, approved and planned land uses and maintains a desired level of
service at all intersections.
Not Applicable. The Project is not a governing agency provides freeway, highway and
streets for adequate circulation.
Objective 13-1 To comply with Citywide performance standards for acceptable levels
of service (LOS) and insure that necessary road access and street improvements are
provided to accommodate traffic generated by all new development.
Policy 13-1.1 Maintain a satisfactory LOS for streets and highways that should not
exceed LOS D for Major Highways, Secondary Highways, and Collector Streets. If
existing levels of service are LOS E or LOS F on a portion of a highway or
Partially Consistent. The Traffic Study evaluated intersection levels of service. With
Mitigation Measure 16-1, there would be no significant impacts due to the Project.
This includes re-striping and adding left-turn protective phasing to the Sunset/Beaudry

collector street, then the level of service for future growth should be maintained at LOS
E.
intersection. Of the street segments and intersections in the Project Traffic Study area,
only the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Beaudry Avenue operates below LOS D,
at LOS F during the PM peak. Project traffic volumes, if left unmitigated, would
worsen this condition significantly. The Project would cause the level of service to
change from LOS F with a Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio of 1.322 to LOS F with a
V/C ratio of 1.338.
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 16-1, the LOS of this intersection
would remain at LOS F, but the V/C ratio at this intersection would improve to 1.007.
This would fully mitigate the PM peak hour impact.
The Project would not improve an LOS F intersection to LOS E. Nor would the Project
degrade an LOS E to F. The Future Without Project scenario shows this intersection
operating at LOS F during PM Peak Hour. However, the Projects mitigation measure
improves the V/C, as compared to the Future Without Project and Future With Project
scenarios.
Policy 13-1-2 Discourage non-residential traffic flow for streets designed to serve
residential areas only by the use of traffic control measures.
Consistent. The parking for the Sunset portion (including the retail parking) would be
accessed on Sunset, a mixed-use boulevard and not on Everett, a residential street.
Policy 13-1.3 Design public streets that enhance the pedestrian environment and urban
form through the use of landscaping, gateways and other efforts to beautify the public
realm and promote the use of non-motorized transportation.
Consistent. As shown in Appendix A-1, Sunset Portion Architecture Package, the
Project includes a turf parkway and street trees along the Sunset sidewalk. The
projects commercial space is oriented along Sunset Boulevard and wraps the corner at
Everett Street. This ground floor retail opens to the street with large expanses of
storefront glazing and reinforces pedestrian oriented design along the Sunset corridor.
Objective 13-2 To insure that the location, intensity and timing of infrastructure
development maintain the Citys streets and highways standards.
Consistent. The LADOT reviews and provides comments on the Projects Traffic
Study, including proposed mitigation measure for Sunset/Beaudry intersection.
Policy 13-2.1 No increase in density and intensity should be effectuated by zone
change, variance, conditional use, parcel map or subdivision unless it is determined that
the transportation system can accommodate the increased traffic generated by the
project.
Non-motorized Transportation

Goal 14 A system of safe, efficient and attractive bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian
routes.
Consistent. The LADOT has implemented bus/bike lanes on 0.9 miles of Sunset
Boulevard (from Figueroa Street to Douglas Street) within the existing right-of-way.
This project replaced the current peak-period curb vehicle lane in each direction along
Sunset Boulevard with a peak-period bicycle-transit-only lane from Figueroa Street to
Elysian Park Avenue. Sunset would provide an attractive pedestrian route to the retail
uses. There are no equestrian routes.
Objective 14-1 Promote an adequate system of safe bikeways for commuter, school and
recreational use.
Consistent. The LADOT has implemented bus/bike lanes on 0.9 miles of Sunset
Boulevard (from Figueroa Street to Douglas Street) within the existing right-of-way.
This project replaced the current peak-period curb vehicle lane in each direction along
Sunset Boulevard with a peak-period bicycle-transit-only lane from Figueroa Street to
Elysian Park Avenue. The Project also includes short and long term bicycle parking.
Policy 14-1.1 Assure that local bicycle facilities are identified and linked with routes of
neighboring areas of the City.
Consistent. The Project provides 159 short-term bicycle parking spaces and 84 long-
term spaces for a total of 243 spaces. These spaces are located in a development along
a portion of Sunset Boulevard that has recently been improved with designated bike
lanes.
Policy 14-1.2 Encourage the provision of showers, changing rooms and bicycle storage
at new and existing non-residential developments and public spaces.
Consistent. The Project also includes short and long term bicycle parking. Showers
would be provided in each residential unit.
Objective 14-2 Promote the use of community staircases as an integral part of the Plan
areas pedestrian network, offering access from hillside residential neighborhoods to
commercial corridors.
include pedestrian walkways to the ground floor retail areas and retail corner..
Policy 14-2.1 Maintain, preserve, landscape and generally make safe and publicly
accessible all of the Plan areas staircases.
include pedestrian walkways to the ground floor retail areas and retail corner..
Parking
Goal 15 A sufficient system of well designed and convenient on-street parking and off-
street parking facilities throughout the Plan Area.
Consistent. The Project includes off-street parking in a subterranean garage accessed
on Sunset and a two-car garage for each of the small lot subdivisions on Everett.
Objective 15-1 Provide parking in appropriate locations in accord with Citywide
standards and community needs.
Consistent. The Sunset portion is required to provide 267 spaces and would provide
284 spaces. The Everett portion would provide 12 spaces as required.
Policy 15-1.1 Encourage the development of centralized municipal and private parking Consistent. The Project includes private parking for the residents and retail employees

structures and surface parking lots, and where possible encourage public-private
partnerships in the development of such parking facilities.
and users.
Policy 15-1.2 Consolidate parking where appropriate, to minimize the number of
ingress and egress points onto Major and Secondary Highways.
Consistent. The Sunset portion would be accessed via three driveways on Sunset and
the Everett portion would be accessed via a community driveway on Everett.
Policy 15-1.3 Consider new Citywide parking standards for areas around transit
stations, designated centers and pedestrian-oriented areas.
Not Applicable. The Project is not around a transit station, such as the Metro subway
or light rail lines or major bus hub.
Policy 15-1.4 New parking lots and parking structures shall be developed in accordance
with design standards.
Consistent. As shown in Figures 2-21, 2-.27, and 2-28, the parking would be
subterranean and above ground. The above-ground levels would not be visible from the
outside due to covering by residential units, retail space, and the exterior cladding.
Historic and Cultural Resources
Goal 16 Identification, preservation and restoration of cultural resources,
neighborhoods, and landmarks which have historical and/or cultural significance.
Objective 16-1 Ensure that the communitys historically significant resources are
protected, preserved and/or enhanced.
Policy 16-1.1 Assist private owners of existing historic resources and historically or
architecturally significant structures to maintain and/or enhance their properties in a
manner that will preserve the integrity of such resources in the best possible condition.
Source: Silver Lake Echo Park Elysian Valley Community Plan, pages III-2 to III-61: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/pdf/SlkCPTXT.pdf


Urban Design
The Community Plan includes design policies to establish the minimum level of design that should be
observed in multiple-residential, commercial and industrial projects throughout the Plan Area.
The Project will comply with the Community Plan Urban Design chapters applicable policies for mixed-
use, commercial and multi-family residential projects. The Project will enhance the appearance of the
existing commercial district in this area by replacing dilapidated and underutilized commercial and
residential buildings on the Site with ground floor retail fronting on Sunset Boulevard in addition to 214
residential units and open space areas. The building will be inviting to pedestrians as its walls along
Sunset Boulevard and Everett Street will consist of storefront glazing that is recessed from the setback
line to provide a transparency that opens the building to the street. Pedestrian entrances to the retail uses
will be conveniently located along Sunset Boulevard. In addition, the Project will include abundant street
level landscaping, and new street trees lining Sunset Boulevard and Everett Street in order to create
identity and a sense of place for the building.
The Project includes a wide variety of unique and complementary building materials along the faades
ranging from the exterior plaster found throughout the neighborhood, and a horizontal siding material that
represents a modern take on the many varieties of cladding material found throughout Angelino Heights
and surrounding neighborhoods. The materials would be exterior plaster with a fine sand finish, brick
veneer cladding, cement siding with wood finish, corrugated metal panels, metal and glass railings,
canopies, wood trellis/canopy, and wood slats.. See Appendix A-1, Sunset Portion Architecture Package,
Materials Board for the building materials and their layout on the building facades.
The Sunset portion is designed with two buildings that reduce the massing as viewed along Sunset
Boulevard. Each building is designed to achieve a distinct aesthetic that are also complementary with
each other. After breaking up the program into two separate and distinct smaller structures, further scale
reduction at both buildings was achieved by creating separate and clear smaller zones within the massing.
At the center of Building A, a large portion of the mass was removed in order to visually split the
structure into two smaller wings and replace the mass with an outdoor terrace amenity that activates the
streetscape along Sunset. See Appendix A-1, Sunset Portion Architecture Package. Key design features
include:
Entry core of Building A is back from the property line to create a 15 20 deep courtyard which will
be landscaped and have tables and chairs available for public use. This adds articulation and further
breaks up the massing of Building A.
Use of brick and wood cladding on both building exteriors to pay homage to historic Angelino
Heights architecture and create warmer, less starkly modern appearance.
Brick vertical slots in each section of Building A with breaks in roof eaves to break down building
massing into five distinct sections.

Open stair on southeastern end of Building A to create visual variation and eliminate a tall blank wall.
Stepped 4th and 5th floors back 8 32 at both ends of Building A to reduce impact of height from
street perspective.
Building B Sunset faade windows, decks, and eave articulate and animate the facade.
Triangle corner of Building B at Sunset and Everett intersection as well as angled decks along Everett
lighten and pay homage to historic Angelino Heights.
Lower profile of Building B at Everett intersection.
Articulation of different retail entries to delineate different shops.
Outdoor courtyard at Sunset & Everett intersection to enhance potential for gathering.
While being distinctly modern and looking to create a cleaner streetscape along this section of Sunset, the
building also provides richly textured wood soffited canopies that are experienced not just by the
residents of the ground floor units, but by pedestrians on the Sunset sidewalk and those visiting the retail
storefronts along the street.
The Project supports walkability by providing by providing ground floor residential units, including four
live work units, on Building B that feature individual entries with direct access from Sunset Boulevard
and private balconies. The project will enhance the surrounding streetscape by incorporating new street
trees and landscape planters and providing new sidewalks. The project also incorporates landscape
elements throughout the building that reduce energy use and enhances livability for the residents. Two
large roof terraces are also proposed with additional landscaping and seating areas.
At the center of Building A, a large portion of the mass was removed in order to visually split the
structure into two smaller wings and replace the mass with an outdoor terrace amenity that activates the
streetscape along Sunset. A large gateway like frame encloses the central common amenity programs and
provides a distinct visual zone. Across the residential wings of Building A, the faade treatment creates a
dynamic staggered pattern from each dwelling unit that creates unique private open spaces that afford
views of the nearby Downtown skyline. At key building transitions, vertical elements of textured siding
or contrasting color are introduced to provide articulation and architecturally significant elements within
the overall composition of the massing.
feature landscaping, and individual patios. In contrast, ground floor commercial space is proposed on

experience and differentiate from the upper residential levels. As shown on the plans, the triangular point
at Everett provides an ideal opportunity for landscaping and outdoor seating. While the two are distinctly
different from a programmatic and massing standpoint, through color and materials, the buildings are
unified to create a design synergy along the entire Sunset and Everett frontages. The access for the
residential dwelling units would be located along Sunset Boulevard and Everett Street and is well-marked
and comprised of compatible and complementary architectural treatments.
East Los Angeles State Enterprise Zone
According to ZIMAS, the Project Site is within the East Los Angeles State Enterprise Zone (ZI-2129).
125

Enterprise Zones (EZ) are specific geographic areas designated to provide economic incentives to
stimulate local investment and employment through tax and regulation relief and improvement of public
services. The EZ special provisions include:
126

Parking Standards - Section 12.21A4(x)(3):
Except for the Downtown Business District parking area described in Section 12.21A4(i),
projects within EZs, as listed in Section 12.21A4(x)(3), may utilize a lower parking ratio for
commercial office, business, retail, restaurant, bar and related uses, trade schools, or research and
development buildings thus increasing the buildable area of the parcel which is critical in older
areas of the City where parcels are small.
Height - Section 12.21.4:
Special height districts EZ1", EZ1-L", EZ1-VL", EZ1-XL", EZ2", EZ3" and EZ4 were
established for Enterprise Zones. Height district EZ1 increases the total floor area contained in
all the buildings on a lot to three times the buildable area. Note that the EZ... height district
suffix must be accomplished by a Zone Change.
The Project is not utilizing the EZ for a parking standards ratio change or height change. The Project is
seeking a Density Bonus from 7 percent Very Low Income Households to receive on- and off-menu
incentives for an FAR increase and height increase.
Freeway Adjacent Advisory Notice For Sensitive Uses
According to ZIMAS, the Project Site is subject to a Freeway Adjacent Advisory Notice for Sensitive
Uses (ZI-2427).
127
The Project involves sensitive uses (housing) within 1,000 feet of freeways. Only the

125
ZIMAS search for 1185 Sunset Boulevard: http://zimas.lacity.org/
126
Zoning information (Z.I.) No. 2129 Enterprise Zone: http://zimas.lacity.org/documents/zoneinfo/ZI2129.pdf
127
ZIMAS search for 1185 Sunset Boulevard: http://zimas.lacity.org/

southern boundary of the Site (APN parcel 5406-016-028 only) at the intersection of Sunset and Everett is
subject to this notice.
The Advisory Notice applies to a specific list of discretionary applications, including Conditional Use
Permits, Density Bonus, Open Space Land Use, Zone Change, General Plan Amendment, Major Project
Review/CUP, Tentative Tract Map, and Preliminary Parcel Map.
The Project is seeking a Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Density Bonus, among others. Therefore the
Advisory Notice requirement applies.
The Advisory Notice is informational in nature and does not impose any additional land use or zoning
regulations. The Freeway Adjacent Advisory Notice is not a prohibition or moratorium on new
development near freeways. It is advisory only and serves as an early notification to applicants of
discretionary projects who may not otherwise be aware of the potential impacts on future building
occupants of siting a building near a freeway. The notice provides background on the issue and guidance
that will assist the City Planning Commission in making required findings for discretionary approvals
after considering the unique circumstances of each individual case.
128

CEQA requires analysis of potential impacts of the proposed project upon the existing physical
environment. By contrast, potential impacts of the existing environment, i.e., existence of a nearby
freeway, upon the proposed project is not considered an environmental impact of the proposed project and
does not require analysis to comply with CEQA. However, in the interest of providing information to the
public, and creating healthy communities, the City offers several measures for advisement. One of the
measures is to improve indoor air quality with a MERV-rated or HEPA Air Filtration Equipment.
As a condition of approval, the City Planning Commission may, at its discretion, impose a requirement
that any project proposing sensitive land uses (as defined above) within 1,000 feet of a freeway shall be
required to install and maintain air filters meeting or exceeding the ASHRAE Standard 52.2 Minimum
Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 11 or higher.
129

However, as described in Section 3, Air Quality, of this IS/MND section above, the Projects construction
and operational emission impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
In addition, the Project would not locate residential or other sensitive uses near existing sources of toxic
air contaminants (TACs) in the Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Valley project area.
City of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code

128
Zoning information (Z.I.) No. 2427 Freeway Adjacent Advisory Notice for Sensitive Uses:
http://zimas.lacity.org/documents/zoneinfo/ZI2427.pdf
129
Zoning information (Z.I.) No. 2427 freeway adjacent advisory notice for sensitive uses
http://zimas.lacity.org/documents/zoneinfo/ZI2427.pdf

Sunset Portion
130

Zoning
The C2-1VL zone permits the proposed multi-family and commercial uses.
Density
The C2-1VL permits one dwelling unit per 400 square feet of lot area. The Site lot area is 107,170 square
feet which permits 268 residential units. The Applicant is seeking a related Vesting Tentative Tract Map
for condominiums and the two foot street dedication on Sunset Boulevard is excluded from the lot area in
calculating density per LAMC Section 17.05.H(9). The Site area after the dedication is 105,524 square
feet which permits 264 residential units. Although the proposed 214 residential units is less than the 264
residential units permitted by-right, the Project requests a 25 percent density bonus to allow required
parking per the Density Bonus ordinance and to qualify for an on-menu incentive to allow additional
FAR. Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.22(25)(c)(1), the Project qualifies for a 25 percent density bonus by
designating 7 percent of the base units for Very Low Income households for a total of 15 affordable units
(214 x 7%).
Density Bonus
The Citys density bonus ordinance (Ordinance No. 179681) became effective April 15, 2008 and
implements the requirements of California State Government Code Section 65915, the State Density
Bonus Program, which establishes the right for developments that provide defined thresholds for
affordable housing to be granted density bonuses, parking reductions, and other incentives.
Yards/Setbacks
No front yard setback is required in the C2 zone along Sunset Boulevard and Everett Street. The Project
requires eight foot side yards and a 17 foot rear yard for the residential uses. The setbacks will be:
131

Front Yard 0 - 5 feet
Side yards 8 - 23 feet
Rear yard 17 - 70 feet

130
Sunset and Everett Mixed-Use Project Site Plan Review and Density Bonus, prepared by Armbruster, Goldsmith,
and Delvac.
131
KTGY, Architecture + Planning, February 24, 2014. Aragon (Sunset/Everett) Properties Corporation, Fred
Shaffer, December 23, 2013.

Open Space
Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.21(G), the Project requires 22,825 square feet of open space. The Sunset
portion would provide 23,977 square feet of open space through a combination of private balconies in
some units, roof terraces in Building A and Building B, a recreation room, and common open spaces. The
amount provided would exceed the amount required by 1,152 square feet. The hillside area does not
qualify as open space. The area behind Building A will be landscaped and separately counted from the
Projects open space.
Parking Option
The Project will utilize Affordable Housing Development Parking Option 1 for the residential portion.
The Project proposes 66 studios, 8 one-bedroom loft units, and 43 one-bedroom units that require 177
spaces (1 per unit) and 57 two-bedroom units that require 74 spaces (2 per unit) for a total of 271 required
residential parking spaces. The commercial space will satisfy the parking requirement of LAMC Section
12.21.A.4.X.3 (Enterprise Zone Parking) by providing 16 parking spaces for the 8,406 square feet of
commercial space. In total, the Project requires 287 spaces and provides 300 parking spaces (which
includes 13 guest parking spaces).
On-Menu Incentives
By providing the requisite amount of affordable units, the Project qualifies for one on-menu incentive as
set forth in LAMC 12.22(25)(f). The Project requests the following on-menu incentive:
FAR Incentive (LAMC 12.22.25(f)(4)(ii))
The total FAR allowed in the C2 zoned portion is 1.5:1 which permits 158,286 square feet of floor area.
The Project is eligible for a percentage increase in the allowable FAR equal to the percentage of Density
Bonus for which the Project requests. The Project requests a 25 percent FAR increase for a total floor area
of 197,858 square feet.
Density Bonus Waiver of Development Standards
a. Height (LAMC 12.22.25(f)(5))
1. Base Height
The Site is located in Height District No. 1VL which permits a maximum height of 45 feet. The number
of stories is not limited for a project comprised of entirely residential uses but is limited to three stories
for a mixed-use development. The Project is comprised of two buildings and Building A is a mixed-use
building which is limited to three stories and 45 feet in height while Building B is entirely residential and
is limited to 45 feet in height (no story limitation).

In addition, a building is permitted an additional 12 feet as measured from Grade if the highest point of
elevation of the ground surface within a five foot distance from the exterior wall of the building exceeds
grade level by 20 feet. However, the additional 12 feet in height shall not be permitted to the extent that
such additional height causes any portion of the building or structure to exceed a height in number of feet
as prescribed by this section as measured from the highest point of the roof structure or parapet wall to the
elevation of the ground surface which is vertically below this point of measurement (Plumb Height).
The Site slopes from the high elevation at the northwest corner to the low elevation at the northeast corner
at Sunset and Everett with a grade differential of approximately 100 feet. The Site has an approximately
30 foot grade differential along Sunset Boulevard.
Therefore, the by-right base building height is 57 feet as measured from Grade (Grade Height) and a 45
feet Plumb Height. LADBS is using both grade and plumb heights, due to the significant grade change
and two discretionary actions.
132

2. Additional Density Bonus Height
The Project was originally designed as a five-story all residential development that proposed to utilize a
second On-Menu Incentive to allow for an additional story and 11 feet in height. However, in response to
the community, the Project added a significant commercial component along Sunset Boulevard and 17
surplus guest residential parking spaces which resulted in one additional level in order to maintain the
desired residential density. With the additional story, the Project no longer qualifies for the On-Menu
height incentive. The Project request Off-Menu Incentives to permit (1) a 15 foot height increase for a
height of 72 feet as measured from Grade (57 Base Height plus 15 feet) and 66 as measured from Plumb
Height (45 feet and 21 feet) for Building A; (2) a 4 foot height increase for a height of 61 feet as
measured from Grade (57 Base Height plus 4 feet) and 59 as measured from Plumb Height (45 feet and
14 feet) for Building B; and (3) to permit a five-story mixed-use building in lieu of three stories for
Building A.
Everett Portion
133

Zoning
The [Q]R3-1VL zone permits a small lot subdivision.
Density

132
Project Application, DB-SPR Exhibit B: Project Descriptions and Findings, Sec. 4.a.1. The building exceeds the
grade level by 20 feet.
133
Sunset and Everett Small Lot Subdivision Project Zoning Approvals, prepared by Armbruster, Goldsmith, and
Delvac.

The R3 zone permits one dwelling per 800 square feet of lot area which permits 10 residential units
(8,530 square feet / 800 square feet). The [Q] condition in the zoning limits the R3 density to 1 unit per
1,200 square feet of land, which would allow 7 units. A total of six residential units are proposed.
Floor Area
The Lot Area is 8,530 square feet. The Site area after setback would be 6,335 square feet. The R3 zone
permits a floor area of three times the buildable area of the Site which permits a total of 19,005 square
feet of allowable floor area. The Project proposes a total floor area of 10,896 square feet. The proposed
FAR is 1.72:1.
Lot Width
The minimum lot width for a small lot subdivision shall be 16 feet and the minimum lot area shall be 600
square feet. The lot width ranges from 25 feet, 9 inches to 34 feet and the lot area ranges from 1,293
square feet to 1,671 square feet.
Vehicular Access
Vehicular access may be provided to either a lot containing a dwelling unit or to its required parking
spaces by way of street or alley frontage, driveway access or similar access to a street. The Project
proposes a 20 foot community driveway located on the north portion of the Site that provides vehicular
access from Everett Street to each residential unit.
Lot Coverage
All structures on a lot which includes one or more dwelling units shall occupy no more than 80 percent of
the lot area. The Project lot coverage is 38 percent.
Yards/Setbacks
No front, side, or rear yard shall be required between lots; however, a five-foot setback shall be provided
where a lot abuts a lot that is not created pursuant to this subdivision. The Project proposes a 20 foot yard
on the north side, a minimum 5 foot yard on the west side, a minimum 5 foot yard on the south side, and a
6 foot, 9 inch yard on the east side along Everett Street.
Height
The [Q] conditions limits height to 30 feet or two stories. The height of each unit is approximately 28
feet, 6 inches to the rooftop, 32-0 to the top of the guard rail, and 37-0" to the top of the roof structure
housing building operating equipment (LAMC 12.21.1B3(a)). The guard rail and portion of the building
housing operating equipment are exempt from the calculation of height.

Parking
Each residential unit proposes two-bedrooms which require two parking spaces per unit. Two parking
spaces are provided for each unit located within an individual garage. The Project is consistent with the
General Plan, Community Plan objectives and urban design policies, to the extent feasible and applicable,
as discussed above. As such, impacts with respect to applicable land use plans, policies and zoning
c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
No Impact. A significant adverse effect could occur if a Project Site were located within an area
governed by a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
Due to the existing urban development on the Site and in the adjacent surroundings, there are no known
locally designated natural communities on the Project Site or in the vicinity. Therefore, the Project will
not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation
Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No impact with
respect to Habitat or Natural Community Conservation Plans will occur.

11. MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project 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?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the Project Site is located in an area used or available for
extraction of a regionally-important mineral resource, or if the Project would convert an existing or future
regionally-important mineral extraction use to another use, or if the Project would affect access to a site
used or potentially available for regionally-important mineral resource extraction.
Mineral Resources Zone-2 (MRZ-2) sites contain potentially significant sand and gravel deposits which
are to be conserved. Any proposed development plan must consider access to the deposits for purposes of
extraction. Much of the area within the MRZ-2 sites in Los Angeles was developed with structures prior
to the MRZ-2 classification and, therefore, are unavailable for extraction.
134
MRZ-2 sites are identified in
two community plan elements of the city's general plan, the Sun Valley and the Sunland-Tujunga-Lake
View Terrace-Shadow Hills-East La Tuna Canyon community plans.
135

Neither the Project Site nor the surrounding area is identified as an area containing mineral deposits of
regional or statewide significance. The Project Site is located within the LA City Oil Field, which is one
of 25 city designated major oil drilling areas.
136
This designation is a broad swath of land generally from
Vermont Avenue in the west to the I-110 Freeway to the east, and from Third Street and Dodger Stadium
area in the north to Wilshire Boulevard in the south. The California Department of Conservation has more
detailed online mapping of wells. No oil wells exist on the Project Site.
137
The nearest wells (API
03725883, API 03725884, and API 03725886) are identified as Buried-Idle
138
and were located two
blocks south of the Site at the corner of Sunset Boulevard and Bellevue Avenue. Therefore, no impacts to
mineral resources of regional or statewide significance will occur.

