Il Villaggio Toscano Project Draft EIR Appendix A · F. Number 180 Trunk Diameter 6 to 36 inches and type various (no oaks) of existing trees. G. Number 180 Trunk Diameter 6 to 36

Il Villaggio Toscano Project Draft EIR

Appendix A NOP, Initial Study, and Comments

A-1 Notice of Preparation

A-2 Initial Study

A-3 Comments

Appendix A-1

- Notice of Preparation

Appendix A-2

- Initial Study

M. David Paul Development LLC Il Villaggio Toscano Project PCR Services Corporation November 2004

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM

INITIAL STUDY AND CHECKLIST

ATTACHMENT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................... A-1 A. Introduction ......................................................................................................... A-1 B. Project Location and Surrounding Uses ............................................................. A-1 C. Site Background .................................................................................................. A-3 D. Description of the Proposed Project ................................................................... A-3 E. Necessary Approvals .......................................................................................... A-9

ATTACHMENT B EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST DETERMINATIONS ................B-1 I. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................ B-1 II. Agricultural Resources ........................................................................................ B-4 III. Air Quality .......................................................................................................... B-5 IV. Biological Resources .......................................................................................... B-7 V. Cultural Resources: ............................................................................................ B-9 VI. Geology and Soils. ........................................................................................... B-13 VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. .................................................................. B-16 VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................... B-19 IX. Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................... B-22 X. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................ B-24 XI. Noise ................................................................................................................. B-25 XII. Population and Housing .................................................................................... B-27 XIII. Public Services .................................................................................................. B-28 XIV. Recreation. ........................................................................................................ B-29 XV. Transportation/Circulation: ............................................................................... B-30 XVI. Utilities .............................................................................................................. B-32 XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance. ................................................................ B-35

APPENDIX A – SHADE/SHADOW SIMULATIONS

N.Mapp

Text Box


Page ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page A-1 Regional and Vicinity Map ............................................................................................ A-2 A-2 Proposed Project Floor Plan – Street Level (Conceptual) ............................................. A-5 A-3 Proposed Project Floor Plan – Plaza Level (Conceptual) .............................................. A-6 A-4 Cross Section Looking East (Conceptual) ..................................................................... A-7 A-5 Conceptual Rendering of the Proposed Project at Sepulveda Boulevard and

Camarillo Street ............................................................................................................. A-8 B-1 Conceptual View of the Project Looking Southeast from the US-101 ...........................B-2


Page iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page A-1 Proposed Land Uses ...................................................................................................... A-4 B-1 Project Parking Requirements and Spaces Provided ....................................................B-32

CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM

EAF Case No.: ZA Case No.: CPC Case No.: Council District No.: CD 2 Community Plan Area: Sherman Oaks/Studio City/Toluca Lake/Cahuenga PassPROJECT ADDRESS: 4827 North Sepulveda, CA 90013 Major Cross Streets: Camarillo Street & Sepulveda Blvd., La Maida, San Diego Freeway 405, and Ventura Freeway 101 Name of Applicant: Mr. M. David Paul, M. David Paul & Associates c/o Paul W. Krueger Address. 233 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 990, Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone No.: (310) 393-9653 x 2110 Fax No.: (310) 458-2644 E-mail: [email protected]

OWNER APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE (Other than Owner) Name: See Attached Name: Jim Ries, Craig Lawson & Co., LLC (Contact Person) Address: 233 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 990 Address: 8758 Venice Blvd., #200, Los Angeles, CA 90034 Santa Monica, CA 90401 E-Mail: [email protected] Telephone No: (310) 393-9653 Telephone No: (310) 838-2400 Signature: Signature: (Applicant’s Representative) The following Exhibits are required (3 copies of each exhibit and 3 Environmental Assessment Forms for projects in Coastal & S.M. Mtn. Zones): All Exhibits should reflect the entire project, not just the area in need of zone change, variance, or other entitlement.

NOTE: The exhibits are IN ADDITION TO those required for any case for which the Environmental Assessment Form is being filed.

A. 2 Vicinity Maps: (8½" x 11") showing nearby street system, public facilities and other significant physical features (similar to road maps, Thomas Brothers Maps, etc.) with project area highlighted. B. 2 Radius/Land Use Maps: (1" = 100') showing land use and zoning to 500 feet (100 feet of additional land use beyond the radius for alcoholic beverage cases); 100' radius line (excluding streets) okay for Coastal building permits 300' for site plan review applications. C. 2 Plot Plans: showing the location and layout of proposed development including dimensions; include topographic lines where grade is over 10%; tentative tract or parcel maps where division of land is involved to satisfy this requirement, and the location and diameter of all trees existing on the project site. D. Application: a duplicate copy of application for zone change, (including Exhibit "C" justification) batch screening form, periodic comprehensive general plan review and zone change map, variance, conditional use, subdivider's statement, etc. E. Pictures: two or more pictures of the project site showing walls, trees and existing structures. F. Notice of Intent Fee: a check in the amount of $25 made out to the County of Los Angeles for the purpose of filing a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration as required by § 15072 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT APPROVED BY: __________________________________ DATE: _____________________ APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: _____________________________________________ DATE: _____________________ RECEIPT NO.: ______________________

Page 2 of 6

I. Project Description: Briefly describe the project and permits necessary (i.e., Tentative Tract, Conditional Use, Zone Change, etc.) including an identification of phases and plans for future expansion: See “Attachment A.”

Will the project require certification, authorization, clearance or issuance of a permit by any federal, state, county, or environmental control agency, such as Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Management District, Water Resources Board, Environmental Affairs, etc.? If so, please specify: The project will not require review by a federal, state, county or environmental control agency.

II. Existing Conditions:

A. Project Site Area 222,156 or 5.1 acres Net and Gross Acres 272,881 sq. ft.B. Existing Zoning R1-1L, (Q) P-1L & (Q) CR-1L, R3-1L, and R1-1LC. Existing Use of Land 62,217-sq.ft., 4-story office building with surface parking; 24 multiple-family residential units; and 12 single-family detached residential units D. Existing General Plan Designation Regional Commercial Requested General Plan Designation Regional CommercialE. Number 16 type office and residential and age ± Office: approx. 18 yrs old; Multi-Family Buildings: approx. 38 to 46 yrs old; Single-Family Homes: approx. 56 to 48 years old

of structures to be removed as a result of the project. If residential dwellings (apts., single-family, condos) are being removed indicate the:

number of units: 36 and average rent: approximately $1.25 per square foot, on average Is there any similar housing at this price range available in the area? If yes, where? Prices range from $800 to $1,800 F. Number 180 Trunk Diameter 6 to 36 inches and type various (no oaks) of existing trees. G. Number 180 Trunk Diameter 6 to 36 inches and type various (no oaks) of trees being removed (identify on plot plan.) H. Slope: State percent of property which is: X Less than 10% slope 10-15% slope over 15% slope If slopes over 10% exist, a topographic map will be required. Over 50 acres, 1" = 200' scale is okay. I. Check the applicable boxes and indicate the condition on the Plot Plan. There are natural or man-

made drainage channels, rights of way and/or hazardous pipelines crossing or immediately adjacent to the property, or none of the above.

J. Grading: (specify the total amount of dirt being moved) 0-500 cubic yards. 494,358 if over 500 cubic yards, indicate amount of cubic yards. K. Import/Export: Indicate the amount of dirt being imported or exported. XX

Projects involving import/export of 1000 cubic yards or more are required to complete a Haul Route Form and Haul Route Map. If the project involves more than one phase or substantial expansion or changes of existing uses, please document each portion separately, with the total or project details written below. Describe entire project, not just area in need of zone change, variance, or other entitlement.

Page 3 of 6

III. Residential project (if not residential, do not answer) A. Number of Dwelling Units Single Family Apartment or Condominium 500 unitsB. Number of Dwelling Units with: One bedroom 75 units Two bedrooms 350 units Three bedrooms 75 units Four or more bedrooms 0 C. Total number of parking spaces provided 1,250D. List recreational facilities of project Multiple themed courtyards, a community room, and a large pool facilityE. Approximate price range of units $ 350,000 to $ 800,000 for sale units F. Number of stories The project will be six stories on top of a podium height feet. G. Type of appliances and heating (gas, electric, gas/electric, solar) Gas Gas heated swimming pool? Yes H. Describe night lighting of the project Low-level walkway lighting with some exterior illumination for security purposes. All lighting will be directed on-site, and shields will be provided to prevent spillover onto adjacent properties. (include plan for shielding light from adjacent uses, if available) I. Percent of total project proposed for: Building 100% Paving Landscaping 0

Note: While the ground level will be developed with a combination of retail buildings and parking, the first level above will contain over 60,000 sq.ft. of open space.

J. Total Number of square feet of floor area 711,734 (FAR of 3.2 to 1), of which 656,734 sq.ft. will be residential

IV. Commercial, Industrial or Other Project (if project is only residential do not answer this section). Describe entire project, not just area in need of zone change, variance, or other entitlement.

A. Type of use Mixed-use neighborhood retailB. Total number of square feet of floor area 55,000 sq.ft. C. Number of units if hotel/motel D. Number of stories. 1 height 27 feet E. Total number of parking spaces provided: 220 F. Hours of operation 5:00 A.M. to 12:00 A.M. Days of operation G. If fixed seats or beds involved, number H. Describe night lighting of the project (Include plan for shielding light from adjacent uses, if available) I. Number of employees per shift Not Available J. Number of students/patients/patrons K. Describe security provisions for project There will be an on-site security presence with central command post. L. Percent of total project proposed for: Building 100% Paving Landscaping

Note: While the ground level will be developed with a combination of retail buildings and parking, the first level above will contain over 60,000 sq.ft. of open space.

