CITY OF LOS ANGELES -...

BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMBERS

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

ANDREA A. ALARCON PRESIDENT

JERILYN LOPEZ MENDOZA VICE PRESIDENT

JOHN J. CHOI PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

STEVEN T. NUTTER COMMISSIONER

VALERIE LYNNE SHAW COMMISSIONER

ARLEEN P. TAYLOR EXECUTIVE OFFICER

CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA MAYOR

To the Public Works Committee Of the Honorable Council Of the City of Los Angeles

Transmittal:

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

BUREAU OF ENGINEERING

GARY LEE MOORE, P.E. CITY ENGINEER

1149 S. BROADWAY, SUITE 700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90015"2213

http://eng.lacity.org

Date: FEB 2 '1 2012 Council File No.: 11-1011 Council District: 4 Contact Person: Dale Williams Phone No.: 202- 3491

Transmitted herewith, is the City Engineer's Report dated FEB 2 '1 2012 review and approval of:

for Council

VACATION APPROVAL- VAC E1401161- Council File No. 11-1011- Laurel Canyon Boulevard southerly of Willow Glen Road and easterly of Laurel Canyon Boulevard and a Variable Width Slope and Drainage Easement.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. That the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ENV-2010-1682-MND-REC-1.

2. Adopt the City Engineer's report dated FEB 2 '1 ZO!Z contained therein.

with the conditions

3. Fiscal Impact Statement:

The petitioner has paid a fee of$10,700.00 for the investigation of this request pursuant to Section 7.42 of the Administrative Code. Any deficit fee to recover the cost pursuant to Section 7.44 of the Administrative Code may be required of the petitioner.

Maintenance of the public easement by City Forces will be eliminated.

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

-2-

4. That there is a public benefit to this vacation. Upon vacation of the street, the City is relieved of its ongoing obligation to maintain the street. In addition, the City is relieved of any potential liability that might result from continued ownership of the involved street easements.

5. The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy in a letter dated December 16, 20 I 0 objected to the proposed vacation based on the Conservancy's first right of refusal for excess City owned property within the Conservancy Zone. However, the vacation itself does not constitute the transfer of a property. The Conservancy in a letter dated December 29, 20 I 0 indicated this issue had been addressed. The Conservancy has also objected to the vacation without disclosure of the underlying fee-ownership of the area to be vacated. Although the City makes no official determination of reversionary rights of the vacation area as a part of the vacation process, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation of ownership of the reversionary rights of the vacation area.

Attachment:

EY/dw/pm LDG

Edmond Yew, anager Land Development Group.

Office of the City Engineer

Los Angeles, California

To the Public Works Committee

Of the Honorable Council

Of the City of Los Angeles FEB 2 7 2012

Honorable Members: · C.D.No. 4

SUBJECT:

VACATION APPROVAL- VAC- E1401161 -Council File No. 11-1011 - Laurel Canyon Boulevard Southerly of Willow Glen Road and Easterly of Laurel Canyon Boulevard and a Variable Width Slope and Drainage Easement

RECOMMENDATIONS:

A. That street vacation proceedings pursuant to the Public Streets, Highways and Service Easements Vacation Law be instituted for the vacation of the public rightof-way indicated below and shown colored blue on the attached Exhibit" B" and for the vacation of the slope and drainage easement shown hatched red on the attached Exhibit "B". The limits of the street vacation area shall be permitted to be adjusted based on a survey to be submitted to determine the exact limits of the street areas currently being used.

I. Laurel Canyon Boulevard southerly of Willow Glen Road and easterly of Laurel Canyon Boulevard.

2. The variable width slope and drainage easement on Arb 1 of Lot A of Tract 4086.

B. That the vacation of the area shown colored orange on Exhibit "B", be denied. The limits of this area shall be permitted to be adjusted based on a survey to be submitted to determine the exact limits of the street areas currently being used.

C. That the Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ENV-2010-1682-MND-REC-1.

D. That the City Council find that there is a public benefit to this street vacation. Upon vacation ofthe street, the City is relieved of its ongoing obligation to

Public Works Committee -2- C. D. No.4

maintain the street. In addition, the City is relieved of any potential liability that might result from continued ownership ofthe involved street easements.

E. That, in conformance with Section 556 ofthe City Charter, the Council make the findings that the vacation is in substantial conformance with the purposes, intent and provisions of the General Plan.

F. That, in conformance with Section 892 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the Council determine that the vacation area is not necessary for nonmotorized transportation facilities.

G. That, in conformance with Section 8324 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the Council determine that the vacation area is not necessary for present or prospective public use.

H. That the Council adopt the City Engineer's report with the conditions contained therein.

I. That the City Clerk schedule the vacation for public hearing at least 30 days after the Public Works Committee approval so the City Clerk and Engineering can

·process the Public Notification pursuant to Section 8324 of the California Streets and Highways Code.

FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

The petitioner has paid a fee of$10,700.00 for the investigation ofthis request pursuant to Section 7.42 of the Administrative Code. Any deficit fee to recover the cost pursuant to Section 7.44 of the Administrative Code will be required of the petitioner.

Maintenance of the public easement by City forces will be eliminated.

NOTIFICATION:

That notification of the time and place of the Public Works Committee and the City Council meetings to consider this request be sent to:

I. Jose Luis Nazar 2400 Laurel Canyon Bl. Los Angeles, CA 90046

Public Works Committee

CONDITIONS:

- 3 - C. D. No.4

2. Anderson, McPharlin & Conners LLP ATTN: Vanessa H. Widener 444 S. Flower St, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2901

3. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy ATTN: Paul Edelman 5750 Ramirez Canyon Rd Malibu, CA 90265

4. City of Los Angeles Attn: General Services, Asset Management Division 111 E First Street Los Angeles, CA 90012

5. Hunsaker & Associates Attn: Candace Ginn 26074 Av. Hall Valencia CA 91355

The Conditions specified in this report are established as the requirements to be complied with by the petitioner for this vacation. Vacation proceedings in which the conditions have not been completed within two years of the Council's action on the City Engineer's report and without proper time extension, shall be terminated, with no further Council action.

I. That any fee deficit under Work Order number E140 1161 be paid.

2. That a suitable map, approved by the Central District Engineering office, delineating the limits (including bearings and distances) of the areas to be vacated be submitted to the Land Development Group prior to the preparation of the Resolution to Vacate.

3. That a suitable legal description describing the areas being vacated and all easements to be reserved, including copies of all necessary supporting documentation, be submitted to the Land Development Group ofthe Bureau of Engineering prior to preparation of the Resolution to Vacate.

4. That a title report indicating the vestee of the underlying fee title interest in the areas to be vacated be submitted to the City Engineer. ·


5. That the following improvements be constructed adjoining the petitioner's property in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer:

a) Construct a 10-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the existing curb adjoining the area to be vacated along the improved Laurel Canyon Boulevard and along Willow Glen Road.

b) Repair or replace all broken, off-grade, or missing curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Laurel Canyon Boulevard adjoining the petitioner's property.

c) Provide for the collection or diversion of all surface flows which may impound within the area to be vacated.

6. That arrangements be made with the Department of Water and Power and AT&T for the removal of affected facilities or the providing of easements or rights for the protection of affected facilities to remain in place.

7. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City Engineer for the relocation or abandonment of the existing storm drain facilities located within the area to be vacated, unless easements are reserved from the vacation for their protection.

8. That a survey be submitted showing the existing street improvement limits along Laurel Canyon Boulevard and Willow Glen Road adjacent to the vacation area to determine the areas needed to be retained for existing use and the construction of 1 0-foot sidewalks in the area.

9. That upon the review of the title report identifying the underlying fee title interest of the vacation area, an agreement be recorded satisfactory to the Bureau of Engineering to hold the parcel of land under one ownership and its adjoining portion of the area to be vacated, as one parcel to preclude the creation of landlocked parcels. This is to remain effective until such time as a new subdivision map is recorded over said area, a parcel map exemption is permitted or until released by the authority of the City of Los Angeles.

10. That street lighting facilities be installed as required by the Bureau of Street Lighting.

11. That street trees be planted and tree wells to be installed as may be required by the Urban Forestry Division of the Bureau of Street Services.