134
City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Conservation Element, adopted September 2001, page II-58:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/cwd/gnlpln/consvelt.pdf, accessed August 19, 2013.
135
City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Conservation Element, adopted September 2001, page II-59:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/cwd/gnlpln/consvelt.pdf, accessed August 19, 2013.
136
City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Safety Element Exhibit E, Oil Field and Oil Drilling Areas:
137
State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources, Online
Mapping System, District 1, website: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doms/index.html, August 19, 2013.
138
Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resource, Online Well Record Query:
http://owr.conservation.ca.gov/Well/WellDetailPage.aspx?domsapp=1&apinum=03705188, August 19, 2013.

b) Would the project 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?
No Impact. A significant impact would occur if a project is located in an area used or available for
extraction of a locally-important mineral resource and the Project converted an existing or potential future
locally-important mineral extraction use to another use or if the Project affected access to a site in use or
potentially available for locally-important mineral resource extraction. The Project Site is not delineated
as a locally important mineral resource recovery site on any City plans. Additionally, as stated in the
response to Question 11(a), no oil wells exist on the Project Site. Furthermore, the Site is surrounded by
dense urban uses, hilly roads, and sensitive residential receptors. Thus, the Site would not be an adequate
candidate for mineral extraction. Therefore, no impacts to loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource will occur.

12. NOISE
A Air Quality, Noise, and Greenhouse Gases Appendices, Douglas Kim + Associates, April 2014.
a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Sound is technically described in terms
of the loudness (amplitude) and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement for
sound is the decibel (dB). The human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies. The A-
weighted scale, abbreviated dBA, reflects the normal hearing sensitivity range of the human ear. On this
scale, the range of human hearing extends from approximately 3 to 140 dBA.
Noise Definitions
This noise analysis discusses sound levels in terms of Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and
Equivalent Noise Level (L
eq
).
Community Noise Equivalent Level. CNEL is an average sound level during a 24-hour period.
CNEL is a noise measurement scale, which accounts for noise source, distance, single event duration,
single event occurrence, frequency, and time of day. Human reaction to sound between 7:00 p.m. and
10:00 p.m. is as if the sound were actually 5 dBA higher than if it occurred from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. From 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., humans perceive sound as if it were 10 dBA higher due to the
lower background level. Hence, the CNEL is obtained by adding an additional 5 dBA to sound levels
in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 10 dBA to sound levels in the night from 10:00 p.m.
to 7:00 a.m. Because CNEL accounts for human sensitivity to sound, the CNEL 24-hour figure is
always a higher number than the actual 24-hour average.
Equivalent Noise Level. L
eq
is the average noise level on an energy basis for any specific time period.
The L
eq
for one hour is the energy average noise level during the hour. The average noise level is
based on the energy content (acoustic energy) of the sound. L
eq
can be thought of as the level of a
continuous noise that has the same energy content as the fluctuating noise level. The equivalent noise
level is expressed in units of dBA.
Effects of Noise
The degree to which noise can impact the environment ranges from levels that interfere with speech and
sleep to levels that cause adverse health effects. Human response to noise is subjective and can vary from
person to person. Factors that influence individual response include the intensity, frequency, and pattern

of noise, the amount of background noise present before the intruding noise, and the nature of work or
human activity that is exposed to the noise source.
Audible Noise Changes
Small perceptible changes in sound level for a person with normal hearing sensitivity is approximately 3
dBA. A change of at least 5 dBA would be noticeable and would likely case a community reaction. A
10-dBA increase is heard as a doubling in loudness and would cause a community response.
Noise levels decrease as the distance from the noise source to the receiver increases. Noise generated by
a stationary noise source, or point source, will decrease by approximately 6 dBA over hard surfaces
(e.g., reflective surfaces such as parking lots or smooth bodies of water) and 7.5 dBA over soft surfaces
(e.g., absorptive surfaces such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees) for each doubling of the
distance. For example, if a noise source produces a noise level of 89 dBA at a reference distance of 50
feet, then the noise level would be 83 dBA at a distance of 100 feet from the noise source, 77 dBA at a
distance of 200 feet, and so on. Noise generated by a mobile source will decrease by approximately 3
dBA over hard surfaces and 4.5 dBA over soft surfaces for each doubling of the distance.
Noise is most audible when traveling by direct line-of-sight.
139
Barriers, such as walls or buildings that
break the line-of-sight between the source and the receiver can greatly reduce noise levels from the source
since sound can only reach the receiver by diffraction. Sound barriers can reduce sound levels by up to
20 dBA. However, if a barrier is not high or long enough to break the line-of-sight from the source to the
receiver, its effectiveness is greatly reduced.
Applicable Regulations
The City of Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) has established both construction and operation noise
regulations. Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., in any residential zone of the City or within
500 feet thereof, no person shall operate or cause to be operated any powered equipment or powered hand
tool that produces a maximum noise level exceeding the following noise limits at a distance of 50 feet
there from:
75 dBA for construction, industrial, and agricultural machinery including crawler-tractors, dozers,
rotary drills and augers, loaders, power shovels, cranes, derricks, motor graders, paving machines,
off-highway trucks, ditchers, trenchers, compactors, scrapers, wagons, pavement breakers,
compressors and pneumatic or other powered equipment;
75 dBA for powered equipment of 20 HP or less intended for infrequent use in residential areas,
including chain saws, log chippers and powered hand tools;

139
Line-of-sight is a visual path between the noise source and the noise receptor.

65 dBA for powered equipment intended for repetitive use in residential areas, including lawn
mowers, backpack blowers, small lawn and garden tools and riding tractors.
140

The State Department of Health Services has established guidelines for acceptable exterior noise levels
for each county and city. These standards and criteria are incorporated into the land use planning process
to reduce future noise and land use incompatibilities. Table 4.12-1, Land Use Compatibility for
Community Noise Environments, is the primary tool that allows the City to ensure integrated planning for
compatibility between land uses and outdoor noise.
State interior noise standards were established in 1974, when the California Commission on Housing and
Community Development adopted noise insulation standards for residential buildings (Title 24, Part 2,
California Code of Regulations). Title 24 establishes standards for interior room noise attributable to
outside noise sources. Title 24 also specifies that acoustical studies should be prepared whenever a
residential building or structure is proposed to be located in areas with exterior noise levels of 60 dB Day-
Night Average Noise Level (Ldn) or greater. The acoustical analysis must show that the building has
been designed to limit intruding noise to an interior level not exceeding 45 dB Ldn for any habitable
room.
Table 4.12-1
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments
Land Use Compatibility
Community Noise Exposure (dBA, CNEL)
< 55 60 65 70 75 80 >
Residential Low Density Single-Family,
Duplex Mobile Homes
NA
CA
NU
CU
Residential Multi-Family
NA
CA
NU
CU
Transient Lodging Motels, Hotels
NA
CA
NU
CU
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals,
Nursing Homes
NA
CA
NU
CU
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters

CA
CU

Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports

140
City of Los Angeles, Municipal Code, 1986.

CA
CU

Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
NA
NU
CU

Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water
Recreation, Cemeteries
NA
NU
CU

Office Buildings, Business Commercial and
Professional
NA
CA
NU

Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture
NA
CA
NU

NA = Normally Acceptable - Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings
involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.
CA = Conditionally Acceptable - New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed
analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply system or air conditioning will normally
suffice.
NU = Normally Unacceptable - New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new
construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made
and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
CU = Clearly Unacceptable - New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

Source: California Office of Noise Control, Department of Health Services.

Existing Noise Environment
The existing noise environment of the project area is characterized by vehicular traffic along Sunset
Boulevard. Vehicular traffic is the primary source of noise in the project vicinity. Sound measurements
were taken using a SoundPro DL Sound Level Meter between 1:10 PM and 1:48 PM. on October 3, 2013
to determine existing ambient daytime off-peak noise levels. The first location is at the southern tip of
Everett Park and the second location is on Marion Avenue, near Sunset Boulevard. These readings
establish existing ambient noise conditions and provide a baseline for evaluating construction and
operational noise impacts.
Construction Phase Noise Impacts
Construction activity would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels in the project area on an
intermittent basis. Noise levels would fluctuate depending on the construction phase, equipment type and

duration of use, distance between the noise source and receptor, and presence or absence of noise
attenuation barriers.
During construction, ground clearing, grading, structural, and other noise-generating activities would
occur at the project site between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. in accordance with the City of Los
Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC). Table 4.12-2 summarizes projected construction noise levels and
increases resulting from construction. The nearest sensitive receptor is the multi-family residential
buildings to the north and east of the project site. The exterior of these buildings are located within 10
feet from the project construction boundary. Construction activities for the proposed project would occur
between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. in accordance with the City of Los Angeles Municipal Code. The Project
would increase ambient noise levels above 75 dBA, as well as increase noise levels more than 5 dBA at
the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Project would result in significant but mitigable
construction noise impacts.
Table 4.12-2
Construction Noise Levels - Unmitigated
Sensitive Receptor
Distance
from Site
(feet)
Maximum
Construction Noise
Level (dBA)
Existing
Ambient
(dBA, L
eq
)
New Ambient
(dBA, L
eq
) Increase
Multi-family residential (MFR)
located to the east/north
10 83.0 55.4 83.0 27.6
MFR located to the southeast
70 80.1 55.4 80.1 24.7
MFR located to the west/southwest
100 77.0 60.0 77.1 17.1
Everett Park
250 66.0 60.0 67.0 7.0
Shepherd University
530 58.0 60.0 62.1 2.1
Marion Park
550 57.7 60.0 62.0 2.0
Paradise Motel
615 56.7 60.0 61.7 1.7
Foundation for Early Childhood
Education
1,200 49.4 60.0 60.4 0.4

Mitigation Measures
Construction Phase
12-1 Construction staging areas for each project site shall be as far from sensitive receptors as possible.

12-2 Temporary sound barriers, capable of achieving a sound attenuation of at least 22 dBA (e.g.,
construction sound wall with sound blankets) and blocking the line-of-sight between the adjacent
sensitive receptors shall be installed.
12-3 All powered construction equipment shall be equipped with exhaust mufflers or other suitable
noise reduction devices.
12-4 Two weeks prior to commencement of construction, notification shall be provided to the
immediate surrounding off-site residential, school, and church uses that discloses the construction
schedule, including the types of activities and equipment that would be used throughout the
duration of the construction period.
12-5 The project shall comply with the City of Los Angeles Noise Ordinance No. 144,331 and
161,574, and any subsequent ordinances, which prohibit the emission or creation of noise beyond
certain levels at adjacent uses unless technically infeasible.
12-6 Construction and demolition shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday
through Friday, and 8:00 am to 6:00 pm on Saturday.
12-7 Demolition and construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces
of equipment simultaneously, which causes high noise levels.
Impacts After Mitigation
As shown in Table 4.12-3, Construction Noise Levels - Mitigated, construction noise levels after
mitigation would be reduced at nearby sensitive receptors to less than 75 dBA with implementation of
Mitigation Measures 12-1 through 12-7. Noise levels increases would also be less than 5 dBA at the
nearest sensitive receptors. Construction equipment could produce intermittent audible noise increases at
adjacent residential housing; however, these would be temporary and construction noise would be within
the noise standards outlined in the LAMC. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 12-1 through 12-7
would reduce construction noise impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Table 4.12-3
Construction Noise Levels - Mitigated
Sensitive Receptor
Distance
from Site
(feet)
Maximum
Construction Noise
Level (dBA)
Existing
Ambient
(dBA, L
eq
)
New Ambient
(dBA, L
eq
) Increase
Multi-family residential (MFR)
located to the east/north
10 58.0 55.4 59.9 4.5
MFR located to the southeast
70 55.1 55.4 58.3 2.9
MFR located to the west/southwest
100 52.0 60.0 60.6 0.6
Everett Park
250 41.0 60.0 60.1 0.1

Table 4.12-3
Construction Noise Levels - Mitigated
Sensitive Receptor
Distance
from Site
(feet)
Maximum
Construction Noise
Level (dBA)
Existing
Ambient
(dBA, L
eq
)
New Ambient
(dBA, L
eq
) Increase
Shepherd University
530 33.0 60.0 60.0 0.0
Marion Park
550 43.1 60.0 60.1 0.1
Paradise Motel
615 42.6 60.0 60.1 0.1
Foundation for Early Childhood
Education
1,200 38.2 60.0 60.0 0.0

Operational Phase Noise Impacts
Vehicular Noise. During long-term operation of the project, noise generated by the 2,216 new daily
vehicle trips was modeled under future year (2016) no project scenario and with project conditions
utilizing the FHWA TNM 2.5 model. As shown in Table 4.12-4, the greatest project-related noise
increases would be 0.1 dBA L
eq
along each street segment during the AM peak hour, and along each
street segment, except for Sunset Boulevard between Elysian Park Avenue and Marion Avenue, during
the PM peak hour. Mobile noise generated by the Project would not cause the ambient noise level
measured at the property line of the affected uses to rise to the normally unacceptable or clearly
unacceptable category or result in any 5-dBA or more increase in noise level. As a result, off-site
vehicular noise impacts would be considered a less-than-significant impact.
Table 4.12-4
2016 Estimated Peak Hour Mobile Source Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Peak
Hour
Estimated dBA, CNEL
No Project (2016) Project (2016) Project Impact
Sunset Boulevard from Elysian Park
Avenue North
AM 67.3 67.4 0.1
PM 67.6 67.7 0.1
Sunset Boulevard between Elysian
Park Avenue and Marion Avenue
AM 68.4 68.5 0.1
PM 68.6 68.6 0.0
Sunset Boulevard between Marion
Avenue and Bellevue Avenue
AM 68.2 68.3 0.1
PM 68.2 68.3 0.1
Temple Street from Edgeware Road
West
AM 65.4 65.5 0.1
PM 66.0 66.1 0.1

Table 4.12-4
2016 Estimated Peak Hour Mobile Source Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Peak
Hour
Estimated dBA, CNEL
No Project (2016) Project (2016) Project Impact

Parking Noise. TheProjectistobebuiltonasitethathasexistingparking activities.Parkingnoise
is typically generated by independent car door slams and rarely by simultaneous door slamming.
Because the existing site already has parking activity, parking noises from the new underground
structure and street parking would not significantly increase ambient noise levels at nearby
sensitive receptors. As a result, parking noise would be considered a lessthansignificant impact.
Nevertheless, best practices mitigation measures are recommended to minimize parking garage
relatednoise.
Stationary Noise. The Project would have stationary sources of noise associated with building
operations, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. The LAMC (Section
41.40andChapterXI,Articles1through6)regulatesthesetypesofoperations,requiringthatnoise
generated by mechanical equipment not exceed 5 dBA above ambient noise levels at adjacent
property lines. Large ground level HVAC systems typically generate noise levels between 50 and 65
dBA at 50 feet.
141
Roof-top mounted equipment typically produces noise levels of up to approximately
56 dBA at 50 feet.
142
The Project would incorporate roof-top mounted HVAC equipment. Noise levels
would increase about 1.1 dBA at the nearest land use, the adjacent hotel. This increase is considered
inaudible and would be less than the 5 dBA significance threshold for long-term ambient noise increases.
Therefore, future stationary noise impacts would be considered less-than-significant.
Environmental impacts to proposed on-site residential uses from noises generated by proposed on-site
commercial uses or the on-site parking garage may result from project implementation. However, the
potential impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by Mitigation Measures 12-8 and 12-9.
Environmental impacts to future occupants may result from this project's implementation due to mobile
noise from a major or secondary highway (Sunset Boulevard is classified as a Major Highway Class II
street). However, these impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level by Mitigation Measure
12-10.
Mitigation Measures

141
Los Angeles Department of City Planning, San Pedro Community Plan Draft EIR, August 2012.
142
Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Androna Avenue Subdivision Tentative Tract No. 53426 Subsequent
Draft EIR, February 2010.

Operational Phase
12-8 Increased Noise Levels (Mixed-Use Development)
Wall and floor-ceiling assemblies separating commercial tenant spaces, residential units, and
public places, shall have a Sound Transmission Coefficient (STC) value of at least 50, as
determined in accordance with ASTM E90 and ASTM E413.
12-9 Increased Noise Levels (Parking Noise)
Concrete, not metal, shall be used for construction of parking ramps.
The interior ramps shall be textured to prevent tire squeal at turning areas.
Parking lots located adjacent to residential buildings shall have a solid decorative wall
adjacent to the residential.
12-10 Severe Noise Levels (Residential Fronting on Major or Secondary Highway, or adjacent to a
Freeway)
All exterior windows having a line of sight of a Major or Secondary Highway shall be
constructed with double-pane glass and use exterior wall construction which provides a
Sound Transmission Coefficient (STC) value of 50, as determined in accordance with ASTM
E90 and ASTM E413, or any amendment thereto.

The applicant, as an alternative, may retain an acoustical engineer to submit evidence, along
with the application for a building permit, any alternative means of sound insulation
sufficient to mitigate interior noise levels below a CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room.

Mitigation Measures 12-8 through 12-10 would ensure that impacts due to the mixed-use nature of the
Project, as well as proximity of residential near a major or secondary highway, to less than significant
levels after mitigation.
b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Vibration is an oscillatory motion
through a solid medium in which the motions amplitude can be described in terms of displacement,
velocity, or acceleration. Unlike noise, vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is unusual
for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible. Common sources of vibration
include trains, buses, and construction activities.

Vibration Definitions
There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV)
is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used
to describe vibration impacts to buildings and is usually measured in inches per second. The root mean
square (RMS) amplitude is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body.
The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. Decibel notation
(Vdb) is commonly used to measure RMS. The decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers
required to describe vibration.
143

Effects of Vibration
High levels of vibration may cause physical personal injury or damage to buildings. However, ground-
borne vibration levels rarely affect human health. Instead, most people consider ground-borne vibration
to be an annoyance that may affect concentration or disturb sleep. In addition, high levels of ground-
borne vibration may damage fragile buildings or interfere with equipment that is highly sensitive to
ground-borne vibration.
Perceptible Vibration Changes
Unlike noise, ground-borne vibration is not an environmental issue that most people experience every
day. The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually 50 RMS or lower, well below
the threshold of perception for humans, which is around 65 RMS.
144
Most perceptible indoor vibration is
caused by sources within buildings, such as movement of people or slamming of doors. Typical outdoor
sources of ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, trains, and traffic on rough roads. If the
roadway is smooth, the vibration from traffic is typically not perceptible.
Applicable Regulations
To counter the effects of ground-borne vibration, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published
guidance relative to vibration impacts. According to the FTA, fragile buildings can be exposed to
ground-borne vibration levels of 0.3 inches per second without experiencing structural damage.
145
The
FTA has also established guidelines that provide thresholds for ground-borne vibration causing human
annoyance. For residential land uses, which experience occasional events of ground-borne vibration or
noise, the FTA has established a threshold of 75 VdB.
146
Some commercial buildings, such as auditoriums

143
Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.
144
145
146

and theaters have additional vibration and noise annoyance criteria. The FTA vibration and noise
annoyance threshold for a theater with occasional or infrequent events is 80 VdB.
For evaluating potential annoyance or interference with vibration-sensitive activities due to construction
vibration, the above criteria can be applied. In most cases, however, the primary concern regarding
construction vibration relates to potential damage effects. Guideline vibration damage criteria for
engineered concrete and masonry buildings, vibration levels up to 0.3 inches per second can be
experienced without causing structural damage. Vibration damage criteria for non-engineered timber and
masonry buildings are up to 0.2 inches per second.
147

Project Impacts
There would be a variety of potential off-road and on-road mobile pieces of equipment that could
generate groundborne vibration and noise. As shown in Table 4.12-5, Vibration Velocities for
Construction Equipment, heavy equipment (e.g., a bulldozer) generates vibration levels of up to 0.210
ppv at a distance of 25 feet. The highest vibration-generating piece of equipment used during
construction is a vibratory roller. In addition, there will be added truck traffic to the haul route exiting the
Project Site; however, on-road truck vibration is not typically perceptible.
The nearest off-site residential structure is within 10 feet of the construction boundary, where occasional
heavy equipment activity would occur, and could experience potential building damage at the significance
threshold of 0.2 inches per second. Vibration annoyance levels could also exceed the 75 VdB threshold
for residential land uses. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant but mitigable
impact related to construction related ground-borne vibration.
Table 4.12-5
Vibration Velocities for Construction Equipment
Equipment PPV at 25 feet (Inches/Second) Approximate L
V
at 25 feet
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Pile Driver (Sonic) 0.170 93
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.

Mitigation Measures
Construction Phase Ground-borne Vibration

147

12-11 Construction activities shall utilize rubber tired equipment in place of steel-track equipment.
12-12 Construction haul trucks shall avoid driving over potholes and dips when arriving at or leaving
each project site.
12-13 The construction contractor shall stage and warm-up construction equipment as far from nearby
sensitive receptors as possible.
12-14 The construction contractor shall avoid utilizing high vibration construction equipment (e.g. large
bulldozers) near surrounding sensitive receptors.
12-15 The construction contractor shall avoid using vibratory rollers and packers near sensitive areas.
12-16 The construction contractor shall use drilled piles or the use of a sonic or vibratory pile driver
where geological conditions permit their use. The construction contractor shall avoid impact pile-
driving except in locations where the underlying geological conditions render drilled piles or
sonic or vibratory pile drivers ineffective.
With Mitigation Measure 12-11 through 12-16, vibration levels at nearby sensitive receptors would be
reduced below significant levels. Vibration at nearby receptors would not exceed the potential building
damage threshold of 0.2 inches per second. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 12-11 through 12-
16 would reduce construction related ground-borne vibration impacts to a level that is less than
significant.
Operational Phase Ground-borne Vibration Impacts
During operation of the Project, there would not be significant stationary sources of ground-borne
vibration, such as heavy equipment operations. Operational ground-borne vibration in the project vicinity
would be generated by vehicular travel on the local roadways. However, project-related traffic vibration
levels would not be perceptible by sensitive receptors. Thus, operational vibration impacts would be
considered less-than-significant.
c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impact. The majority of any long-term noise impacts will come from traffic
traveling to and from the area. Off-site noise generated by traffic from the project was modeled under
future year (2016) no project and with project conditions utilizing the FHWA TNM 2.5 model. When
calculating future noise levels along project area roadways from traffic, additional impacts from 70
additional potential new or proposed projects were considered.

Thus, the future traffic results without and with the proposed project account for the cumulative impacts
from these other projects. Since the noise impacts are generated directly from the traffic analysis results,
the future without project and future with project noise impacts described in this report already reflect
cumulative impacts.
The project would contribute to future increases in off-site noise levels at project area roadways. Table
4.12-6, Estimated Cumulative Peak Hour Mobile Source Noise Levels, present the cumulative increase in
future traffic noise levels at study intersections (i.e., 2013 No Project conditions plus proposed project
traffic). The maximum cumulative roadway noise increase would occur along Temple Street from
Edgeware Road headed west during the AM peak hour (0.8 dBA L
eq
). This impact is considered marginal
and would be less than the 5-dBA significance threshold. Therefore, the projects individual and
cumulative mobile source noise impacts would be considered less-than-significant.
Table 4.12-6
Estimated Cumulative Peak Hour Mobile Source Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Peak
Hour
Estimated dBA, CNEL
Existing (2013) Project (2016) Project Impact
Sunset Boulevard from Elysian Park
Avenue North
AM 66.9 67.4 0.5
PM 67.0 67.7 0.7
Sunset Boulevard between Elysian
Park Avenue and Marion Avenue
AM 68.0 68.5 0.5
PM 68.0 68.6 0.6
Sunset Boulevard between Marion
Avenue and Bellevue Avenue
AM 67.7 68.3 0.6
PM 67.7 68.3 0.6
Temple Street from Edgeware Road
West
AM 64.7 65.5 0.8
PM 65.4 66.1 0.7

d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction of the project would
contribute to cumulative construction noise levels. There are 70 related projects that are proposed, only
one of which (92 apartments and 1,350 sq. ft. of retail at 1111 Sunset Boulevard) is near enough to the
proposed project to cause audible increases at identified sensitive receptors. This project would be built
over 600 feet to south of the proposed project site and is shielded from a direct line of sight by several
including the multi-story Holy Hill Community Church facility. As a result, any concurrent construction
from this proposed project would not produce audible noise impacts at local sensitive receptors. In

addition, the 1111 Sunset Boulevard related project is an adaptive reuse (interior changes) to an existing
building and finished its construction and opened in March 2014.
This and each of these related projects would be subject to LAMC Section 41.40, which limits the hours
of allowable construction activities. Each project would also be subject to Section 112.05 of the LAMC,
which prohibits any powered equipment or powered hand tool from producing noise levels that exceed 75
dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source within 500 feet of a residential zone. Noise levels are
only allowed to exceed this noise limitation under conditions where compliance is technically infeasible.
With conformance with LAMC Sections 41.40 and 112.05, and incorporation of Mitigation Measures
12-1 through 12-7, the projects cumulative construction noise impact would be considered less than
significant.
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?
No Impact. The Project Site would not be located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport. As such, the Project would not expose future residents or employees
to excessive airport-related 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?
No Impact. The Project Site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. As a result, the Project will not
expose future residents or employees to excessive noise levels from any private airstrip.

13. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Would the project 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)?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if a project would locate new
development such as homes, businesses, or infrastructure, with the effect of substantially inducing growth
in the project area that would otherwise not have occurred as rapidly or in as great a magnitude.
Construction Impacts
Construction job opportunities created as a result of the Project are not expected to result in any
substantial population growth in the area. The work requirements of most construction projects are highly
specialized so that construction workers remain at a job site only for the timeframe in which their specific
skills are needed to complete a particular phase of the construction process. Additionally, the construction
workers would likely be supplied from the regions labor pool. Construction workers would not be likely
to relocate their household as a consequence of working on the Project, and as such, significant housing
or population impacts will not result from construction of the Project. Therefore, construction-related
population growth impacts will be less than significant.
Operational Impacts
The Project Site contains 3,000 square feet of warehouse, 3 single-family dwellings, 2 unit apartment
building, 4,800 square feet of building materials/lumber store (Do-It Center), and a 2-stall car wash. All
existing uses would be removed. The Project would construct 220 residential units and 8,406 square feet
of retail. Population generation is shown in Table 4.13-1 and employee generation is shown in Table
4.13-2. It is estimated that the Project would generate approximately 660 residents (net after removal of 5
existing units) and approximately 3 employees (net after the removal of the existing commercial uses).
Table 4.13-1
Project Estimated Population Generation
Land Use Quantity Population Generation Rates Total Population
Existing Uses
Residential (removed) 5 DU 3.07 person / DU (16)
Project
Residential 220 DU 3.07 person / DU 676
Total Increase in Population 660


Table 4.13-1
Project Estimated Population Generation
Land Use Quantity Population Generation Rates Total Population
Note: DU = dwelling unit
Source: Silver Lake Echo Park Elysian Valley Community Plan, page III-1:
Table: CAJA Environmental Services, August 2013.