Historic/Architecturally Significant Project Does the project involve any structures, buildings, street lighting systems, spaces, sites or components thereof which may be designated or eligible for designation in any of the following: (please check)

National Register of Historic Places Not Applicable California Register of Historic Resources Not Applicable City of Los Angeles Cultural Historic Monument. Not Applicable Within a City of Los Angeles Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) Not Applicable

Page 4 of 6

V. Hazardous Materials and Substance Discharge

Does the project involve the use of any hazardous materials or have hazardous substance discharge? If so, please specify. No A. Regulatory Identification Number (if known) Not ApplicableB. Licensing Agency Not Applicable C. Quantity of daily discharge Not Applicable

VI. Stationary Noise Clearance: A clearance may be necessary certifying the project's equipment (e.g., air conditioning) complies with City Noise Regulations.

Some projects may require a Noise Study. The EIR staff will inform those affected by this requirement.

VII. Selected Information:

A. Circulation: Identify by name all major and secondary highways and freeways within 1,000 feet of the proposed project; give the approximate distance(s):

Peach Avenue and La Maida Street: local streets subject to street vacation that was initiated in 1980s. Sepulveda Boulevard: designated as a Major Scenic Highway dedicated to a right-of-way width of 100 feet. Camarillo Street: designated local street with a right-of-way width of 60 feet. B. Air: All projects that are required to obtain AQMD permits (see AQMD Rules and Regulations)

are required to submit written clearance from the AQMD indicating no significant impact will be created by the proposed project.*

C. Noise: Projects located within 600 feet of railroad tracks indicate the number of trains per day:** Day 7 AM–10 PM Not Applicable Night 10 PM–7 AM Not Applicable

VIII. Mitigating Measures:

Feasible alternatives or mitigation measures which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the development may have on the environment. A traffic study, a water service report, and an air quality report will be provided.

* Contact the South Coast Air Quality Management District at 572-6418 for further information.

** For information, contact:

Southern Pacific Train Dispatcher 629-6569 Union Pacific Engineering 725-2313 Santa Fe Train Master 267-5546

Page 5 of 6

APPLICANT/CONSULTANT'S AFFIDAVIT

OWNER MUST SIGN AND BE NOTARIZED;

IF THERE IS AN AGENT, THE AGENT MUST ALSO SIGN AND BE NOTARIZED

I, Mr. M. David Paul I, Jim Ries, Craig Lawson Co. LLC Owner (Owner in escrow)* Consultant* (Please Print) (Please Print) Signed: Signed: Owner Agent

being duly sworn, state that the statements and information contained in this Environmental Assessment Form are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

State of California, County and City of Los Angeles

Signed: Signed: Notary Notary Subscribed and sworn to before me this Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 20 day of , 20 (NOTARY or CORPORATE SEAL) (NOTARY)

* If acting for a corporation, include capacity and company name.

CP-1204 (04/11/01) www.lacity.org/PLN/index.htm(Forms)

PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The following three entities comprise the project. (Office Building) FOUR SEASONS, a California limited partnership By: FREEWAY ENTERPRISES, a California limited partnership, its General Partner By: M. DAVID PAUL & ASSOCIATES, a California limited partnership, its General Partner By: M. DAVID PAUL, General Partner (Single-Family Residences) PARKING ASSOCIATES, a California limited partnership By: FREEWAY ENTERPRISES, a California limited partnership, its General Partner By: M. DAVID PAUL & ASSOCIATES, a California limited partnership, its General Partner By: M. DAVID PAUL, General Partner (Apartments) VENTANA KEY PARTNERSHIP, a California limited partnership By: V-K ASSOCIATES, a California limited partnership, its General Partner By: M. DAVID PAUL & ASSOCIATES, a California limited partnership, its General Partner By: M. DAVID PAUL, General Partner

CITY OF LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK

ROOM 615, CITY HALL LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

INITIAL STUDY AND CHECKLIST (Article IV - City CEQA Guidelines)

LEAD CITY AGENCY City of Los Angeles, Planning Department

COUNCIL DISTRICT 2

DATE November 2004

RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES

PROJECT TITLE/NO. Il Villaggio Toscano Project

CASE NO. ENV-2004-6000

PREVIOUS ACTIONS CASE NO. N/A

DOES have significant changes from previous actions.

DOES NOT have significant changes from previous actions.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Refer To Attachment A, Project Description.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:

The project site is located in an urbanized area along Sepulveda Boulevard immediately north of the Sherman Oaks Galleria. (Refer to Attachment A, Project Description.) PROJECT LOCATION

East of the San Diego Freeway (I-405) and west of Sepulveda Boulevard between Camarillo Street and the Ventura Freeway (US-101). (Refer to Attachment A, Project Description.) PLANNING DISTRICT Sherman Oaks – Studio City – Toluca Lake – Cahuenga Pass Community Plan Area; Ventura/Cahuenga Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan Area

STATUS: PRELIMINARY PROPOSED May 13, 1998 (CP); Aug. 18, 2001 (SP) ADOPTED date

EXISTING ZONING

R1-1L (One-Family), R3-1L (Multiple Dwelling), CR-1L (Limited Commercial), and P-1L (Automobile Parking)

MAX. DENSITY ZONING

FAR of 1.5:1

DOES CONFORM TO PLAN

PLANNED LAND USE & ZONE

RAS4 (Residential/Accessory Services) MAX. DENSITY PLAN

DOES NOT CONFORM TO PLAN (Requires a zone change from R1-1L, R3-1L, CR-1L, and P-1L to RAS4 and a Height District change from 1L to 2)

SURROUNDING LAND USES

The Sherman Oaks Galleria, a motel and residential (Refer to Attachment A, Project Description).

PROJECT DENSITY

711,734 gross square feet (including circulation), FAR of 3.2:1.

NO DISTRICT PLAN

DETERMINATION (To be completed by 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 on the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

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

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.

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

_____________________________________________________

TITLE 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 Section XVII, "Earlier Analysis," cross referenced).

5) Earlier analysis must be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR, or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

1) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. 2) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were

within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

3) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for

potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated

7) Supporting Information Sources: A sources list should be attached, and other sources used or

individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead

agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whichever format is selected.

9) The explanation of each issue should identify:

1) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and 2) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

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

Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services

Agricultural Resources

Hydrology/Water Quality Recreation

Air Quality

Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic

Biological Resources

Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems

Cultural Resources

Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance

Geology/Soils

Population/Housing

Note: A “Potentially Significant Impact” indication on the checklist does not categorically imply that the impact is significant. It simply indicates the issue(s) will require further evaluation in the EIR because the level(s) of impact cannot be determined at this time without conducting a more detailed, site-specific analysis of the issue(s) identified.

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST (To be completed by the Lead City Agency)

BACKGROUND PROPONENT NAME

PHONE NUMBER

PROPONENT ADDRESS AGENCY REQUIRING CHECKLIST

DATE SUBMITTED

PROPOSAL NAME (If Applicable)

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

I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, or other locally recognized desirable aesthetic natural feature within a city-designated scenic highway?

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

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

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

III. AIR QUALITY. 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 SCAQMD or Congestion Management Plan?

b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the air basin is non-attainment (ozone, carbon monoxide, & PM 10) under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

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

Potentially

Significant Impact




No Impact

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

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

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

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

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance (e.g., oak trees or California walnut woodlands)?

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

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

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

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a. Exposure of 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




No Impact

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 waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:

a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 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?

Potentially

Significant Impact




No Impact

VIII. 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 an manner which would result in flooding on- or off site?

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

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100-year flood plain as mapped on federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

h. Place within a 100-year flood plain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

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

X. 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

Potentially

Significant Impact




No Impact

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?

XI. NOISE. Would the project: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise in level in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b. Exposure of people to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

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

d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

XII. 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?

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

a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks?

Potentially

Significant Impact




No Impact

e. Other governmental services (including roads)?

XIV. 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?

XV. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project:

a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to ratio capacity on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

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

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

e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

XVI. UTILITIES. 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 environmental effects?

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

Potentially

Significant Impact




No Impact

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

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

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

XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects).

c. Does the project have environmental effects which cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

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

Please refer to Attachment A (Project Description) and Attachment B (Explanation of Checklist Determinations)

PREPARED BY TITLE TELEPHONE # DATE


Page A-1

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW DRAFT

ATTACHMENT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. INTRODUCTION

The Project Applicant, M. David Paul Development LLC, proposes to construct the Il Villaggio Toscano Project (the “proposed project”), which includes up to 500 condominiums or luxury apartments and approximately 55,000 gross square feet of neighborhood commercial uses in the Sherman Oaks Community of the City of Los Angeles. The project site is comprised of approximately 5.1 acres located on the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard between Camarillo Street and the Ventura Freeway (US-101).

The proposed development would consist of six-story multi-family residential buildings above a podium that includes street and mezzanine levels developed with a combination of neighborhood commercial uses and covered parking. Two levels of subterranean parking would provide parking for the residential uses. The neighborhood commercial uses would front Sepulveda Boulevard and Camarillo Street, and the residential uses would be located above the retail uses and parking. To accommodate the proposed project, existing structures, which include a 63,500-square-foot, four-story unoccupied office building, 24 multi-family residential units, and 11 single-family detached units, would be removed.