Public Works Committee - 5 - C. D. No.4

12. That the petitioner record a Covenant and Agreement satisfactory to the City Engineer to run with the land acknowledging that upon the vacation of the slope and drainage easement over the applicant's property, responsibility for slope maintenance and and/or stability problems will be vested entirely with the property owner and the City shall be released of any liability relating to this slope area.

TRANSMITTAL:

I. Application dated October 29, 2009, from Vanessa Widener of Anderson, McPharlin & Conners LLP.

2. Mitigated Negative Declaration (ENV -201 0-1682-MND-REC I) prepared by the City Planning Department dated June 23, 2011.

DISCUSSION:

Request: The petitioner, Anderson, McPharlin & Conners LLP, representing the owner of the property shown outlined in yellow on Exhibit "B", is requesting the vacation of the public street area shown colored blue and orange, and the slope and drainage easement shown hatched red. The purpose of the vacation request is to consolidate the vacated area with the residential property to the east to allow for an existing driveway, retaining walls and landscaping currently located in the right-of-way.

Resolution to Vacate: The Resolution to Vacate will be recorded upon compliance with the conditions established for this vacation.

Previous Council Action: The City Council on June 21,2011, under Council File No. 11-1011 adopted a Rule 16 Motion initiating street vacation proceedings. The City Council on June 7, 2011, under Council File No. 11-0700 adopted the Negative Declaration ENV-2010-1682-ND and adopted a resolution approving a General Plan Amendment toredesignate the vacation area from a Collector Street to a Local Street.

Zoning and Land Use: The property to the west of the vacation area is zoned RE15-1-H and is partially developed as a public street. The property to the east of the vacation area and with the slope and drainage easement to be vacated is zoned RE40-1-H and is developed with a single family dwelling.

Description of Area to be Vacated: The areas sought to be vacated are the unimproved easterly right of way of Laurel Canyon Boulevard southerly of Willow Glen Road and northeasterly of the westerly right of way of Laurel Canyon Boulevard, and a variable width slope and drainage easement on Arb 1 of Lot A of Tract 4086. The easterly right of way of Laurel Canyon Boulevard was redesignated as a Local Street under CF no. 11-


0700, has no improved roadway and is developed with a driveway, retaining walls and landscaping accessory to the adjacent residence to the east. The slope and drainage easement is developed with a single family residence and landscaping.

Adjoining Streets: Laurel Canyon Boulevard is designated as a Secondary Highway and is dedicated and improved to a variable width. Willow Glen Road is designated as a Collector Street and is dedicated and improved to a variable width.

Surrounding Properties: The adjoining owner of Arb 2 of Lot A of Tract 4086, the City of Los Angeles, General Services Division, has been notified of the proposed street vacation.

Effects of Vacation on Circulation and Access: The proposed vacation should have no impact on circulation and access because there is no roadway within the area to be vacated. The Laurel Canyon Boulevard roadway is already constructed in the right of way to the west of the vacation area and partially within the city owned property to the west of the vacation area.

The street is also not needed for the use of pedestrians, bicyclists or equestrians.

Objections to the vacation: The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy in a letter dated December 16, 2010 objected to the proposed vacation based on the Conservancy's first right of refusal for excess City owned property within the Conservancy Zone. However, the vacation itself does not constitute the transfer of a property. The Conservancy in a letter dated December 29, 2010 indicated this issue had been addressed. The Conservancy has also objected to the vacation without disclosure of the underlying fee-ownership of the area to be vacated. Although the City makes no official determination of reversionary rights of the vacation area as a part ofthe vacation process, the applicant has provided sufficient documentation of ownership of the reversionary rights of the vacation area. In its letter dated January 14'h 2011, the Conservancy stated that it is satisfied with the documents of ownership and reversionary rights provided by the applicant, and has no objection to the proposed vacation.

Reversionary Interest: No determinations of the underlying fee interest of the vacation areas has been made as to title or reversionary interest.

Dedications and Improvements: It will be necessary that the petitioner provide for the improvements as outlined in the conditions of this report.

Sewers and Storm Drains: There are no existing sewer facilities within the areas proposed to be vacated. There are, however, existing storm drain facilities within these areas.

Public Utilities: AT&T maintains facilities in the area to be vacated. The Department of Water and Power did not respond to the Bureau of Engineering's referral letter dated January 7, 2010.


Tract Map: Since the required dedications can be acquired by separate instruments and the necessary improvements can be constructed under separate permit processes, the requirement for the recordation of a new tract map could be waived. However, it will be necessary that the petitioner record an agreement satisfactory to the Bureau of Engineering to hold the adjoining parcel of land under one ownership and its adjoining portion of the area to be vacated, as one parcel to preclude the creation oflandlocked parcels. This is to remain effective until such time as a new subdivision map is recorded over the area, a parcel map exemption is permitted or until released by authority of the City of Los Angeles.

City Department of Transportation: The Department of Transportation in its communication dated April 2 2010, states that based on traffic considerations, the vacation is not opposed if all abutting property owners are in agreement with the proposed vacation. In addition, that through the requirements of a tract map or by other means, provisions are made for any necessary lot consolidation, driveway and access approval by DOT and any additional dedications and improvements necessary to bring all adjacent streets into conformance with the City's Standard Street Dimensions.

City Fire Department: The Fire Department did not respond to the Bureau of Engineering's referral letter dated January 7, 2010.

Department of City Plauning: The City Planning Department in its letter dated July 22, 2011, found the vacation to be in substantial conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the City's General Plan and the Hollywood Community Plan, an element of the General Plan. It also found the vacation to be in conformance with the Transportation element of the General Plan.

The City Planning Department found that vacating the respective portion of the unimproved segment of Laurel Canyon Boulevard would not adversely affect transportation patterns, would preserve the hillside topography , and would not impact future development, which is consistent with the goals and policies of the Hollywood Community Plan, the Transportation Element of the General Plan, and the Mulholland Scenic Parkway Specific Plan.

The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by the Plauuing Department for the street reclassification and street vacation for the proposed project found that pedestrian circulation may be reduced and there may be potentially significant impacts as a result of the street vacation; however, the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with the following mitigation measure:

"The City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering shall resurvey the unimproved portion of Laurel Canyon Boulevard, or use another appropriate method, in order to remedy and improve the limited pedestrian access along the improved segment of Laurel Canyon Boulevard."

Public Works Committee - 8- C. D. No.4

Conclusion: The vacation of the public street area as shown colored blue and orange and the slope and drainage easement shown hatched red on attached Exhibit" B" could be conditionally approved based upon the following:

1. They are unnecessary for present or prospective public use.

2. They are not needed for vehicular circulation or access.

3. They are not needed for nonmotorized transportation purposes.

The area shown colored orange should not be vacated because it is needed for public street purposes.

Report prepared by:

LAND DEVELOPMENT GROUP

Dale Williams Civil Engineer (213) 202-3491

EY/DW I

Respe fl ly s bmitted,

Edmond Yew,~ Land Development Group Bureau of Engineering

H:\LANDDEV\STREET VACATIONS\El401161-Laurel Canyon Blvd\E140116l.doc

'£ ...

INFORMATION ON THIS MAP

PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE

.... <!;) s<vv

\'I,

~"'

PT Q

M B i?0-59 ®

TR 4086 PT

LT A

M B 44-31

<D

@

TITLE: I..J""'\VI\l-L.. Vf>I'IIVI'II L.Jl....VL.J' ..JVVIIIL.....I\L-1 VI VYIL...I....VYY VL...L-1'11 1\Vr\U 1\1'111...1 r-A..-.-r-r- ...... 1'-" ,.....,- lA ,,......,...., ...... AO.I'\.f,.....O.! ,.....,,,,,.... AO.I ...... \lA ..... ,......,,.....,......,.-A>.! .....