Table 4.13-2
Project Estimated Employment Generation
Land Use Size Employee Generation Rates Total Employees
Existing
Warehouse (to be removed) 3,000 sf 0.06 employees / 1,000 sf (1)
Building Materials/Lumber
Store (to be removed)
4,800 sf 2.71 employees / 1,000 sf (13)
Car Wash (to be removed) 2 stalls Negligible (6)
Project
Retail 8,406 sf 2.71 employees / 1,000 sf 23
Total Increase in Employees 3
Note: sf = square feet
Source: LAUSD 2012 Developer Fee Justification Study, February 9, 2012. Table 11:
Warehouse is similar to Rental Self Storage category; Lumber Store is similar to Neighborhood Shopping Centers category;
Car Wash has no rate so assume negligible number of employees (3 per stall); Retail is similar to Neighborhood Shopping
Center category.

Localized Growth Forecasts
Table 4.13-3 shows the existing (2010) population, housing, and employment of the Silver Lake Echo
Park Elysian Valley Community Plan.
Table 4.13-4 shows the 2012 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) planned growth
of the City of Los Angeles in population, housing, and employment to 2020.
Table 4.13-5, Census 2010 Population, shows the 2010 population for the Census tracts of, and
immediately around the Project Site.

Table 4.13-6, Population and Housing in the City Los Angeles, shows the California Department of
Finance population and housing for the City in 2010 and 2013.
148

Table 4.13-3
Population, Housing and Employment of the Community Plan
Population Housing (units) Employment (jobs)
2010

81,950 21,037 34,438
Silver Lake Echo Park Elysian Valley Community Plan, page II-4:

Table 4.13-4
Population, Housing and Employment of the City of Los Angeles

Population Housing (units) Employment (jobs)
2012

3,825,297 1,418,581 1,688,584
2020 3,991,700 1,455,700 1,817,700
Change (20128-2020) +166,403 +37,119 +29,116
2012: SCAG Local Profile for City of Los Angeles, dated May 2013:
http://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/LosAngeles.pdf
2020: SCAG 2012 Adopted Growth Forecast:
http://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2012AdoptedGrowthForecastPDF.pdf

Table 4.13-5
Census 2010 Population
Tract Location Population Housing Units
1977.00 Contains Project Site 5,103 1,933
1976.00 Adjacent west of 1977.00 2,376 957
1975.00 West of 1976.00 3,889 1,652
1973.00 Northwest of 1975.00 3,909 1,786
9800.10 North of 1977.00 164 60

148

Table 4.13-5
Census 2010 Population
Tract Location Population Housing Units
2080.00 South of 1976.00 6,893 2,444
2071.01 Southeast of 1977.00 3,047 1,592
2071.03 East of 1977.00 2,077 836
Total 27,458 11,260
NavigateLA with Census 2010 layer: http://navigatela.lacity.org/index01.cfm
Census 2010 for Los Angeles County:
http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=06

Table 3.14-6
Population and Housing in the City Los Angeles
2010 2013 Change 2010-2013
Population 3,792,621 3,863,839 +71,218 (+1.9%)
Housing Units 1,412,006 1,425,372 +13,366 (+0.9%)
2010: Census data, reported 4/1/2010
2013: Estimate 1/1/2013
State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties and the StateJanuary 1, 2011-2013. Sacramento, California, May 2013:

The Projects 660 net residents, 3 net employees, and 220 new dwelling units would be well within
SCAG estimates of growth for the City between 2012 and 2020. The Project would represent a negligible
percent of the estimated 2013 population and housing units in the City. The Project represents 2.4% of the
2010 Census population and 1.95% of the 2010 Census housing units in the immediate and adjacent
tracts.
149
Thus, it does not represent a substantial or significant growth as compared to the existing
characteristics. The Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to population,
housing, and employment growth.
Housing Element

149

The City is currently updating its Housing Element portion of the General Plan for the period of 2013-
2021. A draft dated September 17, 2013 was considered by the City Planning Commission on September
26, 2013. On November 5, 2013, the Housing Element was recommended for approval at a joint hearing
of the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) and Housing Committers of the City Council (CPC-
2013-1318-GPA).
150
On December 3, 2013, the City Council adopted the update to the Housing Element
of the General Plan.
151

The Housing Element provides the number of housing units each community must plan and accommodate
during the 8-year period is called the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. The
Housing Element does not alter the development potential of any site in the City, nor modify land use of
the Zoning Code. It also does not undermine, in any way, neighborhood planning efforts such as
Community Plans, Specific Plans or Historic Preservation Overlay Zones. While the State requires the
City to evaluate and plan for the existing capacity to accommodate future projected growth, the Housing
Element does not have any material effect on development patterns, nor specify areas for increased height
or density.
152

The Housing Element has identified 476 sites (148.2 acres) in the Silver Lake Echo Park Elysian
Valley Community Plan Area as having the housing capacity for 3,732 net units.
153
The Project would
add 220 residential units and not conflict with the Housing Element, which requires that the City must
show it has adequate land zoned to accommodate the RHNA allocation of 82,002 housing units for 2013-
2021.
154
An objective of the Housing Element is to promote an equitable distribution of affordable
housing opportunities throughout the City by providing incentives to include affordable housing in
residential development, particularly in mixed use developments. The Site is located on Sunset Boulevard
adjacent to the Downtown area to the east and Echo Park to the west. The Project would further the goals
and objectives of the Housing Element by providing additional housing stock and much needed affordable
housing units for Very Low Income households.
Infrastructure Impacts
The Project Site is currently developed with multiple commercial and residential buildings and is located
within an urbanized area in the City. Thus, the construction of potential growth-inducing roadway or
other infrastructure extensions would not be required. As development of the Project would not induce

150
City of Los Angeles, Housing Element, 2013-2021: https://sites.google.com/site/lahousingelement/
151
152
153
City of Los Angeles, Housing Element, 2013-2021, adopted December 3, 2013, Table 3.1, page 3-4.
154
City of Los Angeles, Housing Element, 2013-2021, adopted December 3, 2013, page 3-3.

substantial population growth and would be supported by the existing infrastructure such as roadways,
impacts will be less than significant.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would result in the
displacement of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
The Project would remove 3 single-family homes and a 2 unit apartment. However, the Project would add
220 new housing units to the Project Site. The 5 units do not represent a displacement of substantial
numbers of existing housing. The adopted CEQA Threshold for the City of Los Angeles is 15 single-
family residences or 25 multi-family units. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur.
c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would result in the
displacement of existing occupied housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere. The Project would remove 3 single-family homes and a 2 unit apartment. However, the Project
would add 220 new housing units to the Project Site. The 5 units do not represent a displacement of
substantial numbers of existing housing. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur.

14. PUBLIC SERVICES
This section is based on the following letters, included as Appendix G of this IS/MND:
G-1 Response from Captain Luke Milick, Los Angeles Fire Department, August 14, 2013.
G-2 Response from Commander Andrew J. Smith, Los Angeles Fire Department, August 30, 2013.
G-3 Response from Rena Perez, Director of Master Planning & Demographics, Los Angeles Unified
School District, August 15, 2013.
G-4 Response from Jon Kirk Mukri, General Manager, Los Angeles Department of Recreation and
Parks, August 21, 2013.
G-5 Response from Joseph Molles, Los Angeles Public Library, August 12, 2013.
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objective for any of the following public services:
i) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if the
City of Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) could not adequately serve a project, and a new or
physically altered fire station would be necessary. LAFD considers fire protection services for a project
adequate if a project is within the maximum response distance for the land use proposed.
A total of 1,104 uniformed firefighters (included 242 serving as Firefighters/Paramedics), are always on
duty at 106 neighborhood fire stations located in the LAFDs 471-square-mile jurisdiction.
155
Pursuant to
LAMC Section 57.09.07, the maximum response distance between high-density residential/commercial
neighborhood land use and a LAFD station that houses an engine or truck company is 1.5 miles. If this
distance is exceeded, all structures shall be constructed with automatic fire sprinkler systems.
156
The
Project Site is served by several fire stations, as shown in Table 4.14-1, Fire Stations. The fire stations are
shown in Figure 4.14-1, Fire Station Locations.

155
LAFD website: http://lafd.org/administration/97-lafd-administration/320-department-overview
156
LAFD website: http://lafd.org/prevention/hydrants/division_9_fc.html

Table 4.14-1
Fire Stations
No. Address Distance
Serving Area
3
108 N. Fremont Ave. 0.8 mile Civic Center / Bunker Hill
20
2144 W. Sunset Blvd. 1.2 miles Echo Park
Distance is based on driving distance.
http://lafd.org/find-a-fire-station/275-fire-station-locator
http://lafd.org/find-a-fire-station/399-station-list

Since the Project Site is located within the distance identified by LAMC Section 57.09.07, the Project
need not be constructed with automatic fire sprinkler systems and any additional fire protection as
required by the LAFD Chief, unless other building and safety codes supersedes this.
Emergency vehicle access to the Project Site will continue to be provided from local and major roadways
near the Project Site (i.e. Sunset Boulevard, Beaudry Avenue). Fire Station 3 would likely (most direct
route) pass through Study Intersection 3 (Sunset Boulevard and Beaudry Avenue) which would not have a
significant impact during AM peak hour but would have a significant impact during PM peak hour under
the Future With Project Conditions (see Tables 4.16-7 and 4.16-8). However, proposed Mitigation
Measure 16-1 would fully mitigate the PM peak hour impact and impacts would be reduced to less than
significance. Fire Station 20 would likely (most direct route) pass through Study Intersections 1 (Sunset
Boulevard and Elysian Park) and 2 (Sunset Boulevard and Marion Avenue) which would not have a
significant impact during AM or PM peak hours under the Future With Project Conditions (see Tables
4.16-7 and 4.16-8).
All circulation improvement proposed would be in compliance with the Fire Code, including any
additional access requirements of the LAFD. Additionally, emergency access to the Project Site will be
maintained at all times. Therefore, impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant.
The adequacy of fire protection is also based upon the required fire flow, equipment access, and LAFDs
safety requirements regarding needs and service for the area. The quantity of water necessary for fire
protection varies with the type of development, occupancy rates, life hazard, and the degree of fire hazard.
City-established fire flow requirements vary from 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm) in low-density
residential areas to 12,000 gpm in high-density commercial or industrial areas. In any case, a minimum
residual water pressure of 20 pounds per square inch is to remain in the water system while the required
gpm is flowing.
157

157
LAMC Sec. 57.09.06, Fire Flow: http://lafd.org/prevention/hydrants/division_9_fc.html, June 11, 2013.

The Project will require 4,000 gpm flowing from four fire hydrants simultaneously. There are 12-inch
mains surrounding the area and the flow should be sufficient. The LAFD Inspector will ask for two or
three additional public hydrants: one on the same side of the street as the building on Sunset Boulevard
and one or two on Everett Street, depending on the plot plan and entrances to the Project.
158
This is
included as Mitigation Measure 14-2. The following four fire hydrants are the nearest to the Site:
159

Hydrant (ID 10210, size 2D, 12-inch main) on northwest corner of Marion Avenue and Sunset
Boulevard.
Hydrant (ID 10211, size 2D, 12-inch main) on west side of Sunset Boulevard, midblock between
Marion Avenue and Innes Avenue.
Hydrant (ID 10202, size 2D, 12-inch main) on east side of Everett Street, adjacent to the point of
Everett Park.
Hydrant (ID 10209, size 2 x 4D, 8-inch main) on Sunset Boulevard, north of White Knoll Drive.
As required prior to approval, the Project will submit a request to the City of Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power (LADWP) to determine whether the pressure in the project area is sufficient. If it is not,
then upgrades to the existing infrastructure would be necessary. To ensure that fire protection services are
adequate within the proposed buildings and around the Project Site, Mitigation Measure 14-1 and 14-2
would reduce potential impacts on fire protection services to less than significant. These measures allow
the LAFD to ensure that the Project will not increase demand on the fire department to the extent that a
new or expanded facility is needed, the construction of which may cause a significant impact on the
environment.
Mitigation Measures
14-1 Public Services (Fire)
The following recommendations of the Fire Department relative to fire safety shall be
incorporated into the building plans, which includes the submittal of a plot plan for approval by
the Fire Department either prior to the recordation of a final map or the approval of a building
permit. The plot plan shall include the following minimum design features: fire lanes, where
required, shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width; all structures must be within 300 feet of an
approved fire hydrant, and entrances to any dwelling unit or guest room shall not be more than

158
Written response from Captain Luke Milick, Los Angeles Fire Department, August 14, 2013.Included in
Appendices.
159
Navigate LA, City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, DWP (Fire Hydrants) Layer:

150 feet in distance in horizontal travel from the edge of the roadway of an improved street or
approved fire lane.
14-2 Hydrants
The Project shall ensure that there are sufficient numbers of public hydrants around the Site.
According to the Fire Department, the Inspector shall ask for two or three additional public
hydrants: one on the same side of the street as the Project on Sunset Boulevard, and one or two on
Everett Street, depending on the plot plan and entrances to the Project. The number and exact
location shall be decided in consultation with the Fire Department.
110
101
10
S
U
N
S
E
T
B
L
V
D

V
I
R
G
I
L

A
V
E
S
IL
V
E
R
L
A
K
E
B
L
V
D
B
E
V
E
R
L
Y
B
L
V
D
R
A
M
P
A
R
T

B
L
V
D
A
L
V
E
R
A
D
O

S
T
W
IL
S
H
IR
E
B
L
V
D
7
T
H
S
T
S
P
R
IN
G
S
T
8
T
H
S
T
9
T
H
S
T
1
1
T
H
S
T
1
2
T
H
S
T
U
N
I
O
N

A
V
E
6
T
H
S
T
F
I
G
U
E
R
O
A

S
T
O
L
Y
M
P
IC
B
L
V
D
5
T
H
S
T
F
L
O
W
E
R

S
T
H
O
P
E

S
T
O
L
I
V
E

S
T
2
N
D
S
T
2
3
R
D
S
T
W
A
S
H
IN
G
T
O
N
B
L
V
D
3
R
D
S
T
4
T
H
S
T
A
D
A
M
S
B
L
V
D
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
B
L
V
D
P
IC
O
B
L
V
D
V
E
N
IC
E
B
L
V
D
EXPOSITION BLVD
H
I
L
L

S
T
M
A
I
N

S
T
41st ST
H
O
O
P
E
R

A
V
E
E
A
C
H

A
V
E
A
L
A
M
E
D
A

S
T
A
C
A
D
E
M
Y
R
D
ELYSIAN PARK AVE
V
E
R
H
I
L
L

S
T
S
T
A
D
I
U
M

W
Y
2
2
N
D
S
T
G
R
A
N
D

S
T
T
R
I
N
I
T
Y

S
T
Y
A
L
E

S
T
B
E
L
L
E
V
U
E
A
V
E
6
T
H
S
T
H
O
O
V
E
R

S
T
M
A
I
N

S
T
M
A
I
N

S
T
C
E
N
T
R
A
L

A
V
E
S
A
N

P
E
D
R
O

S
T
3
R
D
S
T
8
T
H
S
T
H
O
P
E

S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
S
P
R
I
N
G

S
T
1
S
T
S
T
T
E
M
P
L
E
S
T
S
A
N

J
U
L
I
A
N
110
110
PICO BLVD
S
U
N
S
E
T
B
L
V
D
Fire Station #3
Fire Station #20
Fire Stations
Fire Station #3
108 North Fremont Avenue
Fire Station #20
2144 West Sunset Boulevard
Legend
PROJECT SITE
Figure 4.14-1
Fire Station Locations
Source: CAJ A Environmental Services, LLC and Thomas Bros, 2013.
Miles
0 .05

ii) Police protection?
creates the need for new or physically altered police facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives.
The Project Site is currently served by the City of Los Angeles Police Departments (LAPD) Central
Bureau, which oversees LAPD operations in the Central, Hollenbeck, Newton, and Rampart areas.
160
The
Central Community Police Station, located at 251 East 6
th
Street, approximately 2.3 miles driving
distance from the Project Site. The Central Community Police Station area encompasses approximately
40,000 residents in approximately 4.5 square miles, including the downtown communities of Chinatown,
Little Tokyo, South Park, Central City East, Historic Core, Financial District, Artists Loft, Olvera Street,
Jewelry District, the Convention Center, and Fashion District).
161
The boundaries of Central Area are as
follows: 110 Freeway to the north, Washington Boulevard and 7
th
Street to the south, Metrolink Railroad
Tracks to the east, and 110 Freeway to the west.
162

The average response time to emergency calls for service in the Central Area during 2012 was 4.3
minutes. This response time is below the Citywide average that was 5.7 minutes during 2012 and below
the seven minute response time that is a set standard. There are approximately 450 sworn officers and 26
civilian support staff in the Central Area.
163
The police station is shown in Figure 4.14-2, Police Station
Location. Each police station area is divided into smaller Reporting Districts (RD). The Project Site is
within RD 101, which has an area as follows: Lilac Terrace to the north, Sunset Boulevard to the south
and west, and 110 Pasadena Freeway to the east.
164
Crime statistics are shown in Table 4.14-2, Reported
Crimes in RD 101, Central Area, and Citywide.
According to the LAPD, there were 128 crimes per 1,000 person in the Central Area
165
and 51 crimes per
1,000 persons Citywide.
166
This result can be assumed a function of the high density area of Downtown,
such as the Historic Core, Arts District, Chinatown, South Park, and Skid Row.

160
LAPD, Central Bureau: http://www.lapdonline.org/central_bureau
161
LAPD, Central Area: http://www.lapdonline.org/central_community_police_station/content_basic_view/1681.
162
Written response from Commander Andrew J. Smith, LAPD, August 30, 2013. Included in the Appendices.
163
164
165
7,876 crimes / 61,628 persons x 1000 = 128

Table 4.14-2
Reported Crimes in RD 101, Central Area, and Citywide
Type of Crime RD 101 Central Area Citywide
Murder
0 3 298
Rape
1 33 778
Robbery
4 523 8,949
Aggravated Assault
5 419 8,281
Burglary
14 226 16,224
Burglary/Theft from Vehicle
30 882 26,327
Theft from Person
0 189 1,519
Other Theft
10 1,625 27,435
Vehicle Theft
25 335 15,356
Other Assault
25 1,663 32,114
Forgery / Counterfeit
1 82 2,481
Fraud
7 301 12,761
Embezzlement
0 28 651
Vandalism
15 628 18,704
Weapon
4 72 1,259
Pimp / Pan
0 1 86
Other Sex Offense
0 148 3,306
Against Family / Child
2 13 802
Disorderly Conduct
0 32 389
Vagrancy
3 87 1,601
All Other Violations
8 586 12,191
Total
154 7,876 191,512
The above numbers are from the 2012 crime statistics.
Source: Written response from Commander Andrew J. Smith, LAPD, August 30, 2013.
Included in the Appendices.
Table: CAJA Environmental Services, September 2013.

Construction Impacts
Construction sites can be sources of attractive nuisances, providing hazards, and inviting theft and
vandalism. Therefore, when not properly secured, construction sites can become a distraction for local

166
191,512 crimes / 3,790,185 persons x 1,000 = 51

law enforcement from more pressing matters that require their attention. Consequently, developers
typically take precautions to prevent trespassing through construction sites. Most commonly, temporary
fencing is installed around the construction site to keep out the curious.
The Project Site is generally shielded from access on the east side by the existing residential uses on
Everett Street and the steep topography and on the north side by the steep topography. The side along
Sunset Boulevard will need to be secured during construction. The Project Applicant will employ
construction security features, such as fencing, which would serve to minimize the need for LAPD
services (see Mitigation Measure 14-3). This measure would reduce potential construction impacts on
police protection services to less than significant.
Operational Impacts
Development of the Project will include construction of new residential buildings as well as ground-floor
commercial uses. As such, the Project could potentially increase in the number of police service calls due
to an increase in onsite residents, employees and customers. The potential for crime can be reduced with
site specific designs and features (see Mitigation Measure 14-4). The Project will include standard
security measures such as adequate security lighting and secure parking facilities. In addition, the LAPD
has requested that the commanding officer of the Central Area be provided a diagram of each portion of
the property showing access routes, and any additional information that might facilitate police response.
This is formally included as Mitigation Measure 14-5. Although the Project will not require the
construction of a new or expanded police station and the impacts with regard to this issue area will be less
than significant, Mitigation Measures 14-3, 14-4, and 14-5 will further reduce the impacts associated
with police services.
Mitigation Measures
14-3 Public Services (Police Demolition/Construction Sites)
Fences shall be constructed around the site to minimize trespassing, vandalism, short-cut
attractions and attractive nuisances.
14-4 Public Services (Police)
The plans shall incorporate a design that enhances the security, semi-public and private spaces,
which may include but not be limited to access control to building, secured parking facilities,
walls/fences with key systems, well-illuminated public and semi-public space designed with a
minimum of dead space to eliminate areas of concealment, location of toilet facilities or building
entrances in high-foot traffic areas, and provision of security guard patrol throughout the Project
Site if needed. Please refer to "Design Out Crime Guidelines: Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design", published by the Los Angeles Police Department. Contact the
Community Relations Division, located at 100 W. 1st Street, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90012;

(213) 486-6000. These measures shall be approved by the Police Department prior to the issuance
of building permits.
14-5 Upon completion of the Project, the Central Area commanding officer shall be provided with a
diagram of each portion of the property. The diagram shall include access routes and any
additional information that might facilitate police response.

110
101
10
S
U
N
S
E
T
B
L
V
D

V
I
R
G
I
L

A
V
E
B
E
V
E
R
L
Y
B
L
V
D
R
A
M
P
A
R
T

B
L
V
D
A
L
V
E
R
A
D
O

S
T
W
IL
S
H
IR
E
B
L
V
D
7
T
H
S
T
S
P
R
IN
G
S
T
8
T
H
S
T
9
T
H
S
T
1
1
T
H
S
T
1
2
T
H
S
T
U
N
I
O
N

A
V
E
6
T
H
S
T
F
I
G
U
E
R
O
A

S
T
O
L
Y
M
P
IC
B
L
V
D
5
T
H
S
T
F
L
O
W
E
R

S
T
H
O
P
E

S
T
O
L
I
V
E

S
T
2
N
D
S
T
2
3
R
D
S
T
W
A
S
H
IN
G
T
O
N
B
L
V
D
3
R
D
S
T
4
T
H
S
T
A
D
A
M
S
B
L
V
D
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
B
L
V
D
P
IC
O
B
L
V
D
V
E
N
IC
E
B
L
V
D
EXPOSITION BLVD
H
I
L
L

S
T
M
A
I
N

S
T
41st ST
H
O
O
P
E
R

A
V
E
E
A
C
H

A
V
E
A
L
A
M
E
D
A

S
T
A
C
A
D
E
M
Y
R
D
ELYSIAN PARK AVE
V
E
R
H
I
L
L

S
T
S
T
A
D
I
U
M

W
Y
2
2
N
D
S
T
G
R
A
N
D

S
T
Y
A
L
E

S
T
B
E
L
L
E
V
U
E
A
V
E
6
T
H
S
T
H
O
O
V
E
R

S
T
M
A
I
N

S
T
M
A
I
N

S
T
C
E
N
T
R
A
L

A
V
E
S
A
N

P
E
D
R
O

S
T
3
R
D
S
T
8
T
H
S
T
H
O
P
E

S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
S
P
R
I
N
G

S
T
1
S
T
S
T
T
E
M
P
L
E
S
T
S
A
N

J
U
L
I
A
N
110
110
PICO BLVD
V
E
N
IC
E
B
L
V
D
WASHINGTON BLVD
A
D
A
M
S
B
L
V
D
2
3
R
D
S
T
V
E
R
M
O
N
T

A
V
E
4
T
H
P
L
6TH ST
1ST ST
S
A
N
T
E

F
E

A
V
E
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
B
L
V
D
M
A
P
L
E

A
V
E
Police Station
Central Community Police Station
251 East 6th Street
Legend
Central Community
Police Station
Report District 101
Figure 4.14-2
Police Station Location
Miles
0 .05
Central Area Boundaries
PROJECT SITE

iii) Schools?
includes substantial employment or population growth, which could generate demand for additional
school facilities.The Project Site is served by the following Los Angeles Unified School District
(LAUSD) schools:
Elementary (K-5)
Plasencia Elementary, 1321 Cortez Street
Middle School (6-8)
Castro Middle, 1575 W. 2
nd
Street
High School (9-12)
167

Academic Leadership Community, 322 S. Lucas Avenue
Los Angeles Teacher Preparatory Academy, 1575 W. 2
nd
Street
Civitas School of Leadership, 1200 W. Colton Street
Cortines School of Visual and Performing Arts, 450 N. Grand Avenue
Contreres Learning Center, 322 S. Lucas Avenue
Belmont Senior High, 1575 W. 2
nd
Street
Roybal Learning Center, 1200 W. Colton Street
Los Angeles School of Global Studies, 322 S. Lucas Avenue
The schools are shown in Figure 4.14-3, School Locations.
Enrollment Capacities

167
Project is within a School Choice Area and in the Belmont Academic Zone. Schools & programs that are part of
a "school choice area" pull enrollments from the school(s) that have resident areas, as defined by attendance
boundaries. The individual school and calculated total capacities and enrollments for school choice areas are
reported to show current and projected seating overage/shortage and overcrowding. If any of the school choice area
schools is multi-track, then the service area is considered overcrowded

Each of the schools enrollments and capacities are shown in Table 4.14-3. There are no anticipated new
schools planned for the area.
Table 4.14-3
LAUSD Schools Enrollments and Capacities
N
a
m
e

C
u
r
r
e
n
t

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

1

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t

E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t

2

A
c
t
u
a
l

E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t

3

C
u
r
r
e
n
t

O
v
e
r
a
g
e
/

(
S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
)

4

O
v
e
r
c
r
o
w
d
e
d

N
o
w
?

5

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

6

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t

7

F
u
t
u
r
e

O
v
e
r
a
g
e
/

(
S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
)

8

O
v
e
r
c
r
o
w
d
i
n
g

F
u
t
u
r
e
?