B. PROJECT LOCATION AND SURROUNDING USES

The project site is located within the Sherman Oaks-Studio City-Toluca Lake-Cahuenga Pass Community Plan area of the City of Los Angeles, approximately 15 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles and approximately 10 miles north/east of the Pacific Ocean, as shown on the project location map provided in Figure A-1 on page A-2. The project site, which is triangular- shaped, as shown in Figure A-1, is bounded by US-101 to the north, Sepulveda Boulevard to the east, Camarillo Street to the south, and the San Diego Freeway (I-405) eastbound junction to the US-101 to the west. Peach Avenue and La Maida Street transect the project site. In addition, Ventura Boulevard is located one block (0.25 mile) south of the site.

The project site is located in a highly urbanized area. Surrounding land uses generally consist of the Sherman Oaks Galleria immediately south of the project site, with residential uses to the east across Sepulveda Boulevard.

Attachment A – Project Description


Page A-3


The existing landscaping on the project site and along Sepulveda Boulevard and Camarillo Street consists of numerous mature trees, including but not limited to elms, pecans, jacarandas, ficus, cypress, willows, sycamore, and avocado trees.

C. SITE BACKGROUND

The project site currently includes a 63,500-square foot, four-story unoccupied office building with surface parking lot on the northeast portion of the site, 24 multi-family residential units in three two-story buildings on the southeast portion of the site, and 11 single-family detached units on the western portion of the site. The office building has been boarded up and has fallen into disrepair since it was damaged by the 1994 earthquake. The multi-family apartment complex is located along Sepulveda Boulevard north of Camarillo Street and south of the office building. Currently, five of the 24 units are unoccupied. The single-family residential uses range in size from 950 to 1,500 square feet and are located on the east and west sides of Peach Avenue, on the north side of Camarillo Street, and on the south side of La Maida Street.

The portion of the project site located along Sepulveda Boulevard east of Peach Avenue is zoned [Q]CR-1L (Limited Commercial), R3-1L (Multiple Dwelling), R1-1L (One-Family), and [Q]P-1L (Automobile Parking), and the portion of the project site located west of Peach Avenue and south of La Maida Street is zoned R1-1L. The project site received a Regional Center designation by the Sherman Oaks–Studio City–Toluca Lake–Cahuenga Pass Community Plan. In addition, the project site is within the Ventura/Cahuenga Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan area, and is designated as Regional Commercial by the Specific Plan.

D. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

As described in Table A-1 on page A-4, the Il Villaggio Toscano project includes the development of 500 condominium or luxury apartment homes and approximately 55,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial space. Accessory uses associated with the project’s residential component would include a leasing office; recreational facilities, including a pool facility, spa, gym and community rooms; courtyards/gardens; lobbies; and utility rooms. The street level would include neighborhood-serving commercial space that would front along Sepulveda Boulevard and Camarillo Street. The approximate gross floor area for the proposed residential and neighborhood commercial uses combined would be 711,734 square feet with a floor area ratio (FAR) of 3.2 to 1 (3.2:1). Project parking would be provided in two subterranean levels and within the street and mezzanine levels. Parking would be accessed from a private driveway on both Sepulveda Boulevard and Camarillo Street and another entrance/exit on Camarillo Street east of the private driveway. Please refer to Figure A-2 on page A-5 and Figure A-3 on page A-6



Page A-4


for conceptual floor plans of the street level and plaza level, respectively. Each of the project components is described in more detail below.

The proposed condominium or luxury apartment units would include one to three bedrooms. As shown in Figure A-4 on page A-7, the proposed buildings would be developed approximately 26 feet above ground level on top of a residential podium and would be arranged around an approximately 300-foot by 120-foot main central courtyard, with three finger-like courtyards and gardens articulated at the street level by piazzettas with stairs leading up to the podium (i.e., plaza level) above. Elevators and stairways would provide resident access from the respective subterranean parking levels to all building floors.

As previously discussed, the street level would include neighborhood commercial uses fronting Sepulveda Boulevard and Camarillo Street. It is anticipated that a neighborhood specialty grocery store, which would comprise approximately up to 45,000 of the 55,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial, would serve as the project’s anchor tenant. As indicated in Figure A-5 on page A-8, storefronts would be pedestrian-oriented to create an aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian-friendly urban setting. Pedestrians would have direct access to the neighborhood commercial uses from the sidewalks along Sepulveda Boulevard and Camarillo Street. Hours of operation for these neighborhood commercial uses, including the specialty grocery store would be consistent with those of other nearby neighborhood-serving commercial uses in the area.

Parking would be provided within a two-level subterranean, one-level street, and one-level mezzanine parking structure. None of the parking areas or levels would be visible from Sepulveda Boulevard. The proposed project would provide approximately 1,470 parking spaces, including an estimated 1,000 parking spaces for project residents, 250 parking spaces for project residents’ guests, and 220 parking spaces for retail uses. Figure A-2 depicts the location of the entrances to the subterranean parking levels and street-level and mezzanine level parking. As shown in the figure, access to the parking structure would be provided along a private driveway

Table A-1

PROPOSED LAND USES

Use Approximate Size Location Neighborhood Commercial 55,000 square feet Street Level Residential 500 units

(656,734 square feet) Plaza Level through Sixth Floor

Parking 1,470 spaces Two Subterranean Levels and within One Street Level and One Mezzanine Level

Source: M. David Paul Development LLC, 2004.



Page A-9


off of Sepulveda Boulevard and Camarillo Street and another entrance/exit on Camarillo Street east of the private driveway. The private driveway off of Sepulveda Boulevard would be located along the site’s northern frontage, which extends from Sepulveda Boulevard to Camarillo Street providing two access points to the parking structure along its length. This driveway would also serve as fire department access to the rear of the site. There would be two additional access points to the parking structure along Camarillo Street.

The proposed six-story residential buildings would provide a contemporary architectural style, exhibiting multi-faceted massing, roof forms, fenestration, and a mix of colors reminiscent of Italian villages, as shown in Figure A-5 on page A-8. The façade would consist of a decorative base with plaster siding, wood and glass materials, and tile roofs. Signage would be integrated into the architecture of the building. The maximum height of the buildings from finished grade to the top of the roof plate would be approximately 90 feet. Rooftop equipment would be screened from view from adjacent residential uses. Outdoor lighting would be limited to building lighting and security lighting that would be directed away from any adjacent sensitive residential uses. Ambient lighting in the courtyard area would focus on the pedestrian paths to promote safety.

Project construction would require approximately 494,358 cubic yards of grading and soil export. Grading and site preparation for the proposed project would require the removal of existing structures, a surface parking area, and a number of mature trees and other landscaping on-site. Approximately 147 mature trees, including but not limited to elms, pecans, jacarandas, ficus, cypress, willows, sycamore, and avocado trees, would need to be removed to allow for construction of the proposed project. Construction is estimated to commence in late 2005 and would require approximately 24 months, with completion and occupancy expected in 2007.

E. NECESSARY APPROVALS

Approvals required for development of the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Certification of an Environmental Impact Report for the project as well as making Findings in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 (for those mitigation measures that apply to the environmental impacts of those parts of the project that the City of Los Angeles decides to approve) and, if necessary, a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.

• Zone Change from [Q]CR-1L, R3-1L, R1-1L, and [Q]P-1L to RAS4;



Page A-10


• Height District change from Height District 1L to 2;

• Ventura/Cahuenga Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan Project Permit;

• Ventura/Cahuenga Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan exception to (1) exceed 1.5:1 FAR to allow a project with a 3.2:1 FAR, (2) exceed the height limit of 75 feet to build a 90-foot tall building, and (3) to reduce the landscape buffer requirement of 10 feet around the surface perimeter to a five-foot buffer consistent with the RAS zone requirements;

• Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the sale of alcohol for off-site consumption in conjunction with the specialty grocery store;

• Variance to utilize lot area for density and floor area purposes gained from the vacation of Peach Avenue and La Maida Street prior to the recordation of the Final Tract Map(s);

• Use variance for a wine tasting shop;

• Vesting Tentative Tract Map for Condominium Purposes and Final Tract Map(s), including the vacation of Peach Avenue and La Maida Street;

• Grading, foundation, and building permits;

• Construction of on- and off-site street improvements and other infrastructure as required as a condition of project approval; and

• Additional actions as may be determined necessary.


Page B-1


ATTACHMENT B EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST DETERMINATIONS

The following discussion provides responses to each of the questions set forth in the City of Los Angeles Initial Study and Checklist. The responses below indicate those issues that are expected to be addressed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and demonstrate why other certain issues will not result in a potentially significant environmental impact and, thus, do not need to be addressed further in an EIR. Please note that the questions with responses that indicate a “Potentially Significant Impact” do not presume that a significant environmental impact would result from the project. Rather, such responses indicate those issues that will be addressed in an EIR with conclusions of impact reached as part of the analysis within that future document.

I. AESTHETICS. Would the Project:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area that does not contain unique natural or urban features or offer visually valuable views. Residential uses, an unoccupied four-story office building, surface parking lots, and numerous mature trees currently occupy the project site. Public views of the site are limited to vantage points along the adjacent roadways and adjacent commercial and residential properties. Beyond these points, views of the site are generally blocked by existing developments along Sepulveda Boulevard and Camarillo Street. Views to the north and west of the site are obstructed due to the elevated freeways (i.e., I-405 and US-101) bordering the site to the immediate west and north. Views to the south of the site include a five-story parking structure, a two-story motel, and a four-story residential development, while views to the east include residential and commercial development. Due to the site’s flat topography, its adjacency to the I-405 and US-101 Interchange, and the presence of existing low- to mid-rise buildings along Sepulveda Boulevard and Camarillo Street, the site does not occupy a substantial proportion of any scenic viewshed or block distant views.

