rose hill courts initial study r16 09.04

INITIALSTUDY

ROSEHILLCOURTSREDEVELOPMENT

CEQAAnalysisPreparedfor:

HousingAuthorityoftheCityofLosAngeles2600WilshireBoulevard,4thFloor

LosAngeles,CA90057

Preparedby:

UltraSystemsEnvironmentalInc.16431ScientificWayIrvine,CA92618‐4355

Telephone:949‐788‐4900Fax:949‐788‐4901

September2018

PROJECTINFORMATIONSHEET

6022A/RoseHillCourtsRedevelopment PageiInitialStudy September2018


1. ProjectTitle RoseHillCourtsRedevelopment

2. CEQALeadAgencyandAddress HousingAuthorityoftheCityofLosAngeles2600WilshireBoulevard,4thFloorLosAngeles,CA90057

3. ContactsandPhoneNumbers HousingAuthorityoftheCityofLosAngeles

DhirajNarayan,DevelopmentOfficer2600WilshireBoulevardLosAngeles,CA90057Telephone:213‐252‐6120Email:[email protected]

4. ProjectLocation 4446FlorizelStreetLosAngeles,CA90032

5. Assessor’sParcelNumber 5305‐011‐900

6. ProjectSiteGeneralPlanDesignation

LowResidential(CityofLosAngeles,2018)

7. ProjectSiteZoningDesignation [Q]R1‐1D(CityofLosAngeles,2018)

8. SurroundingLandUsesandExistingConditions

TheRoseHillCourtsRedevelopmentproject is locatedon a 5.24‐acre site. The project site is bounded byFlorizelStreettothenorth;McKenzieAvenuetotheeast;MercuryAvenuetothesouth;andBoundaryAvenuetothe west. A driveway runs in an east‐west directionacross the middle of the project bisecting it into twoparts:thenorthernpartandthesouthernpart.The site is currently developed with a total of15buildings,comprisedof14residentialbuildingswith100‐multi‐familyunits,andoneadministrationbuilding.LandusessurroundingtheprojectsiteincludetheErnestE.DebsRegionalParktothewest,alongMercuryAvenueandBoundaryAvenue;RoseHillParktothenorth;theRoseHillRecreationCentertothesoutheast.OurLadyofGuadalupe Catholic Church and Elementary School islocated east of the project site, along Browne Avenue.Single‐familyandmulti‐familyresidentialdevelopmentsarelocatedtothesouthandeast.


6022A/RoseHillCourtsRedevelopment PageiiInitialStudy September2018

9. DescriptionofProject Theprojectwillconsistofthedemolitionof100existingunitsand1administrationbuildingandtheconstructionof191affordablehousingunitstobedevelopedintwophases.

Proposedimprovementsincludethefollowing:

191affordablehousingunits 176parkingspaces Propertymanagementandmaintenanceoffice Newlandscaping

Proposed Construction Schedule. Construction foreach phase is expected to be completed within an18‐24‐month time frame. The project would beconstructed in two phases to develop the proposed191units.DuringPhaseI94unitswouldbeconstructedand during Phase II 97 units would be constructed.Openingyears for the twophasesareestimated tobe:2022forPhaseIand2025forPhaseII.

10. OtherPublicAgencieswhoseApprovalisRequired

Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles(CEQALeadAgency)

TABLEOFCONTENTS

6022A/RoseHillCourtsRedevelopment PageiiiInitialStudy September2018

TABLEOFCONTENTS

ProjectInformationSheet...................................................................................................................................i

AcronymsandAbbreviations...........................................................................................................................vi

1.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1‐1 1.1 ExistingConditions.............................................................................................................................1‐1 1.2 Project.......................................................................................................................................................1‐1 1.3 ProjectOnsiteAmenities..................................................................................................................1‐3 1.4 ProjectApplicant..................................................................................................................................1‐3 1.5 LeadAgencies–EnvironmentalReviewImplementation..................................................1‐3 1.6 CEQAOverview.....................................................................................................................................1‐4 1.7 PurposeofInitialStudy.....................................................................................................................1‐4 1.8 ReviewandCommentbyOtherAgencies..................................................................................1‐5 1.9 ImpactTerminology...........................................................................................................................1‐6 1.10 NEPAOverview.....................................................................................................................................1‐6 1.11 OrganizationofInitialStudy...........................................................................................................1‐7 1.12 FindingsfromtheInitialStudy.......................................................................................................1‐7

2.0 EnvironmentalSetting.......................................................................................................................2‐1 2.1 ProjectLocation....................................................................................................................................2‐1 2.2 ProjectSetting.......................................................................................................................................2‐1 2.3 ExistingCharacteristicsoftheSite.............................................................................................2‐11

3.0 ProjectDescription.............................................................................................................................3‐1 3.1 ProjectBackground.............................................................................................................................3‐1 3.2 ProjectOverview..................................................................................................................................3‐6 3.3 OpenSpaceandRecreationalAmenities....................................................................................3‐7 3.4 ExteriorLighting..................................................................................................................................3‐9 3.5 Fencing.....................................................................................................................................................3‐9 3.6 Security....................................................................................................................................................3‐9 3.7 ArchitecturalDesign,BuildingFacades,andRooflines........................................................3‐9 3.8 Landscaping...........................................................................................................................................3‐9 3.9 DiscretionaryAction.........................................................................................................................3‐13

4.0 EnvironmentalChecklist..................................................................................................................4‐1 EnvironmentalFactorsPotentiallyAffected............................................................................................4‐1 Determination(ToBeCompletedbytheLeadAgency)......................................................................4‐1 EvaluationofEnvironmentalImpacts.........................................................................................................4‐2 4.1 Aesthetics.............................................................................................................................................4.1‐1 4.2 AgricultureandForestryResources.........................................................................................4.2‐1 4.3 AirQuality............................................................................................................................................4.3‐1 4.4 BiologicalResources........................................................................................................................4.4‐1 4.5 CulturalResources...........................................................................................................................4.5‐1 4.6 GeologyandSoils..............................................................................................................................4.6‐1 4.7 GreenhouseGasEmissions...........................................................................................................4.7‐1 4.8 HazardsandHazardousMaterials.............................................................................................4.8‐1 4.9 HydrologyandWaterQuality......................................................................................................4.9‐1 4.10 LandUseandPlanning................................................................................................................4.10‐1

TABLEOFCONTENTS

6022A/RoseHillCourtsRedevelopment PageivInitialStudy September2018

4.11 MineralResources.........................................................................................................................4.11‐1 4.12 Noise....................................................................................................................................................4.12‐1 4.13 PopulationandHousing..............................................................................................................4.13‐1 4.14 PublicServices................................................................................................................................4.14‐1 4.15 Recreation.........................................................................................................................................4.15‐1 4.16 TransportationandTraffic........................................................................................................4.16‐4 4.17 TribalCulturalResources...........................................................................................................4.17‐1 4.18 UtilitiesandServiceSystems....................................................................................................4.18‐1 4.19 MandatoryFindingsofSignificance.......................................................................................4.19‐1

5.0 References.............................................................................................................................................5‐1

6.0 ListofPreparers..................................................................................................................................6‐1 6.1 LeadAgency(CEQA)...........................................................................................................................6‐1 6.2 LeadAgency(NEPA)...........................................................................................................................6‐1 6.3 ProjectApplicant–RelatedCalifornia........................................................................................6‐1 6.4 UltraSystemsEnvironmental,Inc..................................................................................................6‐2

TABLES

Table1.1‐1‐RoseHillCourtsRedevelopmentPhasing....................................................................................1‐2 Table2.2‐1‐SummaryofLandUsesandZoning.................................................................................................2‐7 Table2.3‐1‐OnsiteLandscaping..............................................................................................................................2‐13 Table2.3‐2‐CensusTractInformation..................................................................................................................2‐16 Table2.3‐3‐HouseholdAreaMedianIncomeLevelsbyUnit......................................................................2‐17 Table3.2‐1‐ProjectSummary.....................................................................................................................................3‐7 Table3.9‐1‐PermitsandApprovals.......................................................................................................................3‐13 Table4.9‐1‐ApproximateSiteCoverageComparisons.................................................................................4.9‐2 Table4.13‐1‐EstimatedProjectPopulationandUnitMixbyPhase.....................................................4.13‐2 Table4.18‐1‐EstimatedProjectNetWastewaterGeneration................................................................4.18‐3 Table4.18‐2‐EstimatedProjectNetWaterDemand..................................................................................4.18‐5 Table4.18‐3‐EstimatedConstruction‐RelatedSolidWasteGeneration............................................4.18‐7 Table4.18‐4‐ExistingandProjectEstimatedSolidWasteGeneration...............................................4.18‐8

FIGURES

Figure2.1‐1‐ProjectVicinity.......................................................................................................................................2‐2 Figure2.1‐2‐ProjectLocation.....................................................................................................................................2‐3 Figure2.2‐1‐TopographicMap..................................................................................................................................2‐4 Figure2.2‐2‐ProjectSitePhotographs....................................................................................................................2‐5 Figure2.2‐3‐CommunityPlanArea.........................................................................................................................2‐6 Figure2.2‐4‐GeneralPlanFrameworkLandUseDesignation.....................................................................2‐8 Figure2.2‐5‐NortheastCommunityPlanLandUseDesignation.................................................................2‐9 Figure2.2‐6‐ExistingZoningDesignation...........................................................................................................2‐10 Figure2.2‐7‐CouncilDistricts...................................................................................................................................2‐12 Figure2.2‐8‐NearestStormDrains........................................................................................................................2‐15 Figure3.2‐1‐RoseHillCourtsSitePlan...................................................................................................................3‐8 Figure4.1‐1‐StateScenicHighwaysandNationalByways.........................................................................4.1‐3 Figure4.6‐1‐RegionallyActiveFaults..................................................................................................................4.6‐3

TABLEOFCONTENTS

6022A/RoseHillCourtsRedevelopment PagevInitialStudy September2018

Figure4.6‐2‐Alquist‐PrioloFaultZones..............................................................................................................4.6‐4 Figure4.6‐3‐LandslidesandLiquefaction..........................................................................................................4.6‐6 Figure4.8‐1‐CorteseSites.........................................................................................................................................4.8‐7 Figure4.8‐2‐AirportInfluenceArea.....................................................................................................................4.8‐9 Figure4.8‐3‐FireHazards‐SRA..........................................................................................................................4.8‐11 Figure4.8‐4‐FireHazards‐LocalResponsibilityArea..............................................................................4.8‐12 Figure4.9‐1‐FEMAFloodInsuranceRateMap.............................................................................................4.9‐10 Figure4.9‐2‐InundationandTsunamiHazardAreas.................................................................................4.9‐12 Figure4.10‐1‐SignificantEcologicalAreas.....................................................................................................4.10‐3 Figure4.11‐1‐MineralResources.......................................................................................................................4.11‐2 Figure4.11‐2‐OilandGasWells..........................................................................................................................4.11‐3 Figure4.15‐1‐NearbyParksandRecreationalFacilities..........................................................................4.15‐2 Figure4.15‐2‐NearbyTrails..................................................................................................................................4.15‐3 Figure4.16‐1‐AirportInfluenceAreas.............................................................................................................4.16‐6

APPENDICES

AppendixA ProjectSitePlanAppendixB CertifiedArboristMemoAppendixC GeotechnicalInvestigation

ACRONYMS

6022A/RoseHillCourtsRedevelopment PageviInitialStudy September2018

ACRONYMSANDABBREVIATIONS

Acronym/Abbreviation Term

AB939 CaliforniaIntegratedWasteManagementActACM(s) Asbestos‐ContainingMaterial(s)AFY acre‐feetperyearAIA AirportInfluenceAreaAltec AltecTestingandEngineering,IncorporatedALUC AirportLandUseCommissionALUCP AirportLandUseCompatibilityPlanAMI AreaMedianIncomeBMPs BestManagementPracticesBOS BureauofSanitationCalFire CaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtectionCal‐IPC CaliforniaInvasivePlantCouncilCaltrans CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportationCAOs CleanupandAbatementOrdersCBC CaliforniaBuildingCodeCCR CaliforniaCodeofRegulationsCDOs CeaseandDesistOrdersCEQA CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityActCFR CodeofFederalRegulationsCMP CongestionManagementProgramCNEL CommunityNoiseEquivalentLevelCWA CleanWaterActdB decibeldBA A‐weighteddecibelscaleDOC CaliforniaDepartmentofConservationDOSH CaliforniaDivisionofSafetyandHealthDTSC DepartmentofToxicSubstancesControlEA EnvironmentalAssessmentEIR/EIS EnvironmentalImpactReport/EnvironmentalImpactStatementESA EnvironmentalSiteAssessmentFAR floorarearatioFEMA FederalEmergencyManagementAgencyFIRM FloodInsuranceRateMapFMMP FarmlandMappingandMonitoringProgramgpd gallonsperdayGWR LosAngelesGroundwaterReplenishmentHACLA HousingAuthorityoftheCityofLosAngeles

ACRONYMS

6022A/RoseHillCourtsRedevelopment PageviiInitialStudy September2018


HCID CityofLosAngelesHousing+CommunityInvestmentDepartmentHCP HabitatConservationPlanHUD UnitedStatesDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopmentHWRP HyperionWaterReclamationPlantIS InitialStudyLADWP LosAngelesDepartmentofWaterandPowerLAFD CityofLosAngelesFireDepartmentLAPL LosAngelesPublicLibraryLAR LosAngelesRiverLASAN LosAngelesBureauofSanitationLAUSD LosAngelesUnifiedSchoolDistrictLID lowimpactdevelopmentLR LowResidentialLRA(s) LocalResponsibilityArea(s)LUST leakingundergroundstoragetankMBTA MigratoryBirdTreatyActMFI medianfamilyincomemgd milliongallonsperdayMND MitigatedNegativeDeclarationMRF MaterialRecoveryFacilitiesMRDS MineralResourcesDataSystemMWD MetropolitanWaterDistrictNCCP NaturalCommunityConservationPlanND NegativeDeclarationNECP NortheastLosAngelesCommunityPlanNEPA NationalEnvironmentalPolicyActNHPA NationalHistoricPreservationActNPDES NationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystemPRC PublicResourcesCodeRAC ResidentAdvisoryCommitteeRCRA ResourceConservationandRecoveryActRECs RecognizedEnvironmentalConditionsRelated RelatedCompaniesofCalifornia,LLCRHNA RegionalHousingNeedsAssessmentRWQCB RegionalWaterQualityControlBoardSCAB SouthCoastAirBasinSCAG SouthernCaliforniaAssociationofGovernmentsSCAQMD SouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrictSMARA SurfaceMiningandReclamationActSoCalGas SouthernCaliforniaGasCompany

ACRONYMS

6022A/RoseHillCourtsRedevelopment PageviiiInitialStudy September2018


SRA StateResponsibilityAreaSUSMP StandardUrbanStormwaterMitigationPlanSWIRP CityofLosAngelesSolidWasteIntegratedResourcesPlanSWPPP StormwaterPollutionPreventionPlanSWRCB StateWaterResourcesControlBoardUSFWS UnitedStatesFishandWildlifeServiceUSGS UnitedStatesGeologicalSurveyUWMP UrbanWaterManagementPlanWWECP WetWeatherErosionControlPlan§ Section°F DegreesFahrenheit

SECTION1.0‐INTRODUCTION

6022A/RoseHillCourtsRedevelopment Page1‐1InitialStudy September2018

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 ExistingConditions

Theexistingpublichousingcomplexiscomprisedoffifteenstructures.Fourteenstructuresinclude100‐multi‐familyunits,andonestructureisanadministrationbuildingwithofficesandacommonroomwithakitchen,pantry,andtwobathrooms.Buildingsthroughoutthecomplexarerectangularinshapeandaregenerallyarrangedinparallelgroupings.Thesegroupingsinclude:

theNorthBlockcomprisingtheadministrationbuildingfacingFlorizelStreet; theWesternBlockcomprisingthreerectangularapartmentbuildings; the Eastern Block comprising one rectangular‐shaped and four square‐shaped apartment

buildingslocatedalongtheeasternportionofthesite;and theSouthernBlockcomprisingsixrectangularapartmentbuildings.

Generally,therearefivedifferentbuildingtypeslocatedonsite,allofwhichareeitheroneortwostories in height, and consist of wood‐frame construction, concrete slab foundations, andcompositionroofing.Parkingforthecomplexconsistsofpavedsurfaceparkingareaslocatedalongboth sidesof thedriveway thatbisects thenorthernandsouthernblocksof theRoseHillCourtscomplex.

1.2 Project

The proposed two‐phase project includes: the demolition of Rose Hill Courts' existing fifteenstructuresandsubsequentconstructionof191affordablehousingunitsonsite.Theprojectproposes102one‐bedroomunits;61two‐bedroomunits,20three‐bedroomunits,andeight4‐bedroomunits.RoseHillCourtswasconstructedin1942bytheHousingAuthorityoftheCityofLosAngeles(HACLA)asa low‐incomepublichousingproject.TheRoseHillCourts complex is locatedat4446FlorizelStreet, on a 5.24‐acre site. The site is locatedwithin theNortheast LosAngeles CommunityPlan(NECP),intheRoseHillneighborhoodareaoftheCityofLosAngeles.

1.2.1 ProjectComponents

TheprojectatRoseHillCourtswouldconsistofthedevelopmentof191affordablehousingunitsintwophasesasdepictedinTable1.1‐1belowandasdescribedinSection3.0ofthisdocument.



Table1.1‐1ROSEHILLCOURTSREDEVELOPMENTPHASING

Phase1 Phase2

UnitLettering/Floor UnitType NumberofUnits UnitLettering UnitType NumberofUnits

1A 1BR/1BATH 60 1A 1BR/1BATH 28

2A 2BR/1BATH 18 2A 2BR/1BATH 12

2B 2BR/1BATH 7 2B 2BR/1BATH 4

3 3BR/2BATH 5 3 3BR/2BATH 4

4 4BR/2BATH 4 1B 1BR/1BATH 10

Total ‐‐ 94 1C 1BR/1BATH 4

2C 2BR/1BATH 12

TH2 2BR/1BATH 8

TH3 3BR/2BATH 11

TH4 4BR/2Bath 4

Total ‐‐ 97

Notes:BR=BedroomBATH=BathroomSource:WitheeMalcolmArchitects,2018.CompositeSitePlandatedJanuary30,2018.



1.2.2 PlannedConstructionActivitiesandPhasing

Projectedconstructionimprovementsareexpectedtooccurstartingin2020forPhaseIand2023forPhase2.DuringPhaseIexistingresidentslivinginbuildingsscheduledtobedemolishedwillberequiredtovacatetheirapartmentunitsonsiteandtemporarilyrelocate.ForPhaseII,residentsintheremainingoriginalbuildingswillbepermanentlyrelocatedtothecompletedPhaseIbuildings.This phasing schedulewill allow for amajority of the residents to remain onsite during projectconstruction. For relocation activities, Related/HACLA will take into consideration individualhousehold preferences and needs to be close to public transportation, employment, schools,medical/public/social services and agencies, recreational services, parks, community centers,and/orshoppingandwillattempttoaccommodatehouseholdsbymovingthemtoanavailableunitonsite.Ifsuchaunitisnotavailable,thenextpreferredoptionwillbeforhouseholdstorelocateintoanearbymoteloranapartmentunitandreturntotheRoseHillCourtsassoonasconstructionofPhase I is complete and the unit is ready for occupancy. For households that prefer to accept aHACLA‐issued Tenant Section 8 Voucher and permanently relocate from Rose Hill Courts, fullrelocationassistanceforpermanentreplacementhousingwillbeavailable.Atotalof32buildingswouldbeconstructedonsite,withtwobuildingsbeingbuiltduringPhaseIand30buildingsbeingconstructedduringPhaseII.

1.3 ProjectOnsiteAmenities

Potential project amenities include: a fitness center, laundry area, community room, communitycenterthatincorporatesthehistoryofRoseHillCourtsandthesurroundingneighborhood,onsitepropertymanagement,andonsitesocialservices.

1.4 ProjectApplicant

RelatedCaliforniaAttn:RoseOlson,SeniorVicePresident,Development333SouthGrandAvenue,Suite4450LosAngeles,CA900711.5 LeadAgencies–EnvironmentalReviewImplementation

TheHACLAistheLeadAgencyfortheproject.PursuanttotheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA) and its implementing regulations (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 – 21177), the LeadAgencyhastheprincipalresponsibilityforimplementingandapprovingaprojectthatmayhaveasignificanteffectontheenvironment.

TheUnitedStatesDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment(HUD)istheLeadAgencyfortheprojectpursuanttotheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)becausefederalfundingwillbeutilizedfortheproject(Title24,Part58oftheCFR).

The City of Los Angeles Housing + Community Investment Department (HCID) would be theCertifyingAgencyonbehalfofHUDwithrespecttotheacceptanceoftheEnvironmentalAssessment(EA) thatwould bepreparedpursuant toNEPA.HCIDwillwork onbehalf ofHUD for theNEPAprocessandHACLAwillbeinvolvedwiththeCEQAprocess.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that all federal agenciesplanning actions defined as undertakings to consider the effects of Federally funded projects on



historicproperties.TheSHPO'sresponsibility inareviewandcompliancecontext is restricted toproviding recommendations and comments on a federal agency's determinations or inventories,reports, and plans prepared under the authority of project‐ or agency‐specific AgreementDocuments.

1.6 CEQAOverview

BelowisanoverviewoftheCEQAprocess.

1.6.1 PurposeofCEQA

DiscretionaryprojectswithinCaliforniaarepotentiallysubjecttoenvironmentalreviewunderCEQA.AprojectisdefinedinCEQAGuidelines§15378asthewholeoftheactionhavingthepotentialtoresultinadirectphysicalchangeorareasonablyforeseeableindirectchangetotheenvironmentandisanyofthefollowing:

Anactivitydirectlyundertakenbyanypublicagencyincludingbutnotlimitedtopublicworksconstruction and related activities clearing or grading of land, improvements to existingpublic structures,enactmentandamendmentof zoningordinances,and theadoptionandamendmentoflocalGeneralPlansorelements.

Anactivityundertakenbyapersonwhichissupportedinwholeorinpartthroughpublicagency contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance fromone ormorepublicagencies.

Anactivityinvolvingtheissuancetoapersonofalease,permit,license,certificate,orotherentitlementforusebyoneormorepublicagencies.

CEQAGuidelines§15002liststhebasicpurposesofCEQAasfollows:

Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significantenvironmentaleffectsofproposedactivities.

Identifythewaysthatenvironmentaldamagecanbeavoidedorsignificantlyreduced.

Preventsignificant,avoidabledamagetotheenvironmentbyrequiringchangesinprojectsthroughtheuseofalternativesormitigationmeasureswhenthegovernmentalagencyfindsthechangestobefeasible.

Disclosetothepublicthereasonswhyagovernmentalagencyapprovedtheprojectinthemannertheagencychoseifsignificantenvironmentaleffectsareinvolved.

1.7 PurposeofInitialStudy

TheCEQAprocessbeginswithapublicagencymakingadeterminationastowhethertheprojectissubjecttoCEQA.Iftheprojectisexempt,noenvironmentalreviewisrequired.Iftheprojectisnotexempt, the Lead Agency takes the second step and conducts an Initial Study (IS) to determinewhethertheprojectmayhaveasignificanteffectontheenvironment.

ThepurposesofanISaslistedin§15063(c)oftheCEQAGuidelinesareto:



ProvidetheLeadAgencywithinformationnecessarytodecideifanEnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR),NegativeDeclaration(ND),orMitigatedNegativeDeclaration(MND)shouldbeprepared.

Enable a Lead Agency to modify a project to mitigate adverse impacts before an EIR isprepared,therebyenablingtheprojecttoqualifyforaNDorMND.

Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if required, by focusing the EIR on adverse effectsdeterminedtobesignificant,identifyingtheadverseeffectsdeterminednottobesignificant,explainingthereasonsfordeterminingthatpotentiallysignificantadverseeffectswouldnotbe significant, and identifying whether a program EIR, or other process, can be used toanalyzeadverseenvironmentaleffectsoftheproject.

Facilitateanenvironmentalassessmentearlyduringprojectdesign.

ProvidedocumentationintheNDorMNDthataprojectwouldnothaveasignificanteffectontheenvironment.

EliminateunnecessaryEIRs.

DetermineifapreviouslypreparedEIRcouldbeusedfortheproject.

Incaseswherenopotentiallysignificantimpactsareidentified,theLeadAgencymayissueaND,andnomitigationmeasureswouldbeneeded.Wherepotentiallysignificantimpactsareidentified,theLeadAgencymaydeterminethatmitigationmeasureswouldadequatelyreducetheseimpactstolessthan significant levels. TheLeadAgencywould thenprepareanMND for theproject. If theLeadAgency determines that individual or cumulative effects of the proposed project would cause asignificantadverseenvironmentaleffectthatcannotbemitigatedtolessthansignificantlevels,thentheLeadAgencywouldrequireanEIRtofurtheranalyzetheseimpacts.

ThisIShasbeenpreparedincompliancewiththeCEQAtoscopeouttheenvironmentaltopicsforwhich the project would either have a less than significant impact or no impact for all of thethresholdsundereachrespective issuearea. Issues in this IS thatare found tohaveapotentiallysignificantimpactwillbeanalyzedinanEIRtobepreparedfortheproject.ThatEIRwillfocusonlyonthoseenvironmentaltopicsthatwerefoundtobepotentiallysignificantbasedonthefindingsofthisIS.ThisISwillbeappendedtotheEIRthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

1.8 ReviewandCommentbyOtherAgencies

OtherpublicagenciesareprovidedtheopportunitytoreviewandcommentontheIS.Eachoftheseagenciesisdescribedbrieflybelow.

AResponsibleAgency(14CCR§15381)isapublicagency,otherthantheLeadAgency,thathasdiscretionaryapprovalpowerovertheproject,suchaspermitissuanceorplanapprovalauthority.

Agencies with Jurisdiction by law (14 CCR §15366) are any public agencies who haveauthority(1)tograntapermitorotherentitlementforuse;(2)toprovidefundingfortheprojectinquestion;or(3)toexerciseauthorityoverresourceswhichmaybeaffectedbytheproject.Furthermore,acityorcountywillhavejurisdictionbylawwithrespecttoaproject



whenthecityorcountyhavingprimaryjurisdictionovertheareainvolvedis:(1)thesiteoftheproject;(2)theareainwhichthemajorenvironmentaleffectswilloccur;and/or(3)thearea in which reside those citizens most directly concerned by any such environmentaleffects.

1.9 ImpactTerminology

Thefollowingterminologyisusedtodescribethelevelofsignificanceofpotentialimpacts:

Afindingofno impact isappropriate if theanalysisconcludesthattheprojectwouldnotaffecttheparticularenvironmentalthresholdinanyway.

Animpactisconsideredlessthansignificantiftheanalysisconcludesthattheprojectwouldcausenosubstantialadversechangetotheenvironmentandrequiresnomitigation.

Animpactisconsideredlessthansignificantwithmitigationincorporatediftheanalysisconcludesthattheprojectwouldcausenosubstantialadversechangeto theenvironmentwith the inclusion of environmental commitments, or other enforceable measures, thatwouldbeadoptedbytheleadagency.

An impact is consideredpotentially significant if the analysis concludes that theprojectcouldhaveasubstantialadverseeffectontheenvironment.

AnEIRisrequiredifanimpactisidentifiedaspotentiallysignificant.

1.10 NEPAOverview

BelowisanoverviewoftheNEPAprocess.

1.10.1 PurposeofNEPAforHUDProjects

TheNEPA is our basic national charter for protection of the environment, and 40 CFR (Code ofFederalRegulations),Parts1500–1508establishthebasicproceduralrequirementsforcompliancewithNEPA.TheNEPAproceduresaretobefollowedbyallFederalagenciesandapplytoHUDpolicyactions (as defined in §50.16), and to all HUD project actions [§50.2(a)(2)]. As part of policy§1500.2(c)NEPAisrequiredtointegrateitsrequirementswithotherplanningandenvironmentalreview procedures (such as CEQA) that are required by law, so that all such procedures runconcurrentlyratherthanconsecutively.Additionally,underNEPA§1500.2(d),publicinvolvementisencouragedtofacilitatedecisionsthatwouldaffectthequalityofthehumanenvironment.TheNEPAprocessalsoencouragestheidentificationandassessmentofareasonablerangeofalternativestotheproposedactionsthatwillavoidorminimizeadverseeffectsoftheseactionsuponthequalityofthehumanenvironment.Lastly,consistentwith therequirementsofNEPA§1500.2(f), theuseofpracticable means should be considered to restore and enhance the quality of the humanenvironmentandavoidorminimizeanypossibleadverseeffectsoftheiractionsuponthequalityofthehumanenvironment.

1.10.2 IntegrationofEnvironmentalReview

As part of this NEPA process, the environmental review recordwill utilize, to the fullest extent,environmentaldocumentationpreparedaspartoftheCEQAprocess.



1.11 OrganizationofInitialStudy

ThisISisorganizedtosatisfyCEQAGuidelines§15063(d),andincludesthefollowingsections:

Section1.0‐Introduction,whichidentifiesthepurposeandscopeoftheIS.

Section2.0‐EnvironmentalSetting,whichdescribeslocation,existingsiteconditions,landuses,zoningdesignations,topography,andvegetationassociatedwiththeprojectsiteandsurroundings.

Section3.0‐ProjectDescription,whichprovidesanoverviewoftheprojectobjectives,adescription of the proposed development, project phasing during construction, anddiscretionaryactionsfortheapprovaloftheproject.

Section 4.0 ‐ Environmental Checklist, which presents checklist responses for eachresourcetopictoidentifyandassessimpactsassociatedwiththeproject.

Section5.0‐References,whichincludesalistofdocumentscitedintheIS.

Section6.0‐ListofPreparers,whichidentifiestheprimaryauthorsandtechnicalexpertsthatpreparedtheIS.

Technicalstudiesandotherdocuments,whichincludesupportinginformationoranalysesusedtopreparetheIS,areincludedinthefollowingappendices:

AppendixA ProjectSitePlan AppendixB CertifiedArboristMemo AppendixC GeotechnicalInvestigation

1.12 FindingsfromtheInitialStudy

1.12.1 NoImpactorImpactsConsideredLessthanSignificant

BasedonthefindingsofthisIS,theprojectwouldhavenoimpactoralessthansignificantimpactonthefollowingenvironmentalcategorieslistedfromAppendixGoftheCEQAGuidelines.

AgricultureandForestryResources HydrologyandWaterQuality MineralResources UtilitiesandServiceSystems

1.12.2 ImpactsConsideredPotentiallySignificantandRequiringFurtherAnalysis

Based on IS findings, the project would have a potentially significant impact on the followingenvironmentalcategorieslistedinAppendixGoftheCEQAGuidelines:

Aesthetics AirQuality BiologicalResources CulturalResources



GeologyandSoils GreenhouseGasEmissions HazardsandHazardousMaterials LandUseandPlanning Noise PopulationandHousing PublicServices Recreation TransportationandTraffic TribalCulturalResources

TheabovelistedtopicswillbefurtheranalyzedinanEnvironmentalImpactReport/EnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIR/EIS)thatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

SECTION2.0‐ENVIRONMENTALSETTING


2.0 ENVIRONMENTALSETTING

2.1 ProjectLocation

TheRoseHillCourtscomplexislocatedat4446FlorizelStreet,onanimproved5.24‐acresite.Thesite is located within the NECP, in the Rose Hill neighborhood area of the City of LosAngeles,approximately 10 miles from downtown Los Angeles (see Figure2.1‐1). Local surface streetssurrounding the site include: Florizel Street to thenorth;McKenzieAvenue to the east;MercuryAvenuetothesouth;andBoundaryAvenuetothewest.Inaddition,adrivewaybisectsthehousingcomplex fromwest toeast.MercuryAvenue, aCity collector street,providesdirect access to theprojectsitefromMontereyRoadandHuntingtonDrive.SeeFigure2.1‐2.

2.2 ProjectSetting

RoseHillCourts is anexistingpublichousingcomplex that is comprisedof15 structuresandanasphaltpavedsurfaceparkinglot.The14residentialstructurestogethercontain100multi‐familyunits,andonestructureincludesanadministrationbuilding.Buildingsthroughoutthecomplexarerectangularandarrangedinparallelgroupings.Thesegroupingsinclude:

(1)NorthBlock:theadministrationbuildingfacingFlorizelStreet;

(2)WesternBlock:threerectangularapartmentbuildings;

(3)EasternBlock:fiverectangularapartmentbuildingsofwhichfouraresquare;and

(4)SouthernBlock:sixrectangularapartmentbuildings.

Therearefivebuildingtypesonsite.Allofthebuildingsareeitheroneortwostoriesinheight,andconsistofwood‐frameconstruction,concreteslabfoundations,andcompositionroofing.Parkingfortheapartmentcomplexconsistsofsurfaceparkingspaceslocatedalongbothsidesofthedrivewaythatbisectstheprojectsite.

Thesite(APN5305‐011‐900)islocatedonaslope.Theboundaryisfurtherdescribedas“TRACT#13089,Lots1,2,3,4,5,and6.”Thenorthwesternendoftheprojectsiteisthehighestpointandthesoutheasternendoftheprojectsiteisthelowestpoint.Surfacewaterdrainageatthesiteappearstobeby sheet flowalong existing ground contours to theCity streets. SeeFigure2.2‐1. Vegetationconsists of non‐native grasses and trees located between the buildings throughout the site.PhotographsdepictingtheprojectsiteareprovidedinFigure2.2‐2.

2.2.1 PlanningArea

RoseHillCourtsislocatedintheNECPoftheCity(seeFigure2.2‐3).TheNECPareaencompasses15,000 acres and is occupied by 250,000 residents. TheNECP area includes numerous hills andvalleyslyingeastoftheLosAngelesRiver(LAR).ItalsoservesasageographictransitionbetweenthedowntowncenterofLosAngelesandtheneighboringcitiesofAlhambra(east);SouthPasadena(northeast); and Glendale (northwest) aswell as the city ofMonterey Park (southeast), and theunincorporatedcommunityofCityTerrace(south)(CityofLosAngeles,2016,p.1‐1).