WORK ORDER NO. VAC- E140 1161 COUNCIL FILE NO. 11-1011 COUNCIL DIST. 04 DIV. INDEX vvv~ • vv~ ENG. DIST. CENTRAL T.G. 592-J2 DISTRICT MAP ---'-1 5:::..:3::.._=:8:___:_1.:..:7 3=:__ ___ --1

[l) ~ fl2l1'" ~IF fl2l1Lll ~ !U[; W ~ IRl []{~ BUREAU OF ENGINEERING

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

VACATION AR£A

I EXHIBIT B Legend: Vacation boundary as shown • •---; -~

APPLICATION FORVACATION: OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ORIGJNAL- (No copies or faxes)

DATE: l~/Vf/ot . PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:

(1) .. · Ar~a prop~s~d to be vacated is~nimproved area of c~llector street and drainaqe e~sement (StreeVAvenue/Boulevard/e!ley/walk:N/SIBIWof) on applicantS property

and is located betWeen: · ' ' · Laurel Canyon Boulevard and· . Willow Glen Road · (Stieet, A:Vei)-Ue, BouJovard or ot~er limit) (Street, Av~nue, Boulr;:var.d or· Other'limit) Attach a m.ap ifnecessary. [See Exhibit A] . ·

(2) :the vacation area lies within or is shown on:

(3)

(a) · EOgineerlng District: .(ch~k appropriately)

(X) Central ( ) Harbor ( ) Valley ( ) West Los Angeles

(b) Co1J!1cil Dktnet No. _4_

(e) ))isirlqtMap.No. 153Bi73

(d) A CRA Redevelopment Area: -=;:;--OR--;;:;X;;;-:c-(YES) (NO) Roadway/Right of Way Easement .

. plus 23,j94 sq. ft. of slope & dralf1age Area: (in sq. ft.) ofth.e proposed·vacation area is approx. 13 434 sq~ ft. If ov~r easement 10,000 sq. ft. ofb)lildable area, the vacation is not categorlciilly. exempt from the. ·California Enviromnental·Quallty Act Guidelines imd will require a higher level of enVironmental review, C6nuict a.Vacatlon staff membertQ discuss the effect of !his on the processing of your application prior to submittal; If !he App!iC!Ult

. chooses .to. have an Environmental Detennin.11tion perfonned by the Bureau of Engjneering Enviromnental Group, the Applicant !'lust snbrnit a .separate letha acknowledging that !he envi<onmental review will add approximately $15-$30 thqusand to the cost of processing .th.e· va~atioil and· increaJ?e the processing time by·6 mo.nths. *cate9orica! exemption ~City 6eoA G~ldelines Art. 1p, C!a~S 5,3. [See Exhibit 8]

• lfth~ ~acation is located within a Coastal Development Zone1 prior approval from the California Coastal Commission will Qe r~quired before the vacation application can be submitted. 'The AppliCant should be aware that vaca:tions subject to the California CoastBI CommisSion will take -longer to process and will be Co~iderably more expensive. Since the .costs for vacations in the Coastal Development Zone· typically reach upwards of $30 thousand, the Applicant

· should be prepared to make a. supplemental fee deposit to cover additional costs after Bngir).eering-.Recotn.n;lenPations have b~n made so the vacation process 'can continue o~·io City Council withOut :iny de~ay. ·

.; Some city . .agencies, 1ncluding · LADOT; may ·require additional fees to be depOsited to .cover costs during the. referral and investigation proc~ss. The app!ic.ant iS responsible for pS.ying the ,fees to the agency directly. Referral fees paid to other city 8gencies are separate fro~ the Bureau of Engineering .processing·fees.

• .If the proposed v.Oetion is only for a portion of !he.Right·of-Way or. a partilll bl~ coirtaci: .a.=Vacation staffmemberpri.orto submitting applicatiop,.

(4) Pur:pose of vacation (future U.e of vacation area) is: Ciear title to the property as to. the vacated area.

(5) Vacation is in.conjnnetion with: ·(Check appropriately)

( ) Revocable Perm.it ( ) Tract Map ( ) Parcel Map. ( ) Zone Change (X) Other reclassify collector street to local street

(Page2)

PETITIONER/ APPLICANT:

(6) Petitioner(s): Anderson, McPharlin & Conners LLP on behalf of Jose Luis Nazar

(7) Mailing Address: 444 South Flower Street, 31st Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071-2901

. (Address, City~ Sbrte, ,Zip.Code)

(8) Daytime phone n1lmbe~ of petitioner is: (213 ) ~6:;:8;;;8--0;:;:.:::;0::;;8~0:',--~---FAXnumbor: · · · · . (213 ) -'-.6,2,2:..-7:.:5::.:9:.:4:._ ____ _

. E-hmll numbei:. [email protected]

(9) ·Petitioner is:. ( chbck appropriately). ( ) Owner OR . (x) Representative of Owner

OWNERSHIPS:·

(10) . Name(s) and address of the Owncr(s) applying for vacation is/are:

Jose Luis Nazar·

2400 Laurel Canyon BouJevarcj

Los Angeles, CA 90046 Print Name(s) and :Address ofOwner(s) in Full (If Owner is Petitioner, Indicate ~"Same as above")

Signature(s)

. (11) ·. P~titi?ner i;; owner or represCJ;~.tative of ~wner of: (che~k appropriately)

· ( Jj. The property descrlbecf in attached copy of Grant Deed OR. [See Exhibit C)

( )

. (Lo~ Tract No.) _(Parce), ParcerM?P L.A .. No.) (Other)

~JJ ! f.. 6\· " v '(i .1 n o I I (j J

DEPARTMENT OF CITY PlANNING ._:ITY OF LOS ANGE:LE~

200 N. SPRING STREET, ROOM S25 los ANGElES, CA 90012-4801

AND 6262 VAN NUYS BLVD., SUITE 351

VANNUYS,CA 91401

CITY PlANNING COMMISSION

WilliAM ROSO-IEN PRESIDENT

REGINA M. FREER VIa-PRESIDENT

SEAN 0. BURTON DIEGO CARDOSO

GEORGE HOVAGUIMIAN JUSTIN KIM

ROBERT LESSIN BARBARA ROMERO MJO-IAEl K WOO

JAMES WilliAMS COMMISSION EXEC1Jl1Vf. ASSIST ANT II

(213) 978-1300

June 23, 2011

Candace Ginn Hunsaker and Associates, LA, Inc. 26074 Avenue Hall, Suite 23 Valencia, CA 91355

Joel M. Kantor, Esq. Kantorlaw and Associates 1990 S. Bundy Drive, Suite 375 Los Angeles, CA 90025-5240

CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA MAYOR

Jose Luis Nazar Applicant 2400 N Laurel Canyon Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90046

RE: Reconsideration to ENV-2010-1682-ND; CPC-2010-1681-GPA 2400 N Laurel Canyon Blvd; Hollywood, 90046

Ms. Ginn,

EXECUTIVE OFFICES

MIGiAEl J. lOGRANOE DrREcrOR

(213) 978-1271

AlAN BELL, AICP DEPUTY DIRECTOR (213} 978-1272

EVA YUAN-MCDANIEL DEPUTY DIRECTOR (213) 978-1273

VAO\NT Da>UTV DIRECTOR (213) 978-1274

FAX: (213) 978-1275

INFORMATION www.planning.ladty.org

Pursuant to Section 15164 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the Department of City Planning has issued an Addendum (Reconsideration) of the previously issued Negative Declaration (ENV-2010-1682-ND) dated November 19, 2010, with the following project description:

"The proposed project is a General Plan Amendment to the Hollywood Community Plan and the Transportation Element of the General Plan to re-designate an unimproved portion of Laurel Canyon Boulevard. The unimproved portion lies easterly of the improved portion of Laurel Canyon Boulevard and southerly of Willow Glen Road, from a Collector Street, which requires a 64-ft. right-of-way and 2 travel lanes, to a Local Street".

This Negative Declaration originally supplemented CPC-2010-1681-GPA. On June 7, 2011 the City Council adopted the General Plan Amendment to the Hollywood Community Plan and the Transportation Element of the General Plan to re-designate and downgrade the portion of Laurel Canyon Boulevard. On June 15, 2011 the Department of City Planning received a request from Candace Ginn, of Hunsaker and Associates for the reconsideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration to include the vacation of the unimproved portion of the Laurel Canyon Boulevard right-of-way as well as the slope and open drainage easement in conjunction with said right-of-way. This request is currently before the Board of Public Works.