Similar to existing conditions, the project’s proposed six-story structures above the podium would be visible from adjacent roadways and adjacent properties. As shown in Figure B-1 on page B-2, views of the project from the freeways would be generally limited to the six-story residential uses with the lower parking level and adjacent access road screened by the 26-foot-high sound/retaining wall. As shown in the renderings provided in Attachment A, Project Description, views of the site from the area along Sepulveda to the east would be of the

Attachment B – Explanation of Checklist Determination


Page B-3


neighborhood commercial uses and courtyard that would be oriented to the pedestrian, with the six-story residential uses above. Similarly, views from areas to the south of the site along Camarillo Street would be of the neighborhood commercial uses with residential uses above, in addition to the landscaped residential lobby area. Based on these views subsequent to development of the project site, as well as the lack of scenic views within the project vicinity due to the relatively flat topography, nearby low-to mid-rise buildings and presence of the adjacent elevated I-405 and US-101 freeways, the project would not have a substantial effect on a scenic vista. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is necessary.

b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, or other locally recognized desirable aesthetic natural feature within a city-designated scenic highway?

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

b. and c. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would represent a change in the visual environment of the approximately 5.1-acre site by replacing 35 multi-family and single-family residential uses, an unoccupied office building and surface parking with 500 condominiums or luxury apartments with street level neighborhood commercial uses. In addition, 147 existing mature trees of various types and sizes, including but not limited to elms, pecans, jacarandas, ficus, cypress, willow, sycamore, and avocado trees, which constitute scenic resources on-site, would be removed. Therefore, further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

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

Potentially Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would increase the density of development within the project site with the introduction of multi-story residential buildings and neighborhood commercial uses. As a result, new sources of light and glare could incrementally increase ambient light and glare. In addition, development of the proposed project would introduce new sources of shade or shadow within the project area. Therefore, further evaluation of potential impacts associated with these issues is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.



Page B-4


II. AGRICULTURAL 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. 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?

No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized setting and is currently developed with an unoccupied office building, residential uses, and surface parking. No agricultural uses or related operations are present within the site or surrounding area. Due to its urban setting, the site area has not been mapped pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, and no further evaluation of this issue is necessary.

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?

No Impact. The project site is zoned [Q]CR-1L (Limited Commercial), R3-1L (Multiple Dwelling), R1-1L (One-Family), and [Q]P-1L (Automobile Parking). No agricultural zoning is present on-site and in the surrounding area, and no nearby lands are enrolled under the Williamson Act. Therefore, no conflict exists with regard to agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts. No impact would occur, and no further evaluation of this issue is necessary.

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

No Impact. Since there are no agricultural uses or related operations on or near the project site, the proposed project would not involve the conversion of farmland to other uses, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural land or uses would occur, and no further evaluation of this issue is necessary.



Page B-5


III. 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 SCAQMD Plan or Congestion Management Plan?

Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located within the 6,600-square-mile South Coast Air Basin (Basin). Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is required, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in non-attainment (ozone, carbon monoxide, and PM10). The proposed project would be subject to the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP contains a comprehensive list of pollution-control strategies directed at reducing emissions and achieving ambient air quality standards for the Basin. These strategies are developed, in part, based on regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). In addition, the SCAQMD updated the AQMP in 2002 with respect to the adoption and implementation schedule of various PM10-related measures. It is recommended that further analysis of the project’s consistency with the AQMD be included as part of an Environmental Impact Report.

Several intersections and freeway segments in the project vicinity have been established as monitoring intersections in the Congestion Management Program (CMP) set forth by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The project may generate additional trips at these CMP intersections and freeway segments. Therefore, further analysis of consistency with the CMP is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

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 (ozone, carbon monoxide, & PM 10) under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

b. and c. Potentially Significant Impact. As stated in Response to Checklist Question II.a., the project site is located within the Basin, which is characterized by relatively poor air quality. State and federal air quality standards are often exceeded in the Basin, with Los Angeles County among the highest violators of all counties. The Basin is currently in non-attainment for ozone, carbon monoxide, and fine particulate matter based on federal and State air quality standards.



Page B-6


The proposed project would contribute to regional and local air emissions during construction and operation. During construction, site preparation, which would include excavation and grading, would produce equipment and fugitive dust emissions, as would building construction activities. In addition, project operations would generate vehicle emissions from mobile sources as well as from stationary sources through the use of natural gas and electricity. Thus, the potential for the proposed project to create or significantly exacerbate an existing exceedance of an air pollution standard or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant is recommended to be addressed in an Environmental Impact Report.

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Potentially Significant Impact. The sensitive receptors nearest the project site include the single-family residences located to the east across Sepulveda Boulevard. As described in Response to Checklist Question III.c., above, construction activities and operation of the project could result in significant air quality impacts and, therefore, could expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial local pollutant concentrations. Therefore, further analysis of potential impacts associated with this issue is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project would include residential uses as well as neighborhood commercial uses that could include restaurant uses. Objectionable odors are typically associated with industrial projects involving high volumes of chemicals, solvents, petroleum products, and other strong-smelling elements used in manufacturing processes. In addition, odors are also associated with uses such as sewage treatment facilities and landfills. The proposed project would contain no element related to these types of uses. Moreover, the proposed project would be constructed using conventional building materials. It is not anticipated that odiferous building materials that would affect a substantial number of people would be used. During project operation, some cooking odors could emanate from restaurant use(s). However, any restaurant uses would be conducted in accordance with industry standard odor control practices, SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), and SCAQMD Best Available Control Technology Guidelines, which would limit potential objectionable odors. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and no further evaluation of this issue is necessary.



Page B-7


IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the Project:

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

No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized setting bounded by the I-405 and US-101 freeways to the west and north, respectively, Camarillo Street to the south, and Sepulveda Boulevard to the east. Most of the site is developed or is paved with impervious surfaces. As such, animal species at the project site are limited to small terrestrial species and bird species that are adapted to urban environments, none of which are considered rare or endangered at the federal and State level. Plant species on the site include small shrubs and various types of trees, which are also not considered rare and endangered. Due to its urban setting and current conditions, the project site is not considered suitable habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Therefore, the project would not have an impact on sensitive or special status species either directly or through habitat modifications, and no further evaluation of this issue is necessary.

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

No Impact. As previously stated, the majority of the project site is developed or is paved with impervious surfaces. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community exists on the project site or in the surrounding area. Furthermore, the project site is not located in or adjacent to a significant ecological area (SEA), as determined by the City of Los Angeles.1 No other City or regional plans, policies, and regulations identify the project site as an area containing riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and no further evaluation of this issue is necessary.

1 City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning, Los Angeles Citywide General Plan Framework, Draft

Environmental Impact Report, January 19, 1995, Figure BR-1B.



Page B-8


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?

No Impact. As previously stated, the project site is located in an urbanized area and contains residential uses, an unoccupied office building, and surface parking. The site does not contain any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, and no further evaluation of this issue is necessary.

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?

No Impact. Located within a developed and highly urbanized area bordered on two sides with the I-405 and US-101 freeways, the project site does not function as a wildlife corridor. In addition, no bodies of water exist on-site to provide habitat for fish. As such, project implementation would neither interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors nor impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. As such, no further evaluation of this issue is necessary.

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance (e.g., oak trees or California walnut woodlands)?

Potentially Significant Impact. No locally protected biological resources, such as oak trees, exist on the project site. As such, the project would not conflict with the City of Los Angeles Oak Tree Ordinance. However, the project would involve the removal of 147 existing trees of various types and sizes, including but not limited to elms, pecans, jacarandas, ficus, cypress, willow, sycamore, and avocado trees. Therefore, further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

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?

No Impact. As previously discussed, the project site is presently developed and is located in an urbanized area. The site is not located in or adjacent to an existing or proposed



Page B-9


SEA. Additionally, there is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan apply to the project site. As such, implementation of the project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plans. No impact would occur, and no further evaluation of this issue is necessary.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:

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

No Impact. The project site is located in the community of Sherman Oaks (named in honor of Moses Sherman) within the City of Los Angeles. This area boomed with development, as did the entire San Fernando Valley, after the conclusion of World War II. The project site is comprised of several individual parcels that consist of single-family, multi-family, and commercial improvements, most of which are of post-World War II construction. As part of this Initial Study, the properties within the project site have been formally assessed for historical significance for the purposes of CEQA compliance. A records search was conducted by the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton to identify previously recorded prehistoric and historic resources in and around the project site. This search included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and its annual updates, the California Historical Resources Inventory database maintained by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), and the City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments register. The records search indicated that there are currently no previously identified federal or State level designated or eligible prehistoric or historic resources within or near the project site. There is, however, one City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument located outside of the project site, but within 0.5 mile of it. This resource is identified as the “Tower of Wooden Pallets” (monument number 184). This historic resource is far enough away from the proposed project site as to not be directly or indirectly impacted by the project’s implementation.