Figure2.1‐1PROJECTVICINITY



Figure2.1‐2PROJECTLOCATION



Figure2.2‐1TOPOGRAPHICMAP



Figure2.2‐2PROJECTSITEPHOTOGRAPHS

Photo1:MercuryAvenueandMcKenzieAvenue.Southeasternportion.

Photo2:RoseHillCourtsouthernblockoftwo‐storybuildingslocatedonMercuryAvenue.

Photo3:Viewoftwo‐storybuildingslocatedonMercuryAvenue.Viewsofhillsidedevelopmentstotheeast,andFlorizelStreetinforeground.

Photo4:Existingtreescanopyneartwo‐storybuilding.

Photo5:ComputerLabBuilding. Photo6:AdministrativeBuildingonFlorizelStreet,innorthernboundaryareaofthehousingcomplex.



Figure2.2‐3COMMUNITYPLANAREA



Fromalocalizedperspective,RoseHillCourtsislocatedwithintheRoseHillneighborhood.Thisareaischaracterizedbyitsnumeroussteephillsandvistas,whicharelocatedwestofMontereyRoad.Thisareaincludesnaturalopenspacelandscapes,parklands,andequestriantrails.Locateddirectlynorthoftheprojectsite,EarnestB.DebsRegionalParkisthefourthlargestparkintheCityandhoststheAudubonCenter.

2.2.2 LandUseandZoning

The land use designations and zoning of the project site and its immediate vicinity are listed inTable2.2‐1 and shown inFigures2.2‐4 through2.2‐6. As shown, the General Plan FrameworkElementdesignatesthesiteforLowResidential(LR),whiletheNortheastCommunityPlan,adoptedon June 15, 1999, contains a site‐specific designation of LowMedium1. The City’s General PlanFrameworkElementestablishesthebroadoverallpolicyanddirectionfortheentireGeneralPlan.Itprovidesacitywidecontextandacomprehensivelong‐rangestrategytoguidethecomprehensiveupdateof theGeneralPlan’sotherelements.CommunityPlansguidethephysicaldevelopmentofneighborhoodsbyestablishingthegoalsandpoliciesforlanduse.

The site is zoned [Q]R1‐1D. The “[Q]” represents a permanent [Q] Qualified Classification thatestablishes development standards relating to infrastructure, building design, retaining walls,landscaping,andenvironmentalconsiderations.The"D"representsa"D"DevelopmentLimitationthatlimitsbuildingheightandfloorarearatio(FAR).

Table2.2‐1SUMMARYOFEXISTINGLANDUSEANDZONING

LocationGeneralPlanFramework Zoning CommunityPlan ExistingUse

ProjectSiteLowResidential(LR)

[Q]R1‐1D

NortheastLosAngeles(LowMedium1)

Multi‐FamilyHousing

SurroundingAreas

North

LowResidentialOpenSpace

[Q]R1‐1D[Q]RES1DOS‐1XLD

NortheastLosAngeles

RoseHillPark(BBQpits,baseballfields,children’splayarea,picnictables)ErnestE.DebsRegionalPark(largeopenspacenaturereserveandregionalpark)

EastOpenSpace/LowResidential

[Q]OS‐1XLDNortheastLosAngeles

VacantLandOurLadyofGuadalupeCatholicSchool

West OpenSpace OS‐1XLDNortheastLosAngeles RoseHillPark

South LowResidential [Q]R1‐1D NortheastLosAngeles

Single&Multi‐familyResidentialRoseHillRecreationCenter



Figure2.2‐4GENERALPLANFRAMEWORKLANDUSEDESIGNATION



Figure2.2‐5NORTHEASTCOMMUNITYPLANLANDUSEDESIGNATION



Figure2.2‐6EXISTINGZONINGDESIGNATION



2.2.3 CouncilDistrict

TheNortheast LosAngeles area is locatedwithinCouncilDistrict 14, and servedby JoseHuizar,Councilmember.SeeFigure2.2‐7.

2.2.4 NeighborhoodCouncil

RoseHillCourtsislocatedwithinLA‐32,whichisaNeighborhoodCouncilorcity‐certifiedlocalgroupcomprised of people who live, work, own property or have some other connection to theneighborhood. LA‐32’smission is to preserve and improve the quality of life by creating a safe,healthy, orderly and clean environment that promotes the community spirit of inclusion,cooperation, participation and collaboration in accordance with the wishes of the communitythroughoutstandingservice(LA‐32NeighborhoodCouncil,2018).

2.3 ExistingCharacteristicsoftheSite

2.3.1 ClimateandAirQuality

The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), a 6,600‐square‐mile areaencompassing all of Orange County and the non‐desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, andSanBernardinoCounties.Apersistenthigh‐pressureareathatcommonlyresidesovertheeasternPacific Ocean largely dominates regional meteorology. The distinctive climate of this area isdeterminedprimarilybyitsterrainandgeographiclocation.Localclimateischaracterizedbywarmsummers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderatehumidity.Ozoneandpollutantconcentrationstendtobeloweralongthecoast,wheretheconstantonshore breeze disperses pollutants toward the inland valley of the SCAB and adjacent deserts.However,asawhole,theSCABfailstomeetnationalambientairqualitystandardsforozoneandfineparticulatematter(PM2.5)andisclassifiedasa“nonattainmentarea”forthosepollutants.

2.3.2 GeologyandSoils

Locally, the project site is in the central portion of the Repetto Hills. The Repetto Hills trendnorthwest‐southeast along the northeastern edge of the LosAngelesBasin and are composed offoldedandfaultedMioceneagemarinesedimentarybedrockofthePuenteFormationthathasbeenupliftedandincisedbyelevatedfloodplainsandupliftedalluvialvalleydeposits.Regionally,thesiteis within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province, which is characterized by elongatednorthwest‐trending mountain ridges separated by straight‐sided sediment‐filled valleys. Thenorthwesttrendisfurtherreflectedinthedirectionofthedominantgeologicstructuralfeaturesoftheprovince,whicharenorthwesttowest‐northwesttrendingfoldsandfaults,includingthenearbyWhittierFaultZone(Geocon,2018,p.2).Basedonafieldinvestigationandpublishedgeologicmapsofthearea,thesiteisunderlainbyartificialfill,Pleistoceneagealluvialvalleydeposits,andMioceneagesedimentarybedrockofthePuenteFormation(Ibid).



Figure2.2‐7COUNCILDISTRICTS



2.3.3 Hydrology

The Lower LARWatershed encompasses approximately 43.7 squaremiles (27,981 acres)withinLosAngeles County and comprises 5.3 percent of the drainage area of the full LAR Watershed(JohnL.HunterandAssociates,Inc.,2017,p.1‐9).TheprojectsiteismappedbetweentheSanGabrielValleyandSanFernandoValleygroundwaterbasins,thoughnotineitherbasin.Precipitationforthewatershedareaishighlyvariableandterrain‐dependent,averaging15inchesannuallyandmainlyoccurring during the winter months (November through April) (Ibid). Due to the atmosphericdominance of the stablemarine layer, significant precipitation is rare betweenMay andOctober(Ibid).

2.3.4 Biology

The5.24‐acreprojectsiteislocatedinthefoothillssouthoftheSanGabrielMountainswithintheSouthernCaliforniaCoastEcoregionasclassifiedbytheUnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey(USGS),andtheSouthCoastareaofCalifornia’sfloristicprovince.Theprojectsiteisbestcharacterizedasurbandevelopedwithornamental treesandshrubs throughout.Landusessurrounding thesite includeresidentialdevelopment to thesouthandeastandnaturalopenspace,regionalrecreationalparklands,andequestriantrailstothenorthandwest.Theareaischaracterizedbyitsnumeroussteephillsandvistas,aswellastheErnestB.DebsRegionalParktothenorth,whichisthefourthlargestparkintheCity.Theparkcontainsamosaicofnativevegetationcommunitiessuchasbuckwheatscrubandoakwoodlandandornamentaltrees,shrubs,andmanicuredlawns.RefertoTable2.3‐1below,whichliststhecommonandscientificnamesoftheplantsandtreesthatarelocatedontheprojectsite.Therearenoprotectedtreesontheprojectsite.RefertoAppendixBofthisdocumentforaletterfromthecertifiedarboriststatingtherearenoprotectednativetreesorheritage/historictreesontheprojectsite.

Table2.3‐1ONSITELANDSCAPING

CommonName ScientificName

TreeofHeaven AilanthusaltissimaHongKongOrchidTree BauhiniaxblakeanaSilkFlossTree CeibaspeciosaCitrusLimonOsbeck CitruslimonOrange CitrussinensisLaurel‐leavedSnailTree CocculuslaurifoliusCarrotwoodTree CupaniopsisanacardioidesLoquat EriobotryajaponicaTasmanianBluegum EucalyptusglobulusWeepingFig FicusbenjaminaCommonFig FicuscaricaMajesticBeautyEvergreenAsh FraxniusuhdeiBlueJacaranda JacarandamimosifoliaKoreanPrivet Ligustrumsp.WhiteMulberry MorusalbaOlive OleaeuropaeaAvocado PerseaamericanaMontereyPine PinusradiataKōhūhū Pittosporumtenuifolium



CommonName ScientificName

LondonPlanetree PlatanusxhispanicaHolly‐leafedCherry PrunusilicifoliaEvergreenPear PyruskawakamiiCorkOak QuercussuberMalletFlower SchefflerapueckleriCaliforniaPeppertree SchinusmolleQueenPalm SyagrusromanzoffianumTipuTree TipuanatipuChineseElm UlmusparvifoliaMexicanFanPalm Washingtoniarobusta

2.3.5 PublicServicesandUtilities

TheCity is servedbya full rangeof public services andutilities.TheLosAngelesUnifiedSchoolDistrict(LAUSD)isresponsibleforprovidingpubliceducationalfacilitiesintheCity,includingtheproject site. Police services and fire protection services and facilities areprovidedby theCity ofLosAngelesPoliceDepartmentandLosAngelesCountyFireDepartment,respectively.RecreationandopenspaceamenitiesintheCityareprovidedbytheCitythroughavarietyofpublicparksandopenspaceareasthatareoperatedandmaintainedbytheCity’sDepartmentofParksandRecreation.

ThemajorityoftheCityreceivesdomesticwaterservicefromtheLosAngelesDepartmentofWaterand Power (LADWP). The Department of Public Works’ Bureau of Sanitation (BOS) owns andoperatestheCity’ssanitarysewersystemandisalsoresponsibleforprovidingsewerservicetothisarea of the City via backbone collection and conveyance system. The City also maintains stormdrainagecollectionand conveyance facilities;major floodcontrol facilitiesaremaintainedby theLosAngelesCountyFloodControlDistrict(LACFCD),refertoFigure2.2‐8.

TheCitycontractswithaprivatewastehaulertocollectanddisposeofthesolidwastegeneratedbycommercialandmulti‐familyresidentialdevelopmentsintheprojectvicinity,whichiscollectedandtransportedtotheSunshineCanyonLandfill,whichisoperatedandmaintainedbyRepublicServices.ElectricalservicetothesiteisprovidedbyLADWPthroughagridoftransmissionlinesandrelatedfacilities.NaturalgasisprovidedbySouthernCaliforniaGasCompany(SoCalGas),whichmaintainsalocalsystemoftransmissionlines,distributionlinesandsupplyregulationstations.

TheCityofLosAngelesBureauofEngineeringoverseesthemaintenanceoftheCity’sstormdrainagesystem,whichisdesignedtomitigate50‐yearmagnitudestorms.Theprojectsiteiswell‐developedandcontainsamixofimpervioussurfaces,includingasphaltandconcrete,aswellasporoussurfaces,includinglandscaping.Stormwaterrunoffgeneratedontheprojectsiteiscollectedandconveyedbycurbs and gutters to an existing 30‐inch reinforced concrete pipe located within the adjacentroadwayrightofway.



Figure2.2‐8NEARESTSTORMDRAINS



2.3.6 PopulationandIncome

According to the 2010U.S. Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010), the project site is locatedwithinCensusTract2013.01.AsnotedwithinTable2.3‐2andFigures4.13‐1and4.13‐2, theprojectislocatedwithinacensustractthathasahighminoritypopulation.Censustract2013.01,wheretheprojectislocated,hasapopulationof3,633residents,and76–100percentofthetractisinhabitedbypersonsofHispanicorLatinoorigin.Inaddition,asnotedinthetablebelow,theareassurroundingtheprojectsitealsohavelargeminoritypopulations.

Table2.3‐2CENSUSTRACTINFORMATION

CensusTractPercent(%)

HispanicorLatinoOrigin

Percent(%)MinorityPopulation

BasedonRace

PercentBelowPovertyLevel

2013.01ProjectSiteLocation 76–100% 50–75% N/A

2014.0176–100% 50–75% N/A

1991.1076–100% 25–49% 22–100%

1992.02 76–100% 50–75% N/A

1993 51075% 50–75% N/A

2012 76–100% 25–49% 22–100%

2013.02 25–50% 50–75% N/A

As of August 2018, there are 220 residents living at Rose Hill Courts.1 For those residents, thefollowingHouseholdAreaMedianIncome(AMI)breakdownisprovidedinTable2.3‐3,below.Thetablealsoprovidesunitcountsandspecifichouseholdincomecategoriesanddefinesareamedianincome(AMI).

1 EmailcorrespondencebetweentheHousingAuthorityofLosAngelesandUltraSystemsonSeptember4,2018



Table2.3‐3HOUSEHOLDAREAMEDIANINCOMELEVELSBYUNIT

Units HouseholdIncomeCategory HouseholdAreaMedianIncomeDefinition1

64 ExtremelyLow‐Income TheExtremelyLow‐Incomelimitsiscalculatedas60percentoftheverylow‐incomelimitsandcomparedtothemostrecentupdatetotheFederalPovertyGuidelines.Ifthepovertyguidelinesarehigher,thosevaluesarechosen.ThevalueiscappedattheVeryLow‐Incomelevel.

17 VeryLow‐Income ThemaximumVeryLow‐Incomelimittypicallyreflects50percentofHUD'smedianfamilyincome(MFI)figuregenerallyequalstwotimesHUD's4‐personverylow‐incomelimit,exceptwhenHUDappliesadjustments.HUDmayadjustincomelimitsforanareaorcountytoaccountforconditionsthatwarrantspecialconsiderations,referredtoasexceptions.

9 Low‐Income Ingeneral,maximumincome forlow‐incomehouseholdsreflects80%ofMFIlevel.

1 OverAMI Over80%AreaMedianIncome

9 VacantUnits NotPresentlyOccupied.

100

1 DepartmentofHousingandCommunityDevelopment,2017.DivisionofHousingPolicyDevelopment.2015StateIncome Limits Briefing Materials for 2017. http://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants‐funding/income‐limits/state‐and‐federal‐income‐limits/docs/inc2k17.pdf February 20, 2018. Information regarding household income and AMIlevelsfortheexistingRoseHillCourtsisfromemailcorrespondencebetweentheHousingAuthorityofLosAngelesandUltraSystemsonSeptember4,2018.

SECTION3.0‐PROJECTDESCRIPTION


3.0 PROJECTDESCRIPTION

3.1 ProjectBackground

TheprojectsiteiscurrentlydevelopedastheRoseHillCourtsapartmentcomplex,whichisownedbyHACLA.HACLAwascharteredbytheStateofCaliforniain1938toalleviatehousingshortages,andtoeradicatesubstandardhousingandimprovehousingquality.TheRoseHillCourtscomplexfilledanessentialneedfornewqualityhousingintheLosAngelesareaduringandaftertheSecondWorldWar,anditcontinuestobeinusetoday(GPA,2015,p.16).

TheRoseHillCourtscomplexconsistsofanadministrationbuilding(i.e.,officesandacommonroomwithakitchen,pantry,andtwobathrooms)and14two‐story,wood‐framebuildingswithtownhouseandflatstyleapartmentscomprising100units.TheapartmentsatRoseHillCourtsofferone,two,threeandfour‐bedroomunitsforresidents.Completedin1942,RoseHillCourtsisamongtheoldestpublichousingprojectsinLosAngeles.ItwasdesignedinthegardenapartmentstylebythedesignteamofRoseHillsArchitects,whichconsistedofarchitectsWilliamF.RuckandClaudBeelman,alongwithlandscapearchitectHammondSadler.

Theapartment complexwasdesigned in theGardenCityandModernstyle,whichwas typicalofpublichousingprojectsofthe40’sera.CharacteristicsoftheGardenCityandModernstyleinclude:lowdensity;modernarchitectural characteristics, including the standardizationand repetitionofbuilding types; andplacement andorientation of the buildings on a project site tomaintain lowdensity.RoseHillCourtsbyitsgeneral layoutisanexampleoftheGardenCityandModernstyle,since thebuildings cover19percentof the landarea, andnobuildings exceed twostories (Ibid.,p.19).RoseHillCourtsiseligibleforlistingontheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces.RefertotheCulturalResourcessectionofthisdocumentfordetails,whichdiscusseshistoricalresources.

TheexistingbuildingheightsfortheRoseHillCourtscomplexareasfollows:

CommunityBuilding:1‐story,approximately13feet Townhouses/StackedFlats:1‐story,approximately12feet Townhouses/StackedFlats:2‐stories,approximately17feet

Currently,theRoseHillCourtsapartmentbuildingsgenerallyhavelow‐pitchedsidegableroofswithslightlyoverhangingeavesandexposedraftertails.Theroofswereoriginallycoveredwithtarandgravelbut arenowcoveredwitha rolled compositionmaterial.Exteriorwalls are sheathedwithstucco.Frontandrearentrancesaretypicallysituatedinpairsandfeatureasharedconcretestoopshelteredbyanon‐originalflaredmansardhood;originallythehoodswereflat.Thedoorshavebeenreplacedthroughoutandmetalsecuritydoorshavebeeninstalled.Thestoopsaresurroundedbysimplemetal railings. The fenestration consists of original steelmulti‐paned casementwindowsthroughoutallofthebuildings.Windowopeningsaregenerallystackedvertically(Ibid.,p.8).

Over the years several alterations and modifications to the apartment complex have occurred,including the installation of entrancehoods,window replacements, kitchenmodernizations, roofreplacement, installation of security doors and smoke detectors, Americanswith Disabilities Act(ADA)rampimprovements,andstructuralrepairsduetoage.Additionally,achildren’splaygroundarea that includes concrete picnic tables and outdoor grills was added for residents’ use andenjoyment(Ibid.,p.13‐14).Existinglandscapingonsiteconsistsofgrassyopenareaswithmaturetreesandshrubs,aswellasconcreteplanters(Ibid.,p.12).



3.1.1 GardenApartmentComplexStyle

Garden apartment complexes were planned and constructed in Los Angeles between 1937 andapproximately1955.Theseapartmentsgenerallyconsistedofconcentrationsofsimilarmulti‐unitbuildingssituatedonlargeandoftenirregularlyshapedproperties.Nearlyalloftheseapartmentsincludedapropertymanagementandmaintenanceoffice,recreationalfacilities,laundryroomsanddryingyards,andinsomecases,educationalandchildcarefacilities.

Characteristics of the Garden Style (Architectural Resources Group, 2012, p. 3) public housingcomponentsinclude:

Multi‐acresites. Useofsuperblocks. Low‐slungbuildings,rarelyexceedingtwostoriesinheight. Primarybuildingentrancesfacecommoncourtyardsratherthanthestreet. Noparkingorparkingattheperimeterofthesiteplan,typicallyinsurfaceparkingcourts. Oneormorelargeopenspaces,orgreens,locatedattheinteriorofthesite. Recreationalamenitiesplannedtohelpfostercommunity.

From1941through1942,16publicgardenapartmentcomplexeswereconstructedbytheCityandCountyHousingAuthoritiesofLosAngeles,creatingapproximately9,000housingunits(Ibid).TheconstructionofthesegardenapartmentcommunitieswasdesignedtofitintotheproposedMasterPlan for the City of Los Angeles at the time, which emphasized sub‐urban, low‐densityneighborhoods.

3.1.2 ExistingConditionofRoseHillCourtsBuildings

RoseHillCourtswasconstructedinthe1940s,duringatimewhenasbestosandleadbasedpaintwereusedinconstructionmaterials.AltecTestingandEngineering,Incorporated(Altec)preformedan updated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the project site in 2018 and foundpotential Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), including lead in soil, and lead in thedrinkingwater, aswell asasbestos containingmaterials, leadbasedpaint, and indoor radongas.RefertoSection4.8ofthisdocumentforadditionalinformation.

TheexistingbuildingsatRoseHillCourtshavesignificantcapitalneedsduetotheirage(75years).Duetotheproperty’sextensivetermiteinfestationanddamagetotheexistingstructures,withtheinfestation extending to the subterranean level, foundationwalls, piers and plumbing pipes, andother structural repair needs, HACLA selected Related California as its development partner toevaluate the viability of both new construction and historic preservation, options. After severalmonthsofintensivestudyandevaluation,RelatedrecommendedtoHACLAstaffandHACLABoardmembersinOctober2015tomoveforwardwithasubstantialrehabilitationoptionforthesite.Thisdetermination was made based upon initial feasibility studies and following extensive publicoutreach to theexistingRoseHillCourtsresidentsand thesurroundingcommunity,asdescribedbelow.

Upon further consideration, it was determined that the historic preservation option would notmaximizetheprojectsite’spotentialtoprovideneededaffordablehousing.Therefore,theprojectproposestodemolishtheexistingonsitestructuresandbuildnewaffordablehousingunitsontheprojectsite.Theprojecthasbeendesignedtomaximizeuseofthe landanddeveloparesidential



complexthatallowsallexistingresidentstherighttoreturntotheprojectsite,shouldtheyelecttodoso.Additionally,theprojecthasbeendesignedforeaseofaccessibilitytoresidentsandwithagoalof increasing the number of affordable housing units on the project site compared to existing(August2018)conditions.

3.1.3 CommunityOutreachandParticipation

ThefollowinginformationdepictstheresidentandcommunityoutreachthathasoccurredregardingtheRoseHillCourtsproject.Between2014and2016Relatedhadconsidereddevelopmentoptionsthatincludedrehabilitationanddemolitionwithnewdevelopment.Ultimately,asdescribedbelow,theproject(Year2018)includesdemolitionofonsitestructuresandredevelopmentoftheprojectsite.

YEAR2014.HACLAconductedfivemeetingswiththeRoseHillCourtsResidentAdvisoryCommittee(RAC)and tenants fromMay throughNovember2014.At thesemeetings, tenantswere informedabouttheexistingphysicalconditions,theextentoftermitedamageonsite,andprogressupdatesandstepsHACLAhadbeentaking.2Fromahealthandsafetystandpoint,HACLAinformedtheresidentsthat itwould take the following stepsandprocedures, including: (1)monitoringand treating (asnecessary), all occupied units and buildings; and (2)vacant and damaged units deemeduninhabitable would not be leased out. Only 10 units were considered uninhabitable, due toextensivetermitedamage.Ifthemodernizationoption(seebelow)werechosen,theseunitswouldbeimprovedsothattheycouldbeoccupied.

Thefollowingpotentiallong‐termoptionsandsolutionswerealsodiscussedwiththeresidents:

1. ComprehensiveModernization–Rehabilitation;2. Demolitionandredevelopmentoftheprojectsitewithnewconstruction;

Residentswereinformedthattheseoptionsmightrequiretemporaryorpermanentrelocationandthat the residents would be provided relocation assistance per federal and state regulations.ResidentswereinformedofHACLAplanstosecureanexperienceddevelopmentpartner(RelatedCaliforniawasultimatelychosen)whowillworkwithHACLAandthecommunitytodeterminethemostfeasiblesolutionwithrespecttotheRoseHillCourtscomplex.ResidentswerealsoinformedthatHACLAwouldcontinuetosolicitresidentfeedback,informthemaboutthedevelopmentprocess,andhaveaparticipatorydialoguewiththemthroughoutthedevelopmentprocess.

ResidentFeedbackandComments.Althoughalltheresidentswereinvited,tenantparticipationrangedfrom30to35residentsattheinitialRACmeeting,withasmallergroupof10‐13residentsparticipatingat the latter twomeetings.TenantsweregenerallysupportiveofHACLAeffortsandbelievedthatthesitewasindireneedofimprovements.Manyresidentsvoicedsupportfortearingdownandrebuildingtheentirecomplex.Tenantshadquestionsaboutrelocation;specifically,howandwhere theymight be relocated, andwhether any assistancewill be provided. Long‐tenuredseniorresidentsexpressedtheir interest incontinuingtoremainwithintheneighborhoodduringrelocation.Someresidentsaskedabouthowthismightaffectfamilies,especiallythosewithchildren

2 SimultaneousSpanishandVietnameseinterpretationserviceswereprovidedateachtenantmeeting.Inaddition,all

HACLAandRelatedCaliforniadocumentspresentedatthesemeetings,aimedatinformingresidentsabouttheimprovementstoRoseHillCourtsproject.AllinformationwasprovidedinEnglish,Spanish,andVietnamese.



inlocalschools.Otherswereworriedaboutleavingandnotbeingabletoreturnoncetheconstructionworkwasfinishedatthecomplex.

InNovember2014,HACLAdiscussedwithresidentsthatshort‐termtermitecontrolmeasureswerebeingundertaken.Residentswerealsoprovidedanupdateonthedeveloperprocurementprocess,andthenextsteps.

At thismeeting, communitymemberswere interested inunderstandinghow the community andHACLA residents would be included in further discussions. These members also requested thatHACLAlinkuptheparkandplaygrounds(openspace)thatcurrentlyexistonbothsidesoftheprojectsite, and potentially develop sports facilities, an indoor soccer field, computer lab, and otheramenitiesforresidentsandthecommunity.TheyalsosuggestedthatHACLAcouldacquireaparceloflandacrossHuntingtonBoulevard,tomoveandre‐housemanyoftheexistingresidents.Theyalsowanttoseemoresenior‐relatedhousingandfacilitiesontheRoseHillCourtssite.

YEAR2015.Duringthefirsthalfoftheyear,HACLAandRelatedmetwithtenantsonfivedifferentoccasions.TwomeetingsoccurredwiththeRAC,twomeetingswereopentoallresidents,andonemeetingoccurredtoprovideinformationtoVietnamese‐speakingresidents.Thetwoopenmeetingswereattendedbyapproximately20residentsand35residents,respectively.

ResidentFeedbackandComments.InJune2015,RelatedprovidedawrittensurveytoRoseHillCourtsresidents;36surveyswerecompleted.Themostimportantfindingswere:

87percentoftheresidentshavelivedatthecomplexfor10yearsormore. Affordability,accesstotransportation,surroundingcommunity,andconveniencewerecited

byresidentsasreasonswhytheylikelivingatthecomplex. Almostalloftherespondentsindicatedthattheywouldliketoreturntothecomplex,after

demolition,newconstruction,and/orrehabilitationhasbeencompleted.

Inlate2015andafterextensivestudy,HACLAandRelateddecidedonthesubstantialrehabilitationoption.RoseHillresidentswereinformedofthedecisionatatenantmeetingheldonOctober6,2015,with preliminary information about the estimated scope and timeframe. On December 1, 2015,HACLAandRelatedrepresentativesprovidedsimilarinformationtostaffattheCouncilDistrict14fieldoffice.

YEAR 2016:Design Charrette for theResidents. The first design charrette with tenants andcommunity members was held on January 21, 2016. This charrette created an opportunity forcommunitymemberstoletHACLAandRelatedknowwhattypeofimprovementsandamenitiestheywantedtosee,oncetherehabilitationprocesswascompleted.

KeyStakeholderMeetings. During the spring of 2016, outreachwas conducted by HACLA andRelated, and focused on informing key stakeholder groups within the community about thesubstantial rehabilitation, the rationale for selection of this alternative, and to discuss thepreliminaryscopeofworkthatwouldbeconductedbyRelated.ThisoutreachincludedmeetingswiththeArroyoSecoNeighborhoodCouncil;LA32NeighborhoodCouncil;CouncilDistrict#14fieldoffice,andtheRoseHillsHomeownersAssociation.

AnotherdesigncharrettewasheldonJune29,2016.Thismeetinghad55residentsandcommunitymembersinattendance.Themeetingwasanopportunitytoreceivefeedbackonthepreliminarysite



plan.ManyofthecommentsreceivedreiteratedthepreviousfeedbackthatHACLAobtainedduringitsJanuary2016designcharrettemeeting.

AresidentmeetingwasconductedonOctober19,2016byHACLAattheapartmentcomplex.Thismeetingfocusedonthetemporaryrelocationof thetenantsduringtherehabilitationworkat thecomplex.

Year 2017: Transition of Redevelopment Strategy from Substantial Rehabilitation toCompleteDemolitionandNewConstruction.InJanuary2017,RelatedandHACLAtookresidentsandRACmembersonasitetourofHarborVillage.HarborVillageisaformerpublichousingsitethathasbeenjointlyredevelopedintoanaffordablemixed‐incomecommunitybyHACLAandRelated.ThetourwasachanceforresidentstotourapreviouslyconvertedpublichousingsiteandtoseehowRelatedmanagesthesite.ItwasimportantforHACLAandRelatedtodemonstratetoresidentshowthingswill be different under different ownership andmanagement. The residentsmetwith themanagementstaff,thesocialserviceprovideroverlunchandlatertouredsomeoftheunits.TheRoseHillCourtsresidentsalsohadgoodconversationswithcurrentHarborVillageresidentswhowerereturning tenants from the formerNormontTerracepublichousing site. The returning residentsspokeabout theirexperiences living in thenewcommunityandrelocationbenefits theyreceivedwhentheyweredisplacedbythedemolitionandduringtherecentrehabilitationofthesite.

In the2ndquarterof2017,RelatedandHACLAenteredmoredetaileddiscussionsregarding thescopeofthesubstantialrehabilitationofRoseHillCourts.BasedonthescopeofrehabilitationandtheexistingRHCresidentpopulation,itwasrevealedthatmanyresidentswouldnotbeabletoreturntotheirrehabilitatedunitsduetoHUD’srightsizingregulations.Right‐sizingrequiresthatresidentswhotemporarilyrelocatemustbepermanentlylocatedinaunitbasedontheiractualfamilysize.ManyRHCresidentsarelivinginunitsthatareeithertoolargeortoosmallandbasedontheexistingunitmix.Therefore,undertherehabilitationscenario,manyfamilieswouldnotbeeligibletoreturn.HACLA’spolicyisforeveryresidenttohavetherighttoreturnsothisbecameabigissue.Inadditiontotheright‐sizingissue,thereisthesoaringneedforaffordablehousinginLosAngeles.Withthesitecurrentlyhavingmostly2‐storybuildingsandverylowdensity,HACLAandRelatedbelievedtherewasanopportunitywithnewconstructiontoincreasethedensitywhichwould:1)solvetheright‐sizingissueand2)provideanopportunitytoincreasethehousingunits.

In July, Related and HACLAmetwith the residents to discuss a summary of the redevelopmentprogressthusfar,sharetheresultsoftheresidentsurveyanddiscussredevelopmentideaswithanindication toward switching from rehabilitation to new construction. The resident responsewasfavorable toward new construction but their biggest concerns remained when the project willhappen and relocation. In the ensuing month, HACLA and Related met with the City and keystakeholderstogaugesupportforanewconstructionapproach.Inthefallof2017,withbothHACLAstaffandRelatedfullybehindthestrategicswitchtothenewconstruction,HACLA’sBoardagreedtothechange.

InDecember2017,RelatedandHACLAmetwithresidentstodiscusstheformalstrategicchangetonewconstruction.ResidentsweregivenaFactSheetthatprovidedahigh‐leveloverviewofthenewconstructionapproachandthestepsthatwouldneedtobetakenintheprocess.RelatedandHACLAinformedtheresidentsoftheJanuary2018meetingtodiscusstheproposedconceptplanandgetresidentfeedbackinacharretteformat.

Year2018:StakeholderFeedbackforNewConstructionConceptPlan.Theyearbeganwithadesign charrette that gave residents a first look at the proposed new construction concept and



providedaforumforresidentstogivefeedback.ThemeetingwashostedbyRelatedandHACLAalongwith lead architect, Withee Malcolm. Withee Malcom presented an overview of the proposedredevelopmentbyusinga3Dflythroughvideotocommunicatethescaleandcontextoftheproject’svision.Residentswere thenbrokenout into six groups, each led by a facilitator, to discuss theirspecificlikesanddislikesandtoprovidesuggestionsregardingtheproject’sarchitecturaldirectionandpreliminaryconceptualsiteplan.

ExteriorArchitecturalConcepts.Overall, residents seemed tosupport thearchitecturaloptionspresented by the design team. Two different architectural styles (represented by six differentimages)forCraftsman/BungalowandOrganic/Modernwerepresentedtoresidents.Residentswereprovidedwithgreenstickerstoplaceonimagestheylikedandredstickerstoplaceonimagestheydisliked. Out of the collective responses Craftsman/Bungalow images received 44 likes and10dislikes.Organic/Modernreceived58likesand36dislikes.

Conceptual SitePlan. Overwhelmingly, residents were very excited and supportive of the newconstructionsiteplan.Residentsprovidedalistofrecommendationsfortheteamtoincorporateintothedesignprocessand futureoperationof theredevelopment.Themainareasofemphasis fromresidents included in‐unit amenities, accessibility, acoustics, lighting, parking, building design,security, recreation and community/social service programs. The top in‐unit amenities includedlargerbedroomsandbathrooms,morestoragespace,soundproofingbetweenfloors/walls,andin‐unit washer/dryer. The top site plan recommendations included requesting for the design ofbuildings,openspaceandparkingareastobeadequatelysecured,fitness,recreation,andcommunitygathering spaces in the open space areas, and assigned, accessible parking. Additionally, manyresidentsinquiredaboutthetimingofthestartandcompletionofPhaseI.Residents’mainconcernswere in regard to relocation, site security, unit right‐sizing/overcrowding andoutsiders’ parkingonsite.