Reconsideration of ENV-2010-1682-ND ATTN: Candace Ginn Page 2 of2

The Neighborhood Projects Section of the Department of City Planning has determined the new project description results in a potentially significant impact unless mitigation measures are incorporated. Therefore, recirculation and republication of ENV-2010-1682-ND is required.

Sincerely,

Michael LoGrande Director Department of City Planning

Blake Lamb, AICP City Planner

CITY OF LOS ANGELES I

OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ROOM 395, CITY HALL

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

I

PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

LEAD CITY AGENCY 1 COUNCIL DISTRICT City of Los Angeles 4

PROJECT TITLE CASE NO. ENV-2010-1682-MND-REC1 CPC-2010-1681-GPA

PROJECT LOCATION I

The proposed project lies in the Hollywood Community Plan area, and consists of an unimproved segment of Laurel Canyon Boulevard located easterly of the improved Laurel Canyon Boulevard and southerly of Willow Glen Road.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a General Plan Amendment to the Hollywood Community Plan and the Transporlation Element of the General Plan to re-designate and downgrade an unimproved porlion of Laurel Canyon Boulevard. The unimproved portion lies easterly of the improved portion of Laurel Canyon Boulevard and southerly of Willow Glen Road, from a Collector Street, which requires a 64 foot I

right-of-way and two travel lanes, to a Local Street. The project also includes a request for the vacation of the referenced unimproved street segment as well as the slope and open drainage easement in conjunction with said right-of-way.

NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT IF OTHER THAN CITY AGENCY HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES (CANDACE GINN)

FINDING: The City Planning Department of the City of Los Angeles has Proposed that a mitigated negative declaration be adopted for this project because the mitigation measure(s) outlined on the attached page(s) will reduce any potential significant adverse effects to a level of insignificance

(CONTINUED ON PAGE 2)

SEE ATTACHED SHEET(S) FOR ANY MITIGATION MEASURES IMPOSED.

Any written comments received during the public review period are attached together with the response of the Lead City Agency. The project decision-make may adopt the mitigated negative declariation, amend it, or require preparation of an EIR. Any changes made should be supported by substantial evidence in the record and appropriate findings made.

THE INITIAL STUDY PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT IS ATTACHED.

· NAME OF PERSON PREPARING THIS FORM TITLE TELEPHONE NUMBER

BLAKE LAMB City Planner (213) 978-1167

ADDRESS SIGNATURE (Official) DATE I

200 N. SPRING STREET, 7th FLOOR ~~ I ~f:J!:,jl\

. LOS ANGELES, CA. 90012

ENV-2010-1682-MND-REC1 Page 1 of28

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DEClARATION ENV-2010-1682-MND-REC1

XIV-90. Public Services • The project will result in impacts to public services. However, the impact can be reduced to a less than significant

level though compliance with the following measure(s): • The City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, shall resurvey the unimproved portion

of Laurel Canyon Boulevard, or use another appropriate measure, in order to remedy and improve the limited pedestrian access along the improved segment of Laurel Canyon Boulevard.


LEAD CITY AGENCY: City of Los Angeles

CITY OF LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK

ROOM 395, CITY HALL LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

INITIAL STUDY and CHECKLIST

(CEQA Guidelines Section 15063)

I~OUNCIL DISTRICT: CD 4 -TOM LABONGE

RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: Department of City Planning

ENVIRONMENTAL CASE: RELATED CASES: ENV-201 0-1682-MND-REC1 CPC-2010-1681-GPA

DATE: 06/23/2011

PREVIOUS ACTIONS CASE NO.: ..,- Does have significant changes from previous actions.

D Does NOT have significant changes from previous actions

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO DOWNGRADE FROM COLLECTOR TO LOCAL STREET.

ENV PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is a General Plan Amendment to the Hollywood Community Plan and the Transportation Element of the General

· Plan to re-designate and downgrade an unimproved portion of Laurel Canyon Boulevard. The unimproved portion lies easterly of the improved portion of Laurel Canyon Boulevard and southerly of Willow Glen Road, from a Collector Street, which requires a 64 foot right-of-way and two travel lanes, to a Local Street. The project also includes a request for the vacation of the referenced unimproved street segment as well as the slope and open drainage easement in conjunction with said right-of-way.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS: The proposed street re-designation is in the Hollywood Community Plan area. The portion of the proposed project along Laurel Canyon Boulevard is an unimproved right-of-way that is approximately 0.05 miles in length and located easterly of the improved portion of Laurel Canyon Boulevard and southerly of Willow Glen Road. Land parcels with residential use designations comprise the properties along the segment for which re-designation is proposed.

PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed project lies in the Hollywood Community Plan area, and consists of an unimproved segment of Laurel Canyon Boulevard located easterly of the improved Laurel Canyon Boulevard and southerly of Willow Glen Road.

COMMUNITY PLAN AREA: AREA PLANNING COMMISSION: CERTIFIED NEIGHBORHOOD HOLLYWOOD SOUTH VALLEY COUNCIL: STATUS: HOLLYWOOD HILLS WEST

D Does Conform to Plan

v Does NOT Conform to Plan

EXISTING ZONING: MAX. DENSITYIINTENSITY

VARIOUS ALLOWED BY ZONING: VARIOUS

MAX. DENSITY/INTENSITY LA River Adjacent: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: ALLOWED BY PLAN NO MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION:

VARIOUS

PROPOSED PROJECT DENSITY: II

'

'

I I


Determination (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:

D · I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

y I find that atthough the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions on the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

D I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

D I find 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 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.

D 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.

City Planner (213) 978-1167

Signature Title Phone

Evaluation Of Environmental Impacts: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information

sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less that significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of a mitigation measure has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR, or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c. M~igation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant w~h Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.


6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A sources list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

B. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

ENV -201 0-1682-MND-REC 1 Page 5 of28

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.

0 AESTHETICS 0 GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

0 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST 0 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS RESOURCES MATERIALS

D AIR QUALITY 0 HYDROLOGY AND WATER

0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES QUALITY

0 CULTURAL RESOURCES 0 LAND USE AND PLANNING

D GEOLOGY AND SOILS 0 MINERAL RESOURCES

0 NOISE

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST (TobecompletedbytheleadcityAsencvl

Background

PROPONENT NAME:

HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES (CANDACE GINN)

APPLICANT ADDRESS:

AGENCY REQUIRING CHECKLIST:

Department of City Planning

PROPOSAL NAME (if Applicable):

STREET DOWNGRADE

0 POPULATION AND HOUSING

¥"' PUBLIC SERVICES

0 RECREATION

D TRANSPORTATIONrrRAFFIC

D UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

D MANDA TORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

PHONE NUMBER:

(661) 705-2236

DATE SUBMITTED:

06/23/2011

I


>otentially I significant Potentially unless Less than significant mitigation significant

impact incorporated impact No impact

I. AESTHETICS

Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? v b Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, J

rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its y surroundings?

' 'd. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect v day or nighttime views in the area?

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES

a. Convert Prime Fannland, Unique Fannland, or Fannland of Statewide v Importance (Fannland}, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Fannland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?

b. Conftict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? v c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined v

in Public Resources Code section 12220(g}}, timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526}, or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g}}? ro· ;, .. ""'m-''"' ~w·~-~.-.... ~""'-_, v

lve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location v ature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or version of forest land to non~forest use?

Ill. AIR QUALITY

Conflict with or obstnuct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? v Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or v projected air quality violation?

Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for v which the project region 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? v e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? v IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat v modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive v natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined v ' by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, i vernal pool, coastal, etc.} through direct removal, filling, hydrological i interruption, or other means?

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory v fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife conridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, v such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural v Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

• V. CULTURAL RESOURCES


?otentially significant

Potentially unless Less than significant mitigation significant


a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical ., resource as defined in§ 15064.5?

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological ·' I resource pursuant to§ 15064.5?

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or v unique geologic feature?

d. 1 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal ' v

' cemeteries?

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS I

a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including v I the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 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.

b. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including v the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic ground shaking?

. c. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including ., the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

e or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including v loss, injury, or death involving: Landslides?

Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? v Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become v unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

g. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Unifonn v Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

h. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or v alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

• GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

, Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may v have a significant impact on the environment?

b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose v of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

· ~cant hazard to the public or the environment through the v rt, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through v 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 v materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites v compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan v 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 v ! a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? I

' g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency v i response plan or emergency evacuation plan? . -


?otentially ;

significant i Potentially unless Less than I significant mitigation significant


h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death y involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized

. areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY I

Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? y b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with y

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 preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including y ' 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 y through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing y or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional

• sources of polluted runoff?

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? y Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal y Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

Place within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or y redirect flood flows?

Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death y 1 involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or I 1

dam?

j. ' Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? y ~ LAND USE AND PLANNING

Physically divide an established community? y b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency y

with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the i

purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community y conservation plan?

NERAL RESOURCES

in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of y the region and the residents of the state?

b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource y recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

XII. NOISE

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

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or I y groundbome noise levels?

c. A substantial pennanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project y vicinity above levels existing without the project?

substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the y ject vicinity above levels existing without the project?

ENV-2010-1682-MND-RECI Page 9 of28

>otentially significant



e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan v 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 ex v people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING

a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, v 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 v construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the canst v replacement housing elsewhere?

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES

a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated v with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection?

b. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated v · with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which i could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Police protection?

c. · Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated v 'with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other perfonnance objectives for any of the public services: Schools?

d. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated v with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Parks?

e. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated v with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Other public facilites?

X\ • RECREATION

a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional v 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 v expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

X\ I. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

Ia. i Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account

v all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel

, and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to . i:ntersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,

' and mass transit? ---


~otentially significant



b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but

""" not limited to level of seiVice standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic v levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

y increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or v dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Result in inadequate emergency access? v Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, v bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

XVII. UTIUTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

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

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

c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or v expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

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

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

f. 1 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the v project's solid waste disposal needs?

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

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, v 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 I

periods of California history or prehistory?

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively v 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)? I c. I ~oes the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial . v adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083,21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4, Gov. Code; Sections 21080, 21083.05, 21095, Pub. Resources Code; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cai.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cai.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 1 02 Cai.App.4th 656.

ENV -201 0-1682-MND-REC I Page 11 of28

I

I

! I

I

DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Attach additional sheets it necessary)

The Environmental Impact Assessment includes the use of official City of Los Angeles and other government source reference materials related to various environmental impact categories (e.g., Hydrology, Air Quality, Biology, Cultural Resources, etc.). The State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology- Seismic Hazard Maps and reports, are used to identify potential future significant seismic events; including probable magnitudes, liquefaction, and landslide hazards. Based on applicant information provided in the Master Land Use Application and Environmental Assessment Form, impact evaluations were based on stated facts contained therein, including but not limited to, reference materials indicated above, field investigation of the project stte, and any other reliable reference materials known at the time.

Project specific impacts were evaluated based on all relevant facts indicated in the Environmental Assessment Form and expressed through the applicant's project description and supportive materials. Both the Initial Study Checklist and Checklist Explanations, in conjunction with the City of Los Angeles's Adopted Thresholds Guide and CEQA Guidelines, were used to reach reasonable conclusions on environmental impacts as mandated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The project as identified in the project description may cause potentially significant impacts on the environment without mitigation. Therefore, this environmental analysis concludes that a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be issued to avoid and mitigate all potential adverse impacts on the environment by the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions contained and expressed in this document; the environmental case file known asENV-2010-1682-MND-REC1 and the associated case(s), CPC-2010-1681-GPA . Finally, based on the fact that these impacts can be feasibly mitigated to less than significant, and based on the findings and thresholds for Mandatory Findings of Significance as described in the California Environmental Quality Act, section 15065, the overall project impact(s) on the environment (after mitigation) will not:

• Substantially degrade environmental quality. • Substantially reduce fish or wildlife habitat. • Cause a fish or wildlife habitat to drop below self sustaining levels. • Threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. • Reduce number, or restrict range of a rare, threatened, or endangered species. • Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. • Achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. • Result in environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. • Result in environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: All supporting documents and references are contained in the Environmental Case File referenced above and may be viewed in the EIR Unit, Room 763, City Hall. For Citv information, addresses and phone numbers· visit the City's website at http://www.lacity.org ; City Planning- and Zoning Information Mapping Automated System (ZIMAS) cityplanning.lacity.org/ or EIR Unit, City Hall, 200 N Spring Street, Room 763. Seismic Hazard Maps - http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/ Engineering/Infrastructure/Topographic Maps/Parcel Information- http://boemaps.eng.ci.la.ca.us/index01.htm or City's main website under the heading "Navigate LA".

PREPARED BY: TITLE: TELEPHONE NO.: DATE:

BLAKE LAMB City Planner (213) 978-1167 06/23/2011


Impact? Explanation

APPENDIX A: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS EXPLANATION TABLE

I. AESTHETICS

a. NO IMPACT THIS PROJECT HAS NO ADVERSE EFFECTS ON A SCENIC VISTA. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN A FULLY URBANIZED PART OF THE CITY AND THERE ARE NO SCENIC VISTAS WHICH WILL BE IMPACTED. SCENIC VISTAS ARE GENERALLY DEFINED AS PANORAMIC PUBLIC VIEWS TO NATURAL FEATURES, INCLUDING VIEWS OF THE OCEAN, STRIKING OR UNUSUAL NATURAL TERRAIN, OR UNIQUE URBAN OR HISTORIC FEATURES. WHILE THE STREET IS LOCATED CLOSE TO DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES, THERE ARE NO SCENIC VIEWS OF DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES, THE VIEW IS NOT PANORAMIC, AND THE VIEW AT -LARGE WILL NOT BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.

b. NO IMPACT THE PROJECT AREA DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY HIGHWAY OR PARKWAY THAT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS "SCENIC," AND THEREFORE NO SCENIC RESOURCES WITHIN THIS CATEGORY CAN BE DAMAGED.

c. NO IMPACT THE PROJECT DOES NOT CONTAIN A DISTINCT PHYSICAL LANDFORM OR UNIQUE NATURAL LANDSCAPE FEATURES. THE PROPERTIES ABUTTING THE SUBJECT STREET SEGMENT ARE RESIDENTIALLY DESIGNATED AND THE EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA WILL NOT BE CHANGED NEGATIVELY BY THIS PROJECT. THERE WILL BE NO NEW SOURCE OF SUBSTANTIAL LIGHT OR GLARE CREATED BY THIS PROJECT.

d. NO IMPACT THE PROJECT DOES NOT CONTAIN A DISTINCT PHYSICAL LANDFORM OR UNIQUE NATURAL LANDSCAPE FEATURES. THE PROPERTIES ABUTTING THE SUBJECT STREET SEGMENT ARE RESIDENTIALLY DESIGNATED AND THE EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA WILL NOT BE CHANGED NEGATIVELY BY THIS PROJECT. THERE WILL BE NO NEW SOURCE OF SUBSTANTIAL

ENV-2010-1682-MND-REC1

Mitigation Measures

Page 13 of28

Impact? Explanation

I I~IGHT OR GLARE CREATED BY THIS I PROJECT.

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES

a. NO IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY FARMLAND OR AGRICULTURAL LAND.

b. NO IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS LOCATED IN A FULLY URBANIZED PART OF THE CITY AND THERE IS NO EXISTING ZONING FOR AGRICULTURAL USES IN THE PROJECT AREA.

c. NO IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS LOCATED IN A FULLY URBANIZED PART OF THE CITY AND THERE IS NO EXISTING ZONING FOR AGRICULTURAL USES IN THE PROJECT AREA.

d. NO IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS LOCATED IN A FULLY URBANIZED PART OF THE CITY AND THERE IS NO EXISTING ZONING FOR AGRICULTURAL USES IN THE PROJECT AREA.

e. NO IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS LOCATED IN A FULLY URBANIZED PART OF THE CITY AND THERE IS NO EXISTING ZONING FOR AGRICULTURAL USES IN THE PROJECT AREA.