A historic resources survey assessment of the project site was performed by PCR to identify any historic resources, as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). As part of the survey process, a site visit was performed and site-specific background research was conducted that included a review of tax assessor records, City of Los Angeles Planning Department Parcel Profile Reports, Sanborn maps, historic maps, and other primary and secondary source materials. As stated above, there are several buildings within the project site of varying uses and construction dates. Along the northern side of the 15300 block of Camarillo Street, which comprises the southern boundary of the project site, there are six vernacular style residences. The earliest structure dates from 1940 and reflects an early National, mass-plan vernacular style with minimal integrity. Four of the extant dwellings exhibit typical Minimal



Page B-10


Traditional styling in their design and construction and range in construction date from 1946 through to 1951. Their overall physical integrity has been severely compromised by inappropriate alterations and/or additions. The house at 15357 Camarillo Street is a long, rolling Ranch style structure dating from 1953. Though its integrity is somewhat intact, there are other better representative examples of this particular architectural style found elsewhere in the San Fernando Valley, including the Sherman Oaks area. The buildings situated along the western side of the 4800 block of Sepulveda Boulevard, defined as the eastern boundary of the project site, include a large, two-story apartment complex and a four-story, reflective glass curtain wall commercial building. The apartment complex was constructed in 1956 and includes three separate, U-shaped structures that all convey the same scale, massing, proportions, materials, and utilitarian architectural style. The office building was erected in 1978 with approximately 62,000 square feet of space. Within the proposed project site along Peach Avenue are two Minimal Traditional style single-family residences, 4804 Peach Avenue with a construction date of 1952 and 4810 Peach Avenue with a construction date of 1953. Situated along the southern side of the 15300 block of West La Maida Street, also within the project site, are three single-family residences with construction dates of 1947 (15338 W. La Maida), 1948 (15346 W. La Maida), and 1953 (15342 W. La Maida).

Though all of the buildings within the project site do reflect some varying element of the area’s post-war residential development, they lack sufficient historical importance and architectural notability to merit recognition as historical resources on either the federal, State, and local levels of significance. Further, their limited retention of intact physical elements of integrity has also compromised their potential as historical resources. Therefore, in conclusion, the properties within the project site appear ineligible for listing in the National Register and California Register, as well as for designation as a City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument. For the purposes of CEQA compliance, the properties are not considered historical resources as defined by section 15064.5(a)(2)-(3). As such, no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is necessary.

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

Less Than Significant Impact. A records search was conducted by the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton to identify previously documented prehistoric and historic archaeological resources in and around the project site. A review of survey data collected and evaluated indicates that no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites have been identified within the local area and that no unique or important prehistoric or historic archaeological resources have been encountered within the project vicinity. The project site is located within an urbanized area and has been subject to extensive disruption over the years; thus, any surficial archaeological resources, which may have existed at one time, have likely been previously disturbed. Nonetheless, should any archaeological resources be



Page B-11


encountered, such resources would be treated in accordance with local and state regulations, including CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, which would ensure that significant impacts to archaeological resources would not occur. Thus, impacts would be less than significant, and no further evaluation of the potential impacts associated with this issue is necessary.

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

Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A paleontological resources records search of the project area was conducted by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.2 A review of the record search data indicates that the project site contains surficial deposits of Quaternary Alluvium from the floodplain of the Los Angeles River channel immediately north of the site. These deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossil remains in the uppermost layers. At depth, however, older Quaternary sediments that contain significant fossil vertebrate materials are likely to be encountered. Although the project site has been previously developed, any substantial excavations in the proposed project area could encounter fossil vertebrate remains based on the known occurrence of vertebrate fossils (and fossil invertebrates) within the older Quaternary sedimentary deposits. Thus, the potential for discovering unrecorded, paleontological resources does exist. However, with implementation of the mitigation measures described below, potential impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measures

• A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of excavation and grading activities of the project site where the older Quaternary Alluvium would be disturbed. The services of a qualified paleontologist shall be secured by contacting the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The frequency of inspections will be based on consultation with the paleontologist and will depend on the rate of excavation and grading activities, the materials being excavated, and if found, the abundance and type of fossils encountered. Monitoring shall consist of visually inspecting fresh exposures of rock for larger fossil remains and, where appropriate, collecting wet or dry screened sediment samples of promising horizons for smaller fossil remains.

• If a potential fossil is found, the paleontologist shall be allowed to temporarily divert or redirect grading and excavation activities in the area of the exposed fossil to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage.

2 Samuel A. McLeod, Ph.D., Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, August 12, 2004.



Page B-12


• At the paleontologist’s discretion and to reduce any construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing rock samples for initial processing.

• Any fossils encountered and recovered shall be prepared to the point of identification and catalogued before they are donated to their final repository.

• Any fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs shall also be filed at the repository.

• If fossils are found, following the completion of the above tasks, the paleontologist shall prepare a report summarizing the results of the monitoring and salvaging efforts, the methodology used in these efforts, as well as a description of the fossils collected and their significance. The report shall be submitted by the applicant to the lead agency, the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, and representatives of other appropriate or concerned agencies to signify the satisfactory completion of the project and required mitigation measures.

d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

No Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area that has been previously developed with various uses. Within the project area, any traditional burial sources, which include archaeological sites, burial sites, ceremonial areas, gathering areas, or any other natural area important to a culture for religious, burial, or heritage reasons, would likely be associated with the Native American group known as the Fernandeno, a branch of the Gabrielino. No known traditional burial sites or other type of cemetery usage has been identified within the project site or nearby vicinity. Nonetheless, any discovery of human remains or related resources would be treated in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations and guidelines for disclosure, recovery, relocation, and preservation, as appropriate, including CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). Therefore, no impacts are expected, and no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with the discovery of human remains is necessary.



Page B-13


VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the Project:

a. Exposure of 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. Fault rupture is defined as the surface displacement that occurs along the surface of a fault during an earthquake. Based on criteria established by the California Geological Survey (CGS), faults can be classified as active, potentially active, or inactive. Active faults may be designated as Earthquake Fault Zones under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, which includes standards regulating development adjacent to active faults. In addition, the City of Los Angeles designates Fault Rupture Study Zones on each side of active and potentially active faults to establish areas of hazard potential.

No known active or potentially active faults pass through the project site. In addition, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or the City of Los Angeles-designated Fault Rupture Study zone. Therefore, the potential for surface ground rupture at the project site is considered low. The closest active fault to the site is the Northridge (E. Oak Ridge) Fault located approximately 5.2 miles north of the site.3 The Hollywood Fault, the Santa Monica Fault, the Verdugo Fault, and the Malibu Coast Fault are within 10 miles of the site. Seismic sources other than faults with known surface expression are known as buried thrust faults. These faults are not exposed at the surface of the earth. Due to the buried nature of these thrust faults, their existence is usually not known until they produce an earthquake. It is believed that the magnitude 6.7, January 17, 1994, Northridge earthquake was caused by a still unnamed buried thrust fault located beneath the San Fernando Valley.4 Although the risk for surface rupture potential of the buried thrust faults is inferred to be low, the seismic risk of these buried structures in terms of recurrence and maximum potential magnitude is not yet well established.5 Therefore, the potential for surface rupture on these buried thrust faults at magnitudes higher than 6.0 cannot be totally precluded. However, the project would comply with the California Department of Conservation, CGS Special Publications 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California (1997), which provides guidance for evaluation and

3 Geotechnologies, Inc., Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Retail and Apartment

Complex, Northwest Corner of Camarillo Street and Sepulveda Boulevard, June 10, 2002. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid.



Page B-14


mitigation of earthquake-related hazards, and with the seismic safety requirements in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC). The project would also implement the design recommendations set forth in the geotechnical report, which includes but not limited to recommendation that the proposed structure be supported on a system of driven concrete piles and/or drilled, cast-in-place friction piles; shoring; installation of retaining walls for the proposed subterranean levels of the parking structure; waterproofing; and retaining wall drainage. As such, the project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects associated with fault rupture, and no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with fault rupture is necessary.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located in the seismically active region of southern California and, as such, may be subject to strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, further evaluation of potential impacts associated with seismic ground shaking is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Potentially Significant Impact. Based on the CGS Seismic Hazards Map, the project site is located within a delineated liquefaction hazard zone. This determination is based on groundwater depth records, soil type and distance to a fault capable of producing a substantial earthquake. Therefore, further evaluation of potential impacts associated with liquefaction is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

iv. Landslides?

No Impact. Landslides tend to occur in loosely consolidated, wet soil, and/or rock on unstable sloping terrain. The project site is characterized by a relatively flat topography, with a slope of less than 10 feet. In addition, the site is not classified as a landslide hazard zone in the CGS Seismic Hazards Map. As such, the probability of landslides occurring on the site is low. Therefore, the project would not result in any impacts related to landslide activity, and no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with landslides is necessary.

b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Potentially Significant Impact. The project would result in soil exposure during construction from grading and earthmoving activities. As the project includes two levels of subterranean parking, the removal of soil below grade would be necessary. Specifically, the project would result in the grading and export of approximately 494,358 cubic yards of soil.



Page B-15


Therefore, further evaluation of potential impacts associated with grading and excavation is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

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?

Potentially Significant Impact. Geologic explorations identified the presence of fill material consisting of moist, silty sand up to a depth of 5 feet.6 Native soils consist predominantly of clayey silts and silty clays deposited by river and stream action. Since the proposed subterranean structure would have a finished floor elevation of 15.5 to 23.5 feet below grade, the project would require the removal of all existing fill material. As recommended by the geotechnical report prepared for the project, the proposed structures would be founded on a system of driven concrete piles and/or drilled cast-in-place piles, bearing in the dense native soil. Implementation of the recommendations provided in the geotechnical report would ensure that the soil would be capable of supporting the foundation loads. Thus, no further evaluation of this issue is necessary.