In March 2018, Related/HACLA hosted an open house for current residents and the broaderneighborhood to share more information about the project. The turnout included a mixture ofresidents and community members. The team used a combination of boards of the existingconditions, concept plan and architectural concepts along with the 3D flythrough video tocommunicate thevision for theredevelopment.Overall themeetingwentwellwithverypositivesupportanddetailedfeedbackfromthebothresidentsandthecommunity.Similartotheresidentdesign meeting, the majority of the feedback centered on timing, security, future in‐unit andcommunityamenities,parkingandarchitecturaldesign.Therewereafewpeopleconcernedaboutthe proposeddensity, height ofmid‐rise buildings, Phase I parking, relocation and themixing ofseniors/familiesinmid‐risebuildings.

Inadditionto themeetingwith theresidentsandcommunity,RelatedandHACLAhavemetwithstakeholders to garner feedback and build support. Stakeholders have included CD14,representatives fromLA32NeighborhoodCouncil and leadership fromother local organizations,ElSerenoHistoricalSocietyandLAConservancy.

3.2 ProjectOverview

Basedonextensiveoutreachtotheresidentsandthecommunity,theprojectatRoseHillCourtswilldemolishalltheexistingbuildingsandconstructatotalof191affordablehousingunitsalongwithapropertymanagementandmaintenanceofficeonsite,intwophases.ThecomponentsoftheprojectarelistedbelowinTable3.2‐1andconceptuallydepictedinFigure3.2‐1.



Table3.2‐1PROJECTSUMMARY

Address 4446FlorizelStreetLosAngeles,CA90032

Assessor’sParcelNumber 5305‐011‐900

ApproximateAcreage 5.24PhaseIUnits 94PhaseIIUnits 97TotalNumberofUnits 191LotCoverage Approximately32percentFloorAreaRatio Approximately1.3TotalNumberof1‐bedroom/1‐bathroomunits 102TotalNumberof2‐bedroom/1‐bathroomunits 61TotalNumberof3‐bedroom/2‐bathroomunits 20TotalNumberof4‐bedroom/2‐bathroomunits 8PropertyManagementandMaintenanceOffice +/‐4,500squarefeetApproximate acreage of landscaping/openspace

Open space and landscaped area:128,200sq.ft.Walkways:20,000sq.ft.Drive/Parkingareas:46,000sq.ft.Note: open space area overlaps withlandscapedandwalkwayarea.

BuildingHeight PhaseI:Mid‐rise4stories,50feetPhaseII:Mid‐rise4stories,50feetPropertyManagementandMaintenanceOffice:1‐2stories,20feetTownhouse/Stacked Flats: 2‐3 stories,30feet

Density 191unitsona5.24‐acresiteequatestoapproximately36.45dwellingunitsperacre

TotalNumberofParkingSpaces 176Source:WitheeMalcolmArchitects,2018.CompositeSitePlandatedJanuary30,2018.

3.3 OpenSpaceandRecreationalAmenities

Severalcourtyardsareproposedonsite,eachwithauniquedesignthemeanduse.Outdoorspaceadjacenttothecommunitybuildingofferplacesforoutdoorsocialgatherings,andspecialeventsandneighborhood celebrations, with shaded areas seating and BBQ grills for outdoor dining. Areasdesignedforusebychildrenwouldfeaturetot‐lotsforusebychildrenfrom2‐12yearsofage.Therewouldbeplayareasforchildren,fromtot‐lotstohardsurfaceplay,andexperientialplayelementsthatencourageinteractionandgroupplay.Thelandscapedesignwouldcreateapark‐likesettingforresidents.



Figure3.2‐1ROSEHILLCOURTSSITEPLAN



3.4 ExteriorLighting

Theprojectwill have exterior lighting thatwill be located on the buildings in addition to street,sidewalkandpathwaylightinglocatedacrosstheentiresite.

3.5 Fencing

Projectfencingwouldbelocatedbetweenbuildings.Courtyardareaswouldbefencedfromthestreetandpedestrianwalksaccessingperimeterstreetswouldhavecombinationofhedgesandfencingtoclearlydefinepathsofaccess.

3.6 Security

Thesitewillhavesecurityfeaturesincluding:cameras,controlledaccesstomid‐risebuildings,andpotentiallycontrolledaccesstosomeoftheparkingareas.

3.7 ArchitecturalDesign,BuildingFacades,andRooflines

Thearchitecturalplanisbasedoncreatingadevelopmentwithmultiplebuildingandunittypeswithsharedamenities.Theprojectwouldconsistoftwophases,thefirstphasewillcomprisetwo4‐storymulti‐family buildings. Each building would have dedicated parking, shared leasing, andcommunity/outdooramenities.ThearchitecturalstylewouldbeCaliforniaContemporarywithflatparapetroofs,cementfiberboardsiding,andmaterialandcoloraccents.

Phase‐Two would be comprised of building types of varying scale and architectural detailing.BuildingsB3andB4wouldbetwo‐storytownhouseswrappingaroundatwo‐levelconcreteparkinggaragewithdedicatedparkingforbuildingsB3,B4andB5.BuildingsB6throughB13wouldbetwo‐storytownhousesandflatswithtuck‐underparking.ThearchitecturalstyleforbuildingB5wouldbeCaliforniaContemporarywithflatparapetroofs,cementfiberboardsiding,andmaterialandcoloraccents. The architectural styles for buildings B3, B4 and B6 through B13 would be CaliforniaContemporaryFarmHousewithpitchedroofs,gableends,horizontalsiding,verticalboard/battensiding,windowtrim,planterboxesandbasedetails.

3.8 Landscaping

The landscape design themewould complement the architectural style and would be CaliforniaEclecticwithaselectionofdroughttolerantandlowmaintenanceplantmaterials.Theplantswouldbefireretardantduetothesensitivityoffirehazardinthearea.Plantselectionsarebasedontheir,aesthetic/horticulturalvalue,durability,wateruse,andlowmaintenance.TreessuchasSycamore,OaksPaloVerde,Mesquite,WesternRedbud,StrawberryTree,DesertWillow,AustralianWillow,AfricanSumac,Palms,andCrapeMyrtle.wouldbeutilizedonsiteduetotheirlowwateruse,andfire‐retardantcharacteristics.

Water efficient dripline emitter tubingwould be used in planting areas and dedicated low‐flowbubblerswouldbeutilizedforirrigationoftrees.Irrigationsystemimprovementswouldincludenewweatherbased“Smart'controller”andadedicatedirrigationwatermeter.TheirrigationmethodsfortheprojectmeetandexceedtheCityofLosAngelesLandscapeOrdinance.



WaterdeliverysystemshavebeendesignedinconformancewithHydrozonerequirementsforwaterconservationandincompliancewiththeCity’sLandscapeOrdinanceandCaliforniaWaterEfficientLandscapeOrdinanceAB1881.

3.8.1 ParkingandCirculation

Atotalof176parkingspaceswillbeprovidedonsite.The176proposedparkingspacesequatesto0.92spaces/unitoverall,with8spacesdesignatedforthepropertymanagementandmaintenanceoffice.PhaseIwillhave50spaces,whichequatesto0.53parkingspacesperunit.PhaseIIwillhave126 spaces,which equates to 1.29 parking spaces per unit. The projectwould notmeet normalLosAngelesMunicipalCoderequirementsbutwouldbeAB744requirements.

TheprojectproposesaccesspointsintothecomplexfromthreedrivewaysalongFlorizelStreet,onedrivewayalongBoundaryAvenue, onedrivewayalongMercuryAvenue, andonedrivewayalongMackenzieAvenue.Theexistingdriveway,whichcurrentlyrunseast‐westthroughtheprojectsitewouldberemovedwithdevelopmentoftheproject.

3.8.2 Utilities

Sanitary Sewer. Sewer service to the project site is provided by the City of Los Angeles. TheDepartmentofPublicWorks’BOSownsandoperatestheCity’ssanitarysewersystemandisalsoresponsibleforprovidingsewerservicetotheCityviabackbonecollectionandconveyancesystem.Thesiteisservedbyanexistingsanitarysewernetwork.

DomesticWater.Water to theprojectsite is currentlyprovidedby theLADWP.Offsitemainlinewatersystemimprovementsmaybenecessarywithinthestreetright‐of‐waytoaccommodatetheproject.

DryUtilities.NaturalgasandelectricityareprovidedtotheprojectsitebytheSoCalGasandtheLADWP.Offsitemainlineelectricalornaturalgasimprovementsmaybenecessarywithinthestreetright‐of‐waytoaccommodatetheproject.

3.8.3 CatchmentBasins

The existing site conditions anddrainage infrastructure includes: one (1) curb catchbasin alongFlorizelStreet(some100feetwestofMackenzieAvenue);two(2)catchbasinsalongtheexistingdriveway(atMackenzieAvenue),andtwo(2)curbcatchbasinsatthesite’ssoutheastcorner(alongMercuryAvenue andMackenzie Avenue). The project grading/drainage design intends to re‐usethese existing catch basin features and/or possibly replacewith new basin structures in similarlocations.Theexistingsite’sgeneraldrainagepattern(fromnorthwesttosoutheast)willnotchangewith the new onsite improvements; and as such, existing street drainage scheme will not besignificantly altered. The project’s onsite improvements would include a LID/SUSMP BestManagement Practices (BMPs) for “store & re‐use” that will retain and treat the 85th percentile24‐hourrunoffeventonsite.Itisestimatedthattheproject’spostdevelopmentstormwaterrun‐offflowingintodrainageinfrastructurewouldbelessthanthecurrent/exitingconditions.

3.8.4 Signage

Theprojectproposesvarioustypesofsignageinahostoflocations,suchastheexteriorandinteriorofbuildings,alongsidewalksandpathways,and inparkingareas.Signswillbeoriented forbothpedestrian and vehicular traffic. The design of the signagewill range fromuniformly recognized



trafficsignstocustomsignageforeachbuildingthatwillreflecttheselectedarchitecturalstyleandexteriorcolors.

3.8.5 ConstructionActivitiesandPhasing

3.8.6 RelocationPlan

Before any tenant relocation occurs, HUD must approve the project’s relocation plan, which iscurrently under development (49 CFR 24 Subpart C). Consistent with HUD regulations for thetreatmentofitinerants,currentresidentswhoareingoodstandingwillhavetheoptiontoreturntothepropertyafterconstructioniscomplete.Residents,livinginthoseunitswithinthefootprintofPhase 1,whowish to returnwill be temporarily relocated until construction of the buildings iscomplete.TheresidentswhoarelivingintheexistingbuildingswithinthefootprintofPhaseIIwillbemovedandassistedintothePhaseIunitsuponcompletion.Residentswillbeprovidedrelocationcounseling,compensationformovingexpenses,andprovidedwithdecent,safeandsanitaryhousingchoices.Additionally, theRelocationPlanwill be consideredby theBoardofCommissioners andHUD,priortoanydevelopmentataRoseHillCourts.Forrelocationactivities,Related/HACLAwilltake into consideration individual household preferences and needs to be close to publictransportation, employment, schools, medical/public/social services and agencies, recreationalservices,parks,communitycenters,and/orshoppingandwillattempttoaccommodatehouseholdsbymovingthemtoanavailableunitonsite.Ifsuchaunitisnotavailable,thenextpreferredoptionwillbeforhouseholdstorelocateintoanearbymoteloranapartmentunitandreturntotheRoseHillCourtsassoonasconstructionofPhaseIiscompleteandtheunitisreadyforoccupancy.ForhouseholdsthatprefertoacceptaHACLAissuedTenantSection8VoucherandpermanentlyrelocatefromRoseHillCourts,fullrelocationassistanceforpermanentreplacementhousingwillbeavailable.

3.8.7 Demolition

Allof theexistingbuildingsonsitearescheduled toberemoved.Demolitionwouldoccur in twophasesasfollows:inPhaseI,7buildingsarescheduledtobedemolished.InPhaseII,8buildingswillbedemolished.

3.8.8 HazardousMaterialRemoval

Hazardousmaterials exist on the project site, including lead in the soil, lead based paint (LBP),asbestoscontainingmaterials(ACMs),leadinthedrinkingwater,andradongas.RefertoSection4.8ofthisdocumentforadiscussionofhazardousmaterials.

3.8.9 Grading

Theexistinggradingwillbemodified toadapt to thedesignof thenewbuildings,parkingareas,landscapeandoutdooramenities.

3.8.10 UtilitiesInstallation

Uponreviewofexistingutilitiesandanticipatedutilitiesinthenewbuildings,autilityplanwillbedevelopedinconsultationwiththeproject'sutilityconsultantandthelocalserviceprovidersforwetanddryutilities.



3.8.11 ConstructionActivities

Constructionactivitywillrangebasedonthetypeofbuildingsandsiteworkrequiredperphase.Phase Iwill consist of the construction of two, 4‐storymidrise buildings totaling 94 units and asurfaceparking area. Phase IIwill consist of a combinationof one, 4‐storymidrisebuilding, andnumerous townhouses and stacked flats totaling 97 units along with a 1‐2 story propertymanagementandmaintenanceoffice,surface‐levelparkingareasandapartialsubterraneanparkingstructure.Projectworkforcewillvarybasedonthescheduledactivitiestoover100atpeakwithaprojectedaverageof40‐60workersperday.

3.8.12 OffsiteImprovements

Aspartoftheprojectitisanticipatedthatoffsiteutilityimprovementswillneedtobemadeinthepublic rightofway forutilities suchaswater, sewer, andelectricity.Theseoffsite improvementswouldbelimitedtoonlythepublicrightofwayinthestreetssurroundingtheprojectssite:FlorizelStreet, Boundary Avenue, Mackenzie Avenue, and Mercury Avenue. Offsite improvements willincludetrenchingandinstallationofadditionalutilitylinesandpipestoprovideadditionalwater,sewer,andelectricalservicetotheprojectsite.

3.8.13 EquipmentDuringConstruction

Awidevarietyofconstructionequipmentwillbeusedonsitetosupportthenecessaryconstructionactivities. The site conditions will determine necessary equipment for each phase. Dirt movingequipment, trenching,diggingequipment, backhoes and skip loaderswill predominate the initialwork.All‐terrainforklifts,andpossiblysmallcraneswillbeutilizedto feedandbuildtheprojectwhenverticalconstructioncommences.

3.8.14 Alternatives

At this time, it isanticipated that the followingalternativeswillbeanalyzed in theEIR/EIS tobepreparedfortheproject:

(1)NoProject/NoActionAlternative;(2)Non‐HistoricallyCompliantRehabilitationAlternative;and(3)HistoricRehabilitationAlternative

NoProject/NoActionAlternative.Thisalternativewouldinvolvethecontinuationofusesonthesite;therefore,existingbuildingsandtenantswouldremainattheprojectsiteandnonewbuildingsoruseswouldbeconstructedordemolished.

Non‐HistoricallyCompliantRehabilitationAlternative.Thisalternativewouldredevelopthe existing units atRoseHill Courts but not in away thatwouldpreserve their historicintegrity.However,theNon‐HistoricallyCompliantRehabilitationAlternativewouldretaintheexisting100unitsontheprojectsiteandwouldnotallowfortheopportunitytoincreasethenumberofaffordablehousingunitsontheprojectsite.

HistoricRehabilitationAlternative.ThisalternativewouldredeveloptheexistingunitsatRoseHillCourtsinawaythatwouldpreservetheirhistoricintegrityofthebuildings.ThisalternativewouldrestorethecharacteristicsoftheGardenStyledesignutilizedintheRose



HillCourtsdevelopment,includingbutnotlimitedtolow‐slungbuildings,largeopenspaces,andrecreationalamenities.

3.9 DiscretionaryAction

Following LeadAgency approval of the IS (seeSection1.0), the permits and approvals listed inTable3.9‐1belowwouldberequiredpriortoconstruction.OnNovember29,2017,HACLAandtheCityofLosAngelesenteredaMemorandumofUnderstandingdesignatingHACLAastheleadagencyandtheCityofLosAngelesaresponsibleagencyfortheproject.

Table3.9‐1PERMITSANDAPPROVALS

Agency PermitorApproval

HousingAuthorityoftheCityofLosAngeles(HACLA) ApprovalofDispositionandDevelopmentAgreement

DiscretionaryapprovalofRelocationPlanforResidents

CertificationoftheEIR/EISCityofLosAngeles DemolitionandBuildingPermits

PublicBenefitProjectwithAlternativeCompliance(PUB)underLosAngelesMunicipalCodeSection14.00B

AffordableHousingDensityBonus(SB1818)asidentifiedinLAMCSection12.22A.25:RequestistoallowaDensityBonusprojectwithoff‐menuincentives.

LotTie/LotLineAdjustmentProcessduetoPhaseIandIIbeingonseparatelots.

Permitfortheremovalofstreettrees(ifrequired)

HaulRouteapproval(ifnecessary)UnitedStatesDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment

NEPAPart58Compliance Section18DemolitionandDispositionof

existingRoseHillCourts RentalAssistanceDemonstration(RAD)

Conversion AdoptionoftheEIS

9/19/2018

SECTION4.0‐ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS


EvaluationofEnvironmentalImpacts

(1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that areadequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesesfollowing eachquestion.A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referencedinformation sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the oneinvolved(e.g.,theprojectfallsoutsideafaultrupturezone).A“NoImpact”answershouldbeexplainedwhereitisbasedonproject‐specificfactors,aswellasgeneralstandards(e.g.,theproject would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project‐specificscreeninganalysis).

(2) Allanswersmust take intoaccount thewholeaction involved, includingoffsiteaswellasonsite,cumulativeaswellasproject‐level,indirectaswellasdirect,andconstructionaswellasoperationalimpacts.

(3) Oncetheleadagencyhasdeterminedthataparticularphysicalimpactmayoccurthenthechecklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less thansignificant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” isappropriateifthereissubstantialevidencethataneffectmaybesignificant.Ifthereareoneormore“PotentiallySignificantImpact”entrieswhenthedeterminationismade,anEIRisrequired.

(4) “NegativeDeclaration:LessthanSignificantwithMitigationIncorporated”applieswheretheincorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially SignificantImpact” toa “Less thanSignificant Impact.”The leadagencymustdescribe themitigationmeasuresandbrieflyexplainhowtheyreducetheeffecttolessthansignificantlevel.

(5) Earlier analysesmay be usewhere, pursuant to the tiering, ProgramEIR, or other CEQAprocess, an affect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or ND. (See Section15063(b)(1)(C)oftheCEQAGuidelines).Inthiscase,abriefdiscussionshouldidentifythefollowing:

(a) EarlierAnalysesUsed.Identifyandstatewheretheearlieranalysis isavailableforreview.

(b) ImpactsAdequatelyAddressed.Identifywhicheffectsfromtheabovechecklistwerewithin the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant toapplicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed bymitigationmeasuresbasedontheearlieranalysis.

(c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with MitigationMeasuresIncorporated,”describethemitigationmeasuresthatwereincorporatedorrefinedfromtheearlierdocumentandtheextenttowhichtheyaddresssite‐specificconditionsfortheproject.

(6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to informationsources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to apreviouslypreparedoroutsidedocumentshould,whereappropriate,includeareferencetothepageorpageswherethestatementissubstantiated.

SECTION4.0‐ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS


(7) SupportingInformationSources:Asourcelistshouldbeattached,andothersourcesusedorindividualscontactedshouldbecitedinthediscussion.

(8) Thisisonlyasuggestedform,andleadagenciesarefreetousedifferentformats;however,leadagenciesshouldnormallyaddressthequestionsfromthischecklistthatarerelevanttoaproject’senvironmentaleffectsinwhateverformatisselected.

(9) Theexplanationofeachissueshouldidentify:

(a) Thesignificancecriteriaorthreshold,ifany,usedtoevaluateeachquestion;and

(b) Themitigationmeasureidentified,ifany,toreducetheimpacttolessthansignificant.

SECTION4.1‐AESTHETICS

6022A/RoseHillCourtsRedevelopment Page4.1‐1InitialStudy September2018

4.1 Aesthetics

Wouldtheproject:PotentiallySignificantImpact

LessthanSignificantImpactwithMitigation

Incorporated

LessthanSignificantImpact

NoImpact

a)Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonascenicvista?

X

b)Substantiallydamagescenicresources,including,butnotlimitedto,trees,outcroppings,andhistoricbuildingswithinastatescenichighway?

X

c) Substantiallydegradetheexistingvisualcharacterorqualityofthesiteanditssurroundings?

X

d)Createanewsourceofsubstantiallightorglarewhichwouldadverselyaffectdayornighttimeviewsinthearea?

X

A “visualenvironment” includes thebuiltenvironment (developmentpatterns,buildings,parkingareas, and circulation elements) and natural environment (such as hills, vegetation, rockoutcroppings,drainagepathways,andsoils)features.Visualquality,viewergroupsandsensitivity,duration, and visual resources characterize views. Visual quality refers to the general aestheticqualityofaview,suchasvividness,intactness,andunity.Viewergroupsidentifywhoismostlikelytoexperiencetheview.High‐sensitivitylandusesincluderesidences,schools,playgrounds,religiousinstitutions,andpassiveoutdoorspacessuchasparks,playgrounds,andrecreationareas.Durationofaviewistheamountoftimethataparticularviewcanbeseenbyaspecificviewergroup.Visualresources refer to unique views, and views identified in local plans, from scenic highways, or ofspecificuniquestructuresorlandscapefeatures.

a) Wouldtheprojecthaveasubstantialadverseeffectonascenicvista?

NoImpact

Scenicvistasgenerally includeextensivepanoramicviewsofnatural features,unusual terrain,oruniqueurbanorhistoricfeatures,forwhichthefieldofviewcanbewideandextendintothedistance,andfocalviewsthatfocusonaparticularobject,sceneorfeatureofinterest.

TheprojectsiteislocatedintheRoseHillCourtsneighborhood,inthenortheasternpartofCityofLosAngeles,whichischaracterizedbyhillytopographyanddenseurbandevelopment.Dominantnaturalvisualresourcesintheprojectvicinityincludescenicvistasofnumeroushillsides,naturalopenspaceandparklands,includingtheErnestDebsRegionalParkandRoseHillParktothenorthandRoseHillRecreationCentertothesouth.

Due to hilly topography, scenic views incorporating the project site are available from publicthoroughfaresandopenspacesinthevicinityoftheproject.Ingeneral,publicviewsincludescenic



viewsandvistasofnearbyanddistanthillsidesincorporatingthebuiltenvironmentandnaturalopenspaces inthesurroundingarea.Privateviews in theprojectvicinity(i.e.,viewsfromsurroundingdevelopments),aresimilartopublicviews,butaremorerestrictedbylandscaping,numeroustreesandexistingstructures.

Undertheproject,existingbuildingsandlandscapingonsitewouldbedemolishedandreplacedwithnew multi‐family residential buildings, a property management and maintenance office andlandscaping. There are no views available through the project site due to the existing buildings,landscapingandtreesonsite.Developmentoftheprojectwouldnothavethepotentialtoblockviewsbecauseno scenicviewsare affordedonor through theproject site.Distantviewsofhills to thesoutheast fromMcKenzieAvenueandFlorizelStreetwouldremain.Therefore, theprojectwouldhaveno impact in this regard.This issuewillnotbeanalyzed further in theEIR/EIS thatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

b) Wouldtheprojectsubstantiallydamagescenicresources,including,butnotlimitedto,trees,rockoutcroppings,andhistoricbuildingswithinastatescenichighway?

NoImpact

TheCaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation(Caltrans)provides informationregardingofficiallydesignatedor eligible state scenichighways,designatedaspartof theCalifornia ScenicHighwayProgram.AccordingtoCaltrans,theclosestofficiallydesignatedscenichighwayisStateRoute110(Arroyo Seco Historic Parkway) located approximately one mile to the east of the project site(Caltrans, 2015). As shown inFigure4.1‐1, the Arroyo Seco Parkway is an officially designatedNationalScenicByway,CaliforniaStateScenicHighwayandHistoricParkway.Therefore,theprojectsiteisnotlocatedalongastatescenichighwayandassuch,theprojectwouldhavenoimpactinthisregard.

Theprojectsiteissurroundedbysteephillstotheeastandthenortheast,whichobstructviewstoandfromtheArroyoSecoScenicParkway.

TheCityofLosAngelesTransportationElementdesignatesaseriesofscenicbywaysandcorridorsandestablishescriteriaanddesignstandardstoprotectand/orenhancesceniccorridors.TheCityalsorequirespreparationofcorridorplansforeachdesignatedScenicHighwayinaccordancewitheach ScenicHighway corridor's individual scenic character or concept and incorporationof suchcorridorplansintospecificplanordistrictplanordinances. TheprojectwouldbeconsistentwiththeCity’s General Plan (2035) and Zoning Ordinances which impose development guidelines andstandards to preserve scenic resources and reduce the obstruction of public views from locallydesignated scenic highways. Therefore, no impactwould occur. This issuewill not be analyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

c) Wouldtheprojectsubstantiallydegradetheexistingvisualcharacterorqualityofthesiteanditssurroundings?

PotentiallySignificantImpact

Theprojectsiteislocatedinanurbansettingcharacterizedbyamixofsinglefamilyandmulti‐familyresidentialbuildings,low‐scalecommercial,recreational,civic/institutionalbuildings,naturalopenspacesandparklands.Viewsoftheexistingstreetscapearecharacterizedbylowheight(oneortwo



Figure4.1‐1STATESCENICHIGHWAYSANDNATIONALBYWAYS



story)buildings,aginginfrastructureandscenicviewsandvistasofnearbyanddistanthillsidesandnaturalopenspacesinthesurroundingarea.

Belowisacomparisonoftheexistingandproposedbuildingheights.

Theheightoftheexistingbuildingsonsite: Theheightoftheproposedbuildingsonsite:

‐ CommunityBuilding:1‐story,approximately13feet ‐CommunityBuilding:1‐2stories,20feet

‐ Townhouses/StackedFlats:1‐story,approximately12feet

‐MidriseBuildings:4stories,50feet

‐ Townhouses/StackedFlats:2‐stories,approximately17feet

‐Townhouses/StackedFlats:2‐3stories,30feet

Developmentoftheprojectwoulddemolishhistoricbuildingsonsite,whichwouldchangethevisualcharacteroftheprojectsite.ThispotentiallysignificantimpactwillbefurtheranalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

Shadow‐sensitiveusesincludeallresidentialusesandroutinelyusableoutdoorspacesassociatedwithrecreationalorinstitutionaluses,commercialusessuchaspedestrian‐orientedoutdoorspacesor restaurantswithoutdoor eating areas, nurseries, and existing solar collectors. Theseuses areconsideredsensitivebecausesunlightisimportanttofunction,physicalcomfort,orcommerce.Shadesensitiveusesintheprojectvicinityarelimitedtotheresidentialusessurroundingtheprojectsiteonallsides.TheCityofLACEQAGuideprovidesevaluationofscreeningcriteriaforpotentialshadeandshadowimpactsfromprojectstonearbyshadow‐sensitiveuses,suchasresidentiallanduses.Theevaluationstatesthatitshouldbedeterminedwhethertheprojectwouldincludelight‐blockingstructuresinexcessof60feetinheightortheequivalent(CityofLosAngeles,2006,p.A.3‐2).Theprojectdoesnotincludeanystructuresthatwouldexceed60feetinheight.Thus,theadditionofnewbuildingsontheprojectsitewouldnotcreateshadowswhichcouldhaveapotentiallysignificantimpacttoadjacentornearbyshadow‐sensitive landuses.ShadeandshadowwillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

d) Would the project create anew source of substantial light or glarewhichwouldadverselyaffectdayornighttimeviewsinthearea?

LessThanSignificantImpact

The project site is located in Northeast Los Angeles, which is characterized by low to mediumnighttimeambientlightlevels.Artificiallightingiscurrentlyutilizedonsiteandinthesurroundingareaforsecurity,parking,signage,architecturalhighlighting,andlandscaping/decorativepurposes.Street lights and traffic on local streets also contribute to the ambient light levels in the area.Light‐sensitiveusesintheprojectvicinityarelimitedtosurroundingresidences.

The project proposes new and upgraded exterior lighting on the project site. Installation of theproposed lightingwould enhance safety and visibility throughout the project site. The proposedlighting would be visible from the area surrounding the project site. The project’s proposedlandscaping, parking and security lighting is expected to contribute to ambient nighttimeilluminationintheprojectvicinity.However,thelightingfromtheprojectsitewouldberequiredto



complywithCityofLosAngelesMunicipalCodelightingrequirements.TheprojectwouldberequiredtocomplywiththefollowingchaptersintheLosAngelesMunicipalCode:

Chapter1,Article2,Section12.21‐A,5(k).Alllightsusedtoilluminateaparkingareashallbedesigned,locatedandarrangedsoastoreflectthelightawayfromanystreetsandadjacentpremises.

Chapter 1, Article 7, Section 17.08‐C. Plans for street lighting shall be submitted to andapprovedbytheBureauofStreetLightingforsubdivisionmaps.

Chapter1,Article4.4,Section14.4.4.Nosignshallbearrangedandilluminatedinamannerthatwillproducealightintensityofgreaterthanthreefoot‐candlesaboveambientlighting,asmeasuredatthepropertylineofthenearestresidentiallyzonedproperty.

Chapter 9, Article 3, Section 93.0117(b).No exterior lightmay causemore than two‐footcandlesoflightingintensityorgeneratedirectglareontoexteriorglazedwindowsorglassdoorsonanypropertycontainingresidentialunits;elevatedhabitableporch,deck,orbalconyonanypropertycontainingresidentialunits;oranygroundsurfaceintendedforusessuchasrecreation,barbecueor lawnareasoranyotherproperty containinga residentialunitorunits.

Additionally,thelightscurrentlyontheprojectsitearenotenergyefficientandcomprisedofolderlighting.Theprojectproposesnewlightingthatisenergyefficientandthatwouldshieldlightfromspillingoffsite.Glarecouldbeproduced fromglasswindows,and fromparkedcars,however theprojectwouldnotresult insignificantglare impactsbecause itdoesnotproposehighlyreflectivebuildingmaterials.TheprojectwouldberequiredtocomplywiththeaboveMunicipalCodelightingstandards.Therefore,lightandglarewillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

SECTION4.2‐AGRICULTUREANDFORESTRYRESOURCES


4.2 AgricultureandForestryResources



Incorporated


NoImpact

a) ConvertPrimeFarmland,UniqueFarmland,orFarmlandofStatewideImportance(Farmland),asshownonthemapspreparedpursuanttotheFarmlandMappingandMonitoringProgramoftheCaliforniaResourcesAgency,tonon‐agriculturaluse?

X

b) Conflictwithexistingzoningforagriculturaluse,oraWilliamsonActcontract?

X

c) Conflictwithexistingzoningfor,orcauserezoningof,forestland(asdefinedinPublicResourcesCode§12220(g)),timberland(asdefinedbyPublicResourcesCodes§4526),ortimberlandzonedTimberlandProduction(asdefinedbyGovernmentCode§51104(g))?

X

d) Resultinthelossofforestlandorconversionofforestlandtonon‐forestuse?

X

e) Involveotherchangesintheexistingenvironmentwhich,duetotheirlocationornature,couldresultinconversionofFarmland,tonon‐agriculturaluseorconversionofforestlandtonon‐forestuse?

X

a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of

StatewideImportance(Farmland),asshownonthemapspreparedpursuanttotheFarmlandMappingandMonitoringProgramoftheCaliforniaResourcesAgency,tonon‐agriculturaluse?

NoImpact

TheCaliforniaDepartmentofConservation(DOC)establishedtheFarmlandMappingandMonitoringProgram(FMMP[seebelow])in1982toidentifycriticalagriculturallandsandtracktheconversionoftheselandstootheruses.TheFMMPisanon‐regulatoryprogramandprovidesaconsistentandimpartialanalysisofagriculturallanduseandlandusechangesthroughoutCalifornia.TheprojectsiteandsurroundinglandusesaredesignatedbytheFMMP(DepartmentofConservation,2016)as“AreaNotMapped(Z),”whichfallsoutsideoftheNaturalResourcesConservationService(NRCS)soilsurveyandnotmappedbytheFMMP.Theprojectislocatedwithinanurbanizedarea,andallconstruction activities and onsite improvements would occur within an existing developed site.



Therefore,nofarmlandwouldbeconvertedtonon‐agriculturaluseandnoimpactswouldoccur.ThisissuewillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

b) Wouldtheprojectconflictwithexistingzoningforagriculturaluse,oraWilliamsonActcontract?

NoImpact

Accordingtothe2015/2016StateofCaliforniaWilliamsonActContractLandMap,theprojectsiteisidentifiedas“Non‐EnrolledLand”anddoesnotcontainlandenrolledinaWilliamsonActcontract.TheprojectsitecontainsaGeneralPlandesignationofLRandiscurrentlyzonedas“[Q]R1‐1D”.Therearenocurrentagriculturaloperationsexistinginthevicinityofthesite.Therefore,theprojectsiteisnotconsideredtobefarmlandofsignificanceorlandinagriculturaluseandnoimpactswouldoccur(DOC,2016).This issuewillnotbeanalyzed further in theEIR/EIS thatwillbeprepared for theproject.

c) Wouldtheproject(c)conflictwithexistingzoningfor,orcauserezoningof,forestland (asdefined inPublicResourcesCode§12220(g)), timberland (asdefinedbyPublicResourcesCodes §4526),or timberland zonedTimberlandProduction (asdefinedbyGovernmentCode§51104(g))?

NoImpact

Theprojectsiteislocatedinahighly‐urbanizedsetting.Thesite’sexistingzoningof“R1‐1D”doesnotsupport the definitions provided by Public Resources Code (PRC) §42526 for timberland, PRC§12220(g) for forestland, or California Government Code §51104(g) for timberland zoned forproduction.PRC§12220(g)definesforestlandas“landthatcansupport10percentnativetreecoverofanyspecies,includinghardwoods,undernaturalconditions,andthatallowsformanagementofone or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, waterquality,recreation,andotherpublicbenefits.”Sincetheprojectsite is located inanurbansettingdesignatedforresidentiallanduse,project‐relatedchangeswouldnotconflictwithexistingzoningforforestlandortimberland,andnoimpactswouldoccur.ThisissuewillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

d) Would theproject result in the lossof forest landor conversionof forest land tonon‐forestuse?

