la brea initial study - negative declaration

7/29/2019 La Brea Initial Study - Negative Declaration

1/25

City of West Hollywood

La Brea Streetscape ProjectLa Brea Avenue between Fountain Avenue

and Romaine Street

COUNTERCOPY

DO NOTREMOVE

CEQA INITIAL STUDY &NEGATIVE DECLARATION

February 7, 2013


2/25

2

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

Project Title: La Brea Streetscape Project

Lead Agency: City of West HollywoodPublic Works Department8300 Santa Monica Boulevard, 2nd FloorWest Hollywood, CA 90069

Contact Person & Phone Number:Donn Uyeno, P.E.Senior Civil Engineer323-848-6457

Project Location: The portion of La Brea Ave located within the boundary of the Cityof West Hollywood

Project Sponsors Name and Address:City of West HollywoodPublic Works Department8300 Santa Monica Boulevard, 2nd FloorWest Hollywood, CA 90069

General Plan Designation: Arterial Street

Zoning: Adjacent to CR (Commercial Regional Center) andCA (Commercial Arterial) Land Uses

Description of Project:

The City of West Hollywood is proposing to implement the La Brea Streetscape Master Plan on

that portion of La Brea Ave which is located within its boundaries (between Fountain Ave and

Romaine St). The City is planning to take the existing streetscape design that exists along

Santa Monica Blvd and continue it onto La Brea Ave. Work includes the construction of planted

green space along the sidewalks, install landscaped medians, removal and replacement of

trees, install pedestrian street lights, and replace damaged sidewalks.

Surrounding land uses and setting:

Land uses along La Brea Avenue include a large commercial retail center, smaller retail,commercial offices, a synagogue, a concrete plant, a grocery store, a fast food establishment,

restaurants, and residential apartments mixed with ground floor commercial uses currently

under construction at three locations. The portion to the north and south of the project site is

owned and maintained by the City of Los Angeles.

Other public agencies whose approval is required: None


3/25

3

II. 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 thefollowing pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils

Greenhouse GasEmissions

Hazards and HazardousMaterials

Hydrology/Water Quality

Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population/Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings ofSignificance


4/25

4

III. DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,

and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the

environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the

project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially

significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has

been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,

and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as

described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but

it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the

environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed

adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable

standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or

NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed

upon the proposed project, nothing further is required

______________________________________

SIGNATURE: Donn I. Uyeno, P.E.

_____________________________________

TITLE DATE


5/25

5

IV. CHECKLIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

This checklist identifies physical, biological, social and economic factors that might be affected

by the proposed project. In many cases, background studies performed in connection with theprojects indicate no impacts. A NO IMPACT answer in the last column reflects this

determination. Where there is a need for clarifying discussion, the discussion is included either

following the applicable section of the checklist or is within the body of the environmental

document itself. The words "significant" and "significance" used throughout the following

checklist are related to CEQA, impacts. The questions in this form are intended to encourage

the thoughtful assessment of impacts and do not represent thresholds of significance.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

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 within a state 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. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural

resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural

Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as

an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whetherimpacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies

may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding

the states inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest

Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest

Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:


6/25

6

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No Impact

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or

Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), asshown on the maps prepared pursuant to the

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the

California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural

use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a

Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning

of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code

section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PublicResources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned

Timberland Production (as defined by Government

Code section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of

forest land to non-forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment

which, due to their location or nature, could result in

conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or

conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality

management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the

applicable air quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute

substantially to an existing or projected air quality

violation?


7/25

7

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No Impact

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase

of any criteria pollutant for which the project regionis non- attainment under an applicable federal or

state ambient air quality standard (including

releasing emissions which exceed quantitative

thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant

concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial

number of people?

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or

through habitat modifications, on any species

identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status

species in local or regional plans, policies, or

regulations, or by the California Department of Fish

and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian

habitat or other sensitive natural community

identified in local or regional plans, policies,

regulations or by the California Department of Fish

and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally

protected wetlands as defined 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?


8/25

8

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No Impact

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances

protecting biological resources, such as a treepreservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat

Conservation Plan, Natural Community

Conservation Plan, or other approved local,

regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a historical resource as defined in

15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of an archaeological resource pursuant

to 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) Expose people or structures to potential substantial

adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or

death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as

delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo

Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the

State Geologist for the area or based on other

substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to

Division of Mines and Geology Special

Publication 42?