9

Plasencia Elementary 1,042 573 623 469 No 900 434 466 No

Castro Middle 520 556 512 (36) Yes 498 535 (37) Yes

School Choice Area Totals 7,273 6,673 6,467 600 No 8,703 5,385 3,318 No
Academic Leadership Community 587 - 436 - - 550 - - -
LA Teacher Prep Academy 368 - 264 - - 475 - - -
Civitas Leadership 390 - 341 - - 526 - - -
Cortines School of Visual and
Performing Arts
1,761 - 1,630 - - 1,618 - - -
Contreres Learning Center 857 - 960 - - 875 - - -
Belmont Senior High 1,261 - 1,020 - - 2,178 - - -
Roybal Learning Center 1,608 - 1,452 - - 2,050 - - -
LA Global Studies 441 - 364 - - 431 - - -
Note: Current and projected enrollments/capacities reflect data from School Year (SY) 2012-2013. Current and projected
data are updated annually and become available after February 1st of each calendar.

1
School's current operating capacity, or the maximum number of students the school can serve while operating on its
current calendar. Excludes capacity allocated to charter co-locations. Includes capacity for magnet program.
2
The total number of students living in the school's attendance area and who are eligible to attend the school. Includes
magnet students.
-Multi-track calendars are utilized as one method of providing relief to overcrowded schools by increasing enrollment
capacities.
-A key goal of the Superintendent and Board of Education is to return all schools to a traditional 2-semester calendar (1
TRK).
3
The number of students actually attending the school now, including magnet students.
4
Current seating overage or (shortage): equal to (current capacity) - (resident enrollment).
5
Current overcrowding status of school or service area. The school or area is currently overcrowded if any of these
conditions exist:
-A school is currently on a multi-track calendar.
-There is currently a seating shortage.
-There is currently a seating overage of LESS THAN or EQUAL TO a 'safety margin' of 30 seats.
6
School planning capacity. Formulated from a baseline calculation of the number of eligible classrooms after
implementing LAUSD operational goals and shifting to a 2-semester (1 TRK) calendar. Includes capacity allocated to by

Table 4.14-3
LAUSD Schools Enrollments and Capacities
N
a
m
e

C
u
r
r
e
n
t

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

1

R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t

E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t

2

A
c
t
u
a
l

E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t

3

C
u
r
r
e
n
t

O
v
e
r
a
g
e
/

(
S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
)

4

O
v
e
r
c
r
o
w
d
e
d

N
o
w
?

5

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

6

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t

7

F
u
t
u
r
e

O
v
e
r
a
g
e
/

(
S
h
o
r
t
a
g
e
)

8

O
v
e
r
c
r
o
w
d
i
n
g

F
u
t
u
r
e
?

9

charter co-locations. Includes capacity for magnet programs.
7
Projected 5-year total number of students living in the school's attendance area and who are eligible to attend the
school. Includes magnet students.
8
Projected seating overage or (shortage): equal to (projected capacity) - (projected enrollment).
9
Projected overcrowding status of school. The school will be considered overcrowded in the future if any of these
conditions exist:
-A school remains on a multi-track calendar.
-There is a seating shortage in the future.
-There is a seating overage of LESS THAN or EQUAL TO a 'safety margin' of 30 seats in the future.

Source: Written response from Rena Perez Director of Master Planning & Demographics, LAUSD, August 15, 2013.
Included in the Appendices.
Table by CAJA Environmental Services, August 2013.

As shown on Table 4.14-4, the Project would generate an increase of approximately 88 elementary, 22
middle, and 44 high school students, for a total increase of approximately 154 students. To be
conservative, this analysis assumed that all students generated by the Project will be new to LAUSD.
Table 4.14-4
Project Estimated Student Generation
Land Use Quantity Elementary
1
Middle
2
High
3
Total
Residential 221 DU 88 22 44 154
1
Elementary:0.4 students per household
2
Middle: 0.1 students per household
3
High: 0.2 students per household
Source (rates): LAUSD 2012 Developer Fee Justification Study, February 9, 2012.

Plasencia Elementary has adequate capacity now and in the future to accommodate the Project. Castro
Middle is currently overcrowded by 36 students and projected to be overcrowded by 37 students in the
future. Since there is the potential that its future enrollment could remain overcrowded, especially with
the Project, Mitigation Measure 14-6 is needed to reduce impacts to less than significant. The high

schools in the Belmont Academic Zone have adequate capacity now and in the future to accommodate the
Project.
Proximity to Schools
The Project Site is not in close proximity to any public schools.
168
The nearest public school are:
Evans Adult School, 717 N. Figueroa Street, approximately 1,600 feet southeast
Downtown Magnet School, 1081 W. Temple Street, approximately 1,500 feet south
There are private schools, professional schools, and religious affiliated schools in the area. The nearest
private school is:
New Covenant Academy
169
(LA Sa-Rang or Holy Hill Community Church), 1111 W. Sunset
Boulevard, approximately 1 block south
Construction activities do not have the potential to impact the normal operation of any school, including
bus routes and pedestrian walkways.
School Fees
California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1) states that the governing board of any school district is
authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirements against any construction within the
boundaries of the district, for the purposes of funding the construction or reconstruction of school
facilities. The LAUSD School Facilities Fee Plan has been prepared to support the school districts levy
of the fees authorized by California Education Code Section 17620.
The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (SB 50) sets a maximum level of fees a developer may
be required to pay to mitigate a projects impacts on school facilities. The maximum fees authorized
under SB 50 apply to zone changes, general plan amendments, zoning permits and subdivisions. The
provisions of SB 50 are deemed to provide full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts,
notwithstanding any contrary provisions in CEQA, or other state or local law (Government Code Section
65996). Furthermore, per Government Code Section 65995.5-7, LAUSD has imposed developer fees for
commercial/industrial and residential space. Overall, the payment of school fees in compliance with SB
50 would be mandatory and would provide full and complete mitigation of school impacts for the
purposes of CEQA.

168
LAUSD: http://home.lausd.net/ourpages/auto/2012/3/19/43726930/EducationalServiceCenter_Map_EAST_2012-
2013.pdf
169
California Schools Guide: http://schools.latimes.com/school/los-angeles/new-covenant-academy/

Castro Middle School is identified as currently overcrowded and projected to be overcrowded. The
Project could have the potential to further increase enrollment. The Project Applicant will pay school fees
for the Project. Payment of school fees, as required by Mitigation Measure 14-6, ensures that the Project
will not result in a significant impact to schools.
Mitigation Measure
14-6 Public Services (Schools)
The applicant shall pay school fees to the Los Angeles Unified School District to offset the
impact of additional student enrollment at schools serving the project area.
T
110
101
10
S
U
N
S
E
T
B
L
V
D

V
I
R
G
I
L

A
V
E
B
E
V
E
R
L
Y
B
L
V
D
R
A
M
P
A
R
T

B
L
V
D
A
L
V
E
R
A
D
O

S
T
W
IL
S
H
IR
E
B
L
V
D
7
T
H
S
T
S
P
R
IN
G
S
T
8
T
H
S
T
9
T
H
S
T
1
1
T
H
S
T
1
2
T
H
S
T
U
N
I
O
N

A
V
E
6
T
H
S
T
F
I
G
U
E
R
O
A

S
T
O
L
Y
M
P
IC
B
L
V
D
5
T
H
S
T
F
L
O
W
E
R

S
T
H
O
P
E

S
T
O
L
I
V
E

S
T
2
N
D
S
T
2
3
R
D
S
T
W
A
S
H
IN
G
T
O
N
B
L
V
D
3
R
D
S
T
4
T
H
S
T
A
D
A
M
S
B
L
V
D
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
B
L
V
D
P
IC
O
B
L
V
D
V
E
N
IC
E
B
L
V
D
EXPOSITION BLVD
H
I
L
L

S
T
M
A
I
N

S
T
41st ST
H
O
O
P
E
R

A
V
E
E
A
C
H

A
V
E
A
L
A
M
E
D
A

S
T
A
C
A
D
E
M
Y
R
D
ELYSIAN PARK AVE
V
E
R
H
I
L
L

S
T
S
T
A
D
I
U
M

W
Y
2
2
N
D
S
T
G
R
A
N
D

S
T
Y
A
L
E

S
T
B
E
L
L
E
V
U
E
A
V
E
6
T
H
S
T
H
O
O
V
E
R

S
T
M
A
I
N

S
T
M
A
I
N

S
T
C
E
N
T
R
A
L

A
V
E
S
A
N

P
E
D
R
O

S
T
3
R
D
S
T
8
T
H
S
T
H
O
P
E

S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
S
P
R
I
N
G

S
T
1
S
T
S
T
T
E
M
P
L
E
S
T
S
A
N

J
U
L
I
A
N
110
110
PICO BLVD
V
E
N
IC
E
B
L
V
D
WASHINGTON BLVD
A
D
A
M
S
B
L
V
D
2
3
R
D
S
T
V
E
R
M
O
N
T

A
V
E
4
T
H
P
L
6TH ST
1ST ST
S
A
N
T
E

F
E

A
V
E
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
B
L
V
D
T
E
M
P
LE
S
T
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2
PROJECT SITE
Figure 4.14-3
School Locations
Elementary (K-5)
1) Plasencia Elementary
1321 Cortez Street
Middle School (6-8)
2) Castro Middle
1575 W. 2nd Street
High School (9-12)
3) Academic Leadership Community
322 S. Lucas Avenue
4) Los Angeles Teacher
Preparatory Academy
1575 W. 2nd Street

5) Civitas School of Leadership
1200 W. Colton Street
6) Cortines School of Visual and
Performing Arts
450 N. Grand Avenue
7) Contreres Learning Center
322 S. Lucas Avenue
8) Belmont Senior High
1575 W. 2nd Street
9) Roybal Learning Center
1200 W. Colton Street
10) Los Angeles School of
Global Studies
322 S. Lucas Avenue
Legend
1
Miles
0 .05

iv) Parks?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact to parks would occur if
implementation of a project includes a new or physically altered park or creates the need for a new or
physically altered park, the construction of which could cause substantial adverse physical impacts.
The City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks (LADRP) manages all municipally owned
and operated recreation and park facilities within the City. A one-mile radius is the standard service
radius for neighborhood parks; and a two-mile radius is the standard for community and regional parks.
170

Table 4.14-5, Parks and Recreation Centers lists the LADRP parks and recreation centers that are located
nearby the Project Site. The parks are shown in Figure 4.14-4, Park and Recreation Center Locations. The
LADRP is currently investigating the opportunity to develop a park at the corner of 1
st
Street and
Broadway, though there is currently no schedule for completion.
171

Table 4.14-5
Parks and Recreation Centers
Name Address Acres Features
Neighborhood Parks (less than 10 acres and within one mile radius of the Project Site)
Alpine Recreation Center 817 Yale Street 1.94
Auditorium, basketball courts
(lighted/indoor/outdoor), childrens play
area, indoor gym (without weights),
volleyball courts (lighted).
Beverly Pocket Park 1644 Beverly Boulevard 0.32 childrens play area
Contreras Pool 322 S. Lucas Avenue 0.55 Pool
Echo Deep Pool 1419 Colton Street 2.07 Pool
Everett Park 1010 N. Everett Street 0.53 Pocket Park
Lilac Terrace Park 1253 W. Lilac Terrace 2.83 Veterans Memorial grove
Rockwood Park 1571 W. Rockwood Street 0.91 Open Space
Community Parks (greater than 10 acres and within two mile radius of the Project Site)
Echo Park 751 Echo Park Boulevard 28.41

Barbecue pits, baseball diamond (lighted),
basketball courts (lighted/indoor/outdoor),
childrens play area, community room,
indoor gym (without weights), picnic tables,
seasonal pool (outdoor/unheated), soccer
field (lighted), tennis courts (lighted), year
round pool (indoor/heated/unheated)
MacArthur Park 2230 W. 6th Street 29.87
Auditorium, childrens play area, picnic
tables, lake

170
Written correspondence with Jon Kirk Mukri, General Manager, LADRP, August 21, 2013.
171

Grand Park
1
Between Music Center
and City Hall
12
Open space, art and music events, interactive
water splash pad
Regional Park (greater than 50 acres and within two mile radius of the Project Site)
Elysian Park 929 Academy Road 544.71
Chavez Ridge Disc Golf Course, Chavez
Ravine arboretum, hiking trails, horseshoe
pits, jogging paths
1
Grand Park is operated by the Los Angeles Grand Avenue Authority, a County and City joint venture.
LADRP Facility Finder: http://www.laparks.org/dos/reccenter/reccenter.htm and http://www.laparks.org/dos/parks/parks.htm
NavigateLA with Recreation and Parks Department layer: http://navigatela.lacity.org/index01.cfm
Written correspondence with Jon Kirk Mukri, General Manager, LADRP, August 21, 2013.Included in the Appendices.


The Public Recreation Plan, a portion of the Service Element of the Citys General Plan sets a goal of a
parkland acres-to-population ratio of neighborhood and community parks of 4.0 (or 4 acres per 1,000
persons). The Silver Lake Echo Park Elysian Valley Community Plan has a parkland acres-to-
population ratio of neighborhood and community parks of 0.68.
172
The area around the Project Site has
9.15 acres of neighborhood parkland and 70.28 acres of community parkland for a total of 79.43 acres.
The Project would generate approximately 660 net residents and approximately 3 net employees.
However, employees of commercial developments do not typically frequent parks or recreation centers
during work hours, but are more likely to use parks or recreation centers near their homes during non-
work hours. The Projects open space requirement is shown in Table 2-9, Open Space Required. The
Sunset portion is required to have 22,825 square feet of open space. The Everett portion would be
required to have 2,100 square feet of open space as an apartment. Upon recording the small lot
subdivision map there will be no open space requirement. The Projects open space provided is shown in
Table 2-10, Open Space Provided. The Sunset portion would provide 23,977 square feet of open space
through a combination of private balconies in some units, roof terraces in Building A and Building B, a
recreation room, and common open spaces. The amount provided would exceed the amount required by
1,152 square feet. The Everett portion would provide no open space.
According to the standards provided in the Public Recreation Plan, the 660 net new residents would
require 2.64 acres to maintain the standard of four acres per 1,000 people. The City requires developers
to dedicate parkland or pay fees in lieu of parkland dedication. When the proposed onsite open space and
recreation facilities do not fully satisfy the above requirements, the developer is required to pay
Recreation and Park Fees to the City to satisfy the balance of its obligations. The following mitigation
measure trigger will apply (as Mitigation Measure 14-7):
If the applicant records a final map, then Quimby Fees will be paid.

172

Or
If a final map is not recorded and the applicant seeks a certificate of occupancy for apartments,
then the Dwelling Unit Construction Tax will be paid.
Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 14-7, impacts to parks and recreation centers
from the Project would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
14-7 Recreation (Increased Demand for Parks or Recreational Facilities)
If a final map is recorded, then the following applies: (Subdivision) Pursuant to Section 17.12-A or
17.58 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, the applicant shall pay the applicable Quimby fees for
the construction of dwelling units.
or
If a final map is not recorded and the applicant seeks a certificate of occupancy for apartments,
then the following applies: (Apartments) Pursuant to Section 21.10 of the Los Angeles Municipal
Code, the applicant shall pay the Dwelling Unit Construction Tax for construction of apartment
buildings.
T
2
110
101
10
S
U
N
S
E
T
B
L
V
D
OSE AVE
H
O
O
V
E
R

S
T

V
I
R
G
I
L

A
V
E
S
I
L
V
E
R

L
A
K
E

B
L
V
D
B
E
V
E
R
L
Y
B
L
V
D
R
A
M
P
A
R
T

B
L
V
D
T
E
M
P
L
E
S
T
A
L
V
E
R
A
D
O

S
T
W
IL
S
H
IR
E
B
L
V
D
7
T
H

S
T
E
C
H
O

P
A
R
K

A
V
E
E
R
S
I
D
E

D
R
S
P
R
I
N
G

S
T
8
T
H

S
T
9
T
H

S
T
1
1
T
H

S
T
1
2
T
H

S
T
U
N
I
O
N

A
V
E
6
T
H

S
T
F
I
G
U
E
R
O
A

S
T
O
L
Y
M
P
IC
B
L
V
D
5
T
H

S
T
F
L
O
W
E
R

S
T
H
O
P
E

S
T
O
L
I
V
E

S
T
2
N
D

S
T
2
3
R
D
S
T
W
A
S
H
IN
G
T
O
N
B
L
V
D
3
R
D

S
T
4
T
H

S
T
A
D
A
M
S

B
L
V
D
P
IC
O
B
L
V
D
V
E
N
IC
E
B
L
V
D
TION BLVD
H
I
L
L

S
T
A
L
A
M
E
D
A

S
T
A
C
A
D
E
M
Y
R
D
ELYSIAN PARK AVE
L
O
S

A
N
G
E
L
E
S

R
I
V
E
R
H
I
L
L

S
T
S
T
A
D
I
U
M

W
Y
2
2
N
D

S
T
G
R
A
N
D

S
T
T
O
B
E
R
M
A
N

S
T
T
R
I
N
I
T
Y

S
T
S
T
Y
A
L
E

S
T
B
E
L
L
E
V
U
E
A
V
E
6
T
H
S
T
H
O
O
V
E
R

S
T
M
A
IN
S
T
M
A
I
N

S
T
1ST ST
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
S
P
R
I
N
G

S
T
H
O
P
E

S
T
10
10
101
110
C
E
N
T
R
A
L

A
V
E
S
A
N

P
E
D
R
O

S
T
S
A
N
T
A

F
E

A
V
E
3
R
D
S
T
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Figure 4.14-4
Park and Open Space Locations
Miles
0 1 .05
Neighborhood Parks
1) Alpine Recreation Center
817 Yale Street
2) Beverly Pocket Park
1644 Beverly Boulevard
3) Contreras Pool
322 S. Lucas Avenue
4) Echo Deep Pool
1419 Colton Street
5) Everett Park
1010 N. Everett Street
6) Lilac Terrace Park
1253 W. Lilac Terrace
7) Rockwood Park
1571 W. Rockwood Street
Community Parks
8) EXPO Center Rose Garden
3980 S. Menlo Avenue
9) MacArthur Park
2230 W. 6th Street
10) Grand Park
Between Music Center and City Hall
Regional Parks
8) Elysian Park
929 Academy Road
Legend
PROJECT SITE

v) Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project includes substantial
employment or population growth that could generate a demand for other public facilities, such as
libraries, which would exceed the capacity to service the Project Site.
The City of Los Angeles Public Library (LAPL) provides library services throughout the City through its
Central Library 8 regional branches, and 64 community branches. The LAPL collection has 6.4 million
books, magazines, electronic media, 120 online databases, and 34,000 e-books and related media.
173

On February 8, 2007, The Board of Library Commissioners approved a new Branch Facilities Plan. This
Plan includes Criteria for new Libraries, which recommends new size standards for the provision of
LAPL facilities 12,500 square feet for community with less than 45,000 population, 14,500 square feet
for community with more than 45,000 population, and up to 20,000 square feet for a Regional branch. It
also recommends that when a community reaches a population of 90,000, an additional branch library
should be considered for the area. Table 4.14-6 describes the library that would serve the Project. The
library is shown in Figure 4.14-5, Library Location. It is 0.5 mile from the Project Site. There are no
planned improvements to add capacity through expansion to either library. There are no plans for the
development of any other new library to serve this community.
174

Table 4.14-6
Los Angeles Public Libraries
Name Address Size (sf)
Volumes /
Circulation
Current / Future
Service Staff
Echo Park Branch 1410 W. Temple Street 17,543
43,908 /
128,374
67,869 /
No Future Forecast
7.5
Current 2010 Census.
Staffing is full-time equivalent.
Source: Written response from Joseph Molles, LAPL, August 12, 2013. Included in the Appendices.
Table: CAJA Environmental Services, August 2013

The Project would generate approximately 660 net residents and 3 net employees. However, employees of
commercial development do not typically frequent libraries during work hours, but are more likely to use
libraries near their homes during non-work hours. The 660 net residents represent a negligible (1.5

173
LAPL website: http://www.lapl.org/about-lapl/press/2012-library-facts
174
Written response from Joseph Molles, LAPL, August 12, 2013. Included in the Appendices.

percent)
175
amount of the current service population of the Echo Park Branch. An additional branch is
only recommended that when a community reaches a population of 90,000. The Project population
combined with reasonable localized growth (approximately 0.73% annual growth rate)
176
would not push
the service population past 90,000 persons. Thus, a new branch is not required. Therefore, impacts to
library service will be less than significant.

175
660 / 43,912 x 100% = 1.5%
176
Los Angeles Department of City Planning / Demographic Research Unit.
110
101
10
S
U
N
S
E
T
B
L
V
D

V
I
R
G
I
L

A
V
E
B
E
V
E
R
L
Y
B
L
V
D
R
A
M
P
A
R
T

B
L
V
D
A
L
V
E
R
A
D
O

S
T
W
IL
S
H
IR
E
B
L
V
D
7
T
H
S
T
S
P
R
IN
G
S
T
8
T
H
S
T
9
T
H
S
T
1
1
T
H
S
T
1
2
T
H
S
T
U
N
I
O
N

A
V
E
6
T
H
S
T
F
I
G
U
E
R
O
A

S
T
O
L
Y
M
P
IC
B
L
V
D
5
T
H
S
T
F
L
O
W
E
R

S
T
H
O
P
E

S
T
O
L
I
V
E

S
T
2
N
D
S
T
2
3
R
D
S
T
W
A
S
H
IN
G
T
O
N
B
L
V
D
3
R
D
S
T
4
T
H
S
T
A
D
A
M
S
B
L
V
D
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
B
L
V
D
P
IC
O
B
L
V
D
V
E
N
IC
E
B
L
V
D
EXPOSITION BLVD
H
I
L
L

S
T
M
A
I
N

S
T
41st ST
H
O
O
P
E
R

A
V
E
E
A
C
H

A
V
E
A
L
A
M
E
D
A

S
T
A
C
A
D
E
M
Y
R
D
ELYSIAN PARK AVE
V
E
R
H
I
L
L

S
T
S
T
A
D
I
U
M

W
Y
2
2
N
D
S
T
G
R
A
N
D

S
T
Y
A
L
E

S
T
B
E
L
L
E
V
U
E
A
V
E
6
T
H
S
T
H
O
O
V
E
R

S
T
M
A
I
N

S
T
M
A
I
N

S
T
C
E
N
T
R
A
L

A
V
E
S
A
N

P
E
D
R
O

S
T
3
R
D
S
T
8
T
H
S
T
H
O
P
E

S
T
B
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
S
P
R
I
N
G

S
T
1
S
T
S
T
T
E
M
P
L
E
S
T
S
A
N

J
U
L
I
A
N
110
110
PICO BLVD
V
E
N
IC
E
B
L
V
D
WASHINGTON BLVD
A
D
A
M
S
B
L
V
D
2
3
R
D
S
T
V
E
R
M
O
N
T

A
V
E
4
T
H
P
L
6TH ST
1ST ST
S
A
N
T
E

F
E

A
V
E
J
E
F
F
E
R
S
O
N
B
L
V
D
Library Locations
1) Echo Park Branch
1410 W. Temple Street
Legend
2
PROJECT SITE
1
Figure 4.14-5
Library Locations
Miles
0 .05

15. 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?
would include substantial employment or population growth which could generate an increased demand
for public park facilities that exceeds the capacities of existing parks and causes premature deterioration
of the park facilities. The Sunset portion would provide 23,977 square feet of open space through a
combination of private balconies in some units, roof terraces in Building A and Building B, a recreation
room, and common open spaces. The amount provided would exceed the amount required by 1,152
square feet. The Everett portion would provide no open space. Upon recording the small lot subdivision
map there will be no open space requirement. While the increased residents may lead to physical
deterioration of facilities or accelerate deterioration, the payment of Recreation and Park Fees (identified
as Mitigation Measure 14-7) will be used to offset the increased demand and provide a fund for future
recreational facilities provided by the LADRP. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.
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?
includes the construction or expansion of park facilities and such construction would have a significant
adverse effect on the environment. While the increased residents may require the construction or
expansion of recreation facilities, the payment of Recreation and Park Fees (identified as Mitigation
Measure 14-7) would be used to offset the increased demand and provide a fund for future recreational
facilities provided by the LADRP. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.

16. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
This section is based on the following report and letter, included as Appendix H of this IS/MND:
H-1 Sunset & Everett Mixed-Use Development Project, Traffic Study, The Mobility Group, March
24, 2014.
H-2 LADOT Approval Letter, April 10, 2014.
Study Scope
The scope and methodology of the Traffic Study was determined in conjunction with the City of Los
Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) and conducted in accordance with the LADOT Traffic
Study Guidelines.
The analysis addresses the following time periods:
AM peak hour
PM peak hour
The analysis also addresses the following scenarios:
Existing Conditions
Future Without Project Conditions
Future With Project Conditions
Existing With Project Conditions
The analysis assumes completion of the Project by the end of 2016. The impact analysis therefore
addresses the year 2016 for the Project.
Existing Conditions
Roadway System
Regional Access
Regional access to the general area of the Project Site is provided by the Hollywood Freeway (US-101),
about mile south of the Site, and the Pasadena Freeway (SR-110), about mile east of the Site.