NoImpact

Theprojectsitecontainsanexistingmulti‐familyapartmentcomplexandislocatedonlandzonedasR1‐1D. All construction activities and onsite improvements would occur within the project site.Therefore,projectimplementationwouldnotresultinthelossofforestlandorconversionofforestland tonon‐forestuse,andno impactwouldoccur.This issuewillnotbeanalyzed further in theEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.



e) Wouldtheprojectinvolveotherchangesintheexistingenvironmentwhich,duetotheirlocationornature,couldresultinconversionofFarmland,tonon‐agriculturaluseorconversionofforestlandtonon‐forestuse?

NoImpact

The project site contains an existing multi‐family apartment complex located within ahighlyurbanizedsetting.Thesiteissurroundedbypublicfacilitiesandresidentialuses.Noexistingfarmlandor forest land is located in thevicinityof theproject.Therefore, implementationof theprojectwouldnotresultinchangestotheenvironment,duetoitslocationornature,whichcouldresultintheconversionoffarmlandtonon‐agriculturaluseorconversionofforestlandtonon‐forestuse,andnoimpactswouldoccur.ThisissuewillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

SECTION4.3‐AIRQUALITY


4.3 AirQuality



Incorporated


NoImpact

a) Conflictwithorobstructimplementationoftheapplicableairqualityplan?

X

b) Violateanyairqualitystandardorcontributesubstantiallytoanexistingorprojectedairqualityviolation?

X

c) Resultinacumulativelyconsiderablenetincreaseofanycriteriapollutantforwhichtheprojectregionisnonattainmentunderanapplicablefederalorstateambientairqualitystandard(includingreleasingemissionswhichexceedquantitativethresholdsforozoneprecursors)?

X

d) Exposesensitivereceptorstosubstantialpollutantconcentrations? X

e) Createobjectionableodorsaffectingasubstantialnumberofpeople?

X

a) Would the project conflictwith or obstruct implementation of the applicable air

qualityplan?


Theprojectwoulddemolishtheexistingonsitehousingandconstructanewhousingproject thatwouldhousemorepeoplethantheexistingprojectsiteandwouldalsogenerateadditionalvehicletripscomparedtoexistingconditions.Theproject’spotentialimpactsregardingapplicableairqualityplanswillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

b) Wouldtheprojectviolateanyairqualitystandardorcontributesubstantiallytoanexistingorprojectedairqualityviolation?


Theprojectwoulddemolishtheexistingonsitehousingandconstructanewhousingproject thatwouldhousemorepeoplethantheexistingprojectsiteandwouldalsogenerateadditionalvehicletripscomparedtoexistingconditions.Theproject’spotentialimpactsregardingairqualitystandardswillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

c) Wouldtheprojectresultinacumulativelyconsiderablenetincreaseofanycriteriapollutantforwhichtheprojectregionisnon‐attainmentunderanapplicablefederal



orstateambientairqualitystandard(includingreleasingemissionswhichexceedquantitativethresholdsforozoneprecursors)?


Theprojectwoulddemolishtheexistingonsitehousingandconstructanewhousingproject thatwouldhousemorepeoplethantheexistingprojectsiteandwouldalsogenerateadditionalvehicletripscomparedtoexistingconditions.Theproject’spotentialimpactsregardingcriteriapollutantswillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutantconcentrations?


Asignificantimpactmayoccurifaprojectweretogeneratepollutantconcentrationstoadegreethatwould significantly affect sensitive receptors. Land uses that are considered more sensitive tochangesinairqualitythanothersarereferredtoassensitivereceptors.Landusessuchasprimaryandsecondaryschools,hospitals,andconvalescenthomesareconsideredtobesensitivetopoorairqualitybecausetheveryyoung,theold,andtheinfirmaremoresusceptibletorespiratoryinfectionsand other air quality‐related health problems than the general public. Residential uses areconsideredsensitivebecausepeopleinresidentialareasareoftenathomeforextendedperiodsoftime,sotheycouldbeexposedtopollutantsforextendedperiods.Recreationalareasareconsideredmoderatelysensitivetopoorairqualitybecausevigorousexerciseassociatedwithrecreationplacesahighdemandonthehumanrespiratoryfunction.

Thenearest sensitivereceptorsto theprojectsitewouldberesidents thatwouldbe livingat theproject site during Phase II construction, persons visiting Rose Hill Park located approximately30feetnorthoftheprojectsite,residentialuseslocatedapproximately50feetsouthoftheprojectsite,RoseHillRecreationCenter located approximately 50 feet southeast of theproject site, andOurLadyofGuadalupeSchool,locatedapproximately151feeteastofthesite.TheresidentswhoarelivingintheexistingbuildingswithinthefootprintofPhaseIIwillbemovedandassistedintothePhaseIunitsuponcompletion.Theprojectwoulddemolishtheexistingonsitehousingandconstructanewhousingprojectthatwouldhousemorepeoplethantheexistingprojectsiteandwouldalsogenerateadditionalvehicletripscomparedtoexistingconditions.Theproject’spotentialimpactstosensitivereceptorswillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople?


Aproject‐relatedsignificantadverseeffectcouldoccur if constructionoroperationof theprojectwouldresultingenerationofodorsthatwouldbeperceptibleinadjacentsensitiveareas.AccordingtotheSouthCoastAirQualityManagementDistrict(SCAQMD)CEQAAirQualityHandbook,landusesand industrial operations that are associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses,wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries,landfills, dairies and fiberglass molding. The project involves the construction and operation ofresidentialdwellingunits,whicharenottypicallyassociatedwithodorcomplaints.Potentialsourcesthatmay emit odorsduring construction activities include equipment exhaust.Odors from these



sourceswouldbelocalizedandgenerallyconfinedtotheimmediateareasurroundingtheproject.The project would use typical construction techniques, and the odors would be typical of mostconstructionsitesandtemporaryinnature.Astheprojectinvolvesnooperationalelementsrelatedto industrial projects, no long‐term operational objectionable odors are anticipated. Therefore,potentialimpactsassociatedwithobjectionableodorswouldbelessthansignificant.ThisissuewillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

SECTION4.4‐BIOLOGICALRESOURCES


4.4 BiologicalResources


LessthanSignificant

withMitigation

Incorporated


NoImpact

a) Haveasubstantialadverseeffect,eitherdirectlyorthroughhabitatmodifications,onanyspeciesidentifiedasacandidate,sensitive,orspecialstatusspeciesinlocalorregionalplans,policies,orregulations,orbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGameorU.S.FishandWildlifeService?

X

b) Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonanyriparianhabitatorothersensitivenaturalcommunityidentifiedinlocalorregionalplans,policies,regulationsorbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGameorUSFishandWildlifeService?

X

c) Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonfederallyprotectedwetlandsasdefinedby§404oftheCleanWaterAct(including,butnotlimitedto,marsh,vernalpool,coastal,etc.)throughdirectremoval,filling,hydrologicalinterruption,orothermeans?

X

d) Interferesubstantiallywiththemovementofanynativeresidentormigratoryfishorwildlifespeciesorwithestablishednativeresidentormigratorywildlifecorridors,orimpedetheuseofnativenurserysites?

X

e) Conflictwithanylocalpoliciesorordinancesprotectingbiologicalresources,suchasatreepreservationpolicyorordinance?

X

f) ConflictwiththeprovisionsofanadoptedHabitatConservationPlan,NaturalCommunityConservationPlan,orotherapprovedlocal,regional,orstatehabitatconservationplan?

X

a) Could the project have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through

habitatmodifications,onanyspeciesidentifiedasacandidate,sensitive,orspecialstatusspeciesinlocalorregionalplans,policies,orregulations,orbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGameorU.S.FishandWildlifeService?




The project site is located in a highly‐urbanized settings which provides low habitat value forspecial‐statusplantandwildlifespecies.TheliteraturereviewandreconnaissancebiologicalsurveyconductedinMay2018assessedthattheprojectsitecontainsstructures,sidewalks,multiplepavedsurfaceareaswithimpervioussurfaces,andlackssuitablesoils,biologicalresources,andphysicalfeaturestosupportanycandidate,sensitive,orspecial‐statusplantandanimalspecies.Additionally,nospecial‐statusplantsorwildlifewereobservedwithin theprojectsiteduringanysitesurveys.Therefore,nodirectorindirectimpactsonspecial‐statusplantoranimalspeciesareanticipatedasaresultoftheprojectactivities.However, the project site contains ornamental vegetation and building structures that couldpotentiallyprovidecoverandnestinghabitatforbirdspeciesthathaveadaptedtourbanareas,suchasrockpigeons(Columbalivia)andmourningdoves(Zenaidamacroura).NativebirdspeciessuchasthemourningdovesareprotectedbytheMigratoryBirdTreatyAct(MBTA)andtheCaliforniaFishandGameCode,whichrenderitunlawfultotakenativebreedingbirds,theirnests,eggs,andyoung.Indirect impacts on breeding birds could occur from increased noise, vibration, and dust duringconstruction,whichcouldadverselyaffectthebreedingbehaviorofsomebirds,andleadtotheloss(take)ofeggsandchicks,ornestabandonment.Therefore,theprojecthasthepotentialtoimpactmigratorynon‐gamebreedingbirds,andtheirnests,youngandeggs.ThisissuewillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

b) Couldtheprojecthaveasubstantialadverseimpactonanyriparianhabitatorothersensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,regulationsorbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGameorU.S.FishandWildlifeService?

NoImpact

Thedominantlanduseintheprojectvicinityisdevelopedandurbanparkwhichincludesstructures,paving, and other impervious surfaces and or areas where landscaping has been installed andmaintained.Theprojectsiteconsistsofpavedparkinglots,sidewalks,walkways,andstructures.Boththeliteraturereviewandresultsofthereconnaissance‐levelfieldsurvey,conductedinMay2018,indicatethatriparianhabitatorothersensitivenaturalcommunitiesdonotexistonoradjacenttotheprojectsite.Forthisreason,nodirectorindirectimpactstoriparianhabitatorothersensitivenaturalcommunitiesareanticipatedasaresultoftheproject.ThisissuewillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

c) Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonfederallyprotectedwetlandsasdefinedby§404oftheCleanWaterAct(including,butnotlimitedto,marsh,vernalpool,coastal,etc.)throughdirectremoval,filling,hydrologicalinterruption,orothermeans?

NoImpact

Accordingtotheliteraturereviewandreconnaissance‐levelfieldsurveyoftheprojectsiteconductedinMay2018,nowetlandsoccurinoradjacenttotheprojectsite.Forthisreason,nodirectorindirectimpacts to federally‐protected wetlands as defined by § 404 of the CleanWater Act (CWA) areanticipatedthroughdirectremoval,filling,hydrologicalinterruption,orothermeans,asaresultof



projectactivities,andtherefore,noimpactswouldresult.ThisissuewillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

d) Could the project interfere substantially with themovement of any resident ormigratoryfishorwildlifespeciesorwithestablishedresidentormigratorywildlifecorridors,orimpedetheuseofwildlifenurserysites?

NoImpact

Theprojectsiteandsurroundingareasdonotsupportresidentormigratoryfishspeciesorwildlifenurserysites.Accordingtothefindingsoftheliteraturereviewandreconnaissance‐levelsurvey,noestablishedresidentormigratorywildlifecorridorsoccurontheprojectsiteorinthesurroundingareas.Asaresult,theprojectwouldnotinterferesubstantiallywithorimpede:(1)themovementofany resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, (2)established resident or migratory wildlifecorridors,or(3)theuseofwildlifenurserysites.Therefore,therewouldbenoimpacts.ThisissuewillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

e) Couldtheprojectconflictwithanylocalpoliciesorordinancesprotectingbiologicalresources,suchasatreepreservationpolicyorordinance?

NoImpact

The project site is located in a developed area, and there were not any native trees or shrubsprotectedbylocalpoliciesorordinancesobservedontheprojectsiteduringthereconnaissance‐levelfieldsurvey.Theprojectwouldnotconflictwith localpoliciesorordinancesprotectingbiologicalresourcesandthereforewouldnotresultinanyimpacts.ApreliminarytreesurveywasconductedinDecember2016,JanC.Scow,Arborist,onthegroundsofRoseHillCourts.FiveQuercussuber(corkoak)wereidentifiedonsite,whicharenotaprotectedspeciesofoak.Therearenoprotectedtreesonsite (Scow,2016).Therefore, there isno impact.This issuewillnotbeanalyzed further in theEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

f) Could theprojectconflictwith theprovisionsofanadoptedHabitatConservationPlan,NaturalCommunitiesConservationPlan,orotherapprovedlocal,regional,orstatehabitatconservationplan?

NoImpact

The project site is not located in a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural CommunitiesConservationPlan(NCCP),oranotherapprovedHCParea.For thisreason, theprojectwouldnotconflictwiththeprovisionsofanadoptedHCP,NCCP,orotherapprovedlocal,regional,orstateHCPandtherefore,noimpactswouldresult.ThisissuewillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

SECTION4.5‐CULTURALRESOURCES


4.5 CulturalResources



Incorporated


NoImpact

a) Causeasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofahistoricalresourceasdefinedin§15064.5?

X

b) Causeasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofanarchaeologicalresourcepursuantto§15064.5?

X

c) Directlyorindirectlydestroyauniquepaleontologicalresourceorsiteoruniquegeologicfeature?

X

d) Disturbanyhumanremains,includingthoseinterredoutsideofformalcemeteries?

X

a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a

historicalresourceasdefinedin§15064.5?


Ahistorical resource isdefined in§15064.5(a)(3)of theCEQAGuidelinesasanyobject,building,structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript determined to be historically significant orsignificant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social,political,military,orculturalannalsofCalifornia.Historicalresourcesarefurtherdefinedasbeingassociatedwithsignificantevents,importantpersons,ordistinctivecharacteristicsofatype,periodormethodofconstruction;representingtheworkofanimportantcreativeindividual;orpossessinghighartisticvalues.ResourceslistedinordeterminedeligiblefortheCaliforniaRegister,includedina local register, or identified as significant in a historic resource survey are also considered ashistoricalresourcesunderCEQA.

Similarly,theNationalRegistercriteria(containedin36CFR60.4)areusedtoevaluateresourceswhencomplyingwith§106oftheNHPA.Specifically,theNationalRegistercriteriastatethateligibleresources comprise districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity oflocation,design,setting,materials,workmanship,feeling,andassociation,andthat(a)areassociatedwitheventsthathavemadeasignificantcontributiontothebroadpatternsofourhistory;or(b)thatareassociatedwith the livesofpersonssignificant inourpast;or (c)thatembody thedistinctivecharacteristicsofatype,period,ormethodofconstruction,orthatpossesshighartisticvalues,orthatrepresentasignificantdistinguishableentitywhosecomponentsmaylackindividualdistinction;or(d)thathaveyieldedormaybelikelytoyield,informationimportanttohistoryorprehistory.

Asubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofanhistoricalresource,asaresultofaprojectordevelopment,isconsideredasignificantimpactontheenvironment.Substantialadversechangeisdefinedasphysicaldemolition,relocation,oralterationofaresourceoritsimmediatesurroundings



suchthatthesignificanceofthehistoricalresourcewouldbemateriallyimpaired.Directimpactsarethosethatcausesubstantialadversephysicalchangetoahistoricproperty.Indirectimpactsarethosethatcausesubstantialadversechangetotheimmediatesurroundingsofahistoricproperty,suchthatthesignificanceofahistoricalresourcewouldbemateriallyimpaired.

In2003,RoseHillCourtswasdeterminedeligibleforlistingintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesthroughthefederalreviewprocesspursuanttoSection106oftheNHPAof1966.AccordingtotheDetermination of Eligibility,RoseHill Courts is significant at the local level underCriteriaA andCriteria C –for its association with the development of public and defense housing duringWorldWarII,andasanexcellentexampleofapublichousingcomplexfollowingtheplanninganddesignprincipalsoftheGardenCityandModernmovements.BecauseitwasdeterminedeligiblefortheNationalRegister,itisautomaticallyincludedintheCaliforniaRegisterofHistoricalResources.

BecausetheprojectwoulddemolishRoseHillCourts,therewouldbeapotentiallysignificantimpacttohistoricalresources.ThisissuewillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of anarchaeologicalresourcepursuantto§15064.5?


Anarchaeologicalresourceisdefinedin§15064.5(c)oftheCEQAGuidelinesasasite,areaorplacedetermined tobehistorically significantasdefined in§15064(a)of theCEQAGuidelines,orasauniquearchaeological resourcedefined in§21083.2of thePRCasanartifact, object, or site thatcontainsinformationneededtoanswerimportantscientificresearchquestionsofpublicinterestorthathasaspecialandparticularqualitysuchasbeingtheoldestorbestexampleofitstype,orthatisdirectlyassociatedwithascientificallyrecognizedimportantprehistoricorhistoriceventorperson.Theprojectwouldbe required to complywithPubicResourcesCode (PRC)21083.2and5097.5,whichare lawsrequiring that statecultural resourcesbeprotected. In theunlikelyevent thatanarcheological resource is discovered during precise grading activities, the California PRCrequirementswouldbecomeeffective immediately.Therefore, theprojectwouldhavea less thansignificanttoarcheologicalresources.

c) Wouldtheprojectdirectlyorindirectlydestroyauniquepaleontologicalresourceorsiteoruniquegeologicfeature?


Thefullybuiltnatureoftheprojectsiteandelevationrelativetoadjacentroadssuggeststhatgroundhere has been thoroughly cut and filled, with no original surface soil remaining. The project’sproposed grading activities are not anticipated to directly or indirectly destroy any resourcesbecausetheprojectsitehasbeenpreviouslydisturbedanddeveloped.Intheunlikelyeventthataunique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature is discovered during precise gradingactivities, thentheCaliforniaPRCrequirementswouldbecomeeffective immediately.TheprojectwouldberequiredtocomplywithPubicResourcesCode(PRC)21083.2and5097.5,whicharelawsrequiringthatstateculturalresourcesbeprotected.Therefore,theprojectwouldhavealessthansignificantimpacttopaleontologicalresources.



d) Wouldtheprojectdisturbanyhumanremains,includingthoseinterredoutsideofformalcemeteries?


Due to the level ofpast disturbance at theproject site, it is not anticipated thathuman remains,includingthoseinterredoutsideofformalcemeteries,wouldbeencounteredduringearthremovalor disturbance activities.No human remains have been previously identified or recorded onsite.Notwithstanding,ground‐disturbingactivitiesontheprojectsite,suchasgradingorexcavation,havethepotentialtodisturbasyetunidentifiedhumanremains.

Grading activities associated with development of the project would cause new subsurfacedisturbanceandcouldresultintheunanticipateddiscoveryofunknownhumanremains,includingthoseinterredoutsideofformalcemeteries.Intheeventofanunexpecteddiscovery,thoseremainswould require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. State of California PublicResourcesHealthandSafetyCode§§7050.5‐7055,and§5097.98oftheCaliforniaPRC,describethegeneralprovisionsforhumanremains.FollowingcompliancewithStateregulations,whichdetailtheappropriateactionsnecessaryintheeventhumanremainsareencountered,impactsinthisregardwouldbelessthansignificant.

SECTION4.6‐GEOLOGYANDSOILS


4.6 GeologyandSoils



Incorporated


NoImpact

(a) Exposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverseeffects,includingtheriskofloss,injury,ordeathinvolving:

i) Ruptureofaknownearthquakefault,asdelineatedonthemostrecentAlquist‐PrioloEarthquakeFaultZoningMapissuedbytheStateGeologistfortheareaorbasedonothersubstantialevidenceofaknownfault?RefertoDivisionofMinesandGeologySpecialPublication42.

X

ii) Strongseismicgroundshaking? X

iii) Seismic‐relatedgroundfailure,includingliquefaction?

X

iv) Landslides? X(b) Resultinsubstantialsoilerosionor

thelossoftopsoil? X

(c) Belocatedonageologicunitorsoilthatisunstable,orthatwouldbecomeunstableasaresultoftheproject,andpotentiallyresultinon‐oroff‐sitelandslide,lateralspreading,subsidence,liquefactionorcollapse?

X

(d) Belocatedonexpansivesoil,asdefinedinTable18‐1BoftheUniformBuildingCode(1994),creatingsubstantialriskstolifeorproperty?

X

(e) Havesoilsincapableofadequatelysupportingtheuseofseptictanksoralternativewastewaterdisposalsystemswheresewersarenotavailableforthedisposalofwastewater?

X

a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse

effects,includingtheriskofloss,injury,ordeathinvolving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on themost recentAlquist‐PrioloEarthquakeFaultZoningMapissuedbytheStateGeologistfor



theareaorbasedonothersubstantialevidenceofaknownfault?RefertoDivisionofMinesandGeologySpecialPublication42.


TheprojectsiteislocatedinahighlyseismicregionofCaliforniawithintheinfluenceofseveralfaultsystems.According to theCaliforniaDepartment of Conservation (DOC, 2007), theproject site islocatedmorethan1.5milesfromknownregionallyactivequaternaryfaults(Figure4.6‐1)andisnotlocatedwithintheboundariesofadesignatedAlquist‐PrioloEarthquakeFaultZone(Figure4.6‐2).AsdetailedintheGeotechnicalInvestigationpreparedfortheproject,theclosestactivefaulttothesiteistheRaymondFaultlocatedapproximately2.3milestothenorth.OthernearbyactivefaultsaretheEagleRockFault,theVerdugoFault,theHollywoodFault,theWhittierFault,andtheSierraMadreFault located approximately 4.0miles northwest, 4.8miles northwest, 4.9miles west, 6.0milessoutheast, and7.6milesnortheastof the site, respectively. The activeSanAndreasFault Zone islocatedapproximately30milesnortheastoftheprojectsite.Severalburiedthrustfaults,commonlyreferredtoasblindthrusts,underlietheLosAngelesarea.ThePuenteHillsBlindThrustandtheNorthridgeThrustfaultsandothersintheLosAngelesareadonotpresentapotentialsurfacefaultrupturehazardatthesite(Geocon,2018,p.5).

Additionally, the Geotechnical Investigation states that the project site is not within astate‐designated Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or a city‐designated Preliminary FaultRuptureStudyAreaforsurfacefaultrupturehazards.Noactiveorpotentiallyactivefaultswiththepotential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly beneath the site. Therefore, thepotentialforsurfaceruptureduetofaultingoccurringbeneaththesiteduringthedesignlifeoftheproposeddevelopmentisconsideredlow(Geocon,2018,p.4).Therefore,theprojectwouldhavealessthansignificant impactregardingruptureofaknownearthquakefault.This issuewillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

ii) Strongseismicgroundshaking?


The project is located within a seismically active region, susceptible to collapse of structures,bucklingofwalls,anddamagetofoundationsfromstrongseismicgroundshaking.Theprojectwouldbe constructed in accordance with applicable California Building Code (CBC) (Title 24, Part 2,California Code of Regulations) adopted by the legislature and used throughout the state, andrequirements from State of California’s Department of General Services, Division of the StateArchitect(DSA).

TheCBCprovidesminimumstandardstoprotectpropertyandthepublicwelfarebyregulatingthedesign and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and otherbuildingelements tomitigate theeffectsof seismicshakingandadversesoil conditions.TheCBCcontainsprovisionsforearthquakesafetybasedonfactorsincludingoccupancytype,thetypesofsoilandrockonsite,andthestrengthofgroundmotionwithspecifiedprobabilityofoccurringatthesite.It requires the preparation of project‐specific geotechnical reports prepared by a CertifiedEngineeringGeologistorGeotechnicalEngineerpriortoconstructionofproposedstructures.

AGeotechnicalInvestigationwaspreparedfortheproject.TheGeotechnicalInvestigationstatesthataswithallofSouthernCalifornia,theprojectsitehasexperiencedhistoricearthquakesfromvariousregionalfaults.Theseismicityoftheregionsurroundingtheprojectsitewasformulatedbasedon



Figure4.6‐1REGIONALLYACTIVEFAULTS



Figure4.6‐2ALQUIST‐PRIOLOFAULTZONES



researchofanelectronicdatabaseofearthquakedata.Thesitecouldbesubjectedtostronggroundshakingintheeventofanearthquake.However,thishazardiscommoninSouthernCaliforniaandthe effects of ground shaking can be mitigated if the proposed structures are designed andconstructedinconformancewithcurrentbuildingcodesandengineeringpractices(Geocon,2018,p.5). The project would be required to comply with all City of Los Angeles building codes andengineeringpractices.Thus,theprojectwouldhavealessthansignificantimpactregardingstrongseismicgroundshaking.ThisissuewillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

iii) Seismic‐relatedgroundfailure,includingliquefaction?


Liquefaction isaphenomenon inwhich loose,saturated,relativelycohesionlesssoildeposits loseshear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction includeintensityanddurationofgroundmotion, gradationcharacteristicsof the subsurface soils, in‐situstressconditions,andthedepthtogroundwater.Liquefactionistypifiedbyalossofshearstrengthin the liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquakeaccelerations(Geocon,2018,p.7).

TheStateofCaliforniaSeismicHazardZoneMapfortheLosAngelesQuadrangleindicatesthatthemajorityofthesiteislocatedwithinazoneofrequiredinvestigationforliquefaction.TheliquefactionanalysiswasperformedforaDesignEarthquakelevelbyusingahistorichighgroundwatertableof20feetbelowthegroundsurface,amagnitude6.62earthquake,andapeakhorizontalaccelerationof0.702g(⅔PGAM).Theliquefactionanalyses(refertoAppendixCofthisdocument),forboringsB1 and B2, indicate that the alluvial soils below the historic high groundwater level are notsusceptible to liquefactionsettlementduringDesignEarthquakegroundmotion.Additionally, theliquefactionanalysiswasalsoperformedfortheMaximumConsideredEarthquakelevelbyusingahistorichighgroundwatertableof20feetbelowthegroundsurface,amagnitude6.61earthquake,andapeakhorizontalaccelerationof1.053g(PGAM).Theliquefactionanalysis(refertoAppendixCof this document) for borings B1 and B2, indicate that the alluvial soils below the historic highgroundwater level are not susceptible to liquefaction settlement during Maximum ConsideredEarthquake ground motion (Geocon, 2018, p. 8). Therefore, seismic related ground failure andliquefaction impactswouldbe less thansignificant.This issuewillnotbeanalyzed further in theEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

iv) Landslides?


Landslidesoccurwhenthestabilityoftheslopechangesfromastabletoanunstablecondition.Achange in the stabilityof a slopecanbe causedbyanumberof factors, acting togetheror alone.Natural causesof landslides includegroundwater (porewater)pressureacting todestabilize theslope,lossofvegetativestructure,erosionofthetoeofaslopebyriversoroceanwaves,weakeningofaslopethroughsaturationbysnowmeltorheavyrains,earthquakesaddingloadstobarelystableslope, earthquake‐caused liquefaction destabilizing slopes, and volcanic eruptions. Topographywithin theproject site is relatively flat.Thesite slopes to thesoutheastatagradient flatter than5:1(H: V). The site is located within a City of Los Angeles Hillside Grading Area and a HillsideOrdinanceArea.However,thesiteisnotlocatedwithinanareaidentifiedashavingapotentialforseismicslopeinstabilitybythestateofCalifornia(RefertoFigure4.6‐3).Therearenoknown



Figure4.6‐3LANDSLIDESANDLIQUEFACTION



landslidesnearthesite,noristhesiteinthepathofanyknownorpotentiallandslides.Therefore,theprobabilityofslopestabilityhazardsaffectingthesiteisconsideredverylow(Geocon,2018,p.9).ThisissuewillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.b) Wouldtheprojectresultinsubstantialsoilerosionorthelossoftopsoil?


Theprojectsitehasalowpotentialforsoilerosionbecauseitisrelativelyflatandisconsideredurbanlandwherealmost90percentofthesurfacehasbeencoveredbyasphalt,concrete,buildings,andotherstructures.Theprojectwouldaltertheexistinggroundcover,anddrainagepatternswouldbemodifiedwithdevelopmentoftheproject.Theproject’spotentialtoresultinsoilerosionorthelossoftopsoilwillbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

c) Wouldtheprojectbelocatedonageologicunitorsoilthatisunstable,orthatwouldbecomeunstableasaresultof theproject,andpotentiallyresult inon‐oroff‐sitelandslide,lateralspreading,subsidence,liquefactionorcollapse?


Lateralspreadingisthedownslopemovementofsurfacesedimentduetoliquefactioninasubsurfacelayer. The downslope movement is due to gravity and earthquake shaking combined. Lateralspreadingofthegroundsurfaceduringaseismicactivityusuallyoccursalongtheweakshearzoneswithinaliquefiablesoillayerandhasbeenobservedtogenerallytakeplacetowardafreeface(i.e.,retainingwall,slope,orchannel)andtolesserextentongroundsurfaceswithaverygentleslope.

Theseismically‐inducedsettlementcalculationswereperformedinaccordancewiththeAmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers,TechnicalEngineeringandDesignGuidesasadaptedfromtheUSArmyCorpsofEngineers.Thesoilabovethehistorichighgroundwaterlevelof20feetcouldbesusceptibletoapproximately0.11and0.14inch,respectively,ofsettlementasaresultoftheDesignEarthquakepeakgroundacceleration(⅔PGAM)(Geocon,2018,p.9).Therefore,becausethesoilcouldbesubjecttosettlementduringanearthquake,thiswillbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

d) Would theprojectbe locatedonexpansive soil,asdefined inTable18‐1Bof theUniformBuildingCode(1994),creatingsubstantialriskstolifeorproperty?


Expansive soils shrink and swell with changes in soil moisture. Soil moisturemay change fromlandscapeirrigation,rainfall,andutilityleakage.Theupper5feetofsoilsencounteredduringthegeotechnicalinvestigationareconsideredtohavea“low”to“moderate”(EI=37and69)expansivepotentialandareclassifiedas“expansive”basedonthe2016CBCSection1803.5.3(Geocon,2018,p.13).Therefore,thiswillbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.



e) Would theprojecthavesoils incapableofadequatelysupporting theuseofseptictanksoralternativewastewaterdisposalsystemswheresewersarenotavailableforthedisposalofwastewater?

NoImpact

Theprojectwouldnot include septic tanksor alternativewastewaterdisposal systems.For thisreason,noimpactsassociatedwithseptictanksoralternativewastewaterdisposalsystemswouldoccur.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

SECTION4.7‐GREENHOUSEGASEMISSIONS


4.7 GreenhouseGasEmissions



Incorporated


NoImpact

a) Generategreenhousegasemissions,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,thatmayhaveasignificantimpactontheenvironment?

X

b) Conflictwithanapplicableplan,policyorregulationadoptedforthepurposeofreducingtheemissionsofgreenhousegases?

X

a) Wouldtheprojectgenerategreenhousegasemissions,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,

thatmayhaveasignificantimpactontheenvironment?


Theprojectwoulddemolishtheexistingonsitehousingandconstructanewprojectthatwouldhousemorepeoplethantheexistingprojectsiteandwouldalsogenerateadditionalvehicletripscomparedtoexistingconditions.ThiswillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

b) Wouldtheprojectconflictwithanapplicableplan,policyorregulationadoptedforthepurposeofreducingtheemissionsofgreenhousegases?


Theprojectwoulddemolishtheexistingonsitehousingandconstructanewhousingproject thatwouldhousemorepeoplethantheexistingprojectsiteandwouldalsogenerateadditionalvehicletripscomparedtoexistingconditions.ThiswillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

SECTION4.8‐HAZARDSANDHAZARDOUSMATERIALS


4.8 HazardsandHazardousMaterials



Incorporated


NoImpact

a) Createasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironmentthroughtheroutinetransport,use,ordisposalofhazardousmaterials?

X

b) Createasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironmentthroughreasonablyforeseeableupsetandaccidentconditionsinvolvingthereleaseofhazardousmaterialsintotheenvironment?

X

c) Emithazardousemissionsorhandlehazardousoracutelyhazardousmaterials,substances,orwastewithinonequartermileofanexistingorproposedschool?

X

d) BelocatedonasitewhichisincludedonalistofhazardousmaterialssitescompiledpursuanttoGovernmentCodeSection65962.5and,asaresult,woulditcreateasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironment?

X

e) Foraprojectlocatedwithinanairportlanduseplanor,wheresuchaplanhasnotbeenadopted,withintwomilesofapublicairportorpublicuseairport,wouldtheprojectresultinasafetyhazardforpeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectarea?

X

f) Foraprojectwithinthevicinityofaprivateairstrip,wouldtheprojectresultinasafetyhazardforpeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectarea?

X

g) Impairimplementationoforphysicallyinterferewithanadoptedemergencyresponseplanoremergencyevacuationplan?

X





Incorporated


NoImpact

h) Exposepeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofloss,injuryordeathinvolvingwildlandfires,includingwherewildlandsareadjacenttourbanizedareasorwhereresidencesareintermixedwithwildlands?

X

a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment

throughtheroutinetransport,use,ordisposalofhazardousmaterials?


Theprojectincludesthedemolitionof14existingbuildingscomprisedof100residentialapartments,andoneadministrationbuilding.AsdetailedinthePhaseIReportconductedinApril2018fortheprojectsitebyAltec,severaltechnicalstudieswereconductedfortheprojectsite,asdetailedbelow(Altec,2018,pp.37‐39):

LeadHazardReductionWorkplan–RoseHillCourts,BuildingsUnits1‐6,Units95‐100,andAdministrationBuilding,4466FlorizelSt.,LosAngeles,CA90032(July29,2008).LFRInc.

This workplan covers proposed work performed in Units 1‐6 and 95‐100 and theAdministrationbuilding.Theworkincludedremovalof looseandflakinglead‐basedpaintchips fromeaves, fasciaboardsanddripboards fromthreebuildingexteriors, removalofvisible paint chip debris within 16 feet of the building walls, and the removal leadcontaminatedsoilfromtheperimetersofthethreebuildings.Theworkplanindicatesthatpost abatement soil and wipe samples would be collected by HACLA’s representative inaccordancewithHUDguidelinesafterthecontractorindicatestheyhavecompletedthework.Theadoptedclearancecriteriawere:1,000ppm(mg/kg)forbaresoilareasand800μg/ft2

for the concrete/blacktop exterior surfaces. The workplan also indicated that wastecharacterizationsampleswouldbecollectedbeforethewastematerialsweretransportedfordisposal.