9/25

9

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Less Than

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 potentially 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. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly

or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on

the environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulationadopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions

of greenhouse gases?


10/25

10

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No Impact

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment through the routine transport, use, or

disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment through reasonably foreseeable upset

and accident conditions involving the release of

hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or

acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastewithin 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 people

residing or working in the project 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?


11/25

11

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No Impact

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste

discharge requirements?

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or

interfere substantially with groundwater recharge

such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer

volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table

level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby

wells would drop to a level which would not support

existing land uses or planned uses for which permits

have been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of

the site or area, including through the alteration of

the course of a stream or river, in a manner which

would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or

off-site?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of

the site or area, including through the alteration of

the course of a stream or river, or substantially

increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a

manner which would result in flooding on- or off-

site?

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 hazard areaas mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or

Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard

delineation map?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures

which would impede or redirect flood flows?


12/25

12

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No Impact

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of

loss, injury or death involving flooding, includingflooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community?

b) Conflict with any 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, local coastal program, or zoning

ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or

mitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation

plan or natural community conservation plan?

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral

resource that would be of value to the region and

the residents of the state?

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?


13/25

13

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No Impact

XII. 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?

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive

groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise

levels in the project vicinity above levels existing

without the project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in

ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above

levels existing without the project?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan

or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within

two miles of a public airport or public use airport,

would the project expose people residing or working

in the project area to excessive noise levels?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,

would the project expose people residing or working

in the project area to excessive noise levels?

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,

either directly (for example, by proposing new

homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,

through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,

necessitating the construction of replacement

housing elsewhere?


14/25

14

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No Impact

c) Displace substantial numbers of people,

necessitating the construction of replacementhousing elsewhere?

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES:

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse

physical impacts associated with the provision of new or

physically altered governmental facilities, need for new

or physically altered governmental facilities, the

construction of which could cause significantenvironmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable

service ratios, response times or other performance

objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?

Police protection?

Schools?

Parks?

Other public facilities?

XV. RECREATION:

a) Would the project increase the use of existing

neighborhood and regional parks or other

recreational facilities such that substantial physical

deterioration of the facility would occur or be

accelerated?


15/25

15

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No Impact

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or

require the construction or expansion of recreationalfacilities which might have an adverse physical

effect on the environment?

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy

establishing measures of effectiveness for the

performance of the circulation system, taking into

account all modes of transportation including masstransit and non-motorized travel and relevant

components of the circulation system, including but

not limited to intersections, streets, highways and

freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass

transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management

program, including, but not limited to level of service

standards and travel demand measures, or other

standards established by the county congestion

management agency for designated roads or

highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including

either an increase in traffic levels or a change in

location that results in substantial safety risks?

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design

feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous

intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm

equipment)?

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs

regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian

facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or

safety of such facilities?


16/25

16

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No Impact

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the

project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the

applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or

wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of

existing facilities, the construction of which could

cause significant environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm

water drainage facilities or expansion of existingfacilities, the construction of which could cause

significant environmental effects?

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the

project from existing entitlements and resources, or

are new or expanded entitlements needed?

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater

treatment provider which serves or may serve the

project that it has adequate capacity to serve the

projects projected demand in addition to the

providers existing commitments?

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted

capacity to accommodate the projects solid waste

disposal needs?

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and

regulations related to solid waste?


17/25

17

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No Impact

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the

quality of the environment, substantially reduce the

habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or

wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining

levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal

community, substantially 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 that are individuallylimited, but cumulatively considerable?

("Cumulatively considerable" means that the

incremental effects of a project are considerable

when viewed in connection with the effects of past

projects, the effects of other current projects, and

the effects of probable future projects)?

c) Does the project have environmental effects which

will cause substantial adverse effects on human

beings, either directly or indirectly?


18/25

18

IV. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

I. Aesthetics: The proposed La Brea Streetscape Project is expected to substantiallyimprove the aesthetic quality of West Hollywoods portion of La Brea Avenue.

This project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect on scenic vistas, or

scenic resources. The visual character and the surroundings of the boulevard will be

improved, by visually connecting La Brea Avenue to improvements already constructed on

Santa Monica Boulevard. This includes matching the trees and blue pedestrian light poles

that are already installed on Santa Monica Blvd.