Ill. AIR QUALITY

a. NO IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCAQMD OR CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN. ANY INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL IS SUBJECT TO PROJECT -SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, WHEN APPROPRIATE.

b. NO IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT VIOLATE ANY AIR QUALITY STANDARD OR CONTRIBUTE SUBSTANTIALLY TO AN EXISTING OR PROJECTED AIR QUALITY VIOLATION. AS SUCH, THERE WILL BE NO IDLING OF AUTOMOBILES IN THE PROJECT AREA WHICH WOULD WORSEN AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS. THUS, THERE ARE NO AIR QUALITY VIOLATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS STREET RE-DESIGNATION.


Mitigation Measures

Page 14 of28

Impact?

c. NO IMPACT

d. NO IMPACT

e. NO IMPACT

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

a. NO IMPACT

b. NO IMPACT

c. NO IMPACT

d. NO IMPACT

e. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT


Explanation

THERE WILL BE NO CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE NET INCREASE OF ANY CRITERIA POLLUTANT FOR WHICH THE AIR BASIN IS IN NON-ATTAINMENT.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT EXPOSE ANY SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS, NOR WILL ANY ODORS BE CREATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT EXPOSE ANY SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS, NOR WILL ANY ODORS BE CREATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS LOCATED IN A FULLY URBANIZED AREA OF THE CITY. THERE WILL BE NO CHANGES IN CONDITIONS THAT COULD YIELD AN INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO ANY SPECIES IDENTIFIED AS A CANDIDATE, SENSITIVE, OR SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES.

THERE ARE NO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, INCLUDING RIPARIAN HABITAT OR OTHER SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITY, FEDERALLY PROTECTED WETLANDS, NATIVE RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY FISH/WILDLIFE SPECIES WHICH WILL BE IMPACTED.

THERE ARE NO FEDERALLY PROTECTED WETLANDS IN THE PROJECT AREA. THERE WILL BE NO DIRECT REMOVAL FILLING, OR HYDROLOGICAL INTERRUPTION TO ANY RESOURCE AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.

THERE ARE NO KNOWN LOCAL POLICIES, HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS, OR ORDINANCES PROTECTING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA.


Mitigation Measures

Page 15 of28

Impact?

f. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES

a. NO IMPACT

b. NO IMPACT

c. NO IMPACT

d. NO IMPACT

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

a. NO IMPACT


Explanation


THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CAUSE AN ADVERSE CHANGE IN SIGNIFICANCE OF A HISTORICAL RESOURCE AS DEFINED IN STATE CEQA 15064.5. THERE ARE NO HISTORICAL RESOURCES AS DEFINED BY THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, THE CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES, OR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES HISTORIC CULTURAL MONUMENT, OR A CITY OF LOS ANGELES HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY ZONE.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CAUSE AN ADVERSE CHANGE IN SIGNIFICANCE OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE, PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE, SITE, OR UNIQUE GEOLOGIC FEATURE, OR ANY HUMAN REMAINS.



THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN AND OF ITSELF WILL NOT POSE ANY RISKS OF HUMAN INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE DUE TO POTENTIAL REGIONAL EARTHQUAKES. AS IS COMMON IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION, THERE WILL BE CONTINUED RISKS OF HUMAN INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL REGIONAL EARTHQUAKES, BUT NONE POSED SPECIFICALLY BY THE PROPOSED

Mitigation Measures

Page 16 of28

Impact?

b. NO IMPACT

c. NO IMPACT


Explanation

PROJECT. NO ALQUIST-PRIOLO SPECIAL STUDY ZONE AREAS, DESIGNATED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA. WI-IILE GENERALLY THE POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR GEOLOGIC HAZARDS DUE TO GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA, THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT PROPOSES NO CHANGES THAT WOULD ALTER THESE CONDITIONS.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN AND OF ITSELF WILL NOT POSE ANY RISKS OF HUMAN INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE DUE TO POTENTIAL REGIONAL EARTHQUAKES. AS IS COMMON IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION, THERE WILL BE CONTINUED RISKS OF HUMAN INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL REGIONAL EARTHQUAKES, BUT NONE POSED SPECIFICALLY BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. NO ALQUIST-PRIOLO SPECIAL STUDY ZONE AREAS, DESIGNATED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA. WHILE GENERALLY THE POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR GEOLOGIC HAZARDS DUE TO GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA, THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT PROPOSES NO CHANGES THAT WOULD ALTER THESE CONDITIONS.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN AND OF ITSELF WILL NOT POSE ANY RISKS OF HUMAN INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE DUE TO POTENTIAL REGIONAL EARTHQUAKES. AS IS COMMON IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION, THERE WILL BE CONTINUED RISKS OF HUMAN INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL REGIONAL EARTHQUAKES, BUT NONE POSED SPECIFICALLY BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. NO ALQUIST-PRIOLO SPECIAL STUDY ZONE AREAS, DESIGNATED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA. WHILE GENERALLY THE POTENTIAL EXISTS

Mitigation Measures

Page 17 of28

Impact?

d. NO IMPACT

e. NO IMPACT

f. NO IMPACT

g. NO IMPACT

h. NO IMPACT

VII. GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSIONS


Explanation

FOR GEOLOGIC HAZARDS DUE TO GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA, THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT PROPOSES NO CHANGES THAT WOULD ALTER THESE CONDITIONS.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN AND OF ITSELF WILL NOT POSE ANY RISKS OF HUMAN INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE DUE TO A POTENTIAL REGIONAL LANDSLIDE. AS IS COMMON IN HILLSIDE AREAS, THERE WILL BE CONTINUED RISKS OF HUMAN INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL LANDSLIDES, BUT NONE POSED SPECIFICALLY BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.

THE PROJECT SITE IS NOT IN A STATE DESIGNATED LIQUEFACTION AREA. THE PROJECT AREA IS AN URBANIZED AREA AND THE MAJORITY OF THE LAND IS DEVELOPED, THEREFORE THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL SOIL EROSION OR LOSS OF TOPSOIL. THE PROJECT IS NOT LOCATED ON A GEOLOGIC UNIT OR UNSTABLE SOIL.

THE POTENTIAL EXISTS FOR GEOLOGIC HAZARDS DUE TO UNSTABLE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA, THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT PROPOSES NO CHANGES THAT WOULD ALTER THESE CONDITIONS. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN ON-OR OFF-SITE LANDSLIDE, LATERAL SPREADING, SUBSIDENCE, LIQUIFACTION OR COLLAPSE.

THE PROJECT SITE IS NOT LOCATED ON EXPANSIVE SOIL. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CREATE SUBSTANTIAL RISKS TO LIFE OR PROPERTY.

THE PROJECT SITE HAS ACCESS TO SEWERS AND WASTEWATER DISPOSAL. HOWEVER, THE PROJECT DOES NOT INVOLVE THE USES OF SEPTIC TANKS OR ALTERNATIVE WASTE WATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS.

Mitigation Measures

Page 18 of28

Impact? Explanation

a. NO IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CAUSE AN ADVERSE CHANGE IN SIGNIFICANCE OF GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

b. NO IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CAUSE AN ADVERSE CHANGE IN SIGNIFICANCE OF GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

a. NO IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN THE ROUTINE TRANSPORT, USE, PRODUCTION, OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC OR THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH ACCIDENT CONDITIONS INVOLVING THE RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT.

b. NO IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN THE ROUTINE TRANSPORT, USE, PRODUCTION, OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC OR THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH ACCIDENT CONDITIONS INVOLVING THE RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT.

c. NO IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT BE LOCATED IN AN AREA WHICH IS INCLUDED ON A LIST OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES ..

d. NO IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT BE LOCATED IN AN AREA WHICH IS INCLUDED ON A LIST OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES.

e. NO IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN AN AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN, OR WITHIN TWO MILES OF A PUBLIC AIRPORT OR PUBLIC USE AIRPORT, OR WITHIN THE VICINITY OF A PRIVATE AIRSTRIP.

f. NO IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN AN AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN, OR WITHIN TWO MILES OF A PUBLIC AIRPORT OR PUBLIC USE AIRPORT, OR WITHIN THE VICINITY OF A PRIVATE AIRSTRIP.