LeadHazardStabilizationMonitoringCloseoutReport,RoseHillCourtsDevelopment,4466FlorizelSt.,LosAngeles,California(February9,2009).LFRInc.

ADHSCertifiedLeadProjectMonitorandaDHSCertifiedInspector/RiskAssessorfromLFRInc.performedtheleadhazardstabilizationmonitoringandclearanceservicesfortheworkperformed.Afterstabilizationwascompleted,LFR, Inc.certifiedthattheworkareaswerefree of visible lead‐based paint (LBP) debris following the lead paint stabilization, soilexcavationandclean‐upactivities.Thefinalwipesamplesyieldedresultsbelow400μg/ft2

andthefinalsoilcompositesampleresultswerelessthan1,000ppm.



LimitedAsbestos&Lead‐BasedPaintSamplingandVisualMoldAssessment,RoseHillCourtsDevelopment,4466FlorizelSt.,LosAngeles,California(September10,2012).SCA/LAEnvironmental,Inc.

SCA/LA performed limited asbestos and lead‐based paint sampling and visual moldassessment forUnits3and14and the “socialhall”onAugust28,2012.57bulkasbestossamplesand13bulkpaintchipsampleswerecollected.Asbestoswasdetectedinthekitchenflooring,intheflooringwithinthekitchenclosetandonthestairs,inthewindowcaulkingandwasassumedpresentinthevaporbarrierbeneaththewoodflooringinUnit3.AsbestoswasdetectedinwindowcaulkingandwasassumedpresentinthevaporbarrierbeneaththewoodflooringinUnit14.Asbestoswasdetectedinwindowcaulkingofthesocialhall.LeadpaintwasassumedpresentintheceramicwalltilesinthebathroomsofUnits1and3.Leadwasidentifiedinthebrownpaintontheexteriorwindowframesofthesocialhall.Thethreeareaswere assessed forwater damage andmold growth; all tested areaswere below10percentonthemoisturemeterusedduringtheassessment.Novisiblemoldwasobserved.

AbatementWorkPlan–SummaryofWorkHazardousMaterialAbatement–RoseHillCourts, 4466 Florizel St., Los Angeles, CA 90032 (February 9, 2009). SCA/LAEnvironmental,Inc.

This document covers procedures for the removal, handling and disposal of varioushazardous materials in accordance with the Housing Authority’s (HACLA) MasterSpecificationSections01110and02090andapplicablefederal,stateandlocalregulations.ItappearstoreferenceproposedworkinUnits3,14andthesocialhallonly.

AsbestosAbatementandLead‐RelatedDemolitionCloseoutReport.RoseHillCourtsApartments,4466FlorizelSt.,LosAngeles,CA90032.SCA/LAEnvironmental,Inc.

ThisdocumentreferencesselectedasbestosremovalandleadpaintremovalinUnits3,14andthesocialhallonly.Atotalof16squarefeetofasbestos‐containingflooringwasremovedfrom Unit 3; no other asbestos removal was performed. Ceramic tiles (with assumedlead‐coatedglazing)wereremovedfromUnit3and14.Nootherasbestosorleadremovalwasincludedintheworkscopeaccomplishedduringthislimitedproject.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Rose Hill Courts 100‐Unit Multi‐FamilyHousingDevelopmentAPN5305‐011‐900‐5.24Acres4401BoundaryAve.and4466FlorizelSt.(FlorizelSt.,BoundaryAve.,MercuryAve.,McKenzieAve.andVictorineSt.)LosAngeles,California90032(June29,2016),Altec.

APhase IESAwasperformed for theRoseHillCourtshousingdevelopment in2016.Thefindings identified potential RECs in association with the target property. However, thepotentialRECswerelimitedto(1)LeadinsoilaroundtheperimetersofBuildings#2,#6,#7,#9,#11,#12,#13,and#14,(2)thepotentialforleadinsoilinchildplayareasandatotherbare/exposedlocationsfrompriordemolisheddwellings,(3)thepotentialforindoorradongasand(4)thepotentialforleadindrinkingwater.

Limited Asbestos Sampling Report, Rose Hill Courts 14 Residential Buildings(100Units) andAdministration Building Florizel St.,BoundaryAve.,MercuryAve.,



McKenzieAve.andVictorineSt.,LosAngeles,California (Revised January6,2017),Altec.

Asbestossamplingwasperformedon June7,2016and included the interiorsof8vacantapartmentunits(#2‐4470FlorizelStreet,#3‐4472FlorizelStreet,#10‐4480FlorizelStreet,#13‐3527 McKenzie Avenue, #14‐3525 McKenzie Avenue, #46‐4457 Mercury Avenue,#76‐4416 Florizel Street, and#78‐4412 Florizel Street), and the AdministrationBuilding(4466FlorizelStreet).Representativesampleswerecollectedfromtheexteriorsandroofsofeachoftheonsitebuildings.OnDecember5,2016,Alteccompletedawalk‐throughvisualinspectionof the92remainingunitsbutnoadditional asbestossamplingwasperformed.Asbestos‐containingmaterialswereidentified.

Limited Lead Testing Report (Revised), Rose Hill Courts 14 Residential Buildings(100Units) andAdministration Building Florizel St.,BoundaryAve.,MercuryAve.,McKenzieAve.andVictorineSt.,LosAngeles,California (Revised January6,2017),Altec.

LeadtestingwasperformedonJune7,2016andincludedtheinteriorsof8vacantapartmentunits(#2‐4470FlorizelStreet.,#3‐4472FlorizelStreet,#10‐4480FlorizelStreet,#13‐3527McKenzie Avenue, #14‐3525 McKenzie Avenue, #46‐4457 Mercury Avenue, #76‐4416FlorizelStreet,and#78‐4412FlorizelStreet),andtheAdministrationBuilding(4466FlorizelStreet).Compositesoilsampleswerealsocollectedalongthedripline/foundationsofeachbuildingandthesamplesweresubmittedforlaboratoryanalysisinaccordancewithUSEPAMethod6010B.OnDecember5,2016,Alteccompletedawalk‐throughvisualinspectionofthe92remainingunits.Leadpainttestingwasnotperformedintheseunits;however,oneadditional soil sample was collected from the child playground Lead‐containingpaint/coatingsandlead‐containingsoilwereidentified.

AltecwashiredtoperformanupdatetothePhaseIESAfortheprojectsite.AltecpreparedthePhaseIESAUpdate,datedApril20,2018.ThisPhaseIESAfoundthefollowingRecognizedEnvironmentalConditions(RECs):

PotentialREC–LeadinSoil.Leadhasbeenfoundinsoilalongexistingbuildingfoundations.ThemostprotectivescreeninglevelforleadinresidentialsoilinCaliforniais80milligramsperkilogram(mg/kg).Anyleadaboveapplicableactionlevelswillberemediatedbytrainedpersonnelinaccordancewithapplicablelaws(seediscussionbelowregardingHACLAMasterSpecificationSections01110and02090).Duetothepresenceofleadinthesoiltherecouldbeapotentialimpact.Apotentiallysignificantimpactcouldoccur.ThisissuewillbefurtheranalyzedinanEnvironmentalImpactReport/EnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIR/EIS)tobepreparedfortheproject.

PotentialREC–Indoorradongas.ThereisamoderatepotentialforindoorradongaslevelsatorexceedingtheUSEPAactionlevelof4.0pCi/L.Duetothepresenceofindoorradongas,projectimpactsregardinghazardsandhazardousmaterialscouldbepotentiallysignificant.A potentially significant impact could occur. This issue will be further analyzed in anEnvironmental ImpactReport/Environmental ImpactStatement (EIR/EIS) tobepreparedfortheproject.



ThePhaseIESAfoundthefollowingregardingleadindrinkingwater.

Thereisapotentialforthepresenceofleadindrinkingwaterassociatedwiththeleachingofleadfromplumbingcomponents/watersupplylines(Altec,2018,p.5).Duetothepresenceofleadindrinkingwater,projectimpactsregardinghazardsandhazardousmaterialscouldbe potentially significant. A potentially significant impact could occur. This issue will befurther analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement(EIR/EIS)tobepreparedfortheproject.

Demolition of the existing onsite structureswill require the remediation, removal,mitigation, orstabilization of Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) and Lead Based Paint (LBP) previouslyidentifiedintheprojectbuildings(Altec,2018).DuetothepresenceofACMsandLBPontheprojectsite,theprojectcouldhaveapotentiallysignificantimpact.ThisissuewillbefurtheranalyzedinanEnvironmental ImpactReport/Environmental ImpactStatement (EIR/EIS) tobeprepared for theproject.

b) Create a significanthazard to thepublic or the environment through reasonablyforeseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardousmaterialsintotheenvironment?


Construction and operation of the projectwould involve transport, storage, and use of chemicalagents,solvents,paints,andotherhazardousmaterials.Chemicaltransport,storage,andusewouldcomply with RCRA; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA); Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); California hazardous wastecontrollaw;3DOSH;SCAQMD;LosAngelesCountyDepartmentofPublicHealth(LAPublicHealth);andCityofLosAngelesFireDepartment(LAFD)requirements.Construction,onsitemaintenance,and operation of the project would involve storage and use of small amounts of commerciallyavailablejanitorialandlandscapingsupplies.Thesematerialswouldbeused,stored,handled,anddisposedofinaccordancewithapplicableregulations.However,aspartoftheprojecttheexistinglead in the soil will have to be removed and LBP and ACMswill also be removed. Therefore, apotentiallysignificantimpactcouldoccur.ThisissuewillbefurtheranalyzedinanEnvironmentalImpactReport/EnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIR/EIS)tobepreparedfortheproject.

c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutelyhazardousmaterials,substances,orwastewithinone‐quartermileofanexistingorproposedschool?


OurLadyofGuadalupeSchool(TK–8)islocatedwithinone‐quartermile,eastoftheprojectsite.Theprojectisanticipatedtostoreanduseproductssuchasfuel,cleaningproducts,etceteraduringtheconstructionphase.Uponprojectbuildout,itisanticipatedthatresidentscouldstoresmallamountsofpotentiallyhazardoussubstancessuchascleaningproducts.Onsitemaintenanceofmayincludetheuseandstorageofpesticidesandothersimilarsubstancestocontrolpestsandweeds,etcetera,whichwouldbestoredandusedperallapplicablelawsandregulations.

3 CodifiedinCaliforniaHealthandSafetyCode,Division20,Chapter6.5,HazardousWasteControl.



Theprojectwouldberequiredtocomplywithnoticeandconsultationrequirementsapplicabletoschools in PRC Section (PRC) 21151.4 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15186. PRC 21151.4pertains to projects within one‐quarter mile of a school pertains to requirements regardingcertificationofenvironmentaldocumentsforprojectsthatmightreasonablybeanticipatedtoemithazardous air emissions or that would handle extremely hazardous substance or a mixturecontaining such substances in specified amounts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15186 establishes aspecialrequirementforcertainschoolprojects,aswellascertainprojectsnearschools,toensurethatpotentialhealthimpactsresultingfromexposuretohazardousmaterials,wastes,andsubstanceswillbecarefullyexaminedanddisclosedinaNDorEIR,andthattheleadagencywillconsultwithotheragenciesinthisregard.

Aspartoftheprojecttheexistingleadinthesoilwouldhavetoberemoved,andLBPandACMswillalsoberemoved.Therefore,apotentiallysignificantimpactcouldoccur.Thisissuewillbefurtheranalyzed in an Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) to bepreparedfortheproject.

d) BelocatedonasitewhichisincludedonalistofhazardousmaterialssitescompiledpursuanttoGovernmentCode§65962.5and,asaresult,woulditcreateasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironment?


GovernmentCode§65962.5requirestheDepartmentofToxicSubstancesControl(DTSC)tocompileandupdate,atleastannually,listsofthefollowing:

HazardouswasteandsubstancessitesfromtheDTSCEnviroStordatabase.

LeakingUndergroundStorageTank(LUST)sitesbycountyandfiscalyearintheStateWaterResourcesControlBoard(SWRCB)GeoTrackerdatabase.

Solidwaste disposal sites identified by SWRCBwithwaste constituents above hazardouswastelevelsoutsidewastemanagementunits.

SWRCBCeaseandDesistOrders(CDOs)andCleanupandAbatementOrders(CAOs).CDOsand CAOs may be issued for discharges of domestic sewage, food processing wastes, orsedimentthatdonotcontainhazardousmaterials.

Hazardouswastefacilitiessubjecttocorrectiveactionpursuantto§25187.5oftheHealthandSafetyCode,identifiedbyDTSC.IfcorrectiveactionisnottakenonorbeforethedatespecifiedinaCDOorCAO,orifimmediatecorrectiveactionisnecessarytoremedyorpreventan imminent substantial danger to the public health, domestic livestock, wildlife, or theenvironment,theDTSCmaytake,orcontractforcorrectiveactionandrecoverthecostforaresponsibleparty.

Theselistsarecollectivelyreferredtoasthe“CorteseList.”TheprojectsitewasnotidentifiedasaCortesesite.ThenearestCortese‐listedpropertyisanopenleakingundergroundstoragetank(LUST)sitelocatedapproximately0.5mileeastoftheprojectsite.BasedonareviewofsitedocumentationonGeoTracker, thisLUSTsitehasbeenorderedclosedby theSWRCB,andnoevidenceofoffsitecontaminationmigrationontotheprojectsitewasidentified.RefertoFigure4.8‐1.



Figure4.8‐1CORTESESITES



TheprojectsiteislistedontheCaliforniaEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(CalEPA)DTSCHAZNETdatabase.TheHAZNETdatabaseisextractedfromthecopiesofhazardouswastemanifestsreceivedeach year by theDTSC. TheHAZNETdatabase lists approximately 0.3‐ton and 10 tons of “otherorganic solids” removed for offsite disposal in 2003 and 1998. No other information has beenidentifiedforthesedatabaselistings.ListingontheHAZNETdatabaseisnotofconcernfortheprojectbecausetheorganicsolidswereremovedanddisposedofoffsite.Theabove‐describedlistingsdonotidentifytheprojectsiteontheCorteseList,therefore,theprojectwouldhavealessthansignificantimpactinthisregard.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

e) Foraprojectlocatedwithinanairportlanduseplanor,wheresuchaplanhasnotbeenadopted,withintwomilesofapublicairportorpublicuseairport,wouldtheprojectresultinasafetyhazardforpeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectarea?

NoImpact

AirportLandUseCompatibilityPlan(ALUCP).AnALUCPisaplanningdocumentthatcontainspolicies forpromotingsafetyandcompatibilitybetweenpublicuseairportsandthecommunitiesthat surround them. Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has adopted thecomprehensiveLosAngelesCountyALUCPthatcoversalloftheairportswithinitsjurisdiction.ThedocumentwasformerlyknownastheLosAngelesCountyAirportLandUsePlanandtheLosAngelesCountyAirportALUCComprehensiveLandUsePlan.

AirportInfluenceArea(AIA).AIAistheareainwhichcurrentorfutureairport‐relatednoise,overflight, safety, and/or airspace protection factorsmay significantly affect land uses or necessitaterestrictionsonthoseuses.Itincludesairportownedproperty,RunwayProtectionZones(RPZ),inner& outer safety zones and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contours. According toSection1.3.2(page25)oftheStateAirportLandUsePlanningHandbook,“Theplanningboundaryofthe ALUCP is the “airport influence area,” and is established by the ALUC after a hearing andconsultationwiththeinvolvedagencies(PUC§21675(c)).”

Theproject isnot locatedwithintheboundaryofanAIA(Figure4.8‐2),orwithintwomilesofapublicairportorpublicuseairport(LosAngelesCountyGISDataPortal,2018).Forthesereasons,theprojectwouldnotexposepeopletosafetyhazardsduetoproximitytoapublicairport,andnoimpactswouldoccur.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.



Figure4.8‐2AIRPORTINFLUENCEAREA



f) Foraprojectwithinthevicinityofaprivateairstrip,wouldtheprojectresult inasafetyhazardforpeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectarea?

NoImpact

Theprojectisnotlocatedwithinthevicinityofaprivateairstrip(GoogleEarthPro,2018).Forthisreason,theprojectwouldnotexposepeopletosafetyhazardsduetoproximitywithaprivateairstrip,andnoimpactsareanticipated.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

g) Wouldtheprojectimpairimplementationoforphysicallyinterferewithanadoptedemergencyresponseplanoremergencyevacuationplan?

NoImpact

Review of Los Angeles County Evacuation Route mapping indicates that the project site is notaccessedbyaroaddesignatedasanevacuationroute.HuntingtonDriveisadesignatedevacuationroutelocatedapproximately1,000feetsoutheastoftheprojectsite(LosAngelesCountyDepartmentofPublicWorks,2018).Becausetheprojectsiteisnotadjacenttonoraccessedbyaroaddesignatedas an evacuation route, the project would have no impact because it would not impairimplementationoforphysicallyinterferewithanadoptedemergencyresponseplanoremergencyevacuationplan.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

h) Wouldtheprojectexposepeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofloss,injuryordeathinvolvingwildlandfires,includingwherewildlandsareadjacenttourbanizedareasorwhereresidencesareintermixedwithwildlands?


TheCaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtection(CalFire)developedFireHazardSeverityZones(FHSZ)forStateResponsibilityAreas(SRAs)andLocalResponsibilityAreas(LRAs).RefertoFigures4.8‐3and4.8‐4.TheprojectsiteislocatedinanSRAareawithanon‐firehazarddesignation(CalFire,2007)andaLRAwithaVeryHighfirehazarddesignation(CalFire,2012).

VeryHighfirehazarddesignationreferstoeither:

a) wildland areas supporting high‐to‐extreme fire behavior resulting from climax fuelstypified by well‐developed surface fuel profiles (e.g., mature chaparral) or forestedsystemswhere crown fire is likely. Additional site elements include steep andmixedtopography and climate/fireweather patterns that include seasonal extremeweatherconditionsofstrongwindsanddryfuelmoistures.Burnfrequencyistypicallyhighandshouldbeevidencedbynumeroushistoricallargefiresinthearea.Firebrandsfrombothshort‐(<200yards)andlong‐rangesourcesareoftenabundant.

OR

b) developed/urbanareastypicallywithhighvegetationdensity(>70percentcover)andassociatedhighfuelcontinuity,allowingforfrontalflamespreadovermuchoftheareatoprogressimpededbyonlyisolatednon‐burnablefractions.Oftenwheretreecoveris



Figure4.8‐3FIREHAZARDS‐SRA



Figure4.8‐4FIREHAZARDS‐LocalResponsibilityArea



abundant,theseareaslookverysimilartoadjacentwildlandareas.Developedareasmayhave less vegetation cover and still be in this class when in the immediate vicinity(0.25mile)ofwildlandareaszonedasVeryHigh(seeabove).

The project would include required fire suppression design features (i.e., fire‐resistant buildingmaterials,whereappropriate,smokedetectionandfirealarmsystems,automaticsprinklersystems,portablefireextinguishers,andemergencysignageinallbuildings,andrequiredbrushclearance),identifiedinthelatesteditionoftheCBC.

The landscape design for Rose Hill Courts would include plant materials that are both droughttolerant and fire retardant. Plants adjacent to buildingwould be spaced further apart, and treeswouldbeonsmallertomediumsized.Considerationhasbeengivento"firewiselandscaping",whichfactorsin:plantselection,plantplacementandmaintenance.Plantspacingnearthebuildingswouldbe increased to mitigate fire from spreading horizontally. Trees would be selected for theirfire‐resistant characteristics and would be planted away from buildings. A permeant automaticirrigationsystemwouldbeinstalledonsite.Thelandscapingonsitewouldbemaintainedonregularschedule. Landscaping would be trimmed, cleared and all dead material would be removed.Additionally,allgrassandweedswithin200feetofstructureswouldeitherberemovedorcutbackandnativeshrubswouldbetrimmedandbekept18feetfromanystructureorothernativeshrubs.Alltrellisstructureswouldbemadeofsteelsoasnottobeflammable.

The project would be required to comply with City of Los Angeles Building Code and safetyregulations pertaining to development in a very high fire hazard severity zone. Per the 2017LosAngelesCityFireCode,Section301,theprovisionsofthischaptershallgoverntheoccupancyandmaintenanceofallstructuresandpremisesforprecautionsagainstfireandthespreadoffireandgeneralrequirementsoffiresafety(ICCPublicAccess,2018).TheprojectisrequiredtocomplywithallapplicablechaptersoftheCityofLosAngelesFireCode,includingbutnotlimitedtoSection315,General Storage, regarding storage of combustible materials, Chapter 6, Building Services andSystems,Chapter7,FireandSmokeProtectionFeatures,andChapter9,FireProtectionSystems(ICCPublicAccess,2018).

Withcompliancewithallapplicableregulations,theprojectwouldhavelessthansignificantimpactsrelatedtoriskofloss,injuryordeathinvolvingwildlandfires.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

SECTION4.9–HYDROLOGYANDWATERQUALITY


4.9 HydrologyandWaterQuality



Incorporated


NoImpact

a) Violateanywaterqualitystandardsorwastedischargerequirements?

X

b) Substantiallydepletegroundwatersuppliesorinterferesubstantiallywithgroundwaterrechargesuchthattherewouldbeanetdeficitinaquifervolumeoraloweringofthelocalgroundwatertablelevel(e.g.,theproductionrateofpre‐existingnearbywellswoulddroptoalevelwhichwouldnotsupportexistinglandusesorplannedusesforwhichpermitshavebeengranted)?

X

c) Substantiallyaltertheexistingdrainagepatternofthesiteorarea,includingthroughthealterationofthecourseofastreamorriver,inamannerwhichwouldresultinsubstantialerosionorsiltationon‐oroff‐site?

X

d) Substantiallyaltertheexistingdrainagepatternofthesiteorarea,includingthroughthealterationofthecourseofastreamorriver,orsubstantiallyincreasetherateoramountofsurfacerunoffinamannerwhichwouldresultinfloodingon‐oroff‐site?

X

e) Createorcontributerunoffwaterwhichwouldexceedthecapacityofexistingorplannedstormwaterdrainagesystemsorprovidesubstantialadditionalsourcesofpollutedrunoff?

X

f) Otherwisesubstantiallydegradewaterquality?

X

g) Placehousingwithina100‐yearfloodhazardareaasmappedonafederalFloodHazardBoundaryorFloodInsuranceRateMaporotherfloodhazarddelineationmap?

X

h) Placewithina100‐yearfloodhazardareastructureswhichwouldimpedeorredirectfloodflows?

X





Incorporated


NoImpact

i) Exposepeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofloss,injuryordeathinvolvingflooding,includingfloodingasaresultofthefailureofaleveeordam?

X

j) Causeinundationbyseiche,tsunami,ormudflow? X

a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge

requirements?


The project site is developed and contains a mix of impervious surfaces, including asphalt andconcrete,aswellasporoussurfaces,includinglandscaping.Underexistingconditions,stormwaterrunoffgeneratedontheprojectsite iscollectedandconveyedbycurbsandgutterstoanexisting30‐inch reinforced concrete pipe located within the adjacent roadway right of way forMcKenzieAvenue(LosAngelesCounty,DepartmentofPublicWorks,n.d.).

Developmentoftheprojectmayresultintwotypesofwaterqualityimpacts:(1)short‐termimpactsduetoconstructionrelateddischarges;and(2)long‐termimpactsfromoperationorchangesinsiterunoff characteristics. Runoffmay carry onsite surface pollutants towater bodies such as lakes,streams,riversthatultimatelydraintotheocean.Projectsthatincreaseurbanrunoffmayindirectlyincreaselocalandregionalfloodingintensityanderosion.Belowisatableshowingthesitecoveragefortheexistingsiteconditionsandtheprojectconditions.AsshowninTable4.9‐1below,theprojectwouldresultina19percentdecreaseintheamountoflandscapedareaontheprojectsite,comparedtoexistingconditions.Overall,impervioussurfacescoverapproximately49percentoftheexistingproject site and with the project, the total area of impervious surfaces would be increased to68percent,whichisanincreaseinimpervioussurfacesequalto19percentofthetotalarea.

Table4.9‐1APPROXIMATESITECOVERAGECOMPARISONS

ExistingConditions(SQFT)

ExistingConditions(%oftotalsitearea)

ProposedConditions

ProposedConditions(%oftotalsitearea)

Changeas%ofthetotalsite

area

BuildingCoverage 42,181 18.5 74,900 33 14.5%increase

Parking 26,795 12 46,300 20 8%increase

Hardscapes/Walkways

42,035 18.5 33,965 15 3.5%increase



ExistingConditions(SQFT)

ExistingConditions(%oftotalsitearea)

ProposedConditions

ProposedConditions(%oftotalsitearea)

Changeas%ofthetotalsite

area

LandscapeArea1 117,154 51 73,000 32 19%decrease

TotalSiteArea 228,165 100 228,165 100 NotApplicableNotes:1 Theproposedlandscapeareaisanestimatesincethelandscapearchitectfortheprojectdoesnothaveafinallandscape

planatthetimethisdocumentwaswritten.SQFT=SquareFeetConstructionPollutantsControl

Constructionprojectstypicallyexposesoiltoerosionandmaytemporarilyalterdrainagepatterns.Storm water runoff during construction may contain soil amendments such as fertilizers andpesticides, entrained soil, trash, waste oil, paints, solvents and other substances used duringconstruction.§402ofthefederalCWArequiresdischargersofpotentialpollutantsintoWatersoftheUnitedStates(WOUS)to:(1)implementbestmanagementpractices(BMPs)toeliminateorreducepointandnon‐pointsourcedischargesofpollutants,and(2)ifoneacreormoreofsoilisdisturbedduring construction, toprepare a site‐specific StormwaterPollutionPreventionPlan (SWPPP) toprotecthumanhealthandtheenvironmentandobtainaNationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem(NPDES)permit.NPDESpermitsestablishenforceablelimitsondischarges,requireeffluentmonitoring,designatereportingrequirements,andrequireconstructionandpost‐constructionBMPstoeliminateorreducepointandnon‐pointsourcedischargesofpollutants.

TheprojectwouldberequiredtoimplementBMPs,toprepareaSWPPPandobtainanNPDESpermit.Forthesereasons,potentialviolationsofwaterqualitystandardsorwastedischargerequirementswouldbelessthansignificantduringprojectconstruction.

OperationalPollutantControls

NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permits require new development and significant redevelopmentprojectstoincorporatepost‐constructionBMPstocomplywiththelocalStandardUrbanStormwaterMitigation Plan (SUSMP) orWater QualityManagement Plan (WQMP) to reduce the quantity ofrainfallrunoffandimprovethequalityofwaterthatleavesasite.TheprojectwouldberequiredtoincorporateoperationalBMPsincompliancewithCityofLosAngelesSUSMPpermitrequirements.The entire project site is nearly covered by asphalt, concrete, or structures, except for strips oflandscaping along project site boundaries, within the parking lot and near the existing buildingentrance.Theprojectwouldcontainbothperviousareassuchandlandscapingandimperviousareassuchaspavedareasforvehicleparking.However,runofffromtheprojectsitewouldbeinaccordancewiththe“StormwaterTreatmentandUse”lowimpactdevelopment(LID)BMPsdetailedintheCityofLosAngeles’LIDOrdinance.TheprojectwouldalsobesubjecttoreviewbytheCityofLosAngelesforcompliancewiththeCity’sBMPHandbook,PartB:PlanningActivities.

LIDisaleadingstormwatermanagementstrategythatseekstomitigatetheimpactsofrunoffandstormwaterpollutionasclosetoitssourceaspossible.LIDcomprisesasetofsitedesignapproachesandBMPsthataredesignedtoaddressrunoffandpollutionatthesource.TheseLIDpracticescaneffectively remove nutrients, bacteria, and metals while reducing the volume and intensity ofstormwaterflows.LosAngeles'LIDordinancebecameeffectiveinMay2012.Themainpurposeof



thislawistoensurethatdevelopmentandredevelopmentprojectsmitigaterunoffinamannerthatcapturesrainwateratitssource,whileutilizingnaturalresources(LAStormwater,2018).Theprojectis subject to theCity’s LID ordinance because it proposes a housingdevelopment of 10 ormoredwellingunits.

TheexistingRoseHillCourtsprojectwasbuiltinthe1940sandassuch,isnotsubjecttotheCity’scurrentLIDOrdinance.However,becausetheprojectwouldresult inanalterationofat least fiftypercentormoreoftheimpervioussurfacesonanexistingdevelopedsite,theentiresitemustcomplywiththestandardsandrequirementsofthisArticleandwiththeDevelopmentBMPsHandbook(CityofLosAngelesOrdinanceNo.181899,2012,p.8).Underexistingconditionsstormwaterflowsfromthe project site directly into the stormdrain system. In contrast, the projectwould improve thequality of stormwater leaving the project site because the project is subject to the City’s LIDordinanceaswellastheCity’sDevelopmentBMPsHandbook.

Theproject’srequiredcompliancewiththeCity’sLIDordinancewouldresultinlessthansignificantimpactsinthisregardbecausetheprojectwouldimprovethequalityofthewaterthatrunsoffoftheprojectsiteandassuchtheprojectwouldnotviolateanywaterqualitystandardsorwastedischargerequirementsduringoperation.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interferesubstantiallywithgroundwaterrechargesuch that therewouldbeanetdeficit inaquifervolumeoraloweringofthelocalgroundwatertablelevel(e.g.,theproductionrateofpre‐existingnearbywellswoulddrop to a levelwhichwouldnot supportexistinglandusesorplannedusesforwhichpermitshavebeengranted)?


ThemajorityoftheCityreceivesdomesticwaterservicefromtheLADWP.LADWP’sgoalistoensurethattheCity'swaterqualityanddemandaremetbyavailablewatersupplies.Theprimarysourcesof water supply for the City of Los Angeles are the Los Angeles Aqueducts, local groundwater,recycledwaterandsupplementalwaterpurchasedfromtheMetropolitanWaterDistrictofSouthernCalifornia(MWD).WaterfromtheMWDisdeliveredthroughtheColoradoRiverAqueductandtheState Water Project’s California Aqueduct. From 2000‐2015 groundwater has providedapproximately 12 percent of the total water supply for the City of Los Angeles (Los AngelesDepartmentofWater&Power,UrbanWaterManagementPlan,2015,p.6‐1).

Theprojectsiteiscurrentlydevelopedwithimpervioussurfacesincludingareasonsitecoveredbybuildings and paved pathways and the driveway that bisects the project site, all of which limitgroundwaterinfiltrationattheprojectsite.Asdetailedinthreshold4.9a)above,theprojectwouldresult in a decrease in the amount of landscaped area compared to existing conditions. Overall,impervioussurfacescoverapproximately49percentoftheexistingprojectsiteandwiththeproject,the total area of impervious surfaces increase to 68 percent, which is a 19 percent increase inimpervious surfaces. The limited size of the project site reduces its potential to contribute togroundwaterrecharge.Therefore,developmentof theprojectwouldnot substantiallymodify theamount of groundwater infiltration and recharge on the project site. The project would notsubstantiallydepletegroundwatersuppliesorresultinasubstantialnetdeficitintheaquifervolumeorloweringofthelocalgroundwatertable.Theprojectwouldhavealessthansignificantimpactinthisregard.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.



c) Wouldtheprojectsubstantiallyaltertheexistingdrainagepatternofthesiteorarea,includingthroughthealterationofthecourseofastreamorriver,inamannerwhichwouldresultinsubstantialerosionorsiltationon‐oroff‐site?


Nostreams,rivers,ordrainagechannelsthatcontributerunofftothelocaldrainagenetworkwouldbe impacted by the project (Google Earth Pro, 2018), During project construction the drainagepatternofthesitewouldbealtered.However,theprojectwouldhavealessthansignificantimpactbecauseprojectconstructionwouldnotresultinsubstantialerosionorsiltation.TheprojectwouldberequiredtoprepareaSWPPandobtainanNPDESpermitforconstruction.TheSWPPPwouldbereviewed by the City of Los Angeles to ensure that it complies with the City’s BMP Handbookregardingconstructionactivities.Additionally,aspartoftheproject’sregulatoryrequirements,BMPswouldberequiredtobe implementedtocontrolerosionandprotect thequalityofsurfacewaterrunofffromtheprojectsite.Constructionprojectsthatdisturbanareaofoneacreandgreater(thisincludestheproject)arerequiredtoprepareaWetWeatherErosionControlPlan(WWECP)ifthesoilwillbedisturbedduringtherainyseasonandaLocalSWPPP.Theprojectwouldbesubjecttotheserequirementsshouldthesoilbedisturbedduringtherainyseason.TheLocalSWPPPmustbepreparedbeforetheprojectowner,developer,orcontractorreceivesagradingorbuildingpermitandmustbeimplementedyear‐roundthroughoutconstruction.AWWECPmustbepreparedpriortoeachrainyseasonandmustbeimplementedthroughoutthatrainyseason(LADWP,n.d.,p.D2).Projectcompliancewithregulatoryrequirementswouldreducepotentialerosion/siltationimpactsduringtheconstructionphaseoftheprojecttoalessthansignificantlevel.

Developmentoftheprojectwouldaddimpervioussurfacestotheprojectsitewhichwouldaltertheexistingdrainagepatternoftheprojectsite.TheprojectsiteiscurrentlydevelopedwithimpervioussurfacesanddevelopmentoftheprojectsitewouldnotresultinasubstantialalterationfromexistingconditionswiththeexceptionthatstormwaterrunofffromtheprojectsitewouldbesubjecttoCity’sLIDordinanceaswellastheCity’sDevelopmentBMPsHandbook.