North-South Streets
Beaudry Avenue: Beaudry Avenue is a two-way street providing one travel lane in each direction. It is
classified as a Collector Street north of Sunset Boulevard. On-street parking is allowed with some
restrictions. South of Sunset Boulevard it is classified as a Major Highway Class II street with two travel
lanes in each direction. On-street parking is not allowed.
Edgeware Road: Edgeware Road is a two-way street providing one travel lane in each direction. North of
Temple Street, it is classified as a Local Street and south of Temple Street it is classified as a Collector
Street. On-street parking is allowed with some restrictions.
Everett Street: Everett Street is a two-way street providing one travel lane in each direction in the vicinity
of the Project Site. It is classified as a Local Street. On-street parking is allowed with some restrictions.
East-West Streets
Sunset Boulevard: Sunset Boulevard is a two-way street providing three southbound travel lanes in the
AM peak period and three northbound travel lanes in the PM peak period in the vicinity of the Project
Site. It is classified as a Major Highway Class II street. On-street parking is generally allowed on both
sides of the street with peak hour restrictions.
Elysian Park Avenue: Elysian Park Avenue is a two-way street providing three travel lanes in each
direction. It is classified as a Major Highway Class II street. On-street parking is allowed with some
restrictions.
Marion Avenue: Marion Avenue is a two-way street providing one travel lane in each direction in the
vicinity of the Project Site. It is classified as a Collector Street. On-street parking is allowed with some
restrictions.
Bellevue Avenue: Bellevue Avenue is a two-way street providing one travel lane in each direction west of
Marion Avenue and two lanes in each direction east of Marion Avenue. West of Marion Avenue, it is
classified as a Collector Street and east of Marion Avenue it is classified as a Local Street. On-street
parking is allowed with some restrictions.
Study Intersections
A total of four study intersections were identified, in conjunction with LADOT staff, for inclusion in the
traffic analysis. The analyzed locations are shown in Figure 4.16-1, Analyzed Intersections, and
correspond to locations where potential traffic impacts from the project are most likely to occur. The
intersections identified for analysis are as follows:
1. Sunset Boulevard & Elysian Park Avenue

2. Sunset Boulevard & Marion Avenue
3. Sunset Boulevard & Beaudry Avenue
4. Edgeware Road & Temple Street
All study intersections are signalized and currently operate under the Citys second generation ATCS
(Adaptive Traffic Control System) which utilizes enhanced surveillance and control technologies to adapt
traffic signal timings to respond to actual traffic conditions on the ground to further improve the
effectiveness of the ATSAC system. The existing lane configurations for these four analyzed intersections
are shown in Figure 4.16-2, Configuration of Analyzed Intersections.
Existing Intersection Conditions
Existing Traffic Volumes
New traffic counts were conducted at all of the analyzed intersections to obtain existing turning
movement counts. The traffic counts were conducted in May of 2013, for both the AM and the PM peak
periods (between 7:00 and 10:00 am and between 3:00 and 6:00 pm). The existing peak hour traffic
volumes are illustrated in Figures 4.16-3 and 4.16-4 for the AM and PM peak hours respectively (highest
volume hours within the peak periods).
Level of Service Methodology
Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to describe the condition of traffic flow, ranging
from excellent conditions at LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F, with each level defined by a
range of volume/capacity (V/C) ratios.
Table 4.16-1, Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections, defines the ranges of V/C ratios
and their corresponding levels of service for signalized intersections. LOS D is recognized as the standard
in downtown areas. Intersection analysis was conducted using the Critical Movement Analysis (Planning
Method) as described in Transportation Research Circular 212, Transportation Research Board,
Washington D.C. 1980, to obtain volume/capacity (V/C) ratios for each intersection.
Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service
Table 4.16-2, Existing Conditions Intersection Level of Service, summarizes the existing AM and PM
peak hour V/C ratios and corresponding levels of service at the analyzed intersections.
AM Peak Hour
All of the studied intersections currently operate at LOS C or better during the AM peak hour.
PM Peak Hour

All of the studied intersections currently operate at LOS B or better during the PM peak hour except for
the intersection of Sunset Boulevard & Beaudry Avenue, which operates at LOS F.
Table 4.16-1
Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersection
Level of
Service
Description
Volume to
Capacity Ratio
A
Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection appear quite open, turning
movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation.
< 0.600
B
Very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within
platoons of vehicles. This represents stable flow.
An approach to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic
queues start to form.
0.601 0.700
C
Good operation. Occasionally drivers may have to wait for more than 60 seconds,
and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat
restricted.
0.701 0.800
D
Fair operation. Cars are sometimes required to wait for more than 60 seconds
during short peaks. There is no long-standing traffic queues. This level is typically
associated with design practice for peak periods.
0.801 0.900
E
Poor operation. Some long-standing vehicular queues develop on critical
approaches to intersections. Delays may be up to several minutes.
0.901 1.000
F
Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Backups from locations downstream
or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the
intersections approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable.
Potential for stop-and-go type traffic flow.
Over 1.000
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1985 and
Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, MCHRP Circular 212, 1982.
From Table 2.1 in Traffic Study, The Mobility Group, October 2, 2013.

Table 4.16-2
Existing Conditions Intersection Level of Service
Intersection
Existing Conditions
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS
1. Sunset Boulevard & Elysian Park Avenue 0.679 B 0.625 B
2. Sunset Boulevard & Marion Avenue 0.467 A 0.355 A
3. Sunset Boulevard & Beaudry Avenue 0.745 C 1.028 F
4. Edgeware Road & Temple Street 0.460 A 0.479 A

Source: Figure 2.1, Sunset & Everett Mixed-Use Development Project, Traffic Study, The Mobility Group, October 2, 2013.
Figure 4.16-1
Analyzed Intersections
Not to Scale
Legend
Study Intersection with
Reference Number
Project Site
X
S
t
a
d
i
u
m

W
y
.
Elysian Park Ave.
L
ila
c
T
e
r.
. ve A s ne In
S
u
n
s
e
t

B
l
v
d
.
A
llis
o
n
A
v
e
.
K
e
n
s
in
g
to
n
R
d
.
K
e
lla
m
A
v
e
.
C
a
r
r
o
ll A
v
e
.
C
a
lu
m
e
t A
v
e
.
. e v
A n io r a
M
B
o
s
t
o
n

S
t
.
T
e
m
p
l
e

S
t
.
.
d
R

e
r
a
w
e
g
d
E
.
t
S

l
e
x
i
B
.
t
S

n
i
m
r
i
F
.
t
S

n
o
t
s
l
y
o
B
.
e
v
A

y
r
d
u
a
e
B
C
e
s
a
r

C
h
a
v
e
z

B
l
v
d
.
.
t
S

t
t
e
r
e
v
E
.
e
v
A

w
e
i
v
r
a
M
.
r
D

l
l
o
n
K

e
t
i
h
W
.
e
v
A

y
r
d
u
a
e
B
.
t
S

l
a
i
n
n
e
t
n
e
C
.
t
S

a
o
r
e
u
g
i
F
F
ig
u
e
r
o
a
T
e
r
.
C
o
lle
g
e
S
t.
A
lp
in
e

S
t
.
N
e
w

D
e
p
o
t

S
t
.
B
a
r
t
le
t
t

S
t
.
B
e
l
l
e
v
u
e

A
v
e
.
.
d
R

n
o
t
g
n
i
s
n
e
K
L
ila
c
T
e
r.
.
t
S

s
a
l
g
u
o
D
C
o
u
rt S
t.
. t S n o t s l y o B
A
lp
in
e
S
t.
B
a
r
t
le
t
t

S
t
.
101
110
B
e
lle
v
u
e
A
v
e
.
E
d
g
e
w
a
r
e
R
d
.
L
ila
c
P
l.
1
2
3
4
Figure 4.16-2
Configuration of Analyzed Intersections
Not to Scale
Figure 4.16-3
Existing Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour
Not to Scale
0
20 61 0
46
78 55
95
32
141
813
31
82
831
124
0
23
585 452
123
195
104 204
83
1240
77 0
0
0
0 128
978
0
0 15
0
2031
746
1143
50
53 0
0 1 0 1 0
37
106
689
1
Study Intersection
Intersection Reference Number
XX Intersection Turn Volume
X
LEGEND
2 3 4
Project Site
Figure 4.16-4
Existing Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour
Not to Scale
108
1096
1019
1012
902
852
136 0
0 9 8 0
35
0
0
0
88 80
162
0
1 44
0
41
94
353 61
47
890
4 5 3 7 7
1795
49
665
119
209
1
42
538 689
0
107
24 33
39 21 83 0
1
1
Study Intersection
X
LEGEND
2 3 4
Project Site

Future Conditions Without The Project
Traffic Forecasts
In order to evaluate the potential traffic impacts of the Project, it was necessary to first estimate and then
analyze future traffic conditions without the Project. The year selected for this analysis was 2016 which is
the expected year of completion of the Project. Future traffic forecasts were estimated by forecasting two
separate components of traffic growth in the study area.
The first component represents the ambient growth that is a general growth in traffic volumes due to
minor new developments in the Project Area, and regional growth and development outside the study
area. A growth rate of 1% per year was assumed for this ambient traffic growth in conjunction with
LADOT. The existing traffic counts were therefore adjusted upward by a total of 3% to represent the
ambient growth to the Project completion year.
The second component of future growth relates to specific development projects located in the study area
that are either under construction, approved, or under formal planning consideration and potentially could
be in place by the year 2016 when the Project will be completed. The following section of this chapter
describes the process of estimating traffic from these related projects. This approach is conservative in
that not all of the related projects may be ultimately built, and not all may be built by 2016 (the buildout
year of the Project). Along with the fact that the analysis includes both a list of specific related projects
and a general background growth factor, the analysis likely overstates the future growth in traffic without
the Project.
Related Projects
Project List
A list of proposed development projects that could affect traffic conditions in the Project Area was
prepared based on information obtained from a variety of sources including the City of Los Angeles,
other studies and reports, and field verification and observations. A total of 70 potential development
projects were identified, in conjunction with LADOT, the locations of which are shown in Figure 4.16-5,
Location of Related Projects, and are listed in Table 4.16-3, Related Project List and Trip Generation
Estimates. It should also be noted that, for purposes of preparing a conservative worst case analysis, no
potential street improvements or transportation mitigation measures that might be associated with any of
the related projects were included in the future conditions traffic analysis.
Source: Figure 3.1, Sunset & Everett Mixed-Use Development Project, Traffic Study, The Mobility Group, March 24, 2014.
Figure 4.16-5
Location of Related Projects
Not to Scale

Table 4.16-3
Related Project List and Trip Generation Estimates
No. Name Location
Description Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Size Use In
Out Total
In
Out Total
1 Plaza de Cultura Y Artes 501 N. Main Street
32,000 sf
25,000 sf
14,100 sf
23,700 sf
Community Building
Performing Arts
Plaza House
Educational Center
and Museum
1,089 20 4 24 82 44 126
2 Walmart
701 W. Cesar
Chavez
33,000 sf Retail 1,417 20 13 33 60 63 123
3
Mixed Use
2012-CEN-40016
11435 W. 3
rd
Street
122 DU
3,500 sf
Apartment
Retail
711 11 42 53 41 25 66
4
Piero II (Lorenzo Res
Development)
2004-CEN-1382
1076 W. 6th
600 DU
20,000 sf
Apartments
Retail
4,891 74 253 327 276 278 169
5
LAUSD CLAHS #11 HRD/PDC
2008-CEN-4648
1200 W. Colton
25,500 sf
350 seats
Office
Conference Center
653 53 69 92 47 48 95
6
Residential and Public Parking
Project
619 S. Westlake
Ave.
52 DU Apartments 254 4 16 20 16 8 24
7 Smart and Final 845 S. Figueroa St. 21,122 sf Discount Supermarket 1,122 0 0 0 35 35 70
8 Title Insurance Building
433 S. Spring
Street
250 DU Condominium 1,453 19 91 110 25 105 130
9
New Medical Office Building
(Good Samaritan Hospital)
Wilshire Blvd. /
Witmer St.
150,000 sf
Imaging center,
pharmacy, surgical
suites, and physician
offices
5,420 294 78 372 150 408 558
10 Clark Hotel 426 S. Hill Street 347 rooms Hotel 2,835 118 76 194 109 96 205
11 Federal Courthouse
SW corner 1
st

Street and
Broadway
600,000 sf Courthouse 903 257 32 269 112 249 361

No. Name Location
Description Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Size Use In
Out Total
In
Out Total
12 Valencia Project
NW corner
Wilshire and
Valencia
201 DU
6,000 sf
1,500 sf
Apartments
Retail
Restaurant
721 -56 9 -47 28 -19 9
13
8
th
and Grand Mixed-Use Project
2005-CEN-2528
W. 8
th
Street (north
of 8
th
between
Grand and Olive)
875 DU
34,061 sf
10,000 sf
Condominiums
Retail
Restaurants
4,162 52 205 257 230 142 372
14 SB Omega 601 S. Main Street
777 DU
20,000 sf
High-rise
Condominium
Retail
3,690 55 223 278 198 123 321
15
Alameda District Plan
(excluding development to date)
Alameda Street /
Los Angeles Street
22 DU
7,443,200 sf
645,000 sf
750 rooms
20,000 sf
Residential
Office
Retail
Hotel
Restaurant
25,312 1,438 878 2,316 1,083 1,800 2,883
16
Spring Street Garage &
Apartments
Spring Street south
of 5
th
Street
120 DU Apartment 798 12 49 61 48 26 74
17
Prop Q and F Public Safety Civic
Center Facility Plan
2005-CEN-1959
Los Angeles Street
/ Temple Street
179,000 sf
30,000 sf
210 spaces
Jail
Government Building
Parking Structure
3,600 313 60 373 122 272 394
18 Blossom Plaza 900 N. Broadway
262 students
22,008 sf
9,000 sf
6,000 sf
7,000 sf
Middle School
Retail
Sit-down Restaurant
Fast-food restaurant
Culture Center
2,823 97 65 162 96 94 189
19
Mixed-Use Development (Pacific
Electric Building)
ENV-2005-7019; 2005-CEN-
2780
610 S. Main Street
13,921 sf
726 sf
726 sf
Restaurants
Retail
Pool / Event
1,429 11 11 22 78 39 117
20 LAUSD Cen Reg Elem School NW corner 875 students Elementary School 910 152 125 277 0 0 0

No. Name Location
Description Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Size Use In
Out Total
In
Out Total
#14 2007-CEN-4179 Alvarado / Santa
21
Chinatown Gateway Project
2005-CEN-2348
Cesar Chavez Ave.
/ Broadway
280 DU
22,000 sf
Apartments
Retail
2,665 40 112 152 148 99 247
22 Mixed-Use Project 662 S. Lucas Ave.
130 DU
7,037 sf
Condominium
Retail
1,400 18 87 105 82 40 122
23 Mixed-Use Project 534 S. Main Street
160 DU
18,000 sf
3,500 sf
3,500 sf
Apartment
Retail
Restaurant
Fast-food restaurant
2,213 52 75 127 87 58 145
24
Mixed-Use Project ENV2005-
7117MN; 2005-CEN-2659
101-131 E. 6
th

Street
11,018 sf
8,927 sf
5,066 sf
Restaurant
Retail
Health Club
1,541 15 9 24 92 45 137
25
Hall of Justice
2004-CEN-1011
211 W. Temple
Street
30 employee
1,000 space
Net increase in
employees
Parking Structure
1,052 128 24 152 45 101 146
26
Quality Restaurant and Bar
EAF-2003-9193
515 W. 7
th
Street
8,891 sf
7,668 sf
Quality Restaurant
Bar
1,308 -1 0 -1 87 43 130
27 Charter High School 1552 Rockwood St. 600 students High School 715 122 58 180 26 29 54
28
Metropolis Mixed-Use
2005-CEN-2260
851 S. Francisco
Street
480 rooms
836 DU
988,225 sf
46,000 sf
Hotel
Condominium
Office
Retail
8,010 307 318 625 386 512 898
29
Condominiums
ENV-2006-3294MN
456 S. Witmer 39 Du Condominiums 162 2 10 12 9 5 14
30
400 S. Broadway Mixed-Use
Project
400-416 Broadway
430 DU
10,000 sf
5,000 sf
Apartment
Retail
Lounge
2,628 37 141 178 162 79 241
31 Mixed-Use Project 609 W. 8
th
Street 225 DU Condominiums 4,908 85 109 194 243 158 401

No. Name Location
Description Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Size Use In
Out Total
In
Out Total
2007-CEN-3970 200 rooms
30,000 sf
32,000 sf
Hotel
Retail
Restaurant
32
Bar/Lounge
ENV 2005-0366
701 E 3
rd
Street 8,770 sf
Bar/Lounge

789 0 0 0 44 22 66
33
Chinatown Condominiums 7
2006-CEN-3305
1101 Main St.
(Main / Rondout)
300 DU Condominiums 1,102 13 58 71 54 33 87
34
Residential Project
ENV 2005-2156; 2005-CEN-
1958
1311 W. 5
th
Street 80 DU Condominiums 538 8 33 41 33 17 50
35
Supermarket & Retail
ENV 2005-1943
500 N. Bunker Hill
Ave.
17,000 sf
4,200 sf
Supermarket
Retail
1,924 37 23 60 98 91 189
36
Little Tokyo Block 8 Project
2005-CEN-1993
200 S. Los Angeles
Street (Los Angeles
/ 2
nd
Street)
570 DU
280 DU
50,000 sf
Condominiums
Apartments
Retail
4,688 64 212 276 222 143 365
37
Mixed-Use Residential and Retail
VTT-69213; 2006-CEN-3839
1901 W. 7
th
Street
(7
th
/Bonnie Brae
Street)
90 DU
15,500 sf
82 DU
17,300 sf
Ph 1 Apartments
Ph 1 Retail
Ph 2 Apartments
Ph 2 Retail
1,504 29 61 90 75 58 133
38
Park/Fifth Project
2006-CEN-3234
501 S. Olive Street
(Olive/5
th
)
900 DU
19,000 sf
19,200 sf
Condominiums
Retail
Restaurant
5,109 96 200 296 263 174 437
39
Kawada Tower
2008-CEN-4803
240 S. Hill Street
(Hill/3
rd
)
330 D.U
12,000 sf
Condominiums
Retail
1,551 21 103 124 92 46 138
40
Bunker Hill Design &
Development Program EIR
Parcel Y
Block bounded by
3
rd
Street, Olive
Street, Hill Street,
& 4
th
Street
960,000 sf
100,000 sf
Office
Retail
8,004 473 74 547 188 660 848
Grand Avenue Project Parcel Q and Parcel 1,648 DU Condominiums 22,601 919 632 1,551 1,120 1,344 2,464

No. Name Location
Description Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Size Use In
Out Total
In
Out Total
41 2006-CEN-3022 W Bounded by
1
st
Street, Grand
Avenue, Hill
Street, & Upper 2
nd

Street.
Parcel L/M-2
Bounded by GTK
Way, Hope Street,
& Upper 2
nd
Street
412 DU
681,000 sf
53,000 sf
67,000 sf
225,250 sf
250 Seats
50,000 sf
275 Rooms
Apartments
County Office
Building
Super Market
Restaurant
Retail
Event Facility
Health Club
Hotel
42
Condominiums
ENV2005-8446, 2006-CEN-3110
221 S. Los Angeles
Street (Los Angeles
Street/2
nd
Street)
300 DU
3,400 sf
Condominiums
Retail
1,910 38 186 224 84 42 126
43 City Corp Plaza Phase III
755 S Figueroa St.
(7
th
/Figueroa St.)
792,000 sf Office 4,677 616 83 699 117 571 688
44
Mixed-Use Development
2006-CEN-2870
1027 W. Wilshire
Project
(Wilshire/St. Paul
St.)
401 DU
4,728
Condominiums
Retail
1,498 19 94 113 91 45 136
45
Mixed-Use
ENV2006-0185;2006-CEN-3169
1135 W. 7
th
Street
(7
th
Street/Lucas)
130 DU
7,000
Condominiums
Retail
1,063 14 50 64 58 36 94
46
Mixed-Use
2004-CEN-1507
327 N. Fremont
Avenue
(Fremont/Temple)
600 DU
30,000 sf
Apartment
Retail
3,568 61 151 212 199 156 355
47
Mixed-Use
2006-CEN-2885
1111 W. Wilshire
Blvd.
(Wilshire/Bixel)
420 DU
40,000 sf
Condominiums
Retail
2,900 41 105 146 145 118 263
48
Bunker Hill Mixed-Use
2005-CEN-1930
720 W. Cesar
Chavez
(Cesar
Chavez/Bunker
272 DU
6,431 sf
8,000 sf
Condominiums
Retail
Restaurant
1,639 25 87 112 57 90 147

No. Name Location
Description Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Size Use In
Out Total
In
Out Total
Hill Ave.)
49
Witmer Project
ENV-2006-8586, 2006-CEN-
3487
1247 W. 7
th
Street
(7
th
/Witmer)
186 DU
6,200 sf
Condominiums
Retail
1,486 3 10 13 40 28 68
50
Condos (TT67738)
ENV2006-7615MN
855 N. Figueroa
Tier
Figueroa/College
102 DU
Condominiums

598 8 37 45 36 17 53
51
LAUSD-Central LA High School
#12
2004-CEN-1845
1201 W. Miramar
Street
500 stu High School 529 88 42 130 0 0 0
52
Medical Office Addition
ENV 2005-1865
2100 W. 3
rd
Street 24,075 sf 870 47 13 60 24 66 90
53
Bus Maintenance & Inspection
Facility
2005-CEN-2784
454 Commercial
Street
2 Acre
Bus maintenance &
Inspection Facility
69 12 18 30 5 5 10
54
Center Land
VTT-69572-CN; 2007-CEN-4323
418 Spring Street
96 DU
122 DU
10,000 sf
2,000 sf
4,000 sf
Condominium
Hotel Rooms
Restaurant/Retail
Spa
Drinking Place
2,202 26 128 154 126 61 187
55
Affordable Apartments
ENV2007-4833EA; 2007-CEN-
4644
431 S. Lucas Ave. 75 DU
Apartments
(affordable)
504 6 25 31 31 16 47
56
Apartments
ENV2007-5762EA; 2008-CEN-
4653
715 N. Yale Street 65 DU Apartments 437 7 27 34 26 14 40
57
Good Samaritan Mixed-Use
Project
ENV2007-5887EI; 2007-CEN-
4520
1136 W. 6
th
Street
725 DU
39,999 sf
Apartments
Retail
3,800 46 184 230 222 119 341

No. Name Location
Description Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Size Use In
Out Total
In
Out Total
58
Mixed-Use
2008-CEN-4659
1924 W. Temple
Street
132 DU
73 DU
46 DU
19,103 sf
Hi-rise
Condominiums
Condominiums
Apartments
Retail
1,350 11 53 64 69 34 103
59
Office
2008-CEN-4699
1130 W. Wilshire
Blvd.
86,844 sf Office 530 91 12 103 14 69 83
60
MTA Bus Facility
2008-CEN-4450
920 N. Vignes
Street
271 Buses
647
Employees
Bus Maintenance &
Inspection Facility
1,927 29 43 72 35 40 75
61 Beverly + Lucas Project
1430 W. Beverly
Blvd.
157 DU Apartments 867 13 53 66 52 28 80
62
LA Dodger Stadium the Next 50
Years
2008-CEN-4839
1000 W. Elysian
Park Ave.
23,750 sf
38,490 sf
35,570 sf
138,565 sf
Specialty Restaurants
Restaurant
Museum
Office
4,456 172 27 199 200 280 480
63
Sunset Flats Mixed-Use
2009-CEN-5071
2225 W. Sunset
Blvd.
65 DU
15,550 sf
Condominiums
Retail and Restaurant
1,283 44 56 100 65 42 107
64
Wilshire Grand Redevelopment
Project
ENV2009-1577EA; 2009-CEN-
5080
930 W. Wilshire
Blvd.
560 Rooms
100 DU
Hotel Rooms
Residential Units
3,624 725 75 800 94 764 858
65
Convert Vacant
Theater/Restaurant to Restaurant
w/Entertainment
2139 W. Sunset
Blvd.
5,979 sf Restaurant/Theater 538 4 1 5 30 15 45
66
Barlow Hospital Replacement and
Master Plan Project
2000 Stadium Way,
Los Angeles, CA
90026
56 Bed
31,000 sf
24 Bed
888 DU
15,000 sf
Hospital
Admin/Support
Facility
Nursing Facility
Multi-Family
6,284 126 340 466 350 228 578

No. Name Location
Description Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Size Use In
Out Total
In
Out Total
Residential
Retail
67
Los Angeles Street Civic Center
Project
150 Los Angeles
Street
712,500 sf
35,000 sf
2,500 sf
Government Office
Retail
Child Care Facility
13,534 930 118 1,048 432 942 1,374
68
Mixed-Use
ENV2005-721MN; 2005-CEN-
2537
1234 W. 3
rd
Street
(3
rd
/Bixel Street)
363 DU
7,740 sf
Apartments
Retail
1,691 23 90 113 92 49 141
69 Residential Project
1111 Sunset
Boulevard
92 DU
7,350 sf
Apartments
Retail
605 9 36 45 36 20 56
70 Residential Project 330 Union Drive
49 DU
625 sf
Apartments
Coffee Shop
698 35 33 68 13 12 25
Total 203,743 8,678 6,815 115,463 9,136 11,391 20,526
From Table 3.1 in Traffic Study, The Mobility Group, March 24, 2014.