Mitigation Measures

Page 19 of28

Impact?

g. NO IMPACT

h. NO IMPACT

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

a. NO IMPACT

b. NO IMPACT

c. NO IMPACT


Explanation

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT IMPAIR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF OR PHYSICALLY INTERFERE WITH AN ADOPTED EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN OR EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLAN.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT BE LOCATED IN AN AREA WHICH IS INCLUDED ON A LIST OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN AN AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN, OR WITHIN TWO MILES OF A PUBLIC AIRPORT OR PUBLIC USE AIRPORT, OR WITHIN THE VICINITY OF A PRIVATE AIRSTRIP. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT IMPAIR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF OR PHYSICALLY INTERFERE WITH AN ADOPTED EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN OR EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLAN. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BE LOCATED IN A FULLY URBANIZED AREA AND WILL NOT EXPOSE PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO WILDLAND FIRES.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT VIOLATE ANY WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS. SINCE THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS A STREET RE-DESIGNATION, THERE WILL BE NO ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT OR PEOPLE RESIDING IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA AND THUS THERE WILL BE NO WASTE DISCHARGE OR WATER QUALITY CONCERNS.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT ON GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES OR RECHARGE. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DEPLETE GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES OR INTERFERE WITH GROUNDWATER RECHARGE.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT VIOLATE ANY WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS. SINCE THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS A STREET RE-DESIGNATION, THERE WILL BE NO ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT OR PEOPLE RESIDING IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA AND THUS THERE WILL BE NO WASTE DISCHARGE OR

Mitigation Measures

Page 20 of28

Impact?

d. NO IMPACT

e. NO IMPACT

f. NO IMPACT

g. NO IMPACT


Ex lanation

WATER QUALITY CONCERNS. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT ON GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES OR RECHARGE. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DEPLETE GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES OR INTERFERE WITH GROUNDWATER RECHARGE.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT VIOLATE ANY WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS. SINCE THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS A STREET RE-DESIGNATION, THERE WILL BE NO ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT OR PEOPLE RESIDING IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA AND THUS THERE WILL BE NO WASTE DISCHARGE OR WATER QUALITY CONCERNS. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT ON GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES OR RECHARGE. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DEPLETE GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES OR INTERFERE WITH GROUNDWATER RECHARGE.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CREATE OR CONTRIBUTE RUNOFF WATER. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE WATER QUALITY. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT LOCATED IN A 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN AS MAPPED ON FEDERAL FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY OR FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP OR THE FLOOD HAZARD DELINEATION MAP. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT PLACE WITHIN A ONE HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLAIN STRUCTURES WHICH WOULD IMPEDE OR REDIRECT FLOWS.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CREATE OR CONTRIBUTE RUNOFF WATER. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE WATER QUALITY.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT LOCATED IN A 100- YEAR FLOOD PLAIN AS MAPPED ON FEDERAL FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY OR FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP OR THE FLOOD HAZARD DELINEATION MAP.

Mitigation Measures

Page 21 of28

Impact?

h. NO IMPACT

i. NO IMPACT

j. NO IMPACT

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING

a. NO IMPACT

b. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT


Explanation

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT PLACE WITHIN A ONE HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLAIN STRUCTURES WHICH WOULD IMPEDE OR REDIRECT FLOWS.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT NEAR A LEVEE OR DAM, AND THUS WOULD NOT THREATEN TO 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.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS APPROXIMATELY 10 MILES FROM THE PACIFIC OCEAN. IMPACTS DUE TO SEISMIC-RELATED TIDAL PHENOMENA ARE NOT OF CONCERN AT SUCH A DISTANCE FROM THE COASTLINE AND AT SUCH ELEVATIONS ABOVE SEA LEVEL. THUS, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CAUSE INUNDATION BY SEICHE, TSUNAMI, OR MUDFLOW.

THIS SEGMENT OF LAUREL CANYON BOULEVARD IS A PAPER STREET. IT IS NOT IMPROVED AS A PART OF THE CURRENT CIRCULATORY SYSTEM FOR THE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE OR GOODS. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL RE-DESIGNATE AN UNIMPROVED STREET AND THEREFORE WILL NOT INTRODUCE ANY NEW PHYSICAL DIVISIONS TO A COMMUNITY.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES OR REGULATIONS OF AN AGENCY WITH JURISDICTION OVER THE PROJECT, AND WILL NOT HAVE AN EFFECT ON A MITIGATION MEASURE ADOPTED AS PART OF A LAND USE PLAN'S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. THIS SEGMENT OF LAUREL CANYON BOULEVARD IS A PAPER STREET. IT IS NOT IMPROVED AS A PART OF THE CURRENT CIRCULATORY SYSTEM FOR THE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE OR GOODS.

Mitigation Measures

Page 22 of28

Impact?

c. NO IMPACT

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES

a. NO IMPACT

b. NO IMPACT

XII. NOISE

a. NO IMPACT

b. NO IMPACT

c. NO IMPACT

d. NO IMPACT

e. NO IMPACT

ENV-2010-1682-MND-RECl

Explanation

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY APPLICABLE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN OR NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN.

THE PROJECT SITE DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY KNOWN MINERAL RESOURCE AND THE PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN THE LOSS OF AVAILABILITY OF A KNOWN MINERAL RESOURCE.

THE PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN THE LOSS OF AVAILABILITY OF A LOCALLY-IMPORTANT MINERAL RESOURCE RECOVERY SITE.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN THE EXPOSURE OF PERSONS TO OR GENERATION OF NOISE LEVELS IN EXCESS OF STANDARD LEVELS. THERE WILL BE NO IMPACTS ON ANY NOISE LEVELS AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN THE EXPOSURE OF PEOPLE TO OR GENERATION OF EXCESSIVE GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION OR GROUNDBORNE NOISE. THERE WILL BE NO IMPACTS ON ANY NOISE LEVELS AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT.

A SUBSTANTIAL PERMANENT INCREASE IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ABOVE LEVELS EXISTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT WILL NOT OCCUR. THERE WILL BE NO IMPACTS ON ANY NOISE LEVELS AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT.

A SUBSTANTIAL TEMPORARY OR PERIODIC INCREASE IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ABOVE LEVELS EXISTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT WILL NOT OCCUR. THERE WILL BE NO IMPACTS ON ANY NOISE LEVELS AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT.

THE PROJECT IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN AN AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN OR IN THE VICINITY OF A PRIVATE AIRSTRIP. THERE WILL BE NO IMPACTS ON ANY NOISE LEVELS AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT.

Mitigation Measures

Page 23 of28

Impact?

f. NO IMPACT

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING

a. NO IMPACT

b. NO IMPACT

c. NO IMPACT


Explanation

THE PROJECT IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN AN AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN OR IN THE VICINITY OF A PRIVATE AIRSTRIP. THERE WILL BE NO IMPACTS ON ANY NOISE LEVELS AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT AFFECT POPULATION GROWTH IN THE AREA EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT INCREASE RESIDENT POPULATION IN THE AREA. THE PROPOSED PROJECT REPRESENTS A REDESIGNATION OF AN EXISTING UNIMPROVED, PAPER STREET, IT DOES NOT EXTEND A ROAD INTO A NEW AREA, THUS IT WILL NOT INDUCE SUBSTANTIAL POPULATION GROWTH IN AN AREA WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD NOT HAVE EXPERIENCED GROWTH. THIS AREA IS LOCATED IN THE URBAN CORE AND POPULATION GROWTH WOULD ALREADY OCCUR WITHOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS STREET RE-DESIGNATION, AS THE GENERAL PLAN ALREADY HAS INCORPORATED PLANNED INCREASES IN POPULATION.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT DISPLACE SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS OF EXISTING HOUSING UNITS NECESSITATING THE CONSTRUCTION OF REPLACEMENT HOUSING ELSEWHERE. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT DISPLACE ANY PEOPLE OR EXISTING HOUSING UNITS AS A RESULT OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION. ANY DISPLACEMENT THAT OCCURS IN THE AREA SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BE EVALUATED IN PROJECT-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS AS APPROPRIATE.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT DISPLACE ANY PEOPLE OR EXISTING HOUSING UNITS AS A RESULT OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION. ANY DISPLACEMENT THAT OCCURS IN THE AREA SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BE EVALUATED IN PROJECT-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS AS APPROPRIATE.