The existing site conditions anddrainage infrastructure includes: one (1) curb catchbasin alongFlorizelStreet(some100feetwestofMackenzieAve);two(2)catchbasinsalongthedriveway(atMackenzie Avenue), and two (2) curb catch basins at the site’s southeast corner (alongMercuryAvenueandMackenzieAvenue).Theproposedprojectgrading/drainagedesignintendstore‐use these existing catch basin features and/or possibly replace with new basin structures insimilarlocations.Theexistingsite’sgeneraldrainagepattern(fromnorthwesttosoutheast)willnotchangewiththenewonsiteimprovements;andwiththatexistingstreetdrainageschemewillnotbesignificantlyaltered.Theproject’sonsiteimprovementswouldincludeLID/SUSMPBMPsfor“store&re‐use”thatwillretainandtreatthe85thpercentile24‐hourrunoffeventonsite.Itisestimatedthattheproject’spostdevelopmentstormwaterrun‐offflowingintodrainageinfrastructurewouldbelessthanthecurrent/exitingconditions.

Theprojectwouldberequiredto,toinfiltrate,evapotranspire,storeforuse,and/ortreatthroughahighremovalefficiencybiofiltration/biotreatmentsystem,withoutanystormwaterrunoff leavingthesitetothemaximumextentfeasible.TheproposedprojectwouldbedesignedincompliancewithallapplicableCityofLosAngelesregulationsregardingstormwaterrunoffandtheprojectwouldbereviewedbytheCityofLosAngelesDepartmentofPublicWorkstoensurethatthedevelopmentwouldnotcreateorcontributerunoffwaterwhichwouldexceedthecapacityofexistingorplannedstormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Theprojectapplicantisresponsibleforprovidingthenecessarystormdraininfrastructuretoservethe



proposedprojectaswellasanynecessaryextensionstotheexistingstormdrainsystemintheprojectarea.Thus,theprojectwouldhavelessthansignificantimpactregardingexceedanceofstormdrainsystemcapacityorthegenerationofpollutedrunoff.

TheCityofLosAngelesBureauofEngineeringwouldreviewtheprojectduringthefinalplancheckstageandpriortoprojectapprovaltheBureauwouldensurethatthestormdrainsystemhasadequatecapacityto handle potential runoff from the project site. Related, the project developer, would provide thenecessarystormdraininfrastructuretoservetheprojectsite,includinganyrequiredconnectionstotheexistingstormdrainsystem.Additionally,theprojectwouldberequiredtoimplementbestmanagementpractices(BMPs)incompliancewiththeCityofLosAngeles’lowimpactdevelopment(LID)Ordinancetoensurethatstormwaterflowsfromtheprojectsitewouldnotincreasecomparedtoexistingconditions.Therefore,developmentoftheprojectwouldnotsubstantiallyaltertheexistingdrainagepatternoftheprojectsiteinamannerthatwouldresultinsubstantialerosionorsiltationon‐oroffsite.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

d) Wouldtheprojectsubstantiallyaltertheexistingdrainagepatternofthesiteorarea,includingthroughthealterationofthecourseofastreamorriver,orsubstantiallyincrease the rateoramountof surface runoff inamannerwhichwould result infloodingon‐oroff‐site?


Theprojectwouldredevelopthesitewithimpervioussurfacessuchasparkingareasandbuildings.The Los Angeles RWQCB developed requirements for the SUSMP, which requires specificdevelopment and redevelopment categories to manage stormwater runoff. In 2002, the City ofLosAngelesimplementedtheSUSMPprogramrequiringalltheaffectedlanddevelopmentprojectstocaptureortreatstormwaterrunoff(CityofLosAngelesDevelopmentBMPsHandbook,2011p.3).TheprojectwouldberequiredtocomplywiththeLADevelopmentBMPsHandbookwhichstates(CityofLosAngelesDevelopmentBMPsHandbook,2011p.17):

“Theonsitestormwatermanagementtechniquesmustbeproperlysized,ataminimum,toinfiltrate,evapotranspire, store for use, and/or treat through a high removal efficiencybiofiltration/biotreatmentsystem,withoutanystormwaterrunoffleavingthesitetothemaximumextentfeasible,foratleastthevolumeofwaterproducedbythewaterqualitydesignstormeventthatresultsfrom:

i. The 85th percentile 24‐hour runoff event determined as the maximized capturestormwatervolumefortheareausinga48to72‐hourdrawdowntime,fromtheformularecommended in Urban Runoff Quality Management, WEF Manual of PracticeNo.23/ASCEManualofPracticeNo.87,(1998);or

ii. The volume of annual runoff based on unit basin storage water quality volume, toachieve 80 percent or more volume treatment by the method recommended in theCaliforniaStormwaterBestManagementPracticesHandbook–Industrial/Commercial,(2003);or

iii. Thevolumeofrunoffproducedfroma0.75‐inchstormevent.

Runofffromtheprojectsitewouldbeinaccordancewiththe“StormwaterTreatmentandUse”LIDmitigationmethoddetailed in theCity of LosAngeles’ LIDOrdinance. Theprojectwould also be



subjecttoreviewbytheCityofLosAngelesforcompliancewiththeCity’sBMPHandbook,PartB:PlanningActivities.Theproject’sonsiteimprovementswouldincludeLID/SUSMPBMPsfor“store&re‐use”thatwillretainandtreatthe85thpercentile24‐hourrunoffeventonsite.Itisestimatedthattheproject’spostdevelopmentstormwaterrun‐offflowingintodrainageinfrastructurewouldbelessthanthecurrent/exitingconditions.Assuch,theprojectwouldnotsubstantiallyaltertheexistingdrainagepatternofthesiteorarea,orsubstantiallyincreasetherateoramountofsurfacerunoffinamannerwhichwouldresultinfloodingon‐oroffsite.

e) Wouldtheprojectcreateorcontributerunoffwaterwhichwouldexceedthecapacityof existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantialadditionalsourcesofpollutedrunoff?


Theprojectwouldredevelopthesitewithimpervioussurfacessuchasparkingareasandbuildings.As described in thresholds 4.9 c) and d) above, the project would be required to, to infiltrate,evapotranspire, store for use, and/or treat through a high removal efficiencybiofiltration/biotreatmentsystem,withoutanystormwaterrunoffleavingthesitetothemaximumextent feasible. The project’s onsite improvementswould include LID/SUSMPBMPs for “store&re‐use”thatwillretainandtreatthe85thpercentile24‐hourrunoffeventonsite.Itisestimatedthattheproject’spostdevelopmentstormwaterrun‐offflowingintodrainageinfrastructurewouldbeless than the current/exiting conditions. The project would be designed in compliance with allapplicableCityofLosAngeles regulationsregardingstormwater runoff and theprojectwouldbereviewedbytheCityofLosAngelesDepartmentofPublicWorkstoensurethatthedevelopmentwouldnotcreateorcontributerunoffwaterwhichwouldexceedthecapacityofexistingorplannedstormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Theprojectapplicantisresponsibleforprovidingthenecessarystormdraininfrastructuretoservetheprojectaswellasanynecessaryextensionstotheexistingstormdrainsystemintheprojectarea.Thus,theprojectwouldhavelessthansignificantimpactregardingexceedanceofstormdrainsystemcapacityorthegenerationofpollutedrunoff.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

f) Wouldtheprojectotherwisesubstantiallydegradewaterquality?


Theprojectwouldinvolveground‐disturbingactivitieswhichmaypotentiallyresultinthedischargeofsedimentfromtheprojectsite.Thepresenceanduseofconstructionvehiclesandequipmentmayalsohavethepotentialtodischargeotherpollutantsfromtheprojectsiteduringtheconstructionphase.However,withtheimplementationofstandardstormwaterconstructionBMPs,thepotentialforsedimentandotherpollutantstoleavetheprojectsiteandenterstormdraininletswouldbelessthansignificant.Duringtheoperationalphaseoftheproject,whichproposesmulti‐familyresidentialland use, the project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. This will not beanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.



g) Wouldtheprojectplacehousingwithina100‐yearfloodhazardareaasmappedonafederalFloodHazardBoundaryorFloodInsuranceRateMaporotherfloodhazarddelineationmap?

h) Wouldtheprojectplacewithina100‐yearfloodhazardareastructureswhichwouldimpedeorredirectfloodflows?

NoImpact

TheprojectsiteisinFederalEmergencyManagementFEMAFloodInsuranceRateMap(FIRM),ZoneX(RefertoFigure4.9‐1),whichisoutsidethe100‐yearfloodzone(Panel06037C1629F)(FEMA,2008).FIRMZoneXcontainingtheprojectsite ischaracterizedasmoderateto lowriskareasforFEMA flood hazard zones. Flood Zone X identifies “areas outside the one percent annual chancefloodplain,areasofonepercentannualchancesheetflowfloodingwhereaveragedepthsare lessthanonefoot,areasofonepercentannualchancestreamfloodingwherethecontributingdrainageareaislessthanonesquaremile,orareasprotectedfromtheonepercentannualchancefloodbylevees.”(FEMA,2011)Therefore,theprojectwouldnotplacehousingwithina100‐yearfloodhazardareaasmappedonafederalFloodHazardBoundary,FEMAFIRM,orotherfloodhazarddelineationmap.Noimpactstohousingorflood‐flowasaresultoftheprojectisanticipated.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

i) Wouldtheprojectexposepeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofloss,injuryordeath involving flooding, including floodingasaresultof the failureofa leveeordam?

NoImpact

Theprojectsiteisnotwithina100‐yearfloodhazardarea.Thenearestdam,theElysianReservoirdam, is approximately twomiles southwest of the project site (Army Corps of Engineers, n.d.).AccordingtotheCaliforniaEmergencyManagementAgency,theprojectsiteisinornearanareaoflowhazard for flooding.Nopeopleorstructureswouldbeexposedtoasignificantriskof lossordeath involving flooding, including floodingasaresultof the failureofa leveeordam.TheCity’sGeneralPlanSafetyElementincludesExhibitGwhichisaninundationexhibitshowingtheareasofpotentialfloodingintheeventofdamfailure.TheCityDepartmentofWaterandPowerprovidesdamfailure inundationmaps to theStateOfficeofEmergencyServicesvia theCountyofLosAngeles.ThesemapsarethebasisofCountyinundationmaps,whichwerearesourceforpreparationoftheinundationexhibit(ExhibitG)intheCity’sGeneralPlanSafetyElement(CityofLosAngelesGeneralPlan,2015,p.I‐4).Additionally,pertheGeotechnicalInvestigationpreparedfortheprojectsite,theproject site is not locatedwithin a designated dam inundation area. Therefore, the potential forinundationat theprojectsite,asaresultofanearthquake‐induceddamfailure isconsidered low(Geocon,2018,p.9).Thus,theprojectwouldnotexposepeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofloss,injuryordeathinvolvingflooding,includingfloodingasaresultofthefailureofaleveeordam,ordaminundation,andnoimpactsareanticipated.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.



j) Wouldtheprojectcauseinundationbyseiche,tsunami,ormudflow?


A seiche is an oscillating wave in a closed or partially closed water body such as a river, lake,reservoir, pond, and other large inland water body caused by wind, tidal forces, earthquakes,landslides and other phenomena. Tsunamis are long wave‐length, earthquake‐generated oceanwaves.Mudflowsarefast‐movinglandslidescomposedofmudanddebris,typicallycausedbyheavyrainfallormeltingsnowonsteephillsides.

SECTION4.9‐HYDROLOGYANDWATERQUALITY


Figure4.9‐1FEMAFLOODINSURANCERATEMAP



TheprojectsiteislocatedovertwentymilesinlandofthePacificOcean.AccordingtotheCaliforniaEmergency Management Agency, this location is not within a Tsunami Inundation Area forEmergency Planning, as detailed in Exhibit G of the City’s General Plan Safety Element (SeeFigure4.9‐2).(CityofLosAngelesGeneralPlan,2015).Theprojectsiteisnotlocatedwithinacoastalarea. Therefore, tsunamis, seismic seawaters are not considered a significant hazard at the site(Geocon,2018,p.9).ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

Nomajorwater‐retainingstructuresarelocatedatahighergradient,neartheprojectsite.Therefore,floodingfromseismicallyinducedseicheisconsideredunlikely(Geocon,2018,p.9).ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

Theprojectsiteiswithinanareaofminimalflooding(ZoneX)asdefinedbytheFederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA)(Geocon,2018,p.9).Therefore,impactsinthisregardwouldbelessthansignificant.

TheprojectsiteisnotmappedwithinalandslidehazardzoneinthestateSeismicHazardZoneReport(USGS,1994).Landatthesiteslopestothesoutheastatagradientflatterthan5:1(H:V).ThesiteislocatedwithinaCityofLosAngelesHillsideGradingAreaandaHillsideOrdinanceArea.However,thesiteisnotlocatedwithinanareaidentifiedashavingapotentialforseismicslopeinstabilitybythestateofCalifornia.Basedonthefindingsofthegeotechnicalreportpreparedfortheproject(refertoAppendixCofthisdocument)therearenoknownlandslidesnearthesite,noristhesiteinthepathofanyknownorpotentiallandslides.Thus,theprobabilityofslopestabilityhazardsaffectingthesiteisconsideredverylow(Geocon,2018,p.9).Therefore,thepotentialforlandslidesormuddebrisflowswithinorneartheprojectsiteisconsideredlessthansignificant.Forthesereasons,noimpactsfrominundationbyaseicheortsunamiareexpectedandlessthansignificantimpactsfrommudflowareanticipated.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.



Figure4.9‐2INUNDATIONANDTSUNAMIHAZARDAREAS

SECTION4.10‐LANDUSEANDPLANNING


4.10 LandUseandPlanning



Incorporated


NoImpact

a) Physicallydivideanestablishedcommunity?

X

b) Conflictwithanyapplicablelanduseplan,policy,orregulationofanagencywithjurisdictionovertheproject(including,butnotlimitedtothegeneralplan,specificplan,localcoastalprogram,orzoningordinance)adoptedforthepurposeofavoidingormitigatinganenvironmentaleffect?

X

c) Conflictwithanyapplicablehabitatconservationplanornaturalcommunityconservationplan?

X

a) Wouldtheprojectphysicallydivideanestablishedcommunity?


Theprojectwouldnotdivideexistingpublicspacesinthevicinityoftheprojectsiteorextendbeyondtheprojectsite’sexistingboundaries.Furthermore,nostreetsorsidewalkswouldbepermanentlyclosedasaresultofthedevelopment.Theexistingdrivewaythatbisectstheprojectsitewouldberemoved as part of the project because the areawhere the driveway currently exists would bedevelopedwithlandscaping,parking,andhousing,asdetailedontheprojectsiteplan.Theprojectwouldutilizeexistingpublicroadways;thus,therewouldbenochangeinpublicroadwaypatterns.Noseparationofusesordisruptionofaccessbetweenlandusetypeswouldoccurasaresultoftheproject.Therefore,theprojectwouldnotphysicallydivideanestablishedcommunityandnoimpactswouldoccur.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

b) Wouldtheprojectconflictwithanyapplicablelanduseplan,policy,orregulationofanagencywithjurisdictionovertheproject(including,butnotlimitedtothegeneralplan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for thepurposeofavoidingormitigatinganenvironmentaleffect?


TheprojectsiteisdesignatedasLowMediumIbytheNortheastCommunityPlan,whichperpageIII‐38oftheCommunityPlan,hascorrespondingzonesofRD2,RD3,RD4,RZ3,RZ4,andRU.Thesiteiszonedforresidentialuseswithazoningdesignationof[Q]R1‐1D.Thesiteiszoned[Q]R1‐1D.The“[Q]” represents apermanent [Q]QualifiedClassification that establishesdevelopment standardsrelating to infrastructure, building design, retaining walls, landscaping, and environmentalconsiderations.The"D"representsa"D"DevelopmentLimitationthatlimitsbuildingheightandFAR.



Theprojectwouldalterbuildingcoverageonthelotandwouldincreasethenumberofresidentsontheprojectsitecomparedtoexistingconditions.Theprojectsitehasacurrentzoningdesignationforsingle‐familyresidentialdevelopment,howevertheprojectproposesmulti‐familydevelopmentandwillrequirePublicBenefitsProjectAlternativeComplianceapprovalunderLAMCSection14.00.B.ThiswillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

c) Wouldtheprojectconflictwithanyapplicablehabitatconservationplanornaturalcommunityconservationplan?

NoImpact

The project site does not lie within an area covered by a habitat conservation plan or naturalcommunityconservationplan.AsshowninFigure4.10‐1,nosignificantecologicalareasarelocatedneartheproject.Therefore,noimpactwouldoccurasaresultofprojectimplementation.

Theprojectsitedoesnotcontainhabitatthatsupportsanyspecialstatusspecies,andnowetlandsorriparianhabitatsarefoundonsite.Forthesereasons,theprojectwouldbecompatiblewithCaliforniaWetlandsPolicy,andtheCaliforniaEndangeredSpeciesAct.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.



Figure4.10‐1SIGNIFICANTECOLOGICALAREAS

SECTION4.11‐MINERALRESOURCES


4.11 MineralResources



Incorporated


NoImpact

a) Resultinthelossofavailabilityofaknownmineralresourcethatwouldbeofvaluetotheregionandtheresidentsofthestate?

X

b) Resultinthelossofavailabilityofalocally‐importantmineralresourcerecoverysitedelineatedonalocalgeneralplan,specificplanorotherlanduseplan?

X

a) Wouldtheprojectresultinthelossofavailabilityofaknownmineralresourcethat

wouldbeofvaluetotheregionandtheresidentsoftheState?

b) Would theproject result in the lossof availabilityof a locally importantmineralresourcerecoverysitedelineatedonalocalgeneralplan,specificplan,orotherlanduseplan?

NoImpact

Potentialimpacttomineralresourcesinthevicinityoftheprojectsitewasevaluatedbyreviewing:

(1) TheConservationElementoftheCityofLosAngelesGeneralPlan(CityofLosAngelesGeneralPlan,2015);

(2) TheCaliforniaDepartmentofConservationSurfaceMiningandReclamationActof1975(SMARA)MineralLandClassificationMapforCountyofLosAngeles(Miller,Russel.V.,1994);

(3) PartII:MineralLandClassificationoftheGreaterLosAngelesArea:ClassificationofSandandGravelResourceAreas,SanFernandoValleyProduction‐ConsumptionRegion(DOC,2015);

(4) TheCaliforniaDepartmentofConservationDivisionofOil,Gas,&GeothermalResourcesWellFinder(DOC,2017);and,

(5) TheUSGSonlineMineralResourcesDataSystem(MRDS)(USGS,n.d.).

Accordingto(1)theConservationElementoftheCityofLosAngelesGeneralPlan,(2)thePartII:Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area: Classification of Sand and GravelResource Areas, San Fernando Valley Production‐Consumption Region, and (3)the SMARAGeneralizedMineralLandClassificationMap forCountyof LosAngeles, theproject site iswithinMineralResourceZone(MRZ)‐3,which isanareacontainingmineraldeposits, thesignificanceofwhichcannotbeevaluatedfromavailabledata(Figure4.11‐1).TheclosestUSGSMRDSresourceismappedapproximately4,800 feetwestof theproject site.Nootherminingactivities exist in thevicinityoftheprojectsite.Nooilorgaswellswereidentifiedonorwithinonemileoftheprojectsite;seeFigure4.11‐2.



Figure4.11‐1MINERALRESOURCES



Figure4.11‐2OILANDGASWELLS

SECTION4.11–MINERALRESOURCES


Theprojectsitehasbeenusedformulti‐familyhousingsincethe1940’sandwouldcontinuetobeusedforhousingafterdevelopmentoftheproject.Nominingormineralextractionactivitieswouldoccur on the project site. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to: (1)the availability of knownmineralresourcesofvaluetotheregionorstateresidents,or(2)alocallyimportantmineralresourcerecoverysitedelineatedonalocalgeneral,specific,orotherlanduseplan.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

SECTION4.12‐NOISE


4.12 Noise

Wouldtheprojectresultin:PotentiallySignificantImpact


Incorporated


NoImpact

a) Exposureofpersonstoorgenerationofnoiselevelinexcessofstandardsestablishedinthelocalgeneralplanornoiseordinance,orapplicablestandardsofotheragencies?

X

b) Exposureofpersonstoorgenerationofexcessivegroundbornevibrationorgroundbornenoiselevels?

X

c) Asubstantialpermanentincreaseinambientnoiselevelsintheprojectvicinityabovelevelsexistingwithouttheproject?

X

d) Asubstantialtemporaryorperiodicincreaseinambientnoiselevelsintheprojectvicinityabovelevelsexistingwithouttheproject?

X

e) Foraprojectlocatedwithinanairportlanduseplanor,wheresuchaplanhasnotbeenadopted,withintwomilesofapublicairportorpublicuseairport,wouldtheprojectexposepeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectareatoexcessivenoiselevels?

X

f) Foraprojectwithinthevicinityofaprivateairstrip,wouldtheprojectexposepeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectareatoexcessivenoiselevels?

X

a) Wouldtheprojectexposepersonstoorgeneratenoiselevelsinexcessofstandards

establishedinthelocalgeneralplanornoiseordinance,orapplicablestandardsofotheragencies?


A significant impactmay occur if the projectwould generate excess noise thatwould cause theambientnoiseenvironmentattheprojectsitetoexceednoiselevelstandardssetforthintheCityofLosAngelesGeneralPlanNoiseElement(NoiseElement)andtheCityofLosAngelesNoiseOrdinance(NoiseOrdinance).See§111.00through§116.01oftheLAMC,andLAMC§41.40.Theprojecthasthepotentialtogeneratenoiseandassuch,constructionand/orprojectoperationhasthepotentialtogeneratenoisewhichcouldexceedHUDnoisethresholdlevelsof45A‐weighteddecibels(dBA)interior and 65 dBA exterior. The project has the potential to generate noise both during theconstructionphase(fromconstructionequipment)andtheoperationalphase(frompersonsresidingattheprojectsite).ThiswillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

SECTION4.12‐NOISE


b) Wouldtheprojectexposepersonstoorgenerateexcessivegroundbornevibrationorgroundbornenoiselevels?


Construction activities for the project have the potential to generate low levels of groundbornevibration.Theoperationofconstructionequipmentgeneratesvibrationsthatpropagatethoughthegroundanddiminishesinintensitywithdistancefromthesource.Vibrationimpactscanrangefromnoperceptibleeffectsatthelowestvibrationlevels,tolowrumblingsoundsandperceptiblevibrationatmoderate levels, to slightdamageofbuildingsat thehighest levels.Theconstructionactivitiesassociatedwiththeprojectcouldhaveanadverseimpactonbothsensitivestructures(i.e.,buildingdamage)andpopulations(i.e.,annoyance).ThiswillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

c) Wouldtheprojectcauseasubstantialpermanentincreaseinambientnoiselevelsintheprojectvicinityabovelevelsexistingwithouttheproject?


Asignificantimpactmayoccuriftheprojectweretoresultinasubstantialpermanentincreaseinambientnoiselevelsaboveexistingambientnoiselevels.AsdefinedintheCityofLosAngelesCEQAThresholds Guide threshold for operational noise impacts, a project would normally have asignificantimpactonnoiselevelsfromprojectoperationsiftheprojectcausestheambientnoiselevelmeasuredatthepropertylineofaffectedusestoincreaseby3dBACNELtoorwithinthe“normallyunacceptable”or “clearlyunacceptable”category,orany5‐dBAorgreaternoise increase.Thus,asignificantimpactwouldoccurifnoiselevelsassociatedwithoperationoftheprojectwouldincreasetheambientnoiselevelsby3dBACNELathomeswheretheresultingnoiselevelwouldbeatleast70dBACNEL.Inaddition,anylong‐termincreaseof5dBACNELormoreisconsideredtocauseasignificantimpact.ThiswillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

d) Would theproject causea substantial temporaryorperiodic increase inambientnoiselevelsintheprojectvicinityabovelevelsexistingwithouttheproject?


Theprojectwoulddemolishtheexistingunitsattheprojectsiteandconstructadditionalunitswhichwouldallowmorepeopletoliveontheprojectsitecomparedtoexistingconditions.Theproject’spotential to cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels will beanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

e) Foraprojectlocatedwithinanairportlanduseplanor,wheresuchaplanhasnotbeenadopted,withintwomilesofapublicairportorpublicuseairport,wouldtheprojectexposepeopleberesidingorworkingintheprojectareatoexcessivenoiselevels?

f) Foraprojectwithinthevicinityofaprivateairstrip,wouldtheprojectexposepeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectareatoexcessivenoiselevels?

SECTION4.12‐NOISE


NoImpact

ThenearestairporttotheprojectsiteistheElMonteAirport,locatedapproximately9milestothesoutheast(GoogleEarthPro,2018).TheprojectsiteisnotlocatedwithinanAIAorwithinthevicinityofaprivateairstrip(CountyofLosAngelesALUC,2012andGoogleEarthPro,2018).Theprojectwouldnotexposepeopletoexcessiveaircraftnoiselevels.Therefore,noimpactwouldoccur.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

SECTION4.13‐POPULATIONANDHOUSING


4.13 PopulationandHousing



Incorporated


NoImpact

a) Inducesubstantialpopulationgrowthinanarea,eitherdirectly(forexample,byproposingnewhomesandbusinesses)orindirectly(forexample,throughextensionofroadsorotherinfrastructure)?

X

b) Displacesubstantialnumbersofexistinghousing,necessitatingtheconstructionofreplacementhousingelsewhere?

X

c) Displacesubstantialnumbersofpeople,necessitatingtheconstructionofreplacementhousingelsewhere?

X

a) Wouldtheprojectinducesubstantialgrowthinanareaeitherdirectly(forexample,

byproposingnewhomesandbusiness)orindirectly(forexample,throughextensionofroadsorotherinfrastructure)?


Construction jobscreatedbytheprojectwouldnotresult insubstantialpopulationgrowthintheprojectareabecauseconstructionjobsaretemporaryinnature.ItisanticipatedthatpersonsfillingconstructionjobswouldbefromtheLosAngelesareaandassuch,constructionworkerswouldnotmove or relocate to work at the project site from outside the Los Angeles area during projectconstruction. Thus, the construction jobs generated by the projectwould not induce substantialpopulationorhousinggrowthwithintheregion.

TheRoseHillCourtsproject is locatedwithin theNECPArea,whichencompasses24,210squaremiles.Accordingtothe2010U.S.Census(U.S.CensusBureau,2010),theprojectsiteislocatedwithinCensusTract2013.01.

The project proposes to increase the number of persons living on the project site, compared toexisting conditions.However, the projectwould not indirectly induce growth in the project areabecausepublic infrastructurecurrentlyexistsat theprojectsite.Theprojectwouldnot introduceinfrastructuretoasitethatdoesnotalreadycontain infrastructureforelectricity,gas,water,andsewerservices.Thus,theprojectwouldnotindirectlyinducegrowthintheprojectarea.

Theprojectwould generate282permanent residents in the first phase of development and350permanentresidentsinthesecondphaseofdevelopment(Related,2018),resultinginatotalof632residents,whichis412moreresidents,comparedtoAugust2018conditions.RefertoTable4.13‐1below for details. All 191 dwelling units would be reserved as restricted affordable units. Thisincrease in housing, specifically as it relates to affordable housing, is consistent with City of



LosAngeles and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) growth projections andwouldnotresultinanysignificantimpactsassociatedwithsubstantialgrowth,asdescribedbelow.

Table4.13‐1ESTIMATEDPROJECTPOPULATIONANDUNITMIXBYPHASE

PhaseI

No.ofBedrooms No.ofUnits PersonsperUnit

Total

1Bedroom 60 2 120

2Bedroom 25 4 100

3Bedroom 5 6 30

4Bedroom 4 8 22

PhaseITotal 94 ‐‐ 282

PhaseII

No.ofBedrooms No.ofUnitsPersonsperUnit

Total

1Bedroom 42 2 84

2Bedroom 36 4 144

3Bedroom 15 6 90

4Bedroom 4 8 32

PhaseIITotal 97 ‐‐ 350

GRANDTOTAL 191 ‐‐ 632

PopulationgrowthintheCityofLosAngelesisexpectedtoincreasebyover140,000personsbytheend of the Housing Element Update planning period in 2021, with an expected population of3,965,433personsbySeptember30,2021.ThepopulationoftheCityofLosAngelesisexpectedtogrowto4,320,600personsby2035(CityofLosAngelesGeneralPlanHousingElement,2013p.1‐4).Theproject’sestimated412netnewresidentsrepresentapproximately0.30percentoftheCity’santicipatedgrowthby2021.Therefore,theprojectwouldnotinducesubstantialgrowthintheCitythatwasnotanticipatedintheCity’sGeneralPlan.

SCAGisthenation'slargestmetropolitanplanningorganization,representingsixcounties,191citiesandmorethan18millionresidents.TheSCAGregionencompassesthefollowingcounties:Imperial,LosAngeles,Orange,Riverside,SanBernardinoandVentura.TheSCAGareacoversmorethan38,000square miles (SCAG, 2018). On April 7, 2016, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2016‐2040RegionalTransportationPlan/SustainableCommunitiesStrategy(2016RTP/SCSorPlan).ThePlanis a long‐range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic,environmentalandpublichealthgoals (SCAG,2016).SCAG is taskedwithproviding theRegionalHousingNeedsAssessment(RHNA)allocation,buthousingelementsarereviewedandapprovedbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofHousingandCommunityDevelopment(SCAG,2016,p.25).TheSCAGRTP/SCSstatesthataffordablehousingneedshavenotbeenmetintheSCAGregion:



“Forourregion,themostrecentRHNAallocation,alsoknownasthefifthRHNAcycle,wasadoptedby the SCAG’s Regional Council in October 2012 and it covers a projection period betweenJanuary2014andOctober2021.TheRHNAallocationbreaksdownhousingneedsintofourincomecategories:verylow(lessthan50percentofthecounty’smedianincome);low(50to80percentofthemedian);moderate(80to120percent);andabovemoderate(morethan120percent).Forthefifth RHNA cycle, the regional RHNA allocation was 412,137 units, broken down as follows:100,632verylow;64,947low;72,053moderate;and174,505abovemoderate.However,althoughthesehousingunitsareplannedandzoned for,availabledatasources indicate that thesupplyofaffordablehousinghasnotmetneeds…”(SCAG,201,p.22)

AsdescribedintheCityofLosAngelesGeneralPlan:

“There is a tremendous demand for the [HousingAuthority of the City of Los Angeles]HACLA’shousingassistance,asdemonstratedbythemorethan29,607familiesonthepublichousingwaitinglist(asofOctober2012)andthemorethan7,779familiesontheSection8tenant‐basedassistancewaitinglistin2012.Ofthispopulation,94percentand86percentofthefamilies,respectively,wereofextremelylowincome.”(CityofLosAngelesGeneralPlanHousingElement,2013,p.1‐55).

TheprojectwouldhelpmeettheCityofLosAngeles’needforaffordablehousing.Therefore,impactsonpopulationandhousingwouldbelessthansignificant.

Constructionofeachphaseoftheprojectisexpectedtotake18to42monthsandisestimatedemployfiveto75constructionworkersonsiteduringsitepreparationandbuildingconstruction;therefore,thiswouldtemporarilyincreaseconstructionemployment.Giventherelativelycommonnatureandscaleoftheconstructionassociatedwiththeproject,thedemandforconstructionemploymentwouldlikelybemetwithintheexistingandfuturelabormarketintheCountyofLosAngeles.Sizeoftheconstruction workforce would vary during different stages of construction, but the quantity ofworkerswithintheCountywouldnotbeexpectedtorelocatepermanentlytothisarea.Therefore,theprojectwouldnotdirectlyorindirectlyinducegrowthinLosAngeles,andnoimpactwouldoccur.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

b) Wouldtheprojectdisplacesubstantialnumbersofexistinghousing,necessitatingtheconstructionofreplacementhousingelsewhere?


Theexistinghousingunitswouldbedemolishedundertheproject,andsomeoftheexistingresidentswouldtemporarilybedisplaced.ThiswillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating theconstructionofreplacementhousingelsewhere?


The project would demolish all of the existing housing on site, necessitating the temporarydisplacementofsomeexistingresidents.ThiswillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

SECTION4.14–PUBLICSERVICES


4.14 PublicServices



Incorporated


NoImpact

Wouldtheprojectresultinsubstantialadversephysicalimpactsassociatedwiththeprovisionofneworphysicallyalteredgovernmentalfacilities,theneedforneworphysicallyalteredgovernmentalfacilities,constructionofwhich couldcause significant environmental impacts, inorder tomaintainacceptableserviceratios,responsetimesorotherperformanceobjectivesforanyofthepublicservices:

a) Fireprotection? X b) Policeprotection? X

c) Schools? X

d) Parks? X

e) Otherpublicfacilities? X

a) Fireprotection?


ImplementationoftheprojecthasthepotentialtoadverselyaffecttheCity’sexistingfireprotectionservicesbecausetheprojectwouldaddadditionaldwellingunitsandpersonstotheprojectsite.ThiswillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

b) Policeprotection?


Implementation of the project has the potential to adversely affect the City’s existing policeprotection services because the project would add additional dwelling units and persons to theprojectsite.ThiswillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

c) Schools?


Theproject site is locatedwithin the LAUSD. The LAUSD enrollsmore than640,000 students inkindergarten through 12th grade, at over 900 schools, and 187 public charter schools (LAUSD,2018a).TheprojectsiteislocatedwithintheBoardofEducationDistrict#2.LAUSDschoolsservingtheprojectsite include:GlenAltaElementary(gradesK‐8),AbrahamLincolnSeniorHigh(grades9‐12), and WoodrowWilson Senior High (9‐12) (LAUSD, 2018b). Glen Alta Elementary had anenrollmentof177studentsduringthe2017‐2018schoolyear,AbrahamLincolnSeniorHighhadanenrollmentof1,104studentsduringthe2017‐2018schoolyear,andWoodrowWilsonSeniorHighhadanenrollmentof1,458studentsduringthe2017‐2018schoolyear(LAUSD,2018c).OurLadyofGuadalupeSchoolisaprivate,TK‐8,Catholicschool,locatedacrossthestreetfromtheprojectsiteat4522BrowneAvenue.

SECTION4.14–PUBLICSERVICES


Implementation of the project has the potential to add students to the LAUSD’s school facilitiesbecause the projectwould add additional dwelling units that could result in additional studentsresidingattheprojectsite.TheprojectwouldberequiredtopayapplicableschoolimpactfeestotheLAUSD. Therefore, potential impacts to schools would be less than significant. This will not beanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

d) Parks?