As discussed in Response to Checklist Question VI.a.iii. above, the project is located in an area identified as a liquefaction hazard zone. Therefore, further evaluation of potential impacts associated with liquefaction is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

Subsidence is a localized mass movement that involves the gradual downward settling or sinking of the ground, resulting from the extraction of mineral resources, subsurface oil, groundwater, or other subsurface liquids, such as natural gas. The project would not require the withdrawal of oil or water and is not located in area where such activity is occurring. Therefore, the potential for subsidence would be less than significant, and no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is necessary.

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?

Less Than Significant Impact. Geologic exploration and tests identified native soils to be in the low to moderate expansion range.7 The project would implement the recommendations provided in the geotechnical report regarding foundation design and floor slabs. Implementation 6 Geotechnologies, Inc., Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Retail and Apartment

Complex, Northwest Corner of Camarillo Street and Sepulveda Boulevard, June 10, 2002. 7 Ibid.



Page B-16


of the recommendations would ensure that the project would not result in substantive risks associated with expansive soils. In addition, the project would comply with State and local building and safety codes including CGS requirements, the UBC, and the LAMC with regard to expansive soils. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with expansive soil is necessary.

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

No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area where sewer infrastructure is available. The project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the project would not result in any impact related to soils supporting wastewater systems, and no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is necessary.

VII. 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?

Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the project would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials, including vehicle fuels, oils, and transmission fluids. Similarly, operation of the project would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials typical of those used in residential and neighborhood commercial developments, including cleaning agents, office supplies, and pesticides and other materials for landscaping. However, all potentially hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Any associated risk would be adequately reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with these standards and regulations. As such, construction and operation of the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is necessary.

However, due to the age of the existing structures on the project site, the potential for encountering asbestos containing materials (ACM) and lead based paint (LBP) during demolition activities exists. As such, further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.



Page B-17


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?

Potentially Significant Impact. None of the proposed uses (i.e., residential and neighborhood retail uses, such as specialty grocery store/farmer’s market) would result in a known danger related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment. As discussed in Response to Checklist Question VII.a., above, operation of the project would involve the limited use of potentially hazardous materials in the form of cleaning solvents, office supplies, and pesticides and other materials used for landscaping. The use and storage of such materials would occur in compliance with applicable standards and regulations, and would not pose significant hazards. As such, implementation of the project would not result in reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is necessary.

However, due to the age of the existing structures on the project site, the potential for encountering asbestos containing materials (ACM) and lead based paint (LBP) during demolition activities exists and may result in the release of these hazardous materials into the environment in the event of upset or accident conditions. As such, further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

No Impact. There are no existing schools located within 0.25 mile of the site. Hesby Elementary School, which is currently closed, is located within 0.25 mile of the site to the west across the I-405. This LAUSD school is proposed to reopen as a K-8 school (kindergarten through eighth grade). The nearest school, California Preparatory School, is located approximately 0.5 mile northwest of the project site. As discussed above, the limited quantities and prescribed handling procedures of any hazardous materials would not pose a risk at the school. In addition, none of the hazardous materials anticipated to be used at the project site are considered acutely hazardous in the small quantities in which they would be handled and used. Thus, occupancy of the residences and neighborhood retail space would not cause hazardous substance emissions or generate hazardous waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. No impact would occur, and no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is necessary.



Page B-18


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

Less Than Significant Impact. Existing structures on the project site were constructed between 1940 and the early 1970s, and have been used for residential and office uses since that time. Prior to the 1940s, the site was used for farming. The office building has been unoccupied due to damages sustained during seismic events. Typically, residential and office uses are not anticipated to represent a hazard to the public or environment. In addition, a review of the Cortese List, which is updated annually by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, indicates that the project site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites.8 Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is necessary.

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. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, within 2 miles of a public airport, or within an airport hazard area as designated by the City of Los Angeles. The closest airport is the Van Nuys Municipal Airport, located approximately 3 miles north of the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard for those residing or working in the project area. No impact would occur, and no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is necessary.

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?

No Impact. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site, and the site is not located within a designated airport hazard area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in airport-related safety hazards for the people residing or working in the area. No impact would occur, and no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with private airstrip safety hazard is necessary.

8 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese)

List, August 11, 2004.



Page B-19


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

Potentially Significant Impact. With the exception of accessing the site and construction of any required new utility connections, construction activities and staging areas for the project would not intrude upon Sepulveda Boulevard, which serves as the primary emergency access route to the project site and nearby properties. The project would involve the vacation of Peach Avenue and La Maida Street. These roadways are currently used for emergency access to the existing residential uses. Emergency access to the completed project site would be provided via a private driveway between the freeway and project connecting Sepulveda Boulevard and Camarillo Street. The proposed project would not require or result in any modifications to Sepulveda Boulevard. However, further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is recommended to be included in the Fire Protection discussion of an Environmental Impact Report.

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?

No Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized setting and is mostly developed or paved. No wildland areas are located adjacent or in the vicinity of the project site. Furthermore, the project site is not located within a Wildland Fire Hazard area as identified by the City of Los Angeles.9 Therefore, project implementation would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur, and no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is necessary.

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

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

Potentially Significant Impact. Project-related construction activities have the potential to result in adverse effects on surface water quality as the result of minor soil erosion (during grading), subsequent siltation, and conveyance of other pollutants into municipal storm drains during the project construction phase. In addition, operation of the project (e.g., parking areas) could introduce sources of pollutants into the storm drain system. As such, further evaluation of

9 City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Safety Element of the General Plan, Exhibit D: Selected

Wildfire Hazard Areas in the City of Los Angeles, November 26, 1996.



Page B-20


potential impacts on water quality is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

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)?

Less Than Significant Impact. Geologic investigations identified the presence of groundwater at depths between 43 and 46.5 feet below the existing grade.10 According to the geotechnical report for the project, the high groundwater level is not anticipated to rise above a depth of 30 feet below the existing grade and would be on the order of 17 feet below the lowest level of the proposed underground parking structure. As recommended in the geotechnical report for the proposed project, drilled cast-in-place friction piles would be placed a minimum of 20 feet into the underlying native soils beneath the subterranean structure, which would have a finished floor elevation of approximately 15.5 to 23.5 feet below grade. Therefore, excavation for the piles may result in contact with the groundwater table. However, according to the geotechnical engineers, dewatering would not be necessary. Compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and City regulations would ensure that construction activities would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. Furthermore, installation of the piles would not interfere with groundwater recharge. In addition, the project would be designed to comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical report to ensure that operation of the project would not require the withdrawal of groundwater supplies or be subject to flooding in the event of a rise in the level of the groundwater table. As such, construction and operation of the project would not deplete substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant, and no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is necessary.

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?

Potentially Significant Impact. The project would increase the amount of impervious surface area on-site. As such, the project may have the potential to alter existing drainage patterns of the site and surrounding area that would result in erosion or siltation. Therefore,

10 Geotechnologies, Inc., Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Retail and Apartment

Complex, Northwest Corner of Camarillo Street and Sepulveda Boulevard, June 10, 2002.



Page B-21


further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

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. As discussed in Response to Checklist Question VIII.c., the project would increase the amount of impervious surface area on-site and may have the potential to alter existing drainage patterns of the site and surrounding area, which may result in changes to existing drainage patterns or increases in surface water runoff quantities. Therefore, further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

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?

e. and f. Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed above, the post-development runoff quantities may increase. With the proposed commercial, residential, and parking uses, project operations would generate pollution constituents in surface water runoff. Therefore, further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

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?

No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood plain.11 As such, implementation of the proposed project would not place housing within a 100-year flood plain. No impact would occur, and no further evaluation of this issue is necessary.

11 City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Safety Element of the General Plan, Exhibit F: 100-Year and

500-Year Flood Plains, November 26, 1996.



Page B-22


h. Place within a 100-year flood plain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

No Impact. Since the project site is not located within a 100-year flood plain, the proposed structure would not impede or redirect flood flows. No impact would occur with regard to flood flows, and no further evaluation of this issue is necessary.

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?

Potentially Significant Impact. According to the geotechnical report conducted for the project, the project site lies within the inundation hazard area of the Encino Reservoir, which is located approximately 2.5 miles west-southwest of the site. Therefore, impacts relating to flooding as a result of levee or dam failure may be potentially significant, and as such, further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

No Impact. A seiche is an oscillation of a body of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin, such as a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank. A tsunami is a great sea wave, commonly referred to as a tidal wave, produced by a significant undersea disturbance such as tectonic displacement of the sea floor associated with large, shallow earthquakes. Mudflows result from the downslope movement of soil and/or rock under the influence of gravity.

The project site is not located within the vicinity of any large surface water bodies. Due to the distance from oceans and lakes, tsunami and seiche hazards do not exist. Additionally, as the project site is relatively flat, the project would not be prone to mudflows. Therefore, the project would not be prone to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact would occur, and no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is necessary.

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:

a. Physically divide an established community?