Project Trip Generation and Distribution
Trip generation estimates for the related projects were prepared, as also shown in Table 4.16-3, Related
Project List and Trip Generation Estimates. These were generally taken from the environmental and/or
traffic studies prepared for the individual projects. Where the information was not available from previous
reports, the trip generation was estimated using trip rates developed by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE). Similarly, trip distribution estimates were also taken from previous studies where
available or were estimated based on an understanding of the type of the project, its location, and the
downtown roadway and circulation system. As shown in Table 4.16-3, Related Project List and Trip
Generation Estimates, the related projects would generate a total of about 15,463 vehicle trips in the AM
peak hour and about 20,526 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour. It should be noted that because of the large
geographic distribution of these projects, that not all of these trips would travel through the study area and
traverse the study intersections.
Future Traffic Forecasts for 2016 Without Project Condition
The trip estimates shown in Table 4.16-3, Related Project List and Trip Generation Estimates, were then
added to the roadway network and combined with existing volumes and ambient traffic growth (described
earlier) to provide forecasts of future traffic conditions in the study area in 2016, for both the AM and PM
peak periods, representing the future without Project conditions. The future without Project peak hour
traffic volumes are illustrated in Figures 4.16-6 and 4.16-7 for the AM and PM peak hours respectively.
Future Base Transportation System Improvements
Transportation system improvements that will occur prior to the future analysis year of 2016, and thus
could affect the future traffic forecasts, were identified and reviewed for any implications for the analysis.
City of Los Angeles 2010 Bicycle Plan First Year of the First Five-Year Implementation Strategy
Sunset Boulevard
Since the collection of existing traffic counts and the analysis of existing conditions, the City of Los
Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) has implemented bus/bike lanes on 0.9 miles of Sunset
Boulevard (from Figueroa Street to Douglas Street) within the existing right-of-way. This project replaced
the current peak-period curb vehicle lane in each direction along Sunset Boulevard with a peak-period
bicycle-transit-only lane from Figueroa Street to Elysian Park Avenue. The resulting Future Without
Project lane configurations at the study intersections are shown in Figure 4.16-8, Future Configuration of
Analyzed Intersections. The bike/transit only lane has been incorporated into the future conditions
analysis.
Figure 4.16-6
Future Without Project Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour
Not to Scale
43
0
0
88 63
48
86 58
98
41
145
926
32
84
856
136
0
26
665 548
127
201
158 275
95
1409
88 0
0
0
0 132
0
0 16
0
2227
848
1282
62
55 0
0 3 1 1 0
1044
125
784
1
Study Intersection
X
LEGEND
2 3 4
Project Site
Figure 4.16-7
Future Without Project Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour
Not to Scale
39
0
1
86 0 104
110
31 34
365
1994
51
685
123
243
1
50
638 785
42
97
422 180
53
1058
89 0
0
0
96 82
0
1 50
0
46
1224
1174
1067
915
140 0
0 7 9 0
189
140
1288
1
Study Intersection
X
LEGEND
2 3 4
Project Site
Figure 4.16-8
Future Configuration of Analyzed Intersections
Not to Scale
LEGEND

Future Intersection Conditions
Future Without Project Intersection Level of Service The future without Project traffic forecasts were
evaluated to determine the V/C ratio and LOS for the analyzed intersections for both the AM and PM
peak hours. The results are shown in Table 4.16-4, Future Without Project Conditions Intersection
Level of Service, which summarizes the intersection levels of service calculated for the future without
Project conditions, and compares them to existing conditions levels of service.
Table 4.16-4
Future Without Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service
Intersection
Future without Project Conditions
V/C LOS V/C LOS
1. Sunset Boulevard & Elysian Park Avenue 0.753 C 0.677 B
2. Sunset Boulevard & Marion Avenue 0.760 C 0.623 B
3. Sunset Boulevard & Beaudry Avenue 0.865 D 1.333 F
4. Edgeware Road & Temple Street 0.518 A 0.529 A

AM Peak Hour
All studied intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the AM peak hour in the future.
PM Peak Hour
All studied intersections would operate at LOS B or better during the PM peak hour in the future, except
for the following intersection which would operate worse than LOS D:
Sunset Boulevard & Beaudry Avenue LOS F
Future With Project Conditions
Project Transportation Characteristics
The Project would be located northwest of downtown Los Angeles and be comprised of two parts. Part 1
would be bounded by Sunset Boulevard to the west and private property to the north and east. This
portion of the Project will consist of up to approximately 214 market-rate apartments, of which 14 units
will be provided as affordable housing units, and approximately 8,453 sq ft of retail commercial. The
commercial space will be defined as a 1,900 sf coffee shop and a 6,553 sf retail fronting on Sunset
Boulevard. This portion of the Project is currently developed and includes a 3,000 sf warehouse, a

residential duplex, two single-family homes, a 4,800 sf building materials/lumber store and a two-stall car
wash. All of the current uses are to be demolished. Vehicular access for Part 1 is to be provided by three
driveways located along Sunset Boulevard. The main driveway will be located at the signalized
intersection of Sunset Boulevard & Marion Avenue. The second driveway will be an unsignalized
intersection located approximately 170 feet north of the main driveway. The third driveway will also be
an unsignalized intersection and will be located at the extreme northern edge of the Project.
Part 2 will consist of a small-lot subdivision containing up to approximately 7 single-family homes with
access provided from Everett Street. This portion is currently developed and includes one single-family
home which is to be demolished. Access to the two single-family homes described as part of Part 1 is
provided via Everett Street. Vehicular access for Part 2 will be provided by a driveway on Everett Street.
The Project were analyzed as one project (i.e., Parts 1 and 2 were analyzed together).
Project Trip Generation
Trip generation from the Project was estimated using trip rates from Trip Generation Manual 9th
Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012). Table 4.16-5, Project Trip Generation Estimates,
summarizes the trip generation estimates for the daily, AM peak & PM peak hour periods respectively.
Because of its downtown location near transit, employment and entertainment destinations, a number of
Project trips would be expected to be walk or transit trips rather than auto vehicle trips. Similarly, because
the commercial components of the Project will be primarily locally serving to the Project and the
surrounding area, some of the trips might be expected to be walk-ins either from the Project or the
surrounding area. Certain adjustments to the trip generation were therefore made, with LADOT approval,
to reflect these conditions. The trips generated by all future land use components of the Project
(residential and commercial) were reduced by 5% to allow for use of transit1 to and from the Project Site.
For the coffee shop uses, a reduction of 5% for internal trips from the Project and walk-in trips from the
surrounding area was applied. Similarly, for the retail uses, a reduction of 10% for internal trips from the
Project and walk-in trips from the surrounding area was applied. Also, for the coffee shop and the retail
uses, a pass-by rate of 50%
177
was applied.
For existing uses, 5% transit reduction was also applied for all uses except for the warehouse and the car
wash. A pass-by rate of 20%
140
was applied for the building materials/lumber store and the car wash uses.
As shown in Table 4.16-5, Project Trip Generation Estimates, the analysis estimates that the Project
would generate a total of 2,216 daily vehicle trips, 180 AM peak hour vehicle trips and 144 PM peak hour
vehicle trips.

177
Per LADOT Traffic Study Guidelines.

Table 4.16-5
Project Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Assumption
ITE
Code
1

Size
Daily AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Trip
Rate
Total
Trips
In
Out Total
In
Out Total
Rate Tot. Rate Tot. Rate Tot. Rate Tot. Rate Tot. Rate Tot.
Sunset Boulevard Part
Existing Uses
Warehousing
2
150 3,000 sf 3.56 11 0.24 1 0.06 0 0.30 1 0.08 0 0.24 1 0.32 1
Apartments
5, 6
Reduction for transit trips 5%
220 2 DU 6.65
13
-1
0.10
0
0
0.41
1
0
0.51
1
0
0.40
1
0
0.22
0
0
0.62
1
0
Building Materials/Lumber Store
7, 8, 9

Reduction for pass-by trips 20%
812 4,800 sf 15.33
74
-4
-14
1.74
8
-1
-1
0.86
4
0
-1
2.60
12
-1
-2
2.11
10
0
-2
2.38
12
-1
-2
4.49
22
-1
-4
Car Wash
10,11

947 2 stalls 108.00
216
-44
4.00
8
-2
4.00
8
-2
8.00
16
-4
4.00
8
-2
4.00
8
-2
8.00
16
-4
Subtotal Existing Sunset Boulevard Part -251 -13 -10 -23 -15 -16 -31
Proposed Uses
Apartments
5,6

220 214 DU 6.65
1,423
-71
0.1
21
-1
0.41
88
-4
0.51
109
-5
0.40
86
-5
0.22
47
-2
0.62
133
-7
Coffee Shop
12, 14, 15
Reduction for internal trips 5%
936 1,900 sf 1,117
2,122
-106
-101
-958
55.27
105
-5
-5
-48
53.11
101
-5
-5
-45
108.38
206
-10
-10
-93
20.3
7
39
-2
-2
-18
20.3
8
38
-2
-2
-17
40.7
5
77
-4
-4
-35
Retail
16, 17,18
Reduction for internal trips 5%
820 6,553 sf 42.70
280
-28
-13
-120
0.60
4
0
0
-2
0.36
2
0
0
01
0.96
6
0
0
-3
1.78
11
0
0
-6
1.93
13
-1
-1
-5
3.71
24
-1
-1
-11
Subtotal Proposed Sunset Boulevard Part 2,429 69 131 200 103 68 171
Subtotal Sunset Boulevard Net 2,178 56 121 177 88 52 140

Land Use Assumption
ITE
Code
1

Size
Daily AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Trip
Rate
Total
Trips
In
Out Total
In
Out Total

Everett Street Part
Existing Uses
Single-Family Residence
3,4

210 3 DU 9.52
29
-2
0.19
0
0
0.56
2
0
0.75
2
0
0.63
2
0
0.37
1
0
1.00
3
0
Subtotal Existing Everett Street Part -27 0 -2 -2 -2 -1 -3
Proposed Uses
Single-Family Homes
210 7 DU 9.52
67
-3
0.19
1
0
0.56
4
0
0.75
5
0
0.63
4
0
0.37
3
0
1.00
7
0
Subtotal Proposed Everett Street Part 64 1 4 5 4 3 7
Subtotal Everett Street Net 37 1 2 3 2 2 4

Total Project Trips
Total Existing Uses -278 -13 -12 -25 -17 -17 -34
Total Proposed Uses 2,493 70 135 206 107 71 178
Total Project Net 2,216 57 123 180 90 54 144
Tot. = Total; DU = dwelling unit, sf = square feet

1. ITE Trip Rates from Trip Generation, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, 2012, except otherwise noted.
2. Source: Trip Rate for ITE 150 - Warehousing.
3. Source: Trip Rate for ITE 210 - Single-Family Residence.
4. Residential trip rates were adjusted to account for transit (5%) per LADOT Traffic Study Policies and Procedures , Transit Credit, May 2012.
5. Source: Trip Rate for ITE 220 - Apartment.
6. Apartment trip rates were adjusted to account for transit (5%) per LADOT Traffic Study Policies and Procedures , Transit Credit, May 2012.
7. Source: Trip Rate for ITE 812 - Building Materials / Lumber Yard.
8. Commercial trip rates were adjusted to account for transit (5%) per LADOT Traffic Study Policies and Procedures, Transit Credit, May 2012.
9. Commercial trip rates were adjusted to account for pass-by trips (20%) per LADOT Traffic Study Policies and Procedures, Attachment H - LADOT Policy on Pass-by Trips, May 2012.
10. Source: Trip Rate for ITE 947 - Automated Car Wash.

Land Use Assumption
ITE
Code
1

Size
Daily AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Trip
Rate
Total
Trips
In
Out Total
In
Out Total
11. Car Wash trip rates were adjusted to account for pass-by trips (20%) per LADOT Traffic Study Policies and Procedures, Attachment H - LADOT Policy on Pass-by Trips, May 2012.
12. Source: Average trip rates for ITE 936 - Coffee Shop With No Drive-Thru.
13. Average daily rate for ITE - 936 Coffee Shop With No Drive-Thru is not available. Daily rate was calculated by taking the proportional ratio of ITE 933 - Fast Food Restaurant With No
Drive-Thru PM Peak Hour rate as compared to ITE 936 - Coffee Shop With No Drive-Thru and applying that ratio to the ITE 933 Daily rate.
14. Coffee Shop land use was adjusted to account for transit trips (5%) per LADOT Traffic Study Policies and Procedures, Transit Credit, May 2012.
15. Coffee Shop land use was adjusted to account for pass-by trips (50%) per LADOT Traffic Study Policies and Procedures, Attachment H - LADOT Policy on Pass-By Trips, May 2012.
16. Source: Average trip rates for ITE 820 - General Retail.
17. Retail land use was adjusted to account for transit trips (5%) per LADOT Traffic Study Policies and Procedures, Transit Credit, May 2012.
18. Retail land use was adjusted to account for pass-by trips (50%) per LADOT Traffic Study Policies and Procedures, Attachment H - LADOT Policy on Pass-By Trips, May 2012.



Trip Distribution
The likely distribution of project trips was identified based on the type of land uses in the Project, the
likely origins and destinations of Project residents and visitors, and the characteristics of the street system
in the area of the Project. The following distribution was assumed:
20% of the trips towards the north
30% of the trips towards the south
25% of the trips towards the east
25% of the trips towards the west
Traffic generated by the Project was added to the future without Project traffic volumes to obtain future
traffic volumes with the Project for both peak periods at each of the study intersections. The Project only
peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figures 4.16-9 and 4.16-10 for the AM and PM peak hours,
respectively, and the total future with Project conditions peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in
Figures 4.16-11 and 4.16.12 for the AM and PM peak hours.
Figure 4.16-9
Project Only Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour
Not to Scale
21
0 -1 42
0
0 0
0
0
0
2
0
2
4
0
22
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
20
62
1 0
0
0
0 0
1
0
21 0
8
23
25
20
3
0 0
7 2 1 - 0
10
0
25
1
Study Intersection
X
LEGEND
2 3 4
Project Site
Figure 4.16-10
Project Only Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour
Not to Scale
0
44
8
10
26
1
0 0
0 3 1 - 0
4
0
0
0
11 0
2
0
11 4
8
0
0
0 0
8
29
0 4
20
0
2
1
0
20
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0 -1 21
10
1
Study Intersection
X
LEGEND
2 3 4
Project Site
Figure 4.16-11
Future With Project Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour
Not to Scale
125
809
2250
873
1302
65
55 0
7 2 2 1 1 0
1045
0
0
0
0 132
0
21 16
8
127
201
158 275
115
1471
5 4 1 9 8
928
32
86
860
136
22
26
665 548
98
41 48
86 58 88 62
53
42
21
1
Study Intersection
X
LEGEND
2 3 4
Project Site
Figure 4.16-12
Future With Project Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour
Not to Scale
140
1332
1232
1184
1093
916
140 0
0 3 6 9 0
191
0
0
0
107 82
0
12 54
8
46
42
97
422 180
61
1087
5 6 3 3 9
2014
51
687
124
243
21
50
638 785
110
31 34
0 104 85
43
21
11
1
Study Intersection
X
LEGEND
2 3 4
Project Site

a) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for 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?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if
roadways and intersections that would carry project-generated traffic would exceed adopted City of Los
Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) thresholds of significance.
Project Impacts
Significant Impact Thresholds
LADOT has established criteria to determine if Project impacts are significant at an intersection. These
criteria are shown in Table 4.16-6, Definition of Significant Impact at Intersections.
Table 4.16-6
Definition of Significant Impact at Intersections
With Project Traffic Project-Related Increase
LOS V/C Ratio
in V/C Ratio
C
0.701 0.800 equal to or greater than 0.040
D
0.801 0.900 equal to or greater than 0.020
E, F
> 0.900 equal to or greater than 0.010
From page 37 in Traffic Study, The Mobility Group, October 2, 2013.

Using these criteria, for example, a project would not have a significant impact at an intersection if it is
operating at LOS C after the addition of project traffic and the incremental change in the volume/capacity
(V/C) ratio is less than 0.040. However, in another example, if the intersection is operating at LOS E or
LOS F and the incremental change in V/C ratio is 0.010 or greater, then the project would be considered
to have a significant impact.
Future With Project - Signalized Intersection Level of Service
The intersection level of service analysis for the future with Project conditions is summarized in Table
4.16-7 for the AM peak hour and in Table 4.16-8 for the PM peak hour. These tables also compare the
level of service for without Project and with Project conditions, show the increase in V/C ratios at each
intersection due to the Project, and identify if the increase constitutes a significant impact.

The analysis summarized in Table 4.16-7 indicates that for the AM peak hour, the addition of Project
traffic would not cause the level of service to change at any of the study intersections, and that any
increases in volume/capacity (V/C) ratios would be less than the threshold for a significant impact to
occur.
The analysis summarized in Table 4.16-8 indicates that for the PM peak hour, the addition of Project
traffic would not cause the level of service to change at any of the study intersections, but the increase in
the volume/capacity (V/C) ratio would cause a significant impact at one intersection (with the resultant
LOS in parentheses):
Sunset Boulevard and Beaudry Avenue (LOS F)
Table 4.16-7
Future With Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service AM Peak Hour
Intersection
AM Peak Hour
Change
in V/C
Significant
Impact
Future Without
Project
Future With
Project
V/C LOS V/C LOS
1. Sunset Boulevard & Elysian Park Avenue 0.753 C 0.760 C 0.007 No
2. Sunset Boulevard & Marion Avenue 0.760 C 0.799 C 0.039 No
3. Sunset Boulevard & Beaudry Avenue 0.865 D 0.869 D 0.004 No
4. Edgeware Road & Temple Street 0.518 A 0.531 A 0.013 No

Table 4.16-8
Future With Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service PM Peak Hour
Intersection
PM Peak Hour
Change
in V/C
Significant
Impact
Future Without
Project
Future With
Project
V/C LOS V/C LOS
1. Sunset Boulevard & Elysian Park Avenue 0.677 B 0.678 B 0.001 No
2. Sunset Boulevard & Marion Avenue 0.623 B 0.661 B 0.038 No
3. Sunset Boulevard & Beaudry Avenue 1.323 F 1.349 F 0.016 Yes


Future With Project Unsignalized Intersection Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
LADOT Traffic Study guidelines indicate that unsignalized intersections adjacent to the project or
integral to the projects site access and circulation should be evaluated solely to determine the need for
installation of a traffic signal or other traffic control device. The intersection of Sunset Boulevard &
Everett Street is currently a stop-controlled intersection and is located adjacent to the Project Site;
therefore, a traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted at that intersection.
The warrant analysis was based on the peak hour traffic volumes. The result of the traffic signal warrant
analysis is shown in Table 4.16-9, Site Adjacent Intersections Signal Warrant Analysis Future with
Project Conditions, for the future with Project conditions. Based on an analysis of the peak hour traffic
volumes at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard & Everett Street, a signal would not be warranted in
either the AM or PM peak hour.
Table 4.16-9
Site Adjacent Intersections Signal Warrant Analysis Future with Project Conditions
Major
Street
Minor
Street
Peak
Hour
Major Street Minor Street
Minor
Street
Warrant
Threshold
Volume
2
Signal
Warranted
Volume
1

(both
approaches)
# of Lanes
per
Direction
Volume
1

(both
approaches)
# of Lanes
per
Direction
Sunset
Blvd.
Everett
St.
AM 3,416 2 82 1 100 No
PM 3,515 2 41 1 100 No
1. Future With Project volumes.
2. Caltrans Traffic Manual - Figure 9-8 Peak Hour Volume Warrant (Urban Areas). Minor street warrant calculated
in relation to major street volume.


Existing With Project Impacts
This section addresses an analysis of potential Project impacts for the existing conditions with Project
scenario. Project traffic was added to existing conditions traffic and the potential for impacts evaluated.
Existing With Project - Signalized Intersection Level of Service
The total existing with Project conditions peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figures 4.16-13 and
4.16-14 for the AM and PM peak hours.
Tables 4.16-10 and 4.16-11 summarize the level of service for the existing with Project conditions at the
analyzed intersections for the AM and PM peak hours respectively.

The analysis summarized in Table 4.16-10 indicates that for the AM peak hour, the addition of Project
occur.
The analysis summarized in Table 4.16-11 indicates that for the PM peak hour, the addition of Project
occur. It is therefore concluded that no significant traffic impacts would be caused by the Project.
Table 4.16-10
Existing With Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service AM Peak Hour
Intersection
AM Peak Hour
Change
in V/C
Significant
Impact
Existing
Existing
With Project
V/C LOS V/C LOS
2. Sunset Boulevard & Marion Avenue 0.467 A 0.507 A 0.040 No
3. Sunset Boulevard & Beaudry Avenue 0.745 C 0.749 C 0.004 No

Table 4.16-11
Existing With Project Conditions Intersection Level of Service PM Peak Hour
Intersection
PM Peak Hour
Change
in V/C
Significant
Impact
Existing
Existing
With Project
V/C LOS V/C LOS
2. Sunset Boulevard & Marion Avenue 0.355 A 0.398 A 0.043 No
3. Sunset Boulevard & Beaudry Avenue 1.028 F 1.036 F 0.008 No

Existing With Project Unsignalized Intersection Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis

The warrant analysis was based on the peak hour traffic volumes. The result of the traffic signal warrant
analysis is shown in Table 4.16-12 for the existing with Project conditions. Based on an analysis of the
peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard & Everett Street, a signal would not be
warranted in either the AM or PM peak hour.
Table 4.16-12
Site Adjacent Intersections Signal Warrant Analysis Existing with Project Conditions
Major
Street
Minor
Street
Peak
Hour
Major Street Minor Street
Minor
Street
Warrant
Threshold
Volume
2
Signal
Warranted
Volume
1

(both
approaches)
# of Lanes
per
Direction
Volume
1

(both
approaches)
# of Lanes
per
Direction
Sunset
Blvd.
Everett
St.
AM 3,127 2 78 1 100 No
PM 3,139 2 38 1 100 No
1. Existing With Project volumes.
2. Caltrans Traffic Manual - Figure 9-8 Peak Hour Volume Warrant (Urban Areas). Minor street warrant calculated
in relation to major street volume.

Figure 4.16-13
Existing With Project Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour
Not to Scale
21
20 60 42
46
78 55
95
32
141
815
31
84
835
124
22
23
585 452
123
195
104 204
103
1302
78 0
0
0
0 128
979
0
21 15
8
2054
771
1163
53
53 0
7 2 0 0 1 0
47
106
714
1
Study Intersection
X
LEGEND
2 3 4
Project Site
Figure 4.16-14
Existing With Project Traffic Volumes PM Peak Hour
Not to Scale
108
1140
1027
1022
928
853
136 0
0 3 8 8 0
39
0
0
0
99 80
164
0
12 48
8
41
94
353 61
55
919
4 5 3 1 8
1815
49
667
120
209
21
42
538 689
0
107
24 33
39 21 82 21
11
1
Study Intersection
X
LEGEND
2 3 4
Project Site

Project Mitigation
Future With Project Mitigation Measures
It is worth noting that the earlier impact analysis was deemed to be conservative (worst case) as it
assumed a list of other related projects that could occur by 2016, and also assumed a growth in other
background traffic of 1% per year. If these background and related project trip growth levels do not occur
by 2016 and if Project trips are in fact lower than estimated, then it is possible that some of the significant
traffic impacts identified for this Project in fact may not occur as traffic levels of service conditions
could be better than estimated in the analysis. Nevertheless, mitigation measures were explored for all the
significant traffic impacts identified under future with Project conditions:
Sunset Boulevard & Beaudry Avenue
The earlier analysis identified that the Project would cause a significant impact at this intersection in the
PM peak hour. The Project would cause the level of service to change from LOS F with a V/C ratio of
1.333 to LOS F with a V/C ratio of 1.349.
The proposed mitigation measure is to re-stripe and add left-turn protective phasing to both the
northbound and southbound approaches to the intersection (Beaudry Avenue). The northbound approach
would be re-striped from one shared left/thru/right lane to one left turn lane and one shared thru/right
lane. The southbound approach would be re-striped from one shared/left thru lane, one thru lane and one
right turn lane to one left-turn lane, one thru lane and one right turn lane. This could be done without any
roadway widening. As stated above, left-turn protective phasing would also be added to both these
approaches. A concept plan of this mitigation measure is provided in Figure 4.16-15, Mitigation Concept
Plan. The level of service with this measure would remain LOS F but reduce the V/C ratio (from V/C of
1.349 to V/C ratio of 0.956). This would fully mitigate the PM peak hour impact.
Summary of Intersection Improvements
With the mitigation measure (identified as 16-1), there would be no significant impacts due to the Project.
The LADOT Approval Letter agreed with the intersection improvement and that it will be implemented
through the Bureau of Engineerings B-Permit process. Construction of the improvement must be
completed before issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the project.
178
The Project will comply with
LADOTs project requirements, as required in Mitigation Measure 16-2. The Bureau of Engineering
will require a 2 foot dedication along Sunset Boulevard, but not street widening.
179

Mitigation Measure

178
LADOT Approval Letter, April 10, 2014. Included in the Appendices.
179
Aragon (Sunset/Everett) Properties Corporation, Fred Shaffer, February 2014.

16-1 Sunset Boulevard and Beaudry Avenue
The Project shall re-stripe and add left-turn protective phasing to both the northbound and
southbound approaches to the intersection (Beaudry Avenue).
o The northbound approach shall be re-striped from one shared left/thru/right lane to
one left turn lane and one shared thru/right lane.
o The southbound approach shall be re-striped from one shared/left thru lane, one thru
lane and one right turn lane to one left-turn lane, one thru lane and one right turn
lane.
o This shall be done without any roadway widening.
o Left-turn protective phasing shall also be added to both these approaches.
16-2 LADOT Project Requirements
The Project shall comply with the Project Requirements listed in LADOTs Approval Letter.
Figure 4.16-15
Mitigation Concept Plan
Scale (Feet)
0 50 100
Source: The Mobility Group, November 19, 2013.

b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including
but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the adopted Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) thresholds for a significant project impact would be
exceeded. The Congestion Management program (CMP) was adopted to regulate and monitor regional
traffic growth and transportation improvement programs. The CMP designates a transportation network
that includes all state highways and some arterials within the County of Los Angeles.
CMP Analysis
When a CMP analysis is needed, the CMP methodology requires that the Traffic Study analyze traffic
conditions at all CMP arterial monitoring stations where the Project will add 50 or more trips during
either the AM or PM weekday peak hours of adjacent street traffic. The CMP also requires that traffic
studies analyze mainline freeway monitoring stations where the project will add 150 or more trips in
either direction during either AM or PM weekday peak hours. If, based on these criteria, the Traffic Study
identifies no facilities for study, then no further traffic analysis is required.
CMP Arterial Monitoring Stations
As shown in Table 4.16-5, Project Trip Generation Estimates, the Project would generate 180 AM peak
hour trips and 144 PM peak hour trips. A review of the 2010 CMP indicated the following arterial
monitoring stations that are closest to the Project site:
Sunset Boulevard & Alvarado Street
Wilshire Boulevard & Alvarado Street
Washington Boulevard & Alameda Street
As these are some distance from the Project Site, and as the Project trips will disperse onto numerous
roadways away from the site, it is therefore clear that the Project traffic volumes would not exceed the
thresholds for analysis. Further, based on the trip generation and trip distribution characteristics of the
Project as described earlier, it is estimated that the maximum number of trips that the Project would add
to any single CMP monitoring station would be 26 trips at the Sunset Boulevard & Alvarado Street
station. There is therefore no need for further analysis and there would be no significant impacts at any
CMP arterial monitoring stations.