Recreational services within the City of Los Angeles, are provided by the City’s Department ofRecreationandParks, stewards toover16,000acresofparkland,offeringextensiverecreational,social and cultural programs at 444 park sites in the City of Los Angeles (City of Los AngelesDepartmentofRecreationandParks,2018a).

Multiple recreational facilities exist in the project vicinity. Theproject site is located adjacent to(acrossFlorizelStreet)fromRoseHillPark(GoogleEarthPro,2018),whichincludesthefollowingfacilities:barbecuepits,baseballdiamondwithlights,unlitbaseballdiamond,children’splayarea,andpicnictables(CityofLosAngelesDepartmentofRecreationandParks,2018b).Theprojectsiteisapproximately200feetfromtheRoseHillRecreationcenter,locatedat4530MercuryAvenue.Therecreation center offers: barbecuepits, baseball diamond, basketball courts, children’s play area,picnic tables, andmultipurpose sports field, aswell as fitnessandafter‐schoolprograms (CityofLosAngelesDepartmentofRecreationandParks,2018c).Theprojectsiteislocatedapproximately0.27milefromErnestE.DebsRegionalPark,at4235MontereyRoad(GoogleEarthPro,2018).Thispark offers barbecuepits, picnic tables, bikepaths, hiking trails and apond (City of LosAngelesDepartmentofRecreationandParks,2018d)

Theadditionof412netpeopletotheprojectsite(comparedtoexistingconditions)couldpotentiallyresultindirectand/orcumulativeimpactstotherecreationalamenitiesandparksinthevicinityoftheprojectsite.ThiswillbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

e) OtherPublicFacilities?


LibraryserviceswithintheCityareprovidedbytheLosAngelesPublicLibrary(LAPL).Thereare64publiclibrarieswithacumulativeof940,963squarefeetofbuildingarea.TheStateofCaliforniastandardisbasedupon0.5squarefeetoflibraryfacilitypercapita.TheLAPLSystemprovideslibraryservices at theCentral Library, eight regional branch libraries, 67 communitybranches and fourbookmobiles. The project site is 1.3miles southwest of the El SerenoBranch Library, located at5226S.HuntingtonDrive(GoogleEarthPro,2018).This4,274square‐footlibraryopenedin2004(CityofLosAngeles,2006).Theprojectisestimatedtoresultinanincreaseof412personstotheproject site than exist as of August 2018. The project’s increase in population of approximately412persons has the potential to significantly impact library facilities. This issue will be furtheranalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

SECTION4.15–RECREATION


4.15 Recreation



Incorporated


NoImpact

a) Wouldtheprojectincreasetheuseofexistingneighborhoodandregionalparksorotherrecreationalfacilitiessuchthatsubstantialphysicaldeteriorationofthefacilitywouldoccurorbeaccelerated?

X

b) Doestheprojectincluderecreationalfacilitiesorrequiretheconstructionorexpansionofrecreationalfacilitieswhichmighthaveanadversephysicaleffectontheenvironment?

X

a) Wouldtheprojectincreasetheuseofexistingneighborhoodandregionalparksor

otherrecreationalfacilitiessuchthatsubstantialphysicaldeteriorationofthefacilitywouldoccurorbeaccelerated?


Theprojectisanticipatedtoresultinanincreasetheuseofexistingneighborhoodparks,regionalparks or other recreational facilities (Depicted inFigure4.15‐1 andFigure4.15‐2) because theprojectisanticipatedtoaddatotalof632peopletotheprojectsite,whichisapproximately412morepersonsthanexistunderexisting(August2018)conditions.Theproject’saddedpopulationcouldpotentiallyresultindirectand/orcumulativeimpactstotherecreationalamenitiesandparksinthevicinityoftheprojectsite.ThiswillbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction orexpansionofrecreationalfacilitieswhichmighthaveanadversephysicaleffectontheenvironment?

PotentiallySignificantImpact.

Theprojectisestimatedtoresultinanincreaseof412netpersonstotheprojectsitethanexistunderexisting (August 2018) conditions. The addition of approximately 400 people to the project sitewould increase thedemand for recreational resources.This issuewill be analyzed further in theEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.



Figure4.15‐1NEARBYPARKSANDRECREATIONALFACILITIES



Figure4.15‐2NEARBYTRAILS

SECTION4.16‐TRANSPORTATIONANDTRAFFIC


4.16 TransportationandTraffic



Incorporated


NoImpact

a) Conflictwithanapplicableplan,ordinanceorpolicyestablishingmeasuresofeffectivenessfortheperformanceofthecirculationsystem,takingintoaccountallmodesoftransportationincludingmasstransitandnon‐motorizedtravelandrelevantcomponentsofthecirculationsystem,includingbutnotlimitedtointersections,streets,highwaysandfreeways,pedestrianandbicyclepaths,andmasstransit?

X

b) Conflictwithanapplicablecongestionmanagementprogram,including,butnotlimitedtolevelofservice(LOS)standardsandtraveldemandmeasures,orotherstandardsestablishedbythecountycongestionmanagementagencyfordesignatedroadsorhighways?

X

c) Resultinachangeinairtrafficpatterns,includingeitheranincreaseintrafficlevelsorachangeinlocation,whichresultsinsubstantialsafetyrisks?

X

d) Substantiallyincreasehazardsduetoadesignfeature(e.g.,sharpcurvesordangerousintersections)orincompatibleuses(e.g.,farmequipment)?

X

e) Resultininadequateemergencyaccess?

X

f) Conflictwithadoptedpolicies,plans,orprogramsregardingpublictransit,bicycle,orpedestrianfacilities,orotherwisedecreasetheperformanceorsafetyofsuchfacilities?

X

a) Wouldtheprojectconflictwithanapplicableplan,ordinanceorpolicyestablishing

measuresofeffectivenessfortheperformanceofthecirculationsystem,takingintoaccountallmodesoftransportationincludingmasstransitandnon‐motorizedtraveland relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited tointersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, andmasstransit?




During theconstructionperiod, theprojectwouldgenerate temporaryconstruction‐related truckandautomobile traffic.Trafficduringtheconstructionphasewould includeconstructionworkerstraveling to and from the project site, trucks hauling construction materials to the site, andtransportingmaterialawayfromthesite.Additionally,theprojectwouldgeneratevehicletripsfromproject operations. Potential construction and operational traffic impacts of the project will beanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

b) Would the project conflictwith an applicable congestionmanagement program,including,butnotlimitedtolevelofservicestandardsandtraveldemandmeasures,orother standards establishedby the county congestionmanagement agency fordesignatedroadsorhighways?


The LosAngeles County CongestionManagement Program (CMP) requires evaluation of all CMParterialmonitoringintersectionswheretheprojectadds50ormorenewpeakhourtrips.ThenearestCMPmonitoringintersectionistheValleyBoulevard/Interstate‐710(I‐710)northboundoff‐ramp.Similarly,theCMPrequiresCMPfreewaymainlinemonitoringlocationstobeevaluatedwhentheprojectwouldadd150ormoretripsatthemonitoringlocation.ThenearestCMPfreewaymonitoringstation is locatedonStateRoute110 (SR110), atPasadenaAvenue.Theprojectwouldgeneratevehicletripsfromprojectoperationsbecausetheadditionalunitsproposedontheprojectsitewouldresultinadditionalvehicletripsduringprojectoperations.ThiswillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either anincreaseintrafficlevelsorachangeinlocation,whichresultsinsubstantialsafetyrisks?

NoImpact

Theprojectsite isnot locatedwithin twomilesofapublicairportorpublicuseairportor in thevicinityofaprivateairstrip.Thenearestcommercialairports,SanGabrielValleyAirportandBurbankAirportare locatedapproximatelyninemileseastandtwelvemilesnorthwestof theprojectsite,respectively. Furthermore, the project site is not located within AIA for San Gabriel Valley andBurbankairports,establishedbytheLosAngelesCountyALUC(RefertoFigure4.16‐1).Theprojectproposes residential land uses,which are not of a nature thatwould impact air traffic patterns.Therefore,theprojectwouldnotresultinachangeinairtrafficpatternsthatwouldresultinsafetyrisks and no impact would occur. This will not be analyzed further in the EIR/EIS that will bepreparedfortheproject.



Figure4.16‐1AIRPORTINFLUENCEAREAS



d) Wouldtheprojectsubstantiallyincreasehazardsduetoadesignfeature(e.g.,sharpcurvesordangerousintersections)orincompatibleuses(e.g.,farmequipment)?

NoImpact

AccesstotheprojectsitewouldbeprovidedviaadrivewayalongBoundaryAvenue,MercuryAvenue,Mackenzie Avenue, and two driveways along Florizel Street. These driveways would allow fortwo‐waytravel.TheprojectwouldcomplywithallapplicablerequirementsoftheCityofLosAngelesregardingtraffic‐relateddesignfeaturesandwouldbedesignedtoprovideadequatelinesofsight,properemergencyaccess,andvehicleflowwithintheprojectsite.Therefore,theprojectwouldnotincreasehazardsduetoadesignfeature,andnoimpactwouldoccur.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

e) Wouldtheprojectresultininadequateemergencyaccess?


The project would alter the project site access from exiting conditions by adding additionaldrivewaysandbyalteringthesitelayout.ThiswillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

f) Wouldtheprojectconflictwithadoptedpolicies,plans,orprogramsregardingpublictransit,bicycle,orpedestrian facilities,orotherwisedecrease theperformanceorsafetyofsuchfacilities?


The project would alter the project site access from exiting conditions by adding additionaldrivewaysandbyalteringthesitelayout.Theincreaseinonsitepopulationcouldresultinincreaseddemand for transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. This will be analyzed in the EIR/EIS to bepreparedfortheproject.

SECTION4.17–TRIBALCULTURALRESOURCES


4.17 TribalCulturalResources

WouldtheProjectCauseasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofatribalculturalresource,definedinPublicResourcesCodesection21074aseitherasite,feature,place,culturallandscapethatisgeographicallydefinedintermsofthesizeandscopeofthelandscape,sacredplace,orobjectwithculturalvaluetoaCaliforniaNativeAmericantribe,andthatis:



Incorporated


NoImpact

a) ListedoreligibleforlistingintheCaliforniaRegisterofHistoricalResources,orinalocalregisterofhistoricalresourcesasdefinedinPublicResourcesCode§5020.1(k)?

X

b) Aresourcedeterminedbytheleadagency,initsdiscretionandsupportedbysubstantialevidence,tobesignificantpursuanttocriteriasetforthinsubdivision(c)ofPublicResourcesCode§5024.1(c)?

X

a) Wouldtheprojectcauseasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofatribal

cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the CaliforniaRegister ofHistoricalResourcesorinalocalregisterofhistoricalresourcesasdefinedinPublicResourcesCode§5020.1(k)?


Theprojectinvolvesdemolitionoftheexistingonsitestructuresanddevelopmentofthenewunitsontheprojectsite.Duringthecourseofprojectconstructiongradingandgrounddisturbancewouldoccur. The site is sloped, and due to the terraced nature of the proposed development, somestructureswill be tucked into slopes,whichhas thepotential to impactpreviouslyundiscoveredtribalculturalresources.ThiswillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

b) WouldtheprojectcauseasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofatribalculturalresourcethatisdeterminedtobeasignificantresourcetoaCaliforniaNativeAmericantribepursuanttothecriteriasetforthinsubdivision(c)ofPublicResourceCode§5024.1(c)?


As described in threshold 4.17a) above, the project has the potential to disturb previouslyundiscoveredtribalculturalresources.ThiswillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

SECTION4.18‐UTILITIESANDSERVICESYSTEMS


4.18 UtilitiesandServiceSystems



Incorporated


NoImpact

a) ExceedwastewatertreatmentrequirementsoftheapplicableRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard(RWQCB)?

X

b) Requireorresultintheconstructionofnewwaterorwastewatertreatmentfacilitiesorexpansionofexistingfacilities,theconstructionofwhichcouldcausesignificantenvironmentaleffects?

X

c) Requireorresultintheconstructionofnewstormwaterdrainagefacilitiesorexpansionofexistingfacilities,theconstructionofwhichcouldcausesignificantenvironmentaleffects?

X

d) Havesufficientwatersuppliesavailabletoservetheprojectfromexistingentitlementsandresources,orareneworexpandedentitlementsneeded?

X

e) Resultinadeterminationbythewastewatertreatmentproviderwhichservesormayservetheprojectthatithasadequatecapacitytoservetheproject’sprojecteddemandinadditiontotheprovider’sexistingcommitments?

X

f) Wouldtheprojectbeservedbyalandfillwithsufficientpermittedcapacitytoaccommodatetheproject’ssolidwastedisposalneeds?

X

g) Wouldtheprojectcomplywithfederal,state,andlocalstatutesandregulationsrelatedtosolidwaste?

X

a) Would the project exceedwastewater treatment requirements of the applicable

RegionalWaterQualityControlBoard(RWQCB)?


Theprojectsiteiscurrentlyservedbyexistingsewerinfrastructure.Theprojectsiteislocatedinthejurisdiction of the Los Angeles RegionalWater Quality Control Board (Waterboards, 2018). TheDepartmentofPublicWorks’BOSownsandoperatestheCity’ssanitarysewersystemandisalsoresponsibleforprovidingsewerservicetotheCityviabackbonecollectionandconveyancesystem.LosAngelesBureauofSanitation(LASAN)maintainsover6,700milesofsewerlinesand49pumping



plantsinadditiontofourwaterreclamationplantsacrosstheCity,whichhaveacombinedcapacitytotreat580milliongallonsperday(mgd)ofwastewater(LASanitation,2017).Thefourreclamationplants include Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant (HWRP), Terminal Island Water ReclamationPlant, Donald C. TillmanWater Reclamation Plant and Los Angeles‐GlendaleWater ReclamationPlant.TheHWRPisthecity’sprimaryreclamationplant.WastewatergeneratedattheprojectsiteistreatedattheHWRP.Anaveragewastewaterflowrateof275mgdisgeneratedintheSystem.Theplantwasdesignedtoaccommodatebothdryandwetweatherdayswithamaximumdailyflowof450mgdandpeakwetweatherflowof800mgd(LASanitation,2018b).

WastewatergeneratedbytheprojectwouldbetypicalofotherresidentiallandusesintheCityofLosAngeles,comprisedofdomesticallygeneratedwastewater.Asdescribedabove,theHWRPhasthecapacitytotreatwastewaterfromtheproject.Thus,theprojectwouldnotexceedwastewatertreatmentrequirementsoftheLosAngelesRWQCB.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

b) Wouldtheprojectrequireorresultintheconstructionofnewwaterorwastewatertreatmentfacilitiesorexpansionofexistingfacilities,theconstructionofwhichcouldcausesignificantenvironmentaleffects?


SewerandwaterservicetotheprojectsiteisprovidedbytheCityofLosAngeles.TheDepartmentofPublic Works’ BOS owns and operates the City’s sanitary sewer system. Management of waterprogramsisthroughtheLADWP.Wastewatertreatmentisdiscussedbelow,andwatertreatmentanddistributionarediscussedinchecklistquestiondbelow.

LASANmaintainsover6,700milesofsewerlinesand49pumpingplantsinadditiontofourwaterreclamation plants across the City, which have a combined capacity to treat 580mgd ofwastewater.ThefourreclamationplantsincludeHWRP,TerminalIslandWaterReclamationPlant,DonaldC.TillmanWaterReclamationPlantandLosAngeles‐GlendaleWaterReclamationPlant.TheHWRPisthecity’sprimaryreclamationplant(LASanitation,2018a).WastewatergeneratedattheprojectsiteistreatedattheHWRP.AsofFebruary2018,anaveragewastewaterflowrateofnearly300mgd is generated in the System.Theplantwasdesigned to accommodatebothdry andwetweather days with a maximum daily flow of 450 mgd and peak wet weather flow of 800 mgd(LASanitation,2018b).

Wastewater is collectedandconveyed to the reclamationplants througha systemof sewer linesranginginsizefromsixto150inchesindiameter.TheCity’ssewersareclassifiedintotwogroups:primarysewers(greaterthan15inchesindiameter)andsecondarysewers(15inchesorsmallerindiameter).Thesewerlinesintheprojectareaareclassifiedassecondarysewers.Theyaremadeofvitrifiedclaypipesandareeightinchesindiameter.Theprojectsiteliesoutsideofanareaconsideredtohaveaconstrainedsewercapacity(CityofLosAngelesOpenData,2018).

The project proposes 191 units, including one, two, three, and four‐bedroomunits. As shown inTable4.18‐1,theprojectisestimatedtogenerateanetamountof11,920GDPofeffluentrequiringcollection and treatment at the HWRP. Effluent generated by the project is a minimal fraction(approximately.0040percent)4oftheHWRP’scurrentdailyflowof300mgd.

4 11,920netGPDfortheprojectdividedby300mgdequalsapproximately.0040percent

(11,920/300,000,000=.00397percent).



Table4.18‐1ESTMATEDPROJECTNETWASTEWATERGENERATION

UnittypeGenerationRateGallonsPerDay

(GPD)1NumberofUnits

WastewaterGenerated(GPD)

EstimatedExistingWastewaterGenerationOneBedroom 120 28 3,360TwoBedroom 160 48 7,680ThreeBedroom 200 20 4,000FourBedroom 240 4 960

EXISTINGTOTAL 100units 16,000GPDEstimatedProposedWastewaterGenerationOneBedroom 120 102 12,240TwoBedroom 160 61 9,760ThreeBedroom 200 20 4,000FourBedroom 240 8 1,920

PROPOSEDTOTAL 191units 27,920GPDPROJECTNETINCREASEINWASTEWATERGENERATION 11,920GPD

Notes:1 CityofLosAngeles,LACEQAThresholdGuide2006,ExhibitM2‐12,SewageGenerationFactors.

TheHWRPwasdesignedtoaccommodatebothdryandwetweatherdayswithamaximumdailyflowof 450mgd and peak wet weather flow of 800mgd (LA Sanitation, 2018b). The project wouldproduceanegligibleamountofwastewatercomparedtotheplant’smaximumflow.Therefore,theprojectwouldbeservedbytheexistingHyperionWaterReclamationplantandtheprojectwouldnotrequiretheconstructionofnewwastewatertreatmentfacilitiesorexpansionofexistingfacilitiesandless than significant impacts are anticipated. Wastewater is collected and conveyed to thereclamationplantthroughasystemofsewerlinesranginginsizefromsixto150inchesindiameter.TheCity’ssewersareclassifiedintotwogroups:primarysewers(greaterthan15inchesindiameter)andsecondarysewers(15 inchesorsmaller indiameter).Thesewer lines intheprojectareaareclassifiedassecondarysewers.Theyaremadeofvitrifiedclaypipesandareeightinchesindiameter(CityofLosAngelesOpenData,2018).Uponreviewofexistingutilitiesandanticipatedutilitiesinthenewbuildings,autilityplanwillbedevelopedinconsultationwiththeproject'sutilityconsultantandthelocalserviceprovidersforwetanddryutilities.Theprojectincludesthedevelopmentofsewerlines to provide an adequatewastewater flow from the project site. The sewer lineswithin andadjacenttotheprojectsitewillconveywastewatertotheHWRP.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

c) Wouldtheprojectrequireorresultintheconstructionofnewstormwaterdrainagefacilitiesorexpansionofexisting facilities, the constructionofwhich could causesignificantenvironmentaleffects?


TheCity’sstormdrainsystemcomprises67,777catchbasins,with1,900milesofundergroundpipesand220milesofopenchannels(CityofLosAngeles,FloodplainManagementPlan,2015).TheCity’sstormdrainsaredesignedtoprovidecapacityforuptoa25‐yearstorm.

Underexistingconditions,stormwaterrunoffgeneratedontheprojectsiteiscollectedandconveyedby curbs and gutters to an existing 30‐inch reinforced concrete pipe locatedwithin the adjacent



roadwayrightofwayforMcKenzieAvenue(LosAngelesCounty,DepartmentofPublicWorks,n.d.).TheprojectsiteisnotlocatedinaFEMAfloodhazardareaforthe1%AnnualChangeFloodorthe0.2%AnnualChanceFlood(CityofLosAngelesFloodplainManagementPlan,2015).

AsdetailedinSection4.9ofthisdocument,impervioussurfacescoverapproximately49percentoftheexistingprojectsiteandwiththeproject,thetotalareaofimpervioussurfaceswouldbeincreasedto68percent,whichisa19percentincreaseofthetotalareainimpervioussurfaces.

TheCityofLosAngelesBureauofEngineeringwouldreviewtheprojectduringthefinalplancheckstage and prior to project approval the Bureau would ensure that the storm drain system hasadequatecapacity tohandlepotentialrunoff fromtheprojectsite.Related, theprojectdeveloper,would provide the necessary storm drain infrastructure to serve the project site, including anyrequiredconnectionstotheexistingstormdrainsystem.Theproject’sonsiteimprovementswouldincludeLID/SUSMPBMPsfor“store&re‐use”thatwillretainandtreatthe85thpercentile24‐hourrunoffeventonsite.Itisestimatedthattheproject’spostdevelopmentstormwaterrun‐offflowinginto drainage infrastructurewould be less than the current/exiting conditions. Thus, the projectwouldhavealessthansignificantimpact.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

d) Wouldtheprojecthavesufficientwatersuppliesavailabletoservetheprojectfromexistingentitlementsandresources,orareneworexpandedentitlementsneeded?


TheCity’sLADWPmanagesthewatersupply forLosAngeles.LADWP’sgoal is toensurethattheCity'swaterqualityanddemandaremetbyavailablewatersupplies.TheprimarysourcesofwatersupplyfortheCityofLosAngelesaretheLosAngelesAqueducts,localgroundwater,recycledwaterandsupplementalwaterpurchasedfromtheMWDofSouthernCalifornia.WaterfromtheMWDisdeliveredthroughtheColoradoRiverAqueductandtheStateWaterProject’sCaliforniaAqueduct.LADWPisamemberagencythatreliesonimportedwaterfromMWD.ForthefivefiscalyearsendingJune 30, 2015, L.A.'s water purchasesfrom MWD averaged 280 mgd (approximately314,000acre‐feetperyear),whichconstitutedapproximately57percentoftheLADWP’stotalwatersupply(LosAngelesDepartmentofWater&Power2013a).Thequantitiesofwaterobtainedfromthesesourcesvaryfromyeartoyearandaredependentonweatherconditionsandwaterdemand.

Sustainablesourcesofwater,suchasrecycledwater,arebeingutilizedtohelpmeetfuturewaterdemands.TheCityofLosAngelestreatsover400,000acre‐feetperyear(AFY)ofwastewater,mostofwhichisdischargedintotheocean.TheCityaimstoproduceupto59,000AFYofrecycledwaterby2035fornon‐potablereuseandgroundwaterreplenishment(LADWP,2013b).TheLADWP, inpartnershipwiththeLASAN,isproposingundertakingtheLosAngelesGroundwaterReplenishment(GWR)Project.TheGWRProjectwillprovideupto30,000AFY–morethan9.7billiongallons–ofpurifiedwaterby2023toreplenishtheSanFernandoGroundwaterBasin(LADWP,n.d.).

The project site is developed with a public housing complex containing 100 multi‐family units.Table4.18‐2displaystheestimatedincreaseinpotablewaterdemandasaresultoftheproject.Asshowninthetablebelow,theprojectwouldhaveanestimatedwaterdemandof31,133gallonsperday(gpd)andwouldresultinanestimatedincreaseinwaterdemandof14,833gpd.



Table4.18‐2ESTIMATEDPROJECTNETWATERDEMAND

UnittypeConsumptionRate

GallonsPerDay(gpd)1NumberofUnits

WaterDemand(gpd)

ProposedMultifamilyUnits

163 191 31,133

ExistingMultifamilyUnits

163 100 16,300

ESTIMATEDINCREASEINWATERDEMAND 14,8331 Source:LosAngelesDepartmentofWater&PowerUrbanWaterManagementPlan,2015.Exhibit2O,page2‐14,

WaterDemandForecastforLow‐IncomeResidentialCustomersFiscalYearEndingJune30.AccessedonlineonFebruary12,2018,at:https://www.ladwp.com/cs/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=QOELLADWP005416&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased.

Thehighest(i.e.worstcase)waterdemandof163gpdisusedforanalysis.LADWPupdatesitsUrbanWaterManagementPlan(UWMP)everyfiveyearstoaccountforchangingconditions.ThisPlanprojectswatersupplyanddistributionneedsbasedonanticipatedgrowthinpopulation,housing,andemploymentandidentifieswatersupplystrategiestomeetthisdemand(LosAngelesDepartmentofWater&Power,2015.p.M.1‐2).ThemostrecentUWMPwaspreparedin2015andisbasedona25‐yearplanninghorizonthrough2040.

Theprojectwouldbeconstructedintwophasestodeveloptheproposed191‐units.Openingyearsforthetwophasesareestimatedtobe:2022forPhaseIand2025forPhaseII.TheUWMPfortheCityofLosAngelesincludesawaterdemandforecast,withpassiveconservationsavingsfromcodes,ordinances,andconservationphasesfortheLADWPservicearea.AsdetailedintheUWMP,fortheyear 2025, multi‐family housing would have an estimated water demand of 206,065AFY(LosAngelesDepartmentofWater&PowerUWMP,2015,p.ES‐11).Theproject’snet increase inwaterdemandof14,833gpd(16.62AFY)isapproximately.008percent5oftheUWMP’sprojecteddemandformulti‐familyhousingatprojectbuildout(2025).Therefore,theprojectwouldcomprisea de minimis demand compared to the anticipated demand from multifamily housing. As such,population growth and an increase inwater demand for the project is captured by theUWMP’sforecasts for increased water demand between 2015 and 2040. The UWMP found that with itscurrentwatersupplies,plannedfuturewatersuppliesandwaterconservation,LADWPwillbeabletoreliablyprovidewatertoitscustomersthrough2040.SufficientwatersuppliesareavailabletomeetdemandwithintheCity’sserviceareathroughallhydrologiccyclesduringthetermofthelatestUWMP(LosAngelesDepartmentofWater&PowerUWMP,2015,p.ES‐20).Additionally,theLADWPissuedawateravailabilitywill‐serveletterstatingthattheprojectsitecanbesuppliedwithwaterfromthemunicipalsystemsubjecttotheWaterSystemrulesoftheLADWP.Therefore,theLADWPwouldprovidewatertomeettheneedsoftheproject.

Theprojectincludesthedevelopmentofwaterlinestoprovideanadequatewaterflowtotheprojectsite for water service and fire suppression needs. The project would comply with applicable

5 Theproject’snetincreaseinwaterdemandof14,833gallonsperdayequatestoapproximately16.62acre‐feetper

year.16.62acre‐feetperyearfromtheproject,dividedby206,065acre‐feetperyear(projectedwaterdemandformulti‐familyhousingatprojectbuildout(2025),equatestoapproximately.008percent.



requirementsof theCityofLosAngelesDepartmentofPublicWorksand theLAFDsuch that theprojectwouldprovideadequateinfrastructureandwaterflowtotheprojectsite.

Sincetherearesufficientwatersuppliesavailableandtheprojectdoesnotresultinanincreaseinwater demand above that projected in UWMP, project implementation would not requireconstruction of new water treatment facilities nor expanded entitlements to water supplies.Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated. Thiswill not be analyzed further in theEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

e) Wouldtheprojectresultinadeterminationbythewastewatertreatmentproviderwhich servesormay serve theproject that ithas adequate capacity to serve theproject’sprojecteddemandinadditiontotheprovider’sexistingcommitments?


Theprojectincludesthedevelopmentofsewerlinestoprovideanadequatewastewaterflowfromtheprojectsite.TheprojectwouldcomplywithapplicablerequirementsoftheCityofLosAngelesDepartment of Public Works such that the project would provide adequate infrastructure forwastewaterflowsfromtheprojectsite.AsdescribedinSection4.18.b),thevolumeofwastewatergeneratedbytheprojectrepresentsonlya fraction(approximately .0040percent)of theexistingdaily capacity of the wastewater treatment facility providing service in the area. Therefore, theprojectwouldbewithintheexistingcapacityofthewastewatertreatmentproviderandnoimpactswouldoccur.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity toaccommodatetheproject’ssolidwastedisposalneeds?


LosAngelesBureauofSanitation(LASAN)isresponsibleforthecollectionandremovalofallsolidmaterialsandwasteintheCityofLosAngeles.TheCitycollectsanaverageof6,652tonsperdayofrefuse,recyclables,yardtrimmings,horsemanureandbulkyitemsfrommorethan750,000homes.LASANhasover500collectionvehicles.PertheCityofLosAngelesLASanitationwebsite,trashserviceiscurrentlyprovidedtotheprojectsitebyLASanitationonMondays(LASanitationResidentialCollection,2018).TherefusecollectedbyLASANgoesto landfills, therecyclablematerialsaretransferredtocenters that canuse it tomakenewproducts, and thegreenwaste is turned intomulch (CityofLosAngeles,Sanitation,2018).

Therearecurrentlyover40facilitiesthatareoperatinginandaroundtheCitythatreceive,process,and transport recyclable material and yard trimmings to markets, and solid waste to disposalfacilities.Theseinclude(CityofLosAngeles,2013,VolumeII,p.41):

MaterialRecoveryFacilities(MRFs) YardTrimmingsandFoodScrapsProcessingFacilities ConstructionandDemolitionDebrisProcessingFacilities Waste‐to‐EnergyFacilities TransferStations Landfills



ThetotalpermittedcapacityofthelandfillfacilitiesusedbytheCityofLosAngelesisapproximately63,4006tonsperdaywithannualdailythroughputofapproximately41,700tonsperday.7SufficientlandfillcapacityisavailabletomeettheCitydemandforyearstocome(HDR,2014,p.4.13‐8).

DemolitionoftheexistingRoseHillCourts,proposedprojectconstruction,andprojectoccupancywouldgeneratesolidwasterequiringdisposalatlocallandfills.Whenbuildingsaredemolished,largequantities of materials are generated. The entire weight of a building, including the concretefoundations, driveways, patios, etc., may be generated as C&D materials when a building isdemolished(EPA,2003,p.10).

Materials generated during construction of the project could include paper, cardboard, metal,plastics,glass,concrete,lumberscrapsandothermaterials.Estimatedamountsofconstructionwastefrom the project are derived from United States Environmental Protection Agency estimatedconstructionanddemolitionrates.TheEPA’sreportusednationalstatisticaldataandtypicalwastegenerationdatafromconstruction,renovation,anddemolitionsites.Resultswereusedtodevelopaweighted average estimate of the overall residential construction waste generation rate of4.39poundspersquarefoot(EPA,2003,p.9).Table2‐3,SummaryofResidentialDemolitionJobSiteWasteSurveys,providesanestimatedgenerationrateof127poundspersquarefootformulti‐familydemolitionwaste(EPA,2003,p.13).

The project would have a less than significant impact to landfills because the project would berequiredtocomplywith theCityofLosAngelesCitywideConstructionandDemolition(CandD)WasteRecyclingOrdinance,whichwaspassedonMarch5,2010.TheCity’sCandDWasteRecyclingOrdinancerequiresallmixedCandDwastegeneratedwithincitylimitsbetakentoCitycertifiedCandDwasteprocessors.LASANisresponsiblefortheCandDwasterecyclingpolicy(LASanitation,2018c).Additionally,allconstructionwastewithpotentiallyhazardousmaterialssuchasasbestos,leadandcontaminatedsoilswouldbedisposedofinaClassI(hazardouswaste)landfillinaccordancewithallapplicablerequirementsandlaws.Therefore,theprojectwouldhavealessthansignificantimpactinthisregard.

Table4.18‐3belowshowstheestimatedamountofwastetobegeneratedfromdemolitionoftheexistingRoseHillCourtsandconstructionoftheproject.Asshowninthetablebelow,itisanticipatedthatdemolitionandconstructionfortheprojectwouldgenerateapproximately4,567tonsofdebris.

Table4.18‐3ESTIMATEDCONSTRUCTION‐RELATEDSOLIDWASTEGENERATION

Activity GenerationRate SquareFeetWaste(tons)

DemolitionofRoseHillCourts

127poundspersquarefoot 67,840squarefeet4 4,308

ConstructionofRoseHillCourtsRedevelopmentProject

4.39poundspersquarefoot3 118,000squarefeet5 259

TOTALESTIMATEDCONSTRUCTIONSOLIDWASTEGENERATION 4,567

6 NumbersfromHDRReport,minus13,200forclosedPuenteHillsFacility.7 NumbersfromHDRReport,minus10,200forclosedPuenteHillsFacility.



As shown in Table4.18‐4, occupancy of the existing 100 apartment units and associatedadministrativeoffice generates an estimated2.05 tonsofwaste annually. This estimatedoesnotaccountfordiversionfromlandfills.Theproposed191‐unitprojectisestimatedtogenerateatotalof4,567tonsofwasteduringtheconstructionphaseandatotalof6.93tonsofwasteperyearduringprojectoperation.

Table4.18‐4EXISTINGANDPROJECTESTIMATEDSOLIDWASTEGENERATION

LandUse GenerationRateNumberof

Units/Employees/sqft

Waste(tons/year)

EXISTINGSOLIDWASTEGENERATION

ExistingMulti‐familyunits

0.006115tons/householdperyear1

100units 0.6115

ExistingOffice 1.44tons/employee/year2 1employee 1.44

ESTIMATEDEXISTINGTOTALSOLIDWASTEGENERATION 2.05

PROJECTOPERATIONALSOLIDWASTEGENERATION

ProposedMulti‐familyunits

0.006115tons/householdperyear1

191units 1.17

PropertyMgmt.&MaintenanceOffice

1.44tons/employee/year 4employees 5.76

ESTIMATEDOPERATIONALTOTALSOLIDWASTEGENERATION 6.93

NETINCREASEINSOLIDWASTEGENERATIONWITHTHEPROJECT(INCREASEINSOLIDWASTECOMPAREDTOEXISTINGCONDITIONS)

4.88

Source:UltraSystems,20181 ThisrateisbaseduponCalRecycle’sEstimatedSolidWasteGenerationRateof12.23pounds/household/year,

whichhasbeenconvertedtotonsperhouseholdperyear2 Thisrateisbasedon2014Generator‐BasedCharacterizationofCommercialSectorDisposalandDiversionin

California,CalRecycle,2015,accessedonlineonFebruary19,2018at:http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publications/Documents/1543/20151543.pdf

3 ThisrateisbasedonUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyestimatedconstructionanddemolitionrates(EPA,2003,p.9)

4 ThisisbasedontheCityofLosAngelesZIMASparcelprofilereportfortheprojectsite.5 ThissquarefootageinformationwasprovidedbytheprojectapplicantviaemailonJune8,2018.