Significance finding of a) c): No impact

There are going to be 21 pedestrian level street lights added to the sidewalks along La

Brea Avenue. These will provide a new source of light, but will not adversely affect day or

nighttime views in the area. These lights will provide illumination on the sidewalks and the

globe shape diffuses light in a way that does not provide glare to vehicles in the street or

nearby residents.

Significance finding of d): Less than significant impact

II. Agriculture Resources: There is no prime or unique farmland, nor agricultural uses in theproject area or surrounding properties.

Significance finding a) e): No impact

III. Air Quality: The proposed project will not violate any air quality standards or contribute toexisting or projected air quality violations. It will not expose sensitive receptors topollutants and will not decrease ambient air quality. This project is not expected to resultin any objectionable odors. During construction, when dust could be created bylandscaping and construction work, the contractor will be responsible for controlling thedust by appropriate means such as sweeping or watering as required by the projectspecifications. The effect will be temporary and is not considered significant.

The project is not expected to make any significant changes to the number of trips made

on La Brea Avenue and the vehicle parking capacity on the boulevard will not change. As

such, it will not constitute a significant deterioration of air quality in the already established

commercial areas of West Hollywood. Ambient air quality is not decreased to a level of

significance according to the South Coast Air Quality Management District handbook.

Significance finding of a) e): No impact


19/25

19

IV. Biological Resources: The City has found no significant negative impact on plant oranimal life as a result of the proposed project. There are no riparian habitats or protectedwetlands in the area of the project site. There are no native resident or migratory fish or

wildlife species corridors in the project site.

Significance finding of a) d): No impact

The project includes the removal of up to 31 trees. These trees include 16 mature ficus

trees that have outgrown the narrow public right of way, and are creating trip and fall

hazards. There are also 15 palm trees in a variety of heights. These trees will be replaced

with 32 Chinese Elm trees that will match the 19 Chinese Elm trees already planted on the

frontage of the Gateway Center. Those 19 already planted elm trees will remain

untouched. There will also be 11 added trees in the medians. Local municipal code

11.36.010 and 11.36.020 currently allows for the removal and planting of trees on public

highways, with a permit by the Director of Public Works or the Directors designee.

The City of West Hollywood does have a heritage tree program. None of the trees on La

Brea Avenue are on the list of heritage trees and none have been submitted for

consideration.

Significance finding of e): Less than significant impact

This project does not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural

Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat

conservation plan.

Significance finding of f): No impact

V. Cultural Resources: There are no sites adjacent to the project that are listed on theNational Registry of Historical Resources nor any sites which are listed as potentialhistorical resources or deemed potentially significant by the City of West Hollywood.

The project will not affect any archaeological, paleontological, geological, sites nor disturb

any human remains.

Significance finding of a) d): No impact

VI. Geology and Soils: This project is not in an area exposed fault surface rupture accordingto the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Special Bulletin 42. The project is notlocated within a liquefaction zone.


20/25

20

Because the project only involves surface improvements and enhancements, there will be

no change in the soils or soil conditions that will expose people or structures to strong

seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, soil erosion, lateral spreading,

subsidence or collapse.

All properties adjacent to the project site are connected to the sanitary sewer system.

Significance finding of a) e): No impact

VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: There may be some indirect generation of GHG, from theconstruction vehicles used during the installation of the improvements; however they aretemporary in nature and not at a level of significance to have an impact on theenvironment.

Significance finding of a): Less than Significant Impact

As a part of the Citys General Plan update, the City has developed a Climate Action Plan(CAP) designed to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions at thelocal level. The CAP was adopted on September 6, 2011. Although climate change is aglobal problem, the City recognizes that many strategies to adapt to a changing climateand combat its progression are best enacted at the local level. This plan recommends aseries of actions West Hollywood can take to reduce its contributions to global climatechange by reducing GHG emissions. This project complies with the strategies of the CAPby adding green space and planting new trees.

Significance finding of b): No impact

VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The proposed project will not create a significanthazard to the public or environment, because there is no transport, use, or disposal ofhazardous materials. Therefore there are no foreseeable conditions that would involve theaccidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. The project is not locatedwithin a quarter mile of any school. This project is not located on a site that is included onthe list of hazardous material sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section65962.5. The site is also not located in an airport land use, or within two miles of a publicairport or a private airstrip.