CMP Freeway Monitoring Stations
A review of the 2010 CMP also indicated the following freeway monitoring stations that are closest to the
Project Site.
I-5 at Stadium Way
US-101 North of Vignes Street
SR-110 South of US-101
SR-110 North of Alpine Street
SR-110 at Pasadena Avenue
Many of these stations are located some considerable distance from the Project Site. Nevertheless, the
number of Project trips expected to pass through these stations was estimated based on the Project trip
distribution and the Project trip generation (shown in Table 4.16-5, Project Trip Generation Estimates).
The maximum number of one-way Project trips that would be added to any single freeway segment at
these monitoring stations would be 13 southbound trips along the SR-110 Freeway south of the US-101
Freeway. Besides these CMP monitoring stations, the maximum number of one-way Project trips that
would be added to any single freeway segment would be 10 westbound trips along the US-101 Freeway
north of Alvarado Street. With this low incremental volume, which is below the CMP threshold of 150
trips, it is concluded that no further analysis is necessary and that the Project would not cause any
significant impacts to freeway operations.
c) Would the project 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?
No Impact. This question would apply to the Project only if it were an aviation-related use.
The Project Site does not contain any aviation-related uses and the Project does not include development
of any aviation-related uses. As such, due to its nature and scope, development of the Project would not
have the potential to result in a change in air traffic patterns. Therefore, no impact related to air traffic
patterns would occur.
d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
to include a new roadway design, introduce a new land use or project features into an area with specific

transportation requirements and characteristics that have not been previously experienced in that area, or
if project access or other features were designed in such a way as to create hazardous conditions.
The Project does not include any sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or incompatible uses. No off-site
traffic improvements are proposed or warranted in the area surrounding the Project Site. Therefore, no
impact resulting from hazardous design features would occur.
Temporary impacts to pedestrian safety could occur during proposed grading, exporting, and construction
occurring in close proximity to a school. The Project Site is not in close proximity to any public
schools.
180
The nearest public schools are:
Evans Adult School, 717 N. Figueroa Street, approximately 1,600 feet southeast
Downtown Magnet School, 1081 W. Temple Street, approximately 1,500 feet south
Construction activities do not have the potential to impact the normal operation of any school, including
bus routes and pedestrian walkways.
The Project is in a Hillside Area (Zoning Code)
181
The City requires that any project in a hillside area
with an import/export of 1,000 cubic yards shall obtain a haul route from the Department of Building and
Safety. The Project will obtain a haul route approval (see Mitigation Measure 16-3). The Project will
also comply with Mitigation Measure 16-4. These measures will ensure the safety of pedestrians and
other vehicles in general, as the construction area could create hazards of incompatible/slow-moving
construction and haul vehicles. Environmental impacts may result from project implementation due to the
deterioration of street quality from increased traffic generation. However, the potential impact will be
mitigated to a less than significant level by Mitigation Measures 16-5 and 16-6. Therefore, impacts
would be reduced to less than significance.
Mitigation Measures
16-3 Transportation (Haul Route)
vehicle safety.

180
LAUSD Map:
http://home.lausd.net/ourpages/auto/2012/3/19/43726930/EducationalServiceCenter_Map_EAST_2012-
2013.pdf
181

(Hillside and Subdivisions): Projects involving the import/export of 1,000 cubic yards or
more of dirt shall obtain haul route approval by the Department of Building and Safety.
(Hillside Projects):
o All haul route hours shall be limited to off-peak hours as determined by Board of
Building and Safety Commissioners.
o The Department of Transportation shall recommend to the Building and Safety
Commission Office the appropriate size of trucks allowed for hauling, best route of
travel, the appropriate number of flag people.
o The Department of Building and Safety shall stagger haul trucks based upon a specific
area's capacity, as determined by the Department of Transportation, and the amount of
soil proposed to be hauled to minimize cumulative traffic and congestion impacts.
o The applicant shall be limited to no more than two trucks at any given time within the
site's staging area.
16-4 Safety Hazards
vehicle safety.
The applicant shall submit a parking and driveway plan that incorporates design features that
reduce accidents, to the Bureau of Engineering and the Department of Transportation for
approval.
The Project is in a Hillside Area (Zoning Code)
182
The City requires that any project in a
hillside area with an import/export of 1,000 cubic yards shall obtain a haul route from the
Department of Building and Safety. The Project will obtain a haul route approval (see
16-5 Public Services (Street Improvements Not Required By DOT)
The project shall comply with the Bureau of Engineering's requirements for street dedications
and improvements that will reduce traffic impacts in direct portion to those caused by the
proposed project's implementation.

182

16-6 Construction Damage Bond
A cash bond or security (Bond) shall be posted in accordance with terms, specifications,
and conditions to the satisfaction of the Bureau of Engineering and shall remain in full force
and effect to guarantee that any damage incurred to the roadway adjacent to the property,
which may result from any construction activity on the site, is properly repaired by the
applicant.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, any damage incurred to the roadway
adjacent to the property, which may result from any construction activity on the site, shall be
properly repaired by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Bureau of Engineering. The
applicant is hereby advised to obtain all necessary permits to facilitate this
construction/repair.
e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
design would not provide emergency access meeting the requirements of the LAFD, or in any other way
threatened the ability of emergency vehicles to access and serve the Project Site.
Vehicular access for Sunset Boulevard part of the Project is to be provided by three driveways located
along Sunset Boulevard:
1. The main driveway will be located at the signalized intersection of Sunset Boulevard & Marion
Avenue.
2. The second driveway will be an unsignalized intersection located approximately 170 feet north of
the main driveway.
3. The third driveway will also be an unsignalized intersection and will be located at the extreme
northern edge of the Project.
Vehicular access for Everett Street part of the Project will be provided by a driveway on Everett Street.
The driveway will be designed to comply with Los Angeles Fire Department access requirements (see
Mitigation Measure 14-1). The Project would submit a parking and driveway plan to the Bureau of
Engineering and Department of Transportation to ensure compliance (see Mitigation Measure 16-7).
Therefore, development of the Project will not result in inadequate emergency access to the Project Site
or surrounding area. Impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
16-7 Inadequate Emergency Access

The applicant shall submit a parking and driveway plan to the Bureau of Engineering and the
Department of Transportation for approval that provides code-required emergency access.
f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycles, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of
such facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would conflict with adopted
policies or involve modification of existing alternative transportation facilities located on- or off-site.
Public Transit
Summary of Transit Service on Major Streets in the Project Vicinity
Sunset Boulevard
Located immediately adjacent to the Project Site, Sunset Boulevard carries one Metro Rapid line (704)
and two Metro Local Bus lines (2/302 and 4). Metro Rapid 704 runs between Downtown Los Angeles
and Santa Monica via Sunset Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard. It operates approximately between
6:00am and 8:30pm near the project site on weekdays, from about 6:30am to 8:30pm on Saturdays, and
7:00am to 8:00pm on Sundays. It runs at about 10 15 minute headways during weekday peak periods, at
about 15-30 minutes on evenings and weekends. Metro Local 2/302 runs between Downtown Los
Angeles and Pacific Palisades via Sunset Boulevard. It operates 24 hours and runs at about 6-10 minute
headways during the morning and evening weekday peak and every 15-20 minutes on weekends. Metro
Local 4 runs between Downtown Los Angeles and West Los Angeles via Sunset Boulevard and Santa
Monica Boulevard. It operates 24 hours and runs at about 8 12 minutes during the morning and evening
weekday peak and every 15-30 minutes on evenings and weekends.
Figueroa Street
DASH Lincoln Heights/Chinatown runs is a circulator shuttle that connects Chinatown and Lincoln
Heights mainly via Figueroa Street, Cesar Chavez Boulevard, Broadway, and Main Street. It operates
approximately between 7:00am and 7:00pm and runs at about 30 minute headways on weekdays. On
Saturdays it operates approximately between 9:00am and 7:00pm and runs at about 30 minute headways.
CMP Transit Impact Analysis
An analysis of potential Project impacts on the transit system was performed, per the CMP requirements
and guidelines.
Significant Impact Thresholds

Based on factors in the CEQA Thresholds Guide, City of Los Angeles (1998), the following criterion
was established to determine if there would be any significant transit impacts due to the Project:
The capacity of the transit system serving the Project Area would be substantially exceeded.
Transit Analysis
The number of transit trips that would be generated by the Project was estimated based on the trip
generation methodology described in Table 4.16-5, Project Trip Generation Estimates.
The estimate of base vehicle trips (unadjusted) for each Project land use (from Table 4.16-5, Project Trip
Generation Estimates) was converted to person trips by applying a conversion factor of 1.4, as per CMP
guidelines. The person trip numbers were then multiplied by the estimated percent taking transit for each
land use, as previously determined and discussed earlier in this Chapter. These numbers are higher in
some cases than the default countywide guidelines in the CMP but are more accurate in this instance as
they reflect the higher transit use that would occur for the Project because of its downtown location.
Because of the nature of the Project land uses, there would be a higher number of transit trips in the AM
peak hour.
There would be approximately 27 net additional transit trips (12 inbound trips and 15 outbound trips) in
the AM peak hour due to the Project, and approximately 19 additional transit trips (12 inbound and 7
outbound) in the PM peak hour, as shown in Table 4.16-13, Transit Trips Generated By The Project. The
highest number of additional transit trips would therefore occur in the AM peak hour.
The peak hourly capacity of the transit system serving the area of the Project Site is approximately 954
persons per direction. The highest directional volume of peak hour trips added by the Project would be 15
trips. As this would be less than 1.6% of total transit capacity, it is concluded that the Project would not
cause the capacity of the transit system to be substantially exceeded and therefore that the Project would
not create any significant impacts on the transit systems serving the Project Area.
Bicycles
According to the LADOT Bicycle Services, there are several bikeways in the local vicinity:
183

Sunset Boulevard Bike Lane 2.75 miles from Elysian Park Avenue to Fountain Avenue
Stadium Way Bike Lane 0.80 mile from Boylston Street to Lookout Drive
Scott Avenue Bike Lane 0.50 mile from Garibaldi Drive to Portia Street

183
LADOT, Bicycle Services, Maps: http://www.bicyclela.org/maps_main.htm, October 3, 2013

Montana Avenue Bike Lane 0.30 mile from Alvarado Street to Echo Park Avenue
Figueroa Street Bike Lane 1.20 miles from Wilshire Boulevard to Sunset Boulevard
The 2010 Bike Plan proposes several bicycle facilities around the Project area:
Sunset Boulevard Bike Lane 0.89 mile from Douglas Street to Figueroa Street
Bellevue Avenue Bike Lane 0.49 mile from Echo Park Avenue to Kensington Road
Elysian Park Avenue Bike Lane 0.23 mile from Sunset Boulevard to Stadium Way
Stadium Way Bike Lane 1.86 miles from Riverside Drive to Elysian Park Avenue
Beaudry Avenue Bike Lane 0.42 mile from Sunset Boulevard to Mignonett Street
Since the collection of existing traffic counts and the analysis of existing conditions, the City of Los
Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) has implemented bus/bike lanes on Sunset Boulevard
(from Figueroa Street to Douglas Street) within the existing right-of-way. This project replaced the
current peak-period curb vehicle lane in each direction along Sunset Boulevard with a peak-period
bicycle-transit-only lane from Figueroa Street to Elysian Park Avenue. The bike/transit only lane have
been incorporated into the future conditions analysis. There will be a 1,185 square foot bike storage and
repair room on Level 1 of Building B.
Pedestrian Facilities
Construction activities are expected to be fully contained within the Project Site and are not expected to
impede access to the sidewalks along Sunset Boulevard or Everett Street. Temporary fencing and
scaffolding/walkways will be provided to protect pedestrians from the construction site activities (see
During operation, the Project would not impact any sidewalks. There is a controlled/lighted crosswalk at
the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and Marion Avenue. There is an unsignalized crosswalk on Sunset
crossing Everett Street. There are no public benches or seating along the sidewalks, at the Metro Bus stop
(Lines 2/302 and 4). The Project will not conflict with public transit, bicycles, or pedestrian facilities.
Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur.

Table 4.16-13
Transit Trips Generated By The Project
Land Use
Base (Unadjusted)
1
Vehicle Trips
Person Trips
2
% By Transit
3
Transit Trips
AM PM AM PM AM PM Total In
4
Out
4
Total In
4
Out
4
Sunset Boulevard Part
Existing Uses
Warehousing -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Apartments -1 -1 -1 -1 5% 5% 0 0 0 0 0 0
Building Materials /
Lumber Store
-12 -22 -17 -31 5% 5% -1 -1 0 -2 -1 -1
Car Wash -16 -16 -22 -22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Proposed Uses
Apartments 109 133 153 186 5% 5% 8 2 6 9 6 3
Restaurant 70 64 98 90 5% 5% 5 3 2 5 3 2
Coffee-Shop 217 82 304 115 5% 5% 15 8 7 6 3 3
Everett Street Part
Existing Uses
Single-Family Residence -2 -3 -3 -4 5% 5% 0 0 0 0 0 0
Proposed Uses
Single-Family Homes 5 7 7 10 5% 5% 0 0 0 1 1 0
Total 369 243 518 342 - - 27 12 15 19 12 7
1. From Table 4.16-5 - Trip Generation Estimates.
2. Conversion factor of 1.4 from vehicle trips to person trips, per CMP guidelines.
3. Transit percentage from Table 4.16.-5 - Trip Generation Estimates.
4. In/out distribution from Table 4.16-5 - Trip Generation Estimates.



17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This section is based on the following letter, included as Appendix I of this IS/MND:
I Response from Ali Poosti, Division Manager Los Angeles Wastewater Engineering Services
Division, November 20, 2013.
a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would discharge wastewater
whose content exceeds the regulatory limits established by the governing agency.
The Los Angeles Water Quality Control Board (LAWQCB) implements programs to protect all waters in
the coastal watersheds for Los Angeles and Ventura counties. LAWQCBs Water Quality Control Plan
for the Los Angeles Region (the Basin Plan) establishes guidelines for all municipalities and other
entities that use water and/or discharge into the Santa Monica Bay.
184
Wastewater reclamation and
treatment in the City of Los Angeles is provided by the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works
Bureau of Sanitation (LABS), which operates two treatment plants (Hyperion and Terminal Island) and
two water reclamation plants in accordance with the treatment requirements of the LAWQCB and/or
water reclamation requirements of the Basin Plan.
The Project Site is located within the service area of the Hyperion Treatment Plant (HTP)
185
, which has
been designed to treat 450 million gallons per day (mgd) to full secondary treatment.
186
Full secondary
treatment prevents virtually all particles suspended in effluent from being discharged into the Pacific
Ocean and is consistent with the LAWQCBs discharge policies for Santa Monica Bay. Additionally, the
Citys Sewer Allocation Ordinance (Ordinance No. 166,060) limits the annual increase in wastewater
flow to HTP to five mgd.
187

The Project is required to comply with the monthly allocation set forth by the ordinance, prior to issuance
of building permits. The Project will not be able to connect to the Citys wastewater system until capacity

184
Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Region, Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and
Ventura Counties, California Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region (4)(adopted June,
1994, updated July 2006).
185
LA Sewers: http://www.lasewers.org/treatment_plants/about/index.htm, accessed August 26, 2013.
186
Los Angeles Sanitation: http://www.lacitysan.org/irp/Wastewater.htm, accessed August 26, 2013.
187
Los Angeles City Clerk, Ordinance 166,060:
http://cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/index.cfm?fa=ccfi.viewrecord&cfnumber=87-2121


is available and, therefore, would not cause LABS to exceed LAWQCB treatment requirements. Further,
the HTP is a public facility and is, therefore, subject to the states wastewater treatment requirements.
Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact with regard to wastewater treatment.
b) Would the project 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?
would increase water consumption or wastewater generation to such a degree that the capacity of facilities
currently serving the Project Site would be exceeded.
Wastewater Generation, Treatment Facilities, and Existing Infrastructure
As shown on Table 4.17-1, Project Estimated Wastewater Generation, it is estimated the Project will
generate a net total of approximately 21,748 gallons per day (gpd) (or 0.022 mgd) of wastewater. The
Sunset portion would generate a net of 20,548 gpd and the Everett portion would generate a net of 1,200
gpd. This total was reduced by the generation of the existing onsite commercial, warehouse, and
residential uses.
Table 4.17-1
Project Estimated Wastewater Generation
Land Use Size Wastewater Generation Rates Total (gpd)
Sunset Portion

Existing

Residential Single Family 2 DU 180 gallons / unit 360
Residential - Apartment 2 DU 160 gallons / unit 320
Warehouse 3,000 sf 20 gallons / 1,000 sf 60
Building Materials/Lumber Store 4,800 sf 80 gallons / 1,000 sf 384
Car Wash 2 stalls 2,400 gallons 2,400
Existing Subtotal (to be removed) 3,524
Proposed

Residential Studio 66 DU 80 gallons / unit 5,280
Residential Loft 48 DU 80 gallons / unit 3,840
Residential 1-Bedroom 43 DU 120 gallons / unit 5,160
Retail 8,406 sf 80 gallons / 1,000 sf 672
Proposed Subtotal (Sunset) 4,072


Table 4.17-1
Project Estimated Wastewater Generation
Land Use Size Wastewater Generation Rates Total (gpd)
Total Sunset (Proposed Existing) 20,548

Everett Portion

Existing

Residential Single Family 1 DU 180 gallons / unit 180
Existing Subtotal (to be removed) 180
Proposed

Proposed Subtotal (Everett) 1,380
Total Everett (Proposed - Existing) 1,200
Net Total (Sunset + Everett) 21,748
Note: sf = square feet; DU = dwelling unit, gpd = gallons per day
Rates: City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide, 2006, Exhibit M.2-12 Sewage Generation Factors.
Residential : Apt - Bachelor/Single 80/dwelling unit
Residential: Apt 1-bedroom 120/dwelling unit
Residential: Apt 2-bedroom 160/dwelling unit
Residential: Single Family 2-bedroom 180/dwelling unit
Residential: Duplex/Townhouse/SFD 3-bedroom 230/dwelling unit
Warehouse or Storage/Warehouse: 20/1,000 sf
Retail: 80/1,000 sf
Car Wash: Process Flow. In the absence of a rate, CAJA assumes 40 cars per bay per day, with 30 gallons flow per car. 2
bays x 40 cars x 30 gallons = 2,400 gallons. Source:
http://www.spray.com/Literature_PDFs/C25A_Spray_Products_Car_Wash.pdf

The wastewater generated by the Project will be similar to commercial and residential uses in the area. No
industrial discharge into the wastewater or drainage system would occur. Additionally, there is adequate
treatment capacity within the HTP system, and thus, the increase in wastewater generation would not
have a significant impact on treatment plant capacity. As HTP complies with the states wastewater
treatment requirements and the Projects wastewater generation is well within the existing capacity, the
Project will not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of LAWQCB. Therefore, impacts with
regard to wastewater treatment requirements will be less than significant.


The Project Site will be served by LABS, which provides municipal wastewater services to the City. The
sewer infrastructure includes:
188

8-inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP) line on Sunset Boulevard, which flows south to an 8-inch VCP
line on Beaudry Avenue, which flows southwest.
8-inch VCP line on Everett Street, which flows south and combines with the Sunset line at
Boylston Street.
Sewage from both the Sunset line and Everett line join and feed into a 15-inch line on Fremont Avenue
before splitting and discharging into a 30-inch sewer line on 4
th
Street and 42-inch sewer line on Figueroa
Street.
189
See Figure 4.17-1, Sewer Map, for the details of the sewer system within the Project vicinity.
The Project Site is currently developed and adequately served by the existing wastewater conveyance
system. As part of the building permit process the lead agency would confirm and ensure that there is
sufficient capacity in the local and trunk lines to accommodate the Projects wastewater flows. The
current approximate flow level (d/D or depth/diameter) and the design capacities at d/D of 50 percent in
the sewer system are shown in Table 4.17-2, Sewer System.
Table 4.17-2
Sewer System
Pipe Diameter (in) Pipe Location Current Gauging d/D (%) 50% Design Capacity
8 Sunset Blvd. * 561,724 gpd
8 Everett St. * 1.46 mgd
15 Fremont Ave. 28 1.98 mgd
30 4
th
St. 27 12.37 mgd
42 Figueroa St. 13 27.67 mgd
* = no gauging available; gpd = gallons per day; mgd = million gallons daily.
Source: Response from Ali Poosti, Division Manager Los Angeles Wastewater Engineering Services Division,
November 20, 2013. Included in the Appendices.

188
Navigate LA, City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, Sewer Information (Sewer Pipes and Sewer Flow
Direction) Layer: http://navigatela.lacity.org/index01.cfm
189
Response from Ali Poosti, Division Manager Los Angeles Wastewater Engineering Services Division,


Based on the estimated flows, it appears the sewer system might be able to accommodate the total flow
for the Project.
190
Further detailed gauging and evaluation will be needed as part of the permit process to
identify a specific sewer connection point. If the public sewer has insufficient capacity, then the Applicant
shall be required to build sewer lines to a point in the sewer system with sufficient capacity (see
Mitigation Measures 17-1 and 17-2). A final approval for sewer capacity and connection permit will be
made at that time. Implementation of these prescribed mitigation measures will ensure that the Projects
impacts to the wastewater conveyance system will be less than significant.
Wastewater generated by the Project will continue to be conveyed to the HTP. The HTP has a design
capacity to treat approximately 450 mgd and currently treats an average daily flow of approximately 362
mgd.
191
Thus, a remaining capacity of approximately 88 mgd is sufficient to treat the Projects estimated
increase of approximately 0.022 mgd of wastewater. Additionally, water conservation measures required
by City ordinance (e.g., installation of low flow toilets and plumbing fixtures, limitations on hose washing
of driveways and parking areas, etc.) will be implemented as part of the Project and will help reduce the
amount of project-generated wastewater. Therefore, with the mitigation detailed below, impacts to
wastewater treatment facilities and existing infrastructure will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
17-1 As part of the normal construction/building permit process, the Project Applicant shall confirm
with the City that the capacity of the local and trunk lines are sufficient to accommodate the
Projects wastewater flows during the construction and operation phases. If the public sewer has
insufficient capacity, then the Project Applicant shall be required to build sewer lines to a point in
the sewer system with sufficient capacity.
17-2 The Project Applicant shall implement any upgrade to the wastewater system serving the Project
Site that is needed to accommodate the Projects wastewater generation.

190
191
LABS, Wastewater, About Wastewater, Facts and Figures, Treatment Plants, Hyperion Treatment Plant,
website: http://www.lacitysan.org/wastewater/factsfigures.htm, accessed November 22, 2013.
Source: Response from Ali Poosti, Division Manager Los Angeles Wastewater Engineering Services Division,
Figure 4.17-1
Sewer Map
Scale (Feet)
0 880


Water Consumption and Treatment Facilities
The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), which provides municipal water
services to the City, is responsible for providing water to the Project Site. As shown on Table 4.17-3,
Project Estimated Water Consumption, it is estimated the Project will consume a net total of
approximately 25,446 gallons per day (gpd) (or 0.025 mgd or 26.83 acre-feet per year
192
) of water. The
Sunset portion would consume a net of 24,030 gpd and the Everett portion would consume a net of 1,416
gpd. This total was reduced by the consumption of the existing onsite commercial, warehouse, and
residential uses.
Table 4.17-3
Project Estimated Water Consumption
Land Use Size Water Consumption Rates Total (gpd)
Sunset Portion

Existing

Residential Single Family 2 DU 212.4 gallons / unit 424.8
Residential - Apartment 2 DU 188.8 gallons / unit 377.6
Warehouse 3,000 sf 25.6 gallons / 1,000 sf 76.8
Building Materials/Lumber Store 4,800 sf 102.4 gallons / 1,000 sf 491.52
Car Wash 2 stalls 2,400 gallons 3,072
Existing Subtotal (to be removed) 4,442.72
Proposed

Residential Studio 66 DU 94.4 gallons / unit 6,230.4
Residential Loft 48 DU 94.4 gallons / unit 4,531.2
Residential 1-Bedroom 43 DU 141.6 gallons / unit 6,088.8
Retail 8,406 sf 102.4 gallons / 1,000 sf 860.8
Proposed Subtotal (Sunset) 28,472.8
Total Sunset (Proposed Existing) 24,040.08

Everett Portion

Existing

Residential Single Family 1 DU 212.4 gallons / unit 212.4

192
1 acre foot = 325 851.429 US gallons


Table 4.17-3
Project Estimated Water Consumption
Land Use Size Water Consumption Rates Total (gpd)
Existing Subtotal (to be removed) 212.4
Proposed

Proposed Subtotal (Everett) 1,628.4
Total Everett (Proposed - Existing) 1,416
Net Total (Sunset + Everett) 25,446
Note: sf = square feet; DU = dwelling unit, gpd = gallons per day
Rates: City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide, 2006, Exhibit M.2-12 Sewage Generation Factors.
Water consumption rates are assumed as 128 percent (nonresidential) and 118 percent (residential of the wastewater
generation rates.
Residential : Apt - Bachelor/Single 94.4/dwelling unit
Residential: Apt 1-bedroom 141.6/dwelling unit
Residential: Apt 2-bedroom 188.8/dwelling unit
Residential: Single Family 2-bedroom 212.4/dwelling unit
Residential: Duplex/Townhouse/SFD 3-bedroom 271.4/dwelling unit
Warehouse or Storage/Warehouse: 25.6/1,000 sf
Retail: 102.4/1,000 sf
Car Wash: Process Flow. In the absence of a rate, CAJA assumes 40 cars per bay per day, with 30 gallons flow per car. 2
bays x 40 cars x 30 gallons = 2,400 gallons x 128% = 3,072 Source:
http://www.spray.com/Literature_PDFs/C25A_Spray_Products_Car_Wash.pdf

LADWP owns and operates the Los Angeles Aqueduct Filtration Plant (LAAFP) located in the Sylmar
community of the City. The LAAFP treats City water prior to distribution throughout LADWPs Central
Water Service Area. The designated treatment capacity of LAAFP is 600 mgd with an average plant flow
of 550 mgd during the summer months and 450 mgd in the non-summer months. Thus, the facility has
between approximately 50 to 150 mgd of remaining capacity depending on the season.
The Projects water consumption increase of approximately 0.025 mgd represents approximately 0.046
percent and 0.015 percent of the remaining capacity currently available at LAAFP during the summer and
non-summer months, respectively. Therefore, impacts to water treatment facilities and existing
infrastructure would be less than significant.
LADWP can generally supply water to development projects within its service area, except under
extraordinary circumstances. Additionally, given the incremental increase in water consumption for the
Project, and compliance with applicable water conservation ordinance and regulations such as California
Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 20, Section 1604; CCR Title 22; City Ordinances 165,004 and 166,080;
the Project will not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities.