No Impact. The project site is located in a highly urbanized area on Sepulveda Boulevard, which is one of two major north/south arterials that serve as focal points for the



Page B-23


community of Sherman Oaks.12 The site is presently developed with a four-story unoccupied office building with surface parking, three two-story multi-family residential building with 24 units, 11 single-family detached units, and a vacant lot currently being used for used car storage. The US-101 and the I-405 border the project site to the north and west, respectively. Immediately to the south across Camarillo Street is the six-level parking structure for the Sherman Oaks Galleria and a two-story motel. Directly east of the project site across Sepulveda Boulevard are multi-family and single-family residential buildings. Single-family residential uses are also located farther to the east of Sepulveda Boulevard.

The transformation of the site to a multi-family residential community with ground floor neighborhood commercial uses, including a specialty grocery store, fronting Sepulveda Boulevard and Camarillo Street would be consistent and compatible with the established land use patterns in the area, including multi-family and single-family uses to the east and commercial uses to the south. In addition, due to the physical location of the project site, which is bounded by the US-101, the I-405, and Sepulveda Boulevard, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with this issue is necessary.

b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Potentially Significant Impact. Various local and regional plans guide development of the project site. At the local level, the Sherman Oaks–Studio City–Toluca Lake–Cahuenga Pass Community Plan implements land use policy standards of the City of Los Angeles General Plan, and the City of Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) governs land use at the project site through building standards and development restrictions. The project site is also subject to the Ventura/Cahuenga Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan, which guides development along the Ventura Boulevard commercial corridor. In addition, regional planning agencies have jurisdiction over land use issues and maintain policies that apply to the project site. These include the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP), administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which regulates regional traffic issues; the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Regional Comprehensive Plan & Guide (RCPG) which addresses regional development and forecasts growth for cities under its jurisdiction; and the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) which addresses attainment of state and federal ambient air quality

12 City of Los Angeles, Sherman Oaks–Studio City–Toluca Lake–Cahuenga Pass Community Plan, updated

May 13, 1998.



Page B-24


standards throughout the South Coast Air Basin. The consistency of the proposed project with these and other applicable plans is recommended to be analyzed further in an Environmental Impact Report.

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

No Impact. The project site has been previously developed and is located in highly urbanized area. No adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans apply to the project site or the immediate vicinity. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impact would occur, and no further evaluation of this issue is necessary.

X. 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?

No Impact. The project site is not located in an area containing significant mineral deposits as designated by the City of Los Angeles.13 The project site has been previously developed and is located in an urban, developed area. Therefore, project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. No impacts would occur, and no further evaluation of this issue is necessary.

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?

No Impact. Government Code Section 65302(d) states that a conservation element of the general plan shall include “minerals and other natural resources.” According to the Conservation Element of the City of Los Angeles General Plan, sites that contain potentially significant sand and gravel deposits which are to be conserved follow the Los Angeles River flood plain, coastal plain, and other water bodies and courses and lie along the flood plain from the San Fernando Valley through downtown Los Angeles. These sites are also 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), neither of which

13 City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning, Los Angeles Citywide General Plan Framework, Draft

Environmental Impact Report, January 19, 1995, Figure GS-1.



Page B-25


incorporates the project site.14 Furthermore, the project site and its surrounding area are currently developed with urban uses. As such, project implementation would not result in impacts associated with the loss or availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. No impacts would occur, and no further evaluation of this issue is necessary.

XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:

a. 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?

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project could potentially expose residential and other sensitive uses to noise levels above established noise standards. The proposed project would create noise on a short-term basis during construction from heavy equipment and construction activities. In addition, the project site is bordered by three major roadways, including the US-101 to the north, the I-405 to the west, and Sepulveda Boulevard to the east. Traffic along these roadways has the potential to generate adverse noise levels, which may affect the residents of the proposed project. Long-term operational noise also could result from project-related traffic, mechanical equipment associated with air conditioning, and other building operations, such as waste disposal activities. It is recommended that the project’s consistency with local noise standards and guidelines based on existing and proposed land uses within and surrounding the project site be analyzed further in an Environmental Impact Report.

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the project could temporarily cause ground vibration or ground-borne noise levels. The subterranean parking structure may require pile driving, which may generate vibration levels above ambient conditions. Further evaluation of potential vibration impacts associated with construction noise is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report. However, the types of activities associated with project operation would not result in the generation of groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels beyond those that currently exist. Therefore, no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with operational vibration is necessary.

14 City of Los Angeles, Conservation Element of the City of Los Angeles General Plan, September 16, 2001.



Page B-26


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

Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project could permanently increase ambient noise in the project area during project operation due to increases in project-generated traffic and from on-site development. Therefore, further evaluation of potential impacts associated with operational noise is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Potentially Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project could temporarily increase ambient noise in the project area during project construction due to site preparation and construction activities. Thus, it is recommended that further evaluation of potential impacts associated with construction noise be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

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 is located approximately 3 miles south of the Van Nuys Airport and outside of the airport land use plan boundaries. While air traffic from the Van Nuys Airport contributes slightly to existing ambient noise levels in the project area, airport activity generates lower levels of noise than automobile and truck traffic on adjacent freeways, including the US-101 and the I-405. Furthermore, since the project site is located outside of any planning boundaries adopted by the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, ambient noise levels in the area are not excessive and do not significantly interfere with the activities of the working population.15 As the proposed project would not result in impacts associated with the exposure of people to excessive noise levels from airport operations, no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with airport-related noise is necessary.

15 The planning boundaries delineate areas subject to noise impacts and safety hazards associated with airports.

Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan, adopted December 19, 1991.



Page B-27


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 located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. As discussed in Response No. XI.e., the nearest airport to the project site is the Van Nuys Airport, located approximately 3 miles north of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in impacts associated with the exposure of people to excessive noise levels associated with the operation of a private airstrip, and no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with private airstrips is necessary.

XII. 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)?

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project includes 500 new housing units and, thus, would introduce a new residential population into the area. Additionally, the neighborhood commercial component of the project would involve the introduction of approximately 130 employees in several shifts, which also would contribute to population growth in the community.16 Further evaluation of potential impacts associated with population growth is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

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?

b. and c. Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed with 24 multi-family residential units (five of which are currently unoccupied), 11 single-family detached units, and a 63,500-square-foot unoccupied office building with surface parking. Development of the proposed mixed-use project, therefore, would displace 35 existing residences and the tenants of the 30 occupied residential units. As such, further evaluation of potential impacts associated with the construction of replacement housing elsewhere is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

16 Based on Employment Density Summary Report, SCAG, October 2001.



Page B-28


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

a. Fire protection.

Potentially Significant Impact. Fire protection is provided to the site by the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD). New construction and the introduction of residential and daytime populations associated with the proposed project would increase the demand for fire protection services in the area. As such, the proposed project may have the potential to create adverse impacts associated with fire protection services. Therefore, further evaluation of potential impacts on fire protection services is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

b. Police protection.

Potentially Significant Impact. Police protection is provided to the site and the surrounding area by the City of Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). The new permanent residential and temporary daytime populations associated with the proposed project would increase the demand for police protection services in the area. Therefore, further evaluation of potential impacts on police protection services will be included in the EIR.

c. Schools.

Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located within Local District 2 (Grant/Van Nuys cluster) of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The new permanent residential and temporary daytime populations associated with the proposed project would increase student enrollment at local schools in the area. Therefore, further evaluation of potential impacts on schools is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

d. Parks.

Potentially Significant Impact. There are several parks and recreational facilities within a 2-mile radius of the project site, including the Sepulveda Dam Recreation Area immediately north of the project site across the I-405 (this facility includes a variety of sport centers, golf courses and recreational uses), Van Nuys–Sherman Oaks Park to the northeast on Van Nuys Boulevard, Los Encinos State Historic Park and Encino Park to the west on Ventura Boulevard, and Delano Park to the north. The new permanent residential and temporary daytime



Page B-29


populations associated with the proposed project would increase the demand for park facilities in the area. As such, further evaluation of potential impacts on parks is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

e. Other governmental services (including roads).

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not significantly impact other governmental services. As discussed in Section XV, Transportation/Circulation, although development of the proposed project would result in additional vehicle trips associated with project construction and operation, no roadway improvements or maintenance are expected to be necessary as a result of the proposed project per the traffic study. In summary, expansion or improvement to government services or infrastructure would not be necessary as a result of the proposed project. No significant impact would occur, and no further evaluation of potential impacts on other governmental services is necessary.

XIV. 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?

Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed in Response to Checklist Question XIII.d., there are several parks and recreational facilities within a 2-mile radius of the site, including the Sepulveda Dam Recreation Area immediately north of the project site across the I-405 (this facility includes a variety of sport centers, golf courses and recreational uses), Van Nuys–Sherman Oaks Park to the northeast on Van Nuys Boulevard, Los Encinos State Historic Park and Encino Park to the west on Ventura Boulevard, and Delano Park to the north. However, the new permanent residential and temporary daytime populations associated with the proposed project would increase the demand for parks and recreational facilities in the area. As such, further evaluation of potential impacts on recreational facilities is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

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?

No Impact. The proposed project would include multiple-themed courtyard areas that include recreational amenities for use by the proposed project residential occupants. The construction and maintenance of the courtyard areas would be the responsibility of the project



Page B-30


developer and/or owner. No new or expanded off-site recreational facilities would be required as part of the project. Thus, no impact would occur, and no further evaluation of this issue is necessary.