Significance finding of a) f): No impact

During construction the project may slow down response time for an emergency or

evacuation. Emergency access to properties in the City of West Hollywood and the City of

Los Angeles, may use La Brea Avenue as part of their route, however the network of

adjacent street gives them many alternatives to get them through the project area while

the project is under construction. When the project is complete it will have no effect on

emergency response time or evacuation.


21/25

21

Significance finding of g): Less than significant impact

This project is located in an urbanized area with commercial uses on both side of the

street. There are no wild lands in the vicinity of the project.

Significance finding of h): No impact

IX. Hydrology and Water Quality: This project involves streetscape enhancements andinstallations to the medians. During construction the project is required to implement theirLocal Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (LSWPPP) and Best Management Practices(BMPs) to prevent construction debris and/or waste discharges from entering the stormdrain system. Therefore it will not violate any water quality standards or waste dischargerequirements.

Significance finding of a): No impact

The project incorporates landscaped infiltration parkways to reduce the amount of surfacerainwater and runoff from the sidewalks from getting into the storm drain system. Thisincludes installing an 18 layer of sandy loom that has a minimum infiltration rate of perhour, under the top 4 of soil or ground cover. Then beneath that will be a minimum 12layer of open graded gravel, that will help the rainwater infiltrate back into the ground.

Significance finding of b) and e): No impact

As the street slopes in a north-south direction surface rainwater drains southward to catchbasins located at all the intersections. The proposed medians are parallel to the street

therefore there will be no significant change to the already existing drainage patterns onthe street. There are no streams or bodies of water in the project area.

Significance finding of c) and d): No impact

The existing storm drains and/or drainage systems will still be adequate to accommodateanticipated storm water once the project is complete. This project will not place anyhousing or structures in the 100-year flood hazard area. There will not be danger ofinundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

Significance finding of f) j): No impact

X. Land Use and Planning: The project will implement goals to improve the pedestrianexperience on the boulevard, as well as improve the aesthetics on the boulevard thereforeit will bring together nearby residents and businesses located east and west of La BreaAvenue.



22/25

22

The proposed project is consistent with the planned uses in the 2035 City of WestHollywood General Plan and City of West Hollywood Zoning Ordinance, and will notconflict with applicable environmental plans adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over theproject. There is no habitat conservation or natural community conservation areas in theproject area.

Significance finding of b) and c): No impact

XI. Mineral Resources: There are no known mineral resources in the project area thereforethere will be no loss of locally important mineral resources as a result of this project.

Significance finding of a) and b): No impact

XII. Noise: The 2035 City of West Hollywood General Plan identifies only one (1) noisesensitive land use in the project area which is a house of worship, Congregation Kol Ami,at the north-east corner of La Brea Avenue and Lexington Avenue. During construction,there may be additional noise associated with the construction activities. The contractorwill be required to minimize the noise based on mitigations written into the contractspecifications. This includes avoiding construction activities that may create higher thannormal noise on routine gathering days of service and holidays important to thiscongregation.

Significance finding of a): Less than significant impact.

The removal of concrete sidewalks, curbs and gutters are usually done with jack hammers

or similar equipment. This may cause people to be temporarily exposed to ground-bornevibration and a temporary increase in ambient noise. Once the concrete is removed the

other construction activities in the area are completed with construction methods that do

not generate such vibration or noise. When the project is complete there will be neither

ground-borne vibration nor ground-borne noise.

Significance finding of b) and d): Less than significant impact.

Noise related to the project has to do with the activity during construction. There will be no

permanent change to the ambient noise levels once the project is complete.

Significance finding of c): No impact

This project is not located near an airport or private airstrip.

Significance finding of e) and f): No impact.


23/25

23

XIII. Population and Housing: There is no housing being built or removed as a part of thisproject. The project involves improvement and enhancement to existing infrastructure,which may in turn attract new interest into the boulevard. However it will not indirectlyinduce substantial population growth in the area, because prior to construction there arealready three substantial housing projects being built on La Brea Avenue. At 7119 SantaMonica Boulevard a mixed use building is being built with 184 apartments. At 1145 La

Brea Avenue construction of a five story mixed use building with 37 affordable housingunits is underway. Then at 1234 La Brea Avenue, another mixed use building is underconstruction which has 187 apartments. These developments will still be underconstruction when the proposed project is complete.