Mitigation Measures

Page 24 of28

Impact?

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES

a. NO IMPACT

b. NO IMPACT

c. NO IMPACT

d. NO IMPACT

e. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED

XV. RECREATION

a. NO IMPACT

b. NO IMPACT


Explanation

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT LOCATE FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES GREATER THAN THE MAXIMUM RESPONSE DISTANCES.

THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC DESIGN FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT THAT WOULD AFFECT THE DEMAND FOR PUBLIC SERVICES SUCH AS POLICE PROTECTION.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN AN INCREASED POPULATION RESIDING IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA AND WILL THUS NOT AFFECT THE NEED FOR INCREASED SCHOOLS OR PARKS.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN AN INCREASED POPULATION RESIDING IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA AND WILL THUS NOT AFFECT THE NEED FOR INCREASED SCHOOLS OR PARKS.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY RESULT IN NEW OR PHYSICALLY ALTERED GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION MAY BE REDUCED AND THERE MAY BE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE VACATION OF THE STREET SEGMENT. THUS THERE MAY BE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROVISION OF SUCH FACILITIES.

THE PROJECT DOES NOT AFFECT OR INCLUDE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. THERE IS NO NET POPULATION INCREASE RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND THERE ARE NO FEATURES THAT WOULD INCREASE OR REDUCE THE DEMAND FOR RECREATION AND PARK SERVICES.

THE PROJECT DOES NOT AFFECT OR INCLUDE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. THERE IS NO NET POPULATION INCREASE RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND THERE ARE NO FEATURES THAT WOULD INCREASE OR REDUCE THE DEMAND FOR RECREATION AND PARK SERVICES.

XIV-90

Mitigation Measures

Page 25 of28

Impact?

XVI. TRANSPORTATIONfTRAFFIC

a. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

b. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

c. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

d. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

e. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

f. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

a. NO IMPACT

b. NO IMPACT


Explanation

THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS AN UNIMPROVED STREET SO WILL NOT CAUSE AN INCREASE IN TRAFFIC WHICH IS SUBSTANTIAL IN RELATION TO THE EXISTING TRAFFIC , LOAD AND CAPACITY OF THE STREET SYSTEM.

SINCE THE PROPOSED PROJECT INVOLVES AN UNIMPROVED STREET, THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CAUSE A LEVEL OF TRAFFIC TO EXCEED A LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY THE COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY DESIGNATED FOR ROADS AND HIGHWAYS.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN A CHANGE IN AIR STRAFFIC PATTERNS, AND WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE HAZARDS TO A DESIGN FEATURE OR INCOMPATIBLE USES.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT, THE STREET RE-DESIGNATION OF AN UNIMPROVED STREET, WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE HAZARDS TO A DESIGN FEATURE OR INCOMPATIBLE USES.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN INADEQUATE EMERGENCY ACCESS SINCE THE STREET IS AN UNIMPROVED STREET THAT IS NOT A PART OF THE CURRENT TRANSPORTAl ON CIRCULATION SYSTEM.

THERE-DESIGNATION WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH ADOPTED POLICIES, PLANS OR PROGRAMS SUPPORTING ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT EXCEED WASTEWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WATER OR WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES SINCE THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CAUSE THE COMMUNITY PLAN AREA TO EXCEED THE PROJECTED GROWTH IN

Mitigation Measures

Page 26 of28

Impact? Explanation

POPULATION, HOUSING, OR EMPLOYMENT.

c. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STORM WATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES OR EXPANSION OF EXISTING FACILITIES SINCE THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CAUSE THE COMMUNITY PLAN AREA TO EXCEED THE PROJECTED GROWTH IN POPULATION, HOUSING, OR EMPLOYMENT.

d. NO IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE AN EFFECT ON WATER SUPPLIES SINCE THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT CAUSE THE COMMUNITY PLAN AREA TO EXCEED THE PROJECTED GROWTH IN POPULATION, HOUSING, OR EMPLOYMENT.

e. NO IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE AN EFFECT ON WATER SUPPLIES. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT AFFECT WASTEWATER TREATMENT.

f. NO IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE ANY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL NEEDS OR GENERATE ANY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ITSELF.

g. NO IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE ANY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL NEEDS OR GENERATE ANY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ITSELF. THEREFORE, THE PROJECT WILL NOT TRIGGER ANY COMPLIANCE REVIEW.

XVIII. MANDA TORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a. NO IMPACT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE FISH OR WILDLIFE HABITAT, 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.

ENV-2010-1682-MND-RECI

Mitigation Measures

Page 27 of28

Impact?

b. NO IMPACT

c. NO IMPACT


Explanation

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE AN IMPACT WHICH IS INDIVIDUALLY LIMITED BUT CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE. THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO OTHER PROPOSED PROJECTS IN THE VICINITY THAT WOULD HAVE SIMILAR EFFECTS AS THE SUBJECT PROJECT. DESIGNATIONS FOR NEIGHBORING STREETS HAVE BEEN EVALUATED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE HOLLYWOOD COMMUNITY PLAN, AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE ANY IMPACTS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT AREA.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON HUMAN BEINGS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.

Mitigation Measures

Page28 of28

0

u Ul

0

2 0

DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING CITY OF LOS ANGELf:.d

EXECUTIVE OFFICES

200 N. SPRING STREET, ROOM 525 LOSANGEUS, CA 90012-4801

AND

CALIFORNIA MICHAEL). LOCRANDE

DIRECTOR

(213) 978-1271 6262 VAN NuYS BLVD., SUil'E 351

VAN NUYS, CA 91401 FILED ALAN BEll, AICP r\CTINC DEPUTY DIRECfOR

(213) 978-1272 CITY PLANNING CQ,'AMISS!ON

WILLIAM ROSCH EN PR~S!OENT

' DEC 0 8:1.ll10 VINCENT P. BERTONI, AICP

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

(213) 978·1274 REGINA M. FREER VICf.-PRESIDfNT

SEAN 0. BURTON Ol~GO CARDOSO

MATT EPSTEIN FR. SPENCER T. KEZIOS YOLANDA OROZCO BARBARA ROMERO MICHAEL K. WOO

)AMES WILLIAM$ COMMISSION f.XECUTIV(' ASSIST,\NT

(213) 978-1300

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT

A NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Public Resources Code Section 21092 and Cal. Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 15072 (the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act) require a local agency to provide a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration to the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the county clerk of each county within which the proposed project is located, sufficiently prior to adoption by the lead agency of the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration to allow the public and agencies the review period provided under Section 15105 of the Guidelines.

Project Title: ENV-2010-1682-ND

Project Location: The proposed project lies in the Hollywood Community Plan area, and consists of an unimproved segment of Laurel Canyon Blvd. located easterly of the improved Laurel Canyon Blvd. and southerly of Willow Glen Road

Project Description: The proposed project is a General Plan Amendment to the Hollywood Community Plan and the Transportation Element of the General Plan to re-designate an unimproved portion of Laurel Canyon Boulevard. The unimproved portion lies easterly of the improved portion of Laurel Canyon Boulevard and southerly of Willow Glen Road, from a Collector Street, which requires a 64-ft. right-of-way and 2 travel lanes, to a Local Street.

Schedule: The City of Los Angeles will receive comments on the proposed negative declaration beginning December 2, 2010 for 20 days, ending December 22, 2010. The City of Los Angeles, as lead agency, will make a determination .on the project,._ following a public hearing to be scheduled.

Copies of the proposed negative declaration and all documents referenced in the proposed negative declaration are available for review during the lead agency's normal business hours at: City of Los Angeles Planning Department, Environmental Review Section, 200 North Spring Street, Room 750, Los Angeles, California 90012.

Signature: v~v ilOJ}j)noQ~ Date: _ _._\ ,_2-~3"'--__l/""0 __ _ ~

10 :~~~p~

JAN 1 1 2Uil UNT!1 ------~--

0040286

CITY OF LOS ANGELES -...

Documents

Transcript of CITY OF LOS ANGELES -...