However, as part of the building permit process, the lead agency would confirm that there is sufficient
capacity in the water supply and infrastructure to accommodate the Projects water needs. If a deficiency
or service problem is discovered during the permitting process that prevents the Project from an adequate
level of service, the Project Applicant shall fund the required upgrades to adequately serve the Project.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 17-3 and 17-4 will ensure that the Projects impacts to the water
conveyance system would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
17-3 As part of the normal construction/building permit process, the Project Applicant shall confirm
with the City that the capacity of the existing water infrastructure can supply the domestic needs
of the Project during the construction and operation phases.
17-4 The Project Applicant shall implement any upgrade to the water infrastructure serving the Project
Site that is needed to accommodate the Projects water consumption needs.
Water Supply Assessment
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15083.5 requires a lead agency to identify water systems to provide water
supply assessments for projects over specified thresholds. For any residential subdivision project Senate
Bill (SB) 221 requires that the lead agency include a requirement that a sufficient water supply shall be
available to serve the residential development. A residential subdivision is a proposed residential
development of more than 500 dwelling units. Thus, the Project is not subject to SB 221 as it does not
include a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. The Project includes 220 dwelling
units.
SB 610 requires a water supply assessment to evaluate whether total projected water supplies will meet
the projected water demand for certain development projects that are otherwise subject to CEQA review.
Existing law identified those certain projects as follows:
(a) Residential developments of more than 500 dwelling units;
(b) Shopping centers or businesses employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000
square feet of floor space;
(c) Commercial office buildings employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000
square feet;
(d) Hotels or motels with more than 500 rooms;
(e) Industrial or manufacturing establishments housing more than 1,000 persons or having more than
650,000 square feet of 40 acres;


(f) Mixed use projects containing any of the foregoing; or
(g) Any other project that would have a water demand at least equal to a 500-dwelling unit project.
The Project is not subject to SB 610 as it does not meet the listed requirements.
c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the volume of storm water runoff
increases to a level exceeding the capacity of the storm drain system serving the Project Site or if a
project would substantially increase the probability that polluted runoff would reach the storm drain
system.
Runoff currently flows toward the existing storm drain system, and development of the Project will not
substantially alter the amount of runoff the Project Site. A majority of the Project Site is covered with
impermeable surfaces, and with development of the Project, the Project Site will continue to be covered
with impermeable surfaces. The storm drain system includes a 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP)
line in Sunset Boulevard, which flows south to an 18-inch RCP line in Sunset, to a 48-inch RCP line in
Sunset. Storm flow also flows south on Everett Street.
193
The location of the proposed stormwater
disposal devise will be at the southern end of the Site, where the proposed structure will be constructed at-
grade. This location is acceptable as long as the devise is kept a minimum of 10 feet from all foundations.
Stomwater infiltration should not cause any damage or settlement to any building.
194
The Geological
Engineering Investigation included recommendations for the stormwater infiltration facility
195
(see
Mitigation Measure 9-2). Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur.
d) Would the project have significant water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
to increase water consumption to such a degree that new water sources would need to be identified, or
that existing resources would be consumed at a pace greater than planned for by purveyors, distributors,
and service providers.

193
Navigate LA, City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering, Storm Drains Layer:
194
195


The Citys water supply comes from local groundwater sources, the Los Angeles-Owens River Aqueduct,
State Water Project, and from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which is obtained
from the Colorado River Aqueduct. These sources, along with recycled water, are expected to supply the
Citys water needs in the years to come.
The Project will use 26.27 acre-feet per year. The 2010 Urban Water Management Plan projects a supply
of 555,477 AFY in 2015.
196
Any shortfall in LADWP controlled supplies (groundwater, recycled,
conservation, LA aqueduct) is offset with MWD purchases to rise to the level of demand. Overall, any
project that is consistent with the General Plan has been taken into account in the planned growth in water
demand. Therefore, the Projects water supply needs have already been accommodated within water
supply projections for the region and the impact of the Project on water demand is less than significant. In
addition, Mitigation Measures 17-5 to 17-8 would further ensure that impacts related to the projects
water demand remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
17-5 Utilities (Local Water Landscaping)
The project shall comply with Ordinance No. 170,978 (Water Management Ordinance),
which imposes numerous water conservation measures in landscape, installation, and
maintenance (e.g, use drip irrigation and soak hoses in lieu of sprinklers to lower the
amount of water lost to evaporation and overspray, set automatic sprinkler systems to
irrigate during the early morning or evening hours to minimize water loss due to
evaporation, and water less in the cooler months and during the rainy season).
In addition to the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance, the landscape plan shall
incorporate the following:
o Weather-based irrigation controller with rain shutoff
o Matched precipitation (flow) rates for sprinkler heads
o Drip/microspray/subsurface irrigation where appropriate
o Minimum irrigation system distribution uniformity of 75 percent
o Proper hydro-zoning, turf minimization and use of native/drought tolerant plan materials
o Use of landscape contouring to minimize precipitation runoff

196
2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Los Angeles, pg. 20: http://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/cms/ladwp014334.pdf,
November 22, 2013.


A separate water meter (or submeter), flow sensor, and master valve shutoff shall be
installed for existing and expanded irrigated landscape areas totaling 5,000 sf and greater.
17-6 Utilities (Local Water Supplies All New Construction)
If conditions dictate, the Department of Water and Power may postpone new water
connections for this project until water supply capacity is adequate.
Install high-efficiency toilets (maximum 1.28 gpf), including dual-flush water closets, and
high-efficiency urinals (maximum 0.5 gpf), including no-flush or waterless urinals, in all
restrooms as appropriate.
Install restroom faucets with a maximum flow rate of 1.5 gallons per minute.
A separate water meter (or submeter), flow sensor, and master valve shutoff shall be installed
for all landscape irrigation uses.
Single-pass cooling equipment shall be strictly prohibited from use. Prohibition of such
equipment shall be indicated on the building plans and incorporated into tenant lease
agreements. (Single-pass cooling refers to the use of potable water to extract heat from
process equipment, e.g. vacuum pump, ice machines, by passing the water through equipment
and discharging the heated water to the sanitary wastewater system.)
17-7 Utilities (Local Water Supplies New Commercial or Industrial)
All restroom faucets shall be of a self-closing design.
17-8 Utilities (Local Water Supplies New Residential)
Install no more than one showerhead per shower stall, having a flow rate no greater than 2.0
gallons per minute.
Install and utilize only high-efficiency clothes washers (water factor of 6.0 or less) in the
project, if proposed to be provided in either individual units and/or in a common laundry
room(s). If such appliance is to be furnished by a tenant, this requirement shall be
incorporated into the lease agreement, and the applicant shall be responsible for ensuring
compliance.
Install and utilize only high-efficiency Energy Star-rated dishwashers in the project, if
proposed to be provided. If such appliance is to be furnished by a tenant, this requirement
shall be incorporated into the lease agreement, and the applicant shall be responsible for
ensuring compliance.


e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected
demand in addition to the providers existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would increase wastewater
generation to such a degree that the capacity of facilities currently serving the Project Site would be
exceeded.
The Projects generation of 0.022 mgd) of wastewater would be sufficiently accommodated as part of the
remaining 88 mgd of treatment capacity currently available at HTP. Also, as confirmed by the
Wastewater Engineering Services Division, the HTP has sufficient capacity for the Project.
197
Therefore,
impacts to wastewater treatment would be less than significant.
f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the projects solid waste disposal needs?
to increase solid waste generation to a degree that existing and projected landfill capacity would be
insufficient to accommodate the additional solid waste. 43 percent of the waste generated in the City is
disposed of at the Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill (the Sunshine Canyon Landfill), with 20
percent to Chiquita Canyon Landfill, and the remaining amounts sent to over a dozen other landfills,
recycling, refuse-to-energy, or resource recovery facilities.
198
According to CalRecycle (California
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery), the Sunshine Canyon Landfill is estimated to close in
2037. It has approximately 112.3 million cubic yards (cy) of remaining capacity out of a total capacity of
140.9 million cy, and a maximum permitted daily intake of 12,100 tons per day (tpd).
199
As of September
30, 2013, Sunshine Canyon Landfill accepted approximately 7,800 tpd during the week and 3,000 tpd on
Saturday (due to reduced hours of operation).
200
Therefore, the Sunshine Canyon Landfill has a
remaining daily capacity intake of approximately 4,300 tpd during each weekday and 9,100 tpd on
Saturday.

197
198
City of Los Angeles, Fact Sheet: Solid Waste Facilities:
http://www.zerowaste.lacity.org/files/info/fact_sheet/SWIRPfacilitySystemInfrastructureFactSheet_032009.pdf
199
State of California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Solid Waste Facility Listing/Details
Page, Facility/Site Summary Details: Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill (19-AA-2000), website:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/19-AA-2000/Detail, accessed November 22, 2013.
200
Sunshine Canyon Landfill Newsletter, Fall 2013, website:
http://www.sunshinecanyonlandfill.com/home/newsletter/fall_2013_newsletter.pdf, November 22, 2013.


Construction
Construction of the Project will generate minimal amounts of construction and demolition debris that
would need to be disposed of at area landfills. Construction and demolition debris includes concrete,
asphalt, wood, drywall, metals, and other miscellaneous and composite materials. California Assembly
Bill (AB) 939, also known as the Integrated Waste Management Act, requires each city and county in the
state to divert 50 percent of its solid waste from landfill disposal through source reduction, recycling, and
composting. As such, much of this material would be recycled and salvaged to the maximum extent
feasible. Materials not recycled would be disposed of at local landfills.
Demolition of the existing buildings (23,600 square feet
201
) would produce demolition waste and
recycling opportunities of raw materials. Construction of the 197,858
202
square feet of new buildings for
the Sunset portion (both Building A and Building B) would generate approximately 433 tons of
construction waste.
203
Construction of the 10,896
204
square feet of new buildings for the Everett portion
would generate approximately 23.9 tons of construction waste.
205
The total construction waste is
estimated to be 456.9 tons. Project construction would last approximately 19.5 months. Therefore, Project
construction would generate approximately 1.17 tons per day of construction waste.
206

A majority of the Citys construction and demolition waste went to the Puente Hills Landfill.
207
The
Puente Hills Landfill closed on October 31, 2013, when its permit expires. However, there are other
County Sanitation Districts facilities available for disposal and recycling, including the nearby Puente
Hills Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) that shares the same entrance as the Landfill. The Puente Hills
MRF accepts all kinds of waste for recycling and disposal, including commercial,
construction/demolition, and residential wastes.
208

201
Aragon (Sunset/Everett) Properties Corporation, Fred Shaffer, November 15, 2013.
202
KTGY, Architecture + Planning, October 21, 2013.
203
Based on 4.02 pounds of nonresidential construction and 4.38 lbs for residential construction per square foot.
(Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report No. EPA530-98-010. Characterization of Building
Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States, June 1998, Table A-2, page A-1).
204
KTGY, Architecture + Planning, October 21, 2013.
205
Based on 4.02 pounds of nonresidential construction and 4.38 lbs for residential construction per square foot.
(Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report No. EPA530-98-010. Characterization of Building
Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States, June 1998, Table A-2, page A-1).
206
19.5 months x 20 working days per month = 390 working days. 456.9 tons / 390 days = 1.17 tons per day.
207
City of Los Angeles, Fact Sheet: Solid Waste Facilities:
http://www.zerowaste.lacity.org/files/info/fact_sheet/SWIRPfacilitySystemInfrastructureFactSheet_032009.pdf
208
County Sanitation Districts, Puente Hills Landfill Closing on October 31, 2013:
http://www.lacsd.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=214&TargetID=1, accessed October 16, 2013.


The Puente Hills MRF is permitted to accept 4,400 tons per day and 24,000 tons per week of municipal
solid waste.
209
In 2014, the Puente Hills Intermodal Facility will be complete
210
and provide a Materials
Recovery Facility/Transfer Station for the Waste to Rails system to the Mesquite Regional Landfill in
Imperial County.
211
The Mesquite Landfill can accept 20,000 tons per day, with an overall capacity of 600
million tons and a lifespan of 100 years.
212
The Mesquite Landfill would have adequate capacity to accept
the Projects demolition and construction waste. Compliance with AB 939 would require a minimum of
50 percent of demolition and construction debris to be recycled. Because of the recycling of most of the
solid waste generated by the construction of the Project, short-term construction impacts to landfills and
solid waste services will be less than significant. Nonetheless, the following mitigation measures are
recommended to further reduce the Projects already less than significant impacts (see Mitigation
Measures 17-9 to 17-11).
Mitigation Measures
17-9 Utilities (Solid Waste Recycling Construction/Demolition)
Prior to the issuance of any construction permit, the Project Applicant shall provide a copy of the
receipt or contract from a waste disposal company providing services to the project, specifying
recycled waste service(s), to the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety. The
construction contractor(s) shall only contract for waste disposal services with a company that
recycles construction-related waste.
17-10 Utilities (Solid Waste Recycling)
To facilitate on-site separation and recycling of demolition and construction-related wastes, the
contractor(s) shall provide temporary waste separation bins on-site during demolition and
construction. These bins shall be emptied and the contents recycled accordingly as a part of the
17-11 Utilities (Solid Waste Disposal)
All waste shall be disposed of properly. Use appropriately labeled recycling bins to recycle
demolition and construction materials including: solvents, water-based paints, vehicle fluids,
broken asphalt and concrete, bricks, metals, wood, and vegetation. Non-recyclable

209
County Sanitation Districts, Puente Hills MRF Fact Sheet:
http://www.lacsd.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=214&TargetID=1, accessed October 16, 2013.
210
County Sanitation Districts, Waste-By-Rail: http://www.lacsd.org/solidwaste/wbr/default.asp, October 16, 2013.
211
Puente Hills Landfill: http://www.lacsd.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3708, October 16, 2013.
212
Mesquite Regional Landfill: http://www.mrlf.org/index.php?pid=5, accessed October 16, 2013.


materials/wastes shall be taken to an appropriate landfill. Toxic wastes must be discarded at a
licensed regulated disposal site.
Operation
As shown on Table 4.17-4, Project Estimated Solid Waste Generation, it is estimated the Project will
generate a net total of approximately 2,617 pound per day (or 1.30 tons per day) of solid waste. The
Sunset portion would generate a net of 1.28 tons per day and the Everett portion would generate a net of
0.03 tons per day. This total was reduced by the generation of the existing onsite commercial, warehouse,
and residential uses.
Table 4.17-4
Project Estimated Solid Waste Generation
Land Use Size Solid Waste Generation Rates Total (tons)
Sunset Portion

Existing

Residential Single Family 2 DU 12.23 pounds / unit 24.46
Residential - Apartment 2 DU 12.23 pounds / unit 24.46
Warehouse 3,000 sf 10.4 / 1,000 sf 31.2
Building Materials/Lumber Store 4,800 sf 5 pounds / 1,000 sf 24
Car Wash 2 stalls Negligible --
Proposed

Residential Studio 214 DU 12.23 pounds / unit 2,617
Retail 8,406 sf 5 pounds / 1,000 sf 42
Proposed Subtotal (Sunset) 2,660
Total Sunset (Proposed Existing) 2,555.88 (1.28)

Everett Portion

Existing

Residential Single Family 1 DU 12.23 pounds / unit 12.23
Proposed

Residential 3-Bedroom 6 DU 12.23 pounds / unit 73.38
Proposed Subtotal (Everett) 73.38
Total Everett (Proposed - Existing) 61.15 (0.03)


Table 4.17-4
Project Estimated Solid Waste Generation
Land Use Size Solid Waste Generation Rates Total (tons)
Net Total (Sunset + Everett) 2,617.03 (1.3)
Note: sf = square feet; DU = dwelling unit, lbs = pounds
Rates: CalRecycle Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/
Residential 12.23 pounds/unit; source: City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide: Your Resource for Preparing CEQA
Analyses in Los Angeles (DRAFT)
Retail 5 pounds/1,000 sf; source: City of LA Dept. of City Planning doc "EIR Manual for Private Projects"
Warehouse 1.42 pounds/100 sf (or 10.4 pounds/1,000 sf): source: Guide to Solid Waste and Recycling Plans for
Development Projects (Santa Barbara County Public Works Department).
Carwash no given rate for car wash. The car wash uses rags that are laundered and re-used. Solid waste generation is
assumed to be negligible.


The Sunshine Canyon Landfill can accept 12,100 tpd (and currently accepts 9,000 tpd on weekdays and
3,000 tpd on Saturday), and could therefore accommodate the additional approximately 1.30 tons per day
increase in solid waste resulting from the Project. Further, pursuant to AB 939, each city and county in
the state must divert 50 percent of its solid waste from landfill disposal through source reduction,
recycling, and composting. The City achieved a 72 percent diversion rate of solid waste from landfills
(fiscal year 2011-12), exceeding the required 50 percent diversion rate required by AB 939. The City is
on track to achieving 75 percent recycling and diversion rate in 2013,
213
with the goal to achieve a 90
percent diversion by 2025.
214
Mitigation Measure 17-12 would ensure that solid waste is separated and
disposed/recycled properly during operation further mitigating any potential solid waste impact from
Project operations. Therefore, the impact associated with solid waste during operation of the Project
Mitigation Measure
17-12 Utilities (Solid Waste Recycling - Operational)
Recycling bins shall be provided at appropriate locations to promote recycling of paper, metal,
glass, and other recyclable material. These bins shall be emptied and recycled accordingly as a
part of the project's regular solid waste disposal program.

213
City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Year at a Glance, 2011-12:
http://lacitysan.org/general_info/pdfs/BOS_YAG_11_12_FINAL.pdf, accessed November 22, 2013.
214
City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, A Five-Year Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2012/13-2016/17:
http://lacitysan.org/general_info/pdfs/Strategic_Plan_12-13.pdf, accessed November 22, 2013.


g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would generate solid waste
that was not disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Solid waste generated on-site by the
Project will be disposed of in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, related
to solid waste, such as AB 939. The amount of project-related waste disposed of at area landfills would
be reduced through recycling and waste diversion programs implemented by the City, in compliance with
the Citys Solid Waste Management Policy Plan, which is the long-range solid waste management policy
plan for the City, and the Source Reduction and Recycling Element, which is the strategic action policy
plan for diverting solid waste from landfills.
The Project would also comply with applicable regulatory measures, including the provisions of City
Ordinance No. 171,687 regarding recycling for all new construction and other recycling measures;
implementation of a demolition and construction debris recycling plan, with the explicit intent of
requiring recycling during all phases of site preparation and building construction (Mitigation Measures
17-9 through 17-11), and the provision of permanent, clearly marked, durable, source-sorted bins to
facilitate the separation and deposit of recyclable materials (Mitigation Measure 17-12).
Waste generated by the Project would not alter the projected timeline for landfills within the region to
reach capacity. The Sunshine Canyon Landfill has adequate capacity and is slated to close in 2037. The
Waste-By-Rails program to the Mesquite Landfill would have adequate capacity and is slated to operate
for 100 years. The Project would comply with federal, state, and local regulations, and as such, impacts


18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur only if a project would have an
identified potentially significant impact for any of the above issues. The Project is located in a densely
populated urban area and would have less than significant impacts with respect to biological and cultural
resources. The Project includes Mitigation Measures 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4 to ensure that the removal of
protected trees would be less than significant. The Project includes Mitigation 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 to ensure
that cultural resources impacts would be reduced to less than significant. The Project will not degrade the
quality of the environment, reduce or threaten any fish or wildlife species (endangered or otherwise), or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre-history. Therefore,
impacts from the Project will be less than significant.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a 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)?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project, in conjunction with other
related projects in the area of the Project Site, would result in impacts that are less than significant when
viewed separately, but would be significant when viewed together. The Project will not combine with
related projects to create a cumulatively significant impact in any of the environmental issue areas
analyzed in the Draft IS/MND.
The locations of the 70 related projects included in this analysis are shown in Figure 4.16-5, Location of
Related Projects. The related project locations, descriptions, and trip generation estimates are listed in
Table 4.16-3, Related Project List and Trip Generation Estimates. All the related projects are located in
the City of Los Angeles. The nearest related projects to the Project Site are:
No. 35 Supermarket and Retail at 500 N. Bunker Hill Avenue.
No. 46 Mixed Use at 327 N. Fremont Avenue
No. 48 Bunker Hill Mixed Use at 720 W. Cesar Chavez
No. 50 Condos at 855 N. Figueroa Tier
No. 62 LA Dodgers Stadium the Next 50 Years at 1000 Elysian Park Avenue


No. 66 Barlow Hospital at 2000 Stadium Way
No. 69 Residential Project at 1111 Sunset Boulevard
The closest related project at 1111 Sunset Boulevard is just south of the Project Site. It was an adaptive
reuse (interior changes) to convert the existing building to 92 residential units and opened in April
2014.
215
Thus, there was no change in the construction impacts, visual/aesthetic impacts, or other impact
areas.
The 63 other related projects are at least 0.5 mile away or more, distances ensure that any other localized
impacts of the related project would not combine with the Project. As discussed in response to Checklist
Questions 4(c) and 12(d), the Project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact with respect
to air quality or noise, respectively.
The Project and related projects are anticipated to comply with applicable federal, state, and city
regulations that would preclude significant cumulative impacts regarding geology and soils, cultural
resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and transportation and traffic.
These resource areas (geology and soils, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and
hydrology) are site specific so that each related project would need to be evaluated within its own site-
specific context.
The Future With Project scenario includes the related projects, plus ambient growth. The development of
the Project will would cause a significant impact at the Sunset Boulevard & Beaudry Avenue intersection
in the PM peak hour. The Project would cause the level of service to change from LOS F with a V/C ratio
of 1.333 to LOS F with a V/C ratio of 1.349. With the mitigation measure (identified as 16-1), there
would be no significant impacts due to the Project.
Regarding aesthetics and land use, compliance with City of Los Angeles design and land use standards
would ensure that any cumulative impacts related to aesthetics and land use would be less than
significant. Further, related projects would be individually evaluated for consistency with applicable land
use standards. Aesthetics is a subjective resource area in which each project must be analyzed within its
own local setting to determine whether visual character of a site is affected. In addition, the Project would
not combine with other related projects to block significant viewsheds in the Project vicinity.
Any increase in area population from the increase of on-site employees and/or residents resulting from the
Project and the related projects are anticipated to be within regional and local forecasts. Demands on
public services such as fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and recreational facilities, and
libraries resulting from the Project would be less than significant with implementation of Code
requirements and mitigation measures (where applicable). These Code requirements and mitigation

215
http://linear-city.com/portfolio/the-elysian/


measures identified for the Project are standard Code requirements/mitigation measures from the City that
would also apply to the related projects in the City of Los Angeles. Demands on water consumption,
wastewater generation, and solid waste generation resulting from the Project would be less than
significant with implementation of provided mitigation measures, where applicable. These mitigation
measures identified for the Project are standard mitigation measures from the City that would also apply
to the related projects. Therefore, the Projects incremental contribution to cumulative impacts would be
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project has the potential to result in
significant impacts, as discussed in the preceding sections. As described throughout this environmental
impact analysis, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, where applicable, the
Project would not result in any unmitigated significant impacts. Thus, the Project would not have the
potential to result in substantial adverse effects on human beings and impacts would be less than
significant.

Sunset & Everett Mixed-Use Development Project & Everett Small Lot Subdivision 5. List of Preparers
5. LIST OF PREPARERS
Lead Agency City of Los Angeles
Room 721, Expedited Processing Section
200 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012
Jenna Monterrosa, Planner
Environmental Consultant CAJA Environmental Services
11990 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 250, Los Angeles, California 90049
Chris J oseph, President
Stacie Henderson, Project Manager
Seth Wulkan, Assistant Project Planner
Sherrie Cruz, Senior Graphics Specialist
Project Applicant Aragon (Sunset/Everett) Properties Corporation
1590 Rosecrans Ave., Suite #D-303, Manhattan Beach, California 90045
Fred Shaffer, Manager LA Division
Project Representation Armbruster, Goldsmith, and Delvac, LLP.
11611 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 900, Los Angeles, California 90049
RJ Comer
Matt Dzurec
Architect KTGY, Architecture + Planning
1733 Ocean Avenue, Suite 250, Santa Monica, California 90401
Keith McCloskey, Design Director
Air Quality and Noise Douglas Kim + Associates, LLC
1513 W. Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite D, Torrance, California 90501
Douglas Kim, AICP
Jared Jerome
Archaeology South Central Coastal Information Center
California State University, Fullerton
800 North State College Boulevard, Fullerton, California 92834
Stacy St. James, Coordinator

Geotechnical Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201
Reinard T. Knur
Historic GPA Consulting, Inc.
231 California Street, El Segundo, California 90245
Teresa Grimes
Paleontology Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
Vertebrate Paleontology Section
900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90007
Samuel A. McLeod, PhD, Vertebrate Paleontology
Phase I and II AEI Consultants
5933 West Century Boulevard, Suite 360, Los Angeles, California 90045
Adam Bennett, REPA, Vice President
Victor DeTroy, Senior Author
Noel Hernandez, Project Manager
Kent Vollmer, PG, Site Mitigation Department Manager
Jann Yamauchi, Project Manager
Traffic Engineer The Mobility Group
18301 Von Karman, Suite 490, Irvine, California 92612
Michael Bates, President
Matthew Simons, T.E., Senior Transportation Engineer
Tree Report Landscape Development
28447 Witherspoon Parkway, Valencia, California 91355
Richard M. DePalma, ASLA, LEED AP
Public Agencies and Departments
Los Angeles Fire Department
Captain Luke Milick
Los Angeles Police Department
Commander Andrew J. Smith
Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks
Jon Kirk Mukri, General Manager
Los Angeles Public Library
Joseph Molles

Los Angeles Unified School District
Rena Perez, Director of Master Planning and Demographics
Los Angeles Wastewater Engineering Services Division
Ali Poosti, Division Manager
Native American Heritage Commission
Dave Singleton, Program Analyst

CEQA Report/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CEQA Report/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

City of Los Angeles

Department of City Planning

S-ar putea să vă placă și