XIV. Public Services: The project only improves and enhances existing infrastructure along LaBrea Avenue, therefore there will be no need for new government facilities to be built. Theproject does not substantially impact public services in an adverse manner and there is no

change to service ratios to cause an environmental impact.

During construction there will be slight impact to response times of fire protection and tothe sheriffs department, but not enough impact to provide inadequate emergency accessto any given site. The network of streets surrounding La Brea Avenue gives numerousalternatives to access any site during an emergency. Constructions specifications willalways allow for one travel lane in each direction to remain open to through traffic at alltimes.

There will be no impact to fire protection and the sheriffs department once the project iscomplete, and response time will return to what it was before construction of the project.

Streetscape enhancement projects like this generally do not cause a need for an increasein schools, parks, or other public facilities.


XV. Recreation: Streetscape projects like this generally do not change the use or demand forneighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. It will not cause oraccelerate the deterioration of any recreational facilities in the area. It will also not createthe need for the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

Significance finding a) and b): No impact

XVI. Transportation and Traffic: The La Brea Avenue Master Plan has taken into account theCitys Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and mobility portion of the 2035 City of WestHollywood General Plan. This project will build the elements of the La Brea Avenue MasterPlan and enhance the pedestrian experience along the Avenue.

The project looked into incorporating dedicated bike lanes into the project, however thepublic right of way and the geometry of the street did not allow for it. There is room for a


24/25

24

future share the lane arrows (sharrows) for bicyclist that can be installed. This is consistentwith what the City of Los Angeles has identified for La Brea Avenue north and south of theproject in their 2010 Bicycle Plan Component of the City of Los Angles TransportationElement.

The intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and La Brea Avenue is a major bus transfer/

connection point for the MTA and City Line shuttles. The MTA bus lines that stop at thisintersection eventually connect to the MTA Red Line subway stops as well as otherLADOT DASH lines that service the region. This project will not change local and regionalbus service.

Significance finding of a) and f): No impact

This project will not conflict with any congestion management programs, level of service,

travel demand measures and standards established by the County of Los Angeles. The

proposed median islands are sized and placed so that it would not reduce the level of

service at any of the signalized intersections.

Significance finding of b): No impact

Projects like this generally do not change air traffic patterns, nor cause an increase to air

traffic, nor cause change locations of air transport.

Significance finding of c): No impact

This project will not increase hazards or provide incompatible uses on the roadway. Care

was made to select planted material that will not grow to heights that would create sight

obstructions to vehicles and pedestrians.

Significance finding of d): No impact

During construction there will be slight impact to response times of fire protection and tothe sheriffs department, but not enough impact to provide inadequate emergency accessto any given site. The network of streets surrounding La Brea Avenue gives numerousalternatives to access any site during an emergency. Construction specifications willalways allow for one travel lane in each direction to remain open to through traffic at alltimes. There will be no impact to fire protection and the sheriffs department once theproject is complete, and response time will return to what it was before construction of the

project.

Significance finding of e): Less than significant impact.

XVII. Utilities and Service Systems: The La Brea Avenue Streetscape Project will not result ina need for the construction of new water, waste water, or storm water drainage systems or


25/25

facilities. Projects like this generally do not affect wastewater use; therefore it will notexceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Significance finding of a) c) and e): No impact

The new landscaping elements for the project will be watered through an irrigation system.However the use of plant materials that require low levels of watering as well as systems

that promote water conservation means that the existing water supplies for the area are

more than adequate for this project and will not require new resources or expanded

entitlements for water. Projects like this generally do not require a change to water

resources.

Significance finding of d): No impact.

La Brea Avenue is swept daily by a street sweeper and every Monday through Friday by a

contracted service provider. Individual trash receptacles along the boulevard is serviced by

our franchised waste hauler, Athens Services, who takes the solid waste to a material

recovery facility to sort through it before anything goes to a landfill. This process ensures

that whatever can be recycled does not end up in a landfill. The City of West Hollywood is

aware that the Puente Hills landfill is closing in November of 2013 and this project will be

complete before then. This project does not change the number of trash receptacles

provided on the sidewalks and therefore does not increase the solid waste disposal. This

project complies with federal, state, and local regulations related to solid waste.

Significance finding of f) and g): No impact

XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance: The proposed La Brea Avenue StreetscapeProject will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantiallyreduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to dropbelow self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce thenumber or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate importantexamples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The project does nothave impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. It will not haveenvironmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly.


la brea initial study - negative declaration

Documents