XV. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project:

a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to ratio capacity on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

a. and b. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts associated with a substantial increase in traffic or an exceedance of level of service standards. Therefore, a traffic study will be prepared for the project. Project-generated traffic volumes will be based on the amount and type of land uses proposed. The analysis of traffic impacts will identify key intersections for analysis, quantify existing and future traffic conditions at those locations, identify impacts caused by the addition of project-generated traffic, and identify mitigation measures to reduce any potentially significant impacts generated by the project, as appropriate and where feasible. The findings of the traffic study will be incorporated into an Environmental Impact Report.

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?

No Impact. The site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an airport or private airstrip. Additionally, the proposed project does not propose any uses that would change air traffic patterns or generate air traffic. As such, safety risks associated with a change in air traffic patterns would not occur, and no further evaluation of potential impacts on air traffic patterns is necessary.

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

No Impact. There are no existing hazardous design features such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections on-site or within the project vicinity, and project implementation would not create hazards relative to design features. Final design of the proposed project’s subterranean parking structure access and egress driveways will be reviewed by LADOT. In



Page B-31


addition, the project area currently consists of regional commercial and residential uses, and the proposed project would be compatible with these existing uses. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not create or increase hazards relative to a design feature or incompatible uses, and no further evaluation of potential impacts associated with increased hazards to a design feature is necessary.

e. Result in inadequate emergency access?

Potentially Significant Impact. Construction activities and staging areas for the project would be confined to the site (except for new utility connections within adjacent street rights-of-way). During construction, access to the site would be provided from both Sepulveda Boulevard and Camarillo Street, and emergency vehicle access would be maintained in accordance with City requirements.

Access to the project site during the operational phase would be provided via driveways on Sepulveda Boulevard and Camarillo Street. The Sepulveda Boulevard access, which would be located along the site’s northern frontage, would be a private driveway that extends from Sepulveda Boulevard to Camarillo Street providing two access points to the parking structure along its length. This driveway would also serve as fire department access to the rear of the site. There would be two additional access points to the parking structure along Camarillo Street. The eastern entrance on Camarillo Street would be located approximately 170 feet from Sepulveda Boulevard, and the western entrance would be located near the terminus of Camarillo Street prior to reaching the private driveway along the northern frontage and extending from Sepulveda Boulevard. No other roadway improvements or modifications with the potential to affect emergency access would occur in conjunction with the project. However, further evaluation of potential impacts regarding emergency access is recommended to be included in the Fire Protection discussion of an Environmental Impact Report.

f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?

No Impact. The anticipated mix of uses would require a total of 1,183 parking spaces per LAMC parking requirements (refer to Table B-1 on page B-32). The project would provide approximately 1,470 spaces within a multi-level subterranean structure. Therefore, the proposed number of parking spaces would exceed LAMC parking requirements. Furthermore, since project residents are anticipated to comprise a percentage of the proposed project’s neighborhood retail (including specialty grocery store/farmer’s market) patronage, the demand for on-site parking would be proportionately reduced. Consequently, implementation of the proposed project would not result in inadequate parking capacity. No impacts would occur, and no further evaluation of potential impacts on parking is necessary.



Page B-32


g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Potentially Significant Impact. In light of the location of the proposed project within a busy commercial/residential corridor, the proposed mixed-use development would provide opportunities for the use of public transit and other alternative transportation modes. However, as previously discussed, several intersections and freeway segments in the project vicinity have been established as monitoring intersections in the CMP set forth by the MTA. The project may generate additional trips at these CMP intersections and freeway segments. Therefore, further analysis of consistency with the CMP and other adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

XVI. UTILITIES. Would the project:

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

Potentially Significant Impact. The City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works provides wastewater services for the project site. With the addition of the new permanent residential and temporary daytime populations associated with the proposed project, the project would generate an increase in the volume of wastewater requiring disposal and treatment. In order to assess whether this increase in wastewater flow would exceed wastewater treatment requirements, further evaluation of potential impacts is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

Table B-1

PROJECT PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND SPACES PROVIDED

Proposed Uses Spaces/Unit or Spaces/1,000 sf

Units or Sq.Ft. Proposed Spaces Required Spaces Provided

Residential 963 1,250 1-Bedroom Units 1.5 75 113 2-Bedroom Units 2 350 700 3-Bedroom Units 2 75 150

Retail 4 55,000 220 220

Total 1,183 1,470

Surplus Parking Above LAMC Requirement 287

Source: LAMC Section 12.21 A 4(a); Crain and Associates, Traffic Impact Study for Il Villaggio Toscano, Proposed Mixed Use Project at Sepulveda Boulevard and Camarillo Street, Community of Sherman Oaks, August 2004.



Page B-33


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?

Potentially Significant Impact. Water service would be provided by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). The proposed project would result in increased water demand generated by 850 new residents and the irrigation of landscaped areas. SB 610, effective January 1, 2002, requires that a water supply assessment be provided for certain projects subject to CEQA.17 Since the proposed project involves development of 500 residential units, it is subject to the requirements of SB 610. A water supply assessment will be requested from LADWP to determine if the public water system can provide sufficient water supplies during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year timeframe. As such, the availability of water is recommended to be evaluated further in an Environmental Impact Report.

As discussed in Response to Checklist Questions XVI.a. and XVI.d., the project would generate an increase in the volume of wastewater for disposal and treatment. Thus, further evaluation of potential impacts on sewer/wastewater services is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

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

Potentially Significant Impact. Under existing conditions, stormwater runoff flows from the site to Sepulveda Boulevard. The project would increase the amount of impervious surface area on-site and may have the potential to substantially alter existing drainage patterns of the site and surrounding area, which may result in substantial changes to existing drainage patterns or substantial increases in surface water runoff quantities. Therefore, further evaluation of potential impacts on storm drainage is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

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

Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed above, the proposed project would result in increased water demand generated by 850 new residents and the irrigation of landscaped areas. Since the proposed project is subject to the requirements of SB 610, a water supply

17 Codified in the California Water Code Section 10910 et seq.



Page B-34


assessment will be requested from LADWP to determine if the public water system can provide sufficient water supplies during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year timeframe. As such, the availability of water is recommended to be evaluated further in an Environmental Impact Report.

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

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would be integrated into the City of Los Angeles wastewater treatment system. As described in Response to Checklist Question XVI.a., with the addition of the new permanent residential and temporary daytime populations associated with the proposed project, the project would generate an increase in the volume of wastewater for disposal and treatment. In order to assess whether this increase in wastewater flow would exceed wastewater treatment requirements and capacities, further evaluation of potential impacts on sewer/wastewater services is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

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

Potentially Significant Impact. Solid waste management services in the City of Los Angeles are provided by various public agencies and private companies. Solid waste generated on-site would be collected and transported by a private contractor. With the addition of the new permanent residential and temporary daytime populations associated with the proposed project, the project may result in an increase in solid waste disposal. Therefore, further evaluation of potential impacts on solid waste services is recommended to be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

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

Potentially Significant Impact. Solid waste management is guided by the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, which emphasizes resource conservation through reduction, recycling, and reuse of solid waste. The Act requires that localities conduct a Solid Waste Generation Study (SWGS) and develop a Source Reduction Recycling Element (SRRE). The City of Los Angeles prepared a Solid Waste Management Policy Plan that was adopted by the City Council in 1994. Although it is anticipated that the proposed project would comply with applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including those



Page B-35


pertaining to waste reduction and recycling, this issue will be further documented and analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report.

XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.

a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Potentially Significant Impact. Based on the analysis contained in this Initial Study, aspects of the proposed project, such as aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/surface water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services (including recreation), transportation and circulation, and utilities, have the potential to result in significant impacts. An Environmental Impact Report will be prepared to analyze and document these potentially significant impacts. Though these impacts are not expected to substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or destroy prehistoric records of the past, they do have the potential to degrade the environment. Therefore, this potential of the proposed project to degrade the quality of the environment will be addressed in an Environmental Impact Report.

b. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

Potentially Significant Impact. The potential for cumulative impacts occurs when the independent impacts of the project are combined with the impacts of related projects in proximity to the project site such that impacts occur that are greater than the impacts of the project alone.

Located within the vicinity of the project site are other past, current and/or probable future projects, whose development may contribute to potential significant cumulative impacts with the proposed project. In evaluating the potential for cumulative impacts, environmental issues can be grouped together, to a certain extent, based on the nature of the potential impacts as



Page B-36


analyzed in this Initial Study. Some aspects of the proposed project have been identified as having the potential for significant environmental impacts and will be analyzed and documented in an EIR. Therefore, the potential for cumulative impacts related to these issues (e.g., aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/ surface water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services (including recreation), transportation and circulation, and utilities), resulting from the project in conjunction with related projects cannot be fully determined in this Initial Study and must also be analyzed and documented in the Environmental Impact Report.

The project site is located in an urbanized area. While other projects may occur in the project area, such developments would largely occur on previously disturbed land and are not anticipated to impact agricultural and mineral resources. Thus, no cumulative impact to these resources would occur.

In addition, compliance with applicable federal, state and City regulations would preclude significant cumulative impacts with regard to cultural resources.

c. Does the project have environmental effects which cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Potentially Significant Impact. Based on the above discussion, construction and operation of the proposed project could potentially result in environmental impacts, which may cause adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Further evaluation of potential impacts associated with environmental effects on human beings, including impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/surface water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services (including recreation), transportation and circulation, and utilities, will be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

Appendix A-3

- Comments

Documents

Il Villaggio Toscano Project Draft EIR Appendix A · F. Number 180 Trunk Diameter 6 to 36 inches and type various (no oaks) of existing trees. G. Number 180 Trunk Diameter 6 to 36