Theprojectwouldincreasethenumberofhousingunitsandpopulationattheprojectsite.Asdepictedin the tableabove, theprojectwouldresult inanet increaseof4.88 tonsperyearof solidwastegenerated,comparedtotheexistingusesattheprojectsite.Thisequatestoanestimatedincreaseofapproximately0.013tonsperdayofwaste,comparedtoexistingconditions(4.88tonsper365days).As discussed above, the total permitted capacity of the landfill facilities used by the City ofLosAngeles isapproximately63,400tonsperdaywithannualdailythroughputofapproximately41,700tonsperday.Therefore,theproject’sconstructionwastewouldrepresentafractionoftheCity’slandfillcapacity.Theproject’sestimatedincreaseof0.013tonsofwasteperdayrepresentsaminusculepercentageoftheCity’sdailycapacity(0.00000031percent)Sincesufficientpermittedlandfillcapacityexiststosupportoccupancyoftheproject,noadverseimpacttoeithersolidwastecollectionserviceorthelandfilldisposalsystemwouldoccur.Therefore,projectimpactsonexisting



solidwastedisposal facilitiesareanticipatedtobe lessthansignificant.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

g) Would the project complywith federal, state, and local statutes and regulationsrelatedtosolidwaste?


In 1989, the California Legislature enacted the California Integrated Waste Management Act(AB939),inanefforttoaddresssolidwasteproblemsandcapacitiesinacomprehensivemanner.Thelawrequiredeachcityandcountytodivert50percentof itswastefromlandfillsbytheyear2000.ThelawfurtherrequiredeverycityandcountytoprepareaSourceReductionandRecyclingElement.RequirementsestablishedbyAB939areimplementedthroughtheCityofLosAngelesSolidWasteIntegratedResourcesPlan(SWIRP)orcommonlyknownastheCity’sZeroWastePlan(CityofLosAngeles,2013).

The SWIRP is a long‐termmaster plan (through year 2030) for the City’s solidwaste programs,policiesandenvironmentalinfrastructure.TheblueprintforSWIRPisRENEWL.A.Morespecifically,RENEW L.A. establishes the vision for ZeroWaste. SWIRP proposes an approach for the City toachieveagoalof75percentdiversionby2013,and90percentdiversionby2025.TheCityreached76.4percentdiversionin2011.Thesetargeteddiversionrateswouldbeimplementedthroughanenhancement of existing policies and programs, implementation of new policies and programs,making certain programsmandatory, and the development of future facilities tomeet the City’srecyclingandsolidwasteinfrastructureneedsthrough2030(HDR,2014,p.2‐1).

In2010anestimated2.6milliontonsofrecyclableswerecollectedfromresidentsandbusinesseswithintheCityofLosAngeles.In2010LASANcollectioncrewscollectedapproximately209,535tonsof recyclables (excluding contamination) from residential curbside customers using the curbsideblue bins and approximately 130,000 tonswere self‐hauledby residents. TheCity’smulti‐familycollectioncontractors recycled14,366 tons in2010.Approximately2,260,000 tonsof recyclableswere transported fromcommercial sources toMRFs and/ormarketsby commercial haulers andthroughcommercialself‐haul(CityofLosAngeles,2013,VolumeIIp.41).

AProgressReportconductedin2013bytheUCLAEngineeringExtension’sMunicipalSolidWasteManagementProgramfoundthattheCityofLosAngeleshasachievedarecyclingrateof76.4percent,whichexceedsstatemandateof50percent (HDR,2014,p.ES‐8).Compliancewith theplansandpoliciesoutlinedintheSWIRPwouldensurewastegeneratedbyoccupantsoftheprojectisrecycledconsistentwiththepoliciesofthestateasimplementedbytheSWIRP.Therefore,projectimpactsrelatedtocompliancewithfederal,state,andlocalregulationsforsolidwasteareanticipatedtobelessthansignificant.ThiswillnotbeanalyzedfurtherintheEIR/EISthatwillbepreparedfortheproject.

SECTION4.19‐MANDATORYFINDINGSOFSIGNIFICANCE


4.19 MandatoryFindingsofSignificance

Doestheprojecthave:PotentiallySignificantImpact


Incorporated


NoImpact

a) Thepotentialtodegradethequalityoftheenvironment,substantiallyreducethehabitatofafishorwildlifespecies,causeafishorwildlifepopulationtodropbelowself‐sustaininglevels,threatentoeliminateaplantoranimalcommunity,reducethenumberorrestricttherangeofarareorendangeredplantoranimaloreliminateimportantexamplesofthemajorperiodsofCaliforniahistoryorprehistory?

X

b) Impactsthatareindividuallylimited,butcumulativelyconsiderable?("Cumulativelyconsiderable"meansthattheincrementaleffectsofaprojectareconsiderablewhenviewedinconnectionwiththeeffectsofpastprojects,theeffectsofothercurrentprojects,andtheeffectsofprobablefutureprojects)?

X

c) Environmentaleffectswhichwillcausesubstantialadverseeffectsonhumanbeings,eitherdirectlyorindirectly?

X

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,

substantiallyreducethehabitatofafishorwildlifespecies,causeafishorwildlifepopulation to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant oranimalcommunity,reducethenumberorrestricttherangeofarareorendangeredplantoranimaloreliminateimportantexamplesofthemajorperiodsofCaliforniahistoryorprehistory?


The project site is located in a highly‐urbanized setting and provides low habitat value forspecial‐statusplantandwildlifespecies.Nospecial‐statusplantsorwildlife8wereobservedwithintheprojectsite.Thus,nodirectorindirectimpactsonspecial‐statusplantsorwildlifespeciesareanticipated.

8 Specialstatusspeciesincludecandidateandsensitivespecies.



However, the project site contains ornamental vegetation and building structures that couldpotentiallyprovidecoverandnestinghabitatforbirdspeciesthathaveadaptedtourbanareas,suchasrockpigeonsandmourningdoves.NativebirdspeciessuchasthemourningdovesareprotectedbytheMBTAandtheCaliforniaFishandGameCode,whichrenderitunlawfultotakenativebreedingbirds,theirnests,eggs,andyoung.Indirectimpactsonbreedingbirdscouldoccurfromincreasednoise,vibration,anddustduringconstruction,whichcouldadverselyaffectthebreedingbehaviorofsomebirds,andleadtotheloss(take)ofeggsandchicks,ornestabandonment.Therefore,theprojecthasthepotentialtoimpactmigratorynon‐gamebreedingbirds,andtheirnests,youngandeggs.ThisissuewillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

Additionally,theprojectwoulddemolishtheexistingRoseHillCourtsdevelopment.RoseHillCourtswas found tobeeligible for listing in theNationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesat the local levelofsignificanceunderCriteriaAandCriteriaC–foritsassociationwiththedevelopmentofpublicanddefensehousingduringWorldWarII,anditsarchitecturalsignificanceasapublichousingcomplexfollowingtheplanninganddesignprincipalsoftheGardenCityandModernmovements.Becauseitwas determined eligible for the National Register, it is automatically included in the CaliforniaRegister of Historical Resources as well. This is a potentially significant impact to a historicalresource.ThiswillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulativelyconsiderable?("Cumulativelyconsiderable"meansthattheincrementaleffectsofaprojectareconsiderablewhenviewedinconnectionwiththeeffectsofpastprojects,theeffectsofothercurrentprojects,andtheeffectsofprobablefutureprojects)?


ForeachoftheenvironmentaltopicsdeterminedtobepotentiallysignificantinthisIS,thepotentialforcumulative impactswillbeanalyzed in theEIR/EIS tobeprepared for theproject.Thetopicsfound to be potentially significant and thatwarrant analysis in the EIR/EIS include:Section4.1(Aesthetics) indicatesthattheprojectcouldhaveapotentiallysignificant impactregardingvisualcharacter or quality of the site.Section4.3 (Air Quality) indicates that the project could have apotentially significant impact regarding construction and operational air quality emissions.Section4.4 (Biological Resources) indicates that the project could have a potentially significantimpactstomigratorybirdspecies.Section4.5(CulturalResources)indicatesthattheprojectcouldhaveapotentiallysignificantimpactregardinghistoricalresources.Section4.6(GeologyandSoils)indicatesthattheprojectcouldhaveapotentiallysignificantimpactregardingsoilerosion,unstablesoils,andexpansivesoils.Section4.7(GreenhouseGasEmissions)indicatestheprojectcouldhaveapotentiallysignificant impactregardingtheproject’semissionofgreenhousegases.Section4.8(HazardsandHazardousMaterials)indicatestheprojectcouldhaveapotentiallysignificantimpactregarding ACMs, LBP, lead in soils, lead in water, and radon gas. Section4.10 (Land Use andPlanning)indicatestheprojectcouldhaveapotentiallysignificantimpactregardingconflictwithanyapplicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project.Section4.12 (Noise) indicates the project could have a potentially significant impact regardingshort‐termand long‐termnoise generation.Section4.13 (Population andHousing) indicates theprojectcouldhaveapotentiallysignificantimpactregardingtemporaryrelocationofaportionoftheexistingonsiteresidents.Section4.14(PublicServices)indicatestheprojectcouldhaveapotentiallysignificantimpactregardingfireandpoliceservices,parks,andlibraries.Section4.15(Recreation)indicatestheprojectcouldhavepotentiallysignificantimpactstorecreationalfacilities.Section4.16(TrafficandTransportation)indicatesthattheprojectcouldhaveapotentiallysignificantimpactto



traffic.Section4.17(TribalCulturalResources)indicatesthatconstructionoftheprojectcouldhavea potentially significant impact to Tribal Cultural Resources. The project’s potential to havecumulativeimpactsregardingtheseenvironmentaltopicswillbefurtheranalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

EnergyEfficiencyPRCsection21000(b)(3)statesthatanEnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR)mustdiscuss“mitigationmeasuresproposedtominimizesignificanteffectsontheenvironment,including,butnotlimitedto,measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.” Section15126.4(a)(1)(C)oftheCEQAGuidelinesprovidesthat:“energyconservationmeasures,aswellasotherappropriatemitigationmeasures,shallbediscussedwhenrelevant.”AppendixFoftheCEQAGuidelinesprovidesalistofpossibleenergyimpactsandpotentialconservationmeasuresthatareintendedtoassisttheleadagencyinpreparationofanEIR(PerkinsCoie,2018).TheanalysisintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheprojectisrequiredunderCEQAAppendixFtocalculatetheproject’senergyuseattributabletoproject‐generatedvehicletrips,andtoalsocalculatetheproject’senergyconsumptionduringconstructionandoperationalphases.SocioeconomicsandEnvironmentalJusticeTheNEPAof1969requiresthatthepotentialsocial,economic,andenvironmentaleffectsoffederalactionsbe considered.Considerationofpotential social andeconomic impacts,particularly thoseeffectsoncommunitiesprotectedundernondiscriminationstatutes,isacriticalcomponentofNEPAanalyses(VDOT,2016,p.1).FederalagenciesmustconsiderenvironmentaljusticeintheiractivitiesunderNEPA.ExecutiveOrder12898directseachFederalAgencyto“makeachievingenvironmentaljusticepartofitsmissionbyidentifyingandaddressing,asappropriate,disproportionatelyhighandadversehumanhealthorenvironmentaleffectsofitsprograms,policies,andactivitiesonminoritypopulationsandlow‐incomepopulations,”includingtribalpopulations.TheExecutiveOrderdirectsFederalagenciestoanalyzetheenvironmentaleffects,includinghumanhealth,economic,andsocialeffects,oftheirproposedactionsonminorityandlow‐incomecommunitieswhenrequiredbyNEPA.TheMemorandumcallsforagenciestoaddresssignificantadverseenvironmentaleffectsonthesecommunities in mitigation measures outlined or analyzed in Environmental Impact Statements,EnvironmentalAssessments,Findingsofnosignificantimpact,andRecordofdecision(EPA,2018).The EIS/EIR to be prepared for the project will analyze the topics of socioeconomics andenvironmentaljusticeincompliancewithNEPA.c) Does theprojecthaveenvironmentaleffectswhichwill cause substantialadverse

effectsonhumanbeings,eitherdirectlyorindirectly?


As detailed in threshold b) above, the project could have potentially significant impacts to thefollowing issueareas: aesthetics, airquality, biological resources, cultural resources, geologyandsoils, hazards and hazardousmaterials, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, noise,population andhousing, public services, recreation, traffic and transportation, and tribal culturalresources.Therefore,theprojectcouldalsocontributetocumulativeimpactsfortheseissueareas.ThiswillbeanalyzedintheEIR/EIStobepreparedfortheproject.

SECTION5.0‐REFERENCES


5.0 REFERENCES

ArchitecturalResourcesGroup,2012.GardenApartmentsofLosAngelesCounty,HistoricContextStatement,ArchitecturalResourceGroupforLosAngelesConservancy,October2012.

Army Corps of Engineers, n.d. National Inventory of Dams. Accessed online at:http://nid.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=838:12:3193029020618onApril3,2018.

AltecTesting&Engineering, Inc. (Altec),2018.Phase IEnvironmentalSiteAssessment.RoseHillCourts.April20.

Baldwinetal.,2012.TheJepsonManual:VascularPlantsofCalifornia,secondedition.

CalFire,2007.LosAngelesCountyFireHazardSeverityZoneinStateResponsibilityArea:CaliforniaDepartmentofForestryandFireProtection.AdoptedNovember2007.Accessedonlineat:http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_losangeles.phponMarch16,2018.

CalFire,2012.LosAngelesCountyFireHazardSeverityZoneinLocalResponsibilityArea:CaliforniaDepartment of Forestry and Fire Protection. Adopted May 2012. Accessed online at:http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_losangeles.phponMarch16,2018.

CaliforniaBuildingCode(CBC)(Title24,Part2,CaliforniaCodeofRegulations).Accessedonlineat:http://www.bsc.ca.gov/codes.aspxonApril2,2018.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 2018. Accessed online at:http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asponMarch15,2018.

California Invasive Plant Council (Cal‐IPC), 2006. Cal‐IPC Inventory. Accessed online at:http://www.cal‐ipc.org/plants/inventory/onMarch16,2018.

CaliforniaNativePlantSociety(CNPS),2018.InventoryofRareandEndangeredPlantsofCalifornia.Accessed online at: http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/inventory/ onFebruary19,2018.

California Public Utilities Code §§ 21670 to 21679.5. Accessed online at:http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PUC&sectionNum=21670onFebruary20,2018.

Caltrans, 2015. Caltrans GIS Data: Eligible and Officially Designated Scenic Highways. TheDepartment of Transportation (Caltrans), Sacramento, California. Accessed online at:http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/gis/datalibrary/Metadata/ScenicHwys.html onFebruary20,2018.

CDFG, 2010. Natural Communities. Accessed online at:https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural‐CommunitiesonMarch19,2018.

CityofLosAngelesDevelopmentBestManagementPracticesHandbook,2011.Accessedonlineat:http://www.lastormwater.org/wp‐content/files_mf/lidhandbookfinal62212.pdf onMay30,2018.



City of Los Angeles Ordinance No. 181899, 2012. Accessed online at:http://www.lastormwater.org/wp‐content/files_mf/finallidordinance181899.pdf onMay30,2018.

CityofLosAngeles,2006.CEQAThresholdGuide.K.5Libraries,ExhibitK.5‐1.Accessedonlineat:http://planning.lacity.org/Documents/MajorProjects/CEQAThresholdsGuide.pdf onFebruary5,2018.

CityofLosAngeles,2013.SolidWasteIntegratedResourcesPlan‐AZeroWasteMasterPlan.October.Accessed online at: http://www.zerowaste.lacity.org/pdf/2013/2013Oct28SWIRPdocsFINALrd.pdfonFebruary13,2018.

CityofLosAngeles,2016.NortheastLosAngelesCommunityPlan,Chapter1–Introduction.Accessedonlineat:https://planning.lacity.org/complan/pdf/nlacptxt.pdfonFebruary19,2018.

CityofLosAngeles,2018.ZIMAS.Accessedonlineat:http://zimas.lacity.org/onMarch8,2018.

CityofLosAngelesDepartmentofRecreationandParks,2018a.WhoWeAre.Accessedonlineat:https://www.laparks.org/department/who‐we‐areonFebruary8,2018.

City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, 2018b. Accessed online at:https://www.laparks.org/park/rose‐hillonFebruary8,2018.

City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, 2018c. Rose Hill Recreation Center.Accessedonlineat:https://www.laparks.org/reccenter/rose‐hillonFebruary8,2018.

City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, 2018d. Earnest E. Debs Regional Park.Accessed online at: https://www.laparks.org/park/ernest‐e‐debs‐regional onFebruary8,2018.

CityofLosAngelesDepartmentofRecreationandParks,2018e.CityofLosAngelesDepartmentofRecreation and Parks website. Park Fees. Accessed online at:https://www.laparks.org/planning/park‐feesonFebruary5,2018.

City of Los Angeles General Plan, 2015. Accessed online at: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/ onFebruary5,2018.

CityofLosAngelesOpenData,2018.SanitarySewerSystem in theCityofLosAngeles.Accessedonlineat:http://data.lacity.orgonFebruary13,2018.

City of Los Angeles, Sanitation, 2018. Solid Resources. Accessed online at:https://www.lacitysan.org/san/faces/home/portal/s‐lsh‐wwd/s‐lsh‐wwd‐s?_afrLoop=6446591223261875&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=null#!%40%40%3F_afrWindowId%3Dnull%26_afrLoop%3D6446591223261875%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl‐state%3D1cngjkk5kr_211onFebruary13,2018.

CountyofLosAngelesALUC,2012.CountyofLosAngelesAirportsandAirportInfluenceAreas.June2012. Accessed online at: http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/ALUC_Airports_June2012_rev2d.pdfonApril2,2018.



Department of City Planning, 2016. Recommendation Report. Accessed online at:http://planning.lacity.org/ordinances/docs/parksdedication/QuimbyFinal.pdf onMay25,2018.

DepartmentofConservation(DOC),1982.DivisionofMinesandGeologyReport:InvestigationandInventoryofSlopeFailuresthatOccurredin1978and1980intheLosAngeles7.5‐MinuteQuadrangle,LosAngelesCounty,California.

Department of Fish and Game (DFG), 2010. Habitat Connectivity FTP site. Accessed online at:ftp://ftp.dfg.ca.gov/BDB/GIS/BIOS/Habitat_Connectivity/onFebruary19,2018.

Department of Recreation and Parks, 2018. Accessed online at:https://www.laparks.org/planning/park‐feesonMarch16,2018.

DOC, 2007. California Geologic Survey Data and Maps: California Department of Conservation,Sacramento, CA. Accessed online at: http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htmonMarch19,2018.

DOC, 2009. Official Tsunami InundationMaps: California Department of Conservation, CaliforniaEmergency Management Agency, University of Southern California, and CaliforniaGeological Survey. Accessed online at:http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Pages/InundationMaps.aspx#DownloadDataonMarch19,2018.

DOC, 2015. Information Warehouse. Accessed online at:http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc onFebruary20,2018.

DOC, 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed online at:https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/onFebruary19,2018.

DOC, 2017. Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources Wellfinder. Accessed online at:http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/Pages/Wellfinder.aspxonFebruary20,2018

Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) Lead Laws, 2018. Lead Laws andRegulations. Accessedonlineat:https://www.epa.gov/lead/lead‐laws‐and‐regulationsonMay22,2018.

FederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA),2018.FloodInsuranceRateMapFloodMapServiceCenter.Accessedonlineat:https://msc.fema.gov/portalonFebruary20,2018.

FEMA, 2011. Definitions of FEMA Flood Zone Designations. Accessed online at:http://www.vbgov.com/government/departments/communications‐info‐tech/maps/Documents/FEMA_FIRM_Maps/Definitions%20of%20FEMA%20Flood%20Zone%20Designations.pdfonFebruary20,2018.

FEMA, 2008. FEMA Flood Map, Panel No. 06037C1629F. Accessed online at:https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchoronMarch29,2018.

GeoconWest, Inc.(Geocon),2018.Geotechnical InvestigationProposedImprovementstoExistingMulti‐FamilyResidentialStructuresRoseHillCourts.May16.



Google Earth Pro, 2018. Accessed online at: https://www.google.com/earth/desktop/ onFebruary7,2018.

GPAConsulting(GPA),2015.HistoricalResourceReportforRoseHillCourts,September30.

HDREngineering,Inc.(HDR),2014.CityofLosAngelesSolidWasteIntegratedResourcesPlanFinalEIR, December Accessed online at: http://www.zerowaste.lacity.org/pdf/SWIRP%20Final%20PEIR%20Dec2014.pdfonFebruary13,2018.

Holland,1986.PreliminaryDescriptionsoftheTerrestrialCommunitiesofCalifornia.

ICC Public Access, 2018. 2017 LA City Fire Code. Accessed online at:https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/document/details/toc/1042onMay22,2018.

JohnL.HunterandAssociates,Inc.,2017.LowerLosAngelesRiverWatershedManagementProgram.Revised August 25. Accessed online at:https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/stormwater/municipal/watershed_management/los_angeles/lower_losangeles/LLARWMP2017updated.pdfonFebruary19,2018.

LA‐32NeighborhoodCouncil,2018.Accessedonlineat:http://www.la32nc.org/what‐is‐la‐32/onFebruary19,2018.

LA Sanitation Residential Collection, 2018. Accessed online at:http://neighborhoodinfo.lacity.org/index.cfm?streetAddress=4446%20florizel%20streetonJuly20,2018.

Lamar,DonaldL.,1970.GeologyoftheElysianPark–RepettoHillsArea,LosAngelesCounty,California.SanFrancisco,CA.CaliforniaDivisionofMinesandGeology.

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), n.d. Appendix D‐ Guidance for LocalSWPPP/WWECP. Accessed online at:http://www.ladpw.org/wmd/NPDES/Dev_Construction/Appendix%20D.pdfonMay30,2018.

LASanitation,2017.CityofLosAngelesBureauofSanitation(LASanitation).2017a.SewerSystemManagementPlan(SSMP).February2017.

LA Sanitation, 2018a. Clean Water. Accessed online at:https://www.lacitysan.org/san/faces/wcnav_externalId/s‐lsh‐wwd‐cw;jsessionid=LdWQCOUHWGCsd3P6mJB0zHouyLrHno7sSUw5nH0FyQ4SgtD6aQgU!‐1983634654!1668673566?_afrLoop=6431533618517937&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=null#!%40%40%3F_afrWindowId%3Dnull%26_afrLoop%3D6431533618517937%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl‐state%3Db4l8qtg2k_4onFebruary13,2018.

LA Sanitation, 2018b. Hyperion Water Reclamation Plan. Accessed online at:https://www.lacitysan.org/san/faces/home/portal/s‐lsh‐wwd/s‐lsh‐wwd‐cw/s‐lsh‐wwd‐cw‐p/s‐lsh‐wwd‐cw‐p‐hwrp?_afrLoop=6433677852462954&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=b4l8qtg2k_947#!%40%40%3F_afrWindowId%3Db4l8qtg2k_947%26_afrLoop%3D643367785246295



4%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl‐state%3Db4l8qtg2k_1015 onFebruary13,2018.

LA Sanitation, 2018c. Construction and Demolition Recycling. Accessed online at:https://www.lacitysan.org/san/faces/home/portal/s‐lsh‐wwd/s‐lsh‐wwd‐s/s‐lsh‐wwd‐s‐r/s‐lsh‐wwd‐s‐r‐cdr;jsessionid=pVOY8IzpflljZ8KwYTng9ppEe7sHz7U‐VNgF0JY9MyYLvD_KHaTh!‐507278767!1291451969?_afrLoop=4115089141250010&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=z&_adf.ctrl‐state=u1wk8sp9c_1#!%40%40%3F_afrWindowId%3Dz%26_afrLoop%3D4115089141250010%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl‐state%3Du1wk8sp9c_5onMay25,2018.

LA Stormwater, 2018. Low Impact Development. Accessed online at:http://www.lastormwater.org/green‐la/low‐impact‐development/onMay30,2018.

LAUSD, 2018a. About the Los Angeles Unified School District. Accessed online at:https://achieve.lausd.net/aboutonFebruary6,2018.

LAUSD, 2018b. Resident School Identifier. Accessed online at:http://rsi.lausd.net/ResidentSchoolIdentifier/onFebruary6,2018.

LAUSD, 2018c. Resident School Identifier. Accessed online at:http://rsi.lausd.net/ResidentSchoolIdentifier/onFebruary6,2018.

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, 2018. Disaster Routes. LA County EmergencyPlanning, Disaster Routes. Accessed online at:http://dpw.lacounty.gov/dsg/disasterroutes/onFebruary20,2018.

Los Angeles County, Department of PublicWorks, n.d. Los Angeles County Storm Drain System.Accessed online at: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/fcd/stormdrain/index.cfm onFebruary12,2018.

Los Angeles County GIS Data Portal, 2018. GIS Data for LA County. Accessed online at:https://egis3.lacounty.gov/dataportal/2016/12/01/airport‐land‐use‐commission‐aluc‐layers/neonFebruary20,2018.

LosAngelesDepartmentofWater&Power,2013a.SourcesofSupply,MetropolitanWaterDistrictofSouthern California. Accessed online at: https://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/ladwp/aboutus/a‐water/a‐w‐sourcesofsupply/a‐w‐sos‐metropolitanwaterdistrictofsoutherncalifornia?_adf.ctrl‐state=okkplxder_82&_afrLoop=307419374386051 onFebruary12,2018.

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 2013b. General Information. Accessed online at:https://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/ladwp/aboutus/a‐water/a‐w‐recycledwater/a‐w‐rw‐general?_adf.ctrl‐state=okkplxder_4&_afrLoop=306593498099076 onFebruary12,2018.

Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, UrbanWater Management Plan, 2015. Page ES‐20.Accessed online at:https://www.ladwp.com/cs/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=QOELLADWP005416&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleasedonFebruary12,2018.



LosAngelesDepartmentofWaterandPower,n.d.GroundwaterReplenishment.Accessedonlineat:https://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/ladwp/aboutus/a‐water/a‐w‐recycledwater/a‐w‐rwgwr?_afrLoop=307196040100466&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=null#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3Dnull%26_afrLoop%3D307196040100466%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl‐state%3Dokkplxder_49onFebruary12,2018.

Miller,Russel,V.,1994.GeneralizedMineralLandClassificationMapofLosAngelesCounty‐SouthHalf.Accessedonlineat: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR_94‐14/OFR_94‐14_Plate1B.pdfonFebruary20,2018.

Perkins Coie, 2018. California Land Use and Development Law Report. Accessed online at:https://www.californialandusedevelopmentlaw.com/2016/08/22/eirs‐energy‐impacts‐analysis‐fails‐to‐satisfy‐ceqas‐requirements‐%EF%BB%BF%EF%BB%BF/on___________

PublicResourcesCode§§21000 ‐21177andCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle14,Division6,Chapter 3. Accessed online at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum=21000onMarch12,2018.

Related, 2018. Personal correspondence between AndreWhite of Related and Betsy Lindsay re:InitialRoseHillCourtsEIR/EISProjectDescription,viaemailonApril9,2018.

Sawyeretal.,2009.AManualofCaliforniaVegetationSecondEdition.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2018. About SCAG. Accessed online at:http://www.scag.ca.gov/about/Pages/Home.aspxonMay22,2018.

SCAG, 2016. Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).Accessedonlineat:http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspxonMay22,2018.

Scow,Jan.C.,2016.RoseHillCourtsPreliminaryTreeSurvey.December2016.

State of California Geoportal, 2018. Accessed online at:http://portal.gis.ca.gov/geoportal/catalog/main/home.pageonFebruary19,2018.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. American Fact Finder. Accessed online at:https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t# onFebruary20,2018.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2003. Estimating 2003 Building‐RelatedConstruction and Demolition Materials Amounts. Accessed online at:https://archive.epa.gov/region9/buildingreuse/web/pdf/cd‐meas.pdfonMay29,2018.

UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA),2018.EnvironmentalJustice.Accessedonlineat: https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/environmental‐justice‐and‐national‐environmental‐policy‐actonMay11,2018.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2018a. IPaC Information for Planning andConsultation.Accessedonlineat:http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/onFebruary19,2018.

USFWS, 2018b. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed online at: http://www.fws.gov/nwi/ onFebruary19,2018.



USFWS, 2018c. ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System. Accessed online at:http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/onFebruary19,2018.

U.S.GeologicalSurvey(USGS),1994.LosAngelesQuadrangle,California–LosAngelesCounty[map].1:24,000 7.5‐Minute Series. Reston, Virginia. Accessed online at:http://atlas.ca.gov/download.html#/casil/imageryBaseMapsLandCover/baseMaps/drg/7.5_minute_series_albers_nad83_untrimmed//34118onMarch1,2018.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2018. Web Soil Survey. Accessed online at:http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspxonMarch15,2018.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2018. Hydrography. Accessed online at:http://nhd.usgs.gov/onFebruary19,2018.

United States Geological Survey (USGS), no date (n.d.)Mineral Resources Data System. Accessedonlineat:https://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/onFebruary20,2018.

VirginiaDepartmentofTransportation (VDOT), 2016. Socioeconomics andEnvironmental JusticeConsultant Resource Guidance Document. Accessed online at:http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/NEPA/VDOT_SocioeconomicsEJ_ConsultantGuidance_201611.pdfonMay22,2018.

Waterboards, 2018. State and Regional Water Boards Interactive Map. Accessed online at:http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterboards_map.shtmlonMarch24,2018.

Yerkes,R.F.,andC.M.Wentworth,1965.Structure,QuaternaryHistory,andGeneralGeologyoftheCorralCanyonArea,LosAngelesCounty,California.Washington,U.S.Dept.oftheInterior,GeologicalSurvey.

SECTION6.0–LISTOFPREPARERS


6.0 LISTOFPREPARERS

6.1 LeadAgency(CEQA)

JennyScanlin,ChiefStrategicDevelopmentOfficerDhirajNarayan,DevelopmentOfficerHousingAuthorityoftheCityofLosAngeles2600WilshireBoulevard,4thFloorLosAngeles,CA900576.2 LeadAgency(NEPA)

Dr.RobertK.Manford,CertifyingOfficerEnvironmentalAffairsOfficer&Manager,PlanningandLandUseUnitCityofLosAngelesFinance&DevelopmentDivisionHousing+CommunityInvestmentDepartment(HCID)1200W.7thStreet8thFloorLosAngeles,CA90017MarcieChavez,DirectorMichelleSimmons,CSP,REHS,EnvironmentalProtectionSpecialistUnitedStatesDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment(HUD)RegionIXLosAngelesFederalBuilding300NorthLosAngelesStreet,4thFloorLosAngeles,CA900126.3 ProjectApplicant–RelatedCalifornia

RoseOlson,SeniorVicePresident,DevelopmentAndréJ.White,ProjectManager,DevelopmentAshaAlinaghian‐ProjectCoordinatorSteveWraight‐In‐houseArchitectBarryKyler‐In‐houseArchitect

RelatedCalifornia333SouthGrandAvenue,Suite4450LosAngeles,CA90071



6.4 UltraSystemsEnvironmental,Inc.

6.4.1 EnvironmentalPlanningTeam

BetsyLindsay,MURP,ENVSP,PrincipalBobMason,MA,SeniorProjectManagerHinaGupta,MURP,LEED‐AP,SeniorPlannerMargaretPartridge,MURP,AICP,LEEDGreenAssociate,ENVSP,SeniorPlanner6.4.2 TechnicalTeam

MichaelRogozen,D.Env,SeniorPrincipalEngineerMichaelLindsay,BA,SeniorEngineerStephenO’Neil,M.A.,RPA,CulturalResourcesManagerMinaRouhi,MURP,SeniorPlannerEmilyMendoza,BS,StaffBiologistSloaneSeferyn,BS,StaffBiologistKelseyWarkentin,BA,EnvironmentalAnalystMeganBlack,B.A.,ArchaeologicalTechnicianPamelaBurgett,WordProcessing/TechnicalEditingGwendolynJackson,WordProcessing/TechnicalEditing

6.4.3 DesignTeamMembers

WitheeMalcolmArchitects,LLPDanWitheeDirkThelenMauricioMunozFuscoeEngineeringAndrewWillrodtSiteDesignStudio(LandscapeArchitect)HectorBaezaWhitenackConsulting,Inc.(DryUtilityConsultant)MaryWhitenack

6.4.4 Subcontractors

AltecTesting&EngineeringInc.(PhaseIEnvironmentalSiteAssessment)PatrickS.Adams,PrincipalLynnLaborde,SeniorIH/PMAltecTesting&EngineeringInc.(LimitedAsbestosSampling)JayA.Yowell,CertifiedAsbestosConsultant&LeadSamplingTechnicianAltecTesting&EngineeringInc.(LimitedLeadTesting)MasonS.Adams,CertifiedAsbestosConsultant&LeadSamplingTechnicianLynnLaborde,CertifiedAsbestosconsultant,LeadInspector/RiskAssessor,andLeadProjectMonitor



GPAConsulting(Historical)TeresaGrimes,PrincipalArchitecturalHistorianGeoconWest,Inc.(GeotechnicalInvestigation)PetrinaZen,StaffEngineerSusanK.Kirkgard,CEGNealBerliner,CEGJanC.Scow,ConsultingArborists,LLC(TreeSurvey)JanScow,BA,RCAKOACorporation(TrafficandParking)BrianMarchetti,TrafficImpactStudy